Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS of Connecticut

Mr. SHAYS of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I consider this an extraordinarily important moment. And, Chairman Skelton, I just want to share my tremendous respect for you in marshalling out a bipartisan beginning to something that can lead to more. That is what I think we all think that this is the beginning. So the Tanner-English-Abercrombie bill, congratulations to all three of you, becoming the Abercrombie-Turner bill in committee. It is a bipartisan, effort that says we can agree on something and build on the little and then have it be more significant. It makes sense to ask the Secretary of Defense to submit a plan to Congress that tells us specifically how they intend to fight this war and the factors involved in their anticipation of what can happen in the future. It makes sense to let them have 60 days to do this, because they already know right now what they intend to do, and it should not be all that difficult to describe it and then explain it to Congress. It makes sense for every 3 months, every 90 days, for this plan to be updated and for individuals in Congress to understand whether we are ahead of schedule or behind schedule. We went into Iraq on a bipartisan basis, two-thirds of the House, including Mr. Skelton and Mr. Lantos, who lead the two most important committees dealing with this issue; and the Senate, three-quarters of the Senate voted to go into Iraq. We need to leave Iraq on a bipartisan basis. It's called ``compromise.'' It's what our Founding Fathers practiced when they created the Constitution of the United States. Compromise is not a bad thing. Bipartisanship is not a bad thing. Our troops are hungry for their leaders in Washington to work together. It is my hope that we will have a time line, a time line that is sensible, a time line that tells the Iraqis we are not going to stay forever and a time line that tells Iraqis we are not going to pull the rug out from under them and leave tomorrow. We need a sensible time line, it seems to me; and I hope this becomes part of that ultimate report. So I will just conclude by saying something I have already said. Congratulations to Members on both sides of the aisle. Congratulations again to Mr. Skelton for beginning on that side of the aisle to preach and work for a bipartisan approach. And I thank Mr. Turner for his work and Mr. Castle and Mr. Gilchrest and Mr. Israel for what they have done. This is the beginning, I think, and our troops should be very hopeful it will lead to a lot of good for them and for the Iraqi people.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Members of the House, 50 years ago on Thursday, the Russians launched a tiny moon into space called Sputnik. They built seven satellites, one they launched which burned up as it came back to Earth. One of them is right outside the main entrance on the way to Statuary Hall. I would invite Members to take a look at what shook the world 50 years ago and got us to wake up. Sputnik is right on the way to Statuary Hall.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rarely address this Chamber for 1 minute, but I cannot remain silent over the fact that 79 Members of this Chamber refused to condemn the accusation of MoveOn.org that General Petraeus, who has given 3 years of his life in service to our country in Iraq, has betrayed us. He had a message of hope and a recommendation that we not leave Iraq too quickly. Whether you agree with the general who commands our troops, he, and the troops he commands, deserve to know that all of us in Congress appreciate his service and will not be silent to such outrageous charges. MoveOn.org can say whatever it wants, but freedom of speech does not mean Congress must remain silent.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. But the bottom line, if the gentleman will further yield, is that we literally have more protections to the potential terrorists than we do for someone involved in organized crime. We make it more difficult, not easier, to get that information. And yet the stakes are so high. I was in your State at Los Alamos. Is that actually in your district or your neighbor's?

Mr. SHAYS. What I was struck by was that they showed me a nuclear weapon that they made basically out of material they could have bought at Home Depot. The only thing they needed was weapons-grade material. So I am struck by the stakes being so high, and yet we want to make it harder, not easier, to get the terrorists than to get the organized crime.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have been listening to this wonderful dialogue and realizing that I didn't want to interrupt the flow, but one thing I am just struck with is during the Cold War, we knew what our strategy was. It was to contain, to react, and it was mutually assured destruction. I don't think Americans have accepted what the new strategy has to be, and it has to be detect, prevent, preempt, and maybe act unilaterally. If a small group of dedicated scientists can create an altered biological agent that will wipe out humanity as we know it, even Jimmy Carter is not going to wait for permission from anyone. And my point is, I'm struck by the fact that we make it easier, for instance, to go into a business or a library to catch a common criminal than we do that if we thought a terrorist was potentially using a library even within this country to communicate. And I am just wondering if, in fact, that is true or not. In other words, isn't it true that if I impanel a grand jury, as the attorney, the prosecutor, I can just literally go and demand information from a business or library and get it, but don't we require, when we go after someone who is a terrorist, to literally go to the FISA court, have to swear under oath that the information that we are seeking is important? And I guess my question relates to the fact that, isn't the key to our success with terrorism to break into the cell without the terrorists knowing that we have so that we can then break it down and know what they are going to do before they act?

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1400, the Iran Counter- Proliferation Act, what I call the bipartisan Lantos-Ros-Lehtinen Resolution. We need to prohibit nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and countries who are aiding Iran's nuclear program, and we need to strengthen our current sanctions against Iran. First, we cannot talk about Iran in a vacuum. We need to pass this resolution and put other pressure on this government. We also need to make sure that we do not leave Iraq and the Middle East to this country. Iran is pursuing nuclear capabilities and is one of the world's most egregious exporters of terrorism, funding Hamas, Hezbollah and Iraqi insurgents. We are needing to confront Iran because they are funding the Iraqi insurgents, therefore killing Iraqis who are on our side. They are literally killing our American troops. The seriousness of these facts was made clear when Iran's president threatened to wipe Israel off the map. That is his intent. In addition, in April 2006, Ayatollah Khamenei told another one of the world's worst human rights abusers, Sudan, that Iran would gladly transfer nuclear technology to it. Khamenei stated, ``The Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to transfer the experience, knowledge and technology of its scientists.'' That is a quote. I am hopeful the ongoing discussions between the Iranians and the United Nations to craft a permanent nuclear agreement will be successful. But I am not holding my breath. It is critical that our Government utilize the tools at our disposal, including economic and diplomatic sanctions and the appropriate distribution of foreign aid to those groups who oppose the current regime to deter the threat Iran poses to global security. It is also appropriate and essential for us to impose pressure on the other nations of the world who prop up the Iranian Government and the extremists at the helm by their investing heavily in that nation. The bottom line is, in spite of its assurances to the contrary, Iran remains committed to a nuclear weapons program. The United States must be unequivocal in its rejection of these ambitions. We need to realize that if you don't want war with Iran, then we need to make sanctions work. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me this time and recognizing me. Just so folks who are here can kind of plan on their evening, I don't intend to go more than a half an hour, but there are some things that have been on my mind that I wanted to talk about. In 2004, we passed a law that every school or college that receives Federal dollars must teach about the Constitution on September 17, the day the Constitution was adopted. We call this Constitution Day, or Citizens Day. I found myself thinking about this from the perspective of my witnessing what is taking place in Iraq, where they're wrestling with their constitution. And so I found myself thinking that we can learn a lot about ourselves and our great Nation by looking at one of the world's oldest civilizations and its people, a people struggling under the most difficult circumstances to construct a governing constitution that will allow them to unite their nation, survive and prosper. In my first visit to Iraq in April of 2003, I literally had to sneak into the seaport city of Um Qasr near the Kuwait border. The State Department was helping me, but the Department of Defense was trying to track me down and stop me from entering this historic land. As I approached the border, the British guards at the gates were asking for identification. My Save the Children driver, talking with DoD officials by satellite phone, was cooperating with them as little as possible, and I sat quietly in the Land Rover's front seat feeling like an anxious prisoner trying to gain my freedom by escaping into Iraq, not trying to get out. We did get into this land of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, and so began my first of 18 trips seeking to exercise my constitutional responsibility of congressional oversight over a reluctant executive branch. The irony of this experience was not lost on me. Here I was trying to fulfill my responsibility as the chairman of the National Security Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, with specific jurisdiction over both the Departments of Defense and State, and one of these Departments, Defense, was trying to prevent me from exercising that responsibility, and the other, State, was trying to help me carry it out. So why would we want such oversight? The reality is, if more Members of Congress had done proper oversight and gone to Iraq, abuses like Abu Ghraib never would have happened. Some Members would have toured the facility, and one of the soldiers in that dysfunctional Reserve unit would have quietly approached a Member and said, Sir or Ma'am, I don't know the first thing about being a prison guard, and by the way, some pretty bad stuff is going on here. The Members of Congress would more than likely have waited until the soldier left, and then asked some tough questions of the supervisors and demanded to see all of the facility. If he or she had gotten any ``push back,'' they would have come home asking even more questions, and the military would have been forced to look into the issue and take corrective action before things got out of hand. Abu Ghraib was about a military unit run amuck. With proper oversight, the abuses would have been easy to correct and been corrected without a lot of fanfare or publicity. The press would not have had a story, our Nation's reputation wouldn't have been in question, and a primary recruitment cry of al Qaeda would never have existed. As it was, Abu Ghraib happened. The press ran the story, with little obligation or inclination to contain it, particularly after part of it was out. Al-Jazeera and al Qaeda used it to inflame the Muslim world, and hundreds of American soldiers, sailors, marines and air men and women died as a result. In our Constitution, there are checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches, but the fourth estate, the press, is on its own. Our Founding Fathers knew the tension between the legislative and executive branches makes both branches perform better, our country stronger, and our people safer. The fact is, the failure of the first Republican Congress to consistently do aggressive oversight hurt the President, his administration, the country and helped them elect a new Democratic Congress. The first year I traveled primarily outside the umbrella of the military, staying in places like Um Qasr, Basrah, Al Kut, Arbil, Sulaymaniyah and Khanagin. That year turned out to be an undeniable disaster. Regrettably, the President sided with Defense and Rumsfeld. State and Colin Powell were put on the sideline. Paul Bremer was brought in to rule as a dictator, and I saw firsthand the result of such a government. The voice of everyday Iraqis was not being heard, and predictably one bad decision piled on another. Following the faithful decision to arbitrarily disband their police, border patrol and army, as I traveled outside the umbrella of the military, I was continually asked by everyday Iraqis, why are you putting my neighbor, why are you putting my uncle, why are you putting my brother, why are you putting my cousin, my nephew, my father, my son, why are you putting my husband out of work? Why can't he at least guard a hospital? That question still haunts me to this day. You see, Wilfredo Perez, Jr. of Norwalk, the first Fourth Congressional District casualty, was killed guarding a hospital. I found myself asking, why did we leave 26 million Iraqis no indigenous security in a country larger than New England? Why did we put so many Iraqis out of work, leaving the general population completely defenseless and in the process endangering all our troops? Yes, one thing is clear. During the first year, the voices of the people of Iraq were never heard. They had no representation, their dictator wasn't even an Iraqi, but an American who had no real sense of their wants and fears, and certainly no sensitivity to their culture. If only we had listened in the beginning and allowed Iraqis, not us, to shape their future. Their anger was palpable. Americans, if you are here as our guests, you are welcome forever. If you are here as occupiers, we will fight you to the death. When we transferred power to Iraqis in June of 2004 and allowed them to establish their own government, they, and we, saw what turned out to be 18 months of tangible progress. To their immense credit, in January of 2005 they elected a transitional government, wrote their constitution, ratified that constitution in an October plebiscite, and just 3 months later elected a government under their new constitution. The year 2006, however, was another matter. The Samarra bombing ignited sectarian violence. It took 4 months just to form the Maliki government. And once in power, Prime Minister Maliki, particularly in the early stages, lacked the political will to get things done. With this small margin of supporters and belief that the government needed to be more deliberate and not rush the tough decisions, it has been difficult for Iraqis to find common ground based on our timeline on when things need to get done. But before we become too self-righteous about what Iraqis have done or should have done, it cannot be lost on any of us that our Constitution was preceded by the Articles of Confederation, and 13 years, from 1776 to 1789, of blood, sweat and toil. And even then, we did not get it perfect. If you were black, you were most likely a slave and two-thirds a person. In fact, dialogue about the issue of slavery and how to deal with it was such a non-starter, it wasn't even discussed. As an American history major in college, I truly loved studying about our Federalist era. I marvel at how so many great men found themselves in one place with such a difficult and monumental task: build a Nation, establish a democracy, create a Republic. We are seeing Iraqis faced with a similar challenge. The meetings of our Founding Fathers in Philadelphia were filled with passion, courage, devotion, great intellect, humor, optimism, experience, and most importantly, a willingness to take chances, build trust, and compromise for a common goal and a greater good. There was George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, and of course Connecticut's own Roger Sherman, to name a few. Thomas Jefferson was absent, but he was not absent when it came to the Bill of Rights, demanding its inclusion if Virginia was to be part of the Union. I haven't identified an Iraqi George Washington, Madison or Franklin, nor have I seen in the Iraqi governing council the dynamics found at our own Nation's Constitutional Convention. The tension between Virginia and New Englanders seems like child's play compared to the ethnic gravitation of the Kurds towards autonomy, and even more significantly, the sectarian conflict between Shias and Sunnis. One thing is clear to me: while Iraqis wrestle with sectarian violence, they do not wrestle with their nationality identity. They know who they are. They are Iraqis, people of two great rivers, descendants of the Fertile Crescent, where, as they tell me, it all began. So when I ask an Iraqi, Are you Sunni? They reply, Yes, I'm a Sunni, but I'm married to a Shia. Or when I ask, Are you a Shia? They often respond, I'm a Shia, but my tribe is Sunni, or my son or daughter is married to a Sunni. In the United States, I am constantly being told Iraq is not a real country. But when I'm in Iraq, I am told, We are Iraqis. We are the cradle of Western civilization. Your roots come from us. We may be Sunni or Shia, but we are all Iraqis. This point was emphasized to me by an Iraqi intern who worked in my office during the 2006 summer. He told me he never thought or identified himself as a Sunni. He always thought of himself as an Iraqi until his family in Baghdad became threatened by Shia militia and sought refuge among other Sunnis. This is not an irrelevant point. When it comes to the creation of a diverse nation, sectarian and nationalistic tendencies can break a country apart. It was not at all certain our 13 colonies would form a perfect union, but fortunately patriotism trumped nationalism, regional and sectarian tendencies lurking beneath the surface. While Iraqis don't seem to have the optimism or experience to govern, they have the passion, humor, intellect, devotion and courage that would match the bravest of any of our patriots. As an example, I think of Mithal al Alusi, whose meeting with me in my Washington office a few years back after his two college-age sons were killed 2 months earlier during an attempt on his life. Mithal had attended a conference of Muslims, Christians and Jews in Israel, and upon return to Iraq was taken off the Supreme National De-Ba'athification Commission and stripped of his security. There were already two attempts on his life before the third, which killed his only children. The assassins have made it clear they will not stop trying to kill him until he is dead. So there he was, sitting in my office, a truly marked man, and I said to him, Mr. al Alusi, you cannot go home. I will do everything I can to enable you to stay in the United States, to which he replied, in true disbelief, I can't leave Iraq, my country needs me. A year later, I visited Mithal in the so-called government's Green Zone, where we found him a place to live so at least in his home he and his wife could be safe. During this visit, I noticed there were no pictures of any family members, so I asked him if he would show me a picture of his two sons. He brought out an 8-by-11 color print protected by a thin plastic sheet which he told me he keeps in a file because his wife cannot endure the sadness and pain of looking at her two precious sons. The picture shows Mithal's arms stretched out around both his sons, they are taller than he is, with his head leaning on the shoulder of one of them. It was such a loving image that it breaks my heart to think of it and know that his is not the only Iraqi story of intense devotion, sacrifice and loss. This great Iraqi patriot, Mithal al Alusi, was elected to the parliament later that year. So how is this new government doing? The Shias, Sunnis and Kurds, in the early stages of government, reminded me of a sixth grade dance where little interaction takes place except for a brave few willing to risk some contact. They interact a lot more now, but as a fledging democracy, the Shias, who constitute 60 percent of the population, understand ``majority rule'' but struggle with the concept of ``minority rights.'' This struggle over minority rights is the center of their differences. The Shias fear repeating history and losing power to the Sunni minority. They believe if this happens, like in the past, we will not be there to help them. And Sunnis fear having little or no power under an unsympathetic majority. In Iraq, it is easy to advocate for majority rule. They get it. The majority rules. But it is very difficult to explain and advocate for the power and freedom that comes to a nation that protects its minorities and makes sure they are not outside the government but an important part of that government. As I witnessed democracy take root in this ancient land, I will never take for granted the essential nature of ``minority rights.'' Minority rights is the lubricant that makes the whole system work. Without it, democratic governments would come to a grinding halt. So we have a people that have spent 4 years and 5 months trying to create the perfect union for themselves. With the death of over 3,780 of our troops and over 12,512 seriously wounded, and the expenditures of over $1.5 trillion, we are losing patience with Iraq. Americans feel justified, given the sacrifice of our military and the expenditure of so much money, to lecture Iraqis how they need to get their act together, forgetting they didn't attack us, we attacked them. And then, we proceeded to eliminate their security, all their police, border patrol and army after Saddam, to add insult to injury, had already let out of jail all the criminals throughout Iraq. One U.S. politician after another berates the Maliki government and the Sunni, Shia and Kurds for their intransigence and failure to work out their differences and find common ground. I can't help but wonder, who are we to talk? When was the last time Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, White House and Congress, worked together on any major piece of legislation facing our country? The Senate, once again, has only now begun to pass any of its 11 appropriations bills necessary to fund the government. And by the way, the new funding should be done, but won't be, by October 1. We can't even agree in this Chamber on what to do in Iraq. The irony of that is mind-boggling. We blame Iraqis for not agreeing. And we can't agree. So what about us? When it comes to Iraq, the former Republican Congress was blatantly partisan. The new Democratic Congress has returned the favor. And a very opinionated press, rather than encouraging Republicans and Democrats, the White House and Congress to come together, has picked sides and marshaled the facts to fit their own conclusions. It is hard to know, I might add, with a press that is accountable to absolutely no one, where you can go to get the unadulterated facts. The reality is we went into Iraq on a bipartisan basis with two-thirds of the House and three-quarters of the Senate supporting the resolution to use force. The only way we are going to successfully bring most of our troops home is if we come together, find common ground, and compromise. But I don't think this is likely to happen in the near future since both sides of the aisle seem captive to their so-called party's base. The Republican religious right and the Democratic anti-war impeachment left leave most Americans wondering, who is speaking for us? In this highly intense, politically charged environment, the answer is, practically no one. The largest number of Americans aren't on the right or the left. The bell curve is pretty much in the middle of the political spectrum. In the past Presidential election, 42 percent of the American people said they were neither red nor blue, Republican nor Democrat, but purple. This leaves Republicans and Democrats with just 29 percent support each. Why is this relevant? The majority of Americans are not being heard or represented. The majority of Americans are not being heard or represented. The extremes focus on ideology and berate the fact that, according to them, the Republicans and Democrats are no different from each other. So they keep pushing extreme positions. But the American people are still in the middle of the political spectrum. They want solutions, not ideology. They want problems solved, not ignored. And they are getting neither. Our Constitution was created by men who knew the meaning of compromise. During their time together, they grew to trust and respect each other. In the process, they gave up hardened views. They allowed themselves to be drawn to the middle of the political spectrum. In the process, they created the United States of America where the people rule and have ruled for 218 years. The question that confronts all of us today in Congress is, do we have this same capacity, like our Founding Fathers, to grow to trust and respect each other, give up hardened views and find solutions to the plethora of inconvenient truths that confront us? Of this we can be certain. Now is not the time for Congress and the White House to do nothing. There are so many inconvenient truths we must confront, but we won't successfully address any of them until we have honest debate and until compromise and coming to the middle becomes something Americans value again. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for spending your time with us, and I thank the staff for allowing Members to address this Chamber tonight. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I thank the Rules Committee for allowing this to be put in order and the Transportation Committee chairman for agreeing to that. The FAA is currently implementing a plan known as the Integrated Airspace Alternative to redesign the Northeast airspace to improve congestion at the busiest airports in the Northeast. The FAA only has to consider safety and efficiency when making their decisions. But they do not have to consider the effect of air traffic on the quality of life in the communities near the airports. Congressman Garrett and I are offering an amendment today to require the Government Accountability Office to issue a report assessing the possibility of utilizing market-based strategies for air congestion reduction. These strategies could include incentivizing airlines to move flights to offpeak times and implementing slot systems for airports or quotas. The report would also have the GAO compare these strategies' effectiveness against redesigned air space. With that, I just say this amendment does not hold up the redesign process. It simply requires a study. Mr. Chairman, I don't know if Mr. Garrett is here. If not, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his kind words in support of this amendment offered by Mr. Garrett, myself, Mr. Frelinghuysen, and I know Eliot Engel, if he were here, would have wanted to speak on it.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, on September 17, 2007, my flight to Washington from New York was delayed and I missed 3 recorded votes. I take my voting responsibility very seriously and had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on recorded vote No. 867, ``yes'' on recorded vote 868, and ``yes'' on recorded vote 869.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my chairman, now ranking member, yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, 9/11 was a wake-up call from hell. We all know how we reacted to it, but the weeks that followed for those of us in the greater New York area had special meaning. It was a very poignant time. I think of the family of Joe Coppo whose son, Joseph, said good-bye to him. And he talked about his dad and he said: Dad, you wanted me to become an adult. This is a young man now in college, and he told us of all of the things he said that his dad wanted him to learn. And then he said: Dad I have learned from you, and don't worry, I'll be there to take care of Mom. Or the next week in the same church, Frank Fechet in talking about his son, Brad, and all of the things that he wanted him to learn and then he said: But, son, I learned far more from you than you ever learned from me. Or going to a service in Easton, Connecticut, at a small old church. It was built hundreds of years ago. Everybody couldn't fit in. It was a beautiful, sunny day and they were talking about a father, mother, and a precious 3-year-old child. They talked about the father and the mother, and then they had the nursery school where this 3-year-old child went, they had the teachers come and talk about this young child in a very precious way and then had us sing one of her favorite songs. When I left, the parents wanted to see me; and they said this can't be about anger and hate. They were lecturing me about what it couldn't be, and I was thinking I needed to tell them how much we cared for them. Or a family a week later, Neal and Jean Coleman, saying good-bye to two sons, Scott and Keith. It was a candlelight vigil and they talked about the sons. When it was over, the parents insisted on seeing me. They knew I was there. I tried to kind of just leave and not be too much of a presence. They said to me: this cannot be about anger and hate. Well, it is not about anger and hate. But it is a wake-up call. There is more than one inconvenient truth that confronts us. There is the one that Al Gore talks about. We could probably think of others. But there is one that the 9/11 Commission talks about. The one that the 9/11 Commission talks about is Islamic terrorists who would do us harm at home and abroad. That's a wake-up call. It is an inconvenient truth. We are confronting these Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Europe, in Asia, in North and South America. We are going to confront them, but it is a very inconvenient truth. One thing that the 9/11 families asked us for is please pay attention to this. Detect, prevent, preempt. Don't let them attack us again. Those are things that require us to have powers like the PATRIOT Act, like a FISA law that works and isn't a meaningless law and one that prevents us from getting at these terrorists. So there are a lot of lessons here that I think we can learn. I just would conclude by saying all of us are united in wanting to confront Islamic terrorists, but that means we need to be united in terms of what we do in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world about the FISA law. Just as we lecture the Iraqis about how they need to come together, we need to do a better job of coming together.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on September 7, 2007, I missed 3 recorded votes. I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on recorded vote number 862, ``no'' on recorded vote 863 and ``yea'' on recorded vote 864.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, this year, Save the Children marks its 75th year of service to children. This is certainly an achievement worth celebrating--and Save the Children did so last night at an Anniversary Benefit in New York City. Seventy-five years ago, a group of concerned business people first gathered in New York City to respond to the needs of children in Appalachia, hit hard by the Great Depression. Save the Children USA began with a hot lunch program for undernourished schoolchildren in rural Kentucky. This brought about an almost immediate rise in attendance and academic achievement, and the program became one of the models for the Federal school lunch program. Throughout its history, Save the Children has focused on transforming children's lives by providing families and communities with the tools they need to break the cycle of poverty. And Save the Children continues to respond to crises resulting from conflicts or natural disasters. Save the Children's mission remains the same in war-torn Afghanistan, tsunami-stricken Indonesia and the United States' coastal area hit by Hurricane Katrina. In addition to 12 states in the U.S., Save the Children is now in more than 50 countries. Today, when one in every six children in the U.S. are still living in poverty, and one-third of American children and adolescents are either obese or at risk of becoming obese, Save the Children remains hard at work in rural communities providing literacy, physical activity and nutrition, and early childhood support to children in need. Save the Children is working in some of the Nation's poorest communities: in Appalachia, the Southeast, the Mississippi River Delta, the Gulf Coast, the Southwest and California's Central Valley. In rural communities like these, 2.6 million children live in poverty, and many lack access to the recreational opportunities and affordable, fresh produce they need to sustain healthy lives. Save the Children's international programs began in the 1940's with sponsorships of children caught in the crossfire of World War II. Today, Save the Children reaches the world's most marginalized children--those who urgently need education, health services, nutrition and economic security to survive and thrive in more than 50 countries around the world. Half as many children under age 5 die each year as compared to 1960 and the number of children who can read and write has increased by nearly 50 percent. Save the Children has played a lead role in some unprecedented global successes for children over the years. Yet, there is still much more work to be done. More than 600,000 children in developing countries live in families that must survive on less than $1 a day. Moreover, 77 million children around the world are out of school, and 28,000 children under the age of 5 die each and every day. That is not acceptable. Save the Children has launched initiatives to tackle these challenges. I am proud Save the Children has its headquarters in the Fourth Congressional District, in Westport, Connecticut, and applaud them for their accomplishments over the last 75 years. I also appreciate the leadership of Charlie MacCormack and look forward to witnessing the future lasting, positive changes Save the Children will make in the lives of children. I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing and supporting this fine organization and their noteworthy mission.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, on September 5, 2007, I missed 1 recorded vote. I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on recorded vote No. 853.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I appreciate you holding this very important dialogue about Iraq. I appreciate your taking this Special Order to share what many of us have seen in Iraq. I want to say that I go where the truth takes me, even if it counters something I believed and thought. I just go where the truth takes us. There is no question that 2003 was not a good year. When we attacked Iraq, there was tremendous euphoria and then we made mistake after mistake after mistake. Those have already been discussed. Half of 2004 wasn't particularly good, but when we transferred power to the new Iraqi Government, the Iraqi people, we began to see noticeable changes. And then 2005 was a pretty amazing year. They had an election to create a government that would form a constitutional convention. They met the deadline to form a constitutional convention. They wrote their Constitution and adopted it in a plebiscite throughout Iraq, and then they elected a government under that new Constitution. So 2005 was a pretty astonishing year, a very successful year. They basically had 18 months of progress from the deep hole we dug in 2003 and part of 2004, and then came 2006. It took them 4 months to establish a government, and then the Maliki government didn't do the kind of heavy lifting we were hoping they would do. I took a position that I took then and hold today, that we need to prod the Maliki government. I believe the timeline is important, but not a timeline based on basically pulling the rug out from them and just leaving. We attacked them. They didn't attack us. We got rid of all their army, their police and their border patrol. We left them totally defenseless in a country where all their prisoners were let out, and then we would walk away? The neighbors to Iraq said we may not have wanted you to go in, in fact, said we did not want you to go in, but it would be an outrage if you left. And so now this is where we're at. Do we leave now? Do we leave sometime in the future? What do we do? I think that what we knew we needed to do was have a new Secretary of Defense. That's what the American people asked. That's what some of us wanted to see happen, and we got someone who wasn't tied to the past in Mr. Gates. Then I think all of us were hoping and praying that Mr. Petraeus would be the general in charge to serve under Secretary of Defense Mr. Gates. General Petraeus who had been there three times, been involved in this effort, and knows Iraq cold and knows the insurgency concerns extraordinarily well, given that he spent a year of his life just studying it. He basically said, give me more people to see what we could do in the greater Baghdad area. It was referred to as ``the surge.'' He said give me more troops; we need to establish some security, and then we'll reappraise. And now we're coming to that point. When I was there in December last year, they said we have lost Anbar province. We've just given up on it. We have no troops. It's totally in the hands of al Qaeda, and it sounded to me like a mini-Afghanistan. I go back in April. He said, we're winning Anbar province. I said, what do you mean you are winning Anbar province? You told me you'd given up on it. Well, the Sunni tribal leaders came to us, said we want al Qaeda defeated, we want your help, come on in and we will work with you. That's what happened. It was a model that wasn't part of the surge, but then when I went back in May, he said the surge is working; we're starting to see some progress from the full complement in July. And when I went back this past August, they said the story is the surge is continuing to go in the right direction, and we have won Anbar province, and we are winning some of the other Sunni provinces. The tribal leaders have bought in to what happened in Anbar and said we want the same thing. It's almost like, to some of my colleagues in this Chamber, that to say the surge is working and to say that there is progress, it's like they're angry and disappointed: how dare you say that. You had Mr. Baird, a Democrat, who voted against going into Iraq, who said what he saw, and he goes where the truth takes him, was that there is progress, and it would be a mistake to leave prematurely. So this is what we're going to be debating. Do we leave right now or leave by April of next year or do we maintain the surge a little longer? We know we're ultimately going to bring a good number of our troops home. We can't maintain that surge, and Mr. Carter's right. I have heard more of my constituents who serve in the military and those who don't, who I've met in Iraq. They said we could accept 12 months. Fifteen months is just too much. And I've had parents, they've come up to me, and they never did this in the past. They kind of put their arm around me. They whisper in my ear practically, and they say, my son or my daughter is in Iraq and they're exhausted. We know that we have to reduce the workload of these troops. We have to start to tell Prime Minister Maliki what he needs to know, and I'll conclude by making this point: we can lecture Prime Minister Maliki all we want. We can do that if we don't mind being the biggest hypocrites around. So why would I say that? Well, we say, why don't you Sunni, Shias and Kurds get your act together, and I'm thinking, Republicans and Democrats can't even work together on this. We have asked our Democratic colleagues to allow for some amendments, bipartisan amendments, amendments that would have support on both sides of the aisle. They don't want it. They have simply refused to allow any Republican amendment or any amendment that even their own side wants that would have attraction to Republican Members. Too many on that side of the aisle want to continue to make this a partisan issue when the fact is we went into Iraq on a bipartisan basis, two-thirds of the House of Representatives, three-quarters of the Senate. The only way we're going to successfully disengage in a way that will enable the Iraqis to stand on their own and bring our troops home is if we do it on a bipartisan basis. I'm prepared to vote for some things that I don't want if it is a bipartisan effort that will ultimately lead to some common ground. So I just want to say that it strikes me that we ask our troops to risk their lives. They have one request from us, that we, Republicans and Democrats, start working together for the common good of this country. That's their one request, and it strikes me that when we lecture Prime Minister Maliki, he's trying to run a government by consensus, Sunni, Shias and Kurds, all agreeing to take action. He could cut out the Sunnis and just simply agree with the Kurds, and they could run the government. The Shias and Kurds, they could get their more than 50 percent vote, but he is making a sincere effort to try to find common ground. I thank my colleague for having this Special Order. I'd like to listen to my other colleagues, maybe jump back in, but my report to this Congress is this surge is working. My report to this Congress is that the tribal Sunni leaders that have asked us to help have seen a tremendous benefit in their provinces, and that has benefited them. It's benefited the Iraqi people, and it's benefited our troops. And so I can't say what will happen two months from now or four months from now; but as God is my witness, we are seeing progress in Iraq, as much as some of my colleagues don't want me to say that.

Mr. SHAYS. I go every 3 to 4 months, and I've been there 18 times.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, you've been going more recently. I got elected before you.

Mr. SHAYS. I wonder if the gentleman would yield a second.

Mr. SHAYS. Just to point out to him that what you're encountering is significant. When the Iraqis say to us, be patient, give us more time, what I encountered early on was they were constantly blaming the other groups. The Shiias would blame the Sunnis, the Sunnis would blame the Kurds, and so on. But what they're starting to do is they're trying to say, we're trying to work out our differences; give us more time to work together. And that's a significant change. I likened this to a sixth-grade dance when they first started out. They didn't know how to interact with each other. But they're starting to learn how to interact. They're starting to be defensive of Iraq and speaking more with one voice; and I think it's not an insignificant event that's taking place.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?