[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10864-10870]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           THE DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP'S PLAN FOR FAILURE IN IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate so much the 
opportunity that my leadership has provided in me in allowing me to 
come and share some comments this evening on the floor on what is truly 
a momentous and historic day for our Nation.
  Within the last hour, as you know, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the 
President has fulfilled the promise that he made to the American 
people. That is to uphold and preserve and defend the Constitution of 
the United States; and in so doing, he has vetoed the legislation that 
was passed by the Democrat majority recently, last week, to provide not 
just funding for our troops in harm's way but also to make 535 
commanders in chief here in Congress and to spend an extra 20-odd 
billion dollars on what was supposed to be a clean, clear definition of 
the amount of resources needed by our troops to keep themselves safe 
and out of harm's way in both Iraq and Afghanistan. So within the last 
hour the President has vetoed that legislation, and this Congress will 
take up that veto tomorrow.
  Curiously, today we have had Members of the majority party come to 
the floor over and over and over again and express a peculiar amount of 
glee, glee that is highlighting their policy of failure and their 
policy of defeat. Frankly, I don't understand it, Mr. Speaker. Many of 
my constituents talked to me this past weekend when I was home and said 
they didn't understand it either. It was peculiar from their standpoint 
to understand and difficult to understand how the majority party in 
this Congress could believe that abandoning our troops in harm's way 
was an appropriate thing to do. And, consequently, I am as perplexed as 
they with the policy that this majority party has put in place.
  The policy that they have put in place, as is clear to everybody and 
we will talk about that a bit this evening, is to ensure defeat and to 
ensure failure of our troops. And it seems to be all, all, for 
politics, which is probably as sad and distressing as anything, Mr. 
Speaker.

                              {time}  1845

  The Democrat leadership continues to be committed to a plan for 
failure in Iraq, and they seem to be doing it, as I say for political 
points, scoring political points, political partnership, political 
grandstanding, whatever you want to call it.
  And some might ask, well, how can you be so certain of that? Well, 
Mr. Speaker, we get example day after day after day. And the most 
recent example is what happened today, and that is, that the bill that 
this Congress passed, this majority passed last week to provide 
artificial timelines and specific benchmarks for our troops on the 
ground and to add incredible billions of dollars of pork to the war 
supplemental, the bill was passed last week, and they did not send it 
to the White House until today. Now, the President took his 
responsibility seriously and he vetoed that and turned that bill around 
rapidly.
  But why, why, the American people are asking, why did it take nearly 
a week to send that bill to the White House? Every day that goes by, 
every day that is added on to our troops and our military not having 
the resources that they need to be able to protect themselves, to be 
able to continue the mission that they have defined, every day that 
goes by that makes it so that they have to rob from Peter to pay Paul, 
every day that goes by that makes it so that they are unable to repair 
munitions and armaments, every day that goes by is costly to our men 
and women in the military, and costly in a way that costs lives. And so 
every day that goes by, by design, is a flawed policy, is a policy for 
failure, and is clearly a policy that is grounded in politics only.
  So the question has to be asked, Mr. Speaker, well, why did it take 5 
days to send that bill to the President? Well, what we have seen today 
is the answer to that question; and that is, that the

[[Page 10865]]

other side, the majority party, clearly wanted to score their political 
points, to take advantage of a May 1 anniversary that they would 
define, to distort that terribly, but to take advantage of that 
anniversary for political points. It is sad, Mr. Speaker, it is truly, 
truly very sad.
  I came to the floor last Wednesday, when this House passed the bill, 
and I talked about it being a sad and a sobering day for America, and a 
shame. And I talked about it being a shame because the policy that this 
majority party has adopted is a policy that sends the wrong message to 
our troops, it sends the wrong message to our allies, and yes, Mr. 
Speaker, it sends the wrong message to our enemies. Because to our 
troops it says that we don't believe in you. We don't believe you can 
accomplish your mission. We don't believe that you have the ability to 
do what you say you can do. We don't believe in our general that we 
supported and endorsed by unanimous vote in the Senate just this year. 
The message to our troops says, ``We don't believe in you.''
  To our allies, the message is one that, I think if you look at it 
seriously, Mr. Speaker, is one that nobody would want to send. Because 
what it says to our allies is, with this majority party you can no 
longer trust the commitment and the word of the United States of 
America. That is what it says to our allies. I don't think that is the 
message, Mr. Speaker, that we ought to be sending around the world in 
this dangerous time.
  But probably the most important message is the message that it sends 
to our enemies. To our enemies it says, if you happen to have a 
difference with the United States of America and you believe that the 
destruction of the United States of America is at the core of your 
belief, then all you have to do is wait, all you have to do is wait; 
America will give up. That is the wrong message, Mr. Speaker. That is 
the wrong message. And it will ultimately end up in a more dangerous 
world if it is allowed to succeed.
  If that message is allowed to succeed by the policies of this Nation, 
it will ultimately end up in a more dangerous world. It will certainly 
end up in a more dangerous Middle East. And it will end up, I believe, 
and many scholars and experts in the military believe that it will end 
up causing greater amounts of casualties for the American people, and 
certainly for our military who will have to engage in a way and in a 
manner that is almost incomprehensible to us right now.
  Most of us in this Chamber, who we are privileged to serve, but most 
of us have members of the military who have come from our district; all 
of them have sacrificed to serve. They have recognized the importance 
of service to our Nation. They have stood up and they have said, I hear 
the call. If you talk to them, most of them will say that they are not 
in favor of the kind of policy that has been adopted by this majority 
party. One of them has been very open about that in this letter that I 
am going to read. It comes from a Lieutenant Jason Nichols, United 
States Navy, who is serving currently in Baghdad, in Iraq.
  The statements by the majority leader in the United States Senate 
recently about the war being lost have hit a nerve, they have struck a 
cord on the part of our men and women in the military. They have struck 
a cord across this Nation, Mr. Speaker. And the cord that they have 
struck is one that says, how on earth can we have a majority party, a 
majority leader who makes that kind of statement in the middle of 
conflict when our men and women are in harm's way? What kind of leader 
is that?
  This letter, as I say, comes from Lieutenant Jason Nichols, United 
States Navy, it is addressed to Senator Reid. And he says, ``Senator 
Reid, when you say we've lost in Iraq, I don't think you understand the 
effect of your words. The Iraqis I speak with are the good guys here, 
fighting to build a stable government. They hear what you say, but they 
don't understand it. They don't know about the political game, they 
don't know about a Presidential veto, and they don't know about party 
politics. But they do know that if they help us, they are noticed by 
terrorists and extremists, and they decide to help us if they think we 
can protect them from those terrorists. They tell us where caches of 
weapons are hidden. They call and report small groups of men who are 
strangers to the neighborhood, men that look the same to us but are 
obvious to them to be a foreign suicide cell.
  ``To be brief, your words are killing us. Your statements make the 
Iraqis afraid to help us for fear we will leave them unprotected in the 
future. They don't report a cache, and its weapons blow up my friends 
in a convoy. They don't report a foreign fighter, and that fighter 
sends a mortar onto my base. Your statements are noticed, and they have 
an effect.
  ``Finally, you are mistaken when you say we are losing. We are 
winning, I see it every day. However, we will win with fewer casualties 
if you will help us. Will you?''
  Respectfully, Lieutenant Jason Nichols, United States Navy.
  Do you hear that, Mr. Speaker? The message that we are sending to our 
enemy, as I said, is all you have to do, if you oppose the United 
States, is just wait. But it is more than that, isn't it, Mr. Speaker? 
As Lieutenant Nichols said, quote, ``To be brief, your words are 
killing us.'' Mr. Speaker, who is ``us'' in that letter? Who is ``us''? 
``Us,'' Mr. Speaker, are the brave men and women who stand up and fight 
on behalf of the United States of America, who stand up and defend our 
liberty and our freedom.
  Mr. Speaker, there are some people in my district who wonder why the 
action of Members of Congress who will make those kinds of statements, 
why that isn't defined as treason. I get asked those questions at home. 
They are tough to answer. They are tough to answer. I ask you, Mr. 
Speaker, why? Why? Why do we have leaders that make those kinds of 
statements?
  It is not just members of the military that are saying that this 
policy that's being adopted and the kind of language that's being used 
are detrimental to our Nation and to our alliances and to our men and 
women in harm's way. There are all sorts of press reports and press 
opinions, editorials across this Nation that say what on earth are the 
Democrats doing? What on earth is the majority party doing?
  The Chicago Tribune described the Democrat surrender bill as ``Self-
Defeating.'' They had in an editorial on the 27th of April, just 4 or 5 
days ago, ``Establishing a timetable now would be self-defeating. A new 
defense secretary and a new commander on the ground should have time 
and flexibility to see if they can succeed where their predecessors 
failed,'' which is exactly what Americans believe. But there is this 
peculiar glee on the other side of the aisle that they are 
accomplishing something for political gain; however, that something 
puts America at greater risk.
  The Chicago Tribune goes on to say, ``President Bush will veto the 
spending bill approved by Congress this week because it contains a 
timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq. He is right to 
do so.'' Mr. Speaker, this isn't a paper that is known to be terribly 
supportive of this President, but they understand the consequences of 
the actions of this majority party, they understand that they put us at 
greater risk.
  And finally, the editorial from the 27th of April from the Chicago 
Tribune goes on to say, ``Establishing a congressionally mandated 
timetable for withdrawal would straitjacket the ability of General 
Davis Petraeus, the top commander on the ground, to pursue the 
stabilization of Iraq as events and conditions warrant.
  ``Senator Harry Reid said recently the war is lost. This legislation 
would all but guarantee it.''
  So in addition to having a certain amount of glee with the actions 
that are occurring, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Democrat 
leadership in both the Senate and the House is vested in the defeat of 
the United States in Iraq. They are now on record as being in favor of 
the defeat of the United States. It is a very peculiar strategy, Mr. 
Speaker. And the only way it makes sense is if you believe

[[Page 10866]]

that this Congress ought to act for short-term political gain by a 
given political party; that is the only way it makes sense. No other 
way could it be deemed as being appropriate for the policy of this 
Nation to hamstring, to handcuff, to tie the ability of our generals on 
the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan to make decisions. It seems truly 
that failure and defeat are the goal of the majority party. How sad, 
how sad for a once proud party in this Nation to have failure for the 
United States be their new strategy.
  The Wall Street Journal sees it similarly. They say that Washington 
Democrats are taking ownership of the defeat in Iraq. In an editorial 
on April 25, just last month, they say, ``In calling for withdrawal, 
Mr. Reid and his allies, just as with Vietnam, may think they are 
merely following polls that show the public is unhappy with the war. 
Yet Americans will come to dislike a humiliation and its aftermath even 
more, especially if they realize that a withdrawal from Iraq now will 
only make it harder to stabilize the region and defeat Islamist 
radicals. And they will like it even less should we be required to re-
enter the country someday under far worse circumstances.''
  It is peculiar, when you think about it, Mr. Speaker, because what 
you hear from the other side, what you hear from the Democrat majority 
in all of their discussion and all of their points, their political 
partisan points that they make about this, all that you hear is about 
this issue of failure. You never hear about what the next step is.
  We are going to talk about that a little bit tonight, about what the 
next step ought to be, about the consequences for failure. Because it 
is important that the American people appreciate that the decisions 
made in this Congress will affect this Nation for a long period of time 
if the decisions aren't made in the light of day and with eyes wide 
open about what the consequences of failure in this day and time in the 
Middle East will be.
  The Wall Street Journal also went on to say, ``At least Mr. Bush and 
his commanders are now trying to make up for previous mistakes with a 
strategy to put Prime Minister Maliki's government on a stronger 
footing, secure Baghdad and the Sunni provinces against al Qaeda, and 
allow for an eventual honorable U.S. withdrawal. That's more than can 
be said for Mr. Reid and the Democratic left, who are making the job 
for our troops more difficult by undermining U.S. morale and Iraqi 
confidence in American support.''

                              {time}  1900

  It gets to the issue of what kind of message, Mr. Speaker, we are 
sending to our allies.
  The San Diego Tribune was another paper that weighed in on this 
issue. They went on to describe the Democrat surrender bill as ``a sham 
that is detrimental to our efforts.'' They said, ``The Democratic 
campaign is a textbook lesson in why the war cannot be managed by a 
committee of 535 bitterly divided lawmakers. The Constitution gives 
Congress control of the Federal purse strings, to be sure, but this 
authority has never been an effective instrument for directing forces 
in a combat zone. The Constitution gives that authority to the 
commander-in-chief alone.''
  This brings up the interesting issue, Mr. Speaker, of how this 
Congress can believe that it ought to be having 535 commanders-in-
chief. It doesn't make any sense, because it puts every one of the 
Members of Congress who believe that they know better what ought to go 
on on the ground in a position that ties the hands of our generals.
  It is not unusual for the Democrat party to believe that Congress 
knows best. Oftentimes their decisions affect people in kind of 
peripheral and tangential ways. In this decision, Mr. Speaker, it 
affects our military men and women who are putting themselves in harm's 
way very directly and adversely.
  Now, I want to be clear that those of us in the Republican Party 
believe that this is an appropriate debate for Congress to have. It is 
appropriate for Congress to say, as the paper that I just cited says, 
that Congress has the power of the purse string, and it is appropriate 
for Congress to say, if it so desires, if the majority party so 
desires, that we ought not fund the troops anymore in Iraq or in 
Afghanistan or wherever else this majority party deems that it is not 
appropriate for us to fund troops. That is an appropriate debate. That 
is a clear debate, that is a clear vote, which is why we asked for a 
clear vote, a clean vote, on the war supplemental. Because, Mr. 
Speaker, when that happens, then it is very clear what people are 
voting upon. That, yes, we believe there ought to be resources 
available for our men and women in harm's way; or, no, we do not. That 
is a clear vote.
  We muddy the waters and we confound the issue and we do a disservice 
to our Constitution and we do a disservice to our men and women in the 
field, certainly, when we put arbitrary timelines and benchmarks in a 
bill that clearly, clearly, is not appropriate, and makes it so that 
the Constitution becomes undermined.
  The San Diego Union Tribune goes on to say more on April 26. General 
Petraeus was here, who is the Commander of American forces in Iraq on 
the ground. He visited this Congress last Wednesday and was not given 
the opportunity to speak to the House of Representatives as a whole in 
this Chamber. In fact, it is curious, Mr. Speaker, because the Speaker 
of this House went out of her way to visit the President of Syria on a 
visit recently to the Middle East, but she didn't go out of her way to 
visit with the American commanding general when he visited Congress.
  So, the San Diego Tribune last week said, ``Yesterday's pleas to 
lawmakers by General David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, not to 
micromanage the war were brushed off without serious consideration in 
the House's partisan stampede. Meanwhile, essential funding for the 
troops has been sidetracked by the phony legislative exercise playing 
out on Capitol Hill.''
  That is what I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that the only rational 
conclusion that one could come to about why we are going through this 
process, why we are going through this ``sham bill,'' as the San Diego 
Union Tribune calls it, why we are going through this exercise and 
putting the American people and our troops in harm's way through this 
exercise, is all about politics. It is all about politics. How sad, Mr. 
Speaker. How sad.
  The Union Tribune concludes, ``And even though this sham bill is 
merely a political show, the Democratic majorities in the House and 
Senate managed to lard it up with nearly $25 billion in wasteful pork, 
most of it entirely unrelated to war funding.''
  So, Mr. Speaker, it is not just our men and women in the field who 
say that this is a wrong-headed policy. It is not just those of us on 
the minority side of the aisle who say that this is a wrong-headed 
policy and it sends the wrong message to our troops and to our allies 
and to our enemies. It is cogent individuals across this Nation who 
have come to that same conclusion.
  The opportunity to come to the floor is a true privilege and a great 
opportunity to share with the American people what our belief is about 
this supplemental war bill, and I am pleased to be joined by a 
colleague, the gentlelady from Tennessee, Congresswoman Blackburn, who 
is a true leader in this House and has been a true leader on this 
issue, because she understands and appreciates the importance and the 
consequences of the decisions that we make as they relate to our troops 
in the field and as they relate to our Nation and to our future liberty 
and our future freedom.
  I am so pleased you would join us this evening. I look forward to 
your comments.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia so 
very much. I appreciate his diligence on the issue.
  Mr. Speaker, as we have been through this issue and with our troops, 
I have got a letter with me tonight that I received from one of our men 
and women that is in Baghdad who is thanking me for the support and 
thanking so many Members of the

[[Page 10867]]

House for their support in standing with them and their families and 
supporting our troops. I think it is so interesting how they have 
viewed this and kind of the filter they view this issue of our troop 
funding from.
  As I read that letter and as I have been home over the weekend and 
talked to so many of my National Guard families, talked to so many of 
the military families that call Tennessee's Seventh District home, one 
of the things that has been mentioned repeatedly is, ``Marsha, I hope 
that people in Washington look at this debate and that they take a 
little bit of a historical view to this and focus on what should be 
some lessons learned.'' Because there are lots of lessons learned, or 
should be lots of lessons learned in this, Mr. Speaker.
  One of the ones that was highlighted for me by one of my constituents 
is that we have to realize when you go back and you look at the decade 
of the nineties and look at the view that then President Clinton took 
of the military, saying, well, the wall has come down. Well, we have 
survived these threats. Well, let's reduce funding to the military. 
Well, let's reduce funding on intelligence. Let's put it into domestic 
programs, social service programs.
  Then the unintended consequence, I am sure he would say, is when you 
look at what happens when you have to go back through that rebuilding 
process. When you hear from those in our intelligence agencies and in 
the FBI and the CIA that say, my goodness, it takes 5 years for us to 
develop an asset in these countries. When you hear from our men and 
women in uniform about the importance of maintenance, maintenance on 
those posts, maintenance on that equipment, R&D and how that should 
have been continued. When they point to equipment and artillery that 
didn't get developed. We have to look at that as a lesson learned and 
realize, yes, indeed, you do get peace through strength, and you 
maintain it by being certain that you are ever-vigilant and that you 
are always making certain we fulfill the constitutional duty to provide 
for the common defense.
  There are lessons learned, and I hope that this body does take it 
seriously, and I hope that our friends across the aisle will join us 
and say let's be fair to our military, to those families and to those 
troops, because for the debate that has taken place, for the rhetoric 
that has been spewed, for some of the statements that have been made, 
there are many of them that can look at this and say they are not being 
fair to us and they are not being fair to the job that we would do.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's 
comments. I am struck by the general sense by the majority party, or 
seeming sense by the majority party, that their actions don't really 
make any difference to date. In fact, the delay we have already had, I 
have heard from some folks in the military that they are not able to 
keep up some of the repair of some of the equipment in other areas, not 
in the field of war right now, but in other areas, which makes us less 
safe as a nation.
  I was wondering if you had anybody you talked with who was giving a 
similar story?
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yes, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Yes, 
indeed, we hear this regularly, not only from our Guardsmen, but we 
also hear it from those that are on active duty, that are moving 
forward and readying for another deployment. They talk about how they 
work to make ends meet, and they talk about how deeply it hurt the 
ongoing progress of developing different equipment and protocols as 
funding was cut through the nineties.
  I think another thing that we have to remember, and this has been 
highlighted by a couple of my constituents who are so wonderful and 
love keeping up with the issue, is we have to remember on September 11, 
2001, we were not under a George Bush budget. We were still under the 
last Clinton budget. The focus was shifting for that budget that was 
going into place on the first of October in 2001.
  Actually, Mr. Speaker, I think everybody realizes that prior to 
September 11, this Nation had responded to acts of terrorism as civil 
disobedience. September 11, all of that changed and we called it what 
it is, and that is a war. Because no one can deny, and I do think it is 
foolhardy to stand and say, oh, there is no such thing as a global war 
on terror. Everybody knows there is, because they know we have a very 
dedicated, very focused enemy. You can listen to their own words. They 
want to annihilate us and end our way of life.
  I think it would not be wise for us to let that go unattended. We are 
right to respond with diligence and tenacity and focus to make certain 
that we defeat the radical Islamic jihadists who want to tear our 
Nation and our communities apart by the very fabric that holds them 
together.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate those comments, because it is an 
incredible privilege and honor to represent a nation where we have men 
and women who are willing to stand up and serve, to volunteer to stand 
up and serve to protect the freedoms that you describe, which is why in 
my district people are so confounded by the kind of policy that is 
being pushed by the majority party at this point. Because what they see 
is a majority party now that is saying to our troops, we don't believe 
in you, we don't believe you can accomplish your mission. It is saying 
to our allies that you can't believe in the commitment of the United 
States. And it says to our enemies that all you have to do is wait. It 
is very strange policy.
  I yield to the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, indeed, we see that. The message that it sends, actions 
do speak louder than words. We heard that as children growing up, 
``your actions are going to say more about your intent than the words 
that you speak.'' And we know that.
  The message that it is sending by the actions is one that does not 
serve us well, in my opinion. It is one that causes our intent to be 
called into question, because we know what the enemy would do with us 
if they were given the chance. We have to realize that we have to be 
vigilant and we cannot let down our guard, not for a minute, not for an 
hour, not for a day. We have to continue to work to defeat this enemy.
  So many of my constituents have called about the bill. I brought a 
copy of the bill today to the floor with me, and here it is. It is I 
think 93 pages when we printed the whole thing out. It is not that 
difficult to read. I can even read parts of it without my reading 
glasses, the print is big enough, and I like that. It makes it a little 
bit easier to focus on.

                              {time}  1915

  For constituents who are watching tonight and want to follow along 
through the debate with us, I would encourage them, go to 
thomas.loc.gov. That is all you have to enter in your search engine. 
When you get in thomas.loc.gov to query the site, enter ``H.R. 1591.'' 
That is the number on this bill. I do encourage individuals to go in 
and pull this down so they can see what is contained in here.
  Now some of the comments that I have had, and you mentioned this 
earlier, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Democrat 
majority, ran railing against pork spending. From so many of our 
families I have heard: How in the world could they have drafted a bill 
that had money for all of these different interests? It sounds like a 
grocery list when you talk about beef and cheese and dairy products and 
spinach and shrimp. And when you look at the intent or what we have 
come to believe that they want to do, which was not put it through 
PAYGO rules, not put it through regular order, but slide it in here 
because they felt this was something Members couldn't refuse to vote 
for.
  How unfair to our troops and our military families, to put this on 
their back and saddle them with this $24 billion worth of pork barrel 
spending. It is not what they said they were going to do; and quite 
frankly, I don't think that is the kind of change that the American 
people wanted to see.

[[Page 10868]]


  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate you bringing up the extra $20-plus 
billion in the bill. And I am not often struck by the candor of some of 
our friends in the Democratic Party, but I was moved and struck by the 
candor of the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. 
Rangel, who was on one of the Sunday shows. I think it was ``Meet the 
Press'' with Mr. Russert. And Mr. Russert said: Why did you put all of 
that money in the bill? And Chairman Rangel, to his remarkable credit 
of candor said ``because we needed the votes.''
  So it is clear that the reason that the extra $20-plus billion of 
pork spending is in that bill is because, exactly as you said, they 
believe that people won't be able to vote against the bill if that kind 
of pork spending is in it.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. That is right. It is so unfortunate. What we need is 
a clean bill that allows a good debate over how we are moving forward 
in Iraq.
  I think it has been striking to see the Senate confirm and give a 
vote of support for General David Petraeus who is commanding our 
efforts in Iraq, a very scholarly general. He truly is a leader for our 
men and women and for the Iraqis. He has great respect from them.
  But then to turnaround and say we are going to second guess or Monday 
morning quarterback your decisions and we are not going to give the 
funding and we are not going to give it in a timely manner. As the 
gentleman from Georgia was so eloquently stating earlier, there comes a 
time when you have to look at it and talk about what their intent is, 
and if they even trust the troops, if they even trust the commanders in 
the field to have the flexibility that they need to respond.
  Certainly today we have seen and have noted the demise of al-Masri 
who is the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Now I know that it is probably a 
subject that the majority doesn't want to talk about, that al-Masri was 
killed in Iraq, had been found there and had been working there. So it 
leads one to ask the question: What was he doing in Iraq? Why was he in 
Iraq? And why was it that he met his death in Iraq?
  Well, the answer to that question is he was there because he and the 
other terrorists and the other terrorist groups all tell us the central 
front of the global war on terror is in Iraq. This is where they are 
fighting it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank you once again for pointing out this 
incredibly prescient and clear perspective on this issue, if people in 
the majority party would just step back and take a look. And that is 
why it is important that you pointed out that the bill number is H.R. 
1591 and how to find it online at www.thomas.loc.gov, and I urge people 
to look at the area in the bill that has the artificial time lines and 
benchmarks. What we oftentimes hear from our friends on the other side 
of the aisle is there is no specific time line; but the bill is very 
specific. It says by October 1, we will begin to bring the troops home.
  So it is clear that their mission is politics. The majority party's 
mission is politics. There can be no other reason for the remarkably 
foolish, if you want to support the United States, the remarkably 
foolish policy that they put on the table. The only reason can be 
politics, and short-term politics at that.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. One of the things that is so disappointing to me, 
having as many veterans and as many military families and members of 
the military as I have in my district, one of the things that is 
disappointing to me is they may want to do this over and over and over 
and delay the funding that gets to those troops.
  One of the things that it always brings to mind, if you don't want to 
get the money to them and you don't want to get it to them in a timely 
manner, and you want to push benchmarks on our troops, then you have to 
be able to answer some questions. You've got to answer the question: 
What is going to happen if we leave?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Absolutely.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. What is going to happen if we leave Iraq? What are 
the Iraqi people going to do if we leave Iraq? What is going to happen 
in the Middle East?
  Somebody asked me earlier today, asked me, how many more people have 
to die? I said that is the question to ask the terrorists: How many 
more people have to die?
  But what we do know is that we cannot let down our guard. We do have 
to continue to fight. We have to realize terror and the war on terror 
is a new enemy. They do not have a headquarters. They do not show 
allegiance to a country. They do not wear a uniform. They are an 
illusive enemy.
  Right now they are saying the central battle front is Iraq. September 
11, 2001, we know where that central battle front was.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Exactly.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. We know. And what we have to do is be certain that we 
meet our obligation to our men and women in uniform and that we send a 
message to every terrorist that is breathing on the face of the earth 
that we will not stop.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentlelady because it is the 
question that needs to be asked, and it is a question that our friends 
on the other side of the aisle asked all the time about what the 
President asked once Saddam fell, what next? What we ask them now, 
given our current situation: Where is your strategy? If you succeed 
with your policy of ending the funding for the troops and ending our 
involvement in Iraq, what next? What happens then?
  There are some very good scholarly individuals who have looked at 
this, and they have said what they believe will happen next. In fact, 
the chart that I have here shows what the National Intelligence 
Estimate, the NIE, says will happen if we fail in Iraq. That is 
important because that group, the National Intelligence Estimate, is 
the group that our good friends cite all of the time, incorrectly, I 
might add oftentimes, but they cite them as the source for information 
about what ought to be done in Iraq.
  But what the National Intelligence Estimate has said that the 
consequences of failure in Iraq would be: ``Coalition capabilities, 
including force levels, resources, and operations remain an essential, 
stabilizing element in Iraq.'' Essential stabilizing element in Iraq.
  Last week when General Petraeus was here and what he said, and it was 
so distorted by our friends on the other side of the aisle, but what he 
said on April 26 was: ``As I noted during my confirmation hearing, 
military action is necessary but not sufficient. We can provide the 
Iraqis an opportunity, but they will have to exploit it.''
  He also said: ``And again I note that we are just really getting 
started with the new effort.''
  He went on to say: ``Success will take continued commitment, 
perseverance and sacrifice, all to make possible an opportunity for the 
all-important Iraqi political actions that are the key to long-term 
solutions to Iraqi's many problems. And because we are operating in new 
areas and challenging elements in those areas, this effort may get 
harder before it gets easier.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of information that is imperative for 
this Congress to appreciate and recognize and utilize in its formula 
for where we go from here. If we ignore that kind of information from 
our general that was unanimously approved by our Senate, if we ignore 
that kind of information, we do so at our peril.
  So what happens if we have failure in Iraq, according to the National 
Intelligence Estimate, well, one, Iraqi security forces would be 
subject to sectarian control. What does that mean? That means in 
essence the nation breaks into three warring factions, three warring 
factions, and some would say that is what is happening right now. The 
difference is there would be no stabilizing influence whatsoever, and 
the estimates are that ten of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of 
Iraqis would be slaughtered. Mr. Speaker, that is a sobering 
assessment. That is a sobering assessment.
  Secondly, interference by neighboring countries in an open conflict 
is what the National Intelligence Estimate says is likely with failure 
in Iraq. What does that mean.
  Mr. Speaker, as you well know, what that means is that the 
conflagration,

[[Page 10869]]

the battles, the war in Iraq becomes a war in the larger Middle East in 
a way that can only be described as a nightmare not just for the Middle 
East but for peace in the world, for peace in the world.
  The National Intelligence Estimate went on to say there would be 
massive civilian casualties and population displacement, as I mentioned 
before. The estimates range from tens of thousands to hundreds of 
thousands of individuals slaughtered, killed, murdered, in sectarian 
violence that would put the kind of violence that we are seeing right 
now, which is horrendous, but it would make it seem like just a 
prelude, just a prelude.
  Fourth, the al Qaeda in Iraq would plan increased attacks inside and 
outside Iraq.
  This is important because if al Qaeda, if in the larger war on terror 
which we sometimes or oftentimes in this Chamber seem to lose sight of, 
but if in the larger war on terror the terrorists, the Islamic 
terrorists whose stated desire is to wipe Israel off the map and to end 
our way of life, that is their stated desire, not my opinion, that is 
their stated desire. If we fail in Iraq, what results is a haven of 
significant size and significant ability to attract terrorists in a way 
and to allow them the opportunity to plot for significant violence and 
attacks both inside and outside Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, as we saw outside Iraq doesn't just mean next door. It 
means around the world. As we saw on September 11, around the world can 
mean violence and horrendous activities visiting our shores when we 
least expect it.
  Finally, the National Intelligence Estimate says there will be 
spiraling violence and political disarray, including Kurdish attempts 
at autonomy in Kirkuk. What that means is the nation breaks apart. And 
if Iraq breaks apart in the way that the National Intelligence Estimate 
has stated would be the likely outcome of failure in Iraq, if that 
nation breaks apart, what happens is it becomes a magnet for terrorism 
and a terrorist haven in the Middle East, a less stable Middle East, a 
more endangered Middle East, an emboldened enemy, a likely scenario 
that would bring about significant violence upon our shores once again.

                              {time}  1930

  So, Mr. Speaker, the consequence of the actions that have been 
adopted by this majority party, by this bill that the President has 
vetoed this evening, the consequences of moving forward with that same 
kind of legislation, which the majority party has threatened to do, and 
``threatened'' is the right term because it threatens to place, Mr. 
Speaker, at greatest risk and in greater harm's way, if we continue 
along that path, what we do is bring about a less stable Middle East, 
certainly a less stable Iraq, a greater threat to Israel and other 
Nations in the Middle East and certainly a greater threat to the United 
States.
  I was quoting earlier, Mr. Speaker, from some news reports and 
newspapers from around the Nation on what they believed was the essence 
of this bill that the President has appropriately vetoed this evening.
  The Washington Times said that, ``The Democrats' lack of interest in 
the real-world impact of their legislation is reflected in their shabby 
treatment of the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lieutenant General 
David Petraeus. Last week, House Democratic leaders initially declined 
General Petraeus' invitation to brief Members, reversing themselves 
only after coming under fire from Republicans. And by tying funding for 
the war to a surrender bill that the President will veto, the Democrats 
are showing studied contempt for our troops in the field.''
  Studied contempt, Mr. Speaker, which brings me back to the original 
letter that I read from Lieutenant Jason Nichols, who clearly 
appreciates this studied contempt, but also takes it to the next step 
and describes what that studied contempt does. I quote Lieutenant 
Nichols once again, ``To be brief, your words are killing us.''
  A powerful statement, Mr. Speaker, and we ought to be listening. We 
ought to be listening to the brave men and women who stand up to defend 
our liberty.
  The Washington Times went on to say on April 26, ``When it came to 
the 150,000 U.S. troops now fighting in Iraq, lawmakers included enough 
poison-pill language to ensure a presidential veto which will in turn 
delay much-needed support for military operations in Iraq.''
  In another paragraph in that same article on April 26, ``To satisfy 
the MoveOn.org types, particularly in the House, the bill stars the 
pullout as early as nine and a half weeks from now. In an effort to 
provide political cover for House `Blue Dogs' from more conservative 
districts who want to vote with Mrs. Pelosi, it contains troop-
withdrawal language that sets a `goal' for pulling out rather than a 
deadline.''
  However, Mr. Speaker, if you read the bill H.R. 1591, what it states, 
indeed, is a hard and fast deadline.
  I want to quote one more individual who has stood tall and taken a 
lot of heat for it, and this is Senator Joseph Lieberman who last week 
wrote in the Washington Post that the Democrat surrender bill is 
``dangerously wrong.''
  He went on to say, ``And today, perversely, the Senate is likely to 
vote on a binding timeline of withdrawal from Iraq. This reaction is 
dangerously wrong. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both 
the reality in Iraq and the nature of the enemy we are fighting there. 
What is needed in Iraq policy is not overheated rhetoric but a sober 
assessment of the progress we have made and the challenges we still 
face.''
  He went on to say on April 25 of this year, ``Indeed, to the extent 
that last week's bloodshed clarified anything, it is that the battle of 
Baghdad is increasingly a battle against al Qaeda. Whether we like it 
or not, al Qaeda views the Iraqi capital as a central front of its war 
against us.''
  Finally in that article, Mr. Speaker, Senator Lieberman said, ``In 
the two months since Petraeus took command, the United States and its 
Iraqi allies have made encouraging progress on two problems that once 
seemed intractable: tamping down the Shiite-led sectarian violence that 
paralyzed Baghdad until recently and consolidating support from Iraqi 
Sunnis, particularly in Anbar, a province dismissed just a few months 
ago as hopelessly mired in insurgency.''
  So, Mr. Speaker, where do we go from here? Well, I think that it is 
time for the majority party to regroup, to reassess, to appreciate that 
what they have done is spent four months on a policy that is candidly 
shameful; that brings about a discredit and a disservice to our troops; 
that sends the wrong message to our allies saying that you cannot trust 
the United States of America; and certainly sends the wrong message to 
our enemies saying that if you oppose the United States and you are in 
a conflict, all you have got to do is wait because the United States 
will not live up to its commitment.
  So, Mr. Speaker, what we need to do from here, the President has 
vetoed this bill this evening. I would challenge the leadership in the 
majority party to bring the House together. I would challenge the 
Senate to work together in a bipartisan way and come up with a bill 
that the President can sign and to do so in very rapid fashion. Every 
day that we delay makes it more harmful for our troops, makes it so 
they know not whether or not they will get the resources that they need 
to carry on their mission, makes it less predictable, continues to 
erode their morale because of the comments like the ones by the Senate 
majority leader last week. So we must in short order come together and 
pass a bill that the President can sign.
  Mr. Speaker, regardless of what you believe, what one believes about 
the nature of this battle and whether or not it is indeed the central 
front of the war on terror, it is incumbent that we live up to our 
responsibilities, to our oath as Members of the United States House of 
Representatives, that we live up to the responsibility and the duty 
that we have. That primary responsibility is to preserve and to protect 
and to defend the United States.
  I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that one of the issues about preserving 
and

[[Page 10870]]

protecting and defending the United States is making certain that the 
men and women who stand up and volunteer to protect our liberty and our 
freedom deserve all of our support and the resources that they require 
to protect themselves and to carry out their missions.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I challenge the leadership of the House and the 
Senate to make certain that this week we act to bring forth a bill that 
will pass both chambers of this Congress, and that the President can 
sign, that does a credit and honors our troops; that sends the correct 
message to our allies, and that is, that you can count on the word of 
the United States of America; and sends the correct message to our 
enemies, and that is, that if you engage the United States in military 
battle, that you have met an enemy that you cannot defeat.

                          ____________________