Jerry McNerney's website

After reading your thoughts on his Iraq vote, Jerry posts the 164th comment...

Congressman Jerry McNerney, at home getting some rest from a schedule that requires him to often work around-the-clock, seven days a week, spent some time on his home office computer today reading the blog comments you posted about his vote to deny President Bush another blank check on Iraq.

After digesting our community's collective response, he posted the 164th comment of the thread as a general reply to your thoughtful and insightful feedback:

I want to thank everyone for your comments.

About the recent supplemental spending vote, as you know I too was disappointed that the bill came forward for a vote. I voted against the bill and against the rule for the vote.

The problem is that the Senate needs 60 of 100 votes to pass, and they just don't have 60 votes for a strong bill. So the choice in the House is to take the Senate version or nothing. I would have preferred nothing, but the leadership felt it was necessary to give the President something he could sign.

Please don't get too discouraged. In the Vietnam war, it took 23 votes to end the war against a reluctant President. We've had four. We will end this thing -- within the Constitution.

I want to say that Memorial Day is here, and we do have a need and a duty to remember and respect the people who have sacrificed for our country: both those who made the ultimate sacrifice and those who returned.

I remain proud to be an American, proud of the great things our country stands for and has accomplished. I am also very concerned about where we are headed, and continue to do my best to preserve the best of our nation, while adjusting to this dynamic and beautiful world.

Have a wonderful and thoughtful weekend.

Jerry McNerney

If you would like to continue the dialogue with the Congressman, please post your comment to this blog entry by clicking "Comments" below.  We will encourage Jerry to read your thoughts as soon as he is able to do so again.

Eden w/ McNerney for Congress

McNerney on MSNBC: It's "not acceptable" to give President Bush a blank check on Iraq

Two days after Congressman Jerry McNerney voted against giving President Bush another blank check to wage the war in Iraq, Jerry's Blog is buzzing with 157 comments and counting from supporters and non-supporters alike.

Meanwhile, MSNBC's Tom Curry highlighted four House Democrats on Friday who voted for and against the Iraq supplemental funding bill on Thursday.

Among them, Congressman McNerney had more to say on why issuing Bush a blank check on the war was "not acceptable":

Freshman Jerry McNerney of California's 11th District, who represents a district that President Bush carried by nine points in 2004, is a 'no' vote.

"The president has said basically, 'give me everything I want and nothing I don't want and I'll sign the bill.' That's not acceptable to me or to a lot of people and that's not why I was elected," McNerney said in an interview a few hours before Thursday night's funding vote. "We need to bring accountability to the war, end the war, and re-deploy the troops. I don't think we should give the president a free hand."

Will Republicans say in next year's campaign "McNerney refused to fund the troops"?

He replied, "They'll say whatever they can say that works. We'll see. I don't know. We'll get funds for the troops; we're not going to abandon the troops. That isn't what this is about."

Does that mean he'll vote 'no' partly because he knows the bill will pass anyway?

"I don't know if it will pass or not. I'm voting to end the war. The president vetoed our spending plan and he cut off the finds for the troops when he did that," McNerney replied.

To read the rest of the article on MSNBC, click here.

From Jerry: "After the Iraq vote: A time for courage, vigilance and action"

This is a time for courage.

This morning, you woke up to the unfortunate news that a "compromise" bill was passed in Congress last night giving President Bush a blank check to continue waging the war in Iraq.

As you may know, this supplemental funding bill did not include:

1. Enforceable benchmarks.

2. A reasonable timetable for withdrawal.

3. Any requirement to initiate a diplomatic strategy to end this conflict (a primary recommendation of the Iraq Study Group).

4. Provisions to ensure that our soldiers are prepared, rested, and ready to wage this war as safely as possible until it is brought to an end.

Without these fundamentally important conditions, I could not vote for this bill. With a heavy heart, I voted "No" because I cannot, in good conscience, grant President Bush another blank check.

Beyond my insistence on the necessity for diplomacy and the proper care and protection for our troops and veterans, I have consistently called for real benchmarks and a reasonable redeployment timetable. This bill provided neither. That's why it was a blank check to the President.

This is a time for vigilance.

While you may be disappointed, as am I, in the failure of this legislation to hold President Bush accountable and move in a new direction in Iraq, I also believe now is the time to recommit ourselves to our community's resolve to end this conflict as soon as possible and as responsibly as possible.

We owe it to the men and women, the sons and daughters, the brothers and sisters, the fathers and mothers who are laying their lives on the line every day, halfway around the world.

Last night, by voting "No" on this historic bill, I exercised the solemn power you helped give me by electing me to Congress. Now, I want to encourage you to exercise your power to make a profound difference yet again.

This is a time for action.

On Memorial Day, I will be emailing you with a very important request -- a request that I know will have a deep impact on the very people who are willing to sacrifice their lives in service to our country.

Please open the email you receive from me on Memorial Day (or when you return from the holiday weekend) and, together, let's do something truly significant to contribute to the healing of our nation.

Thank you, again, for everything you continue to do.

P.S. If you would like to express your opinion on my vote against the Iraq supplemental funding bill, please post a comment on my blog. I really enjoy hearing your feedback, so please consider sharing your thoughts with me and our community by clicking this link. I will be sure to read your comments when I return to our district this weekend. 

Congressman McNerney's statement on Iraq War bills

Congressman Jerry McNerney has released the following statement regarding his congressional votes Thursday on two bills addressing the war in Iraq (Rep. Jim McGovern's bill and the Iraq supplemental funding bill):

I want an end to the war in Iraq. But ending the war must be done in the most responsible way.

Today, I followed my conscience, after evaluating what I considered to be the most effective method of bringing America's involvement in this conflict to an end. That is why I voted for the supplemental bill and against the McGovern bill.

I am reminded every day of the terrible cost of this conflict.  In fact, on Tuesday, I received notice that a Marine from Manteca was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq.

Our brave men and women in uniform serving in Iraq are caught in the middle of a religious civil war.

Hundreds of billions of dollars have already been spent.

We have been fighting in Iraq longer than it took us to win the Second World War.

I feel strongly that ending the war must be done in a way that respects our soldiers, honors our veterans, provides the best chance to reduce the violence in Iraq, and prevents the violence from spreading to neighboring countries.

That's why tonight I voted again - for the third time - for the supplemental plan, which I believe is the most responsible course to take. It's the only way to ensure that Iraqis begin to take responsibility for Iraq.

The supplemental plan I voted for provides the framework to end this conflict by bringing about a diplomatic solution, which experts from across the political spectrum recognize is the only way to end the war responsibly.

I could not, in good conscience, vote for legislation like the McGovern bill that included neither specific provisions to bring about a diplomatic solution nor funding for the needs of this newly created generation of veterans.  The supplemental does both.

We have to be tough but smart to bring about a responsible close to the war in Iraq. Continuing the war any longer than necessary would be unconscionable.

This was a vote of principle and one I stand behind.

Sunday's New York Times: McNerney's strong answers on Iraq

At "Congress At Your Corner" events and other meet-and-greets this week, Congressman Jerry McNerney has taken time to talk directly with constituents about the issues that concern them the most. As the New York Times reports in Sunday's edition, the subject of Iraq is often a hot topic.

Times reporter Jesse McKinley writes about how various congressional leaders are addressing the war as they interact with constituents in their district, leading off the article with a vignette of Congressman McNerney's visit to a coffee shop in Brentwood a few days ago:

It took less than a week for Representative Jerry McNerney to discover that Congressional recess is not always a recess.

Like other representatives, Mr. McNerney went home to his district early this month during Congress’s spring break, a working vacation that often amounts to a two-week marathon of hand-shaking, baby-kissing and question-answering. That is particularly true for freshmen like Mr. McNerney, a Democrat from a district east of San Francisco, who found himself quizzed on his pre-break vote to set an August 2008 deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq.

“It’s the president’s job to be commander in chief,” said Myra Harrison, 83, during a meet-and-greet in a coffee shop in Brentwood, a Bay Area suburb. “Congress isn’t supposed to micromanage wars.”

After several other jabs from Ms. Harrison, Mr. McNerney responded. “We gave him everything he wanted plus more,” he said, his voice rising. “And we want something back. And he’s going to have to be willing to work with us or he’s going to have a problem on his hands.” Most of the assembled kaffeeklatsch broke into applause.

McKinley ends the article by circling back to McNerney's response to a question about how constituents address his vote for the recent supplemental funding bill that set benchmarks and a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq:

Mr. McNerney, meanwhile, said he had heard both praise and scorn for his vote, not surprisingly. His district, which sprawls over four counties, includes liberal enclaves near San Francisco and more conservative areas to the east. Mr. McNerney in November defeated Richard W. Pombo, a powerful Republican incumbent.

“The ones that are vocal tend to be like, ‘What gives you the right to tell the president to end the war?’” Mr. McNerney said, shaking hands outside a wind-raked rail station on Wednesday. “But when I give them a strong answer, I usually get some cheers.”

You can see a photo of Congressman McNerney talking to voters outside the Pleasanton/Dublin BART station as well as read the rest of the New York Times article here.

McNerney: Forging a New Direction in Iraq

Congressman Jerry McNerney released the following statement after voting for the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, which passed the House by a vote of 218-212:

“The Iraq war has now carried on for more than four years.  While there have been moments of hope in Iraq , they have been overshadowed by a deteriorating situation and an increase in violence and chaos.

“Our troops have performed admirably. But now, our men and women in uniform find themselves amidst a religious civil war.  If they stay, they will continue to oversee the killing.  Many American troops will be wounded or killed in the process.  However, if our troops pull out too quickly, chaos and violence will surely follow, perhaps engulfing neighboring states.

“There is no question that this is a difficult situation with no clear options. But I believe our plan is the most responsible course we can take.  It moves our efforts in a new direction that protects our troops and honors our veterans.  It uses the leverage we have available to make Iraqis responsible for Iraq , and it refocuses efforts on Afghanistan and the war on the terror.

“Our plan was developed only after discussions with military and foreign policy experts, and considering the Iraq Study Group Report’s recommendations, the Pentagon’s standards on combat readiness, and the growing needs of returning veterans and their families.

“Our plan establishes responsible benchmarks and a reasonable redeployment timeline over 12 to 18 months – which I have consistently called for.

“The plan ensures that our veterans and their families are treated with the respect they’ve earned when they return home, by increasing funding for veterans’ health care – including specifically addressing post traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries, the hallmark injuries of this conflict.

“It is time for a new direction in Iraq .  This reasoned plan accomplishes just that.”

Today, Senate Democrats rejected an attempt by Republicans to strip the Senate spending bill of a withdrawal date. The vote was razor-thin:

The Senate defeated an attempt to erase an American troop withdrawal date from an Iraq spending bill this afternoon after an emotional debate about the powers of the presidency and Congress and the well-being of front-line soldiers.

By a vote of 50 to 48, the Senate allowed a withdrawal date of March 31, 2008, to remain in the $122 billion bill, which has yet to be acted upon. The majority defeated an amendment offered by Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, that would have removed the date.

The March 31, 2008, date is nonbinding, so the spending bill emerging from the Senate differs markedly from the version narrowly passed by the House last week that demanded a withdrawal by Sept. 1, 2008. Moreover, the margins in both chambers were far too narrow to override a veto promised by President Bush.

But this afternoon’s vote, like the one last week in the House, reflect the power of the new Democratic majority in Congress, and the Democrats’ determination to press their case against Mr. Bush’s conduct of the Iraq war.

To read the rest of this New York Times article, click here.

KCBS: McNerney wants "straight answers from the Bush Administration"

Chris Filippi of KCBS-740 AM aired a report on the efforts of Congressional Democrats to hold President Bush accountable on Iraq:

Representative Jerry McNerney said he wants straight answers from the Bush Administration. He also said he is worried Bush is seriously considering bombing Iran.

You can listen to the full report here.

Why supporting the troops means opposing the President

Sunday's editions of the Contra Costa Times and San Jose Mercury News included an Op-Ed from Congressman Jerry McNerney on his vote for the House resolution that addressed the President's strategy in Iraq.

Here it is, in full:

Why supporting the troops means opposing the president
By Rep. Jerry McNerney

Last week, I joined with my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, in casting a vote against President Bush's proposal to escalate the war in Iraq. I did so because it is my duty to do everything I can to bring about a responsible end to the violence and make sure our troops have the support they need.

In considering my vote in favor of the resolution, my thoughts turned to the members of our armed forces -- especially those who joined the military after Sept. 11, 2001, out of a sense of duty and love for country, like my son Michael.

I'm proud and heartened by their commitment to service and patriotism -- just as I am by my own son's commitment. And I'm concerned about their safety -- just as I was about Michael's when he was in the service. For me, supporting the troops is not rhetorical, it's personal.

Support for the troops means setting them up for success, not sending them into harm's way without basic equipment to keep them safe and allow them to perform their mission.

Recently, the Washington Post reported that the Marine Corps and Army brigades that the president proposes to send to Iraq don't have enough advanced armor kits for Humvees. These "up-armored"' Humvees offer our troops the best protection against the roadside bombs that have caused so many of the casualties in Iraq. In addition, reports also show shortages of trucks and other crucial equipment such as jamming devices and radios. Lodging and logistical support is also reportedly in short supply.

This demonstrates the severely misguided nature of the president's proposal. A plan for military action must include necessary resources to achieve the objective. The president's plan doesn't do that. Another critical consideration is the impact the dispatch of an additional 21,500 combat soldiers -- along with thousands of support personnel -- will have on our military.

Already, our ability to meet future challenges is strained. Deploying additional troops will significantly hinder our ability to effectively wage the global war on terrorism. In fact, it is the global terrorist threat that still must be addressed in a comprehensive way.

We need a tougher, smarter approach. Regrettably, the president's proposal means a further distraction from the central front in the war on terror: Afghanistan.

More than 325 Californians have died in Iraq and more than 2,500 from the Golden State have been wounded. Unfortunately, the president's strategy in Iraq has not matched the solemn commitment with which our soldiers have served. And the president's recent proposal will send our brave men and women farther down the wrong course in Iraq.

We must begin the transfer of responsibility for establishing and maintaining law and order on Iraq's streets to the Iraqis. Training of those Iraqi units must be done outside of Iraq, which will mean more soldiers trained more quickly, and will lessen the likelihood that Iraqi army and police recruits turn to dangerous militias and death squads.

To make progress toward ending the violence in Iraq, we should begin a responsible redeployment of our troops out of Iraq on a public timeline that makes sense -- while pursuing the political and diplomatic solution in which President Bush has steadfastly refused to engage.

Both Republicans and Democrats agree: We need a new direction in Iraq. While always putting our troops first, I will continue to push for that new direction.

JERRY MCNERNEY is a Democrat who represents the 11th Congressional District, which includes parts of Santa Clara County. He wrote this article for the Contra Costa Times.

Would you like to comment on this Op-Ed? The Congressman reads comments on his blog and often posts responses. If you've got an opinion to share with him, please compose your thoughts and post them below.

What newspapers said about the Iraq speech

With debate in the House on the Iraq War ending, let's take a look at the print coverage of Congressman Jerry McNerney's speech on the House floor, as each newspaper covered somewhat different aspects of his remarks.

Here are the highlights, in semi-chronological order:

The Fresno Bee:

Freshman Rep. Jerry McNerney, the Pleasanton Democrat whose district includes southern San Joaquin County, kicked things off Tuesday night.

"I'm saddened because the misguided and mismanaged conflict has become a tragic disaster and a genuine threat to Middle East stability and global security," McNerney said.

The Associated Press:

Others suggested they were influenced by the experiences of relatives who've been to the front lines.

"When I talk about supporting our troops, it is not rhetorical, it is personal," said freshman Rep. Gerald McNerney, D-Calif., an opponent of Bush's plan. McNerney's son, Michael, joined the Air Force after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and became a munitions officer. He is a captain in the Air Force Reserve.

The Lodi News-Sentinel:

While McNerney emphasized his opposition to Bush's plan to add more than 20,000 troops in Iraq, he addressed his support for the troops. He noted that he has a personal as well as a political interest because his son enlisted in the armed forces.

"The young men and women who joined the Armed Forces after 9/11 out of a sense of duty and love for our country are just like my son, Michael, who joined the military because of those terrible attacks," McNerney said. "I'm proud and heartened by their commitment to service and patriotism, just as I am of my own son's commitment.

"And I'm concerned about their safety and well being, just as I was about Michael's when he was in the service," McNerney said. "When I talk about supporting the troops, it's not rhetorical; it's personal."

And, finally, the Contra Costa Times with the Congressman's take on the resolution itself:

"The resolution is a good first step," said Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton. "We need to get something out there that Congress can agree on and show the president where we stand. The nonbinding resolution won't have the effect of getting the troops out of Iraq, true, but we first need to establish our framework for debate."

Of course, newspapers weren't the only source of discussion about Congressman McNerney's speech. You chimed in as well, with over 30 comments on Jerry's Blog.

BREAKING: McNerney to deliver floor speech on Iraq War tonight

BREAKING NEWS: Congressman Jerry McNerney will deliver a speech tonight on the floor of the House of Representatives outlining his opposition to President Bush’s plans for escalating the war in Iraq. The speech will take place sometime between 6-9 p.m. PST tonight (Tuesday, Feb. 13) and will be available live on C-SPAN. The text of his remarks will be available soon.

If you would like to share your thoughts with the Congressman on his speech, please post your comments below.

UPDATE: Congressman McNerney's full remarks are below, as prepared for delivery:

“The young men and women who joined the Armed Forces after 9/11 out of a sense of duty and love for our country are just like my son, Michael, who joined the military because of those terrible attacks.

“I’m proud and heartened by their commitment to service and patriotism – just as I am of my own son’s commitment.

“And I’m concerned about their safety and well being – just as I was about Michael’s when he was in the service.

“When I talk about supporting the troops, it’s not rhetorical, it’s personal.

“It is with great sadness and steely resolve that I stand up tonight on the issue of the Iraq and the President’s plan to escalate the conflict.

“I’m saddened because the misguided and mismanaged conflict has become a tragic disaster and a genuine threat to Middle East stability and global security.

“The escalation will cause more violence in the Middle East and will weaken our nation.

“I’m resolved because it’s our duty as the Congress of this great nation to check and balance the power of the President on any issue we believe harmful to our country.

“This Administration insists on finding a military answer rather than changing this failed approach and pursuing the diplomatic and political solutions necessary to bring an end to the violence. 

“Unfortunately, the President’s plan to escalate the war in Iraq will not bring success there or make the United States more secure.  In fact, the proposal means a further distraction from the mission in Afghanistan and the need for a tougher, smarter approach to the global war on terrorism.

“The President’s proposal puts more U.S. lives at risk, further stretching the readiness of our ground forces and increasing the drain on our Treasury.

“President Bush’s plan is opposed by military experts, by Republicans and Democrats in both chambers of Congress, and by the vast majority of our country.

“That’s why I rise in strong support of the resolution under consideration in this body.

“The resolution has two straightforward provisions:

1. Continuing support for those American soldiers who have served or are currently serving in Iraq, and
2. Disagreeing with the President’s plan to escalate the conflict and deploy an additional 21,500 combat troops to Iraq .

“Supporting our troops is my top priority, not just because it is our duty and responsibility, but because it is personal for me and my family.

“Recently the Washington Post reported that the Marine Corps and Army brigades that would be sent to Iraq under the President’s plan are short body armor, vehicles and other important equipment. This shows just how desperate the President’s misguided plan is. Military action should never be executed in desperation.

“We must transfer the responsibility for establishing and maintaining law and order on the streets in Iraq to the Iraqis.  Training of those Iraqi units must be done outside of Iraq.  This will mean more troops trained more quickly, and will lessen the likelihood that Iraqi army and police recruits turn to dangerous militias and death squads.

“The members of our Armed Forces who have served in Iraq have done so bravely and honorably.

“Unfortunately, the President’s strategy in Iraq has not matched the commitment with which our troops have served in that country.

“We must begin a responsible redeployment of our troops out of Iraq on a public timeline that makes sense – while pursuing a political and diplomatic solution.

“Yet the President has steadfastly refused to engage in the political and diplomatic efforts necessary to bring resolution to the violence in Iraq .

“Both Republicans and Democrats agree that we need a new direction in Iraq .  I will continue to push for that new direction while always putting our troops first.  This resolution is an important first step, but there is much more to be done.

“I stand with resolve in opposing President Bush’s plan for an escalation in Iraq.”