[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14737-14744]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   FIND WAYS TO COME TOGETHER ON IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from New

[[Page 14738]]

York (Mr. Israel) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the 
majority leader.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, tonight we do something different. Tonight 
we may do something that may even be unprecedented. Tonight I am joined 
on the floor of the House by my distinguished gentleman and my partner 
from Long Island, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) and we will 
be joined by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) and the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Gilchrest) and perhaps others.
  Tonight, for the first time that I know of, Republicans and Democrats 
take to the floor of the House to discuss Iraq, but not to criticize 
one another about Iraq, not to beat each other up about Iraq, not to 
cast aspersions and blame about Iraq, not to talk about what divides us 
on Iraq, but to find ways to come together on Iraq.
  I don't think that's happened before on this floor, but I do believe 
that the American people have an unquenchable thirst for Democrats and 
Republicans not to take the time of this Congress for sloganeering and 
name calling and the impugning of motives, but to take the time of this 
Congress to have an intellectual debate over those issues, to take the 
time of Congress to really honor those troops and our veterans, and to 
discuss not what is left and what is right, but to discuss the way 
forward.
  The gentleman from New York knows that every time the people from our 
districts and the American people tune into C-SPAN, what they see are 
Republicans and Democrats arguing and fighting and criticizing, 
attacking each other's ideas, impugning each other's patriotism, 
impugning each other's motives. Tonight is different, because we are 
not going to discuss what separates us and divides us, but we are going 
to discuss what, in fact, can unite us.
  War in Iraq has caused an outbreak of war on floor of the House of 
Representatives, and tonight we declare a ceasefire. For me, this is 
not just a professional obligation, but, for me, it is personal, for 
two reasons.
  The first is that several days ago I made a phone call to the father 
of Matthew Baylis. He was killed in Iraq last week. It was small arms 
fire in Baghdad. I have no idea whether Matthew Baylis himself was a 
Democrat or a Republican or an independent or perhaps not registered to 
vote.

                              {time}  2015

  I don't care. I do believe that Matthew Baylis would want Republicans 
and Democrats to come together to talk about the way forward; that 
Matthew Baylis and those like him, who died in the service of his 
country, would want us to spend more of our time talking about moving 
our country forward than moving our country to the left or the right.
  And the second reason that this is personal for me, Mr. Speaker, is 
because it's being organized by the House Center Aisle Caucus, which is 
a bipartisan group of 50 Democrats and Republicans who have come 
together, based on certain propositions. The first proposition is, we 
can disagree agreeably; that we can state our differences without 
calling each other names; that we can debate the issues without having 
this Chamber sound like a fourth grade elementary school auditorium 
that's run amok.
  And the other premise of the Center Aisle Caucus, Mr. Speaker, is 
that Democrats and Republicans will disagree on perhaps as much as 70 
percent of the issues, which means we have a fundamental obligation to 
agree on the 30 percent that's left.
  The problem is that even when we agree we haven't moved forward, 
because we've allowed our disagreements to paralyze areas where we, in 
fact, have consensus. And so the Center Aisle Caucus, which was 
sponsored, actually which was founded by the gentleman from Illinois, 
Congressman Tim Johnson, and me and the gentlewoman from Missouri, 
Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson, and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Moore), the Center Aisle Caucus has been meeting on an ongoing basis to 
find areas of agreement. We recently met with the ambassador from Iraq 
to the United States, and he gave us some ideas.
  Before I yield time to my friend from New York, I just want to focus 
on some of the principles that we do agree on.
  If you would listen to the debate here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives, Mr. Speaker, you would think that there are actually 
Members of Congress who want us to lose in Iraq. There's not a single 
Member of Congress who wants us to lose in Iraq.
  If you listen to the debate on the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker, 
you would think that there are actually Members of Congress who do not 
care about the lives lost in Iraq. There is not a single Member of 
Congress who has a callous disregard for the lives lost in Iraq.
  You would think that there are two types of Members of Congress, 
either Members of Congress who want defeat or Members of Congress who 
want to be in Iraq forever. I don't know of a single Member of Congress 
who supports either option.
  The fact of the matter is we are not the enemies, Democrats and 
Republicans. Americans aren't the enemies. The enemies are the people 
that we're fighting, and we need to focus on this.
  And the Center Aisle Caucus has gathered and has endorsed several 
principles that we're going to discuss tonight, and I'll run through 
them quickly and then yield my time to the gentleman from New York.
  Here are the shared principles that Democrats and Republicans who are 
interested in finding common ground have articulated:
  Number one, we support our Armed Forces. We want to make sure they 
have adequate force protection. We want to make sure they have 
everything they need to keep them safe and keep them sound, and we want 
to bring them home as fast as possible.
  Number two, we want to take care of our veterans. And I am so proud 
to announce on this floor tonight that earlier today the Appropriations 
Committee, which I have the privilege of serving on, unanimously, 
Republicans and Democrats, Democrats and Republicans, passed a $109.2 
billion package that addresses the critical health care and housing 
needs for our veterans. $18 billion above last year's level and $4 
billion more than the President requested, and I hope that he will not 
veto that bill.
  Our bill includes $87.7 billion in crucial funding for the Department 
of Veterans Affairs, which is a $6.7 billion increase in discretionary 
funding over last year's level. That is the largest single increase in 
the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration.
  Our bill addresses the backlog in claims by adding 1,000 new claims 
processors, and that's going to help veterans who now wait an average 
of 177 days for the benefits they deserve. I am very proud that 
Democrats and Republicans today in the Appropriations Committee voted 
to take care of our veterans.
  We agree that we need to secure Iraq's borders because there are too 
many reports that Syria and Iran are sending fighters and equipment and 
technology over those borders to make the situation in Iraq even worse, 
not resisting Iraq's sovereignty, and threatening our troops and Iraqi 
civilians.
  We agree that we need to stand up Iraqi security forces because we 
cannot be there for a prolonged period of time. I would imagine that we 
all agree that we've all been there too long already, and so we need to 
find ways to stand up Iraq security forces, and we're going to discuss 
that tonight.
  We agree that there's a need for regional change. We agree that the 
Middle East is a very dangerous place in the world, and we need to 
transform it, using all the tools in our toolbox, from a place where 
children are taught how to blow things up to a place where children are 
taught how to put things together.
  We agree that Iran needs to be responsible, and we need to engage 
Iran with the carrot and the stick. And we're pleased that the 
administration, which had resisted having any talks

[[Page 14739]]

with Iran with respect to what is happening in Iraq, in fact, held 
those talks recently.
  And, finally, we want to defeat al Qaeda, and we are prepared to use 
all the tools in our toolbox to do that. Because it was al Qaeda in 
Afghanistan that launched the attacks on the United States which killed 
hundreds of Long Islanders, those represented by myself and those 
represented by the distinguished gentleman from Long Island, from New 
York's First Congressional District, Mr. Bishop.
  And on that I would be privileged to yield time to my colleague, the 
gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank Congressman Israel for yielding, and 
I also thank him for organizing this special order, something I think 
that is long overdue. And let me also thank my friend and colleague 
from New York's Second Congressional District for his leadership role 
in the Center Aisle Caucus.
  In a Congress that is, at times, bitterly divided along partisan 
lines, and that partisanship obscures the kind of discussion that we 
need to have on this issue as well as so many other issues, the Center 
Aisle Caucus stands for civility. It stands for honest and reasoned 
debate, and it stands for shared decision making. I say qualities that 
are often in short supply in this Chamber but qualities that are 
desperately needed, both in this Chamber and in our country.
  Let me also start by offering my deepest sympathy and condolences to 
the family of Specialist James Lundin of Bellport in the First 
Congressional District, who also gave his life last week in Iraq. He 
represents, as you know, the 26th Long Islander to lose his or her life 
in the service of our great country in Iraq. His wake was today, and he 
will be buried tomorrow in Calverton National Cemetery.
  And like you, Congressman Israel, I called his father on Monday, and 
I spoke with his father. And one of the things that struck me was the 
remarkable dignity with which he and his family were dealing with what 
has to be unspeakable pain. It is that kind of dignity that we need to 
honor in the way we do our jobs, and it is that kind of dignity that we 
need to bring to what will hopefully be a fruitful discussion of how we 
move forward in Iraq.
  And, as I say, this kind of debate is a debate that must take place. 
It must be an honest debate; and it must be a debate that, above all, 
is absent in the often inflammatory and pejorative characterizations of 
those who offer differing views. And we all engage, at one time or 
another, in these inflammatory characterizations.
  As you said, Congressman Israel, there is not a soul in this Chamber 
that does not support our troops. And, in fact, the evidence of that is 
over the course, the 4\1/2\ year course of this conflict, the fact that 
with overwhelming bipartisan majorities we have consistently given the 
troops each and every dime that this administration has asked for them 
and in some cases increased the amounts of money that we will make 
available to them.
  We all want us to succeed in Iraq, in Afghanistan. We may have 
differing versions or different interpretations of what constitutes 
success, but that, again, is the kind of debate that ought to take 
place in a healthy and vibrant democracy.
  But the debate thus far has been compromised, as you and others well 
know, when those of us who think that a time line is something that we 
ought to seriously consider. When that time line is characterized as a 
surrender date, that obscures the kind of discussion that we need to 
have.
  When those of us who believe that we must change course in Iraq, when 
that is characterized by the questioning of our patriotism, that 
obscures the kind of debate that we need to have.
  When looking for time lines or looking for benchmarks or talking 
about the way in which we fund our troops is characterized as 
abandoning our troops, that's the kind of thing that obscures the kind 
of reasonable debate that we need to have.
  And with respect to supporting our troops, my own view, and I think 
this view is shared by a great many in this Chamber, that the best way 
to support our troops is to put them in positions where they can 
succeed and get them out of positions in which they cannot succeed. And 
I think we all agree on both sides of the aisle that what has taken 
place thus far has put our troops in positions in which it has been 
very, very difficult for them to succeed. So that, if nothing else, 
motivates an impetus on the part of a great many of us to urge a change 
of course in Iraq.
  I want to speak just for a second, Congressman Israel, about one of 
the shared principles. And, by the way, those shared principles are the 
kind of principles that all reasonable people should be able to embrace 
and support. But one is the issue of standing up the Iraqi security 
forces. It is a subject about which we have spoken in the past, and I'm 
proud to be a cosponsor of the legislation that you have introduced, 
along with Chairman Skelton, that would create, in effect, a one-for-
one exchange; that for each Iraqi brigade or battalion that we stand 
up, we would withdraw one of our own.
  I think that that kind of approach has several advantages. One, it 
would be true to the goal that the President himself has set out, and I 
believe set it out as going as far back as January of 2004, that as the 
Iraqi stand up we will stand down.
  Since January of '04, we have spent about $15 billion to train and 
equip and outfit Iraqi troops, and we have several hundred Iraqi troops 
right now in uniform under arms, and yet we continue to increase our 
own complement of troops.
  I think it is a perfectly reasonable, sane, rational proposition that 
we impose obligations on the Iraqi troops; and as they step up to those 
obligations, we relieve our own troops of those obligations.
  As I say, I think the legislation that you and Chairman Skelton have 
filed and that, as I say, I am proud to cosponsor, I think that that is 
very reasonable legislation. I hope to see that legislation receive the 
kind of debate and discussion and attention that it ought to.
  We're not done yet. As you know, we have a report coming to us in 
September; and at that point the Congress is going to need to make 
another set of decisions. Hopefully, that kind of reasoned response to 
a situation that none of us can support in terms of how it has gone 
thus far is the kind of direction in which we need to head.
  So, with that, I'm happy to yield back to you.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate his raising this 
issue of one for one, because I think it's a perfect example of Members 
of this body having different ideas that may make sense, trying to 
offer those ideas in the spirit of some compromise and reasonableness. 
Let's go into the basis of that one for one and explore it as a 
possible, not a way out, because Iraq is certainly complex and 
complicated, but at least one measure of improvement.
  The President has said that, in the past, and has stated this 
publicly, that for every Iraqi that stands up, an American will come 
home or be redeployed. And he has said that on several occasions. On 
other occasions, we've heard that there are between 250,000 and 300,000 
Iraqis that have been stood up. Well, the gentleman can help me do the 
math. If in fact there are between 250,000 and 300,000 Iraqis that have 
been stood up and if for every one that stands up an American is going 
to redeploy, how come 250,000 to 300,000 have not redeployed?

                              {time}  2030

  The answer is in how you define ``training'' and what it means to say 
``stand up.'' In fact, go you take a look at the textbook definition of 
``training'' in military terms, combat proficiency is what is 
important, and there are different levels of combat proficiency. If you 
are trained at level one combat proficiency, you are capable of 
fighting and winning convincingly anywhere in the world and you don't 
need any U.S. support. If you are trained at level two combat 
proficiency, you can fight and win almost anywhere in the world, but 
you need

[[Page 14740]]

some measure of U.S. support, maybe some intel, maybe some 
reconnaissance assistance, maybe some logistics support. So if you take 
a look at the numbers of Iraqi forces that are actually trained at 
level one or level two combat proficiency, you will find that it is not 
250,000 to 300,000 but far less. And the numbers ought not be repeated 
in a public forum, but far less than 250,000 to 300,000.
  So the idea that we came up with was why don't we ask the President 
to report to the Congress on a monthly basis how many Iraqis have 
actually been trained at level one or level two combat proficiency, 
certify that to the Congress, and then we will redeploy an equivalent 
amount. Now, I am not suggesting that we withdraw that number 
necessarily. We might redeploy them to the borders so we can prevent 
Iran and Syria from inflaming the situation in Iraq.
  The point is, Congressman Bishop, that I don't claim to have all the 
answers and I know that this isn't the perfect answer, but it is an 
idea that we have tried to set forward.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISRAEL. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I think it is, as I said before, a perfectly 
reasonable idea but also one that represents, I believe, an imperative. 
I think even the most ardent supporters of our presence in Iraq must 
recognize the enormous strain that a prolonged presence in Iraq has 
placed on our Armed Forces, and I believe the most ardent supporter 
must recognize that it will be enormously difficult, if not impossible, 
for us to maintain that presence at the current level or even at the 
presurge level. And thus if there is a chance of bringing order to 
Iraq, it must in the long term rest with Iraqi security forces as 
opposed to our own forces.
  And as I say, we have spent $15 billion thus far, and I won't say we 
have little to show for it but we certainly don't have as much to show 
for it as I believe everyone in this Chamber would agree. So I think 
that of the shared principles, and I think they are all crucial and 
important, but I think this perhaps take prominence over all the others 
because if for no other reason, just the simple logistics of 
maintaining the troop presence we have given our current end strength 
is going to be enormously difficult, if not debilitating, on our Armed 
Forces.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. And, again, this was 
just one idea.
  And the true value of the Center Aisle Caucus and this kind of 
dialogue, this unprecedented dialogue, and civil dialogue between 
Members on both sides is that we all have good ideas and we have all 
been trying to advance those ideas. And it is so refreshing to be 
joined by three members of the other side of the Center Aisle Caucus 
who have been extremely constructive, who have been true leaders in 
trying to forge bipartisan alliances in order to move the country and 
the debate not to the left, not to the right, but forward. And I am 
very proud that we are joined by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Dent) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and I know the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) has joined us as well.
  And I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, a 
leader in the Center Aisle Caucus (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Thank you so much, Congressman Israel and Congressman 
Bishop, for helping to organize this Special Order tonight. I think the 
American people expect this much of us, that they like to see this type 
of civil, controlled dialogue where we are trying to rally around, I 
think, some shared principles that we can pretty much agree to, that we 
are talking about this in a proper tone, keeping the temperature down, 
so to speak. And I think that that is what the public expects instead 
of all the sometimes hot air and noise and at times excessive 
partisanship that seems to be the public perception of how this 
institution operates far too often.
  And I just want to take a couple of moments to commend you, 
Congressman Israel, on something that you have shared with many of us 
who participate in the Center Aisle Caucus, and that is the idea of a 
Status of Forces Agreement and how such an agreement might be of 
benefit to us in Iraq.
  And for purposes of this discussion, that Status of Forces Agreement 
is an agreement that is worked out between our government and the 
foreign country that delineates the legal partnership between the 
troops who are deployed to that country and the host government. And 
that is a very significant issue.
  In the civil side of the law, for example, a Status of Forces 
Agreement can spell out proceedings under which nationals of the host 
country may file claims against the United States for damage to 
property of these nationals that has been inadvertently caused by the 
United States Armed Forces. An agreement is also important because it 
can be used to spell out jurisdictional issues with regard to criminal 
offenses. For example, these agreements are often used to make sure 
that American servicemembers who commit offenses overseas and are tried 
by U.S. military courts-martial rather than local courts. They can also 
delineate the conditions under which U.S. servicemembers charged with 
crimes within the boundaries of the host country are treated. A Status 
of Forces Agreement can specify, for example, that a servicemember 
accused of a crime in violation of local laws must be detained on board 
a ship or some other U.S. installation rather than await trial in a 
local jail.
  We have never had a Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi 
government. I know that is something that you have been strongly 
advocating, and I believe it is high time that we implement one for a 
few reasons. First, a Status of Forces Agreement is an agreement 
between two sovereign nations. By executing such an agreement, we would 
be affirming sovereignty of the Maliki government and the right, as 
well as the obligation, of that government to exercise control over its 
own territory.
  Second, a Status of Forces Agreement would send a clear message both 
to the Iraqis and to other countries in the region that we do not 
intend to establish permanent bases in Iraq, I think something that 
many of us on both sides of the aisle agree. And this agreement is 
usually negotiated for a fixed period of time, and it can be renewed or 
not, as was the case with the old Subic Bay naval base in the Republic 
of the Philippines.
  The Philippines example is instructive, I think, in this instance. 
There the Aquino government asserted its sovereign rights over Subic 
Bay by refusing to renew a prior agreement and other related treaties 
with our government in 1992. Thus the world was made to know that even 
though the U.S. had a presence in Subic Bay and a neighboring city for 
more than 90 years prior to that time, that presence was not permanent 
and was subject to an agreement that had to be agreed to by both 
nations. And third, as described a few moments ago, this agreement, if 
properly negotiated, can protect U.S. forces from being tried by 
foreign courts or prevent them from being detained in Iraqi facilities 
if charged with a crime under foreign law. This kind of measure is 
necessary to make sure that Americans operating overseas have the 
fullest protections afforded to them by Federal jurisprudence.

  I also really want to thank you again for organizing this, and I 
think these shared principles you have outlined here are really a basis 
upon which we can have further dialogue. And a little later in this 
Special Order, I might want to talk about the Iraq Study Group 
recommendations, the Baker-Hamilton report, that I think many of us on 
both sides of the aisle have a good feeling about, and there is 
legislation that has been proposed and recently introduced, and I will 
get into that a little later.
  At this time I would like to yield to one of our other colleagues, 
the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has been 
to Iraq 17 times now.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank all four of my colleagues, Mr. 
Gilchrest,

[[Page 14741]]

Mr. Dent, Mr. Bishop, and Mr. Israel. I wanted to be here simply for 
the novelty of Republicans and Democrats trying to talk about where we 
could find common ground.
  My basic view is that we made a mistake going in given that we didn't 
find weapons of mass destruction. But I tend to think it would be a 
mistake to leave precipitously. I think we went in on a bipartisan 
basis, and I think we could leave on a bipartisan basis. I just don't 
think we are as far apart in some ways as some may think.
  I do think there should be a Status of Forces Agreement instead of a 
U.N. resolution as an occupying nation. If the Iraqis don't want us 
there, we will leave. I feel we attacked them; they didn't attack us. 
And we have an obligation before we leave to replace their army, their 
police, and their border patrol. That is really one of your shared 
principles. But if they want us to leave before, then they are a 
sovereign nation. They could ask us to leave and we would.
  I will also close with this because I think it would be nice to have 
more of a dialogue rather than just speeches from us, but I think the 
Iraq Study Group is something that Democrats agreed to in principle and 
so did Republicans. And I agree that they left a little bit of 
discretion as to what they meant and we could each view it in the way 
that we want to, and so that would have to be worked out. But the basic 
principles of the Iraq Study Group, to my mind, should be voted on and 
supported by both sides of the aisle, specifically getting the 
Americans and the coalition forces out of doing police work.
  Secondly, getting the Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds to work out their 
differences. They said with consequence if they didn't. I think there 
should be a timeline. I just think it should be not by 2/08. And, 
thirdly, to get the nations around Iraq to dialogue and we should be 
dialoguing with them, including Iran and Syria.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
  Before yielding to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, just to 
clarify on the issue of Status of Forces Agreement, Mr. Dent was kind 
enough to join the Iraqi ambassador to the United States, Ambassador 
Sumaydi, and me and other members of the Center Aisle Caucus for a 
dinner where the ambassador himself talked about the importance of a 
Status of Forces Agreement.
  Will it end the war tomorrow? Absolutely not. Will it end it next 
week? No. Is it one good, reasonable idea that will lower the 
temperature in Iraq, that will reduce the animosities that are flaming 
out of control there? I believe it will. And I am appreciative that the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania has cosponsored a bipartisan resolution 
that asks the President to submit a Status of Forces Agreement to the 
Iraqi government, not conclude one because it has got to be negotiated, 
but at least submit one to send a signal and a message that we don't 
want to own the place; that we are there and we will leave when the 
Iraqi government wishes us to.
  With that, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland for his 
bipartisan leadership and his great measure of thoughtfulness on issues 
with respect to Iraq, and I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest).
  Mr. SHAYS. And I might add a former Marine, and I guess always a 
Marine, who was wounded in battle in Vietnam and was left on the 
battlefield for 3 hours before he was brought to safety, and we will 
always be grateful for that service.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  And I also want to thank all of you for coming down here this evening 
for a thoughtful dialogue on the issues of war and peace that confront 
this country and literally the rest of the world.
  I would just like to speak to the issue of Iraq in the context of 
where we are in the world today. This is not our grandfathers' world. 
This is not our parents' world. This is a new configuration that can't 
be compared to World War II or even the Cold War. This is a world that 
is now filled with tiny splintering, struggling countries and cultures. 
The Soviet Union is gone. Southeast Asia, Africa, Latin America, we see 
a great deal of struggling third world countries, cultures, people 
trying to find their place, their niche.
  One of the countries, the United States, has a golden opportunity to 
integrate ourselves with the rest of the world to encourage peace and 
security. And if we notice around the world, the world is integrated 
right now. The world is integrated globally. It is integrated 
economically with trade. It is integrated politically. It is integrated 
when there are disasters. We saw what happened with the tsunami to 
countries like Sri Lanka and Thailand and India and Indonesia when the 
world responded. The integrity of the world's compassion for these 
people was extraordinary.
  The world is also integrated with disease. Whether it is Ebola, 
malaria, bird flu, TB, you name it, the world is integrated.
  And one of the ways I think to solve the problem, besides solving the 
problem of Iraq on the House floor the way we are doing it tonight with 
a discussion, is to integrate our integrity with the great land mass 
that is around this great globe. The integration of integrity.

                              {time}  2045

  I want to make a quick quote by a former artist, media person, 
diplomat named Norman Cousins, who wrote a fabulous book called ``Human 
Options.'' In the book is one extraordinary quote, ``History is the 
vast early warning system.'' And if we look at how we dealt with the 
Soviet Union over decades of time, it was step by step by step with 
dialogue. What did we do with China over decades, even after China said 
that they would like to destroy the United States, even if it wiped off 
half the population of China? It was step by step by step of dialogue. 
What did we do with the Cuban Missile Crisis? It was dialogue. 
Unfortunately, we never had a dialogue with Ho Chi Minh. We lost 
probably a million people on both sides of that conflict.
  What is the issue here with Iraq? It's a dialogue with the Iraqis, 
it's a dialogue with the Sunnis, the Shi'as, the Kurds. It's a dialogue 
with the Syrians, the Iranians. It's a dialogue with the Middle East. 
It's a dialogue with the international community to integrate ourselves 
to make a commitment to the politics, to the economics, to the security 
of all the peoples of the world.
  So, there is hope. There is movement. And the way to solve one 
conflict is to understand the nature of the culture. Talk first, for as 
long as is necessary. And that dialogue got us out of the Cold War with 
the Soviet Union. Nixon went to China. Kennedy did not bomb Castro in 
Cuba. That can work today.
  I will close with this comment from a book I recently read by Anthony 
Zinni called ``The Battle For Peace.'' And Anthony Zinni described the 
Cold War where one man is in a room with a cobra alone for decades, and 
the man wakes up one morning and the cobra is gone, but the room then 
is filled with bees; a whole different set of circumstances. And you 
don't deal with the bees the way you dealt with the cobra.
  I thank all you gentlemen for coming here tonight for this integrated 
dialogue so our integrity can mesh a little bit better and we will find 
a solution.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman.
  Before recognizing Mr. Bishop, I want to follow up on a very 
important point that the gentleman made about the lessons that history 
teaches us with respect to the importance of having a dialogue with our 
adversaries. I wish we understood those lessons here in the United 
States Congress. Because if you take a look at those lessons of 
history, the Cold War, The Space Raid, World War II, all of the great 
challenges that confronted Congresses in the past have been solved with 
bipartisan dialogue. Think about the Cold War. It was the 
bipartisanship, the bipartisan approach of a John F. Kennedy and a 
Richard Nixon and that helped end the Cold War. Think about World War 
II. It was the political leadership of FDR and Harry Truman and the 
military leadership of Dwight D. Eisenhower. There was always great 
bipartisanship with respect to enormous

[[Page 14742]]

foreign policy challenges in our country. Democrats and Republicans 
found ways to talk to one another. I guess there was a saying that 
``politics stops at the water's edge.'' One of the concerns I have is 
that we have kind of lost that sense, that we have made foreign policy 
and made issues of war and peace partisan issues. And what we are 
trying to do here in the Center Aisle Caucus, with the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) 
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) is bring Democrats and 
Republicans back to the water's edge in the Center Aisle.
  And with that, I will yield to Mr. Bishop.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank Mr. Israel for yielding.
  I want to pick up on a comment that my friend from Connecticut just 
made with respect to how we should deal with the recommendations of the 
Iraq Study Group. You suggested that we bring those recommendations 
here and we discuss them and endorse them. And I think that the model 
is the 9/11 Commission. It was a bipartisan commission that issued a 
unanimous set of recommendations, which in the main we have acted upon 
here in this Chamber. The Iraq Study Group was a bipartisan group that 
issued a unanimous set of recommendations. And I believe that they are 
ones that we can galvanize around, and I believe that they make good 
sense. They perhaps don't give all of us everything that we would want 
on either side of the aisle, but they do represent a way to move 
forward. And I believe that if we were to bring those recommendations 
here, I believe they would attract majority support in this Chamber, 
and perhaps that could then be used as a means to moving with the 
administration, who I think now has also endorsed the recommendations 
of the Study Group.
  Initially they seemed to reject them, or at least dismiss them, but I 
think now, as time has passed and as the situation on the ground has 
continued to evolve, they now recognize that they do have merit, that 
they do have legitimacy. And they also speak to several, if not all, of 
the shared principles that we are discussing here this evening that 
come out of the Center Aisle Caucus. So I thank you for making that 
suggestion, and hopefully we can carry forward with that.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman.
  I will yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
  Mr. KENT. Thank you, Congressman Israel.
  I wanted to make a comment. You had mentioned our dinner engagement 
between the Center Aisle Caucus and Iraq's ambassador to the United 
States, and we had a wonderful dialogue. And I was struck by something 
that the Iraqi ambassador had said to us. Of course we, often, in the 
United States, talk about the tribalism that we see within Iraq, Sunni 
and Shia and Kurd. And it is sort of hard for us to understand the 
complexities of those tribal relationships and interactions. And the 
Iraqi ambassador, obviously a very well educated man, made a comment 
back to us about what he more or less termed ``American tribalism,'' I 
think referring to Republicans and Democrats. It's hard for them to 
understand how we operate. It was a point that I think was well 
intended and well understood. And I think that we have to think about 
that from time to time, that they see us, they see our bickering, too, 
from where they sit. We had a lot of comments about their behavior. 
Well, they have observed ours as well. And certainly our political 
dynamics are very difficult for them to comprehend. And I appreciated 
his insights.
  I did want to make a few other comments about this recommendation, 
these 79 recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. I think many of us on 
both sides of the aisle realize that the beauty of this report maybe is 
not necessarily in every one of the 79 recommendations, but the process 
they adopted to make those recommendations. And I do want to give a 
little bit of credit tonight to the two prime sponsors of the 
legislation that was introduced just yesterday, that was Congressman 
Mark Udall, a Democrat of Colorado, and on the Republican side, the 
father of the Iraq Study Group report, legislatively, Frank Wolf, a 
Republican of Virginia.
  And I think they have really gone out of their way to secure probably 
close to 50 cosponsors by now, fairly evenly divided between 
Republicans and Democrats. And again, I just think there is so much in 
this report that we can rally around and need to. I think we all agree, 
when you look at those shared principles up there, from defeating al 
Qaeda, I think every American, regardless of how they label themselves 
politically, agree that the defeat of al Qaeda is a primary and 
principal interest of all of us, whether in Iraq, or anywhere 
throughout the world. Containing Iran. Another issue we all agree, that 
the regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a menace, a threat, and we all I 
think agree that his potential acquisition of nuclear capability would 
be a very destabilizing influence on the world and something that none 
of us can tolerate.
  And regional change; standing up for Iraqi Security Forces; secure 
Iraq's borders; take care of our veterans; and support our Armed 
Forces, I think those are great principles. I think this report, in 
many respects, addresses these issues.
  So with that, I just again wanted to share those thoughts with you 
about the dinner with the Iraqi ambassador.
  At this time I would like to yield back to Mr. Israel.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman.
  I would pose a question, if I may, to the gentleman from Connecticut, 
who as Congressman Dent said has been to Iraq 17 times and chaired the 
Subcommittee on Terror. I know he was consulted with respect to the 
Iraq Study Group report or at least I believe was consulted with 
respect to the Iraq Study Group report and see if he would share his 
perspectives on the value of the Iraq Study Group report in terms of 
generating some bipartisan cooperation and moving us in the right 
direction in Iraq.
  I would yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. SHAYS. I thank you for your question.
  What was stunning about the 9/11 Commission was it was Republicans 
and Democrats, liberals and conservatives all trying to find common 
ground for addressing what was really a frightening sea change in our 
society, and that was the recognition that there was a real threat. And 
they called it ``Islamist terrorism,'' which the Islamist community 
needs to deal with as well. I mean, it is not Islamists, it is these 
radical Islamist terrorists. But the Iraqi Study Group had that same 
approach, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives making 
an assessment of the problem, and then recommending what needed to 
happen.
  I would like to suggest something. And I would be interested, Mr. 
Israel, how you would react to this, and that is, Mr. Petraeus and our 
ambassador are going to make a report in September. And I was thinking, 
you know, there could be a view they have a vested interest.
  So one of the things that I would like to promote is that this same 
Iraqi Study Group go back to Iraq and say, okay, this is what we found 
then, this is what we recommended. This is what General Petraeus is 
recommending and our ambassador. We either verify it or don't, or have 
subtle changes to it or maybe significant changes. But in other words, 
bring this third party back in to make an analysis since they already 
have credibility, and clearly General Petraeus does and our ambassador 
does as well. But I would be curious to know if any of you think there 
is merit to that idea.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Well, I thank the gentleman. I think it is a very sound 
idea. The Iraq Study Group proved its value as an independent entity. 
And I have the highest regard for General Petraeus. In fact, he was in 
my office the day that the President announced the surge. And I was 
skeptical about the surge, personally I did not support the surge, but 
I thought it was important to reach out to General Petraeus and at 
least give him an opportunity to explain it to me.
  I think he is the best we have. I have a very high regard for him. I 
think his

[[Page 14743]]

report is going to be indispensable. I think it would be extremely 
useful to send the Iraqi Study Group back to take a look so that, like 
President Reagan said, ``trust but verify.'' I think that verification 
would be extremely useful.
  And I will yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I would certainly agree. And I think we all 
await General Petraeus' report. And I don't know General Petraeus, but 
I have been told that he is a man of absolutely rigorous and 
unimpeachable intellectual honesty and he will give us an honest, spin-
free report, which I think is something that we all need and would 
value. But I also think sending that coalition of people, as you say, 
Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, back to see on 
the ground conditions 9, 10 months after they wrote their report or 11 
months after they wrote their report, I think would be enormously 
valuable and again perhaps would spur both the Congress and the 
administration to take their recommendations more seriously or give 
greater weight to them than we have thus far.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Before yielding to the gentleman from Maryland, I want to 
again remind my colleagues and those viewing that what you've heard 
here on the floor of the House is different. You've actually heard 
Members from both sides generating ideas and agreeing to them rather 
than impugning each other's integrity. And that is exactly the purpose 
of this Special Order.
  I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. I think when you generate ideas like we're having 
tonight with this decision, people are free to have an enthusiastic 
conversation where we can see each other's individual ingenuity. And 
then it is that collective ingenuity, that individual collective 
ingenuity that spawns these kinds of ideas that solve problems.
  I couldn't agree more that the Iraq Study Group reassemble to 
evaluate where they were just 6 months ago in their recommendations to 
where we might want to be in September or sometime this fall is an 
excellent idea. And I am pretty sure that those men and women would 
come together to do this second reevaluation.
  The other thing is, I think we, as members of our group here, Members 
of Congress, we need to do some preparation ourselves prior to whatever 
that announcement, whatever that assessment is going to be in 
September, we have to have some preparation for what we think the 
status of the conflict in Iraq needs to be.
  And the third thing, while we are preparing for this report by 
General Petraeus, while we are encouraging the Iraq Study Group to 
reevaluate the status, as General Petraeus will, I really think it's 
important for us to continue to pursue a dialogue with all of Iraq's 
neighbors, including Iran and Syria.
  Now, we all know that the Ahmadinejad administration, if I can say 
that, has said some pretty pointed, scary, threatened things. But it is 
my understanding that the Iranian people do not see the world, do not 
see the United States through Ahmadinejad's eyes. The Syrian people, 
the parents, the fathers, the people who want good lives for their 
children, the Chamber of Commerce in Damascus wants to have a 
relationship with the United States. There are many, many business 
people, many, many people in Iran that want a relationship with the 
United States.
  So as we are preparing for this discussion in September, where we are 
with the surge and where we are with the conflict, let's get the Iraq 
Study Group together. Let's prepare for that statement so we understand 
where we think we should be. And then let's continue to pursue, however 
difficult it is, this dialogue.
  Mr. ISRAEL. The gentleman from Pennsylvania.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I also want to endorse the gentleman from 
Connecticut's idea about reconstituting the Iraq Study Group and 
sending them back over to Iraq at some point to help give us an update 
of this very useful report. I think we all can agree that many of us in 
this country, and I suspect in Iraq too, are frustrated by this slow 
pace of reconciliation that is ongoing in Iraq.
  But, again, another point about this report, and I think this 
gathering tonight, I think this helps us as Americans try to reconcile 
our differences. We talk about Iraqi reconciliation, but I think in 
many respects we need a little reconciliation of our own.
  Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman will yield, when I was there this last 
time, what I found for the first time was that when the Iraqis got 
together to form a government last year, they were like someone 
described a sixth grade dance. The guys were there, the girls were 
there. Maybe once or twice there would be a little interaction, and 
they would go back. But nobody was dancing.
  Now you are starting to see Sunnis, Shias and Kurds trying to see 
some common ground, and they are coming back to us and saying, don't 
rush us. But one of them said to me, I thought it was interesting, he 
said, ``You are complaining about the fact that we may take a break in 
the summer. What about your monthly break?'' They said, ``You are 
asking Sunnis, Shias and Kurds to work together. How come you guys 
aren't working together?'' They are starting to come back and throw 
that at us.
  The difference is they are in an environment where they can get 
killed any day of the week, and yet we are telling them, find common 
ground. If they found common ground, probably some of that killing 
would talk.
  But I am sorry to take so much of the time. I am just trying to add 
to your point that they are saying why don't we practice what we 
preach?
  Mr. DENT. Well, it is a very fair point in many respects. I just want 
to point out something. When I first read this report back in December 
when it was first released, I had some concerns too, like many people, 
about some of the recommendations, particularly the recommendation 
about directly engaging Iran, for all the reasons we have identified. 
Ahmadinejad is a virulent anti-Semite. He has made such inflammatory 
comments. I think we all agree he is a menace.
  After listening to Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton talk about the issue, I 
don't think any of us expect there to be any real process in a dialogue 
with Iran at a sub-cabinet level, but I think we also realize that you 
need to have that kind of a conversation initially and let the Iranians 
be an obstruction themselves, so we can then isolate them 
internationally and also perhaps drive a wedge between the Iranian 
Government and the Syrian Government.
  I think it makes absolutely no sense for the Syrians to be engaged in 
destructive behavior in Iraq, given the fact that they have more than 1 
million refugees, primarily Sunni, who are in Syria. Of course, Syria 
is ruled by Allawites, who represent about 10 percent of that country. 
So it is clearly not in Syria's interest to have protracted instability 
in Iraq.
  So, again, I just wanted to thank the gentleman from Connecticut for 
his thoughtful idea about getting the Iraq Study Group back over there, 
perhaps hearing what General Petraeus says and make some 
recommendations on what he has said, and maybe give us a bipartisan way 
for us to move forward.
  I think Americans want a solution. They don't want an issue in Iraq, 
but they want a solution. I think that is one of the great things about 
this dialogue tonight.
  I yield back to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Connecticut 
whether he is proposing any specific initiative to formally request 
that the Iraq Study Group reconvene and make an assessment in Iraq in 
the near future. If he is, I would be pleased to join with him on a 
bipartisan basis.
  Mr. SHAYS. To guarantee it would actually come to the floor of the 
House, maybe we could put your name first and mine second. But I would 
love to work with you on that.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I would welcome that partnership.
  I am going to yield to my friend from New York, Mr. Bishop.

[[Page 14744]]


  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I just want to make two points. One, on the 
question of engaging Iran and others that we see as enemies or 
adversaries, you are quite right, Mr. Dent, that there is no guarantee 
of success if we do engage, but we can virtually guarantee no success 
if we don't engage. So it just seems to me that engagement is 
absolutely crucial.
  I think I am quoting former Secretary of State Baker correctly when I 
quote him as saying that engaging in dialogue with our enemies is not 
appeasement. It is diplomacy and negotiation and dialogue, something I 
think we have had too little of. Hopefully we are moving in that 
direction now, and signs recently are that we are.
  The second point I would make is that Iran has an awful lot at stake 
here. If, in fact, as a great many fear, Iraq becomes a haven for al 
Qaeda, I cannot imagine that Iran views an al Qaeda-Sunni dominated 
state on their borders as something that is in their best interests. So 
I think that they clearly do have in effect common interests with us in 
terms of bringing some order, some stability, to Iraq.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. If my colleagues have 
any final comments, I would be happy to recognize them, and then I am 
prepared to close.
  The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest.
  Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman.
  Just very quickly on the comment from the gentleman from New York, 
Syria is basically a secular country. It is not an Islamic state. It is 
secular. They feared al Qaeda and the Taliban, and they don't want al 
Qaeda in Iraq creating chaos. Al Qaeda was basically the enemy of the 
Iranians. It was the enemy of Iraq. It was a disruptive factor in the 
Middle East.
  So careful analysis of each country, using the best diplomats in the 
world that the United States has, has the potential for unraveling this 
very difficult, chaotic situation. We know we need a military presence 
in the Middle East, we know we need a political presence in the Middle 
East, and we know we need an economic presence in the Middle East. With 
the emphasis on the politics and the economics with the Middle Eastern 
countries, I think we can back our way out of this chaos.
  Mr. SHAYS. I would just like to thank you again for getting us 
together. This has really been a pleasure. I just admire all of you 
here tonight, and thank you for including me.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  Mr. DENT. I too want to commend the gentleman from New York for 
organizing this event tonight, this special order. We need to see a 
little bit more of this type of activity in this Congress, and I hope 
the American people who are watching this exercise tonight maybe find 
this a little bit different or maybe a little bit more refreshing than 
what they are accustomed to during special orders. I just want to thank 
you for putting this together.
  One final point. I think Mr. Gilchrest made the point about 
interaction with Syria on a commercial basis in this country. A 
constituent called just the other day who imports various food products 
from Syria, because I have a large Middle Eastern community in my 
district. And just some of the challenges, they just want to go about 
life as they normally would.
  I thought it was interesting. It kind of brings back home the point 
that people want to coexist peacefully. That the challenges and the 
stakes are very high in Iraq, and I think all of us want to make sure 
that whatever policy is pursued, particularly after September, it is 
one that is responsible and one that will make us all safer and 
hopefully the region more stable.
  So, again, thank you, Mr. Israel, for putting this on. It is much 
appreciated.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman.
  I will close by thanking each of our colleagues to join with us this 
evening. Of the American people are accustomed to tuning into these so-
called special orders and seeing a Democratic hour, which is usually 
spent beating up Republicans, and a Republican hour, which is usually 
spent beating up Democrats.
  Tonight they saw something different. They saw Mr. Dent talk about a 
status of forces agreement, which Democrats can agree with. They saw 
Mr. Bishop talk about the one-for-one agreement, which has bipartisan 
support. They saw Mr. Shays discuss an idea to have the Iraq Study 
Group reassess conditions, which has Democratic support. And they heard 
the historic perspective of Mr. Gilchrest, a perspective that only a 
Marine that was wounded in Vietnam can properly give to the United 
States Congress.
  The point is that I believe that without sounding overly 
enthusiastic, that in the past hour there was more bipartisan, 
reasoned, rational discussion of ideas to move us forward rather than 
left or right than has happened on the floor of this House over the 
past 4 years. That is precisely what the Center Aisle Caucus was 
created to generate.
  Tonight we close by sharing our principles: That we support our Armed 
Forces. We will take care of our veterans. More assistance passed in 
today's appropriations bill to veterans than at any time in the 77-year 
history of the Veterans Administration, passed unanimously by the 
Appropriations Committee today. We will secure Iraq's border. We want 
to stand up Iraq's security forces. We understand the need for regional 
change. We will push for that. We understand the threat of Iran. And we 
want to defeat al Qaeda.
  Today's discussion was not about left or right, it was about moving 
forward. I know the gentleman talked about the servicemember that he 
represents who was lost in Iraq. Again, I would ask the American people 
to continue to support our Armed Forces.
  I can think of no better evening and no better person to inspire this 
special order than Matthew Baylis, who we lost in Iraq last week, and I 
believe he would be very proud of what we are doing this evening. As I 
said before, I don't know whether he was a Democrat or a Republican. I 
have no idea whether his family are Republicans or Democrats. I do know 
that they would be proud that this evening, Democrats and Republicans 
joined together to talk about a way forward, without a single one of us 
calling another one a name.

                          ____________________