Two Years after Calling for a Redeployment of U.S. Forces from Iraq — President Bush Refuses to Provide the American People with a Responsible Exit Strategy
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Tomorrow marks the two year anniversary of Congressman John P. Murtha's, Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, public call for the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. The following is an issued statement:
“Two years ago, I was convinced that the President's lack of strategy in Iraq was harming our military, our international credibility, and the strength of our nation.
“Two years later, the President remains without a plan and I remain convinced that we must begin an orderly redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as practicable.
“All Americans want stability in the Middle East. But while our military is bogged down in Iraq, instability is spreading throughout the region. Pakistan is in political turmoil, Iran continues development of its nuclear technology, Turkey is pressing towards an invasion of Northern Iraq, and attacks against American and NATO troops in Afghanistan have increased substantially.
“As a nation, we can either continue along the President's path, one that has fostered instability, or we can listen to the demands of the American people and forge a new direction in Iraq and the region.
“Political reconciliation and reform in Iraq is the responsibility of the Iraqi Government, not the U.S. military. I believe that the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq will give the Iraqi Government the incentive to take over their own country.
“This week the House of Representatives passed legislation that provides the President, our troops, and our nation with a responsible plan for bringing our troops home.
“It requires the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq to begin within 30 days, with a target for completion of December 15, 2008. It ensures that our troops are fully trained and equipped before they are sent to Iraq. It extends the Army Field Manual to all personnel, making torture not only unacceptable but also unlawful. And it transitions our forces from a combat roll to specifically supporting and training Iraqi Security Forces and counterterrorism operations.
“Unfortunately Senate Republicans today chose to stand by the President instead of the American people's call for a new direction.
“For two years I have publicly fought for the redeployment of our troops from Iraq. Congressional Democrats will not stop championing the will of the American people until our troops come home.”
The Oversight Committee will hold a hearing after the Thanksgiving recess to examine whether Howard Krongard, the Inspector General of the State Department, provided truthful testimony at the Committee's November 14th hearing. See the key exchange from the hearing:
Rep. Elijah Cummings: “This is a September 5th email that Eric Prince sent to your brother. It says, quote: ‘Welcome and thank you for accepting the invitation to be a member of the board.’ My question is this: did you know that your brother, Buzzy Krongard, was on Blackwater’s advisory board?” Krongard: “Sir, I dispute that, as far as I know that is not correct… I don’t see anything in here that suggests my brother accepted or attended, and as far as I know he did neither.”
Today Chairman Henry Waxman sent the following memo to Committee members.
MEMORANDUM
November 16, 2007
To: Members of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Fr: Chairman Henry A. Waxman
Re: Testimony of Howard J. Krongard
On Wednesday, November 14, 2007, the full Committee held a hearing entitled, “Assessing the State Department Inspector General.” At this hearing, Inspector General Howard J. Krongard testified that his brother, Alvin “Buzzy” Krongard, told him that he was not on the board of Blackwater USA and had no connections to Blackwater. Yesterday, in response to a letter from the Committee, Buzzy Krongard called the Committee staff and said that contrary to Howard Krongard's testimony, he did tell his brother about his relationship with Blackwater.
The information from Buzzy Krongard raises serious questions about the veracity of Howard Krongard's testimony before the Committee. To help answer these questions, I expect the Committee to hold a hearing immediately after the Thanksgiving recess at which Howard Krongard and Buzzy Krongard will be invited to testify.
At the hearing this week, Inspector General Howard Krongard called assertions that Buzzy Krongard has a connection to Blackwater “ugly rumors.” He testified that “about six weeks ago,” he “specifically asked” Buzzy Krongard about his ties to Blackwater and was told that he had no connections and was not on the Blackwater advisory board. Later in the hearing, after having been shown documents that appeared to establish Buzzy Krongard's membership on the Blackwater board, Howard Krongard testified that he called his brother during a break in the hearing and was told that for the first time that Buzzy Krongard is, in fact, a member of the board and “had been at the advisory board meeting yesterday.”
On November 15, I sent a letter to Buzzy Krongard requesting an interview and documents relating to his communications with Howard Krongard about Blackwater. After receiving the letter, Buzzy Krongard called Committee staff and provided information that differed significantly from Howard Krongard's testimony.
Buzzy Krongard stated that Howard Krongard called him specifically to ask about any relationship he had with Blackwater “in preparation for his testimony” to the Committee. Buzzy Krongard stated: “He asked me whether I had any financial interest or any ties to Blackwater, and so I told him 'I'm going on their Board.'” According to Buzzy Krongard, “He responded by saying, 'Why would you do that?' and 'Are you sure that's a good idea?'” Buzzy Krongard then said, “I told him that was my decision, not his, and that we just differed on that.”
Buzzy Krongard stated that during the Committee hearing, he was at home watching it live. He listened to Howard Krongard's prepared opening statement. Then, he heard Howard Krongard offer spontaneously the comment that his brother had no connection to Blackwater. Buzzy Krongard said: “You could have blown me over.” During the hearing, he attempted to reach Howard Krongard by telephone. Before he could reach him, Buzzy Krongard received a call from Howard Krongard and explained again that he was a member of the Board.
These discrepancies between the testimony of Howard Krongard and the information from Buzzy Krongard raise questions about the truthfulness of Howard Krongard's testimony. During the hearing, there were a number of other discrepancies between Howard Krongard's testimony and what the Justice Department and senior officials in the Inspector General's office told the Committee. This is a serious matter given Howard Krongard's position as the Inspector General of the State Department. I expect the Committee to hold a hearing during the week of December 3, 2007, to provide members the opportunity to assess whether the Inspector General provided truthful testimony to the Committee.
Once again, the Republican minority in the Senate has blocked the will of the majority of the American people and the Congress.
Congressional Republicans’ stubborn refusal to hold the President accountable for his failed Iraq policy is delaying needed funding for our troops and obstructing a New Direction strategy that will bring them home responsibly, honorably, safely and soon.
The New Direction Congress has provided our troops with all of the tools they need and a sound strategy to bring them home. Democrats will ensure that our troops have the resources they require, but we refuse to provide the President a blank check for his 10-year war, $2 trillion war in Iraq.
Thursday, November 15th, 2007 by Office of the Speaker
Supports Spending $10 Billion Each Month on War Without End in Iraq,
But Vetoes America's Priorities — Calls Them “Excessive”
Tonight the House will vote on whether to override this cruel veto.
On Tuesday, President Bush vetoed the Labor-Health-Education Appropriations bill — a bipartisan and fiscally responsible bill that addresses the needs and priorities of the American people — calling these investments in domestic initiatives dedicated to helping families “excessive.”
Below are some examples of key priorities in the Labor-Health-Education Appropriations bill that the President vetoed compared with how many days in Iraq that money would pay for, based on an estimate by the Congressional Research Service that we are spending $330 million in Iraq every day.
KEY PRIORITIES THE PRESIDENT VETOED
$30 billion — National Institutes of Health: Life Saving Medical Research
(3 Months In Iraq)
$14.8 billion — Title I: Education for the Disadvantaged
(45 Days In Iraq)
$11.3 billion — IDEA State Grants: Special Education
(34 Days In Iraq)
$7.0 billion — Head Start: Early Childhood Education
(21 Days In Iraq)
$3.4 billion — Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services for Veterans
(10 Days In Iraq)
$2.4 billion — LIHEAP: Heating Assistance for Low Income Families
(1 Week In Iraq)
$2.2 billion — Community Health Centers
(6 ¾ Days In Iraq)
$1.5 billion — Job Training & Career Placement Dislocated Workers
(4 ½ Days In Iraq)
$1.2 billion — Career & Vocational Education
(3 ½ Days In Iraq)
$1.1 billion — 21st Century Learning Centers: After School Programs
(3 ½ Days In Iraq)
$228 million — Veterans' Employment Programs
(16 ½ Hours In Iraq)
$23.6 million — Homeless Veterans Services
(1 ¾ Hours In Iraq)
$9.5 million — Programs for Veterans with Traumatic Brain Injuries
Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “We have now included certain criteria the government must take into account in considering whether a warrant is required. This will help prevent inappropriate warrantless surveillance and reverse targeting of Americans under the guise of foreign intelligence. The bill restores checks and balances. This is very, very important because, again, it’s part of our oath of office to protect the Constitution of the United States. The bill rejects groundless claims of inherent executive authority. There are those who claim that the President has inherent authority, inherent authority from the Constitution to do whatever he wishes. Long ago our founders rejected that concept in founding our country. We must do that as well, continue to make that clear.”
Republicans offered a motion to recommit promptly, with the intent of “effectively killing the measure by delay” as the Washington Post recently described such motions. Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and Democrats denounced the measure and the measure was defeated:
Chairman Conyers: “I strongly oppose this motion. The minority has just made it clear that they’re not seeking to change the bill. They’re seeking to kill the bill. And the tactic is getting pretty old in the House of Representatives. If they wanted to vote on the proposal today, they would have used the word — doesn’t everybody know it now? — ‘forthwith,’ as I have suggested but they have refused under well-established House rules and precedent. Other words do not have that effect even if they sound like they should. The minority used the word ‘promptly’ and it’s no accident they chose that word. The authors of this motion know full well the effect of choosing this word and so do we. And that is why they chose it. They wanted to send the bill back to the graveyard, which is what will happen if this motion is adopted.”
Rep. Rush Holt (NJ-12) spoke during debate on the rule this morning:
Rep. Holt: “The RESTORE Act now includes provisions via the manager’s amendment that will ensure that it is the courts, not an executive branch political appointee, who decides whether or not the communications of American citizens are to be seized and searched, and that such seizures and searches must be done pursuant to a court order that meets the standard of probable cause… Everyone here can tell each of our constituents — Muslim americans, soldiers in uniform, international businessmen, college students — you have the protection of the courts… I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and to vote yes on the RESTORE Act later today.”
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (TX-25) spoke during debate on the rule:
Rep. Doggett:
“For a party that purports to hate big government, these Republicans sure do seem to love Big Brother. They demand unlimited executive power and unrestrained authority to intrude into our everyday lives. And today we dare to impose some limitations on one of so many examples of their callous disregard of our liberties. If even former Attorney General John Ashcroft, sitting there in the hospital bed, in intensive care, if even he could recognize the illegality of the surveillance which Dick Cheney demanded, why shouldn’t we in Congress be able to do the same thing? And if one telecommunications company had the courage to say no to this administration’s wrongdoing, why not the others?”
Chairman Jerrold Nadler of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties speaks in favor during full debate:
Rep. Nadler: “Anyone who can read will see that this bill does not inhibit the government’s ability to spy on terrorists or on suspected terrorists or to act swiftly and effectively on the information we gather… the bill does not require individual warrants of foreign terrorists located outside the United States. That’s been the law for three decades. It’s still the law. The bill does provide reasonable FISA court oversight to ensure that when our government starts spying on Americans it does so lawfully by getting a warrant from the FISA court. It will put an end to this administration’s well-worn ‘trust me’ routine. I trust our intelligence community to gather solid intelligence on threats to our nation, but protecting Constitutional rights is not their prime job. That is why we have courts.”
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09) speaks in favor during full debate:
Rep. Schakowsky: “I believe the way that we conduct the fight against terrorism says a great deal about who we are as a people. We all want to keep the country safe from terrorism and to provide the necessary tools to our intelligence community. But I’m not willing to sacrifice who we are and what we stand for just because this president says so. The President’s Protect America Act cut the FISA Court out of the process. The RESTORE Act puts the court back in. Now the court, not the president, will decide whether the constitutional and legal requirements are met.”
Today the House will debate the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007, H.R. 3915, sponsored by Rep. Brad Miller (NC-13). This comprehensive anti-predatory lending legislation will help stop bad loans from being made in the first place — making sure that consumers get mortgages they can repay, strengthening consumer protections against reckless and abusive lending practices, and giving consumers the ability to see redress.
The House is set to take up new regulations for mortgage issuers as soon as Thursday while lawmakers are putting together a separate measure that would allow bankruptcy judges to ease the financial squeeze on some who face losing their homes.
The article later describes some details of the bill:
The first measure scheduled to be considered by the House is focused more on curbing future lender abuses than providing relief for those now at risk of losing their homes. It would set new standards for ensuring that borrowers have a reasonable ability to repay the loan, establish new licensing requirements for mortgage brokers, put new restrictions on incentives for steering borrowers into riskier loans and provide some liability for financial institutions that trade in faulty mortgages.
Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the Financial Services Committee, said the bill could be the first major consumer protection measure to emerge from the current Congress, with economic anxiety trumping opposition from powerful industry lobbying groups. “I think the consumers can beat the industry,” Mr. Frank said.
Though the bill has some Republican support, Republican leaders have joined mortgage industry groups in raising serious reservations about the plan.
Representative Adam H. Putnam of Florida, chairman of the House Republican Conference, equated the bill with using “a sledgehammer on a gnat,” saying it was an exaggerated response to a problem afflicting a relatively small percentage of people.
Chairman Barney Frank of the Financial Services Committee spoke on the rule:
Chairman Frank: “I do want to say we are here dealing with an issue, subprime mortgages, that is the single biggest contributor to the greatest financial crisis the world has seen since the Asian crisis of the late 90’s. We are in a very difficult situation now in the financial markets, and wholly unregulated subprime mortgages, unregulated by the originator, and then unregulated in the secondary market, has given rise to this.”
Rep. Keith Ellison (MN-05) spoke during full debate:
Rep. Ellison: “No doubt, the American dream has always been homeownership, and yet with exploding ARMs, with prepayment penalties, and other such exotic products, that dream of homeownership has become an American nightmare. Mr. Speaker, I’d love to be able to take every Member of this body on a tour through north Minneapolis. There are blocks in my community where every other house is boarded and vacant. The fact is, is that for the people who have made every single mortgage payment and never late, they suffer because of this crisis because their home values have been seen dropping and plummeting. We’ve seen our cities suffer.”
Rep. Brad Miller (NC-13), the primary sponsor, spoke during full debate:
Rep. Miller: “The late Ned Gramlich, a well regarded former Federal Reserve Board Governor asked why was it that the riskiest loans were being sold to the least sophisticated consumers? It was a rhetorical question, Mr. Speaker. He knew the answer. He knew those loans were being sold to people to take advantage of them, to separate from middle class homeowners more and more in equity in their home to trap them in a cycle of having to borrow and borrow again, every time they borrowed losing more of the equity in their homes”
Extended transcript:
Rep. Miller: “Now, several speakers have said that they think the consumers should make choices, there should be a variety of choices available to consumers. Sometimes they say that this bill will shut down market innovation. Americans are for innovation, Mr. Speaker, just as they are for reform. Americans are fundamentally reformers. So politicians have figured out to call everything they do a reform. However obviously contrary to the public interest it is. And now American business has learned to call everything they do an innovation, regardless of how bad it hurts consumers. I can think of many wonderful innovations. When we think of an innovation we think of a scientist in a lab coat coming up with new products. Mr. Speaker, I’m now the age my father was when he died of a heart attack in 1965. There wasn’t a thing we could do to help people with heart disease in 1965. But I am on a cholesterol medicine, because I inherited from my father high cholesterol, that I hope will allow me to outlive my father. I think that drug is an important innovation, I’m glad we have made that innovation. Mr. Speaker, this necktie is an innovation. 10 years ago you could not buy a silk necktie that was stain resistant. And for those folks like me who tended to miss their mouth from time to time, the cost in new neckties in any given year was hundreds of dollars. But this tie has a nanotechnology process that causes liquids to bead up and roll off rather than soak in and stain. Mr. Speaker, this necktie is an important innovation to me. But what on Earth do we mean when we say that a mortgage is innovative? It means, simply, Mr. Speaker, that there is no end to the variety of terms, there is a proliferation of indecipherable terms that are not designed to help consumers.
“Alan Greenspan called them ‘exotic loans.’ Others have called them ‘toxic loans.’ The innovation is not really about allowing consumers to tailor narrowly the loan they get to their specific cicumstances. The late Ned Gramlich, a well regarded former Federal Reserve Board Governor asked why was it that the riskiest loans were being sold to the least sophisticated consumers? It was a rhetorical question, Mr. Speaker. He knew the answer. He knew those loans were being sold to people to take advantage of them, to separate from middle class homeowners more and more in equity in their home to trap them in a cycle of having to borrow and borrow again, every time they borrowed losing more of the equity in their homes.”
Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank mocks the Republican Motion to Recommit :
Chairman Frank: “But listen to this: lines 14 and 15, you must show a passport issued by the United States or a foreign government. Now what makes anyone think that people who are in the United States with a foreign passport are here legally? They have foreign passports from other countries. I think the problem is some on the other side have taken the word alien too literally. That is, they think that an alien is someone who is not from the earth, because someone who is in America illegally who is from the earth might have an Iranian passport or Venezuelan passport or a Burmese passport… I think the real estate industry, this is literally my speculation, real estate industry said to the Republicans, ‘Wait a minute, we make a lot of money selling to foreigners, don’t cut out the foreigners’ – but you forgot to say legal foreigners! …An American in a Real ID state who doesn’t have a passport can’t make it. But an Iranian with an Iranian passport, welcome to my home! here’s your mortgage! Now I understand the impulse to prevent illegal aliens from getting predatory mortgages, that’s a very kind thing that the Republicans want to do for them – but they don’t do it competently…”
WASHINGTON — U.S. Congressman Jerry Costello (D-IL), Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, issued the following statement in response to President Bush's announcement regarding actions his administration has taken to address congestion and delays and the modernization of our nation's airspace:
“I want to thank President Bush for reading our bill, H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, for most of the ideas he announced today come right out of our bill. Finishing the rulemaking on overbooked flights, requiring better data collection and reporting by airlines on delays, and requiring airline and airport contingency plans for flight delays — they are all in there. Furthermore, H.R. 2881 contains historic levels of funding for FAA operations and to fund the Next Generation Air Transportation System.
“I would also point out that it has been the House of Representatives, not the Senate, which has passed a comprehensive FAA reauthorization bill. We are waiting for the Senate to take up its bill, much as we waited all year for the President, the Department of Transportation and the FAA to engage on the issue of congestion and delays. As I said when former FAA-Administrator Blakey addressed delays on her last day on the job, today's announcement by the President is better late than never.
“While we continue to wait for the Senate to act, the House Aviation Subcommittee today held its third hearing of the year on aviation consumer issues, and we had an excellent discussion of the actions that airlines and airports have taken to prepare for the holiday travel rush. We look forward to going to conference on the FAA reauthorization as soon as the Senate passes a bill, and I am glad that the President has read our bill and endorsed key portions of it. I look forward to passing it into law.”
The House has just passed the Responsible Redeployment Appropriations Act, H.R. 4156. President Bush has asked Congress for an additional nearly $200 billion for Iraq. The House has instead passed a $50 billion package, instituting a redeployment timeline and other critical directives aimed at transitioning our role in Iraq and bringing our troops home. The bill will:
· Require the start of the redeployment of U.S. forces within 30 days of enactment, with a goal for completion of the redeployment by December 15, 2008.
· Require a transition in the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq from primarily combat to: force protection and diplomatic protection; limited support to Iraqi security forces; and targeted counterterrorism operations.
· Prohibit deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq who are not fully trained and fully equipped;
· Include an extension to all U.S. government agencies and personnel of the current prohibitions in the Army Field Manual against torture.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “Yet under the President’s plan, and this was expressed by representatives of the Administration on more than one occasion, the President’s plan would bring 30,000 troops — the number of troops that were sent in for the surge — that 30,000 troops would be redeployed back to the United States in July of 2008. So let’s understand this: this means that by July of 2008, we will have the same number of troops in Iraq that we had in November of 2006, when the American people called for a new direction in Iraq. Again, we cannot afford the President’s commitment in Iraq — it traps us, it traps us…”
The House is currently debating the Responsible Redeployment Appropriations Act, H.R. 4156. President Bush has asked Congress for an additional nearly $200 billion for Iraq. The House will instead vote on a $50 billion package, instituting a redeployment timeline and other critical directives aimed at transitioning our role in Iraq and bringing our troops home. The bill will:
· Require the start of the redeployment of U.S. forces within 30 days of enactment, with a goal for completion of the redeployment by December 15, 2008.
· Require a transition in the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq from primarily combat to: force protection and diplomatic protection; limited support to Iraqi security forces; and targeted counterterrorism operations.
· Prohibit deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq who are not fully trained and fully equipped;
· Include an extension to all U.S. government agencies and personnel of the current prohibitions in the Army Field Manual against torture.
Rep. Jim McGovern (MA-03) leads debate on the rule:
Rep. McGovern:
“The President of the United States and many of my Republican friends have argued fiercely over the years for a blank check. They want no strings, no conditions, no benchmarks, no end dates, no accountability, no nothing… It is not acceptable for the President to simply run out the clock and hand this problem off to his successor. This is a war that George Bush started and this is a war that he needs to end. For the sake of our troops, for the sake of our country, we need to support this legislation. Enough is enough.”
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (TX-25) speaks during debate on the rule:
Rep. Doggett:
“Some refer to this as a bridge fund connecting moneys from one year to the next to finance this Iraq war. A bridge is built to overcome an obstacle, and the obstacle here is George Bush. Granting this president $50 billion more without reasonable restrictions to end this war is just building another bridge to nowhere. Today we use this funding to build a bridge that brings our troops home… The President can no longer defy our Constitution as the sole decider. America has decided that he’s wrong, dead wrong, too many deaths wrong, and its elected representatives in this Congress are now declaring no more blank checks.”
Rep. Barbara Lee (CA-09) speaks during debate on the bill:
Rep. Lee: “As one who opposed the invasion of Iraq and one who has led efforts in the occupation of Iraq I rise today to support the orderly and Responsible Redeployment Appropriations Act of 2007. And first I’d like to thank Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Obey and Murtha for really crafting this historic legislation which takes the first step to end the occupation of Iraq. This bill’s main purpose, main purpose, is to begin to fund the end of this occupation. This is also the very first time that this will explicitly tie funding to bringing our troops home. It mandates a start date for the President to begin redeployment within 30 days of his signature.”