Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act

Mr. Speaker, it's an honor to address the House. And I hope the Members of the House had a great 4th of July break as we celebrate another birthday of this great country. And the great thing about it is you're allowed to say what you want to say

and feel what you want to feel and express yourself in any way that you would like to.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the 30-Something Working Group, we come to the floor to share with not only the Members of Congress, but also with the American people, the importance of good policymaking, and also making sure that we're factual in what we say and what we do here.

It was quite interesting. I was sitting here reading my notes from the information that we pulled together to come to the floor. We're going to talk about Iraq tonight, but I'm going to talk a little bit about SCHIP because we spent a lot of time and many hours on this floor fixing what the Republican Congress left for dead, really. We had to come in, the Democratic majority, with the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and save the SCHIP program in many States.

A number of Republican Governors wrote that were in a crisis mode of their program being shut down in the State of Florida, health care for children. In Washington, many people talk about SCHIP. I'm so glad to have the chairman here of the subcommittee that deals with this particular issue. And it goes to show you, here on the Democratic side we have great responsibility when it comes down to fixing and cleaning up the mess that was left from the 109th Congress and the Republican- controlled Congress and special interests got what they wanted.

I think it's also important to note that a supermajority of Republicans voted against the continuing resolution to be able to save the SCHIP program in many States to provide health care for children. And now we're going through the policy move that we have to take to be able to make sure that SCHIP is here for every child and to make sure that they have the kind of health care that they deserve.

So I'm so glad Mr. Pallone from the Garden State is here because he is the chairman that's dealing with this very issue. I'm a member of the Ways and Means Committee that is also going to be having a discussion on this issue. And I can tell you, as we start to move forth and uncovering and unearthing some of the injustices that have taken place in the past, and we have Governors on our side, we have children advocates on our side, we have those that believe in true health care on our side in saying that this is not a last-day-at-school kind of syndrome that we see the President and others going through. And I think something is about to happen that is really great and is going to secure and make sure the children have the kind of health care they deserve.

Mr. Pallone, I would be more than happy to yield to you at this time because I know without notes that you can talk about this because you and your staff have been working on this issue and members of your committee have been working on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, if you would yield for a second.

You know, I was sitting here. And the great thing about being a Member of Congress, and I thank the people from the 17th Congressional District in Florida for sending me here, it's almost like, coach, get me the ball. I wanted to say, will the gentleman yield? Because it's interesting that Georgia was on their knees with hands clasped saying, please help us. Children are about to run out of health care insurance, and we're about to have a crisis. And it was the leadership of this Congress, the Democratic Congress, that brought about that kind of change. That's why people wake up at 7 a.m. in the morning to go vote for representation.

So now we're down to politics, Mr. Speaker. And it's very unfortunate, politics is playing a role in the lives of our children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews that need health care. And this is for working folks. These are for folks who punch in and punch out every day, individuals that are struggling every day that are hoping that the government will stand for them.

So, Mr. Chairman, continue. I yield back. But I'm just saying if Florida was in the situation, I couldn't come down here to the floor and start knocking something that this Congress ran to the savior. And what we had to do, Mr. Chairman, was to couple it with a number of other things to get it to pass for the President not to veto it. And we're going to talk about that a little later, but I think that's very, very important.

I yield back, sir.

Mr. Chairman, you said $5 billion over the next 5 years?

That's $50 billion.

Over the next 5 years.

Well, let me tell you, per year in Iraq we spend $120 billion.

Imagine the line. Imagine a rural county. Imagine an urban county that I represent, everyone kind of diving into one or two locations to make it all happen. Why should we inconvenience those that are counting on their government to respond, especially on behalf of our children.

I'm glad you came down here tonight to have you here, the person that has the gavel in their hand, heard testimony from the States. I know you know what I'm saying. This is what you're doing and this is why we're here. And Americans voted for a new direction, and we're heading in that new direction. There are those that are Members of Congress that don't want to move in that new direction. And, Mr. Speaker, like I said, the great thing about our country is that we can disagree and you can voice your opinion and other ideas, but I think it's important also for the American people to get fact and not fiction. And that's what we're here about, and that's what it's all about.

You are always welcome, Mr. Chairman, to come down. I am a part of the ``something'' part of the 30-something. So you can join, and that caucus is growing. And the good thing about what we do here on the floor from those new Members of Congress, we call them ``majority makers,'' to those that have been here as long as you have been here, to see this process go full circle, 360 degrees, to be able to come to the floor at 11-something at night, to be able to set the record straight I think is important not only for Members of Congress, but also for the Congressional Record and for those individuals that are listening to the statements that are being made here on the floor that know better.

Mr. Murphy, I just want to thank you, definitely fresh out of the State legislature, for coming to this floor. I served in the legislature myself, and I can tell you that in Florida we enjoy the Federal assistance that is there.

Some folks, Mr. Speaker, speak of Medicare as socialized medicine. If you try to do away with Medicare right now and have new and great ideas that would limit access to clinics and what have you, I think you would have an uprising in this country as we look at providing better healthcare.

If I can, we came to the floor tonight, and I have my Iraq notebook with me, and I want to thank not only staff but the Democratic leadership for taking a forward lean, as we have done since we have been here in the control of the House, and the American people provided us with an opportunity to lead, to move this country in a new direction, and also move this issue of Iraq in a new direction. I just want to talk a little bit about the numbers, and I want this to sink in, because I want Members to know exactly what we are doing.

We have to create and we have to be about a major paradigm shift, I would say slash ``new direction,'' as it relates to Iraq. We know that the President has executive authority and he can veto. We know that the legislature, and when we say legislature, I started talking about States, I started talking about legislature, I would say the Congress, the legislative branch of government has the responsibility of policy and making sure that we pass legislation that will be helpful.

During the 4th of July break, which was a wonderful thing, you have an opportunity to go back to your districts and you have an opportunity to go to places where you can learn more, I actually went to Norfolk, Virginia, to the Naval facility there and spoke to a number of sailors and some marines and others that have been deployed before. I was there on a destroyer and also a submarine and also an amphibious vessel that moved marines into a forward area and had an opportunity to talk to a number of individuals over that weekend.

I left with the impression, Mr. Murphy, of them saying, if you want to help the troops, then stand up for us in the Congress and making sure we bring some sense to what we are doing.

Now, some of the bloodiest weekends in Iraq took place during the 4th of July break, and a number of Iraqis have lost their lives and they have a number of civil war conflicts that are going on there. Also a number of marines, soldiers and others, even civilians, lost their lives.

I think it is important as we look at this and we go through a forward lean, I just want to capture this moment from the Congressional Research Service, Mr. Speaker, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan organization within the Congress. These are individuals that are Ph.D.'s and those that count the numbers and really give the Americans an objective view of what the real picture is.

Let's talk about cost here for a minute. You heard Mr. Pallone, the Chair of a subcommittee dealing with the children's health program, say over 5 years it would take $50 billion to be able to provide healthcare for children. Let's look at these numbers.

Per year in Iraq, and this is the chart that I have here, $120 billion a year. I am going to even further break that down to $10 billion a month and change. These are not my numbers. This is the Congressional Research Service numbers. Per week, $2.3 billion a week in Iraq. $2.3 billion. This is just Iraq. We are not talking about Afghanistan. Per day, $329 million and change. I am not even giving you the change. Per hour, $13 million. That is every hour in Iraq, $13 million.

Think about what we can do here domestically. I am talking to the mayors of our cities and our towns. I am talking to commissioners that would like to resolve some issues and want some sort of Federal assistance in doing that. I am talking to the citizen that is wondering why something is shut down in their community for a lack of funding.

Per minute, $228,000. That is per minute. $228,000. That is more than many Americans make in 5 years, Mr. Murphy, a minute. That is what is happening in Iraq right now. Per second, $3,816. Some may say $4,000 a second.

You look at the Forbes' richest, most wealthy Americans, they are not even doing that. You have companies that wish they could make $3,816 a second. This makes Oprah, her income, look very small. This makes some of the new people that are there, the President or the used-to-be chairman of Microsoft, look very small when you look at these numbers. But you have to look at this issue for what it is. These are the dollars that we are spending.

Now, who is standing in front of us and making new policy changes here? I think it is important, and I think we are going to have a gut check here, and I want to make sure that Americans know exactly and the Members know. Because many Members, they go back home and they say, I did not quite understand that. I am sorry. It went over my head. I didn't understand what happened, when a constituent may walk up to them.

This week in the House we will have an opportunity to reaffirm our support and move this Iraq debate in a new direction. Responsible redeployment of our troops. We talk about responsible redeployment. We are talking about a bill that Chairman Ike Skelton is going to bring to this floor tomorrow, or sometime this week, where Democrats and Republicans will have an opportunity on the record to vote once again as it relates to redeployment.

The Responsible Redeployment Act, H.R. 2956. It requires the responsible redeployment of U.S. troops beginning within 120 days of enacting and ending by April 1st, 2008. I think it is important that everyone understands that a supermajority, 70 percent, a supermajority of Americans believe that we should be out of Iraq.

It requires the President to publicly justify the post-deployment missions for the U.S. military in Iraq with a minimum number of troops necessary to carry out those missions. This is not saying that we are going to take all of the troops out of Iraq, but what it is saying is those troops that are in harm's way, doing the door-to-door, doing all of these things in the middle of a civil war that Iraqi troops should be responsible for, there are a number of people that are saying, you know, they are not quite ready.

But, meanwhile, back at the ranch, I know every Sunday on CNN they have a report talking about what happened in Iraq that week. I think I have seen too many flag-draped coffins. I think I have talked to too many spouses and family members that are saying, what are you going to do and how are you going to do it and how are you going to stand up?

Chairman Ike Skelton is beyond this. He is what one may say is an individual that solely has the troops in his heart and in his mind. And this will be a product of not only him, but many Members of Congress. So Members will get an opportunity to vote.

Now, Mr. Murphy, before I yield to you, I think it is important that we show who is standing in the schoolhouse door here. I would ask for not only the Members, but also the American people to go to the White House website if you want some information.

Members of the Republican minority, thanks to the American people, on March 29 of 2007, stood with the President after we moved the bill through this Congress that would move the policy as it relates to Iraq in a new direction. It would bring more accountability as it relates to profiteering, more accountability as it relates to how our troops are being deployed based on what the President says that he thinks is right. It is bringing democracy to it.

When we passed that bill, it passed both the House and Senate, I can say that the Democratic majority voted in the affirmative with a few Republicans, and it went to the White House. And before that bill could be carried to the White House, the President said that he would veto it.

I want you to take a look at this picture here, because I think it is very very important. Pictures speak 1,000 words. You have all Republicans, the minority, that are standing behind the President saying stand with the President and we will not allow the President to be overridden, for there to be an override of his veto.

I think it is important for us to pay very close attention to it, because my message to those that were on the steps of the White House, who met with the President, who had some sort of discussion with the President, that have said ``we are going to make sure that the President's will is not overridden,'' well, I want to ask, how many times will the Republican minority go down and stand with the President in front of the will of the American people?

That is going to happen this week, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said we are willing to take the fight on behalf of the American people to the executive branch and to those Members of Congress who believe that we should be ``staying the course'' or continuing to do the same thing expecting different results.

There are a lot of things that are going on in Iraq that are not in the control of the American Congress and executive branch and those that they elected to represent them here in Washington, DC. But what we do have control over as it relates to the policy and as it relates to the will of the American people and the troops. One person said if you want to help the troops, get us out of Iraq. If you want to help the troops.

Mr. Ryan and I in the 108th and 109th Congress heard all kinds of speeches here on this floor, Mr. Murphy, Members saying ``I support the troops.'' ``No, I support the troops more than you.'' ``No, let me take my shirt. Let me show you a tattoo I have on my shoulder saying I support the troops.''

That is not what it is about. It is about policy. It is about manning up and womaning up and leadering up and standing up on behalf of these men and women that are in harm's way.

These are real families. We have to treat this issue as it relates to redeployment of troops in Iraq as though our children or our nephew or our cousin or our husband or wife, what have you, are in harm's way as we speak. Those that have a dot.mil address behind their e-mail address that are e-mailing us and are asking us to be leaders, I am glad that this House is moving in the direction, and the Senate is moving in the direction, and I commend those Senators that have come to the side of the American people saying enough is enough. The President can burn all kind of Federal jet fuel and fly throughout the country. He was in Cleveland talking about what we need to do. Enough is enough. The bottom line is that folks have to come to grips that this is a democracy.

The White House is under some sort of impression, I want to say impression. They believe if they were to come out at a press conference, if the President were to say the rain doesn't fall from the sky, it comes up from the ground to the sky, they believe many Americans would actually look outside to see if that is true. We know what is right and what is wrong. What is wrong is the fact that we can no longer stand idly by and let this happen.

The Democratic Congress has tried to make this happen. We need Republican support. We need the American people to call their Republican representative and say enough with this partisan stuff, let's move for our young men and women in harm's way.

I yield to Mr. Ryan.

Mr. Ryan, the bottom line is that the President, and we have to talk about the student loan issue that he talked about earlier today, and I think it is important that we talk about that because again we had Members here talking about SCHIP and we were all once representatives in our States on the legislative end on the State level. But I think it is important for us to, and where is my red chart to talk about the debt.

We just had Mr. Pallone as the chairman of the subcommittee down here, and we have a proposal talking about $50 billion over the next 5 years. Let me say real quick, per year it is $120 billion in Iraq and climbing. I say that to a mayor or to a Governor, I

would like to have my hands on $120 billion that the Federal commitment has made.

Mr. Ryan, it is not the President, that is all too easy. The President is in his last leg of a swim meet here. He has the last day of school kind of syndrome. All of us know what the last day or last week of school felt like. I am about to leave the institution, and I don't have to worry about what is happening.

But guess what, it is not the last day of school for the American people and those that are in harm's way. We have a responsibility to stand for them. I am not going to just leave the President. I am going to say that those individuals on the Republican side of the aisle, not all of them, but a majority of them, are willing to stand with the President that ran this record debt up that we have now. A $1.19 trillion debt and climbing, done by the Republican majority in the 108th and 109th Congress and beyond, of rubber stamping what the President has done.

We all live the same kind of lives. We all understand our responsibility up here. But I tell you, to be able to move in a new direction in Iraq, it is going to take more than just Democratic majority Members, especially in the Senate, to be able to bring some real sense to this new direction in Iraq. The real issue is that there is a choice to be made.

Mr. Ryan, some of the Members on the Republican side used to laugh at us when we were on the floor. I see them in the hall and they are like, ``You all are funny. Do you really believe people are going to follow what you all are talking about if you are given the opportunity to lead?''

Well, guess what, how do you like us now? People believe. Democrats, Republicans, Independents. And you know something, some people who voted for the first time in their lives who had given up on the political system, and I will be doggone if their vote goes in vain. I am telling you right now, we need Republican Members of this Congress to vote on behalf of our troops.

Want to help the troops? Vote for redeployment. You want to help the troops, vote for antiprofiteering legislation. You want to help the troops, when Mr. Murtha comes to this floor with an appropriations bill that is going to bring major sense as it relates to the appropriations in this war, then support that if you want to support the troops.

Mr. Ryan, I am going to yield to Mr. Murphy by saying this: As of July 11, today, the deaths in Iraq as it relates to U.S. military personnel, and this is not even counting those clandestine agents that are out there, those civilian folks, 3,609. That is as of 10 a.m. this morning.

Total number of wounded in action, returned to duty, 14,681.

Number of wounded that did not return to duty, 12,014 and climbing.

I want to say this is real. This is above and beyond Democrat- Republican politics, Independent politics, whatever the case may be. We are moving in the direction of redeployment of our troops and a new policy. The President can stand in the schoolhouse door all he wants to, but the bottom line is he is empowered by the Republican minority that are saying that we are not going to allow you to have enough votes to be able to override what the President is saying. That is where it comes down to it.

I can tell you, like I shared with some of my colleagues, you continue to follow the President on the old way, and I guarantee you, just like I said in the 108th Congress and 109th Congress, and I don't have a whole lot of say in what goes on in some of these districts because people have their own heart and mind. They read and they see. They see the people that are not coming back. People are being deployed.

They are not glad they are going. They are crying when people are going. Will I see my husband? Will I see my father again? What are we doing? What does this mean? We are in the middle of a civil war; what does that mean? Will my husband or wife be knocking down some door as we speak here on this floor, having Iraqis huddle in the middle of a room on a security mission that is necessary because the Iraqi government is not doing it, and those individuals will never forget that. And they are not doing it just because they feel like doing it; they are doing it because it is the mission. We support them in that mission, but the bottom line is we have to have a new attitude and new direction.

There are Iraqi troops that should be doing those house checks and taking that responsibility, and an Iraqi parliament that should be coming to work every day to make sure that they do what they do. It shouldn't be our people, and people know it. So the bottom line is, when you are in a place where you don't understand exactly where you should be, fall on the side of commonsense. That is all that I am saying.

Mr. Murphy.

What happened to the coalition, Mr. Murphy?

The thing about it and the thing about what we work on and what we meet on, and after we leave the floor I need to talk to you even further about this issue, because, Mr. Speaker, the President was on the road and saying, well, I'm going to veto the interest rate cut that the Democratic Congress passed because it doesn't help enough needy kids that are presently in college.

Well, this is the same President who said we're going to be treated as liberators when we were in Iraq.

This is the same President that has said that investing in big oil will be able to assist us to be energy independent when big oil made nothing but profits after the White House meeting.

This is the same President that said he was going to treat anyone in the White House that outed an CIA agent in a way that they should be treated, and then later let that person off the hook through his executive power.

This is the same President that has said that we need to send an escalation of troops to Iraq and we'll see a safer Iraq; that we've seen otherwise, some 500-plus men and women in uniform that have lost their lives since that surge.

This is the same President that goes on and on and on talking about how he's going to increase Pell Grants when he hasn't done that.

This is the same President that said that 9/11, that we are going to implement this Department of Homeland Security and said there was no need to pass all of the 9/11 recommendations. That still hasn't made it to his desk yet, that we want to get passed, that this Democratic Congress passed.

This is the same President that told folks to go shopping after 9/11 when he had the opportunity to move this country in a new direction, bring us together, help our economy, and the Americans were ready to do what they needed to do.

And this is the same President saying I'm going to veto a bill that's going to cut student loan rates not only for students, I will go further as a parent to say, for parents and grandparents that are helping children that are now coming out of college that are more in debt now than ever because the Federal Government is not there for them. If we're not there for them, then the State government can't be there for them because they have to cut, and guess where the first place is they go. They go to students and cut back.

So I'm about full right now of the American spirit and say that I hope that our leadership here in the House, with the President, you spoke of politics saying it's a great thing to run on. I always said this whole Iraq issue, if we see more and more pictures like this, Republican leadership leading their caucus down to the White House saying we stand with the President and making sure that the Congress doesn't override his original thoughts or what he feels should be, the White House is not to be used as the Republican National Committee instrument or the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. This is about the American people and what we do.

So, the President, this is his last day of school. This is the last month of school. He's about to move on. He's about to become a private citizen. Those of us that are in Congress, if the American people that allow us to come back after 2008, will be here to govern this country, and guess what, this is not the last day of school for Americans.

So, when we talk about cutting student loan rates in half and the President starts using all kinds of, I start to go back to the big oil argument. What,

did the banks have a special meeting at the White House, saying we can't allow this to happen; you got to stand in the schoolhouse door; and will they be able to motivate these Members to go back to the White House and say we stand with the President? How many times?

So, Mr. Speaker, I know that the bold leadership we have here in the House, if he vetoes this bill, which I don't want him to do, I hope he signs it, and we're able to provide the assistance to these individuals that are in all of our districts, Republican and Democrats. This is not for Democratic kids. This is for all kids, for all families, for all working people. If he does it, I hope that within the hour that he does it that we have something here on this floor, and we'll separate the Members from the followers here on both sides of the aisle.

And when we passed this bill, I know you brought this issue up, but when we passed this bill, there was 143 Republicans that voted against it, just enough to withstand. One, one over to be able to hold off a presidential override. That's a gut check there, Mr. Speaker. I wonder how many of those 143 are going to be with the President in not allowing American families to have a cut in financial aid.

I want their constituents to pay very close attention on whose side you're on. Are you on the bank's side or are you on the American people side?

I know that we're running out of time, and I think Mr. Ryan is going to move us to a few more minutes here.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. It has actually been several weeks now since we have had a meaningless vote on the issue of Iraq, and so I suppose we are overdue for another one. This Democratic leadership, Mr. Speaker, as we all know very well, still bereft of any real ideas, has been forced once again to resort to demagoguery, bringing up a bill that they know, they know full well, will not be enacted into law. And knowing that their proposal cannot withstand any critical scrutiny, they have once again shut down the process and brought this to us under a completely closed rule, not allowing any of the very thoughtful proposed alternatives to be considered whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment that would have allowed us to have the opportunity to substitute their policy with the very thoughtful and responsible recommendations that were included in this bipartisan Iraq Study Group package of recommendations proposed by Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton, a group of Democrats and Republicans, very respected, authorized by this Congress. And they refused to allow us to have any opportunity whatsoever to even debate, much less vote, on the issue of the Iraq Study Group recommendations.

Now, just yesterday morning in an interview on National Public Radio, our former colleague Mr. Hamilton, who, as I said, was the co-Chairman of the Iraq Study Group, had a very eloquent and thoughtful interview on the need for us to implement the Iraq Study Group recommendations. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership, I guess fearful that responsible policy would prevail and that this institution might, in fact, pass the measure calling for implementation of the Iraq Study Group, prevented us from having the chance to debate or vote on the Iraq Study Group recommendations.

The last time we went through this charade, they at least had the luxury of making dire predictions of failure for the new strategy in Iraq led by General Petraeus, and the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules once again basically talked about failure and said that we haven't met any benchmarks. Even then, Mr. Speaker, the strategy was actually showing early signs of success. But this time, this time, the counterinsurgency offensive is well under way and making clear and irrefutable progress.

I will say once again, Mr. Speaker, that we are seeing clear and irrefutable progress taking place. As one major newspaper recently editorialized, ``Demands for withdrawal are no longer demands to pull out of a deteriorating situation with little hope. They are now demands to end a new approach to this conflict that shows every sign of succeeding.''

Mr. Speaker, U.S. forces, working side by side with Iraqi Army and police forces, have penetrated enemy strongholds in the belt surrounding Baghdad and are driving them out. They have cut off al Qaeda's supply lines and transport routes. They are destroying car bomb factories. Sectarian deaths have plummeted. Al Qaeda operatives are finding themselves increasingly isolated, their safe havens destroyed, and their ability to move freely between neighborhoods severely diminished.

Mr. Speaker, our efforts have been significantly bolstered by former Sunni insurgents who have joined the fight against al Qaeda. I am going to say that again. Former Sunni insurgents have now joined our effort in the fight against al Qaeda. Nowhere has this process been more critical than in the al-Anbar province.

Last year, a leaked Marine intelligence report conceded this province as completely lost. That was the report that came out. Today, Mr. Speaker, al-Anbar is our best success story, and a template for U.S. Forces working together with both Sunni police and Shia army forces to combat al Qaeda.

General David Petraeus, the man who has received bipartisan praise and was confirmed unanimously by a vote of 82-0 in the United States Senate as he began his work, he said to the New York Post, ``We are beginning to see a revolt of the middle against both extremes.''

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is our commanders on the ground who have repeatedly pointed out that the tipping point didn't come until the tribal leaders sought a prolonged offensive by U.S. and Iraqi forces.

Now, let's think back to what life was like in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. After a quarter-century reign of terror by Saddam Hussein, Iraqis clearly would not immediately rise up against any force until that force has been driven into retreat. We had to demonstrate our strength and our commitment before we earned the trust of the tribal leaders and their support in the fight against al Qaeda. That is exactly what we're doing today in Baghdad and the surrounding areas.

The New York Times recently reported on the Anbar success and how we are currently applying it to the fight to secure Baghdad. According to a July 8 report, former insurgents in Sunni neighborhoods of Baghdad are now taking up arms against al Qaeda. Now, that is July 8th, a report that came out just 4 days ago. Now, it quotes Petraeus as saying, ``Local security is helped incalculably by local support and local involvement.''

Now, Mr. Speaker, this success is so critical because it gets to the heart, it gets to the very heart of our twin goals in Iraq. First, that Iraqis will be able to provide their own security, that we have an increased ISF, the Iraqi Security Forces, and that they are trained adequately; and second, that this security will provide the environment that makes a political solution possible.

The quicker that Iraqis achieve security and a peaceful, stable democracy, the quicker our troops will come home. And as we listen to the speeches that will come following mine about the quest for our troops to come home, make no bones about it, I share the goal and the vision that is put forth by our friends, Mr. McGovern and Ms. Slaughter, and others, who will argue to bring our troops home. We all want to make sure that that happens.

Our new strategy, Mr. Speaker, has clearly brought us closer to that goal. And if our fight against extremism was not urgent enough, the Associated Press report that came out just late yesterday afternoon that al Qaeda's global network is again on the rise and has regained much of the strength that it had in September of 2001 is an important thing for us to recognize.

Mr. Speaker, as the terror network rebuilds and regroups, it seems absolutely preposterous that we would abandon not only a key front in the global war on terror, but a place where we have al Qaeda on the defensive and where we are diminishing their capabilities, especially in light of that report that came out just last night about their renewed strength. Yet, the Democratic leadership inexplicably wants to pull the rug out from under our military commanders. Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps not so inexplicable if we consider that their planned withdrawal would be complete just in time for the 2008 elections.

But let's pretend that there is no election looming on the horizon here. Regardless of this bill's impact on American electoral politics, what would be the effects on Iraq? Now, Mr. Speaker, even the New York Times editorial board, which apparently doesn't often read its own news reports and is calling for an immediate withdrawal, acknowledges the inevitable dire consequences of its recommended course of action. In the very editorial calling for surrender, it outlines the overwhelming refugee and humanitarian crisis that would immediately ensue, how the fight would spill out all across the region. And Mr. Speaker, in the most callous way, it acknowledges the terror that would be inflicted upon

those Iraqis who worked with us because they believed our promises. How cold and cynical. How callous can we be to stand here and debate the notion of abandoning the Iraqi people, not only to genocide, but to the targeting of the very individuals who have bravely worked with us.

The Democratic leadership wants to wave a magic wand and make this war go away. I wouldn't mind a magic wand myself, and certainly the American people would appreciate a quick and tidy solution. But I'm afraid that this solution attempts to salvage nothing but party politics. The Iraqi people, Mr. Speaker, would not be quite so lucky.

Furthermore, NPR recently reported that the quick withdrawal time frame that the Democratic leadership dreamed up has no basis in reality. It would take a year or more to safely withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq, and it would take significant combat forces to protect the withdrawal. We would have to fight our way out all the way to the Kuwaiti border. There simply is no magic wand in this war, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps the greatest irony of this bill is that it calls for detailed reports for a strategy in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, we have a strategy, and while it was only fully operational less than 1 month ago, it is already succeeding. The Democratic leadership, in their absurdist logic, want our military to abandon their strategy, go home and write a report about what they would have wanted to accomplish if they had stayed. And if that weren't cruel enough, Mr. Speaker, they would have to watch terror and genocide unfold as they retreated. Now, I cannot fathom a more disastrous policy for our security or the Iraqis'.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying bill itself.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as I yield to my friend from Pennsylvania, let me just say, we do have a great chance to work together, that's why we were, in fact, proposing an alternative, that being a chance for us to work on the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommendations.

With that, I'm happy to yield 4 minutes to my very good friend from Erie, Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely laughable to listen to the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, after having berated us for the longest period of time, use us as a model for the procedure around which we are considering this legislation. This is a bill, not a resolution, which is what we brought up in the last Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the very distinguished gentleman, a former member of the Rules Committee, from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, let me at this time yield 2 minutes to our friend from Bridgeport, Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has made 17 trips to Iraq and unfortunately was denied an opportunity to have us consider and vote on a very thoughtful amendment that he proposed in the Rules Committee last night.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to one of the most respected Members of this House on intelligence and defense matters, the gentlewoman from Albuquerque, New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 4 minutes to my friend from Holland, Michigan, the former chairman, now the ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my very good friend from Rochester, New York, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, how many speakers she has remaining.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to close the debate now, so I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, let me just begin by talking about procedure. We continue

to hear the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules talk regularly about an open amendment process, and I will say with absolute certainty, I had the privilege of chairing the Rules Committee for 8 years, and I will tell you that we have brought more rules to the floor of this House under a completely closed process during the first 7 months of this year than we did during any 7 months during the 8 years that I was privileged to serve as chairman of the Rules Committee. So much for a new and open process.

Now, let's look at what it is we're considering here, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we know full well that this is a bill, unlike resolutions that may have been brought up under closed rules in the past, this is actually a bill, a bill that's scheduled to go to the President's desk. Everyone knows that this bill is not going to become law.

What we've found is gross politicization once again, a commitment made that every week we're going to have some kind of vote on Iraq.

We all know that the war in Iraq is very unpopular. We know that the President is a great punching bag on this for virtually everyone, but the fact of the matter is we are in the midst of a very important global war on terror, and as the President said in the past, you know, we all like to be loved, but I'd much rather be right than be loved.

The fact of the matter is, we want to bring this war to an end. The President stood right here in this chamber in January and said I wish that this war were over and that we had won, but we need to ensure victory. And, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we are not given the opportunity to consider any thoughtful, bipartisan alternative to this measure which calls for the withdrawal to begin within 120 days. I mean, how crazy is that when we're looking for a report to come in September and as we are looking at success that has begun even after only 1 month, 1 month of this plan having been put into place under the greatly heralded General David Petraeus?

Now, Mr. Speaker, as my friends from New Mexico and Michigan have said, I'm going to move to defeat the previous question. I'm going to move to defeat the previous question so that we can actually ensure that we have the tools to win this war on terror. We've had a number of anniversaries marked. We've spent a lot of time talking about them, but we fail to remember the success that we've had at preempting attacks on this country.

Just last month, we marked the first anniversary of the discovery of the proposed attack on the Sears Tower and the FBI headquarters in Miami.

Just last week, we marked the first anniversary of the proposed attack on the plan to blow up the Hudson River tunnel between New Jersey and Manhattan.

Just in May, we had a report of the plan, as you all know, to see some of these people go in and start killing our people at Fort Dix in New Jersey.

And then of course, just a few weeks ago, we had the plan to blow up JFK International Airport.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we've been able to discover those, but we know full well from those in our intelligence operations and the Department of Homeland Security that we are, as Mr. Hoekstra said, blind and deaf, and I believe that we need to make sure we defeat the previous question so that we'll be in a position to amend this proposal so that we can ensure that we have the tools necessary to win this war on terror.

So vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Amendment to H. Res. 583 Offered by Mr. Drier of California

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the

following:

That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in

order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2956) to

require the Secretary of Defense to commence the reduction of

the number of United States Armed Forces in Iraq to a limited

presence by April 1, 2008, and for other purposes. All points

of order against consideration of the bill are waived except

those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill

shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) four hours of debate, with

three hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed

Services and one hour equally divided and controlled by the

chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Foreign Affairs; (2) the amendment in the nature of a

substitute printed in section 3 of this resolution, if

offered by the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Hoekstra, or his

designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any

point of order except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of

rule XXI, shall be considered as read, and shall be

separately debatable for two hours equally divided and

controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one

motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 2956 pursuant to this

resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous

question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the

bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

Sec. 3. The amendment in the nature of a substitute to be

offered by Mr. Hoekstra of Michigan, or his designee,

referred to in section 1 is as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the

following:

Subsection (f) of section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801) is amended to read

as follows--

``(f) `Electronic surveillance' means--

``(1) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical,

or other surveillance device for acquiring information by

intentionally directing surveillance at a particular known

person who is reasonably believed to be in the United States

under circumstances in which that person has a reasonable

expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for

law enforcement purposes; or

``(2) the intentional acquisition of the contents of any

communication under circumstances in which a person has a

reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be

required for law enforcement purposes, if both the sender and

all intended recipients are reasonably believed to be located

within the United States.''

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee for allowing members of that committee to show their commitment through their legislative work in a hearing at the early stages of his leadership when we were allowed to present solutions. They were not Republican solutions or Democratic solutions. They were solutions for those of us who love America, and I just want to simply reinforce that. I thank Mr. Skelton for his leadership.

I have legislation that declares a military success, and I rise today to make it clear that I believe that the fallen in battle are heroes, and those who still fight carry their banner, for 3,611 have died, and I don't know why we're not on this floor declaring a military victory, thanking our soldiers.

And my good friend from Texas says that he supports the Iraq Study Group. So do I and I have legislation. We all have legislation that responds to the Iraq Study Group. I might remind him that that report, bipartisan report, speaks articulately to redeployment, and so when we look at the costs of the war, $120 billion, Americans are asking, should one more drop of blood be shed? And my answer to that is, no. Should we engage? Yes. Should we involve in the surge of diplomacy? Absolutely.

We want to make sure that all of those nation states can work to help solve the divide, the civil war. But we must face the facts that this process that the President is continuing to repeat does not work. It is wracked with corruption and misdirection. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I have been disturbed this whole week as I listened to the Secretary of Homeland Security speak about his gut feeling of the possibility of a terrorist attack. I'm a member of that committee. I live every day with the idea that the question will be asked by Americans to the Homeland Security Committee and the Homeland Security Department, does the Secretary realize that we have fueled the fires of terrorism by training terrorists in this war.

And so when I speak of why we must end, it is to save lives. It is to reconcile Iraq, and it is to make America safer. I ask for support of the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2956, the Responsible Redeployment From Iraq Act. I rise in strong support of this legislation because I am listening, and responding to the will of the American people. Last November 2006, Americans went to polls by the millions united in their resolve to vote for change. They voted for a new direction and a change in the Bush administration's disastrous policy in Iraq. The new Democratic majority heard them and responded by passing H.R. 1591, the Iraq Accountability Act. The President vetoed the bill, demanding instead a continuation of the ancien regime under which the Republican-led Congress gave him a blank check to mismanage the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq.

Those days are over. No matter how many veto threats the President issues, this Congress is not going to give him a blank check to escalate and continue the war ad infinitum. It is long past time for change in Iraq. It is time for the people and Government of Iraq to take primary responsibility for their own country. It is time for the President to recognize the reality on the ground in Iraq. The time when a surge in troops is useful and necessary is past. It is now time to redeploy our troops and launch a diplomatic surge for national and political reconciliation in Iraq. H.R. 2956 will help achieve this goal and that is why I support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, there is no more important issue facing the Congress, the President, and the American people than the war in Iraq. It is a subject which agitates the passions of all Americans, including Members of Congress. The Framers understood that while the military does the fighting, a nation goes to war. That is why the Framers lodged the power to declare war in the Congress, the branch of Government closest to the people. They knew that the decision to go to war was too important to be left to the whim of a single person, no matter how wise or well-informed he or she might be.

Four years ago, President Bush stood under a banner that proclaimed ``Mission Accomplished.'' If the mission was to further place our troops in harm's way at the hands of insurgents and sectarian violence, then it is mission accomplished. After spending more than $450 billion sacrificing the lives of 3,611 of America's finest citizen-soldiers, what have we accomplished and where are we headed?

I cannot support the President's waging of a war that has no clear direction, does not meet the benchmarks that the President set, and has no visible target.

Four years after launching the invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq, the evidence is clear and irrefutable: The preemptive invasion of Iraq, while a spectacularly executed military operation, was a strategic blunder without parallel in the history of American foreign policy. This is what can happen when the Congress allows itself to be stampeded into authorizing a president to launch a preemptive war of choice.

It is time to change our strategy in Iraq. It is time to engage the key stakeholders in the Middle East and make real strides towards securing a just and lasting peace in Iraq and for the Iraqi people. And most important, bring our troops home so they can be reunited with their families, friends, and neighbors.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 2956. The Responsible Redeployment From Iraq Act requires a responsible redeployment of U.S. troops beginning within 120 days of enactment and ending by April 1, 2008. The legislation requires the President to publicly justify the post-redeployment missions for the U.S. military in Iraq and the minimum number of troops necessary to carry out those missions.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is consistent with the advice of military and foreign policy experts, ensures the safety of our men and women in uniform, addresses our commitment to fighting terrorism, and reflects the will of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, the need for a new direction in Iraq could not be clearer. In the face of mounting evidence that progress is not being made in Iraq, military leaders, defense experts, Republican and Democratic Members of Congress, and the American people are demanding change. Yet the President continues to urge continued support for a failed policy that is not making America safer or supporting our troops.

In a report released today by the White House, the administration concedes that violence continues in Iraq and that the Iraqi Government has failed to meet key benchmarks endorsed by the President in January and political reconciliation is nonexistent. By the Bush administration's own admission, there is unsatisfactory progress on all of the political reconciliation benchmarks announced by the President on January 10, 2007.

In fact, just this week, the National Security Network reported that since the President announced his ``surge'' policy 6 months ago, more than 25,000 troops have been sent to Iraq, approximately 600 have been killed and more than 3,000 have been wounded.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have been given numerous chances and ample time by the American people and the Congress to straighten out the mess in Iraq. They have failed. It is little wonder that the criticism of the administration's failed policy in Iraq is mounting by the day. Respected military leaders, like LTG William Odom, have spoken forcefully. According to Lieutenant General Odom, ``No effective new strategy can be devised for the United States until it begins withdrawing its forces from Iraq. Only that step will break the paralysis that now confronts us.''

Key Republican Senators are joining the chorus of critics. In addition to Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Senator Richard Lugar, some of the President's allies in Congress have spoken out. Senator Pete Domenici says, ``There's no reason to wait . . . [I am] trying to tell [Bush] that he must change his ways because there is nothing positive happening.'' Senator Elizabeth Dole says, ``It is my firm hope and belief that we can start bringing our troops home in 2008.'' Senator Lamar Alexander says, ``The President needs a new strategy.''

And just this week, in a USA Today/Gallup Poll, more than 70 percent of Americans favor removal of almost all U.S. troops from Iraq by April 2008, leaving a limited number for counterterrorism efforts.

Military Success in Iraq Act

Finally Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation because it is grounded in the fundamental principles I first announced in February of this year when I introduced H.R. 930, the Military Success in Iraq and Diplomatic Surge for National and Political Reconciliation in Iraq Act of 2007. I introduced this legislation, the Military Success in Iraq Act of 2007, MSIA or ``Messiah,'' to offer an honorable deliverance from Iraq. Let me explain.

In October 2002, the Congress authorized the President to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following objectives:

(1) To disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction that could threaten the security of the United States and international peace in the Persian Gulf region;

(2) To change the Iraqi regime so that Saddam Hussein and his Baathist party no longer posed a threat to the people of Iraq or its neighbors;

(3) To bring to justice any members of al Qaeda known or found to be in Iraq bearing responsibility for the attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11,2001;

(4) To ensure that the regime of Saddam Hussein would not provide weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists, including al Qaeda; and

(5) To enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Every one of these objectives has long been accomplished. Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein has been deposed, captured, and dealt with by the Iraqi people. The American military has caught or killed virtually every member of al Qaeda in Iraq that was even remotely responsible for the 9-11 attack on our country. Last, all relevant U.N. resolutions relating to Iraq have been enforced. In other words, every objective for which the use of force in Iraq was authorized by the 2002 resolution has been achieved.

Mr. Speaker, since the objectives which led Congress to pass the 2002 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) have been achieved, I believe the authorization to use that military force expires automatically. My legislation affirms this proposition. Additionally, I believe, and my legislation provides, that it is the Congress that is the ultimate arbiter as to whether the objectives set forth in a congressional AUMF have been achieved.

Mr. Speaker, where a Congressional authorization to use military force has expired, the President must obtain a new authorization to continue the use force. My legislation requires the President to do that as well. Finally, my bill requires that if the Congress does not vote to reauthorize the use of force in Iraq within 90 days after determining that the objectives set forth in the 2002 AUMF have been achieved, all American armed forces in Iraq must be redeployed out of Iraq. Thus, under my legislation, an up-or-down vote must be held by the House and Senate to continue waging war in Iraq.

I am not talking about ``cutting and running,'' or surrendering to terrorists. And I certainly am not talking about staying in Iraq forever or the foreseeable future. The Armed Forces won the war they were sent to fight. Their civilian leadership has not succeeded in winning the peace. That is why the United States should surge diplomatically and politically.

Title II of my legislation, the ``Diplomatic Surge for Political and National Reconciliation in Iraq Act,'' implements twelve of the most important recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. This approach is now gaining widespread support among many who had previously disparaged diplomacy in favor of military force.

All six of Iraq's neighbors--Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait--have an interest in a stabilized Iraq because as the Iraq Study Group report makes clear, none of these countries wants to live with an Iraq that, after our redeployment, becomes a failed state or a humanitarian catastrophe that could become a haven for terrorists or hemorrhages millions more refugees who will stream into neighboring countries.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the enormous financial cost, the human cost to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces has also been high but they have willingly paid it. Operation Iraqi Freedom has exacerbated the Veterans Administration health care facility maintenance backlog; placed an undue strain on the delivery of medical treatment and rehabilitative services for current and new veterans; and exacted a heavy toll on the equipment, training and readiness requirements, and the families of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.

Mr. Speaker, everyday when I walk into my office I am reminded of the courageous young men and women who have given their lives in service to our nation. Outside my office I have displayed a poster-board that displays the names and faces of those who made the ultimate sacrifice. The poster-board is nearly full. I do not want to start another board. Let me call the roll of honor of the remarkable sons and daughters of Houston, Texas who have made the ultimate sacrifice and gave the last full measure of devotion: Capt. Eric L. Allton, Petty Officer 1st Class Howard E. Babcock IV, Spec. Adolfo C. Carballo, Staff Sgt. Brian T. Craig, Staff Sgt. Terrence D. Dunn, Pfc. Analaura Esparza Gutierrez, 1st Lt. David M. Fraser, Lance Cpl. Phillip C. George, Spec. Clinton R. Gertson, Capt. Andrew R. Houghton, Master Sgt. Ivica Jerak, Spec. John P. Johnson, Pfc. Roy L. Jones III, Cpl. Brian M. Kennedy, Staff Sgt. Dexter S. Kimble,

Spec. Scott Q. Larson Jr., Staff Sgt. Hector Leija, Pfc. Jesus A. Leon-Perez, Sgt. Keelan L. Moss, Tech. Sgt. Walter M. Moss Jr., Staff Sgt. Kenneth I. Pugh, Staff Sgt. William D. Richardson, Staff Sgt. Timothy J. Roark, Sgt. Michael T. Robertson, Cpl. Benjamin S. Rosales, Staff Sgt. Alberto V. Sanchez, Pfc. Leroy Sandoval Jr., Pfc. Armando Soriano, Cpl. Tomas Sotelo Jr., Sgt. Danny R. Soto, Spec. Juan M. Torres, Lance Cpl. Thomas J. Zapp.

Mr. Speaker, the misguided, mismanaged, and costly debacle that is the Iraq War which was preemptively launched by President Bush in March 2003 despite the opposition of me and 125 of my colleagues in the House of Representatives has lasted longer than America's involvement in WorId War II, the greatest conflict in all of human history.

But there is a difference. The Second World War ended in complete and total victory for the United States and its allies. But then again, in that conflict America was led by FDR, a great Commander-in-Chief, who had a plan to win the war and secure the peace, listened to his generals, and sent troops in sufficient numbers and sufficiently trained and equipped to do the job.

My friends, I say with sadness that we have not enjoyed that same quality of leadership

throughout the conduct of the Iraq War. The results, not surprisingly, have been disastrous. To date, the war in Iraq has claimed the lives of 3,611 brave servicemen and women. The last three months of the war have been among the deadliest (104 in April, 123 in May, 101 in June, and 32 in the first week of July). More than 26,690 Americans have been wounded, many suffering the most horrific injuries. American taxpayers have paid nearly $450 billion to sustain this misadventure. To grasp the magnitude of this number, consider that American taxpayers are spending: $120,000,000,000 per year; $10,000,000,000 per month; $2,307,692,380 per week; $329,670,330 per day; $13,736,264 per hour; $228,938 per minute; $3,816 per second.

Mr. Speaker, last November the American people signaled clearly their loss of confidence in the President's leadership and their desire for a new direction in Iraq. The new Democratic majority has begun to deliver. And we will not rest, Mr. Speaker, until we are clearly on a glide path to the day when our troops come home.

And even then our work will not be done. We must still be about the business of repairing the damage to America's international reputation and prestige. But this Democratic majority, led by the Progressive Caucus and the Out of Iraq Caucus, has ushered in a new era of oversight, accountability, and transparency to defense and reconstruction contracting and procurement.

I urge all members to join me in supporting H.R. 2956. This is the best way to ensure accountability to our soldiers who have been sent into battle without proper training or equipment or a clear mission. It is the best way to keep faith with our veterans who are not getting the best medical care when they come home. Passing this legislation is essential to restoring our military that is being stretched to the limits by the Bush policy. Last, it is absolutely necessary to regain the confidence of the American people who demand a new direction in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 2956, the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this House ought to voice its gratitude to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, for bringing before this House a thoughtful, responsible bill that outlines what we must do next in Iraq.

The bill clearly notes that our uniformed men and women have carried out and completed their mission for which they were authorized by Congress. The search for weapons of mass destruction is over. There were none, not a single one. The regime that put Iraq in an impossible international position no longer exists. So it's time that we draw down our troops from Iraq and require this administration to clearly define what the troop requirements and costs will be for the next phase of U.S. involvement in Iraq, a far more limited mission to root out al Qaeda and protect our diplomatic personnel inside Iraq.

The bill also promotes the kind of active diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors necessary for achieving a more lasting climate of stability in Iraq and throughout the region. Much, much more, Mr. Speaker, must be done. I expect to see stronger legislation in September, but this bill puts us on the right path.

For 5 long, deadly years, this Congress has done nothing but rubber- stamp a tragically flawed policy. It is shameful. Whatever the cause the President and many Members of Congress thought they were pursuing in Iraq, it is lost. Political leaders inside Iraq appear incapable of putting national interest ahead of sectarian and personal agendas. Iraqi security forces operate more like sectarian militias. And despite their best efforts, the additional military forces we have poured into the Baghdad region have not been able to change the equation.

Over 3,600 of our troops have lost their lives to this battle. Thousands more have been wounded. It is wrong, Mr. Speaker, simply wrong to ask them to continue to sacrifice their lives and their limbs for this failed policy.

The war in Iraq is breaking the back of our military. It is causing severe damage to the Federal budget to the tune of $10 billion each month, and causing grave harm to the future fiscal health of our Nation. It continues to undermine our most important political, diplomatic, military and strategic alliances. It saps our ability to focus on global terrorism and to safeguard our own people. And it has contributed to the chaos inside Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, it is past time for change. And while President Bush keeps scorning deadlines and promising

breakthroughs that never come, it is clear that he lacks the vision, the wisdom or the courage to chart a new course. It is frighteningly clear that the President plans, instead, to stay the course and dump this mess on the next President.

It is time for Congress to step up to the plate and change direction in Iraq. It is time for every Member of this House to work together to draw down our forces and bring our troops home to their families and their communities.

For too long Congress has been complicit, and the American people are frustrated, and they are angry. We don't need more studies or commissions. We don't need more excuses. We don't need more delay. Too many lives are being lost. What we need is for Members of Congress to make a choice, to stand up and be counted. Will you continue to rubber- stamp the current disastrous policies in Iraq or will you vote for change?

We must act now, Mr. Speaker. This is simply too important to wait any longer. Too many lives are on the line.

All of us, no matter how we originally voted on the war, share in the responsibility in what is happening in Iraq. All of us, by not voting to change course, are responsible for sending so many of our brave men and women into a civil war where far too many of them have been killed.

If the President of the United States will not respect the will of the American people and end this war, then Congress must.

[From the Los Angeles Times, July 11, 2007]

U.S. Troop Buildup in Iraq Falling Short

(By Julian E. Barnes and Ned Parker)

Baghdad.--In the Ubaidi neighborhood in the eastern part of

this city, American soldiers hired a local Iraqi to clean the

Porta-Potties at their combat outpost. Before the man could

start, members of the local Shiite militia threatened to kill

him.

Today, the Porta-Potties are roped off, and the U.S.

soldiers, who could not promise to protect their sewage man,

are forced to burn their waste.

As part of the Bush administration's troop ``surge''

strategy, the U.S. unit here had moved into an abandoned

potato chip factory hoping to push out the militia, protect

existing jobs and provide stability for economic growth.

Instead, militia members stymied development projects, cut

off the water supply and executed two young Iraqi women seen

talking to U.S. soldiers, sending a powerful message about

who really controls Ubaidi's streets.

In the next few days, the Bush administration is scheduled

to release a preliminary assessment of its overall Iraq

strategy. Officials may point to signs of progress scattered

across the country: a reduction in death-squad killings in

Baghdad, agreements with tribal leaders in Al Anbar province,

offensives north and south of the capital.

President Bush defended his strategy Tuesday, demanding

Congress give his administration more time and insisting that

America can ``win this fight in Iraq.'' To underscore his

request, Bush sent top aides to lobby lawmakers on Capitol

Hill.

But as the experience of the troops in Ubaidi indicates,

U.S. forces so far have been unable to establish security,

even for themselves. Iraqis continue to flee their homes,

leaving mixed areas and seeking safety in religiously

segregated neighborhoods. About 32,000 families fled in June

alone, according to figures compiled by the United Nations

and the Iraqi government that are due to be released next

week.

U.S. forces have staged offensives to push insurgents out

of some safe havens. But many of the insurgents have escaped

to new areas of the country, launching attacks where the U.S.

presence is lighter.

And there has been no sign of any of the crucial political

progress the administration had hoped to see in Iraq.

U.S. commanders are painfully aware that they are running

out of time to change those realities. Army Gen. David H.

Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, has made

several efforts to slow the clock in Washington. Each time,

it has sped up.

The full complement of the ``surge'' arrived in Iraq last

month, bringing the total to 28,500 additional troops.

Military officers originally hoped to have until 2008 before

they had to render a verdict on the strategy. Then the

Washington timeframe shrank to September. Now, it is

shrinking further, with Congress demanding answers even

sooner.

Supporters of the troop buildup insist that small steps

could grow into larger and more long-term successes if

lawmakers are patient.

``Right now we are three weeks into this. It's not like

flipping a light switch,'' said a military officer in

Baghdad, expressing the frustration of many commanders.

``Time has to be given for things to work.''

Commanders point to Ramadi, the capital of Al Anbar

province, as a showcase for the kind of results the military

wants from the current strategy. Once a battlefield, the city

is now largely peaceful, calm enough that in March, Iraqi

Prime Minister Nouri Maliki was able to pay his first

official visit.

But military officers stress that it took about nine months

of sustained effort to make Ramadi a relatively pacified

city. And with its volatile mix of Sunni and Shiite Muslims,

Baghdad presents a far more complex challenge than all-Sunni

Ramadi.

The interim progress report that Bush promised to release

this week is likely to emphasize the success the military has

had in killing Sunni militants in the ``Baghdad belts,'' the

cities and towns that dot the major rivers and highways

leading to the capital. In recent weeks, the newly arrived

U.S. forces have been focused on fighting members of Al Qaeda

in Iraq, a militant Sunni group made up of Iraqis and foreign

fighters.

Top generals say the strategy is crucial to securing

Baghdad. Only by controlling the routes into the capital, and

denying militants safe havens, can the U.S. and Iraqi

militaries keep out the car bombs that stoke sectarian

violence inside the capital.

But leading Iraqis are less sure of the strategy.

Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of the Iraqi parliament,

said the U.S. approach may be successful at weakening Al

Qaeda in Iraq. But he said Americans would not be able to

solve Iraq's sectarian conflict or stop clashes between armed

groups in Baghdad neighborhoods.

``The surge has an important effect in fighting Al Qaeda,''

the independent politician said. ``On the Sunni-Shiite

conflict, it hasn't had any effect. . . . Extremist Shiites

and Sunnis are fighting each other. The Americans can't stop

this.''

U.S. officials have made little, if any, progress with

their persistent calls for Iraqi officials to take steps

toward reconciliation between Shiites and Sunnis.

Key administration officials, most prominently Defense

Secretary Robert M. Gates and Vice President Dick Cheney,

have visited Iraq to push for passage of an oil-revenue

sharing law, provincial elections and reform of rules barring

members of the former ruling Baath Party from government

jobs.

But the Iraqi government is bogged down by fighting among

Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish parties. It is unclear whether the

oil law, the one piece of benchmark legislation still given

hopes for passage before September, will reach a vote any

time soon.

The number of death-squad killings in the capital, one sign

of sectarian divisions, is down from earlier this year. But

the number remains roughly at the level seen after the 2006

bombing of Samarra's Golden Mosque, which served as a

catalyst for the extreme sectarian violence.

In Baghdad, the number of bodies found dumped in the

streets dropped to 540 last month from 830 in January. Some

American officers say those numbers could rise again. And

others say that the decline may simply represent the

depressing reality that most Baghdad neighborhoods are now

segregated, meaning there are fewer people left for death

squads to kill.

Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil, Jr., the commander of U.S. forces in

Baghdad, said that American troops at the end of June

controlled about 42% of the city's neighborhoods, up from 19%

in April.

But to many Iraqis, that is little comfort. ``The Americans

do not make me feel safe,'' said Amin Sadiq, a 30-year-old

Shiite worker in the Ghadeer neighborhood of east Baghdad.

``When you hear the speeches of the top U.S. military

leaders, you think that everything is ideal and perfect and

Iraq will be better. But when you see how the U.S. soldiers

behave, I really feel I should not trust the leaders.''

The American military has helped bring a tense truce in

some areas, but has not re-integrated once-mixed

neighborhoods.

The western Baghdad neighborhood of Ghazaliya, once a

prosperous mixed middle-class area, was riven by sectarian

violence in 2006. It is now divided between Shiites in the

northern end and Sunnis in the south, with the U.S. military

stuck in the middle, trying to keep the peace.

``Last year, things were bad. This year is worse than

before,'' said a man in his 50s who identified himself as

Qais Qaisi.

The presence of Iraqi and American security forces means

that Sunnis cannot fight back against the Shiite militias,

which have the tacit support of the Iraqi army unit in the

area, Qaisi said. But he nevertheless voiced concern about a

possible American pullout.

``If the multinational forces withdraw, there will be very

bloody sectarian battles,'' he said.

Military officers routinely say that improving the economy

is a prerequisite to improving security. And U.S. forces, by

putting up barriers and controlling traffic, have been able

to reopen some marketplaces that had been targeted by suicide

bombers. Although that has allowed some neighborhood

commerce, success with other projects has proved more

elusive.

The Pentagon is working to reopen state-owned factories and

has identified several dozen that can be renovated and

restarted. But that work is slow, and many residents say they

see few improvements in their neighborhoods.

Although U.S. forces have been able to overcome militia

threats and start small neighborhood projects such as

installing streetlights, they are not able to initiate larger

undertakings.

``We aren't doing anything meaningful,'' said one mid-level

noncommissioned officer. ``Where are the real projects? We

aren't offering these people enough safety, or money, or

jobs.''

Amid the political setbacks and continuing violence,

however, there are signs of relative calm in some areas.

Earlier this year, the streets of Baghdad were desolate at

sunset. Now, in places, there are signs of life.

In Yarmouk, a neighborhood in west Baghdad, 18-year-old

Ahmed Shakir used to see bodies on the street every day.

Snipers fired from hidden perches and gunmen clashed with

U.S. and Iraqi soldiers. But last month, after weeks of U.S.

patrols, his neighborhood started to feel safe--safe enough

for Shakir to stay outside on the basketball court until 8:30

p.m.

``It is usually me and three of my friends, we always go

play basketball,'' he said. ``Now we have U.S. and Iraqi

patrols roaming the streets every day. If they continued

doing this, things will remain better. If not, then it will

get worse for sure.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 533 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 533 provides for consideration of H.R. 2956, the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 4 hours of debate, with 3 hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services and 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The rule waives all points of order against the bill and its consideration except those arising under clause 9 or 10 under rule XX. The rule provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, let's be very clear about what we will be told today by the President. We will be told that adequate progress has been made in some areas of Iraq but more work needs to be done in others. What this really means, of course, is that once again security and political benchmarks have not been met, that vast areas in Baghdad that were supposed to be under control by now are not, that a drop in violence in some areas has been met with increases in violence elsewhere, that political compromises are not being made with sufficient speed by the Iraqi leadership, nor is there any available evidence that the situation is going to change, that the escalation will suddenly become more effective next week or next month. Instead, all signs indicate that in September when General Petraeus reports to Congress, he will deliver the exact same message that we are hearing today: to be patient.

But patience means nothing when deadlines are constantly moved. In January a leading Member of the minority said that we would be able to tell in a few months if the escalation was working. Now we hear it is still too early to tell. It has been 7 months. Which prediction are we supposed to believe?

As time has advanced, an absence in progress has not been met by an absence in tragedy. At the present rates, between now and September, another 200 Americans will be killed, 200 more families changed forever. And hundreds, if not thousands, more innocent Iraqis will have died as well.

We will hear today that to change our course in Iraq will signal defeat. But this willfully ignores the entire history of the Iraq War. After more than 4 years of relentless conflict, including recent months of historically high troop numbers, experts tell us that in Iraq al Qaeda is stronger than ever. A military official told ABC News yesterday al Qaeda's ``operational capability appears to be undiminished.''

The conclusion is clear: The American military is not being given a chance to bring peace to Iraq or to fight our enemies, not because our troops are not good enough but because the current mission is inherently flawed.

It is not weakness to admit a strategy is not working and to change it. It is the very opposite: a sign of strength. Our leaders corrected failing courses when they arose during the Civil War and during World War II. Why should this war be different?

What Democrats are calling for today is not a retreat. It is not a surrender. It is a statement that Congress will not wait for another ambiguous so-called progress report and will not give the administration another chance to move the goalposts. Instead, we will refuse to needlessly sacrifice our soldiers, weaken our military, undermine our national security, and bleed our country in ways that even the worst terrorists could ever dream of. And it is a statement to the Iraqi people that they will no longer have to live as dual victims: victims of violence and victims of a flawed military strategy that is at best failing to bring peace to the country and at worst perpetuating their suffering.

The bill will refocus our troops on fighting terrorists. By doing so, the disastrous strain being placed on our Armed Forces will be lifted without sacrificing security objectives, and their healing can begin.

Second, it will remove a strategy from the playing field that is certainly not working and throw open the door to new approaches which may actually succeed. For example, the legislation requires the President to report by January on how he is engaging U.S. allies and regional powers in the effort to bring stability to Iraq. Far from abandoning the Iraqis or lessening American security, we will finally make the rehabilitation of Iraq the international priority that it must become. The only thing we will be abandoning, in other words, Mr. Speaker, is this administration's mistakes.

And to my friends on both sides of the aisle, yesterday I received an advance copy of a report from the Defense Department's Inspector General that will be made public today. It detailed the work of some of the first companies to make armored vehicles and armored kits for our soldiers in Iraq. They were given sole-source, unbid contracts even though senior defense officials objected, favoring a competitive process instead.

I hope people heard what I said. Senior officials at DOD wanted competitive bidding for these machines, but they were overridden by the Under Secretary of Defense.

The results were sadly predictable. The companies failed to meet demand and sent critically important equipment late. Some of the armor that our soldiers were sent had cracks that had simply been painted over to try to fool them instead of fixing it. In certain instances two left doors were sent for the same vehicle. Troops already fighting a deadly foe had to use their precious time and energy to improvise and come up with ways to turn useless equipment into something that could protect them.

Our soldiers have been asked to endure terrible hardships, as well have their families, some of which, I am ashamed to say, have been the direct result of the practices of this administration, and they are enduring them to this day and at this very hour. For Congress to leave them there, to ask them to continue fighting to survive under the mounting weight of a flawed mission--that, Mr. Speaker, is the true definition of abandonment. And after 4 years, Democrats are tired of this Congress abandoning our troops to a fate they have never deserved.

I would ask everyone in this Chamber how they would justify this continued carnage to the families of our soldiers. With all we know now, how can we still say to the children of those killed or to the young men and women maimed for life, your loss was needed?

We cannot. What we must say to them is this: You have given enough. It is time to come home.

The American people know what must be done and the majority of this Congress knows what must be done. And all that remains is for those of us here who are still opposed to this bill to decide that they too have had enough and that they will join their countrymen in voting not with the President but with the troops, with the people of Iraq, and with the people of the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record an article from the Washington Post this morning entitled, ``White House Isn't Backing Iraq Study Group Follow-Up,'' and points out that the House voted 355-69 last month to reestablish the study group, but the President is blocking it.

[From washingtonpost.com, July 12, 2007]

White House Isn't Backing Iraq Study Group Follow-Up

(By Robin Wright)

Despite an overwhelming House vote last month to revive the

Iraq Study Group, the White House has blocked reconvening the

bipartisan panel to provide a second independent assessment

of the military and political situation in Iraq, said several

sources involved in the panel's December 2006 report.

Co-Chairman Lee H. Hamilton, several panel members and the

U.S. Institute of Peace, which ran the study group, were

willing to participate, according to Hamilton and the

congressionally funded think tank. But the White House did

not give the green light for co-chairman and former secretary

of state James A. Baker III to participate, and Baker is

unwilling to lead a second review without President Bush's

approval, according to members of the original panel and

sources close to Baker.

White House support is critical for any follow-up review.

``It is not likely to happen unless the White House approves

it,'' Hamilton, a Democratic former congressman from Indiana,

said in an interview. ``The group can't go ahead without its

concurrence or acquiescence, as we need travel support and

access to documents.''

The White House does not want independent assessments to

rival the upcoming Sept. 15 reports by Gen. David H. Petraeus

and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, U.S. officials said.

The White House indicated that it sees no need for an

immediate follow-up to the report, noting that it is

implementing a strategy consistent with many of the panel's

recommendations. ``The next report due in September by

General Petraeus must include an assessment of our objectives

as they relate to Baker-Hamilton. September will be the

appropriate time to determine how that strategy is

progressing,'' said National Security Council spokesman

Gordon Johndroe. ``We look forward to remaining in contact

with members of the group.''

The House voted 355 to 69 last month to allocate $1 million

for the U.S. Institute of Peace to reestablish the group of

10 prominent Republicans and Democrats, which included former

Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, former defense

secretary William J. Perry and, until his appointment,

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

Congressional sponsors called the White House's reluctance

a missed opportunity. ``The ISG provides an opportunity to

bring the country together. . . . If you had a serious

illness, you would want a second opinion. We are at war. You

want to have the best minds looking at a problem,'' said Rep.

Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), who proposed the ISG and co-sponsored

the bill to reconvene it. ``Having another independent,

bipartisan assessment will take out the venom in the

debate.''

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), another co-sponsor,

warned that the White House's move would cost further support

among Republicans.

``It's really shortsighted,'' he said. ``It's going to

further isolate the president. . . . You can't rely just on

Petraeus and Crocker. They are good people, but they're still

in the thick of battle and you need the view from the

outside. The fact the White House doesn't want it indicates

they are afraid of what the ISG might say.''

The White House did not initially embrace the ISG report.

But it has gradually adopted key recommendations, including

the controversial proposal to pursue diplomatic talks with

Iran and Syria, the countries that have most aided or abetted

Iraq's insurgents and illegal militias. Last month, 23

Democrats and 34 Republicans co-sponsored a House bill to

implement all the ISG recommendations as the way forward in

Iraq.

But other groups are pursuing independent reviews of U.S.

policy and Iraq's performance. The Iraqi Security Forces

Independent Assessment Commission--made up of 14 former

generals and defense officials--is examining Iraqi military

capabilities. The panel, which is mandated by Congress, is

chaired by retired Gen. James L. Jones. The group is

currently in Iraq; its report is due in October.

The Government Accountability Office is doing a separate

congressionally mandated study on the 18 benchmarks set for

the Iraqi government to meet. And the U.S. Institute of Peace

is reconvening many of the experts the ISG originally relied

on to discuss Iraq's future.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, give me 3 seconds to say that under the Republican administration, not a single Iraqi measure was brought up under an open rule.

And now I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, let me have about 2 seconds to say that we have allowed 4 hours of general debate. I think everybody will have an opportunity to discuss what they think of the deadline.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I have two.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time and ask if the gentleman has more requests.

Mr. Speaker, once again, we're always treated to the inventive memory of the former Chair of the Rules Committee.

Let me just state for the record that this time last when he was Chair, we had three open rules. At this time, we've had eight open rules.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and also on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.