H Res 557 Commemorating Start of Iraq War
H. RES. 557--COMMEMORATING START OF IRAQ WAR -- (Extensions of Remarks - April 21, 2004)
SPEECH OF
HON. TAMMY BALDWIN
OF WISCONSIN
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2004
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the men and women in our Armed Forces who have served and continue to serve in Iraq. Their bravery and dedication is something all Americans should admire and honor.
It is not just their martial skill and training that proved outstanding during the combat phase of the Iraq campaign, their exceptional abilities to begin the rebuilding of Iraq have been essential. Our military forces have demonstrated again and again their professionalism when faced with incredibly difficult challenges. They truly are the best in the world.
I want to also give special recognition to our citizen soldiers-the men and women in our National Guard and Reserves-and their families. For them to leave their jobs and loved ones, in many cases for more than a year, requires tremendous sacrifice and commitment. In the last year, I have been there when many of our local Wisconsin units have left for deployment and been there when many have finally returned home. When they leave, I have seen their determination to get the job done combined with great sadness about their separation from their families. When they return, I have seen their pride at a job well done and their joy at being reunited with their families. No country could be better served than we have by the members of our Guard and Reserve.
I also want to pay my respects to the ultimate sacrifice paid by the 709 military men and women who have died in Iraq and express my heartfelt condolences to their families. Each one of them is a hero. All Americans owe them a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid but must always be remembered.
We also owe a great debt to the more than 3,200 who have been wounded in Iraq. Medical advances and improved safety equipment have meant fewer deaths, but many are surviving with serious injuries. We must fulfill our commitment to caring for them, ensuring that our veterans health care system can meet their needs.
Mr. Speaker, there is no Member of this Congress who is not grateful to our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen. No matter our positions on what the proper U.S. policies should be, let there be no doubt that we honor and appreciate their sacrifices.
It is with regret that I voted against the resolution presented to this House. I am very disappointed in the Republican leadership of this House for bringing forth a resolution under a closed rule without providing the opportunity for Democrats to participate in the drafting.
Honoring our troops should always be a non-partisan effort and should never be used as a partisan maneuver.
The resolution that came before us could have, and should have, won the backing of every Member of the House. A non-partisan resolution, drafted with input from both sides of the aisle, would have attained unanimous support, allowing the House of Representatives to speak with one resounding voice in honor of our men and women in uniform.
It is not simply the partisan nature of this resolution that caused me to vote against it. If that were my only concern, my desire to recognize our troops would have been stronger than my indignation about the means employed to do so. However, I voted against the resolution because it is being used to distract us from the very real and very important debate that we should be having about our Iraq policy and our counter-terrorism policies.
Mr. Speaker, there is a debate going on among the American people about Iraq and the war. The American people are concerned about our intelligence failures, the use of intelligence, the Administration's apparent obsession with Iraq, the failure of post-war Iraq planning, the cost of the war, the costs of reconstruction, the long-term demands on our military and how Iraq affects the war on terrorism. This Congress and this Administration has a responsibility to answer, or find the answers, to these questions. The American people deserve no less.
The American people are wondering if we are safer as a result of the war to remove Saddam Hussein as ruler of Iraq. This is a difficult question to answer, and to be quite frank, I don't know. But it is a question that is important to ask. And it should not be dismissed with an "of course" or the suggestion that anyone who thinks we may not be safer is unpatriotic or would be happy if Hussein were still in power. We must draw an important distinction between the following questions: Is Iraq better off? Is Iraq less of a security threat to the United States? And, is the United States safer as a result of the President's choice to go to war in Iraq. I believe the answer to the first two questions is yes. However, it is the final question that is by far the most important.
On September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked by Al Qaeda, an international terrorist group that was then based in Afghanistan with the support of the Taliban regime. Military action against Al Qaeda and the Taliban was widely supported by Americans, including me, to hunt down the perpetrators of 9-11 and eliminate their ability to operate in Afghanistan. We were joined by numerous countries who understood that the fight against Al Qaeda was their fight too. The initial phases of that campaign were successful in shutting down their training camps, capturing or killing many of their members and deposing the Taliban. Like in Iraq, our military men and women performed exceptionally well.
But the victory in Afghanistan is not complete. Just last month, we launched, with Pakistan, another military initiative to find additional Al Qaeda forces hiding out in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan. Security in Afghanistan is largely absent outside of Kabul and traditional tribal leaders and warlords have real control over most of the country. Scheduled elections may need to be postponed because of the inability of the internationalcommunity to register voters in the countryside due to lack of security. Opium production is reaching record new levels. Our job in Afghanistan is clearly not done.
Our national security officials cannot focus on an infinite number of problems at once. There are only so many hours a day for the National Security Advisor, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and other top officials to do their work. They can't focus on everything and must make choices. There can be no doubt that Iraq required an incredible amount of time and resources in order to succeed. What is the opportunity cost? I fear that part of the reason for the slow progress in Afghanistan is the result of diversion of resources and attention to the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq.
The commitment of time, money and resources to Iraq has also impacted our homeland security. The war, occupation and reconstruction costs in Iraq are likely to exceed $250 billion. That is a huge expenditure. By focusing our scarce resources during an economic downturn on Iraq, much less has been available to fund our first responders and protect our country.
A recent independent review of our homeland security efforts by the Century Foundation found major deficiencies. Their Homeland Security Report Card clearly indicates that a safer America will require significant improvements by the Department of Homeland Security. While there have been successes in passenger screening, the air marshall program and infrastructure analysis, this report highlights serious and disturbing shortcomings that leave Americans vulnerable. Protecting private planes, securing air cargo, providing funding for first responders, and better immigration oversight are critical to our security. It is disappointing to find that, according to the Century Foundation's report, in these areas we may be worse off than before September 11.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress needs to stop focusing on rhetoric about Iraq and begin to focus on the facts. We need to spend less time trying to portray loyal Americans as soft on terrorism because they raise questions and want to debate the most effective ways to prevent terrorism and protect Americans. A full and healthy national debate, in Congress and around the country, will not weaken our resolve, it will strengthen us. Building a consensus policy to combat terrorism will allow us to move forward united. A consensus policy will reduce friction about dedication of resources and will allow us to sustain a consistent policy for the duration of our fight against terrorism. That is the debate we should have had. That is the debate our country needs to have.