H84 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 8, 2009 

including the Heritage Foundation, the 

Brookings Institution, the Concord Coalition and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget also have embraced the SAFE Commission. 

Make no mistake. This could well be 

the hardest economic issue our Nation 

will ever be faced with, but we cannot 

afford to wait. 

I will end with a statement by 

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was a Lutheran pastor who stood up to the 

Nazis and was executed, hung in 

Flossenberg Prison when the artillery 

was coming, the western ally artillery 

was coming to liberate Germany. He 

was hung by the Nazis. Here’s what 

Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, and I think 

he was exactly right when he said, 

‘‘The ultimate test of a moral society 

is the kind of world that it leaves to its 

children.’’ 

Will this Congress, will this 111th 

Congress meet the Dietrich Bonhoeffer 

test? I don’t know. But I’m going to do 

everything I can, offer amendments on 

the floor, amendments in committee, 

to see that this Congress is forced to 

deal with this issue so that we can honestly say to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, we 

have tried and done whereby we, however, are a moral society, and we have 

left a good environment and society for 

our children. 

[From the The Washington Post, Jan. 8, 2009] 

YEARS TO COME

‘‘FISCAL SPACE’’ is an economist’s term 

for a country’s capacity to borrow and spend 

its way out of recession without risking exorbitant interest rates and inflation later on. 

Generally speaking, the more public debt a 

country already has as a share of its economy, the less new debt it can take on. 

As President-elect Barack Obama and Congress contemplate a fiscal stimulus package 

that could total hundreds of billions of dollars, they still have some fiscal space to 

work with. At $6.3 trillion, the publicly held 

national debt is about 45 percent of the $14 

trillion economy—not much above the postWorld War II average debt-to-GDP ratio of 43 

percent. But the space is shrinking rapidly. 

According to new figures from the Congressional Budget Office, federal debt is rising at 

the fastest rate since World War II. It is estimated at $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009, or 8 percent of gross domestic product. This stunning number reflects both the direct effect of 

the recession on tax revenue and spending 

and the high cost of measures taken to combat the downturn, such as the financial sector bailout. And it is likely to be matched or 

exceeded when the Obama stimulus plan 

kicks in. 

Mr. Obama was just leveling with the 

American people when he noted yesterday 

that the country faces ‘‘ trillion-dollar deficits for years to come’’ unless policymakers 

‘‘make a change in the way that Washington 

does business.’’ The question, of course, is 

how to change. Though Mr. Obama’s appointment of an efficiency-minded chief performance officer sent a useful signal, the real answers are legislative. The stimulus package 

must not bloat the government’s permanent 

financial commitments. According to a recently published International Monetary 

Fund paper, appropriate measures include increased transfers or temporary tax cuts to 

consumers at the bottom and middle of the 

income scale; aid to state and local governments; and repairs and improvements (especially energy-saving ones) to existing infrastructure. The IMF recommends against 

increasing the federal payroll, cutting 

corporate tax rates or letting companies deduct their recent losses against past years’ 

profits. The stimulus plan should include a 

plan for offsetting spending cuts and revenue 

increases once the economy recovers. 

Over the long run, investors will finance 

the U.S. government at reasonable rates 

only if it tackles its huge unfunded healthcare and pension commitments. Unchecked, 

the cost of providing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to 77 million retiring baby 

boomers could push the debt-to-GDP ratio up 

to nearly 300 percent by 2005, according to a 

December 2007 CBO report. 

Ideally, Congress would make the necessary hard choices through the normal legislative process. Its repeated failure to do so, 

however, may necessitate a commission to 

recommend reforms for the House and Senate to accept or reject. Reps. Jim Cooper (D– 

Tenn.) and Frank R. Wolf (R–Va.) and Sens. 

Kent Conrad (D–N.D.) and Judd Gregg (R– 

N.H.) have offered proposals for such a panel. 

Hard as it is, jumpstarting the U.S. economy 

will be easy compared with securing its financial future. But Mr. Obama and the Congress must do both. 

f 

HONORING THE SACRIFICE OF 

STAFF SERGEANT SOLOMON T. 

SAM 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a 

previous order of the House, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. BOOZMAN) 

is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, I 

rise today to honor a young man beloved by his family, friends and his 

country, Staff Sergeant Solomon T. 

Sam of the United States Army, who 

was taken from us on December 4, 2008, 

in Mosul, Iraq. 

Staff Sergeant Sam devoted nearly a 

decade to this country. He enlisted in 

the U.S. Armed Services in October 

2000, and redeployed to Iraq in November of 2008, serving with the 523rd Engineer Company, 84th Engineer Battalion, 25th Infantry Division out of 

Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. 

The commitment for this country is 

something we can all be proud of. Solomon will be remembered as a soldier, 

a son, a husband and a father. His three 

young children will grow up knowing 

their dad was a hero. 

Madam Speaker, Staff Sergeant Sam 

is a true American hero who made the 

ultimate sacrifice for his country. I ask 

my colleagues to keep his family and 

friends in their thoughts and prayers 

during this very difficult time. 

f 

THE FORGOTTEN WAR 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 

the Speaker’s announced policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. KIRK) is recognized for 60 

minutes. 

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, with a 

President to inaugurate and a troubled 

economy we can overlook the sacrifice 

of our troops in Afghanistan. This conflict, overshadowed by Iraq, is often 

called the Forgotten War. 

Last month I became the first Member of the House to serve in an Imminent Danger Area since 1942. Now, 

Members of this House have served in 

all of America’s wars, from the Revolution through World War II. But the Defense Department’s policy of 1943 

blocked reservist Congressmen from 

serving in Korea, Vietnam, Desert 

Storm, Kosovo or Iraq. Senator and 

Colonel LINDSAY GRAHAM broke 

through this barrier 2 years ago, and I 

became the first Member of this House 

to also serve since World War II. 

While our country has moved from a 

draftee military to an all-volunteer 

force, I think it’s still important for as 

many Americans as possible to share 

the burden of our troops. Our military 

is the strongest when it pulls into its 

ranks Americans from all races, creeds 

and colors and especially all walks of 

life. It is important for Members of this 

House, where the Constitution places 

the power to declare war, to also serve 

alongside our troops. 

I voted for the deployment of troops 

to Iraq and Afghanistan, and was honored then to be one of the first to join 

them in Afghanistan. 

As a Naval Reserve Intelligence Officer, I deployed to Southern Afghanistan in support of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force, or 

ISAF at the headquarters of Regional 

Command South. I served in the command of a Dutch Major General, Mart 

de Kruif, and on the staff of his American Deputy for Stabilization, Brigadier General John Nicholson of the 

U.S. Army. 

I can report to the House that the 

morale of our troops in Afghanistan is 

high. Americans that I joined feel that 

this is the right mission in the right 

place. Just because this effort is 10 

times harder than we first thought, it 

remains the place where we can best 

support the safety of the American 

people. 

Our headquarters was located at 

Kandahar Airfield, known as KAF. We 

located just a few miles from Tarnak 

Farms, where Osama bin Laden had 

trained many al Qaeda operatives. A 

few miles further down the road was 

the palace of Mullah Omar, the murderous former dictator of the Taliban. 

We face some real challenges in Afghanistan. Our mission has now 

stretched for 7 years, and can wear thin 

with the Afghan people. As we look at 

Senator Barack Obama becoming our 

Commander-in-Chief, it’s important 

that we review what we have accomplished in Afghanistan, its differences 

from the Iraq mission and what remains to be done. 

First, it’s important to note that Afghanistan is not Iraq, and almost every 

comparison between the two leads to 

people making errors with regard to 

our policy in Afghanistan. While both 

countries are predominantly Muslim, 

with over 25 million people, there is 

where the similarities end. 

Iraq is a country that has always had 

a strong central government. Afghanistan has always had a certain amount 

of lawlessness, even during the Soviet 

dictatorship. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE
January 8, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H85 

Iraq has an oil industry and a middle 

class. Afghanistan has neither. 

Iraq was a mission carried out by 

America and Britain, nearly alone, 

with few allies helping. Afghanistan is 

home to a NATO mission where a very 

large majority of the troops come from 

outside America. 

Finally, the insurgency in Iraq was 

sustained by dictatorships in Syria and 

Iran. In Afghanistan, the principal 

sustainment in income of the Taliban 

is now heroin, generating billions in 

profit. 

Our troops have accomplished a great 

deal already in Afghanistan. We destroyed al Qaeda’s training bases, and 

then deposed the Taliban dictatorship 

that protected them. We organized 

elections, and then protected a new 

democratically elected government 

under Hamid Karzai. 

b 1530 

These missions were no small feat in 

a country that has proven to be the 

graveyard of the Soviet military and 

that has seen no elections for three 

generations. 

Since 2006, the mission in Afghanistan has stalled as the Taliban has 

morphed into a new and deadly force. 

The tenets of Islam are generally antinarcotic. The Taliban first eradicated 

poppy and heroin production, but now 

has changed its practice. Once the 

Taliban no longer had easy access to 

bin Laden or to Saudi charity money, 

they went into the heroin business big 

time. Today, they are more accurately 

described as the narco-Taliban, backed 

by at least $500 million in annual drug 

profits. Some of Afghanistan’s wealthiest warlords are Taliban leaders who 

produce heroin to support jihad and 

terror against the elected Government 

of Afghanistan and of the nations of 

the West. 

The narco-Taliban are not evenly distributed across Afghanistan. They are 

concentrated in the heroin heartland of 

the Helmand River valley and in the 

nearby city of Kandahar. There is a 

growing misperception that the war in 

Afghanistan is fiercest near Pakistan’s 

border. While that may have been true 

last year, the key to fighting this year 

is along the heroin river of Helmand in 

southern Afghanistan. The Afghan 

Government and NATO are fighting 

pitched battles in the strategic rear of 

NATO where support and funding for 

the Taliban are actually the greatest. 

Our effort there has been expensive 

both in blood and in treasure. In my 

area, the U.S. has lost over 80 soldiers, 

but the Canadians have lost over 90 and 

the British over 110. I cannot emphasize enough the dedication and professionalism and commitment of our 

troops and especially of our NATO allies. 

I, personally, served with British 

Royal Marine Commandos, with Canadian troops, with Dutch armor officers 

and enlisted, with Danish armor officers and enlisted, and with Romanian 

infantry. Along with our service men 

and women from the Army, the Marines, the Air Force, and the Navy, I 

found these troops from the West to be 

young, idealistic and some of the most 

dedicated people I’ve ever served with. 

In short, I worked with heroes whom I 

admire a great deal. 

When I deployed to Afghanistan, I 

thought I might serve as a Fobbit. A 

‘‘Fobbit’’ is a person who works on a 

Forward Operating Base, or a FOB, who 

never leaves its border, who simply 

shuttles between the chow hall, the office, the gym, and the rack. Thanks to 

my command, I was not a Fobbit. I 

spent a great deal of my time outside 

the wire in Kandahar, in Geresk, in 

Lashkar Gah, and in Qalat. This experience gave me a much greater understanding of the opportunities that we 

share with NATO and with the Afghan 

Government. 

With all of this effort, we should ask 

the question: What is at stake in Afghanistan? Should we pull out? Should 

we stay put or should we double down? 

In my view, what is at stake is that 

the safety of American families is at 

risk especially if you live in the target 

cities of New York, Washington or Chicago. These are the cities most emphasized by al Qaeda and the Taliban. The 

dream of many Talib and foreign fighters is to depose the democratically 

elected government of Afghanistan and 

then move jihad back into the cities of 

Europe and the United States. 

Most of the NATO troops whom I met 

remember not just 9/11, which they 

watched on TV, but also the Madrid 

Metro attack, the London bus bombings, and the murder of intellectuals in 

Amsterdam. They believe as I do, 

which is the best way to face the Talib 

is in Afghanistan with Afghan allies 

who know how to fight them best. 

Should we keep the mission in Afghanistan as it is today? 

If we do that, we risk a bloody stalemate that would definitely protect the 

capital of the Afghan Government in 

Kabul but would surrender much of the 

territory of the country to the Talib. 

The Talib is also wearing our allies 

thin, especially in Canada and in the 

Netherlands, and it would strain our 

alliance. The Taliban now attacks 

young girls, who dare to go to school, 

with acid in their faces, and it has assassinated Afghanistan’s only female 

police officer because she was a 

woman. We know who they are. They 

are brutal dictators who want to set society back to the 13th century. 

As Americans, we cannot go back to 

the 13th century. Our culture and our 

country don’t even go back that far. 

Most Afghans support our values of reform, of rights for women, of the vote, 

and especially of modernity. But simply to protect their families, many in 

Afghanistan want to be with the winning side, and right now, many families 

in Afghanistan don’t know who the 

winning side will be—the Afghan Government and NATO or the Taliban. 

Should we double down? 

NATO allies clearly believe that we 

should double down, but they are waiting for a call from our new President. 

Our best allies—the U.K., Spain, 

France, and several other NATO countries—are already planning to add their 

troop commitment to Afghanistan. 

Other close allies of the United States, 

especially Canada and the Netherlands, 

need to be asked before making the 

painful decision for themselves to hang 

in there. Most expect that the U.S. will 

be part of a 60,000 troop commitment to 

Afghanistan, one-third being Americans, who will then move to attack the 

heroin production heartland that sustains the Taliban. If this happens, we 

can expect some tough days ahead. 

Hard fighting and casualties would 

ensue. The Taliban cannot survive 

without the heroin income that comes 

from this region. If we succeed, we will 

rip the financial engine out from the 

Taliban, securing a future for central 

Asia that does not include terror. 

In the end, we should ask this key 

question: What is our exit strategy? 

Currently, the Afghan police and 

army are much, much smaller than 

their counterparts in Iraq, a country 

that has an equal number of people. We 

need to double the size of Afghanistan’s 

police and army so that they can take 

this mission from NATO and so that we 

can wind up our own effort. It will take 

at least 2 or 3 years to accomplish this 

objective, which is why our NATO mission is needed now. 

I want to thank the men and women 

with whom I served. Our Dutch allies 

sent us General de Kruif, and our British allies sent us Brigadier General 

Hook of the Royal Marine Commandos, 

both of whom I served with closely. 

I also want to thank the men with 

whom I most closely worked: Majors 

Will Daniel and Fred Tanner of the 

U.S. Army. I also want to thank them 

for their dedication. I think about 

them here from the floor each and 

every day. 

I especially want to thank my boss, 

Brigadier General John Nicholson, of 

the U.S. Army. I count myself lucky 

that, at this later stage in my life, I 

have served briefly with such an inspirational leader. 

To the mothers and fathers of this 

country, I would say that, if your sons 

or daughters serve in southern Afghanistan, they will work under one of the 

most able military leaders whom I 

have ever met. 

As we leave Iraq, it is likely that Afghanistan will no longer be the forgotten war. Members of this House should 

take note that our troops have already 

accomplished a great deal there, but 

more remains to be done. 

For my part, I am honored to have 

served there, and I will be on this 

House floor the voice of the troops, of 

the Americans whom we have stationed 

in the land far above the Khyber Pass. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

f 

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED 

By unanimous consent, permission to 

address the House, following the legislative program and any special orders 

heretofore entered, was granted to: 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE