Iraq Contingency Planning Act

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Tanner is right. It is not the war we haven't won; it is the peace. And I want to encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle, join me in a bipartisan stand to bring our troops home now.

I didn't support this bill originally, but I support it now because I understand that we make steps one by one. But I don't want to be chastised about bipartisanship because I want us all to work in a bipartisan way to, one, bring our troops home, and to recognize that it is not only the military power but it is the diplomatic power.

This legislation is the right direction. It commands an intervention by the Congress, a 60-day report, how are we going to redeploy, and a 90-day update.

But, Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to our troops coming home as heroes, and I'm working every day for them to come home with their families, a proclamation of their military success, a welcome home party in every single hamlet and village, and all the flowers that they can tolerate. That's what I call a declaration of the end of this tragedy.

But this is a good step today because we are in the mix. We're fighting to get them home. We are demanding that they come home. We are getting a report. We are forcing the Pentagon to think, and that is what we need to do.

But I look forward to my colleagues joining us and having a bipartisan vote on a time certain for these troops to come home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3087, which requires the President, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other senior military leaders, to develop and transmit to Congress a comprehensive strategy for the redeployment of the armed forces in Iraq. I am in favor of requiring the President to develop a comprehensive strategy for the redeployment of American forces out of Iraq. A good plan is a good thing. A bad plan is a bad thing. But worst of all, is having no plan at all, which has been the sad state of affairs in Iraq for the past four years. So H.R. 3087 represents a small step in the right direction. However, there is more to be done, much more.

While I am not opposed to this legislation requiring the administration to develop and transmit to the Congress a comprehensive strategy for redeploying our troops out of Iraq, I believe I speak for most Americans when I say that what we really want is to have the 160,000 brave men and women wearing the uniform in the service of their country reunited with their families and friends and contributing to their communities back here in America.

I am working toward the day when our soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen can leave Iraq and return to the United States where they can receive the heroes welcome they deserve. I am working toward the day when the President of the United States issues a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe a national day of celebration commemorating military success in Iraq. I can foresee the day when our troops who have known heat and hardship and horror in Iraq are again returned to their own land where they can be with family and friends and enjoy freedom and faith and fun. If H.R. 3087 hastens that day by just 24 hours, I can support it. But I will never be satisfied until our troops have been delivered out of Iraq and back to their loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, the administration has consistently placed far too great an emphasis on military objectives and solutions, and has consequently not allowed diplomacy the role it was intended to play in our global system. The administration stated, ``In the coming months, the United States will continue to operate along four lines of operation-- security, political, economic, and diplomatic--to advance our objectives.'' In our war on terror, diplomacy cannot be used as a last resort. A war on terrorism is, as the Bush Administration has stated, a war for the ``hearts and minds,'' which simply cannot be won through military action.

Mr. Speaker, our troops in Iraq did everything we asked them to do. We sent them overseas to fight an army; they are now caught in the midst of an insurgent civil war and political upheaval. I have, for some time now, argued the importance of the Congress going on record acknowledging for all the world to know the success of the America's armed forces in Iraq. Our brave troops have completed the task we set for them; it is time now to bring them home. Our next steps should not be a continuing escalation of military involvement, but instead a diplomatic surge.

As the former chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, recently stated, ``Military power is essential to our security, but if the only tool is a hammer, pretty soon every problem looks like a nail. We must use all the tools of U.S. power--including foreign aid, educational assistance and vigorous public diplomacy that emphasizes scholarship, libraries and exchange programs--to shape a Middle East and a Muslim world that are less hostile to our interests and values. America's long-term security relies on being viewed not as a threat but as a source of opportunity and hope.''

Despite the multitude of mistakes committed by President Bush and former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, our troops have achieved a military success in ousting Saddam Hussein and assisting the Iraqis in administering a democratic election and electing a democratic government. However, only the Iraqi Government can secure a lasting peace. Time and time again, the Iraqi Government has demonstrated an inability to deliver on the political benchmarks that they themselves agreed were essential to achieving national reconciliation. Continuing to put the lives of our soldiers and our national treasury in the hands of what by most informed accounts, even by members of the Bush administration, is an ineffective central Iraqi government is irresponsible and contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the American people.

Last month, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, heard testimony on the Government Accountability Office report on Iraqi progress toward the 18 legislative, economic, and security benchmarks. The Comptroller General of the GAO informed members that only three of these benchmarks have been met by the Maliki government. Despite the surge, despite increasing U.S. military involvement, the Iraqi government has not made substantial progress toward stabilizing their country. The more than 3,750 U.S. casualties and the $3,816 per second we are spending in Iraq have not bought peace or security.

We are not here today to debate whether there has been some decrease in violence in Baghdad. The United States military is a skilled and highly proficient organization, and where there are large numbers of U.S. troops,

it is unsurprising that we see fewer incidents of violence. However, it is our responsibility to take a longer-term view. The United States will not and should not permanently prop up the Iraqi government and military. U.S. military involvement in Iraq will come to an end, and, when U.S. forces leave, the responsibility for securing their nation will fall to Iraqis themselves. And so far, we have not seen a demonstrated commitment by the Iraqi government.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush stated in June 2005, ``Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.'' Instead of concentrating on building local capacity and applying pressure to the Maliki government to force them to take responsibility for the destiny of their nation, the Administration has chosen to pursue policies, namely the Baghdad security plan, that focus on continued combat by U.S. forces, rather than transferring responsibilities to Iraqis. As a result, Iraqi security forces, ISF remain entirely dependent upon U.S. troops; the August 2007 National Intelligence Estimate reports that the ISF ``have not improved enough to conduct major combat operations independent of the Coalition'' and ``remain reliant on the Coalition for important aspects of logistics and combat support.'' With the New Way Forward strategy, American troops continue to shoulder the majority of the war effort.

How will we know when the American forces are no longer needed? In testimony before a Joint Foreign Affairs-Armed Services Committees hearing last week, both General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker painted an optimistic picture of the situation in Iraq, making frequent reference to the progress and success in the Anbar province. However, Iraqi Parliament member and leading Shi'a cleric, Jamal Al-Din, said in a Congressional Briefing the following day that he did not recognize the country they described as the Iraq he represents, an Iraq that continues to be riddles with factionalism, extremism, and domestic strife. Even the administration's report projects a daunting list of challenges that face American troops on Iraq as well as Iraqis. These include: communal struggle for power between Shi'a majority and Sunni Kurd and other minorities; Al-Qaeda extremists in Iraq acting as accelerants for ethno-sectarian violence; Iranian lethal support to Shi'a militants; and foreign support to extremists in Iraq. And while General Petraeus and the Bush administration have been stressing the progress made in the region and the need for more time, they failed to note that sizeable increase in ethno-sectarian deaths in July and August and the fact that ethno-sectarian violence presents a substantial challenge to stability in the region, particularly in rural areas where security presence is light.

And while the situation in Iraq presents an open-ended military challenge to our forces abroad, our presence in the region may be hindering the security of our Nation. Evidence suggests that not only is increased U.S. military presence in Iraq not making that nation more secure, it may also be threatening our national security by damaging our ability to respond to real threats to our own homeland. The recently released video by Osama bin Laden serves to illustrate that President Bush has not caught this international outlaw, nor brought him to justice. Instead, he has diverted us from the real war on terror to the war of his choice in Iraq.

Recently, the former chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, published an op-ed in the Washington Post examining the question of whether our nation is safer today, six years after 9/11. Kean and Hamilton concluded, ``We still lack a sense of urgency in the face of grave danger.'' The persistence of this threat is attributed to ``a mixed record of reform, a lack of focus, and a resilient foe,'' and the authors note that our own actions have contributed to a rise of radicalization and rage in the Muslim world. Kean and Hamilton write that ``no conflict drains more time, attention, blood, treasure, and support from our worldwide counterterrorism efforts than the war in Iraq. It has become a powerful recruiting and training tool for al-Qaeda.''

Mr. Speaker, Iraq faces a severe crisis. With a factionalist government in which parties are based on religion, a qualification that is strictly forbidden within the Iraqi constitution, religious, tribal, and ethnic tensions remain high and mere subsistence has become a challenge to the average citizen. The UNHCR has recently said that more than two million Iraqi's have claimed refugee status abroad since the invasion, while an additional 60,000 people flee their homes each month. In a recent statement, Ambassador Crocker the admission of refugees was ``bogged down by major bottlenecks.''

The Administration has spent so much time and money on its military strategy that it is ill-equipped to handle the human rights atrocities that are occurring. And while the United States delays admission of refugees based on a myriad of bureaucratic security checks, Ambassador Crocker states, ``refugees who have fled Iraq continue to be a vulnerable population while living in Jordan and Syria.''

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the lack of adequate oversight of the American war effort. Given the enormous amount of resources involved, coupled with the catastrophic costs in human lives, we would certainly expect adequate management of U.S. funds and military supplies. We would expect clear records of exactly where those $10 billion a month is going, and to whom it is being given. And yet, the GAO reports that the Pentagon has lost track of over 190,000 weapons, given to Iraqis, particularly in 2004 and 2005. The report states that the U.S. military does not know what happened to 30 percent of the weapons the United States distributed to Iraqi forces from 2004 through early this year as part of an effort to train and equip the troops. These weapons could be used to kill our American troops.

In addition, only yesterday, the Iraqi government stated that it would review the status of all private security firms operating in the country. This announcement came after a controversial gunfight on Sunday, involving the U.S.-based firm Blackwater USA, left eight civilians dead. Mr. Speaker, reports indicate that there are currently at least 28 private security companies operating in Iraq, employing thousands of security guards. This incident suggests the need for superior oversight and accountability for contractors in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, the real tragedy of this war has been the deaths of so many of our American sons and daughters. At current count, the Department of Defense had confirmed a total of 3,808 U.S. casualties. In addition, more than 28,009 have been wounded in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003. June, July, and August have marked the bloodiest months yet in the conflict, and U.S. casualties in Iraq are 62 percent higher this year than at this time in 2006. This misguided, mismanaged, and misrepresented war has claimed too many lives of our brave servicemen; its depth, breadth, and scope are without precedent in American history.

Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss briefly an important legislative proposal that I will soon introduce. This legislation, the ``Military Success in Iraq Commemoration Act of 2007,'' recognizes the extraordinary performance of the Armed Forces in achieving the military objectives of the United States in Iraq, encourages the President to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe a national day of celebration commemorating the military success of American troops in Iraq, and provides other affirmative and tangible expressions of appreciation from a grateful nation to all veterans of the war in Iraq.

There are many interesting and important legislative proposals relating to the war in Iraq. Most of them, however, are contentious and divisive making it difficult for them to attract broad support across the aisle. In this respect my legislation is different. That is because it involves an issue over which there should be widespread and broad- based consensus. We should all be able to agree that one good and sufficient reason to redeploy U.S. troops out of Iraq is because they have achieved their mission objectives. They have been victorious in every battle and have won the military victory they were sent to win in March 2003. They are victors and heroes who have never been defeated on the battlefield.

Blaming the current chaos in Iraq on our military is like blaming the Continental Army for the outbreak of the Civil War. In each case, the armed forces did their jobs--they won the war they were sent to fight; in each case, it was the civilian leadership that failed to win or maintain the peace.

The Armed Forces of the United States are not to be used to respond to 911 calls from governments like Iraq's that have done all they can to take responsibility for the security of their country and safety of their own people. The United States cannot do for Iraq what Iraqis are not willing to do for themselves.

When our heroic young men and women willingly sacrifice life or limb on the battlefield, the nation has a moral obligation to ensure that they are treated with respect and dignity. One reason we are the greatest nation in the world is because of the brave young men and women fighting for us in Iraq and Afghanistan. They deserve honor, they deserve dignity, and they deserve to know that a grateful nation cares about them.

Outside of my office there is a poster-board with the names and faces of those heroes from Houston, Texas who have lost their lives wearing the uniform of our country. I think to myself how lucky I am to live in a nation where so many brave young men and women volunteer to the ultimate sacrifice so that their countrymen can enjoy the blessings of liberty. Now is the time to remind our heroes they have not been forgotten. More importantly, America has not forgotten them.

My legislation, the Military Success in Iraq Commemoration Act of 2007, pays fitting tribute to the valor, devotion, and heroism of

those who fought in Iraq in the following ways. First, my bill provides an express finding by the Congress that the objectives for which the AUMF resolution of 2002 authorized the use of force in Iraq were achieved by the Armed Forces of the United States.

Second, my bill authorizes the President to issue a proclamation calling upon the American people to observe a national day of celebration commemorating the Armed Forces' military success in Iraq. This will help ensure that the Iraq War does not suffer the fate of other open-ended engagements like the Korean War, which is often called the ``Forgotten War.''

Third, my bill authorizes funds to be appropriated and awarded by the Secretary of Defense to state and local governments to assist in defraying the costs of conducting suitable ``Success in Iraq'' homecoming and commemoration activities and in creating appropriate memorials honoring those who lost their lives in the war. Many of the casualties in the Iraq War come from small towns and villages in rural or economically depressed areas. The local governments are already facing substantial fiscal pressures and need help coming up with the necessary funds.

Finally, my bill creates a program and authorizes funds to be appropriated pursuant to which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall award to each veteran of the Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom a grant of $5,000 to facilitate the transition to civilian life. We don't want veterans to end up homeless or unemployed or unable to take their kids on a vacation or start a business. This $5,000 bonus is but a small token of the affection the people of the United States have for those who risked their lives so that we may continue to live in freedom.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps no issue will more define this Congress than how we conclude this misguided conflict. I am proud to be a part of a Congress that is listening to the clearly expressed will of the American people, and I remain, as ever, committed to ending this truly tragic conflict.

Madam Speaker, I would at this point like to thank Mr. Mike Turner for working with us and the committee, right from the get-go, and also Mr. Phil English as well, to demonstrate what we have been saying here that Republicans alone, Democrats alone cannot bring this to an end. It requires us all to work together.

Now, there are some, I am sorry to say, on both ends of the spectrum of the parties who want to diminish what the bill is all about and what its intent is all about. Someone went so far yesterday as to say, well, this bill is like naming post offices.

Well, yesterday, we named two post offices for marines that were killed in Iraq. I don't suppose the author of that kind of commentary would like to speak with the family of the marines who have been killed about why these post offices were named.

I think it's pretty important that we concentrate on those who are bearing the brunt of the policies that we approve of in this body. That's what this is all about. We want to end the party sniping. We want to end the commentary about advantages being taken from one party or another.

Cover has been mentioned, about whether it would be given to one party or another. The only cover that we are interested in is the cover that has to be obtained by our fighting men and women in the field, because they are engaged in battle as a result of the policies that we either approve or disapprove of.

It's time for the Congress to take back its responsibility.

Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a commentary from the Government Accountability Office as of the end of July of this year.

Issues that DOD needs to consider in planning and executing

the draw down and redeployment of forces from Iraq:

Draw Down Scope, Costs, Timetable, and Capacity Issues

What forces will be drawn down, and over what period of

time? (i.e. the process for determining the order in which

specific forces will draw down, the timetable for the draw

down, and planning for the consolidation and relocation of

forces and related force protection issues).

How will DOD estimate, budget, and report costs associated

with the draw down? (i.e. the use of baseline budgets versus

GWOT-specific funding requests for related costs, and the

determination of which cost elements will be directly

associated with draw down and redeployment operations).

What will be DOD's responsibilities for transporting,

protecting, housing, and supporting other government civilian

personnel and contractors during the draw down and for those

forces that will remain behind? (i.e. civilian personnel from

the Department of Defense, State Department, USAID, and

defense contractors).

What forces will stay in theater after the draw down, and

what will the footprint be for forces remaining in Iraq and

Kuwait? (i.e.

stabilization forces in Iraq, forces to protect and maintain

prepositioned equipment sites in Iraq and Kuwait, and forces

to protect the U.S. Embassy in Iraq).

How much equipment and supplies will be redeployed from

Iraq and Kuwait, and over what period of time? (i.e. types of

equipment and supplies, numbers and sizes of the pieces of

equipment and supplies, tonnage, and amounts and types of

shipping vessels that will be needed).

To what extent does DOD have the capacity in Iraq, Kuwait,

and CONUS to support the draw down? (i.e. personnel,

facilities, storage, and transportation).

What equipment will stay in Iraq and Kuwait, and how will

this equipment be protected and maintained after the draw

down? (i.e. equipment transfers to the ISF and Iraqi forces,

prepositioned equipment sites in Iraq and Kuwait, and numbers

of maintenance contractors or service members needed to

maintain equipment in Iraq and Kuwait).

Logistics Issues

What are the logistics elements that DOD will need to

consider in the redeployment of troops and other personnel

from Iraq and Kuwait? (i.e. personnel security, housing and

food, medical support, and airlift requirements).

What are the logistics elements that DOD will need in the

United States to accept and process troops and personnel re-

entering the United States? (i.e. determining where the

troops and personnel will be sent, demobilization

requirements, housing and food, medical and dental support,

and veteran affairs issues).

What are the logistics elements that DOD will need to

consider in the redeployment of equipment and supplies from

Iraq and Kuwait? (i.e. transportation requirements, security

and protection of in-transit assets, storage and handling

requirements, port operations and facilities, and

requirements for shipping containers and vessels).

How will DOD maintain accountability and visibility over

in-transit assets? (i.e. establishing accountability over

assets in theater before redeployment, and maintaining

accountability and visibility throughout the redeployment

process).

What are the logistics elements that DOD will need in the

United States to accept and process equipment and supplies

re-entering the United States? (i.e. port operations and

facilities, transportation requirements, storage and handling

requirements, maintenance requirements, equipment reset

requirements, and depot capability and capacity issues).

Rebuilding Unit Capacity and Maintaining Stability in the Region During

and After the Drawn Down

How will DOD plan for rebuilding unit capacity and

resetting the forces, including establishing goals for

readiness levels and investment priorities? (i.e. personnel

re-training and re-manning).

What will be DOD's and other federal agencies' roles and

responsibilities regarding Iraqi refugees? (i.e. security,

shelter and food, and medical support).

How will DOD coordinate with coalition forces on the draw

down and redeployment processes, and what will be the roles

and responsibilities of the coalition forces during and after

the draw down? (i.e. coalition forces that will remain in

Iraq after the draw down, and force protection issues during

the draw down).

What agreements will DOD need to make with other

neighboring countries in the Middle East to facilitate the

draw down and redeployment? (i.e. airspace rights, logistics

support during redeployment, and roles of other countries in

the region in maintaining regional stability).

What issues will the Department of Defense consider in the planning and executing of the draw-down and redeployment of forces from Iraq? It includes the draw-down, scope, the costs, the timetable, the capacity issues, logistics issues. These are the serious and sober subjects of what will be presented to us by these redeployment plans.

You cannot have a redeployment by wish fulfillment alone. You have to have the practical realities in front of you in order to accomplish it. That's what we are seeking to do. That's what the Armed Services Committee on a bipartisan basis sought to accomplish with this bill. This is serious and sober business.

Section two of the measure states the strategy required ``shall include planning to achieve the following.'' That's what we mean by the status of the planning. Status of the planning will include the transition of combat forces from policing civil strife or sectarian violence in Iraq.

It has to include a projection in the number of members the Armed Forces required for the missions described in the redeployment. The details of what these redeployment plans will encompass are included in the bill, and so the preamble that is there that says the original resolution has now been accomplished takes us to this final conclusion that we reach today, the redeployment of our troops in a responsible way and a bipartisan manner.

Permission to Reduce Time for Electronic Voting

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3087) to require the President, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other senior military leaders, to develop and transmit to Congress a comprehensive strategy for the redeployment of United States Armed Forces in Iraq, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 3087, a bill to require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the status of planning for the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq.

This bill is the rarest of creatures, a bipartisan compromise on one of the most significant issues facing our country today, the war in Iraq. This bill was marked up in the Armed Services Committee with the support of our ranking member, Duncan Hunter of California. The committee took the excellent work of Representative Neil Abercrombie and Representative John Tanner and built on it.

The committee adopted a comprehensive amendment developed by Mr. Abercrombie and Representative Mike Turner, two of our leaders on our committee on the advancement of national defense. The bill, as amended, passed our committee 55-2.

I am proud of the work of our committee. I am glad it has been brought to the floor. The bill seeks to accomplish two primary goals. First, it affirms the critical need for comprehensive, well-thought-out planning for a redeployment of troops from Iraq, the kind of planning that, frankly, was not done for the post-war period in Iraq, the so- called phase 4 of the war before we invaded.

This will help Congress fulfill its duties to ensure that such a mistake is not repeated.

Second, it requires that the planning the Pentagon is doing for deployment from Iraq be shared with Congress, as it should. It lays out a clear statement on the need for appropriate, detailed contingency planning for our redeployment of troops from that country, including consideration of force protection for our military and civilian personnel, and the need to continue to protect our vital national security interests.

It requires by statute that the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff provide us with a report and briefing on redeployment planning from Iraq within 60 days of enactment, and that updated reports and briefings from senior Department of Defense officials continue to be provided on a quarterly basis thereafter. It will allow the Armed Services Committee to perform the oversight function, which is central to our purpose.

Time is not on our side. In my view, it's time to begin responsible redeployment of forces and a change of mission in Iraq. Members are on different places on Iraq, but we can agree that we must be engaged in serious planning for the redeployment of American forces.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to my colleague, my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, my colleague, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), who is the chairman of the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee and is also an original cosponsor of this legislation along with Mr. Tanner from Tennessee.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further proceedings today in the House, the Chair be authorized to reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any question that otherwise could be subjected to 5-minute voting under clause 8, rule XX.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague and my friend from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) who is an original sponsor of the bill together with Mr. Abercrombie.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) who, by the way, is a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz) who is a cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, our leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

May I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Some will knock, Mr. Speaker, the importance of this legislation. It is a bill to require the Secretary of Defense to submit to us here in Congress reports on the status of planning for the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq. Further, it requires the Secretary to meet with Congress to brief us on the matters contained in those reports.

Under the Constitution, Mr. Speaker, we are charged here in Congress with raising and maintaining the military. It's important for us to be able to look

around the corner to unseen challenges that are out there. The last 30 years we've had 12 military engagements, most of which were a surprise to us. So consequently, it's important for us in Congress to understand the progress and the status of planning for the redeployment of our Armed Forces from Iraq, because there may be those contingencies out there. We hope it doesn't come to pass, but if the future is anything like the past, our forces will be necessary.

So let us understand what this bill does. I think it's a step in the right direction. I am absolutely pleased with the bipartisanship we have had, both in the Armed Services Committee and here on the floor. And special thanks to my friend, my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Turner) for his work and his amendment on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have no more than 4 minutes to address the House.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I think all of us know by now that the military occupation in Iraq, which is referred to as a war but is really a military occupation, is an increasing disaster. We all know that now more than 4,000 military personnel have lost their lives, tens of thousands have been injured. We ought to be taking decisive action to put an end to that illegal, disastrous military occupation.

This bill is presented as a means of attempting to do so. But it is a false presentation. It does nothing to that effect. This bill, if it is passed and signed into law, would simply require a plan to be developed within 60 days after that signing and then another 90 days an additional plan, another 90 days an additional plan. So what we are likely to see, unless this Congress is able to take more decisive, more progressive, more positive action, is four, five, maybe even six plans coming out of this administration and no responsible action taken with regard to the disastrous circumstances that occur on the basis of this illegal military occupation.

This legislation does nothing productive to deal with this very difficult, dangerous, and disastrous situation. The circumstances for the security of this country have worsened as a result of this illegal invasion and the subsequent military occupation, and that worsening continues.

One of the other things in this legislation is also, frankly, very interesting. Congress finds, it says, the following: that the President has the ability to use the Armed Forces as the President determined necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by the Government of Iraq at that time, at the time that that resolution was passed back in October of 2002, which a number of us voted against.

What this suggests is that that was the proper thing to do at that time. It was not the proper thing to do in October of 2002. It would have been much more proper if this Congress realized at that time what I believe most of us realize now: that the alleged justification for the illicit, illegal invasion of Iraq, the idea that there was a connection between Iraq and the attack of September 11, that Iraq had so-called weapons of mass destruction, that there was an alleged nuclear weapons

development program in Iraq, and that there was some connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, all of which was false. Now, many did not realize that at that time and subsequently they voted for it. Many of us did realize it and voted against it.

We should not have anything asserting in any legislation that comes before this House anything that suggests that what was presented at that time to justify that resolution authorizing this administration to engage in this illegal invasion and the subsequent disastrous occupation of that sovereign country was true when it was all falsified, intentionally and purposefully falsified.

So I could appreciate what some people may think they are doing here, and I certainly have a great deal of respect and affection for the Members who are the sponsors of this legislation. But I tell you, you look at this and you will say to yourself if this legislation passes, what it will authorize is a continuing falsified plan, much of which can be classified, coming from this administration, plan after plan, and the remaining military forces will be in that country until sometime after January of 2009.

This doesn't do what we are supposed to do. We shouldn't be passing it.

I thank the chairman for yielding. I thank the committee for bringing this bill to the floor. I appreciate what my very close and dear friend and one of the best Members of this Congress, in my opinion, Maurice Hinchey, has just said. Like many Americans, he thinks and many Americans think this doesn't go far enough. From the perspectives of perhaps everybody in the Chamber, it doesn't go far enough towards the position they would like to take. It is not a perfect resolution, but then again none are.

What it does do, however, is try to say that if we are going to make decisions in the House of Representatives on an issue so critically important to our country and to the welfare of our troops that are in harm's way that we have the advice or at least the opinion of the administration as to how actions ought to be taken. Therefore, if there are those of us who believe, as I know my friend from New York does and some others, that we ought to redeploy, change course, redirect our efforts, the best advice and counsel that we could get on how to do that ought to be from our military leaders.

And what this resolution simply says is, and I agree with my friend from Connecticut that we can say, hopefully, with a somewhat unified voice, perhaps not unanimous but somewhat unified voice, if we were to take the position that the gentleman and I shared when we voted for redeployment within a timeframe, tell us how that would be done. Tell us how it would be done consistent with the safety of our troops. Tell us how it would be done consistent with trying to leave behind as stable a government or community as possible in Iraq. Tell us how it could be done to enhance the possibility of political reconciliation in Iraq.

The surge has not accomplished that. If the surge was intended to bring political reconciliation, General Petraeus said it had not. Ambassador Crocker said it had not.

So I congratulate and thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), and others who have joined in this effort to try to come to a step that will be a positive step. I think this is one of those steps.

And I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, whatever your particular position is, that we ought to have in front of us a considered, considerate plan of how we would accomplish an objective if this House, hopefully, could summon the votes to seek that objective and mandate that objective.

So I thank Mr. Skelton for bringing this to the floor. I thank him for his leadership on this issue, and I would urge all of my colleagues, understanding full well the concerns that have been expressed so ably by the gentleman from New York, my friend (Mr. Hinchey), that this legislation will send a strong message to many, including the administration, that we want to have the information that we need to make the best decisions that we can make. We may differ on what those decisions ought to be.

But, hopefully, what we will not differ on is that if we can have the best information and advice as to how to obtain an objective, then the legislation we pass will be better, will provide for the safety of our troops and provide, hopefully, for the success of a redeployment within a timeframe that many of us believe is absolutely essential.