To require a clear accounting of the combat proficiency of the security forces of Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 818, I call up the bill (H.R. 4156) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we hear so many voices in this country and in this Chamber who are willing to fight to the last drop of someone else's blood. Those of us who are supporting this resolution today are being accused of being for ``precipitous withdrawal.'' I hardly think that seeing this war continue for another 14 months constitutes precipitous withdrawal.

Mr. Speaker, it is 56 months since the United States first launched its attack against Iraq. It is 4\1/2\ years since the President appeared before his ``Mission Accomplished'' banner on that carrier. It is almost 5 years since the administration ignored the advice of General Shinseki. It is 2\1/2\ years since Vice President Cheney said that he thought the insurgency was in its last throes. Since that time, we have had 3,800 Americans killed and 28,000 wounded. We have had 8,000 Iraqi military personal killed and 38,000 civilians killed. We have had 4 million Iraqis displaced. 2.3 million of them have been displaced internally in the country. One and a half million have fled to Syria, 1 million to other countries. Not a pretty picture.

This war is the most colossal blunder in modern U.S. history. It is a mistake that has shattered our influence in the region, and it has made the one country in the region that we did not want to see strengthened, Iran, it has made them infinitely stronger in that region. We are in the process of borrowing $600 billion and we are not having the guts to pay the bill ourselves.

There is no sense of shared sacrifice in this country. The only families being asked to sacrifice are military families and they're being asked to sacrifice again and again and again and again. We aren't even willing to tax ourselves to pay for the cost of this war, so we're shoving off the cost to our kids. Shame on every one of us for making that decision.

In November, the public tried to send two messages to this Congress. The first was that they wanted a change in policy in Iraq. The second is that they wanted a change in domestic policy. And yet after blowing $600 billion in Iraq, after signing a Defense bill which adds $39 billion to spending levels over last year, the President has yesterday blocked our efforts to add $6 billion to pay for investments in education, health and medical research here at home.

The President is telling the American people, ``Forget what message you think you sent in November in the election.'' He is stiffing the American people. He is saying, ``Forget what message you thought you were sending to Washington; I am the `Great Decider' and we are going to do things my way.'' That is what we are getting out of the White House. Instead of compromise and instead of searching for common ground, the President is making clear that he prefers to govern through confrontation, he prefers to go it alone, with one-third support in the country and one-third support in the Congress.

The same is true in Iraq. This is the same President who decided to go it alone, with almost no allies, who decided to go it alone when it came to evaluating intelligence, ignoring the caution alerts that were sent by the State Department intelligence people and the CIA analysts. He bulldozed through. When Baker-Hamilton was produced to offer an opportunity for change, the President simply used that as an opportunity to say ``full steam ahead, no change in course'', and he has deepened and intensified our involvement in Iraq.

At home, he insists that Congress cuts 50 percent out of vocational education; he insists that we cut 1,100 grants out of medical research at the National Institutes of Health; he insists that we cut rural health programs by 54 percent; he insists that we cut low-income heating assistance programs by 18 percent; he insists that we cut financial support for programs under No Child Left Behind that he mandated in the first place. He insists that we cut all of that, and yet he demands $200 billion more for Iraq. I say enough is enough.

He gave a speech to the American people which was designed for the purpose of public deception, in my view, because it was designed to leave the impression that the President intended to reduce steadily our troop commitment in Iraq, when in reality it was intended to assure that 6 months from now we have the same number of troops we have there that we had 6 months ago.

Mr. Speaker, the President is asking for $200 billion more, and as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I announced that I had no intention of providing that money, but I made it clear I'd be happy to provide it all, provided that the President would recognize that we needed a policy change and would get on board with the determination to have a goal of removing our troops from combat operations by the end of next year. That is hardly precipitous.

So what this measure does, instead of giving the President $200 billion to continue the war, it gives him $50 billion to shut the war down. Instead of having troops there for the next 10 years, as the President indicated in his speech, we want to have them out by December of 2008. It requires redeployment to begin in 60 days, and it ends the authority for any agency of the United States Government whatsoever to engage in torture.

We are mired, Mr. Speaker, in Iraq because of the self-important illusions of hopeless romantics in the administration. We hear tell these days that the President talks a lot about Teddy Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. If that is the case, he is harboring dangerous illusions. He ought to heed the advice of a statesman 80 years ago who wrote the following. I will read excerpts from this letter.

``I am deeply concerned about Iraq. The task you have given me is becoming really impossible. Incompetent Arab officials are disturbing some of the provinces and failing to collect revenue. We overpaid on last year's account, which it is almost certain Iraq will not be able to pay this year, thus entailing a supplementary estimate. . . I have had to maintain troops in Mosul all through the year in consequence of the Angora quarrel. This has upset the program of relief and will certainly lead to further expenditures. . . . I do not see what political strength there is to face a disaster of any kind, and I certainly cannot believe that in any circumstances any large reinforcements would be sent . . . In my own heart, I do not see what we are getting out of it. I think we should now put definitely to the assembly the position that unless they beg us to stay, and stay on our own terms in regard to efficient control, we shall actually evacuate before the close of the financial year. I would put this issue in the most brutal way, and if they are not prepared to urge us to stay and to cooperate in every manner, I would actually clear out. . . .

``I think I must ask you for definite guidance at this stage as to what you wish and what you are prepared to do. At present, we are paying millions a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having.''

That was the real Winston Churchill speaking in 1922 in a letter to Lloyd George. It seems to me that the President in the White House today ought to heed the words of Winston Churchill so long ago and at long last reconsider a policy change in Iraq. That is what this legislation is designed to stimulate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Lincoln Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the chairman of the Defense appropriations subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on H.R. 4156.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, after that very thoughtful statement, I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard significant discussion tonight about al Qaeda. And people seem to think that Iraq, the Iraq war was necessary in order to tackle al Qaeda. Well, that's backwards.

I can recall being out at CIA headquarters after 9/11. I can recall sitting out at CIA headquarters watching the Predator aircraft as they flew over Afghanistan, transmitting pictures back here in the search for bin Laden and al Qaeda. And I remember what those CIA people out there said, and the frustration they expressed because half of their resources were being diverted from the search for bin Laden and al Qaeda to prepare for the attack on Iraq.

It isn't that the war in Iraq was necessary to get at al Qaeda. The war in Iraq diverted us from concentrating on al Qaeda and bin Laden.

And we are still suffering the consequences today.

So let's keep the facts straight. Let's keep history straight. And let's keep our heads straight. The fact is that Iraq got in the way of our effort to get at al Qaeda and we have been suffering from that fact ever since.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate his leadership in bringing this important legislation, the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, America honored our veterans, something that we do every day in our hearts but which we openly celebrated on that day. I am very proud that this year we could celebrate also the biggest increase in veterans benefits in the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration thanks to the New Direction Congress.

Yesterday, the President of the United States signed the Defense appropriations bill with the biggest increase in defense spending, made necessary because we must rebuild the capacity of our troops, which capacity has been weakened by the war in Iraq. And today, we bring before the Congress new direction legislation regarding the orderly and responsible redeployment of our troops out of Iraq.

This legislation is necessary because whatever you may have thought about the war or the conduct of the war or the origin of the war, whatever you may think about the performance of the Iraqi Government there, and I have my views on that subject, the fact is we can no longer militarily sustain the deployment in Iraq. Staying there in the manner that we are there is no longer an option.

Our troops have performed their duties magnificently, excellently, patriotically, and courageously. We owe them the deepest gratitude for their courage, their patriotism, and the sacrifices that they and their families are willing to make. But even as they tried

to create and had their military successes, God bless them for that, the secure framework was established to enable the Iraqi Government to make the political change necessary to end the civil war. Well, the sacrifice of our troops was simply not met by the actions of the Iraqi Government.

How much longer should we expect our young people to risk their lives, their limbs, their families, for an Iraqi Government that is not willing to step up to the plate?

This legislation today offers something fundamentally different from what President Bush is proposing, a 10-year war, a war without end, costing trillions of dollars at the expense of our military readiness. In fact, it offers something different than this House has done before. Indeed, it provides the tools to our troops so that they can get their jobs done with the greatest respect for that job. But it also presents a strategy that will bring them home responsibly, honorably, safely, and soon.

The legislation is different because it ties the funding to a strategy for redeployment. It is different because the funding provided is for the short term so that we can measure the administration's plan, if there is such a plan, to redeploy the troops on the schedule established in this bill.

We do have a military crisis not seen since Vietnam. Equipment is wearing out and needs to be replaced. Our troops, wherever they are, are only being trained for counterinsurgency in Iraq instead of a wider training for a full range of missions that they may be called on to perform. The deployment schedule of the Bush administration is wearing down our forces, plain and simple.

The distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee has made this readiness issue the cornerstone of his opposition to this war in Iraq. The distinguished chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on Defense has told us over and over again that this deployment in Iraq cannot be sustained without weakening our national security, without diminishing the capacity of our armed services to meet challenges to our national security wherever they may occur. As such, this readiness crisis poses a grave threat to America's national security.

Yet under the President's plan, and this was expressed by representatives of the administration on more than one occasion, the President's plan would bring 30,000 troops, the number of troops that were sent in for the surge, that 30,000 troops would be redeployed back to the U.S. by July of 2008. So let's understand this. This means that by July of 2008, we will have the same number of troops in Iraq as we had in November of 2006 when the American people called for a new direction in Iraq. Again, we cannot afford the President's commitment in Iraq. It traps us. It traps us, and we cannot, while we are in that trap, address our readiness crisis.

This redeployment, in addition to undermining our military capacity to protect the American people, is also unsustainable financially. According to a recent report by the Joint Economic Committee, this war could end up costing American taxpayers $3 trillion. We will pay any price, as President Kennedy said, to protect the American people, but without us going into the shortcomings of this war and the President's execution of it, $3 trillion, think of the opportunity cost of that money in our readiness, in the strength of our country, in our reputation in the world.

The legislation before us is important. Again, the title of it is the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act. It would begin redeployment within 30 days of enactment and have a goal of completing the redeployment by December 15, 2008. The legislation requires a transition in the mission of U.S. forces from being in combat to diplomatic and force protection, to targeted counterterrorism and limited support for the Iraqi security forces. It would prohibit the deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq who are not fully trained and fully equipped. Thank you, Mr. Murtha, for your leadership on that subject and on this one as well and so many others. It requires that all U.S. Government agencies and personnel abide by the Army Field Manual's prohibition against torture.

The legislation that Mr. Obey has brought to the floor, and I salute your leadership over and over again on this subject and so many others, Mr. Chairman, the House must choose between the President's plan for a 10-year war without end, no end in sight, the longer we're there, the harder it is to come out, the longer we're there, the more severely it hurts our military readiness; or a Democratic plan for responsible, honorable, safe redeployment out of Iraq and soon.

Our troops have already paid too high a price for this war: 3,850 U.S. troops killed, 28,000 injured, thousands of them permanently. That is, of course, the biggest price to pay. But the price that we are paying in our reputation in the world for us not to be able to take our rightful place as a leader in the world to make the world safer, to make the region, the Middle East, more stable, and so many other challenges that the world faces, whether it's the eradication of disease, the alleviation of poverty, the curbing of global warming, keeping peace, ending the fury of despair that contributes to the violence in the world. The countries of the world are crying out for American leadership, and at the same time they disrespect us for what is happening in Iraq.

We must act now to provide a new direction because it is clear that the President has turned a blind eye to all of this. And in addition to what I said earlier, our troops paying the biggest price, our reputation in the world, the several-trillion-dollar price tag to the taxpayer, and the cost to our readiness, despite the fact that the President has turned a blind eye to the facts of Iraq and a tin ear to the wishes of the American people to take a new direction in Iraq and bring our troops home, we must act today. I hope that our colleagues will all support this legislation because in doing so and if it is enacted into law and if this policy is pursued, we can resume our rightful place in the world. We can refocus our attention, as Mr. Obey said earlier, on the real war on terrorism, and we can make the American people safer by rebuilding and restoring the readiness and the capacity of our military to protect the American people wherever our interests are threatened.

All of us stand here and take an oath of office by pledging to protect and defend the Constitution. In that preamble, to provide for the common defense is one of our first responsibilities. Unless we do that, protect the American people, nothing else is possible.

So let us support this legislation which helps us honor our oath of office to defend the American people and to respect the sacrifice, the courage, the patriotism of our troops to make us the home of the brave and the land of the free.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the majority chairman of the committee bringing this bill before the House because we do need the money, not for our troops at home, not for the basic bill, because that basic bill was signed by the President yesterday. What we need is to make sure that our troops in the field have the equipment that they need, the force protection measures they need, the body armor that they need, the MRAPs that they need, the ammunition they need, whatever they need to take on the enemy to accomplish their mission, to protect themselves while they are doing it. So I want to speak directly to the bill rather than to the politics or the history of the political aspect of this legislation.

Fifty billion dollars is a good number. I wish it would have been a little higher because I don't think it takes us all the way to where we need to be for a supplemental next spring as far as what we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the $50 billion that is in this bill, the dollars are good. What is provided by those dollars is needed for our troops in the field. That has to be the important decision that we make tonight: Are we going to fight a political battle here on the floor while our soldiers overseas are facing the enemy of terrorism? I don't think that is what we are here for today. I think we are here to pass this bill.

The gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned a policy change; that this bill is going to bring about a policy change. There was a policy change earlier in the year. Most everybody referred to it as the surge, and many Members of this body opposed the surge. But if you listened to the briefers this afternoon in the Rayburn building, that policy change has produced a lot of very positive effects.

So there was a policy change. But, nevertheless, whether you still support the policy change or not, that is up to everybody's individual decision. Despite what your position is on the war, on the battle, you have got to be prepared to provide for the troops that are there, whether you like the fact that they are there or not. I want them home. I want them home as soon as we can get them home.

Along with Chairman Murtha of the subcommittee, I have seen too many wounded soldiers and marines in our military hospitals. We have both attended too many funerals of our war heroes who were sent home after having lost their life on the battlefield. So I want this war over and I want our troops home as soon as we can get them home in victory; victory in a war that didn't start on September 11 and it didn't start in March of 2003 when we went into Iraq or Afghanistan. It started back in 1983, October 23 of 1983. Terrorists bombed our Marine barracks in Beirut. Those marines were there as peacekeepers, not as part of any other expeditionary force, other than to keep the peace, and 241 of our military marines and soldiers lost their lives there.

In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed; in June of 1996, the home of the airmen in Saudi Arabia in the Khobar Towers were bombed, and 19 of our airmen lost their lives. In August of 1998, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists and 11 Americans lost their lives and hundreds of others were injured. In October of 2000, the USS Cole, on a peaceful mission off the shore of Yemen, was bombed by terrorists and 17 lives were lost. All this started before September 11, and of course I don't think anybody denies what happened to us on September 11. So this war started a long time ago, and this threat is basically the same threat that we saw starting in 1983.

I am pleased that sufficient funds are included for the Army operation and maintenance account to allow for 6 months of war operations. Other accounts would apparently allow for only 4 months of operations, however. The size of the package is secondary to the policy provisions that have been attached to the bill. Many Members have stated they cannot vote for war funding without language requiring a withdrawing from Iraq. The reality is most of them have already done that.

When we passed the Defense appropriations bill, the basic Defense appropriations bill for 2008, we provided transfer authority, large amounts of transfer authority so that if we didn't get a bridge fund passed, if we didn't get a supplemental passed, the Services could reach into their basic accounts to pay for fighting the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So those who voted for that bill have already voted to fund the war, whether they like it or not. That legislation has now been signed into law, so the money is there to borrow. We are going to start hearing about cuts in services at military bases here in the United States if we don't pass a supplemental or a bridge fund and the Services will have to borrow from their basic funds. We don't want that to happen. We don't want the Services to run short on anything that they have to do to provide for the security of our Nation.

So whatever your position on the war, whatever decisions are going to be

made about withdrawal from Iraq, this money, this $50 billion and more will be needed in the next 6 months and it needs to be passed.

This bill was only filed last night. Some of the provisions have not been sufficiently reviewed, in my opinion.

I have read this bill twice, word for word, and I am concerned about some of the sections of this bill.

Section 102 regarding interrogations says in part that ``nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the rights under the United States Constitution of any person,'' and I will repeat, ``any person in the custody or under the physical jurisdiction of the United States.''

Now, to me, that means that terrorists who we capture on the battlefield, who have been killing our own American soldiers on the ground, I read that to mean that they will be given the same constitutional protections as any citizen of the United States of America. And I object to that. I don't think they deserve the protection of the Constitution.

I wonder, does that mean we have to read the terrorists their rights under the Miranda ruling? Can they be released on a technicality? Can they get out on bail? Those are protections guaranteed to American citizens. Are we going to give terrorists that same right? Well, this bill says that we are going to give terrorists that same right. Terrorists go by no rules. They do not subscribe to the Geneva Convention and they do not deserve the same protection under our Constitution that our constituents enjoy.

I think this bill needs a lot of repair work before it can become law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to point out, and I agree strongly with Mr. Murtha's statement about torture. I don't think Americans want to be known as a Nation that do torture.

But we have put prohibitions on torture in our Defense appropriations bills almost from the beginning of the war, and so we have made it very clear that we are opposed to the use of torture. We just wish the other side would go by the same rules.

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hunter.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, the former vice chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

(Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mr. Speaker, would you advise us as to the time available on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to reserve my time at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

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

Let me thank my colleague from Florida for yielding.

Let me just say that the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the committee, is a Member that I know well and have great respect for, and along with the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, they have spent over 30 years doing everything they could to support our troops. But if you think that the debate that we are having tonight is something that we have heard before, it is. Over 40 times this year, we have had votes and debates in this house on the issue of Iraq.

Let me just say that my colleague from Wisconsin is known for his famous statement about Members coming to the floor of the House posing for ``holy pictures.'' Now, if there has ever been a case over my 17 years here in Congress of people posing for holy pictures, it is over this issue of Iraq.

When I came to the Congress in 1991 as a brand new Member, my first vote in this Chamber was on whether to go to war with the Iraqis in Kuwait. I remember coming here as a brand new Member, Members in the well of this House who had been here 30 and 40 years, tears in their eyes, talking about this being the most difficult vote they had ever cast. It was a very difficult moment for me and all of my colleagues. But we went through that, and we went through it successfully.

So when we have the issue of war debated here on the floor of the Congress, there is no issue, no issue that is more personal, no issue that is of greater significance to our country, than all of us casting our vote on sending our young men and women into battle anywhere overseas. So I understand the passion that we have on both sides of the aisle over this issue.

But I think we all have to understand that we are in Iraq for a very important reason. We went there to get rid of Saddam Hussein. I think everybody understands that. We went there to make sure that the weapons of mass destruction were gone. They are gone. Where they went, I don't think we will ever know. We went there to set up a democratically elected government, and, frankly, we have succeeded.

It was al Qaeda 3 years ago that made Iraq the central front in their war with us. We didn't start this war with al Qaeda. They did. And as the gentleman from Florida pointed out earlier, it didn't start on 9/ 11, it started back in the early eighties. And it persisted through the eighties and the nineties, and America and the rest of the world looked up, looked away, and just hoped the problem would go away.

Well, it didn't go away. After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died on 9/11, what was America to do? Look up, look away and just hope the problem would go away one more time? No. So we went to Iraq. But it was al Qaeda and it was Iran who have made this the central front in their war with us.

America has no choice but to succeed in our efforts in Iraq. We all know what failure in Iraq will bring. Failure in Iraq brings a destabilization of Iraq itself, a safe haven for the terrorists to operate from, a destabilization of the entire Middle East, the end of Israel as we know it, and who doesn't believe that if we leave Iraq and we leave in failure, that the terrorists don't follow us home and that we have to deal with the problem here on the streets of America?

This is not what America wants. America wants us to succeed, and it is success that we are having in Iraq. You all know the statistics. You have all seen the headlines over the last several weeks and the last several months. Our troops in Iraq are doing a marvelous job on our behalf. They are succeeding. They are training the Iraqi Army to take our place. The Iraqi Army is more

out in front than ever before. The amount of violence in Iraq is down significantly. Our troops, our troops, are dying in less numbers each and every day. Why? Because we are having success there.

So we ought to thank our troops, thank our troops for the great job they are doing, because General Petraeus put forward a plan that is working.

Now, I understand that a lot of my colleagues on the other side have invested all their political capital over the course of this year in failure in Iraq. It hasn't happened, thankfully, because for the good of our Nation, not today, not tomorrow, maybe not next week, but for my kids and their kids, success in Iraq is critically important. And I think all the Members in this Chamber understand just how important success is there. We are taking on an enemy that is growing in all parts of the world, and if we are not willing to take them on in Iraq, if we are not willing to draw the line and defeat them, where will we draw the line? Where will we stand up for America, and where will we stand up for American values? Iraq is the place to do it.

The bill that we have before us goes back to the same old tired plan, the plan for failure, if you will. That is what the bill that we have before us does. It ties the hands of the administration, it ties the hands of our generals, it ties the hands of our people on the ground, and it will lead to nothing other than failure.

We have been down this path. We have been down this path all year long. And I will admit to my colleagues, we have had plenty of mistakes that have been made in Iraq. There has never been a war when there haven't been a lot of mistakes made. You can go back to the Civil War and look at all the mistakes that were made. The First World War, the Second World War, Vietnam, there were a lot of mistakes that got made in wars, and mistakes have been made in this war.

But, ladies and gentlemen, you all know that we have no choice, no choice, but to succeed, and the plan that we have before us, to fund our troops for the next 4 months, will lead to nothing other than failure.

So I am going to ask my colleagues, let's stop the political games. We all know what is going on here. It is another political stunt, another political stunt trying to trap the President, trying to trap the generals and putting handcuffs on them. Let's stop it.

I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle want us to succeed. Instead of playing these political games, what we ought to be doing is passing this bill cleanly. And we ought to be passing the Military Quality of Life Veterans bill, because our troops are coming home. We have got 3,000 troops that have been sent out of Diyala on their way home. We are going to have troops coming home all year. And if we don't pass the Military Quality of Life Veterans bill, the benefits they are entitled to, the services we ought to be providing to those veterans coming home will not be there.

So let's vote ``no'' on this bill. Let's find a way this week to make sure that the veterans bill is up on this floor and passed and in the President's hands.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in strong opposition to H.R. 4156, the so-called Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations of 2008, because in fact, Mr. Speaker, the bill should be called the Disorderly and Irresponsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act.

Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. What we are debating tonight, disguised as a genuine bridge fund to sustain operations in the global war on terror, is nothing more than another defeatist measure intended to placate the Democrats' liberal base as we approach this Thanksgiving recess.

The Democratic leadership apparently has decided it's more to stand with the Out of Iraq Caucus, MoveOn.org and Code Pink than with our brave men and women in uniform. Rather than funding our soldiers' needs and delivering a decisive blow to the terrorist campaign in Iraq, the Democrats are again conditioning the funding on a date certain for withdrawal.

At a time of sustained progress by our forces, Mr. Speaker, it seems that what is great news for America and for our troops is consequently bad political news for a Democratic majority who has literally bet the farm on a defeatist agenda.

Just last weekend, Prime Minister Maliki stated that violence between Sunnis and Shias has nearly disappeared from Iraq, disappeared from Baghdad, with terrorist bombings down 77 percent.

The Washington Post reported that attacks against United States soldiers have fallen to levels not seen since the February 2006 bombing of the Shia shrine in Samarra. And an Investor's Business Daily article detailed that military analysts, including many who are opposed to the war, have concluded that the United States and its allies are on the verge of winning in Iraq. And, thankfully, United States casualties in Iraq are at their lowest level since March of 2006, Mr. Speaker. Now is not the time to risk impeding the progress we are making. Now is the time to continue building on the turnaround we have made, and to state unequivocally that we are on the verge of victory in Iraq and that we will finish the job.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot give in to the terrorists' extremist views and sinister plans for the Middle East and the world. And we certainly should not send a message to the terrorists that such a capitulation will begin in 30 days and will wrap up by December of 2008.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on tying funds for our troops to a date certain withdrawal from Iraq. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this dangerous bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2156, the so- called ``Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations of 2008.'' Because, in fact, this bill is a ``disorderly and irresponsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act.''

Let me be very clear, Mr. Speaker. What we are debating today-- disguised as a genuine bridge fund to sustain operations in the Global War on Terror--is nothing more than another defeatist measure intended to placate the Democrat's liberal base as we approach the Thanksgiving recess.

The Democratic leadership has decided it is more important to stand with the ``Out of Iraq Caucus,'' MoveOn.org and Code Pink than with our brave men and women in uniform. Rather than funding our soldiers' needs and delivering a decisive blow to the terrorist campaign in Iraq, the Democrats are again conditioning the funding on a date-certain withdrawal.

At a time of sustained progress by our forces, Mr. Speaker, it seems that what is great news for America and for our troops is consequently bad political news for the Democrat majority and their defeatist agenda.

Mr. Speaker, a July New York Times editorial authored by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack stated ``We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. . . . The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in General David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.''

In September, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker spoke optimistically about the future of Iraq citing concrete progress. Acknowledging we still had a long way to go, they recognized we had achieved tactical momentum and were building momentum toward local reconciliation. Indeed, local Iraqis were turning against extremists.

Last weekend Prime Minister al-Maliki stated that violence between Sunnis and Shi'ites has nearly disappeared from Baghdad, with terrorist bombings down 77 percent. The Washington Post reported that attacks against U.S. soldiers have fallen to levels not seen since before the February 2006 bombing of a Shi'ite shrine in Samarra. An Investor's Business Daily article detailed that military analysts--including many who are opposed to the war--have concluded that the U.S. and its allies are on the verge of winning in Iraq.

And thankfully, U.S. casualties in Iraq are at their lowest level since March 2006. Now is not the time to risk impeding the progress we are making. Now is the time to continue building on the turn-around we have made and to state unequivocally that we are on the verge of victory in Iraq, and that we will finish the job.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues of the consequences of giving up on Iraq: the collapse of a democratic Iraqi government, likely leading to mass killings and genocide in the nation; an emboldened al-Qaeda; regional instability; Iran and Syria setting the course of Iraq's future; and Israel being pushed into the Mediterranean sea.

The stakes are too high for political posturing. Ayman al-Zawahiri has said ``the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals. The first stage: expel the Americans from Iraq.''

Mr. Speaker, we cannot give in to their extremist views and sinister plans for the Middle East and the world. And we certainly should not send a message to the terrorists that such a capitulation will begin in 30 days and will wrap up by December of 2008.

Mr. Speaker, never have I been so glad that we've got General Petraeus leading our troops in Iraq and not the Democratic leadership of this house. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on tying funds for our troops to a date-certain withdrawal from Iraq. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.