[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 20]
[House]
[Page 28372]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           CALLING FOR REDEPLOYMENT OF OUR TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, before the invasion of Iraq, Secretary of 
Defense Donald Rumsfeld was interviewed on television by George 
Stephanopoulos. Mr. Stephanopoulos asked Secretary Rumsfeld what 
invading Iraq would cost. Rumsfeld answered, ``Under $50 billion.''
  Mr. Stephanopoulos then replied that outside estimates say it would 
be up to $300 billion, to which Rumsfeld replied, ``Baloney.''
  Well, it may have been baloney to Rumsfeld then, but he must eat his 
words now because the cost of the occupation has climbed to over $400 
billion so far. And it's going to go up, up, and up because our leaders 
in the White House seem simply not to care how much this occupation 
costs. It's like that old joke: We could say they are spending like 
drunken sailors, but we wouldn't say that because that would be an 
insult to the sailors.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated yesterday that 
the occupation of Iraq could cost the taxpayers $1.9 trillion by the 
year 2017. Of that amount with over $500 billion going to just pay off 
the interest on the debt we're piling up, it is going to cost $500 
billion. That's $500 billion that would fly out of our treasury and 
land in Japan and in China and the other countries that are lending us 
the money for the occupation. That is far more than what the SCHIP bill 
would cost us.
  It is incredible to me and to most of my colleagues on this side of 
the aisle that the administration would rather give our country's money 
to foreign governments and investors than invest it in the health care 
of America's poor children. And it is incredible to me that my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who lecture us daily about 
fiscal constraints, did not make a peep about this fiscal catastrophe.
  The next question is, what are we getting for this money? The answer 
is, we are getting a slap in the face from the Iraqi leadership.
  Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist who has won three 
Pulitzer Prizes, reported yesterday that the Iraqi leaders who are 
supposed to be working on the political reconciliation needed to end 
the conflict have been more asleep at the switch than ever. Mr. 
Friedman writes: ``Study the travel itineraries of Iraq's principal 
factional leaders. Did they all rush to Baghdad to try to work out 
their differences'' after General Petraeus testified before the 
Congress? ``No. Many of them took off for abroad. As one U.S. official 
in Baghdad pointed out to me,'' and this is Mr. Friedman speaking, ``at 
no point since the testimony by General Petraeus . . . have you had the 
four key Iraqi leaders in the same country at the same time. They saw 
the hearings as buying them more time, and so they took it.''
  With American troops and innocent civilians continuing to die in 
Iraq, you would think our leaders in the White House would be on the 
phone ten times a day with the Iraqi leaders demanding that they get 
out of their La-Z-Boy recliners and get to work. But the White House 
shows no desire to knock heads together. What does the White House do 
instead? It sends us a request for another $46 billion for this 
occupation.
  We must tell the White House, ``Sorry, we've run out of blank 
checks.'' Then we must use our power of the purse to defund the 
occupation. Instead, we must fully fund the safe, orderly, and 
responsible redeployment of our troops out of Iraq, and that includes 
the withdrawal of all military contractors, including those trigger-
happy Blackwater boys who have given our country a black eye.
  Mr. Speaker, from now on every time the administration tells us it 
needs more money for its senseless occupation of Iraq, we have the 
perfect one-word answer, and that word is ``baloney.''

                          ____________________