Barbara Lee Calls for Fully Funded Withdrawal from Iraq, Enforceable Timelines as House Panel Considers Emergency Iraq Spending Bill
(Washington, DC) – Invoking Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) called for a fully funded withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, criticizing funding for the Bush administration’s escalation of the conflict in Iraq and the lack of enforceable timelines, during the House Appropriations Committee’s markup of the proposed $124 billion emergency spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. The following is her statement (as delivered):
“When Dr. Martin Luther King Junior gave his speech ‘Beyond Vietnam, A Time to Break Silence’ at the Riverside Church in New York City in 1967, he said that ‘a time comes when silence is betrayal.’
“He said ‘Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak.’ Mr. Chairman, Mr. Murtha, this committee is doing this today. ‘We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak.’
“That is very much the position I find myself in today as a member of this committee. What I have to say is not comfortable, yet I am compelled by my conscience to speak.
“As many of you know, this is my first time addressing the full Committee, and I am mindful of the fact that the matter we are considering today is perhaps the single most important issue facing Congress and our nation.
“The American people went to the polls in November and gave us a mandate to end the occupation of Iraq, and to bring our brave men and women home. The legislation we are taking up today constitutes the first real steps of this Congress to grapple with how to fulfill that mandate. That is a positive step.
“I thank and commend the Chairman and Chairman Murtha for all of their work in drafting this bill and their efforts to bring the committee together on this issue.
“The administration is basically forcing Congress to intervene to bring a responsible end to their failed policy in Iraq. Given the enormity of what that entails, it is not surprising that we have differences of opinion on how to proceed, so let me thank the Chairman and Chairman Murtha again for listening.
“In considering this supplemental spending bill, we have not only an opportunity, but an obligation to pass a bill that will end the occupation of Iraq and bring our troops home.
“As you all know, last week I proposed the Lee amendment. I am not offering it as an amendment today in due respect to the Chairman’s request, but I still believe it offers the clearest way to end the occupation and I want to take a moment to explain why.
“My amendment is designed to fully fund the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops from Iraq by the end of the year.
“It would require that all funds appropriated for Iraq could be used only for the following purposes:
“First, to complete the withdrawal of all US Armed Forces and military contractors from Iraq by December 31st, 2007.
“And second, to provide for the protection of those forces and contractors now and during the course of that withdrawal and provide for diplomatic, social and economic reconstruction activities in Iraq.
“This is a rational and practical approach, not a cut and run strategy. It provides limitations on the use of appropriated funds which gives a solid constitutional foundation in directing the President to follow Congressional intent.
“The American people overwhelmingly oppose the escalation and Congress just voted against it, it just makes no sense for us to turn around and provide funds for it. My amendment would not cut funds, but rather use the funds in the supplemental to bring our troops home safely.
“I don’t think the President deserves another chance.
“Rather than give the President another chance, my amendment is designed to use the funds in this supplemental to begin to end the occupation.
“My amendment would bring a clear end to the open-ended policy of making our troops play referee in a civil war, and it would give the commanders on the ground the resources and the discretion to safely bring our troops home in a reasonable period of time.
“The administration likes to talk about the situation in Iraq in terms of winning and losing, because it is convenient to portray critics of their policies as opposed to victory, or supportive of defeat.
“The fact is that you cannot ‘win’ an occupation, just as there is no way for the United States to ‘win’ an Iraqi civil war.
“The Bush administration understands this, just as they understand that there are no pretty or clean options for bringing a responsible end to our policy there. They are content to mouth the words of victory while they try to run out the clock, playing a cynical game of political ‘chicken,’ where whoever acts to bring a responsible end to their failed policy will be accused of having lost Iraq.
“The trouble is that an average of 67 US troops die in Iraq each month and 500 are wounded. There is no military solution to this civil war and occupation, so for me, the cost of going along with the President’s escalation charade and risking our brave young men and women’s lives is way too high.
“If we believe that the occupation should end and we reject the President’s escalation scheme, which is what the House voted to do a month ago, we shouldn’t be funding them. If we are not playing along with the charade that the escalation is working, there is no reason not to withdraw our troops by Christmas. Finally, let me say that any timeline we approve should be enforced by the power of the purse. This legislation before us today does not do that.
“There have been too many deaths, too many injuries, too much violence for me to be silent.”
###