Speaking/Voting Against H. Con. Res. 63

Speaking/Voting Against H. Con. Res. 63

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I appreciate him letting me go out of order. I am not a member of his committee. But when my committee has time on Thursday night, I am hoping to be able to attend the memorial service for our comrade, Charles Norwood, whom we lost today.

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak against H. Con. Res. 63. I think it is a mistake. It is the first step of this new Congress, the first step this new Congress is going to make towards cutting off the funding for our troops.

You do not have to take my word for it. Yesterday's CQ Today, a magazine widely read up here in Washington, and I am quoting, ``It is a foot in the door toward limiting military involvement in Iraq. The Democrats want to do this by the Congressional power of the checkbook.''

Further in the article it says, ``Democrats are well on their way toward planning more aggressive measures in an attempt to force redeployment beginning by blocking funding, and ending in the supplemental spending request.

And then finally, Democrats said, ``The resolution would just be a first step in the process that could result in a reduction or reconditioning of funds slated for our troops in Iraq.''

Well, we do not have to go too very far back in our past to see the consequences of that type of action. When I was in Iraq in August of 2005 General Casey told myself and a group of us who were there that there is no group in the world that can stand up to the American military. In fact, the only organized body in the world capable of defeating the American military was the American Congress.

I believe he was right. The CRS has done a report for this Congress, a report for Congress about restrictions of military operations in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Somalia and Kosovo, funding and non funding approaches. I reference particularly, I urge my colleagues, this is easy to download from the Internet on the CRS, simply type in Cooper-Church amendment, and you will get this well-researched product.

It details the Mansfield amendment, the Cooper/Church amendment of 1970 and 1973, the Cranston amendment, the McGovern/Hatfield amendment. It also talks about the funding for Somalia. In fact, in this House, in 1999, when President Clinton was President, a bipartisan group in this House came together to defeat a motion to block funding for the troops in Kosovo. So congressional actions regarding funding do have a real world impact.

And I would submit that much of the chaos that ensued after we left Vietnam, and I would include the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in that chaos, I would include the militant jihadist takeover of our Embassy in Iran in that chaos, much of that ensued because of congressional action that was taken on the floor of this House in cutting off funding for our troops.

And I am not a big one on process. I haven't been here that long. I don't know that I understand process all that well. But why in the world would we not allow a vote or even a motion to recommit on, say, Sam Johnson's bill, H.R. 511. Sam Johnson's bill, a simple two-page bill that details all of the fine things done by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ends with this simple paragraph: Faithful support of Congress. Congress will not cut off or restrict funding for units and members in the Armed Forces that the Commander in Chief has deployed in harm's way.

Wow, that is pretty simple. I don't understand. I frankly, do not understand why this House could not vote on this simple measure submitted by my fellow Texan, Sam Johnson, a legitimate war hero in his own right. I simply do not understand why we wouldn't have an opportunity to vote on that bill or offer it as a motion to recommit before we vote on the resolution.

And the resolution itself, it is a shame that we weren't offered a chance to amend the bill, to amend the resolution, to perhaps make it better. I urge people to go on line and read it for themselves. It is only two lines. It is not a very heavy lift to read this particular piece of legislation.

Line 1, Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect Members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq. That is sentence one. Remarkable for what it leaves out. What about a comma, and who will serve? Would it be so wrong to include those individuals who will serve in whatever time is left in the country of Iraq, to include them in as being worthy of our support in Congress?

Line 2 is so vague as to almost defy description. Line 2 reads: Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush, announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional troops.

Well, would 19,995 troops be okay? Would Congress then not cock an eyebrow to say we don't like that either? Well, what does that second statement actually, what point are we trying to make by that second statement, other than we don't support the Commander in Chief, we don't support the mission, and as a consequence, you do have to ask if we support the troops.

Now, we are all sent here in Congress, we are all elected by 600- to 700,000 people, back in our districts, back in our States, to make hard decisions. We are not sent here to read the polls, stick our fingers in the wind and then decide which direction to go. We are not sent here to shift tactics because we think we may become more popular back home if we do that. I fully recognize that by voting against this resolution, I put myself in jeopardy of reelection, and I am willing to do that because I believe a vote for this resolution puts my country's fate in significant jeopardy for decades to come.

Now, I was not here when this House voted in October of 2002 to give the President the power he needed to deploy the troops. But I have always voted for funding for the troops. And I appreciate so much the chairman standing up here and offering his telephone number to any family who is concerned whether or not their loved one will have access to body armor in Iraq.

I remember those first hearings when I came here in March of 2003, we were instructed on how quickly our men and women in the field could get into their chemical suits. This was an object of great concern to everyone in this body. In fact, most of us sit on top of a chair which has a gas mask underneath it, just in case we need to leave this body in a hurry because of the deployment of chemical weapons. We were all concerned about chemical weapons back in 2003.

Now, I have made five trips to Iraq, and I know that what is reported on our television news services here in the States is not always accurately reflective of what is happening on the ground back in Iraq. I referenced Dr. Norwood a moment ago. My last trip to Iraq was in July of 2006. Dr. Norwood, Chairman Deal and I, and Gene Green from our Health Subcommittee went over to see the status of health care for our troops. I was very impressed with what I saw that day.

But, Madam Speaker, I think everyone in this body has to answer two fundamental questions on this resolution before us: Is it in our broad national interest to win this fight? The second question: Can we prevail? Can we provide a modicum of security in the country of Iraq? Can we provide a modicum of sovereignty in the country of Iraq? For me, the answer to those two questions is yes. Yes and yes. And I recognize that people of goodwill can disagree about these issues. But if your answer is no, and no, then please stand up, show some courage.

This is a nonbinding resolution, for crying out loud. Even a Democratic Presidential candidate said it is equivalent to standing in the corner and stomping your feet.

We have heard a lot about moral obligations tonight. Well, I would submit that we have a moral obligation that if we can't answer both of those questions in the affirmative, bring the troops home now. Don't wait till April. Don't wait till September. If we haven't the resolve to see this thing through, or if we no longer feel that it is in our broad national interest to continue this fight, why in the world would you ask any man or woman to continue to serve in that country under those conditions?

It is our moral obligation to ensure that our troops know our intentions and they know that we are going to provide continued support for them, and that continued support, whether it is bullets for their gun, whether it is the M-16, whether it is the Humvee, or whether it is reinforcements, we are going to continue to provide the things that the generals on the ground say they need for their men and women to get the job done.

When the President invited me down to the White House right before his Oval Office speech, he asked me what the constituents in my district would say. And I said, Mr. President, it is pretty clear. My constituents would say to you, if they were standing here today, fight the war or bring the boys home.

The rules of engagement sometimes, frankly, I don't understand. If we capture someone in Sadr City and we get a call from the Prime Minister's Office and we have got to take him back and let him go, that doesn't make sense, good sense, if you are fighting a war.

Well, it looks as if a lot of those restrictions have been removed. In fact, on the Drudge Report on Fox News earlier this evening they broke the story that Moqtada al-Sadr is now living is Iran. That is a good thing. That reflects the change in tactics on the ground brought to you by our men and women who are fighting for our freedom abroad.

Madam Speaker, I suggest that we commit together to support the future, the future support of our troops in the country of Iraq, or simply get them out of harm's way now. Again, Moqtada al-Sadr has fled to Iran.

I think we can prevail. I think it is in our broad national interest. I think the price of defeat is simply too steep, not just for us today, but for generations in the future.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I would like to pose a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Herseth). The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, would it be wrong to propose an amendment that would ask that we add support for troops that will be in harm's way in the future in line 1 of this bill?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would entertain such requests only from the majority manager of the concurrent resolution.

Mr. BURGESS. Well, then I would call on the majority manager of the concurrent resolution to consider adding future support for our troops, or those troops who will be in harm's way in the months to come.

Source