[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13741-13747]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       REPUBLICAN STUDY COMMITTEE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I was listening with interest this 
evening about all of the things that are going, supposedly, not well in 
Iraq. So I hope to spend the next hour with some of my colleagues 
talking about the things that are going well. I thought it was 
interesting as the other side was talking about how they support our 
troops, and are thankful for the wonderful job they are doing, yet they 
have made them wait 107 days for much-needed resources to do the job 
that we have asked them to do.
  We are going to talk about that later on this evening, of all of the 
things that our young men and women have had to wait for as we have 
been playing a political game, or the other side, I would say, has been 
playing the political game, and our young men and women have been doing 
and continue to do the professional job that they have been doing for 
so many times.
  I have been to Iraq three times myself, and tonight I am joined by 
some of my colleagues that have also been over there. We are going to 
talk about this war, because it's a real war. I think some people try 
to minimize what is going on in this global war on terrorism, but, in 
fact, it is a real war. We will talk about where this war is being 
fought. It's not just being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are also 
going to talk about the fact that Iraq is a central front for the war 
on terrorism.
  Finally, we are also going to talk a lot about the progress that's 
being made over there. General Pace was in Congress today briefing 
Members on what's going on in Iraq and brought forth a very positive 
report in many ways.
  I look forward to this time. I am certainly glad that some of my 
friends on the other side weren't around when we fought the 
Revolutionary War, because it might have been too expensive, or we 
might have lost too many lives. What we do know is freedom and 
democracy has never come cheap. It comes with a price.
  We enjoy the freedoms. In fact, we enjoy the freedom to be on the 
floor tonight with our colleagues because of price that many have paid 
that have gone before us. I am very proud of them. Every time that I 
have had the opportunity to travel and be with our soldiers, it makes 
me proud to be an American.
  I would like to recognize my good friend from New Mexico, my neighbor 
Mr. Pearce. Mr. Pearce has also been to Iraq on three different 
occasions. He has seen many of the things that I have been alluding to. 
I would ask him to talk about his perspective of what is going on in 
the global war on terrorism.
  Mr. PEARCE. I would just remind the Members of the Chamber that we 
are a part of the Republican Study Committee, that's the RSC here. We 
have the Web site, www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc. So take a look at the 
things that we are talking about, the things that we all believe in. 
It's the conservative arm of the Republican Party.
  I think the first thing that we would want to talk about is basically 
what is happening in Iraq. If the gentleman doesn't mind, I would like 
to use one of the charts here. If we take a look at the charts, these 
are reconstruction projects, but also they mirror very closely the 
conflict, the different fights that are going on.
  If you look at this whole part of the country, this entire section is 
actually pretty secure. This al-Anbar province out in the west has been 
the subject of a lot of discussion. Baghdad, of course, is very near 
the center part. You can see where we are spending more money on 
reconstruction there and up north. We can see, also, that if we have 
the reports of firefights, the reports of IEDs, we would see the same 
sort of clustering there.
  People ask, well, why did the British leave? The British were serving 
in the southern section here. The British actually had secured their 
area that had been turned over to the Iraqis.
  I think all of our troop commanders are telling us that when we have 
Iraq secure, that when the Iraqi forces are in charge of their own 
security, both police and then the army, then we are going to see 
troops start coming home. That's exactly what happened.
  Now, the risk that we run, I would cover that just briefly, Iran 
touches on the eastern side of the country. If we pull out, Iran will 
take over these massive oil fields in the southern part of Iraq. That's 
going to destabilize even more the price of gasoline. Our colleagues 
were just talking about it. Really, the price of gasoline is quite 
simple. I majored in economics in college, and I did so because 
economics is very easy. It's just got two moving parts: supply and 
demand.

                              {time}  2115

  If you will consider the demand for our product, the demand for 
gasoline, we have 300 million people today. That is significantly more 
than what we had in the 1950s when the price of gas was low. So our 
demand is increasingly higher, but also our supply is becoming more 
restricted.
  Then we look at the worldwide picture, and you understand that the 
Chinese, if you overlay the price of oil, the price of natural gas, the 
price of gasoline with the demand in China for the last 20 years, you 
would see that the demand of the Chinese is almost exactly mirroring, 
is exactly causing our high price of gasoline right now.
  There is a compelling fact today; we heard the same statistics that 
just a couple years ago the price of gasoline was actually $2.47, today 
it is about $3.29. And, again, the law of supply and demand, the Middle 
East, that OPEC group is actually cutting their exports. They are 
trimming back their exports. They are cutting the supply. It is driving 
the price up. It is actually quite simple. Our friends on the other 
side of the aisle in charge of governing the Nation really should stop 
and consider these two moving parts, supply and demand. They have got 
two hands, maybe they could write one on one hand and write one on the 
other hand and try to keep them organized, because they make this far 
more complex than what it actually is.
  So what we are doing in Iraq is trying to stabilize the Middle East, 
because I would guarantee everyone in the Chamber that if Iraq fails, 
if we leave Iraq, Iraq falls. We were just in Israel about 2 months 
ago, and the Israelis said that you are going to lose Saudi Arabia. 
That is, the terrorists are going to go in and topple that regime, they 
are going to go in and take

[[Page 13742]]

over that government. Now, Saudi Arabia has about 60 percent of the 
world's known reserves; that is the reserves of normal petroleum. So 
that would destabilize between losing the production in Iraq, losing 
the production in Saudi Arabia. And, don't forget Kuwait, because the 
general assumption is that Kuwait and Jordan would fall. Then you see a 
picture where the worldwide oil market would destabilize.
  At that point I think that we would really have to worry about the 
security of the entire world economy. And if you worry about the 
security of the world economy, you also have to worry about social 
stability, because the terrorists know they are not going to beat us 
militarily. That has never been their attempt. Their attempt is to 
destabilize us economically. That was the reason they hit the World 
Trade Center in 1993. They came back and hit it in 2001. And they knew 
that if they could strike at that vibrant nerve center of the U.S. 
economy, they would destabilize us economically. If they destabilize us 
economically, they destabilize us politically.
  So right now we are finding that actually our surge of troops, those 
troops are mostly in the Baghdad area, because how goes Baghdad, that 
is how goes Iraq. The governing structure is in Baghdad. If we secure 
Baghdad, then we secure Iraq. If we do not secure Baghdad, we do not 
secure Iraq.
  We put about 110,000, 120,000 troops into Baghdad. We are also 
joining those up with about 100,000 Iraqi troops that are there 
already. Both of those numbers are increasing, and I will tell you that 
we are hearing already that the violence in Baghdad itself is beginning 
to diminish significantly. Again, we can take some of the instability 
that is moving out to the outlying provinces if we first secure the 
capital, if we can have those essential government functions that cause 
the people to believe that their society is intact, and that even 
though there are difficulties that they can get their garbage service, 
they can get their water service or whatever. Those are the underlying 
factors that we are seeing playing right now in the troop surge.
  I think that everyone believes by September or October, we are going 
to know the outcome of the surge. It doesn't mean we will know the 
outcome of the battle, it doesn't mean we will know the outcome of the 
war. But I think that it is essential that we fund our troops, that we 
quit playing games.
  We have consistently asked our leaders, the majority leaders, if you 
do not like the war, that is a credible position. Just come to the 
floor, have the vote about withdrawing the troops. Do not play games 
with the funding. Do not play games with our troops in harm's way.
  But they refuse to have that vote. Instead, what they do is they put 
the money here and they put conditions.
  Now, I know that college football coaches and pro football coaches 
get fired every day. It is because they become too predictable. Their 
offense is too well known. When an offense is well known, the defense 
knows exactly where to play. Now, our friends on the other side of the 
aisle want us to give our playbook; they want us to put into 
legislation the benchmarks that will determine if we go or leave, if we 
come home from Iraq or if we stay in Iraq. And we will tell you, that 
simply tells our opponents where to go to defeat us. If the benchmarks 
are in writing, then that is going to give our playbook to the 
opposition.
  We as the American Congress, we as the United States Congress, owe it 
to the men and women in uniform, who are in harm's way, to support our 
troops or to please bring them home.
  I was in Vietnam at a period of time when the Nation began to turn 
its back on its troops. I was in Vietnam at a time when they began to 
play games with the funding. I was in Vietnam during the time that Jane 
Fonda went to the North and gave aid and comfort to the enemy. I will 
tell you that I have personal experience that this is not the way that 
we want to treat our young men and women who are in harm's way.
  So we owe it to our troops to have the vote on the supplemental 
budget that we are discussing tonight, because the future of our 
country depends on it. But more than that, the lives of our young men 
and women rest today, today, on what we do.
  So I yield back to the gentleman from Texas. I have other comments, 
but I see we have a lot of people here tonight. I thank him for the 
opportunity to speak and thank him for taking his leadership and giving 
leadership to this great subject, because it is the right thing for us 
to do. It is the right thing for America to do. It is the right and 
honorable thing for this Congress to do, to give the funding to our 
troops or bring them home. Those are the two choices we have in 
Congress. And I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico. He brought a 
lot of insight to this discussion tonight. There is nothing better 
than, if you want to see what's going on, to go to the battlefield 
yourself.
  What I was wondering with some of my colleagues this evening is the 
Democrats have made our troops sit and wait for 107 days to see if, in 
fact, they are going to fund the very resources that they need. And I 
have got to wonder how demoralizing that has to be when you get up 
every morning and you are putting yourself in harm's way for this great 
Nation of America, keeping America safe, and also helping liberate and 
begin to bring peace and democracy to another country, and how that 
must feel to know that your own home country is sitting over here and 
playing political games while you are doing the heavy lifting.
  So I have to say to the young men and women that are in harm's way 
tonight that I am hopeful that this Democratic leadership will finally 
step up and do what they should do.
  Before I yield to the next gentleman, I wanted to let the American 
people know what our young men and women have been waiting on. In this 
bill that we hopefully can pass this week is $8 billion for body armor, 
armored vehicles, and base security surveillance. In other words, these 
are the things that would help to keep them safe. Yet we have to wait 
108 days for the Democrats to decide that they want to keep our troops 
safe. That just isn't right; $2.4 billion to help use some new 
technology and some things that we are learning about IEDs, which is 
one of the things over there that has caused so much damage and death 
and destruction in that country and harmed and injured, severely, many 
of our young men and women. And yet they have had to wait 108 days for 
these resources, for this Democratic Congress, this Democratic 
leadership, to give them the resources that they need.
  Another important piece of this supplemental is the fact that $2.7 
billion is allocated for updating our security and our surveillance and 
our intelligence. Let me tell you, today in Iraq and Afghanistan and 
all around the world, knowing where the bad guys are is a very 
important piece of how we defend this country and we prosecute the war 
on terrorism. Yet we have had to wait 108 days and counting for this 
leadership to do the right thing by our young men and women.
  It is my honor and privilege now to recognize a fellow Texan, a 
former judge, a good friend, Congressman Carter from Texas, who has 
also been to Iraq. I believe the gentleman has been three times, if I 
am correct.
  Mr. CARTER. That is correct. And I thank the gentleman for yielding. 
As it turns out, we have got a whole room full of folks here that want 
to address this issue. But we talked earlier between you and our 
neighbor from New Mexico, and we have each been three times.
  But let me point out that as Congressman Pearce pointed out, the men 
and women that are in Iraq today, most of them are on their fourth 
rotation over there. Many of those people have been there four times, 
four times for a year, sometimes, or better, each time they've been. 
When we go, we are very blessed to be able to go over there, but 
generally time is very short and if we spend 3 or 4 days in country, we 
have been there a long time. These soldiers have gone over there 
voluntarily.
  You know, one of the things that I think is a misconception that 
seems to be played out both in our coverage in

[[Page 13743]]

the media and in the comments that we hear from our colleagues across 
the aisle is that they think that we are dealing with people who are 
being forced to go over there. These people volunteered. These men and 
women are true American heroes, and they know what their mission is, 
and they will tell you they know they are accomplishing that mission. 
They wonder why what they are accomplishing is not what they are 
viewing on American television. They wonder that a lot, and they say 
that to you a lot when you go over there to visit them.
  And so it has been said here tonight already, but I think it is very 
important that the American people think about this. The Democratic 
Party in this House and in the Senate is in the majority. They have a 
responsibility now to govern this Nation. They ran on a campaign that 
promised what they were going to do when they got here to govern this 
Nation. And as we heard in the early hour, we do have three distinctive 
parts of the government. The President is one, but this is a coequal 
branch of government with the authority to take charge and be 
responsible for what you promise. And if it means to the American 
people what they think it means to the American people, that we have to 
get out immediately of Iraq, they have the authority and the ability to 
vote to bring our troops home.
  But you see, it is easy to talk about wanting the responsibility, but 
taking the responsibility becomes very difficult. In fact, the real 
story of this debate that we are having on what should happen is they 
don't want to take the responsibility because they really, I would 
hope, in their heart of hearts, realize that the consequences are 
dramatic.
  My friend Congressman Pearce mentioned to you, and I think it is 
everybody's opinion that looks at that map of Iraq, that should the 
American troops strike their colors and march home tomorrow, that the 
southern part of Iraq falls almost immediately into the hands of the 
Iranians, because they fought a whole war over that issue; and only 
because the Iraqis stood up their Armed Forces and fought to a 
standstill that the Iranians didn't take those southern oil fields. But 
the Iraqi Army, which we are in the process of building up, would not 
be able to do that in today's life. They are too busy straightening out 
their own country.
  We hear so much about the American soldier. And God bless the 
American soldier. The American troops are doing an outstanding job, but 
so are the Iraqi troops. And that is the news item that is not out 
there these days. The Iraqi troops are dying actually at much greater 
numbers than the American troops, side by side with the American 
soldier, learning as they go how to fight the kind of war that 
professional soldiers fight. And they are doing a good job. And we have 
to give them the opportunity to finish the job and stand up their 
military and stand up their police force.
  And that is what our soldiers tell us when they go over there, and 
they tell us that from the corporal or the private all the way up to 
the four-star general.
  And the surge has a purpose. It is more than just feeding in troops. 
It is clearing a neighborhood, and then having the Iraqi troops, along 
with Americans, to hold those neighborhoods until we are able to get 
this thing done.

                              {time}  2130

  And you know, al-Anbar Province, when I was over there the second 
time, that was the Wild West. That was the worst province in Iraq, al-
Anbar Province. Now the Marines report to us on a daily basis that 
because the sheiks who are the tribal leaders of that area, and 
particularly one sheik who's got the vast majority of the tribes in 
that area, have joined the fight, told their people, when you shoot at 
an American, you shoot at one of us; join us in getting rid of this al-
Qaeda that's trying to come in here and turn all sides against each 
other to create turmoil in our country. And we are having outstanding 
success in that area, because the indigenous population is joining in 
the fight.
  When an Iraqi hears a pounding on his door and calls the local 
policeman, this war is won. But they have lived for a long time under a 
dictatorship where the local policeman was the bad guy. We have changed 
that.
  Ask a soldier, what was your mission, and he will tell you, sir, 
we've accomplished a whole lot of our mission. Our first mission was to 
go in and take out Saddam Hussein, and, sir, we did that. And I'm proud 
to say that the 4th Infantry Division from Fort Hood, Texas, which is 
in my district, pulled that tyrant out of that hole and started him in 
a lawful judicial process established by a government that the 1st 
Cavalry Division, which is also from my district, helped to defend as 
they voted, and in a properly impaneled judicial process we took care 
of Saddam Hussein. That's part of our mission. Mission accomplished.
  The second mission was to help rebuild the Iraqi people. And if you 
look at that map at the number of projects that we're working on 
currently, and then you have a young soldier say, you know, sir, they 
reported last week that they killed an American soldier, what they 
didn't report is that we got water for the first time almost in the 
history of this country to a village of 400 people that never had 
water, because that's not a big fancy news item for The New York Times 
and the Washington Post. But that is a very, very important news item 
for the 300 people who had to pack their water in small jugs to have 
drinking water, that we got water, drinkable water, usable water to 
those people in the desert community. This is the kind of thing that 
changes the future of Iraq. If we pull out of Iraq, we create disaster.
  Now, as I pointed out, the Democrats have an opportunity to do what 
they promised everybody to do and stop this war, but they don't have 
the will, and they don't have the courage to be responsible for their 
actions. So instead, they have prevented necessary supplies to keep our 
men and women in combat safe now, for 100 and what days?
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Soon to be 108 days.
  Mr. CARTER. For 108 days.
  I got a phone call last night from Fort Hood, actually from a 
newspaper in Fort Hood, asking about the fact they a bad rain out on 
Nolan Creek, and some people got stranded out there. And, of course, 
when you are next to the largest military facility on Earth, the 
helicopters went out and started pulling people off of the roofs.
  And this reporter called and was worried that she had heard that 
maybe the resources were not as available as they had been before or 
wouldn't be as available because there were cuts going on on the post. 
We had already checked that out with Fort Hood, and that actually was 
not true of this event.
  But I told her, you know, you are from a military community, so we 
who have a military community know what happens when the Congress 
doesn't do its duty to the military when they have troops in harm's 
way, like in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
  The Army doesn't leave, or the military doesn't leave their soldiers 
without the gear. What they do is tighten their belt back home. And 
that's happening now, and it's going to get worse and worse as this 
delay continues over and over.
  It means training missions could be in jeopardy. It clearly means 
that operations on these large military posts around our country have 
to be reduced. Expenses have to be cut so that we keep the people in 
harm's way supplied, because we don't leave our dead or wounded on the 
battlefield, and we certainly don't leave our fighting soldiers on the 
battlefield without the equipment it takes to do the fight.
  And so the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines and the Coast 
Guard will all be contributing from home to the war zone until this 
Congress does its duty. And I think it brings shame to know that those 
folks back home just came back from their fourth rotation, and their 
resources they are counting on for their year back home are being cut 
back. They're doing it willingly, but they are being cut back so they 
can supply their fellow men and women in arms over in Iraq, in 
Afghanistan.

[[Page 13744]]

  This is a crisis that people don't realize the strain we're putting 
on our soldiers. And then to constantly tell them, like the leader, the 
Democrat leader in the Senate, this war is lost; and those soldiers are 
looking around and saying, what war is he talking about? Where's he see 
the loss? We haven't lost. We're winning this war. That's what the 
people who are there are saying. Give those folks a chance.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, I thank the gentleman. And you alluded to 
something that I want to point out, and several of our previous 
speakers have talked about this chart. And basically, people say, well, 
what's going on in Iraq? And I think what we hear is the news media 
portrays, well, there's a lot of fighting going on. But really what's 
been going on in Iraq at the same time is some nation building. And 
what you see on this chart is over 14,000 projects that have either 
been completed or are underway, and as the gentleman referred to, as 
some of these provinces for the first time have water. Some of them, 
for the first time in a long time, have electricity.
  But let's get down to really talking about what's making a difference 
in the lives of the Iraqi people. And for the first time, young men and 
women are back in school again, and commerce is going on in these 
communities, and people are being able to live a life that's less 
fearful of this tyranny that Saddam Hussein would reign over his 
people. And so 14,000 projects, either completed or underway. And all 
of those green dots, and I know that it doesn't show up on the C-SPAN 
that well, but this map is dotted with projects.
  The other thing that the gentleman brought up, and I think you're 
going to hear from some of the other speakers tonight, is that most of 
the time when we go to Iraq, we spend some time with the troops. I have 
meals, almost with every chance we always say to the military, we want 
to eat with the troops. We want to hear from the young men and women 
that are out there with boots on the ground what's going on.
  And my most recent trip to Iraq, I was sitting with a young man, and 
it was one of the last, I think we were in Baghdad, and he looked over 
at me, and he looked me right in the eye and he said, Congressman, this 
is my third trip to Iraq. He said, nobody has more invested in this 
effort than me. Would I like to be home with my family? Absolutely. 
But, Congressman, go back and tell your colleagues, please let us 
finish this job. We are winning. We are making a difference. And it 
would be a true shame for us to leave this job undone and to let the 
Iraqi people down.
  The other thing, and the gentleman alluded to, was the fact that now 
we've been hearing that tens of thousands of calls are coming in now to 
the security forces of people in the neighborhoods saying, there's some 
bad folks roaming in our neighborhood. They're trying to do bad things; 
they're trying to harm us. And so they're turning in the bad people. So 
the Iraqi people are buying into the fact that this is their country. 
They have a responsibility. They're standing up the troops.
  One of the interesting things the gentleman talked about the fact 
that we're standing up an Iraqi Army. Every once in a while, and we 
know it's unfortunately, but our suicide bombers will bomb a 
recruitment area. And the next day, what shows up at that same site but 
more recruits because they went their country back.
  They've had a number of elections, and so the fact that now that the 
sheiks, and not just the sheiks but the people in the communities are 
getting engaged in this process, and what we're hearing is that now 
these leads are turning into being able to not only get the bad guys, 
but get their weapons. And hundreds of thousands of pounds of 
ammunition has been seized because of these tips that we're not getting 
from our soldiers, but from the people in Iraq.
  I believe the gentleman from New Mexico wanted to make a comment 
about that.
  Mr. PEARCE. I would. And I thank the gentleman. As he's talking about 
this new willingness of Iraqis to report suspicious behavior, I would 
remind my colleagues that it was our bill, my bill that was introduced, 
that simply said that you cannot be sued in American courts for 
reporting suspicious behavior, that you cannot be terrorized in our own 
courts of law for reporting the same sort of behavior that you're 
talking about being reported in Iraq creating stable responses, 
stability in the country.
  And yet, we had 121 of our Democrat colleagues vote against that 
legislation. They voted with the terrorists to say, you can sue 
Americans in court for reporting suspicious behavior. I think that 
shows the difference between the Republicans in this Congress. All 
Republicans voted with the American citizens to limit those 
capabilities. But the difference between the Republicans and Democrats 
is that the Democrats are still soft on security. They're soft on 
terrorism, and they're soft on funding the troops who are fighting the 
battle.
  And I just wanted to, your comments about the Iraqis now turning in 
evidence, bringing those actions to our attention, caused me to 
remember that bill on the floor of the House where we actually had a 
vote here, and the Democrats voted, 121 of them, to let terrorists sue 
us in our own courts.
  I'd yield back to the gentleman.
  Mr. CARTER. If the gentleman would yield just a moment.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I would yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CARTER. Hearing my colleague from New Mexico reminds me of 
another vote that was taken on the floor of this House that had to do 
with our intelligence for our United States military. And in the bill, 
the Democrat Party had diverted millions of dollars to take our 
Intelligence Community and have them study global warming. I have this 
vision of one of our spy satellites being relocated over the North Pole 
to check on the polar bears that was sitting over Baghdad checking on 
the terrorists.
  I think the American people want our American soldiers, sailors, 
airmen, marines and coastguardsmen to have on the ground intelligence, 
which they cut, and in-the-air intelligence, which they want to move to 
study global warming, so that we can make sure that our soldiers, our 
American citizens in harm's way, have the security of good 
intelligence. But there's a vote that we took. We tried to fix that, 
and that fix was voted down. And so now we have an intelligence bill 
that has a big chunk of it set aside for global warming.
  Meanwhile, it was discovered when we had the debate that there are 13 
agencies in this government studying global warming right now. And why 
does our Intelligence Community have to study global warming at this 
point in time when American soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and 
coastguardsmen are at war? That's a question that the American people 
ought to ask themselves.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. And the gentleman's correct. In fact, the money that 
was taken out to fund the studying of global warming and intelligence 
was taken out of some of our more crucial intelligence areas, the 
intelligence that's used to help our young men and women in the 
battlefield know where the bad guys are before the bad guys know where 
they are. So that just doesn't make sense.
  We're joined by some additional colleagues this evening, and 
certainly my good friend from Georgia, Congressman Gingrey, he's 
another Member that's been to Iraq three times. That seems to be the 
theme tonight. And I'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank my friend and classmate from Texas, 
Representative Neugebauer, and, of course, Mr. Speaker, I am very 
pleased to be here on the floor this evening with our colleagues and my 
classmate, Representative Pearce of New Mexico and Judge John Carter 
from Texas. And you'll hear soon from another classmate of ours from 
Iowa, Representative Steve King, and, of course, a new Member, but a 
very experienced one, Tim Walberg from Michigan.
  It's an honor to be with them, Mr. Speaker, tonight, because this is 
a time really of victory for our men and

[[Page 13745]]

women who are the patriots fighting this war in the Middle East. It's 
not a time for bragging, and we're not here to stick our finger in the 
eye of the Democrats and say, you know, you were wrong, you were wrong 
all along, and finally, after 107 days, you have admitted you were 
wrong, and we have won this argument.
  Actually, Mr. Speaker, it's been a tremendous loss for the country to 
go 107 days, or whatever it is, from the time the President asked for 
the money that the Department of Defense has requested to continue to 
conduct this war for the rest of this fiscal year, 2007, the $100 
billion with no strings attached, Mr. Speaker.
  The Commander in Chief and the combatant commanders in the field and 
General Petraeus brought us a new way forward. It's what the American 
people wanted. It's what the Congress wanted. And our combatant 
commanders responded to that. And we put in place the highest-ranking 
four-star general on the ground in Iraq, General David Petraeus, who 
wrote the manual 6 months before on counterterrorism and knew and 
knows.

                              {time}  2145

  And it wasn't just his plan, but it was a plan that was worked out in 
combination with the Iraqi Government, with Prime Minister Maliki, and 
it called for essentially all of the things that the Iraq Study Group 
asked for. That report, Mr. Speaker, was a bipartisan report chaired by 
two very distinguished political public servants, the Honorable Jim 
Baker, Republican, the Honorable Lee Hamilton, a long-term member from 
Indiana, a Democrat, and this is exactly what the President tried to 
do. And yet the Democratic new majority wanted to insist on these 
benchmarks that weren't really performance benchmarks but they included 
a timetable, a timeline, for giving up no matter what the circumstances 
on the ground were. And the worst and most egregious of those, my 
colleagues, was to say that in August of 2008, just a little more than 
a year from now, that no matter what was happening in Iraq, even if it 
got like when Andrew Jackson had the British running down the 
Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico, as the song goes, even if we were in 
that situation, winning this battle, in August of 2008, this Democratic 
majority wanted to blow the whistle and bring the troops home.
  And I am telling you at this particular time, as we approach the 
Memorial Day weekend, what kind of message does that send to those who 
have given the last full measure of devotion in this war, and in any 
war, while the Democratic majority tries to get the last full ounce of 
political blood on the floor of this House? It is shameful, Mr. Speaker 
and my colleagues.
  Every one of us have gone to some funerals in our districts. And I 
stand here tonight and I think about the Saylor family, Paul, their 
son, 22 years old from Breman, Georgia. I think about young Justine 
Johnson, another 22-year-old from Armuchee, Georgia, up in Floyd 
County. I think about the former president of my student body at my 
alma mater, the Georgia Institute of Technology, who 2 years after 
serving as student body president at that great institution, that first 
lieutenant gave his life in Iraq, shot down by a sniper while leading 
his troops. I think about Command Master Sergeant Eric Cooke, who 
served 30 years in the military, multiple deployments at the tip of the 
spear, and on Christmas Eve, 2003, my first trip to Iraq, one day after 
I met him and gave him some books and school supplies for the Iraqi 
children; he promised to deliver them, but, unfortunately, he took that 
right seat in a Humvee so that one of his troops could stay home and 
call his wife and his family and talk to his loved ones on Christmas 
Eve. And Command Master Sergeant Eric Cooke gave his life one evening 
when that Humvee went over an improvised explosive device.
  In the history of this country, we are about to honor those who have 
given their lives on Memorial Day, the last Monday in May. And at that 
time I think about and I want my colleagues to think back to World War 
I when Dr. McCrae wrote that poem ``In Flanders Fields.'' I am not 
going to try to quote the poem, although it is a very short poem, but 
the last stanza basically says don't forget it us. Just don't forget 
us. We fought the battle. Whatever the cause, you may not agree with 
it, but don't forget us.
  And I think that is why we felt so strong. I commend this President 
for vetoing bad bills that would forget the troops and would let them 
die in vain.
  So it is an honor to be here tonight to say thank you maybe to the 
Democratic majority for finally coming to your senses and letting the 
combatant commanders and the Commander in Chief fight the war. 
Certainly we could talk about policy and we can talk about funding but 
not with strings attached. Let's give victory a chance. And I think we 
have an absolute chance, as my colleagues pointed out, and some of the 
progress is being made. The news media, of course, doesn't report good 
news. Good news is an oxymoron, isn't it? So they don't talk about 
that. But thank you, colleagues, for letting me come tonight and talk 
about this.
  I know if the troops are watching over in Iraq and Afghanistan, I 
think they are very proud that the Congress is supporting them and we 
are not going to pull the rug out from under them.
  With that, I want to yield back to my colleague from Texas, Mr. 
Neugebauer. I know there are a couple of other speakers and I thank the 
gentleman for giving me the time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  And he brings a point that many of us have had to experience, and 
that is to make that call of condolence to a mom or a dad or to a wife.
  And I thought it was interesting, one of the previous speakers talked 
about being in the majority means you lead. And, in fact, we have gone 
107 days without the much-needed resources for our young men and women, 
and it took the Republicans having to write to the Speaker of the House 
and saying it is going to be hard for us to go back home and talk about 
memorializing the sacrifice our young men and women have made in the 
past when we aren't even funding the troops of today. So we said we are 
not willing to go back on a recess for Memorial Day without taking care 
of the business of supporting our troops.
  And I am hopeful that tomorrow, and certainly before we adjourn, that 
the Democrats do begin to deliver to our young men and women the 
resources they need so that when we do go home for this Memorial Day, 
we can celebrate the sacrifices of the many that have gone before, that 
we can do it with our heads held high that we have taken care of our 
part of the business.
  I am pleased to be joined by a new Member of Congress from Michigan, 
someone who has a number of military bases in his district, who also 
has taken a keen interest in the Walter Reed issue and making sure that 
when our young men and women get injured that they get 21st century 
care. So I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Michigan, 
Congressman Walberg.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand with men here who have served 
with distinction and consistency on this issue and the most important 
issue, as I understand it, as a new Member of Congress, taking that 
oath of office for the first time on January 4 to uphold the 
Constitution of the United States, which gives us the primary 
responsibility, number one responsibility, for security and defense of 
this great Nation not only for its people but for the impact that this 
Nation has given and continues to give worldwide.
  We are the greatest bastion of hope for liberty, for individualism, 
for opportunity. And for us to be now in an arena that, frankly, with 
my colleagues I can't say that I have been there yet. I look forward to 
being over in the arena of this war and having the opportunity to sit 
with our heroes, our warriors over there who understand the process. I 
look forward to that experience to be able to hear directly from them 
in the field. But until that time, I have to resort to memories, 
including a memory my wife and I will never forget in sitting on the 
parade grounds in Fort Knox, Kentucky, watching my son

[[Page 13746]]

graduate with the rest of the young recruits, troops that volunteered, 
all volunteers to serve their country, all of whom understood that in 
signing up for this austere and wonderful choice of patriotism, yet 
also put their lives on the line potentially.
  And I will never forget watching my son, who had changed before my 
eyes during the course of the past number of weeks at Fort Knox, and 
had become a man with an understanding, as he was preparing to be a 
combat medic. That was unique. And meeting with his fellow soldiers and 
understanding that they had a purpose in mind, what an encouraging 
thing that was.
  And now to look back on that and realize that not only have numerous 
of his fellow comrades gone to the arena, some who have come home with 
the impact of that time on their life never to leave them. Others have 
not come home alive and have given the supreme sacrifice. We would do 
well to honor them not only by our words but by our actions.
  I have stood at Walter Reed Hospital on numerous occasions now, with 
my wife alongside several times, and I have met these troops, these 
fallen warrior heroes. I have prayed at their bedside. I have thanked 
them. I have had the opportunity to hear from them: Mr. Congressman, 
don't thank us. It was a privilege to serve. Don't thank me, though I 
appreciate your being here, but I want you to go back and tell your 
colleagues that we would appreciate their unquestioning support, that 
they would stand with us, that they would encourage us, that they would 
support us with the necessary resources, both armaments and financial 
resources, to complete this passion that we have, to stand for the 
defense not only of Iraq and its citizens who long to be free, but 
stand for our fellow citizens at home so we don't have to fight this 
war on our home turf as well. They understand this.
  I don't understand why many of my colleagues, whom I respect highly, 
yet don't seem to understand, on the other side of the aisle, that we 
are fighting so it doesn't come home here as well.
  I have also had, and I call it a distinct honor, though difficult as 
well, to speak to families who are now dealing with the impact of the 
war. I think of Travis Webb from Adrian, Michigan, who is still at 
Walter Reed, who came home missing two legs but not missing his heart, 
and still with a passion for his comrades back in the field and 
expressing the desire that we stand firm with them, thanking him and 
hearing him say ``I wish I could go back.''
  Just a week ago, I called the mother of Daniel Courneya of 
Vermontville, Michigan, and expressed my sincere sympathy to her. Her 
son has not come home alive. He along with three other of his fellow 
troops were killed with an IED explosion, and three of his troops are 
still missing. We have read about them in the media. And we pray for 
their safe return. We know also that they have given their service for 
a cause. And I will be at the funeral of Daniel Courneya this coming 
Friday, in fact 2 days from now, and will stand proudly and yet humbly, 
recognizing the sacrifice that they have given for a cause greater than 
all of us even on this floor tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, 108 days ago, on February 5, President Bush requested 
from Congress funding for our troops in Iraq. And even though current 
funding for our troops is set to expire at the end of May, and I say 
this as a new Member and I guess I say it as a Member that doubts until 
I actually see the bill in front of me to vote on, this funding is set 
to expire at the end of May. The new leadership in the House of 
Representatives has yet to put in front of me a bill that even comes 
close to properly financing the troops. And I say that saying until 
proven otherwise, it hasn't been in front of me to vote yet, and that 
is a shame.
  Our American commanders need an opportunity to implement the new 
strategy. We are handcuffing our generals on the front line. That is 
not the way it ought to be. New House leadership first introduced a 
bill in March that not only micromanaged the troops but also contained 
millions of dollars of unrelated pork-barrel projects to buy a few 
votes for bad legislation. That is not what I understood that I signed 
up for in supporting our troops and protecting and defending this great 
country.

                              {time}  2200

  The bill was a salad bar of egregious earmarks: $25 million for 
payments to spinach producers; $120 million to shrimp industries, $74 
million for peanut storage; $5 million for shellfish, oyster and clam 
producers are just a few examples. And again, as a new Member of 
Congress, I couldn't believe that, that we were dealing with that type 
of funding with a war going on.
  This bill was rightfully vetoed. In response, House leadership 
scrambled, and now we see supposedly that there is a bill before us.
  I heard my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, express 
appreciation that we have a bill now that we can vote on that will fund 
our troops. But again, I haven't voted on it yet. And so I say, let it 
come before us. No wonder this body, this Congress, this great symbol 
of American freedom has a 29 percent approval rating, when we mess 
around with the lives of our troops and the freedom of our citizens.
  House leadership seems to have finally relented, and hopefully has 
decided to provide the necessary funding for our brave men and women. I 
am glad to hear that we will put aside any plans to go on break until a 
clean funding bill will pass, and I trust that that will take place 
tomorrow, to support our men and women in combat. Our troops deserve 
this respect.
  Recently, the Iraqi Government, after complaints from myself and 
other Members of Congress, decided to forego its plans for a 2-month 
summer recess so important decisions such as the development and 
distribution of Iraq's oil and how to deal properly with sectarian 
violence can be made and laws can be passed.
  This Congress similarly has decided not to go home for more than a 
week and leave our troops in limbo until we finish this job. We have to 
stay here and finish our job so our brave troops, our men and women in 
uniform, can finish theirs.
  House leadership needs to allow Members to vote as early as possible 
tomorrow on a clean bill, devoid of wasteful, nonmilitary spending. We 
need a bill that doesn't handcuff our generals, but instead gives our 
troops the resources they need. Setting timelines on American 
involvement in Iraq is good policy, but not publicly in front of our 
enemies. Our military commanders need to have control of the situation, 
and not the terrorists.
  The Congress needs to give General David Petraeus, the new Commander 
in Iraq, who was confirmed unanimously by the Senate, a chance to fully 
implement the new strategy instead of telegraphing surrender to 
terrorists.
  In the Anbar Province, one of the most dangerous areas in Iraq, 
violent crime is dropping, and 20 of 22 tribal leaders of that area now 
support the U.S. and Iraqi forces against al Qaeda. Granted, the level 
of violence remains high, and the hot spots are numerous, and many 
challenges persist. But the wounded soldiers I've met at Walter Reed 
and Bethesda deserve our support. They have indicated that our Armed 
Forces can secure Iraq enough so that an Iraqi Government and a 
security force there can take over.
  Time is running out. Congress needs to move past political posturing 
and partisanship and allow the men and women serving in Iraq the 
opportunity to crush the terrorists in the Middle East so our families 
will have a more secure future here at home.
  I want us to win this war. There are only two options, as we 
mentioned tonight already, only two options: One, victory; and the 
other, defeat. I do not believe that Americans countenance, by and 
large, the option of defeat.
  I am asking my fellow Members of Congress, those that I am proud to 
stand with here on the floor tonight, as well as those who have wavered 
and waffled at times, to buck up. FDR called our America to a strength 
of sacrifice together, to win a war as brave people that sustain this 
great world as well. We, as well, have the

[[Page 13747]]

privilege tonight, as Members of Congress, to call our Nation by first 
standing together, calling them to sacrifice in support of our troops, 
calling them to bravery and courage in standing for this country, 
calling them to one decision, and that being the decision for victory.
  Memorial Day is upon us. I will experience this Memorial Day like I 
have experienced no other Memorial Day, because I have stood next to 
these wounded heroes. I have defended these brave troops. I have spoken 
with them. I have had family members, including my son, sign up to do 
that brave duty. And I will say to the troops who may hear us tonight, 
God bless you. We stand with you, and we will support you.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentleman. And as the gentleman has said, 
he has been to Walter Reed with his wife; I have, also. And I think 
about one time I went and I was there with a soldier that had gotten a 
new prosthesis. He had lost part of his leg. And he said he was so 
proud of it. He said, Congressman, this is state-of-the-art, and I'm 
going to be able to walk again, and do you know what I want to do? I 
said, what do you want to do? He said, I want to go back and be with my 
buddies and finish the job that I went to do.
  Those are the kind of men and women that I'm going to be celebrating 
during this Memorial Day weekend.
  I am proud to see that a great Member of Congress from Iowa, the 
gentleman from Iowa Mr. King, who I know has been to Iraq on a number 
of occasions, and I am pleased that he has joined us this evening and 
would yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Texas for organizing 
this Special Order and each of the Members of Congress who came down 
here to the floor to stand up for our he brave men and women who defend 
our freedom. And I know you will be there when they need you.
  I just would add a few pieces to this, as I have listened to the 
dialogue that has gone on here tonight, and one of them is that we all 
have constitutional responsibilities. And 435 of us come down here to 
this floor, and we take an oath together to uphold this Constitution of 
the United States. Now, you would think that would mean something to 
everyone, ``So help us God.''
  And by the way, I bring my Bible here to make sure that I am swearing 
on a Bible at the time. But I also carry with me this Constitution. And 
you don't have to be a constitutional scholar to read this, you can 
read it pretty well with a sixth- or eighth-grade education. But what 
it says in here is Congress has three responsibilities when it comes to 
war. One of them is to declare war, which we haven't done since World 
War II. The second one is to raise an Army and a Navy and, by 
implication, an Air Force. And the third one is to fund it.
  And, yes, there are conditions in there that allow us to regulate 
some things that go on within the military, like how they're going to 
run their military courts and how we are going to do promotions and 
things of that nature, but there is no provision in this Constitution 
for micromanaging a war or for being a general if you're in the United 
States Congress. In fact, the experience that our Founding Fathers had 
with the Continental Congress and the Continental Army brought them to 
draft into this Constitution the office of Commander in Chief because 
they wanted to avoid the very circumstances that we are fighting off 
here in this Congress.
  So if anyone thinks they ought to be a general, they ought to be in 
the military to do so. You can't be a general here from Congress. Your 
job is to be a generalist, someone who stands up for this Constitution, 
and someone who adheres to your oath to uphold this Constitution. That 
means maybe on a very sad day we may someday be obligated to declare a 
war.
  Let's keep raising the Army and the Navy and the Air Force, and let's 
keep funding our military men and women that are out there in harm's 
way with their lives on the line for our freedom. That is the 
constitutional responsibility.
  As I look back through the history of this country, I find no place 
where we have come to a constitutional challenge where the President 
had to make a decision to veto a funding bill and have to face a veto 
override, which everyone knew was not going to pass, and now held the 
line. And I am really glad that it isn't coming down to the line where 
we are mothballing some of the development of our military equipment 
just so we can play this political game out here. That's not our job.
  Even if you go back to the Vietnam War, the President signed the 
appropriation bills that took the military out of North and South 
Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, out of the skies over them and out of the 
seas around them and said not 1 dollar will be spent in support of the 
military effort of the South Vietnamese and defending them themselves. 
And there are 3 million lives that paid in the aftermath of our lack of 
keeping our promise with the South Vietnamese.
  That is on the conscience of the people of this Congress that didn't 
adhere to this Constitution. We don't need that on our conscience, and 
we don't need the enemy of Iran with a nuclear weapon in their hands on 
the control of the valve at the Straits of Hormuz, where they control 
the economy of the world as well as the development of the military 
within themselves. They can buy as many nuclear scientists as they want 
if they can just put their hands on the valve of the oil that goes to 
the world.
  So that is where the problem is. We must succeed. There is far more 
at stake than the people on the other side of the aisle understand or 
will admit.
  I will yield back to the gentleman who organized this Special Order, 
Mr. Neugebauer of Texas, and thank him for organizing this meeting.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I am also pleased that another colleague and a fellow 
Texan has joined us this evening, Congressman Burgess.

                          ____________________