Date: 2007-03-23
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

I wanted to take off on the point you just made about the ability we give for the President to make a decision that he thinks is in the national interest. of national security. ISE March 123. 2007 Mr. Speaker. this legislation provides benchmarks. the same benchmarks that this President came before the country and said were essential on January 10. that we have unit readiness. that we have a length of deployment. We have two sets of benchmarks here. We have benchmarks that this Democratic Congress put in this legislation to make sure we can protect our troops. to make sure we werent sending them into harms way unprepared. Then we have benchmarks in this bill to ensure that the Iraqis meet their obligations. Those obligations. those benchmarks. are the same ones that the President indicated to the American people were essential when he spoke to the Nation on January 10. When this Congress switched from Republican to Democrat after Novembei 7. the main reason it happened is because the American people were sick and tired of being sick and tired. They had lost their confidence in their government. Their confidence in this Congress was badly shaken. We had scandals. We had a culture of corruption. We had a situation where the American people couldnt believe that their Congress was doing right on their behalf. and that the majority. Republican at the time. was here for the right reasons. That is why there was a wholesale shift and we won 33 seats on November 7. We are exercising Congresss appropriate oversight role and reasserting the system of checks and balances that the Founding Fathers envisioned. particularly by putting language in this bill that ensures that units have to be ready. They have to be prepared. The chief of the military department concerned has to determine that a unit is fully mission capable before it is deployed to Iraq. The reason that I wanted to interject during Mr. MEEKs remarks is because you. Mr. MEEK. mentioned that the Preiident can certify to the Congress that sending a unit into harms way in Iraq in spite of the fact that they are not fully mission capable would be in the national interest. He is the commanderinchief. There is no question that the President is the commanderinchief. But it is our responsibility as Members of Congress that we look out for the American people. specifically and especially in this case our men and women in uniform who are going over to defend this country. We provide the funding to send them over. We provide the funding to ensure that they are fully equipped and prepared. And the President should have to come back to us and say in spite of the fact that this unit. these women and men are going over there unprepared and arent fully mission capable. it still is in the national interest to send them. That is the least that he can do. He can maintain his role as commanderinchief in this legislation. but he has to make sure that he is doing right by our troops. and he has to own up to what he is doing in this legislation. including in their length of deployment. There is a Defense Department policy. Mr. Speaker. that requires the Department of Defense to abide by its current policy. which is that you shouldnt deploy a unit to Iraq or any region more than 365 days for the Army * and more than 210 days for the Marines. The President in this legislation can waive that provision too. but he has to say that it is in the national interest to do so. to send troops on another tour with less than a years rest. less than 210 days in the case of Marines. Again. he has to actually say to that young man. whose 6yearold boy I met. it is okay to miss half your sons life. because we need you. it is in the national interest. instead of being able to sort of duck and cover and do it in a clandestine way without the American people really knowing and without him owning up to it. The same with time between deployments. It requires the Defense Department. besides length of deployment. the time between deployment is essential as well. The President caA waive that provision. but he has to say to the Congress that it is in the national interests to do so. We also have benchmarks related to the Iraqi people as well. By July 1. 2007. the President has to certify that Iraq is making meaningful and substantial progress in meeting political and military benchmarks. including a militia disarmament program and a plan that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis. After all. they are in the midst of civil war. They are killing each other over things like that. The President has to certify there is progress being made. Otherwise. we are going to be there forever. with no end in sight. with no pressure on the Iraqi leadership to get the job done. Why would they feel the need to move in the direction of progress if they know that there is a neverending. openended commitment for us to be there and for the money to keep flowing. Cl 1500 They also have to achieve political and military benchmarks. By October 1. 2007. the President has to certify that Iraqis have achieved political and military benchmarks. and if he doesnt provide that certification. then U.S. forces will begin immediate deployment completed by March 2008. There are steps toward progress that the Iraqi leadership must take or we are not going to continue to put our men and women in harms way. and we shouldnt. And. finally. we need to eventually end our participation in this war. Our commitment there should be finite. not openended. The President should not have a blank check. and this legislation that we passed today ensures that. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.