[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18897-18902]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       DISCUSSING THE WAR IN IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) is recognized 
for half the time until midnight as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, as the hour grows late here this evening, I 
and some of my fellow freshmen colleagues have gathered here on the 
floor to talk about the issue that is overarching everything we do in 
this country today, the war in Iraq.
  When we were elected in November, many of us came here on a mandate 
for change, a mandate for a change of direction in the way the country 
was heading and a mandate for change in direction in Iraq. So, tonight 
we are here to talk about the important events of this day, the action 
that this House took to pass a very important bill, the Responsible 
Redeployment From Iraq Act, and also to talk about the report that was 
recently released from the White House on Iraq and the benchmarks that, 
sadly, are not being met.
  With that, I would like to actually turn this discussion over to some 
of my fellow colleagues. We will begin with a statement and some 
commentary from the gentleman from New Hampshire, the distinguished 
gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Paul Hodes.
  Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.
  I am happy to be here tonight with my colleagues to speak about the 
issue that predominates in the minds of the people of this country, 
certainly in the minds of my constituents.
  We are in a disastrous and unnecessary war in Iraq. I have received 
literally thousands of letters, phone calls and e-mails from the 
constituents of the Second District of New Hampshire, the people I 
represent, the people who sent me to Congress, telling me one thing 
loud and clear: They want us out of this miserable war. They want our 
troops out of the impossible trap of being caught in multiple sectarian 
conflicts.
  I have only been in office for 6 months, yet I have received 
thousands and thousands of communications from the people I represent. 
It is past time to change course.
  Now, when we do change course, and it is inevitable that we will 
change course, we must do it responsibly and with a view towards 
ensuring that our core values and our vital national security interests 
are protected. We are not talking about precipitous withdrawals. Today, 
when we passed the Responsible Redeployment From Iraq Act, we made sure 
that we set a stage for a responsible course for redeployment of our 
troops, not a precipitous withdrawal.
  Day after day, poll after poll, letter after letter, plea after plea, 
the American people, and certainly the people of New Hampshire, are 
demanding we bring this war to a responsible end. As we sit here today, 
we unfortunately are witness to a stunning lack of leadership, a 
failure of leadership, a failure to face the reality from the Bush 
administration.
  The President's sad and sorry statement today was counterpoint to the 
mistakes that have been made in the past. In the absence of leadership 
from the White House, Congress has the duty to pick up the ball. We 
have the duty to exercise the moral leadership, the courage and the 
boldness that the American people know will be necessary to forge a 
responsible and comprehensive strategy to protect our security 
interests and lead this country back to a place where our military is 
strong, where our troops are fighting the right fight against al Qaeda, 
and where the American people's trust is restored in their leadership.
  So I am glad to be here tonight, and I yield back to you, Ms. Sutton.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for his 
eloquent words about this very, very tragic subject.
  At this point I yield to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire for her 
comments.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, it has been 4 years and we are now in 
our fifth year of war, and once again the Nation stops to assess where 
are we? And probably the best indicator of where we are was the front 
page of the Washington Post today.

                              {time}  2315

  The first article, ``CIA Said Instability Seemed Irreversible.'' That 
is the instability in Iraq.
  Second article, ``White House Gives Iraq Mixed Marks in Report.'' 
Unfortunately, Iraq did not meet any of the benchmarks set by the Bush 
administration and the Congress.

[[Page 18898]]

  Third article, ``U.S. Warns of Stronger al Qaeda.'' What we are 
talking about there is the resurgence of al Qaeda in Pakistan and in 
Afghanistan where it is no longer safe for girls to go to school once 
again, and where the drug crop is stronger than ever and where we have 
made no gains at all. Why haven't we made any gains after 4 years? 
Because we have been dragged into Iraq, into a war without end, by a 
President who did not understand the region, who is indifferent to the 
problems, the cultural differences and the problems they are 
experiencing, and who has not listened to the world. He has not 
listened to America, and has not listened to his generals and advisors 
on this.
  Now they are asking us for more time. As a member of the Armed 
Services Committee, there is nothing that upsets me more than hearing 
somebody stand and ask for more time after 4 long years; more time for 
the surge, I heard today, that the surge hasn't had time to work. My 
question to the gentleman was: Which surge are we talking about? I lose 
track because we have had so many surges. Which surge are we talking 
about?
  Then they say that the President needs more time. Then I hear General 
Petraeus needs more time. Always we need more time.
  How about this. We have a democracy, a young democracy, the President 
says, in Iraq, and more than half of the people in that parliament 
signed a petition asking the United States to leave. Now we said we 
would leave if another nation like Iraq asked us to leave. And yet we 
hear absolute silence from the President. He will not leave despite of 
the fact that the government he had elected there has asked us to 
leave.
  It costs us $10 billion a month. When I speak to my constituents, 
they are all asking, why don't we have money have money for this? We 
need money for health care. We have a problem with infrastructure. And 
we just don't have the money for this; this program is being cut back. 
And my answer over and over is what everybody else is having to tell 
the good people in this country who need our resources, this is what we 
have to tell them, you can't have two wars, tax cuts for the top 1 
percent, the greatest deficits in history, and still provide for the 
American people.
  We have a decision to make. We have an opportunity finally to provide 
a responsible road map out of Iraq; and yet we have a President and an 
administration that is indifferent to this road map.
  It is now our responsibility to respond to the American people, to 
respond to the world and try once again to get the President's 
attention and once again to ask to please end the craziness here after 
the thousands of deaths of American soldiers, the injuries which we 
will be paying for, and should pay for. It is our obligation to honor 
our commitments to our soldiers, but we will be paying for this for so 
many years. And we also have an obligation to the Iraqis. We don't even 
know how many have died because we don't really count them.
  What we do know about Iraq is that that culture has been decimated, 
that those who can leave have left. The countries surrounding Iraq have 
a large number of refugees, and people living inside Iraq are afraid to 
go out on their streets.
  When I was in Iraq in March, I had an opportunity to speak to Sunni 
and Shiite women. It was very clear to me that they were unable to 
resolve their differences. They were so full of mistrust and hatred for 
each other that they were in the midst of a civil war. Yet we stay 
there and we continue to put our soldiers in the middle of a civil war, 
and we continue to be deaf to the cries of the rest of the world.
  So we are standing here tonight asking once again for the President 
to listen to the American people, to listen to reason, to listen to the 
military leaders who never talk about a military victory any more. They 
simply talk about stabilizing Iraq, and the question has to be 
stabilizing Iraq; wasn't Iraq stable 4 years ago? Is this the result we 
get after 4 years of war?
  I thank our soldiers for their incredible commitment to this country. 
I have had an opportunity to see some of them leave. I have nothing but 
the deepest respect for them. I know that the Army is suffering under 
the strain of a 4-year war. The soldiers and their families are 
suffering under the strain. I know that they have asked us to speak up 
for them because they are unable to.
  So we stand here once again tonight for the people, for the soldiers, 
and ask the President to please start a responsible road map out of 
Iraq.
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. Your points are 
well taken. After 4\1/2\ years of this tragic war, more than 3,600 
brave American troops killed, more than 26,000 injured, and nearly half 
a trillion dollars spent, we continue down the path that the President 
insists on taking us.
  In his defiance, he has indicated he will continue to ignore reality, 
as well as the facts contained in the administration's own analysis of 
the war that was released today.
  As you point out, in January, the President sent thousands of 
additional troops to Iraq and promised to hold the Iraqi government 
accountable for meeting those benchmarks for success. Today that report 
makes it clear that we need a change in course.
  Unity in Iraq, we know here on this floor, must be determined by the 
people of Iraq, and our brave troops are caught in the crossfire of a 
sectarian civil war without a military mission, and the President has 
no plan to bring them home.
  Instead of rejecting calls for change and demeaning those who seek 
it, the President should listen to the military experts, to Congress 
and the American people who in their will and wisdom want to 
responsibly redeploy the troops home.
  With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Arcuri).
  Mr. ARCURI. I thank my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I, like so many Americans, have tried to be patient with 
this administration in extricating us from the difficulties we are in 
in Iraq. Like so many other Americans, I want to believe that our 
country is doing the right thing and we are taking the correct steps 
and doing everything that needs to be done to bring our troops home. 
But it is very difficult when we see and experience what we have 
experienced.
  You know, first they told us that there were weapons of mass 
destruction. None were found. Yet the American people continued to be 
patient.
  Then they told us we were in Iraq to remove a tyrant. We removed 
Saddam Hussein; our soldiers fought valiantly and well. Yet we are 
still there at the present time despite the fact that Saddam Hussein 
has been removed from power and has been executed.
  Then they told us we were there to fight terrorism, and we have been 
fighting terrorism, and we continue to fight terrorism, and yet our 
troops remain there.
  Now they tell us we are there to make our families safer. Well, I for 
one don't feel that my family is any safer today than they were when we 
went into Iraq. In fact, I think that my family is far less safe.
  This administration tells us that we are there to fight terrorism, 
that we are there to fight al Qaeda, and yet we hear that al Qaeda is 
now stronger than it has been since before 9/11. So, again, I ask the 
question: Why are we in Iraq? Why are we sacrificing American lives? 
Twenty-six thousand have been injured; 3,600 Americans have been 
killed. Nearly a half trillion dollars has been spent, and yet still we 
are in Iraq and still we are no safer than we were before 9/11.
  People ask me: What are we doing? How are we making our country 
safer? What are you doing to bring the troops home? And it is very 
difficult to answer because it is sort of like trying to hit a moving 
target. Every time that a benchmark is set, every time a question is 
asked, this administration moves the target. They tell us we are in 
Iraq on a surge that will tell us in 60 to 90 days where we will be. 
Then today

[[Page 18899]]

we hear from this administration we only now can begin the surge 
because only now are we fully up to speed. Yet we see our Armed Forces 
at the weakest point they have been in many years.
  Our National Guard is not where it should be, here State side; 
rather, our National Guard is overseas. They are not in a position to 
help should we need them here. Should we have another disaster like 
Hurricane Katrina, our National Guard is not here. Rather, they are 
serving overseas. These are the things that this administration has 
failed the American people on.
  The violence in Iraq continues. The Iraq government has failed to 
meet the key benchmarks endorsed by the President in January, and 
political reconciliation is nonexistent.
  And yet we as a Nation have not engaged the neighbors of Iraq. We 
have not gone forward and tried to bring a settlement to this. We have 
not engaged Iran. We have not engaged Syria. We have just continued to 
send troops to Iraq. Something has to be done.
  Today we took the first step to do that. I was proud to be one of the 
representatives who voted for the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq 
Act, as were 223 of my other colleagues here. It is an important step 
that we have taken. It is an important step for this Congress.
  You know, I can't help but think, I have two teenaged children. What 
are we going to tell our children about why we were in Iraq? When our 
grandchildren read the history books and say to us, ``Members of 
Congress, what did you do to stop this war,'' what are we going to tell 
them? Well, today we took one step in telling them that we began the 
process. We are beginning the process to bring this war to an end and 
to bring our troops home. It is necessary. It is important. It is our 
responsibility as Members of Congress.
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman for his poignant remarks. Your 
point is well taken when you talk about the benchmarks and the target 
moving. How many more times will we hear this administration argue that 
we are just about to make progress? And yet here we are, 4\1/2\ years 
later.
  I would like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, I want to salute you for organizing this 
Special Order tonight on the very day where this new Congress rose to 
its constitutional duty and stood up for the American people who made a 
watershed historic change last November in terms of expecting us as 
Members of Congress to lead the way to a new direction in Iraq. The 
vote again today followed a succession which all of us here as new 
Members have been part of. I think it is fitting that we are here to 
discuss that change as the people who really made a difference in terms 
of changing control of this body.
  The vote today was, as members of the Armed Services Committee and 
Ms. Shea-Porter knows this, was all about what has happened to the 
military readiness of this country.
  Chairman Skelton is a passionate believer that this war has almost 
destroyed the ground forces of this country, the Army and the Marines. 
This was driven home to me during the July 4 recess. A young man, Army-
enlist soldier, came to our district office. In one hand, he had his 
orders for redeployment, his fourth redeployment to Iraq. He had been 
to Iraq for two 1-year stints, and an additional stint of 7 months in 
Afghanistan. So over 4 years, 2 year and 7 months, he has been in a 
combat zone and barely been home for any rest time.
  In his other hand, he had a bag filled with prescription medicine for 
anti-anxiety conditions. Zoloft was one of his prescriptions, which is 
a very serious medication for that type of condition. Yet we have a 
situation where he is being sent for the fourth time back into a combat 
zone. Luckily, our office was able to arrange for him to be seen by a 
psychiatrist, and a report was prepared which showed that he had full-
blown post-traumatic stress, and we are making arrangements with the 
Army to ensure that he is not sent back into that situation.
  But that is the dirty little secret about this surge policy, that we 
are forcing people who are not physically fit because they are not 
getting adequate rest time at home and, in many cases, who are mentally 
ill and being sent back into combat zone because of the taxing of our 
Armed Forces. It has reached the point where they have no other choice 
but to try and send people who again are well outside any normal 
guidelines in terms of rest, training and equipment which the Army has 
set up.
  This bill today which we voted on and passed by an ever-increasing 
margin with each succeeding vote here, is an attempt to say as a Nation 
and as a Congress, which has the constitutional duty to raise the Armed 
Forces, that we have a duty to change course in Iraq to ensure that we 
have Armed Forces that are capable of addressing the real national 
security interests of this country.

                              {time}  2330

  Certainly being in the middle of a civil war in Iraq is not 
consistent with the national security interests of this country.
  As Congresswoman Shea-Porter pointed out today, the front page of the 
Washington Post has pointed out that al Qaeda now has reached the level 
of strength that it had before the events of 9/11, that there are 
training camps in Pakistan that have been allowed to flourish because 
our eye was taken off the ball with the invasion of Iraq when we should 
have finished the job in Afghanistan back in 2002 and 2003.
  We are now in a situation, as Mr. Arcuri just said, we are, in fact, 
as exposed and as vulnerable as this country was at the time of 
September 11 because of the outrageous, misguided policies of this 
administration.
  This bill, which we voted on today, which sets out a very measured, 
responsible policy that will change course in Iraq, I think answers all 
the questions of the doubters and the cynics that we don't have an 
answer for what happens after a change of course that occurs in Iraq. 
This is not about Vietnam revisited where people are going to be 
evacuated in helicopters.
  This bill lays out a responsible plan for real change in Iraq that 
addresses the need to approach this problem on a regional basis in the 
Middle East and reintroduces a diplomatic measure that has been sorely 
lacking in terms of this administration's policy over the last four-
and-a-half years.
  So, again, I think as new Members who are part of the new majority 
that have helped revive life in this branch of the government, which 
was a near rubber stamp over the last 4 years, it is important that I 
think we are here tonight to reemphasize what took place here in this 
chamber and to restate our mission to keep faith with the voters that 
took place last fall and make sure that we have a real change in policy 
in Iraq.
  I'd like to yield now to Congressman Ellison from the State of 
Minnesota who's again part of this new majority here in Congress.
  Mr. ELLISON. Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm always happy to join my 
colleagues, the difference-makers, who heard the call of the American 
people and came to Congress to really make the case for a safer 
America, a stronger America; an America that is not mired down in the 
quagmire which is Iraq; an America that says, look, we are ready to 
defend American interest around the world, but that does not include 
being mired down in a war we never should have been in in the first 
place.
  I'm proud to have voted for this safe redeployment act today, but I 
just want to point out something that's so very important; and that is, 
that while dollars and cents clearly are important in this debate, no 
one can calculate the loss of a loved one. Since this surge began, 600 
families have received the most devastating news that any family can 
ever receive, 600 spouses, 600 sets of parents, 600 sets of children, 
600 communities lost a loved one because of this surge that was wrong-
headed from the very beginning.
  We can't calculate the costs of this war in dollars really. It must 
be calculated in terms of the lives of our fellow Americans that have 
gone forward

[[Page 18900]]

in this horrible conflict. We have to calculate this war in terms of 
the injuries and the casualties that have been faced, in terms of the 
young people who have lost limbs, who have lost their strong sense of 
mental health, their ability to discern reality, their ability to have 
a calm frame of mind because, for so many of these young people, the 
helicopter sounds don't stop even after they come home. For so many 
young people, the explosions, a car backing up, any sort of sound sends 
them back to that war zone they used to be in. And it's a horrible 
tragedy, it's a human tragedy, and no amount of calculation of dollars 
and cents will ever truly capture what we have lost as a Nation.
  So, Mr. Speaker, as we stand here, the difference-makers, today we 
want to state to the American people that we are here to keep the faith 
with the American people. We will never forget all of our fellow 
Americans, our brothers and sisters who have gone forward in this 
conflict, who have lost lives, who have lost limbs, who have lost their 
health and their families, who have received an injury that is so 
impossible to ever heal from. But we know the resilience and the 
strength of the American people, and we know that they expect us to put 
their best interests first forward always, and that means a safe, 
responsible redeployment out of this conflict.
  So, Mr. Speaker, just as I say that the losses in this war cannot 
simply be calculated in dollars and cents but in terms of real human 
lives, it is also true that they be calculated in dollars and cents as 
well.
  And before I yield back, Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out this 
very important graph that I have right to my right, and this shows very 
clearly the costs of this war. It wasn't the $8 billion that we thought 
it was.
  Now, we know it's 10 billion per month, but just look here. Per year 
we're talking about a number with so many zeros behind it I think that 
my young children will be very hard pressed to be able to pronounce 
this number. This is a huge number. What is this, this number is about 
120 T, trillion? Billion. I think I need an arithmetic lesson, and I'm 
a fellow that's had a little bit of schooling.
  But as I look at this big number, it will be a challenge for any 
fifth grader, Mr. Speaker. It's a whopper of a number and it can't even 
begin to calculate the true losses of our country in this war.
  Mr. ARCURI. Just a point that I'd like to make on something that you 
said earlier, if you could comment on that.
  We talk about money costs, but think of the amount of money that this 
Congress has had to appropriate for veterans benefits as a result of 
the staggering injuries, the staggering effects that this war has had 
on our veterans and on our military personnel, and I just think that 
that's something that I don't think that this administration thought 
about when they planned out Iraq. They didn't think about the number of 
wounded because, while our medical teams get better and better, we save 
many more lives, but obviously many, many more people receive injuries 
that they will suffer from the rest of their lives. And it's our duty 
and our responsibility as a Nation to take care of those individuals, 
and the emotional costs to their family and obviously financial cost to 
this country of taking care of them is great.
  And I just wanted to add that because that's something else that I 
don't think anyone thought about before we went into Iraq.
  Mr. ELLISON. No doubt, Mr. Speaker. That's an excellent point. What 
does it mean to care for a 20-year-old quadriplegic for the course of 
his or her life?
  This chart speaks for itself, but I just want to go to the bottom 
line if I may, Mr. Speaker. We're looking at $3,816 per second.
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), and 
the points raised are worth talking about. He's absolutely right when 
we talk about the loss of life, the irretrievable loss of life as being 
the real cost, the real measure of our loss.
  Not too long ago during this surge, the escalation of this war, 
within this past 6 months, I had the very sad experience of I'm sure 
that many of you have had of going back to my district to go to 
visitation, to calling hours, for a fallen soldier. And on this 
occasion, I walked in and I was taken aback because family members, 
they thank you. They thank you for coming to pay your respects to this 
one who was willing to give it all for his country.
  And as I walked in and I walked over to the casket where this brave 
soldier lay and there he was, this young man, and I kneeled down and I 
looked and I looked long and I looked hard because I wanted to remember 
and I wanted to feel all that I could so that when I came back here to 
cast the votes that we must cast and to make the decisions that we must 
make about the lives that are in our hands, to answer the questions 
about what we're willing to ask them to do and what we're willing to 
protect them from, I wanted that to be a part of who I am and the 
decisions I make.
  So I carried that with me, and I carried it with me for the vote 
today, but I can't help but also share a very disappointing moment that 
happened later that day when I returned home, to hear the news and our 
President talking about how much he enjoyed riding his bike and how we 
should all ride our bikes because it's a healthy thing to do. Well, 
maybe so, but it struck me that this President, to my knowledge, 
doesn't go to many of those calling hours, and perhaps it would be 
different and perhaps the decision-making would be different because 
you're right, my colleague from Minnesota, the lives lost are 
irretrievable.
  With that, I'd like to yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Hodes), who has joined us again.
  Mr. HODES. Thank you. It's very moving, as we stand here, to think 
about the real impact, the effects of this misbegotten war on the 
people of this country. The war is a cancer on the body politic that it 
is our job to deal with. It's unfortunate.
  We were sent to Congress, those of us who are here, largely to serve 
as catalysts for change. The legislation we passed today is that 
beginning, and I recall standing here where I'm now standing in the 
well of the House of Representatives a few weeks ago to welcome to this 
chamber men and women who had recently served their country, who were 
coming from Walter Reed, who had come from other military hospitals 
where, as my friend from New York Mr. Arcuri points out, the costs of 
dealing with the traumatic injuries that have been inflicted on more 
than 25,000 people in this war have not even begun to be calculated on 
the chart next to me. They run into so much money that the mind cannot 
grapple with it.
  These brave men and women came to the floor. They came on crutches. 
They came in wheelchairs. And each one is a story of bravery and of 
sadness for me because I saw people whose lives were shattered, people 
without one leg, people without two legs, people without two legs and a 
arm, people without two legs and an arm, with traumatic brain injuries, 
and veterans in addition to the active duty wounded warriors who came 
here to meet Members of Congress and talk to us about the difficulties 
they were having in their lives, veterans for whom the Veterans 
Administration was not responsive, and we have dealt as a new 
Democratic majority with those issues as well.
  I tried to think of what I could say. There was one soldier who sat 
in the front row with a young lady, it was his wife or his fiance, who 
wanted to talk to us about what was really happening in Iraq. And he 
started by saying, I have three things to tell you. He said, number 
one, they're not telling you the real story about what's going on 
there. Number two, and he stopped because he'd forgotten number two. He 
couldn't get to it.

                              {time}  2245

  He had traumatic brain injury. I ask myself, what will it take for 
the President of this great country of ours, for those predominantly on 
the other side of the aisle who support a surge which has weakened our 
security, strengthened al Qaeda, weakened our military,

[[Page 18901]]

continued the destruction of our reputation in the world; what will it 
take for this President to face the reality of what his policies have 
created, to come before the American people with courage and dignity 
and say, ``We have made some terrible mistakes, and it's time to 
correct them. We will change course, because I know it's the right 
thing to do. I know we must do it. We honor the service of all those 
who have served in this conflict. But now we will go and we will fight 
al Qaeda where we need to in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We will deal and 
set our strategy in the Middle East so that we can effectively deal 
with the threat of Iran, the threat posed by Syria, the threat posed by 
Hezbollah in Lebanon, the threats posed by Hamas and Fattah in the 
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We will, once again, reassert our 
leadership in the world with the moral courage, with the principles and 
the values and the dignity that the American people expect. We will 
face up to our past mistakes, but we will lead into the future with a 
comprehensive strategy to protect American security''?
  I am waiting. The American people are waiting. Congress is waiting.
  Enough name calling. We are all in this together. This is not a 
Republican or a Democratic issue. The comprehensive strategy that we 
have adopted today is an American issue that will move us forward. The 
real honor that this President and those who oppose a new direction can 
do to those brave men and women who came to this floor shattered is to 
acknowledge the past mistakes and move forward to strengthen America 
and protect us all.
  Ms. SUTTON. It reminds me of a committee hearing yesterday, and we 
heard some discussion from one of the witnesses about courage. It was 
used in the context, you have to have the courage to go forward. 
Sometimes it takes courage to go forward.
  I know that Mr. Arcuri and I together looked at each other, and 
thought sometimes it takes the courage that you spoke of, Mr. Hodes, to 
admit when things aren't going right and changing direction. That is 
the kind of direction that we need in this country from our President, 
that we need for our troops from our President.
  Mr. COURTNEY. One day last week, this past week, in Hartford, 
Connecticut, General Eric Shinseki came and spoke the to World Affairs 
Council in Hartford. He, speaking of courage, was the chief of the Army 
at the outset of the Iraq war, was asked the question by the Armed 
Services Committee, how many forces it would take to secure Iraq after 
the invasion. He said, hundreds of thousands of troops.
  As we all know, what happened to him was that because the 
neoconservatives to dominated the administration at the time didn't 
want to hear that type of reality; instead, they were wedded to this 
view, that you could win the war on the cheap.
  He was bounced out of the Army, after an incredibly distinguished 
career, decorated combat veteran in Vietnam, one of the people who did 
an incredible amount of work to bring our Armed Forces back after the 
debacle of Vietnam.
  He spoke to the World Affairs Council on Monday and talked about what 
happened in the wake of Vietnam in terms of our Armed Forces, that the 
disillusionment and, you know, just the negative fallout that occurred 
in terms of people enlisting in the Army, departing well before their 
planned careers were going to actually come to fruition, caused great 
damage to the Armed Forces that took decades to recover, and that we as 
a Nation had finally gotten to a point where we had not just people at 
the top level but also at the middle levels of the Army who had really 
gotten a strong, competent force back into place. His concern is that 
this war in Iraq is going to result in the same damage as an 
institution to the Army and the Marine Corps.
  We are seeing it in terms of people departing the service, the mid-
level officer corps. We again saw another example where the Army failed 
to hit its recruiting goals last month.
  This bill today that we voted on was all about trying to repair the 
damage that has been done to the military readiness of this country, 
and General Shinseki, who I think will go down in history as a prophet 
in this country, as hopefully somebody who still has service to give to 
this Nation, maybe in a new administration some time or in some other 
role, is reminding us that we are at grave risk.
  Again, the quality people, I know we saw it in Iraq when we went and 
visited, just wonderful, wonderful people serving in uniform in Iraq, 
helpful, smart, independent minded. But right now they are trapped in a 
policy by the administration that is basically telling them that their 
service is just being used in a way that shows no respect for their own 
wonderful qualities.
  It is one of the main, most important reasons that this bill today 
that we voted on has got to get passed and signed into law. We have got 
to keep chipping away with vote after vote over the next few weeks or 
so to make sure that the gathering numbers we are picking up on these 
measures are going to get us to the point where real change is going to 
happen.
  Ms. SUTTON. I would just ask the gentlewoman from New Hampshire to 
add to that, because I know that you hear a great deal in your role as 
a member of the Armed Services Committee. That is a point that is 
important for people to know about one of the consequences of this 
continuing path that we are going down in Iraq.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. It's very important. I sit on the Armed Services 
Committee and the Subcommittees on Personnel and Readiness. So I hear 
every day what the President's impact has had on personnel and on 
readiness. I would like to address both of them.
  Supporting the troops is a lot more than putting a yellow ribbon on a 
car. The ``Support the Troops'' sound coming out of the White House 
rings hollow to my ears after 6 months on the Armed Services Committee. 
I will give you an example. Here we have the most wonderful troops in 
the world, committed volunteers who signed up out of love and 
patriotism for their country. It came time for a pay raise, and the 
President only wanted 3 percent.
  The House of Representatives, bipartisan, said they wanted 3.5 
percent pay raise. So, how much is 3.5 percent versus the President's 
percent? Well for an E-4, it would be $200 a year. I know, from sitting 
on the Personnel Subcommittee, what a strain this is on their families 
and the cost of having a loved one gone and having to get day care and 
having to get extra help and not having the same support system that 
they have when they have their spouse or family member with them.
  Yet the President said 3 percent was sufficient. He was angry enough, 
when the House voted for a 3.5 percent pay raise, that he listed it as 
one of the reasons that he would consider vetoing the bill. If you 
can't give an E-4, who is serving his or her country, $200 a year, then 
all the talk you want about supporting the troops is hollow, and it 
really ranks sour for the rest of us.
  You look at readiness, and you realize the Army has been so impacted 
by this, that I actually voted to grow the size of the Army. I also 
voted for the largest, we all did, the largest military budget in 
history.
  As a direct result of the President's misguided policy, he has left 
us in such a weakened state around the world, that we have to grow the 
size of the Army. We have to put more incentives in there, and we have 
to put the largest budget in there.
  You know, we do have enemies in this world. We know that. We have a 
lot of enemies. They weren't in Iraq, but we do have enemies.
  Peter Pace, a general, was asked if he were comfortable with the 
ability of the United States to respond to an emerging threat around 
the world. He paused for a moment, and he said, no, I'm not 
comfortable. That should frighten all of us.
  If the general doesn't feel that we could respond to an emerging 
threat because all of our resources and all of our treasure and all of 
our people are planted inside of Iraq, we have a real problem. This is 
why we had to have that vote today, and this is why we need to get out 
of this war.
  You know, I have been very disturbed by the way it has been treated 
like a political issue. It's not.

[[Page 18902]]

  The freshman class that came here to make the change have been going 
to Iraq at great personal risk to themselves to have a look and to be 
sure that they are right about their position against this war. One by 
one we have come back, as you know, and said, no, we were right about 
this. What we saw was horrific. We saw a very sad, destroyed country. 
We saw a country at war with itself in Iraq, and we saw our troops 
stuck in the middle of the civil war.
  Fortunately, there are some Republicans who are now breaking away 
from the President's grip and speaking the truth about this war. I just 
wanted to read a couple of them. I will leave their names out, because 
who they are is not important, except to say that they are Senators.
  Here's one, ``We need to be fighting terrorists, not civil wars . . . 
Iraq's peace is one they must win on their own. We cannot win it for 
them. Our might should be focused on stopping terrorists who are 
plotting to bring harm to the United States.''
  Here is another Republican Senator, ``A policy of responsible 
military disengagement with a corresponding increase [in] nonmilitary 
support is the best way to advance our Nation's interests.''
  Another one, ``There's nothing to wait for. Almost everybody that has 
any knowledge of the reports . . . would indicate they are not going to 
show any degree of a big change that we needed. So we are just wasting 
time.''
  If we are going to fight terrorism, first of all, we need to protect 
our own homeland.
  You know, if you know there is a burglar in the neighborhood, first 
thing you do is lock your own door. We didn't do that. If you look at 
the little money we have invested in Homeland Security, you will know 
that we are no safer than we were before 9/11, that we took the money 
and we went to Iraq.
  Now why did we go to Iraq? I guess that's the question that hangs in 
everybody's mind. There were no Iraqis on the plane that day. There was 
no evidence that Iraq was ready to attack us. We were misled, 
misguided, got into this war. What's happened to us? Are we safer here? 
No, of course not.
  Are we in more danger there? Yes. Have we destabilized the region? 
Yes. Do we have to worry about growth of al Qaeda? Yes.
  However, the good news is, yesterday at a hearing on global security, 
there was a Member of the CIA and a couple of others who spoke, and 
they said that we do not have to fear Iran's sway over Iraq.
  Let's remember, Iran and Iraq were bitter enemies who fought an 8-
year war. They are not natural allies. They are only allies right now 
because of us. Once we leave, it's my fervent hope and belief that it 
will calm down.
  Ms. SUTTON. I would like to turn to the gentleman from New York, 
because I know he has something important to add.
  Mr. ARCURI. Let me say thank you, again, to my friend from Ohio for 
organizing this.
  Let me just say, I hear throughout this debate, victory, victory, 
victory. The other side constantly talks about victory. But to my way 
of thinking, victory is long past.
  What victory means at this time would be bringing as many of our 
troops home alive and safe as we possibly can. That's what victory 
means. That's what we should be trying to achieve, and that's what 
today was all about. I think that really is the most important thing 
that I think we achieved today.
  Ms. SUTTON. It really is. Today was the day we passed the Responsible 
Redeployment From Iraq Act. It is about achieving that victory. We ask 
that the President join us in trying to take this into a different 
direction, a better direction for the country, for our troops.

                          ____________________