[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5964-5970]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             CPC HOUR: IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, first, let me just say I'm very 
pleased to anchor this Congressional Progressive Caucus Special Order 
on Iraq with my colleague from California, Congresswoman Maxine Waters.
  Let me also take a moment to thank Congresswoman Waters, who is the 
founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus. Congresswoman Waters had the vision 
and the determination to pull together Members of the House who really 
needed some space, who needed to be able to provide legislative 
strategies and to beat the drum to end this war in Iraq. The country 
owes Congresswoman Waters a debt of gratitude, and we thank you very 
much for that.
  I also want to acknowledge Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, who retired 
from Congress at the end of last year, but who loomed so large during 
this Special Order, given her incredible leadership in working to end 
the war in Iraq and to bring our troops home. She is and remains our 
sister in arms when it comes to working for global peace and security 
for our children, all of our collective work.
  It was no wonder that many observers called Congresswomen Waters, 
Woolsey, and myself ``The Triad,'' but it was actually Congresswoman 
Woolsey who coined this term in our formation.

                              {time}  1520

  We are here today to reflect back on the 10-year anniversary of the 
start of the unnecessary, immoral, and costly war and to remember and 
pay tribute to the sacrifices of our troops, those who lost their 
lives, the injured, their families, and their loved ones, many of whom 
are still grappling with the scars and the impact of the war. We are 
also here to reflect on the costs of this war in blood and treasure. On 
the costs of this war: $800 billion, 4,486 soldiers, an untold number 
of Iraqi civilians, countless refugees, and also on the lost 
opportunity costs of this war to our country.
  Instead of spending $800 billion on Iraq, we could have created jobs, 
rebuilt our crumbling infrastructure or invested in our schools to 
provide every child with a 21st century education. Sadly, this list 
goes on and on. It is especially painful when we understand that this 
war never should have

[[Page 5965]]

happened in the first place. It was a war of choice. It was 
unnecessary; it was immoral; and it was wrong.
  Over 10 years now in the run-up to the war, there were those of us in 
Congress and millions of people in the antiwar movement who fought the 
launch of this war. We had questions about weapons of mass destruction 
claims. We pushed for hearings; we called for a full debate; and we 
called to halt the rush to war.
  In October 2002, the Bush administration pushed for invading Iraq. 
During that time, I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I proposed an 
amendment, which the Rules Committee made in order. We brought that 
amendment to the floor, which would have required the United Nations to 
continue with weapons inspections. At that time, I stated on this House 
floor that unilateralism is really not the answer. If Iraqi weapons of 
mass destruction are a problem to the world community, yes, we must 
confront it. We must do so through the United Nations, and we must 
determine whether or not there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. 
There were 72 of my colleagues who voted in favor of this amendment, 
which would have led us to the same conclusion that so many soldiers 
lost their lives and limbs to reach--that there were no weapons of mass 
destruction in Iraq. We all know the tragedy that followed.
  The Bush administration launched its war of choice, claimed its 
``mission accomplished,'' and chose to send pallets of shrink-wrapped 
cash and more of our brave young men and women to fight on and on--
despite the fact that there was no real military solution to the 
quagmire that the Bush administration created.
  It is important to remember that this war did not go unchallenged, 
that there was a tremendous groundswell of opposition and that that was 
critical in demanding its end and in helping to bring it to a close, 
finally, under President Obama. In Congress, this opposition was 
centered around the Out of Iraq Caucus, which Congresswoman Waters, 
whom I mentioned earlier, founded, and Congresswoman Woolsey and I 
helped cofound. This was in 2005. Together, we held ad hoc hearings 
that the Republican congressional leadership refused to hold or 
participate in. We held press conferences, wrote op-eds, and took the 
floor to sound the alarm.
  Here I need to acknowledge, as I know Congresswoman Waters will--
because I know this is a very important benchmark to acknowledge--that 
Congresswoman Woolsey on this point delivered 441 floor speeches over 
the last decade to call for the war's end.
  We worked with our grassroots allies, like MoveOn, Win Without War, 
Progressive Democrats of America, the Friends Committee on National 
Legislation, United for Peace and Justice, Peace Action, and with great 
leaders like Tom Hayden and others, to help build a movement to bring 
our troops home.
  I recall vividly when we marched here in Washington, D.C., past the 
White House, with hundreds of thousands of protesters in opposition to 
the war. These marches and rallies and actions happened all across this 
country. I have to say, in northern California and especially in the 
East Bay and in San Francisco--the entire Bay Area of California--they 
were really at the forefront of this effort. Of course we worked the 
legislative process as hard as we possibly could. There were many 
members of the Out of Iraq Caucus who led important legislative efforts 
to end the war:
  I recall clearly the efforts of Congresswoman Woolsey, who offered 
the very first sense of Congress resolution calling for an end to the 
war and to bring our troops home. From what I remember, she received 
approximately 132, 133 votes for that resolution, but that was another 
defining moment;
  There was a resolution that I offered very early on to repeal the 
doctrine of preemption--that's preemptive war. In other words, let's 
start a war to prevent a future war, which the President claimed in 
waging the war in Iraq;
  There was the McGovern amendment, led by Congressman McGovern, who 
led on the effort to bring a responsible end to the war by calling for 
a timetable;
  Then, of course, my annual Lee amendment: to limit the funding for 
the safe, timely, and orderly withdrawal of our troops. What this Lee 
amendment was trying to accomplish was to stop the funding and to end 
combat operations but to protect our troops and contractors and bring 
them home.
  One of my amendments, the Lee amendment, eventually was signed into 
law, which was to prohibit permanent bases in Iraq. Now that is and was 
and continues to be the law of the land. There were so many other 
efforts led by members of the Out of Iraq Caucus--from amendments, to 
resolutions, to letters, and to floor actions.
  I want to yield now to my colleague from California and just, once 
again, thank her for her tremendous leadership in case she has to leave 
early before this hour ends.
  Ms. WATERS. I would like to take a moment to express my sincere 
gratitude and appreciation for Congresswoman Barbara Lee.
  I want to thank her for having the vision to organize today's 
activities and to say to me and to our other friend Lynn Woolsey: let 
us not let this moment pass without reminding this country that it was 
10 years ago that we were involved in the invasion of Iraq. Let us talk 
about the consequences of that, and let us do everything that we can to 
continue to be a voice for peace.
  I want to thank you, Barbara Lee, not only for today, but I am 
reminded of the courageous action that you took when you warned us, 
when there was legislation authorizing the use of military force, that 
we should have all been against it. However, you were the lone vote in 
the House of Representatives who voted against that authorization. So I 
thank you for your work, for your guidance, and for your leadership.
  You are absolutely correct. In June of 2005, I became the chair and a 
founding member of the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus, along with 
you, Representative Barbara Lee, and, of course, our friend 
Representative Lynn Woolsey. As a matter of fact, we became known as 
``The Triad.'' I want you to know that a combination of actions that we 
took helped to galvanize this Congress and to increase attention on 
this very issue. I will never forget the over 441 speeches that were 
made on the floor by our friend Congresswoman Woolsey. She is not here 
today because she has retired, but we will always remember the care and 
concern that she gave to this issue.
  On March 19, 2003, the brave men and women of our Armed Forces were 
ordered into service in Iraq. In the following years, nearly 4,500 of 
those servicemembers did not return home to the United States, and tens 
of thousands would come back wounded, injured--their lives changed 
forever.
  I voted against the war authorization in the first place, and in 
hindsight, I know there are many Members who also wish they had voted 
against it. It was in that spirit that the Out of Iraq Caucus was 
established: to bring to the House of Representatives an ongoing debate 
about the war in Iraq and to urge the return of U.S. servicemembers to 
their families as soon as possible. The Out of Iraq Caucus provided a 
real voice in Congress for the individuals and groups who supported 
these efforts.
  We had a membership of nearly 80 Representatives from diverse 
constituencies. As a caucus, we kept in close communication with 
congressional leadership and with committee chairmen to drive Congress 
toward our objective of ending the war in Iraq. We also worked with 
other congressional caucuses and national organizations to hold 
hearings, press conferences, and town hall meetings to educate the 
American people and to pressure the Bush administration to conclude the 
war in Iraq.

                              {time}  1530

  At the time, our most important legislative goal was to end the Iraq 
war and bring our troops home to their families. Our work helped define 
the national debate on how this could be accomplished.

[[Page 5966]]

  We again organized community rallies against a war, we marched in 
parades, we held press conferences, we worked with the mothers of many 
of our young men and women who were in the war, who were serving in the 
war, and we worked with many of the veterans organizations.
  I, too, offered a series of legislation to buttress our opposition 
that our troops must be safely and speedily redeployed from Iraq and 
that we must work to restore peace in Iraq.
  I introduced bills such as H.R. 3134, Responsible Security in Iraq 
Act; H.R. 5488, Iraqi Displacement Coordinator; H.R. 7215, Human Costs 
in Iraq Act; H. Res. 1326, Honor Iraq's Sovereignty; and, of course, H. 
Res. 1519, Press Freedom in Iraq.
  On the 1-year anniversary of the founding of the Out of Iraq Caucus, 
I launched a campaign to inform the public about H.J. Res. 73. Ms. Lee, 
you will remember John Murtha, the former Member of this House who is 
now deceased who introduced H.J. Res. 73, now known as The Murtha Plan, 
which established a reasonable timetable for the redeployment of our 
troops from Iraq. We all worked with him on that legislation, and we 
honor him even today for his wisdom and his foresight.
  I want to do just one thing before I have to leave, and that is read 
a letter to President Bush that we all sent funding only for 
redeployment of troops, if you recall. By the following year in 2007, 
we as a caucus delivered a letter to President Bush signed by 92 
Members of Congress, which stated our intent to only support war 
funding for the safe and orderly redeployment of our U.S. troops from 
Iraq.
  In the letter, we cited the tremendous human and financial costs of 
the President's failed Iraq policy. And because of you, Barbara Lee, 
I'd like to share this letter because you were in the leadership of 
this. It said:

       Dear Mr. President: We are writing to inform you that we 
     will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. 
     military operations in Iraq during fiscal year 2008 and 
     beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our 
     troops out of Iraq before you leave office.
       More than 3,600 of our brave soldiers have died in Iraq. 
     More than 26,000 have been seriously wounded. Hundreds of 
     thousands of Iraqis have been killed or injured in the 
     hostilities and more than 4 million have been displaced from 
     their homes. Furthermore, this conflict has degenerated into 
     a sectarian civil war; and U.S. taxpayers have paid more than 
     $500 billion, despite assurances that you, your key advisers 
     gave our Nation at the time you ordered the invasion in March 
     2003 that this military intervention would cost far less and 
     would be paid from Iraq oil revenues.

  Remember that?

       We agree with a clear and growing majority of the American 
     people who are opposed to continued, open-ended U.S. military 
     operations in Iraq, and we believe it is unwise and 
     unacceptable for you to continue to unilaterally impose the 
     staggering costs and the soaring debt on Americans currently 
     and for generations to come.
       Sincerely.

  And it was signed by all 93 Members at that time.
  Our efforts gained momentum; and by late 2008, President Bush signed 
the Status of Forces agreement, which mandated that the U.S. shall 
completely withdraw from Iraq no later than December 31, 2011, and all 
U.S. combat forces shall withdraw from Iraq cities before June 3, 2009.
  As a caucus, we continue to hold hearings and briefings, as well as 
speaking on this very floor until President Obama, who initially 
opposed the war, approved an 18-month redeployment plan that would 
begin in September of 2009 and end in December of 2011.
  Ms. Lee, I'm sorry that I'm going to have to leave the floor because 
I have a meeting scheduled with the members of our caucus of the 
Financial Services Committee. But I'd like to say before I leave, 
again, thank you for your leadership; thank you for your wisdom; thank 
you for having always been identified as a woman of peace, a woman who 
understood and believed and worked for peace and who has always 
believed that whatever our differences are in the world, that we must 
find ways to have the kind of diplomacy that can resolve these 
differences.
  Some people think that this is not possible, but I know that those of 
us who believe this will continue to fight and to work for peace on 
Earth and goodwill toward all men and women.
  Ms. LEE of California. Congresswoman Waters, thank you so much for 
that very eloquent and profound statement and for your kind remarks. 
Let me just say to you also that you have been a woman who has always 
believed that peace is possible and peace is patriotic. So I just want 
to thank you for your leadership, for being here with us, and just say 
how proud we are that you are our Financial Services ranking member 
also. Thank you.
  Let me take a moment now to yield to the gentleman from California, 
Congressman Mark Takano, who has been way out there in terms of 
opposing this war from day one.
  Thank you again for being here.


                           Immigration Reform

  Mr. TAKANO. I want to thank the gentlelady from California for 
yielding me some time.
  I'm going to switch subjects a little as I want to rise today to 
express my support for the immigration proposal released last week by 
the bipartisan group of Senators called the Gang of Eight.
  While this bill is not perfect and I have serious doubts about 
several provisions in it, it shows that both sides of the aisle can 
work together on issues facing our Nation, that Democrats and 
Republicans can work together.
  I am pleased that the proposal provides a pathway to citizenship, a 
fast track for DREAMers, an increase in the number of high-skilled 
worker visas and an opportunity for immigrants, who have been deported 
on noncriminal grounds, to apply for readmittance if they have a spouse 
or children in the United States.
  I do, however, have some concerns regarding the legislation, 
including the fact that it fails to address binational eligible LGBT 
families.
  More than a dozen countries allow same-sex partner-sponsoring, 
including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Israel, 
New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and many 
more.
  The United States should be no different.
  Keeping these loving families apart is wrong, and it's bad for the 
economy.
  Take the story of southern California residents Brian and Michael. 
They met in 2005, became engaged next year in Paris and were married 
during the brief window during which same-sex marriage was legal in 
California.
  Brian, who's been an educator for over 20 years, teaches humanity 
courses at a magnet school during the day and at Los Angeles Community 
College at night.
  His husband, Michael, came to the United States from Malaysia on a 
student visa in 2005, and since then has been the perfect example of 
the kind of immigrant we want to keep here. He has earned a master's 
degree in nursing and is currently working on a doctorate in the same 
field.
  Michael and Brian have shared their lives for almost 10 years and 
cannot even travel internationally to see Michael's family because of 
the visa restrictions placed on them.
  What's going to happen to Michael when he completes his education? 
Are we really going to break up this family? Are we really going to 
send a well-trained medical professional back?
  The debate on reforming our immigration system is not over. I plan on 
working with Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, from 
both Houses, to ensure that binational LGBT families are given the same 
opportunities as everyone else.

                              {time}  1540

  Ms. LEE of California. Let me go back now to the 10th anniversary of 
this unfortunate war, Mr. Speaker.
  I'm going to introduce now into the Record tonight a timeline of some 
of what we have talked about tonight because they should be remembered 
and because these efforts and the efforts of the movement that ended 
this war finally did make a difference, although obviously not as 
quickly as we wanted; but we did make a difference together.

[[Page 5967]]

  After years of speaking out and as the toll of the Iraq war stretched 
the patience of the American people, public opinion started turning. 
People began asking what were we doing in Iraq. Iraq had no weapons of 
mass destruction, as the Bush administration told us. Iraq had not been 
involved in the 9/11 attacks, as suggested by the Bush administration.
  Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell made a presentation at the 
United Nations that was greatly misleading, stating that Iraq possessed 
extremely dangerous weapons of mass destruction. Some of you may 
remember the smoking cloud that he talked about. It was just really 
very, very tragic. He described biological weapons factories on wheels, 
and estimated that Iraq had between 100 and 150 tons--no, I believe it 
may have been 500 tons--of chemical weapons stockpiled. All of those 
claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be false.
  Secretary of State Powell's own chief of staff, Colonel Lawrence 
Wilkerson, later said about his own participation in the deception at 
the United Nations, he said:

       I participated in a hoax on the American people, the 
     international community, and the United Nations Security 
     Council.

  Iraq did not present a clear and present danger to the United States. 
Secretary Powell and his staff, they knew this. President Bush, he knew 
this. Vice President Cheney, he knew this. But they wanted their war 
and they deceived the United Nations and scared the American public to 
justify their war of choice.
  I distinctly remember the day in May 2003, 10 years ago next week, 
when President Bush stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and 
proclaimed ``Mission Accomplished.'' Of course, the mission was far 
from accomplished. The war was to drag on for another 8 years.
  President Obama committed to ending the war during his campaign; and 
he, of course, did as President. While the war in Iraq is over, its 
legacy continues and the lessons still have yet to be learned. We need 
to look closely at the decisions made, understand the mistakes and 
misjudgments, and ensure that we never again repeat such a tragedy.
  In Ghana, in the Akan language of Ghana, there is a mythical bird 
that's a symbol. It's called Sankofa. It's a bird flying forward 
looking back, and the message is that in order to not make the same 
mistakes as we move forward, we have to look back and we have to know 
our history. We have to know where we have come from, what we have done 
in order to move forward, and we should learn from those mistakes. 
Sankofa.
  The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction issued its 
final report to Congress just last month, detailing billions and 
billions of dollars lost to waste, fraud, and abuse. The occupation of 
Iraq was characterized by poor planning by the Bush administration, who 
ignored State Department and USAID analysis envisioning protracted U.S. 
involvement in Iraq requiring substantial spending for many years.
  The Pentagon was left in charge of managing postwar Iraq, and Defense 
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld famously underestimated the resources needed 
to stabilize the country. When Lieutenant General Jay Gardner told 
Secretary Rumsfeld that the United States might need to spend billions 
of dollars to rebuild Iraq, Rumsfeld responded:

       If you think we're going to spend a billion dollars of our 
     money over there, you are sadly mistaken.

  Well, of course, it was Mr. Rumsfeld who was sadly mistaken, and the 
American public who was sadly misled, and the Iraqi people who sadly 
suffered from the chaos and destruction unleashed by ideologues who 
used Iraq as a laboratory for a light-footprint war.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, those lost opportunities and tragic 
mistakes are not behind us.
  I would like to take a moment now and yield to my friend and 
colleague, a woman who has consistently been against the war and has 
stood for peace all of her life, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlelady from California, and I 
particularly thank you for your astuteness on bringing us together. If 
I might reflect on memory lane that was very painful, we traveled a lot 
together, and I think of the moments in history on the Iraq war. The 
rising up of the American people was powerful, from San Francisco to 
places in between, to the quarter of a million people that walked down 
53rd and 57th Street in New York on a cold morning in January.
  People all over America recognized that it was not these brave men 
and women that you see here. And I brought pictures of wonderful 
families and men and women who were called to serve who we continue to 
honor and appreciate. I thought it was important to acknowledge that 
our soldiers have families. We see it all the time. My district is near 
Ellington Field, and it is increasingly becoming a base utilizing the 
talents of young Americans who are willing to volunteer. So I take this 
10th anniversary, as well, to pay tribute to them and those who still 
serve in foreign fields around the world. We know that they still serve 
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  So we come here today on the 10th anniversary simply to ask the 
question: Why? And when we ask the question why, it is not a selfish 
question on behalf of Members of Congress. It is a question on behalf 
of those brave men and women who, no matter who calls them as Commander 
in Chief and for what cause, they accept the cause. For that reason, it 
is imperative that we understand the battle into which we send them.
  In the Iraq war, it was alleged there were weapons of mass 
destruction. We have come to a fairly complete conclusion that there 
were no such weapons. We all knew Saddam Hussein, and none of us 
adhered to his despotic and horrible governance. But I will tell you, 
my colleagues thought the same thing, that our approach should have 
been different. The bloodshed not only of the young men and women that 
you see here, some of their comrades were lost, but the millions, the 
numbers of Iraqi people who themselves, their lives were lost and of 
course still continue to be in danger.
  The Iraq war saw more than 4,400 brave men and women who wore the 
United States uniform make the ultimate sacrifice, and tens upon tens 
of thousands who in actuality were wounded. Over 32,000 of the men and 
women who came home suffered wounds. But as we know, those numbers have 
risen. Some 3,000 of the wounded call Texas their home, 500 lost their 
lives. We know the scars that were left on families--mother, fathers, 
children, and wives. We realized that we needed to make a better 
judgment.
  As the tragedy unfolded in Boston, one of the emergency physicians, 
one of the medical professionals, said they knew exactly what it was 
because they had been to Iraq, and they understood the sound of the 
IEDs. How many of our brave men and women encountered these makeshift 
IEDs that tore through their body and either killed them or completely 
amputated or caused the amputation of their arms or legs and the 
disfigurement of their face. We see them now. We call them wounded 
warriors. We call them heroes, and certainly those who followed in 
Afghanistan.
  But this 10th year reminds us to ask: Have we made the progress that 
we should have? The gentlelady spoke of the moneys, $800 billion that 
has directly contributed to the Nation's deficit, and the amount of 
money that was supposed to be used for restoration; and because there 
was no infrastructure in Iraq, we made our Army personnel be the little 
government.

                              {time}  1550

  We made soldiers be the ones that had to interact with the village 
leaders and the chiefs, and carry monies to them. No, nothing accounted 
for; just good intentions, following orders. But we cannot account for 
those dollars. We don't know if they made a difference. We don't know 
if they helped bring Iraqis home. We don't know if they helped build 
schools or hospitals.
  So I think it is important to note that when we make decisions 
regarding

[[Page 5968]]

war, we need to think about soldiers holding their families and loving 
their families. We need to think about the better way to go, and we 
need to ask those whose war we fight--Saddam Hussein is gone--the 
people whose war we fight, the conflict between the Shiites and Sunnis.
  We need to understand our history as to whether or not a war that 
would see the loss of all these brilliant young people, divide 
families, whether or not we can bring some measure of peace, some 
comfort, some stability.
  And I'd venture to say today that we have not. And I say this to the 
head of Iraq, the leader, Mr. Maliki, for his participation in the 
ongoing conflict in Iraq, because that is the case.
  There is no coming together of the Shiites and Sunnis. There is a 
cluster of a government that hides in the walls, that does not go out 
and try to bring peace to the people. And I give you one example, Mr. 
Speaker, that troubles me over and over again--it is the Iranians who 
left Iran.
  We know the conflicted issues and alliances were all, if you will, 
misunderstood; old alliances, friends and enemies. We understand that. 
But this is supposed to be a peaceful nation now, and there are 
Iranians who fled the despotic Iran, and have become, in essence, 
enemies of Iran.
  They started out in Camp Ashraf. They were called rebels and 
terrorists. They have now been vindicated, and they're not called that 
anymore.
  But let me tell you what the present government of Iraq allows. They 
allow, in the camp that was Camp Ashraf that is now Camp Liberty, bombs 
to go in from the Iraqi soldiers. They allow no medical care to come 
into that particular camp.
  Just yesterday, the Friends of Iran, American Iranians were here, and 
they had 10 people or more, their faces, who had died in that camp 
because the government of Iraq, the government that we shed blood for, 
that we asked to be a peaceful nation, is, in essence, attacking people 
on their soil who are unarmed, who are not interested in war, who fled 
because they'd been persecuted.
  And they don't allow them to get access to cars, access to hospitals, 
and so people die from sicknesses because they could not get care.
  When we go into battle and send our troops into battle, shouldn't we 
ask the question of what is the ultimate result?
  We understand that democracy in its structure that is here in the 
United States cannot only be the structure that fits every community, 
every nation, every faith. But what I would say to you is that we bring 
one of those C-130s, big C-130s that many of us have rode on to go into 
Iraq. And I spent many hours there, nothing in comparison, of course, 
to those who served, but I'm grateful I had the opportunity to go and 
serve and see those individuals who served, and to sit down with those 
from Texas and to break bread with them.
  When we land one of those C-130s, why don't we know, and shouldn't we 
know our purpose, our goal, what is our ultimate direction that we 
would like to see?
  Not the dominance of the United States over this nation that we help 
but to be able to know that they, too, stand for democracy and peace.
  I want to thank the gentlelady from California for allowing me to 
share this time with her, and to say, it's important to remind us of 
the 10th anniversary, one, to say thank you, for when we land these C-
130s and these men and women come out ready for battle, they are 
wearing our uniform and our flag but, at the same time, we must ask the 
question, for what? For what results? For what long-range results? For 
what peace? For we owe that to them.
  I ask that we consider those in Camp Liberty and we find relief for 
them. I thank the gentlelady very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in solidarity with my fellow members of the 
Congressional Progressive Caucus to speak in recognition of the 10th 
Anniversary of the Iraq war. I want to thank my colleagues, 
Representatives Lee and Waters for anchoring this Special Order.
  On March 19, 2003 President Bush launched invasion of Iraq ten years 
ago under a cloud of questions about the motivations for the invasion. 
Today we see the toll of this war on our young military men and women, 
their families and communities across our nation.
  First and foremost, I would like to thank our troops who served in 
the Iraq war, but more broadly I would like to thank all members of the 
armed forces for their courage and heroism under circumstances that few 
of us could imagine. As Members of Congress we have, regardless of our 
view of the wisdom of entering into armed conflict with Iraq, have 
always stood in strong and unwavering solidarity with our troops.
  Part of our role as representatives in Congress is to give voice to 
the plight of our constituents that include men and women in the armed 
forces--many of them served tour after tour after tour without break; 
and in the beginning of the war had insufficient equipment to protect 
them from IEDs which cost the nation countless lives and left many with 
traumatic life changing injuries.
  We cannot forget their sacrifice and heroism in the face of what was 
asked of them. In April of last year the great city of Houston, which I 
am proud to represent, hosted a Bayou City-style parade honoring the 
homecoming of the American troops. This gesture of thanks defines the 
support that Houston has for our troops in any situation.
  During the course of the Iraq War more than 4,400 brave men and women 
in uniform made the ultimate sacrifice and over 32,000 were wounded. Of 
these brave men and women more than 500 of the fallen and 3,000 of the 
wounded call Texas their home.
  In 2003 I fought with many of my colleagues in the Congressional 
Progressive Caucus to ensure that the order to proceed with the Iraq 
War did not pass the House, but our efforts were not successful.
  Although we have withdrawn from Iraq it is imperative to understand 
that the withdrawal is not synonymous with the end of the war on 
terror. It has been my stance since the beginning of the war that there 
are different steps that must be taken to combat terror--which include 
diplomatic and humanitarian efforts.
  The war also had an economic cost to our nation, which we are still 
paying and will continue to pay until our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle resolve to battle the economic threat at home with the 
vigor of the fight against a less than creditable threat many thought 
they saw in Iraq 10 years ago.
  The monetary cost of the war exceeded $800 billion, which directly 
contributed to the nation's deficit that is now trying to be mended by 
the Sequester. More worrisome, the long-term costs from the results of 
the war are expected to exceed $3 trillion.
  Since our withdrawal, insurgencies have erupted across the country of 
Iraq. Iraq has been seen to gravitate towards Iran, a nation that has 
openly been hostile towards U.S. mission, and one that has proven to be 
a source of destabilization in the area.
  The remedies to these issues once again come from intelligence and 
diplomatic channels that do not include invasions like the one the 
United States so hastily entered into with Iraq.
  The tactical withdrawal from Iraq can be seen with some high regard 
as a template for how to end the war in Afghanistan, and exit the 
region safely and decisively. As a nation we must turn away from this 
past decade of occupying countries in the name of fighting terror. 
These endless occupations delay the creation of opportunity within our 
own nation, which must be one of the priorities as we attempt to 
overcome the economic hardships facing the nation.
  In closing, I would once again like to extend my deepest gratitude to 
our troops fighting across the nation on the 10th Anniversary of the 
Iraq War, and would like to thank my Congressional Progressive Caucus 
colleagues again for hosting this event.
  In this post-Iraq time we must turn our attention to helping' our men 
and women who have fought bravely overseas to ensure our freedom and 
the promotion of democracy.
  Earlier this week a new Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic was opened 
in the Houston area, which will shorten the distance between Houston 
veterans and the care they need. The nearly 30,000 square foot 
establishment provides primary health care, mental healthcare, women's 
specialty care, x-rays, optometry, physical therapy, occupational 
therapy, ENT (ear, nose and throat) and audiology. The new center will 
have a fully operational laboratory by July, as well as a visiting 
cardiologist and surgical physician's assistant for minor procedures.
  The new clinic is expected to service 7,000 to 8,000 veterans within 
its first year of operation and create more than 50 paying jobs.
  The Houston area clinic is one of many community-based clinics that 
have been established in response to the growing number of Iraq and 
Afghanistan veterans returning

[[Page 5969]]

from war. It is vital that we keep these veterans, and current 
soldiers, in mind as we develop policies to ensure their care and 
wellbeing.
  Ms. LEE of California. Let me thank the gentlelady from Texas for 
that very profound statement and presentation. And just let me say to 
you that, as the daughter of a 25-year veteran of the Armed Forces, I 
am deeply thankful for your bringing forth the faces of our Armed 
Forces.
  And also, talking about the obstacles now that they're facing upon 
their return, I'm especially concerned with the widespread and often 
undiagnosed incidents of PTSD and the alarming suicide rates among our 
soldiers.
  The back claims, the Veterans Affairs losing records, denying claims 
that are clearly service-related. I want to acknowledge Congresswoman 
Jackie Speier and her work in our area and throughout the country to 
try to address the backlog of claims of our veterans who don't deserve 
to be treated this way.
  Since the invasion of Iraq 10 years ago, over 2,000 current and 
former servicemembers have committed suicide. The lessons from this 
tragedy cannot be any clearer. It's a lot easier to get into war than 
to get out of one.
  It's my hope, Mr. Speaker, that this reckless and shortsighted 
decision will mark a turning point in American history, and that we 
will be more careful about war and use all of the tools of American 
power, as Congresswoman Woolsey so eloquently talked to us about and 
introduced over and over again, SMART security that should be used in 
resolving disputes, including diplomacy.
  Let me ask you, Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 21 minutes remaining.
  Ms. LEE of California. I would like to know if the gentlelady from 
Texas has anything else to say. Otherwise, we will close.
  Let me just use a bit more time and say that there's no military 
solution in Afghanistan either, so we must absorb that fact and learn, 
again, what we learned in Iraq. And we need to bring the war in 
Afghanistan to an accelerated end.
  We need to stop throwing good money after bad, poorly conceived and 
poorly managed reconstruction efforts, and bring our troops home now.
  And we need to repeal the 2001 Authorization For the Use of Military 
Force, which Congresswoman Waters mentioned, which I voted against 
right after the horrific events of 9/11. This overly broad blank check 
has underwritten the past decade of perpetual war.
  I have a resolution, H.R. 198, it's the Repeal of the Authorization 
For the Use of Military Force. This will remove one of the underlying 
legal justifications for targeted drone killings that has been invoked 
over and over again, this time, targeted killings, to justify a wide 
range of activities, including warrantless surveillance and wiretapping 
activities, and, yes, a blank check for war anywhere, any time, for any 
length of time.
  I hope those who are listening and who care about this, go back and 
read that resolution of 9/14. What it said was the President, and I'm 
paraphrasing now, but it was the President is authorized to use force 
against any nation, organization, individual, deemed connected to 
terrorism and the 9/11 attacks.
  Now, this was in 2001. 2001. No end game, no timetable, a blank 
check, perpetual war until this is repealed. So Congress really needs 
to reassert its constitutional authority in the matters of war. Our 
Founding Fathers were very deliberate in placing war-making powers in 
this body. In a democracy, such as ours, we have this system of checks 
and balances.
  On 9/14, we did not have a full debate. From what I remember, it may 
have been an hour, it may have been 2 hours. But we did not fully 
debate that blank check and what that meant by authorizing then-
President Bush, now President Obama and any future President, to use 
force in perpetuity.

                              {time}  1600

  We can no longer abdicate our constitutional duties allowing any 
President to engage in hostilities without debate, without oversight, 
and without accountability.
  And I want to commend Senator Durbin for conducting hearings this 
week looking at the constitutionality and the rationale for targeted 
killings using drones. This was a very important hearing. I was able to 
sit through some of that hearing, and it was very revealing. Actually, 
there was a young man from Yemen who received a State Department 
scholarship. He went to school here, had gone back to Yemen, and his 
village was devastated by drones.
  So you can see what's happening now. There are more and more 
hostilities, unfortunately, toward the United States, unless we get 
this policy straight about the lethal use of drones and have 
congressional oversight and debate and really exercise our 
constitutional responsibility to really declare war, if that's what 
we're going to do.
  And so as we embark into this new age of modern warfare, we do need 
rules. We need oversight; we need accountability; and we need to 
develop an international legal framework on drones.
  And we understand asymmetrical warfare and the new world in which we 
live. None of us have our head in the sand about that. We just need to 
make sure that Congress has a role in debating exactly how we're going 
to, if we're going to, and when the appropriate use of force is 
necessary.
  For me, personally, I believe in SMART Security; and I know that that 
will lead to a world that our children deserve and is worthy of our 
children's future.
  So let's put this decade of perpetual warfare behind us. We should 
bring our troops home. We should invest in our veterans and our 
children, create jobs here at home and really begin to invest in our 
future for the sake of our children and our grandchildren.
  I have this chart here to show you just in terms of the fiscal 
implications of what these policies have brought. When you look at the 
deficit, with the war and the economic policies of the Bush era, the 
tax cuts, we're looking at this line right here. Had these unfortunate 
policies not occurred, our deficit would be down here. This is very 
clear. This was put forth by the Congressional Budget Office in 
February. These are their estimates.
  It's very clear, I hope, to everyone that the failed economic 
policies of the Bush administration and the wars in Iraq are the major 
contributing factors to the economic crisis that we find ourselves in. 
And so, aside from the human toll that this 10-year war and the war in 
Afghanistan has taken, we have a real crisis now, an economic crisis in 
this country that we need to come to grips with. Our senior citizens 
did not cause this crisis. Our children did not cause this crisis. The 
poor, our middle class individuals, and families did not cause this 
crisis. And we cannot forget what has taken place over the last 10 
years of this unbelievably terribly sad time in our history, where we 
lost so many lives and we lost so much time in terms of rebuilding our 
country for the future of our children.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                 Key Iraq Votes From the 109th Congress

       H. CON. RES. 35 [109th]
       Latest Title: Expressing the sense of Congress that the 
     President should develop and implement a plan to begin the 
     immediate withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq.
       Sponsor: Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [D-CA-6] (introduced 1/26/
     2005) Cosponsors: 34
       Committees: House International Relations
       Latest Major Action: 1/26/2005 Referred to House committee. 
     Status: Referred to the House Committee on International 
     Relations.
       H. RES. 82 [109th]
       Latest Title: Disavowing the doctrine of preemption.
       Sponsor: Rep Lee, Barbara [D-CA-9] (introduced 2/9/2005) 
     Cosponsors: 15
       Committees: House International Relations
       Latest Major Action: 2/9/2005 Referred to House committee. 
     Status: Referred to the House Committee on International 
     Relations.
       H. AMDT. 214 [109th]
       (A009)
       Amends: H.R. 1815

[[Page 5970]]

       Sponsor: Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [D-CA-6] (offered 5/25/2005)
       AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
       An amendment numbered 26 printed in House Report 109-96 to 
     express the sense of Congress that the President should 
     develop a plan for the withdrawal of U.S. military forces 
     from Iraq, and submit this plan to the congressional defense 
     committees.
       STATUS:
       5/25/2005 6:20 p.m.: Amendment (A009) offered by Ms. 
     Woolsey. (consideration: CR H4035-4040, H4043; text: CR 
     H4035)
       5/25/2005 7:53 p.m.: On agreeing to the Woolsey amendment 
     (A009) Failed by recorded vote: 128-300 (Roll no. 220).
       H. CON. RES. 197 [109th]
       Latest Title: Declaring that it is the policy of the United 
     States not to enter into any base agreement with the 
     Government of Iraq that would lead to a permanent United 
     States military presence in Iraq.
       Sponsor: Rep Lee, Barbara [D-CA-9] (introduced 6/30/2005) 
     Cosponsors: 86 Committees: House International Relations
       Latest Major Action: 6/30/2005 Referred to House committee. 
     Status: Referred to the House Committee on International 
     Relations.
       H. AMDT. 750 [109th]
       (A050)
       Amends: H.R. 4939
       Sponsor: Rep Lee, Barbara [D-CA-9] (offered 3/16/2006)
       AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
       An amendment to prohibit the use of funds from being 
     available to enter into a basing rights agreement between the 
     United States and Iraq.
       STATUS:
       3/16/2006 4:39 p.m.: Amendment (A050) offered by Ms. Lee. 
     (consideration: CR H1107-1110; text: CR H1107)
       3/16/2006 5:04 p.m.: On agreeing to the Lee amendment 
     (A050) Agreed to by voice vote.


       H.R. 5875 [109th]
       Latest Title: Iraq War Powers Repeal Act of 2006.
       Sponsor: Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [D-CA-6] (introduced 7/25/
     2006) Cosponsors: 26 Committees: House International 
     Relations
       Latest Major Action: 7/25/2006 Referred to House committee. 
     Status: Referred to the House Committee on International 
     Relations.

                          ____________________