Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act of 2007

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank my distinguished Chair for yielding. I would like to join her in extending the thoughts and prayers of every Member of this institution to those, I know at this moment there are families who are waiting, living with this moment with the uncertainty as to whether or not their loved ones have survived the tragedy in the Twin Cities.

Last night, when our colleague, Mrs. Bachmann, stood here to report this, it came as a huge shock. I agree completely with my colleague about the need to ensure that the bridges in our country are safe and secure as we deal with these challenges.

I thank my friend for yielding.

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

I would like to thank my very good friend from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), the very distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. I am compelled to rise in the strongest possible opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation. Once again, the Democratic majority is running scared from openness and transparency because they know that their policies cannot withstand any scrutiny. They have shut off all meaningful debate, amendments and alternatives.

Mr. Speaker, I will say that no matter how intense, no matter how bitter, no matter how hate-filled the vitriol is that comes towards us, I will continue to strive to work in a bipartisan way to deal with this very important issue and other issues as well.

I think we evidenced that last night when we offered an amendment in the Rules Committee that would have allowed the Members of this body to replace this proposal with one that actually enjoys strong, bipartisan support. I am referring, of course, to the Iraq Study Group recommendations, the so-called Baker-Hamilton Commission.

This group spent literally months, Democrats and Republicans together. A former Member of this house as the Democratic leader, the former Secretary of State, James Baker, as the Republican leader, and an equal number of Republicans and an equal number of Democrats came up with bipartisan recommendations as to how we, as a Nation, could move forward.

Knowing that this sound and very responsible policy would very easily trump the inferior proposal that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are hoping to move on the floor today, they took the only route that they seem to know, and they have a great deal of experience at this, Mr. Speaker. They just shut down the process completely.

They seemed to know, Mr. Speaker, that, unfortunately, this very thoughtful work product, which is not supported by everyone, but it enjoys strong bipartisan support. Again, our former colleague, the very respected former Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs it is now called, it was the International Relations Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee before that, Mr. Hamilton, and the highly regarded Secretary of State, James Baker, came up with this package.

And what is it our colleagues did? With a very passionate statement made by our friend from Virginia, my classmate, Mr. Frank Wolf, who was really the progenitor of this Iraq Study Group, working with a wide range of people to come up with just the establishment of the group, and now this work product has come forward, heralded by people all across this country, and what is it that they have done? They have chosen to take this inferior proposal and say, we are not going to even allow consideration of the Iraq Study Group.

Now, having precluded any real debate, they have nothing to fall back on but really cheap political ploys. The announcement was made several weeks ago that every single week leading up to Congress' adjournment for the month of August, we would have votes on Iraq.

One of the Democratic majority's favorite gimmicks is to give their ill-conceived bills grand-sounding names and shroud them in warm, fuzzy ideas that no one could possibly oppose.

Earlier this week, they rammed through the House is a massive giveaway to trial lawyers. And what was it called? The anti- discrimination bill.

Just yesterday, we considered a bill that slashes Medicare coverage for millions. What was it called, Mr. Speaker? The Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act. The audacity of cutting Medicare with a bill that has ``Medicare protection'' right in the title is, to me, absolutely staggering.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am proud that we, as Republicans, worked to address important issues with prudence and deliberation, issues that affect the quality of life and standard of living for all Americans. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side, we will witness it in just a few minutes once again, they resort to demagoguery and name calling and all kinds of other vitriol.

When we refuse to be suckered by their slipshod efforts and poor policies, they accuse us of being pro-discrimination, or anti- children's health, or any other awful-sounding label that they can come up with. They will make some great and fascinating political ads. As this season goes on, we will see some of them on YouTube, I am sure, and other places. And if you look at these votes on discrimination and on the issue of Medicare and children's healthcare, obviously, we will be hearing a lot about the things that have been done here on the House floor during the campaign season, which obviously is under way right now.

They will no doubt continue with this tired approach here today. We are going to hear about how the underlying bill before us today is about ``troop welfare.'' We are going to hear about the ``terrible strain'' the war in Iraq has put on the members of our Armed Forces and their families.

I want to make sure it is absolutely clear that we are all, all, very concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the welfare of our troops. It is a bipartisan concern, and anyone who would argue that we are somehow not concerned about the welfare of our troops is barking up the wrong tree. We see with sobering clarity, Mr. Speaker, the magnitude the impact the war has on their families. No American deserves more support than those who put their lives on the line to protect each and every one of us, and no one is more determined to fulfill our commitment to these men and women than my Republican colleagues and I are.

That is precisely, precisely, Mr. Speaker, why I stand in opposition to both this rule and the underlying legislation. The Democratic majority can slap any old bill together and say it promotes troop welfare. But, Mr. Speaker, that does not make it so. And they can slap any old bill together and

accuse its opponents of undermining troop welfare. But that doesn't make it so.

The reality is that this bill undermines our military leadership, who are already committed to the welfare of our troops and their families. And to imply in any way that our Nation's civilian and military leadership is not committed to the welfare of our troops and their families is again a very specious argument.

The reality is that this bill undermines our military leadership who are committed to the troops; and, in fact, it opens up the potential to force troops to stay in the field longer, handle missions for which they are not prepared, and ultimately create greater risks for our men and women who are in harm's way.

Mr. Speaker, our Armed Forces are already working toward the goal of ensuring that every servicemember spends 2 years at home after each year in the field, and that Reservists get 5 years at home after each 1 year of deployment.

Mr. Speaker, the Marine Corps is already providing what this bill would mandate, time at home at least equal to time deployed. The Commandant of the Marine Corps must approve any deviation from this policy.

Let me say once again, Mr. Speaker, I don't understand why it is that we are here dealing with this issue when we could in fact pass the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. We instead are doing something that the Marine Corps is doing right now. Again, the Commandant of the Marine Corps would have to approve any deviation from this policy.

What this bill does is to remove any flexibility that allows our military leaders to make deployment decisions that best provide for both troop welfare and, Mr. Speaker, something that we never hear discussed from our colleagues on the other side the aisle, and that is mission completion, completing our mission, making sure that we have success and victory. It adds another layer of bureaucratic red tape. Ironically, and tragically, it could actually force our commanders in the field to extend deployments and force our troops to take on missions for which they are not fully prepared.

Mr. Speaker, preventing our commanders from being able to task each unit to take on the mission for which it is best prepared and best trained would needlessly risk the lives of our troops.

I know that we all want the ultimate desire of every member of our armed services: that they be speedily and, as I said a moment ago, victoriously returned to the loving arms of their families and the accolades of a grateful Nation. But, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not, this bill is not the way to ensure that.

The Democratic majority can keep playing these games. They can continue to claim that this bill will improve the quality of life of our troops and their families. They can continue to accuse its opponents of callousness and indifference to servicemen and servicewomen. But I don't believe the American people will be fooled, Mr. Speaker. They are quite capable of seeing past clever bill titles and phony rhetoric.

This Democratic majority has got to learn that it takes more than demagoguery to lead this body and to lead this country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, as well as the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, as one who joins with my colleague from Worcester in stating that we all want to see this war end as quickly as we possibly can, and we want to see this mission be victorious, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the former Governor of Delaware (Mr. Castle) who offered a very thoughtful amendment in the Committee on Rules.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding, and I would like to congratulate him not only for his amendment, but also for the comments that the former Governor of Delaware has just offered on the work of the Iraq Study Group.

Again, this was a bipartisan effort that was launched by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who, as we all know, speaks passionately and eloquently on this and other issues.

We all want to see this war come to an end. President Bush stood right here in this Chamber in January delivering his State of the Union message, and he said the following: I wish this war was over and we had won.

So there is a shared goal of our trying to bring this war to an end as quickly as possible and to bring our men and women home to their families.

Frankly, I join my colleague from Delaware in stating that I believe that the opportunity for implementation, if not all, most of the work of the Iraq Study Group, this great bipartisan gathering, would go a long way towards achieving that goal to which both Democrats and Republicans claim to aspire.

So I would just like to thank my friend for his remarks, and I thank him for yielding to me.

May I inquire of the Chair how much time remains on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend from Morristown, New Jersey, who is a hardworking member of the House Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Frelinghuysen.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 5 minutes to my good friend from Bridgeport, Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who next weekend will be making his 18th trip to Iraq. I know he shares my concern over the fact that, unfortunately, this rule fails to allow this House to consider the work of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Speaker.

I will say again that it really baffles me as to why this majority will not allow us to have an opportunity to consider this bipartisan work product of the Iraq Study Group.

On the opening day, Mr. Speaker, the new Speaker of the House of Representatives stood and talked about this new sense of bipartisanship. We all know that the war in Iraq was the key issue in the November election. We know that the war in Iraq was the key issue in last November's election, and it is on the minds of all of our constituents. We are all concerned about the future that this war on terror holds for all of us, and that's why the Iraq Study Group was established.

Our former colleague, the former chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Lee Hamilton, the former Secretary of State, a Democrat and Republican led eight other Democrats and Republicans, highly regarded in this country, strongly partisan individuals, they came together with a bipartisan proposal. Unfortunately, the supposedly new bipartisan spirit that exists here in the House denies us a chance to even consider that.

No one demonstrates more passion on this issue than Mr. Wolf. When he made the arguments before the Rules Committee, they were very compelling and very strong as only Frank Wolf can offer them. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have not seen a chance to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I do so to say that just this week we all saw a great deal of attention focused on an op-ed piece written in the New York Times by two of the harshest critics of the war in Iraq. I am referring, of course, to the Brookings Institution Fellows Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack. And I saw Ken Pollack with Wolf Blitzer on CNN the other day saying he did not write the headline in the New York Times which talked about this is a war we might win. He did stand by every word in that piece that was written, and I am going to ask to include that piece in the Congressional Record.

[From the New York Times, July 30, 2007]

A War We Just Might Win

(By Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack)

Washington.--Viewed from Iraq, where we just spent eight

days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian

personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The

Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all

credibility. Yet now the administration's critics, in part as

a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking

place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to

understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at

least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly

criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of

Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential

to produce not necessarily ``victory'' but a sustainable

stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice

when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In

previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry

and frustrated--many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were

using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in

pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us

they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. 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.

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing

the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units,

creating new political and economic arrangements at the local

level and providing basic services--electricity, fuel, clean

water and sanitation--to the people. Yet in each place,

operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific

needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates

are down roughly a third since the surge began--though they

remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to

be done.

In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding

Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a

complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a

(largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an

Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni

sheiks--all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist

groups--who were now competing to secure his friendship.

In Baghdad's Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of

the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming

back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents

were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite

officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely

happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi

Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni

militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound

once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.

We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul.

This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni

Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both

cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis

have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man

the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover

the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was

an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the

country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the

long term remains a major question mark.

But for now, things look much better than before. American

advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi

commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The

American high command assesses that more than three-quarters

of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in

Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as

American forces remain in Iraq).

In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in

terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army's highly

effective Third Infantry Division started out as

overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent

Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.

In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a

few ``jundis'' (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely

American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find

American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations

were useless--something that was the rule, not the exception,

on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.

The additional American military formations brought in as

part of the surge, General Petraeus's determination to hold

areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units,

and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another

critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents

popping back up after the Americans leave.

In war, sometimes it's important to pick the right

adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major

factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the

outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other

Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against

Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized

average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local

leaders and seized young women to marry off to their

loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months

Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the

Americans for security and help. The most important and best-

known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less

than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the

best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks

there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist

allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting

for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its

streets without body armor.

Another surprise was how well the coalition's new Embedded

Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we

found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders

and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local

economy and build new political structures. Although much

more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on

microloans and small-scale projects was having some success

where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.

In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian

manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has

still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups

from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to

dozens of military officers who before the war had known

little about governance or business but were now ably

immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi

with a decent life.

Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress

so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the

provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For

example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by

the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response,

many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police

forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt

and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords

in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces

beyond their control.

In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In

particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political

front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle

and maneuver for position against one another when major

steps towards reconciliation--or at least accommodation--are

needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we

begin to downsize, important communities may not feel

committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may

splinter along ethnic and religious lines.

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and

dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do

their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces

in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the

reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is

enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that

Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into

2008.

I will say that as one reads the O'Hanlon-Pollack article, it is clear that there are many very important challenges that lie ahead in Iraq. But the fact that we have seen a quelling of the violence in the al-Anbar Province, as we look at the difficulty that we face, but the fact that we've seen Sunni leaders unite with us in fighting al Qaeda, we, I believe, are making progress.

War is a very, very ugly thing, and this war is no exception. No one can say exactly what the outcome will be, but I do know that the cause of freedom is worth fighting for, and I do know that these constant attempts to prevent this House from looking at, working on, and considering the work of the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan work product of the Iraq Study Group, is just plain wrong, so I am going to continue to strongly oppose this rule and these continued efforts to politicize our quest for victory and bringing our troops home.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume; and I will say again to my colleagues that, as we look at this challenge, this is a very difficult one. It is one that we seek to address in a bipartisan way, Mr. Speaker, Democrats and Republicans coming together.

Now, our former colleague, Mr. Hamilton, co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, has made it very clear that the

work product which was unleashed, turned over last December, is still applicable today. This notion of saying that we need to look at bringing this group back together, I don't have it with me here, but I have one downstairs in my office. We have the volume, the work of the Iraq Study Group, that we've all gotten copies of; and all we're asking, Mr. Speaker, is that this bipartisan work product be able to be voted on and supported here.

Now, what is it that we have before us? We have a closed rule. And I'm saddened greatly to report to the House, by virtue of this closed rule having come from the Rules Committee, reported out last night, we have by far exceeded the doubling, the doubling of the number of closed rules in this Democratic majority than we had in the Republican majority at this time at the beginning of the last Congress. It saddens me.

Again, I will say that, Mr. Speaker, while we hear about this great new day, a sense of openness, transparency, accountability, what is it that we've gotten? We may not have been perfect when we were in the majority, but under this new majority that promised all of these great things to the American people, we have gotten now more than twice as many closed rules in the first 7 months of the year than we had in the first 7 months of the 109th Congress, and I just think it's a sad commentary on where we are.

Now to the issue at hand, Mr. Speaker. As we look at the challenge that the families of those loved ones face, I would like to share the remarks of some of the families that I have heard.

There is a young man who was killed tragically in the battle of Fallujah. His name is J.P. Blecksmith from San Marino, California. His father, like J.P., was a Marine; and after his son was tragically killed, Ed Blecksmith said to me, he said, David, if we don't complete our mission in Iraq, my son J.P. will have died in vain. And he said, we need to do everything that we possibly can to ensure victory.

And I will tell you that what we're doing here today under this closed rule, I believe, creates the potential for undermining the success that, as was pointed out and as I said in my last statement, is outlined in the remarks in the article in the New York Times, the op-ed piece written by Ken Pollack and Mike O'Hanlon, and there's another statement that was made.

I met a woman just a couple of months ago. Denise Codnot is her name. She came here to Washington, and she walked into my office, Mr. Speaker, and her son Kyle was killed in Iraq, 19 years old. He was in the Army. And she looked me in the eye and said, my son wasn't killed in Iraq. My son proudly gave his life, proudly gave his life for the cause of freedom. And she said to me, we must do everything within our power to ensure success and victory.

This war on terror has been very painful for us, Mr. Speaker, very, very painful for everyone involved, especially the families of those men and women in uniform. But we know there is an interconnectedness of this war on terror, and that is the reason that on this rule we are going to continue our quest to deal with modernization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Now, I know that my colleagues last night in the Rules Committee, we passed out a special rule that will allow for consideration of possible negotiations that would take place on this issue, but, Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting since April of this year when the statements began to come forward from the Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell; from the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Michael Hayden; from the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, the three Michaels I call them, who have come forward with this urgent plea for us to take the very antiquated, three-decade-old, three-decade-old 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and modernize it.

I am going to move, Mr. Speaker, to defeat the previous question, and I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Albuquerque, New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) whose legislation will be made in order if we are successful in defeating the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that I only have 1 minute remaining, and I know that my colleague from Albuquerque would very much like to have an opportunity to be heard on this issue. I have some closing remarks. I wonder if the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules has any time she might yield to the gentlewoman from Albuquerque to respond.

Mr. Speaker, I'm planning to close, if the gentlewoman from New York has no further requests.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's been very, very clear here this is a closed rule. It's outrageous that we have continued down this pattern of closed rules; and we were promised, the American people were promised much better than that. The underlying legislation is legislation that the administration just announced the President would veto if it were to pass. We should be debating the work of the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan package; and, unfortunately, with this closed rule, we're denied a chance to do that.

I also believe that my colleague from New Mexico, while debate seemed to be very personal among members of the Intelligence Committee, it comes down to the very strong statements that have been made by the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. We need to immediately modernize the three-decade-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we'll have an opportunity to make in order the very thoughtful legislation that has been introduced by our colleague from Albuquerque, Mrs. Wilson.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 601 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I am pleased to 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 may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, Mr. Speaker, this morning I want to continue to express our great sorrow to the people of Minnesota on their tragic loss. In a way, they're almost victims of war. A Nation in perpetual war does not have the money to meet its infrastructure needs. And as we heard this morning, there are bridges that are in serious condition all over the United States. So I express my great sorrow for the families who are suffering and for all the people who have been lost.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Thank you, Mr. Dreier.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 601 provides for consideration of H.R. 3159, the Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act of 2007, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule considers as adopted the Armed Services Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq has taken us into uncharted territory as a Nation and as a society. During the Vietnam war, 4 percent of the general population served in the military. During World War II, fully 12 percent of our people served. Forms of personal sacrifice and national service were to be found everywhere, planted in victory gardens or held in war bonds. Even during the Civil War, a conflict from a different age, more than one in ten Americans fought.

Never in our history has America fought a war of this magnitude, or one that is this difficult, with an entirely voluntary military force composed of only 1 percent of the general population. And while so much of what is going on in Iraq hearkens back to past conflicts, what is occurring within our society does not.

It is true that the historically high percentage of National Guard troops fighting abroad has spread the reach of this war farther than some anticipated. But for nearly all Americans the immediacy of the war has been dulled by distance. We have never been asked to sacrifice as people. We have, instead, been told to go about our lives as usual and ask merely to support the troops in a vague sense.

Within this mass of normality lies the lives of those Americans who have actually fought in Iraq, the mothers, husbands, sons, daughters and siblings who have been sent there and who have seen things that few of us can relate to or even imagine. They have been asked to fight in a conflict whose architects have largely receded from the public view, but not before the failures of these officials made themselves felt every time a soldier was forced to enter a battle without proper body armor or without a vehicle that would keep him or her safe. In a very real sense, the families of these soldiers have been asked to endure the same reality and forced to live every moment of their deployment with the fear that their loved one will be injured, or worse.

Despite it all, despite everything that the members of our military and their families have been asked to bear for year after year, the talk of what is to be done in Iraq is often clinical: We should increase troop numbers; we should lower them; we should place more troops here, send more troops

there. Troops are spoken of as if they were simply another machine to be moved about and to be used at our will.

Our soldiers are human beings. They are our fellow citizens. They have dignity. They have rights. They do not deserve to be cast around as the administration stumbles forward seeking to find a solution to a problem of its own creation.

Already, a flawed war plan has forced the members of our military to endure not just the brunt of battle but also to make up for miscalculation at home. Tours have been extended and then extended again in an unprecedented way. Previously unknown burdens have been placed on our men and women in uniform as a result. At a certain point, we as a society have to say enough is enough.

The legislation before us is supported by men like Senator Jim Webb and Representative John Murtha for a reason: Former soldiers know what current deployment schedules are doing to our soldiers and to their families. It will restore some order to the process by prohibiting the deployment of any active military unit to Iraq unless that unit's soldiers have rested for at least as long as they have fought. It is a simple premise that was followed in virtually every war America has fought. It should be followed again today.

Mr. Speaker, this bill should not tie the hands of generals. If national security or the safety of our troops would be put at risk by shortened deployment, the bill's requirements can be waived. But the President will have to do so publicly and certify to Congress that his decision is vitally important. With everything our soldiers are asked to do, it is long past time that the President was forced to explain to Congress and to the American people why it is all necessary.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is about who we are as a society and about the values we hold. Our fellow citizens have been sent to fight in this conflict and have asked nothing from us in return. But we certainly owe them everything. We owe them our support, not in a rhetorical sense or in blind allegiance to the administration's claims but in a real sense, by making sure that they are given the proper training and armor, by making sure they are allowed to rest for an adequate amount of time between deployments.

Mr. Speaker, we have a chance to live up to our responsibilities as a people today. I hope this body is ready to face that challenge.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), whose compassion and conviction on this issue is probably unsurpassed in the House.

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have any other speakers?

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

Mr. Speaker, despite our great respect and affection for those who brought their amendments to the Rules Committee yesterday, it is well known in this House and in the country that the Democrat majority intends to bring the war to a close as quickly as possible and as quick as it is practicable to do so.

To reinstitute the Iraq Study Committee, to refinance it, put it back together, wait for a report would take far longer than we frankly are willing to give.

But this bill before us today, the underlying bill before us, is humane. And it says, for goodness sake, don't redeploy troops over and over and over again unless they have had at least as much time at home to rest as they have had in combat.

This is a different kind of combat, Mr. Speaker. Soldiers before have always been given recreation and rest after intense combat. Not this time. The soldiers in Iraq and all the military people of Iraq face almost instantaneous death every moment of the day and night without any respite at all. We are seeing the results of that brought home with the posttraumatic stress syndrome which is rising so rapidly.

In addition to that, we are demanding at last, because we didn't have the opportunity before by not being in the majority, that these troops be equipped properly.

The New York Times said on a front page story recently that 80 percent, Mr. Speaker, of the marines that died in Iraq would have lived, those with upper body wounds would have lived with the proper equipment. How can we live with that?

We know now that instead of sending useless Humvees that were of no use at all to them against the IEDs, if we had always sent MRAPs, a technology we have known for 30 years, heaven knows how many of the nearly 4,000 who died would have been saved and how many of the more than 30,000 who have been wounded would have been spared that.

That weighs heavily on the conscience of those of us in the House of Representatives, and it angers the people that we represent.

We've talked to the parents of those who have been sent back two, three, four times. I have talked to one father who told me as his son was being deployed for the fourth time; if he gets killed, I will kill somebody. The anguish of these parents is palpable; and, as I stated before in my earlier statement, we don't fight this war. The 1 percent of the military people and their families are fighting this war. We've been asked for no sacrifice of any kind.

How glib it is for us to stand on this floor and say, leave it to the generals and look how well they're doing. The number of generals who have resigned their commission so that they could speak out against this carnage and this despicable war that was unplanned and planned by people who have left the scene cannot go on any longer.

And I will tell you that we have to go and look families in the face, and there are a number of times that I've gone to services, and my position on the war is well-known, and I've wondered if the families, how they would accept my presence. I have never been to a single one where they didn't say to me, bring them home, bring them home.

For heaven's sake, Mr. Speaker, if it's not just for that alone, those of us here have that obligation to bring them home.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, a member of the Rules Committee and a member of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Hastings, to assure everyone that the FISA bill is on the calendar for this week.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left?

I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

I have no other speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I again want to assure my colleagues that FISA is on the calendar before we go home, which may be the middle of next week. We're not going to leave here without getting that fixed.

Let me also state that, in addition to the dreadful, awful loss of our service persons and the terrible wounding and mangled 30,000 or more, there's another cost to this war, Mr. Speaker. A new estimate is that the war in Iraq will cost the taxpayers of the United States $1 trillion. We are spending at the rate of $10 billion a month. Obviously, this is money that we don't have.

We're borrowing mainly from four sources, the first one being China, Japan, South Korea; and, Mr. Speaker, as this debt piles up, it will take generations for our children, our grandchildren, our great- grandchildren and our great-great-grandchildren simply to pay off.

So let me stop as I began, to again express my sorrow to the people of Minnesota and make it clear that the spending on this war, which is rife with corruption, I do need to say, that in addition to 160,000 military persons in Iraq, we have 185,000 contractors, spending tax money at an enormous rate. We are beginning for the first time in 6 years, as we've taken the majority, to really look at where that money has gone and try to ferret out the corruption, the cronyism, the unbid contracts and all of the other scandals that have gone on there.

Just this week again we learned that millions of dollars spent in construction to turn things over to the Iraqi people is unacceptable to the people of Iraq because of the shoddy workmanship. This is a scandal of major proportions, Mr. Speaker. It really is important that we bring this to an end and try to clean up and maybe hopefully get our international reputation back to some degree.

But the most important thing is that this bill says simply this: Our soldiers need rest. How dare we send people into the battle day after day, night after night, without saying from this House and from this government that what we want for them is what the military always had in the past, an opportunity to rest and renew? It's not only critical for them personally, but it's critical for the units in which they serve that they are in top form. The fact is that we could do that quite simply here just today with this bill and also make certain that we don't ever again send one of them out on one of those roads to patrol unprepared, untrained and unprotected because we failed to spend the enormous amount of money on the right kind of equipment.

It's time, Mr. Speaker. We owe it; and I'm ashamed that all these years, that for the past 6 years, no oversight, not any, no hearings, have been held on this war. No hearings have been held on where all of that money has gone, and we're just beginning now to scratch the surface.

But the first obligation that we have, far more than money involved, the largest obligation we have is to the men and women that we say would you please set your life aside and go and fight. We owe them everything in the world that we can give them.

I'm happy that we have put a lot of money this year on our side into the Veterans Administration, and certainly it's for traumatic brain injury which we see so much of it and that the Veterans Administration is in no way equipped to handle. We have enough money now in the bills so we can send them to the places where they can get the very best help available. But young men and women that are 18, 19, 20 years old, maimed for life. And Mr. Speaker, it is time some intelligence here in the House reigned.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is a well-motivated bill. I want to commend my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for all the great work that they do, Democrat and Republican. Most of the time we're on common ground. In this case, I think that this bill does not accrue to the benefit of the troops. I think it hurts the troops.

I think that is a question every Member of the House has to ask themselves: Is this going to be good for the troops, or is it going to be bad for the troops?

I think it will be bad for the troops, for this reason: We are fighting a war in Iraq which requires innovation, flexibility and experience. This bill, which will put a straitjacket on our ability to deploy troops on the basis that their clock has not yet expired back in the United States before they go over, is going to have an incredibly detrimental affect on our ability to project a well-rounded, effective fighting team in the warfighting theater in Iraq.

Let me talk about that a little bit, Mr. Speaker.

You are going to have units which desperately require specialties. Some of the specialties, I would remind my friend, are IEDs, the ability to operate jammers, the ability perhaps to decontaminate if you come into contact with some of the chemical weapons stockpiles that were left by the old regime. Military effectiveness is built on dozens and dozens of specialities, all of which support the other.

The idea that you can't put this team together, that the Marines or the Army can't put their warfighting team together because they looked at the list of people who are most able to fill those roles, most able to move in and stand next to their fellow Marine, their fellow soldier, their fellow airman, the guy that is doing the mechanic work on that important helicopter that is going to be the transportation vehicle, the guy that is doing the repair work on that particular weapons system, those people are not going to be able to flow over into the theater because their clock hasn't moved appropriately on the one-to- one ratio.

Now, we consulted the U.S. Marines on this provision. We didn't consult political people in the White House. We didn't consult people who had an opinion on whether or not we should be in Iraq. We consulted the people who have the job of putting together these packages of personnel which are required in the warfighting theater and transporting them to the theater.

Of course, the Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for Plans and Operations is Lieutenant General Richard Natonski. Here is his statement he gave to the committee. He said, ``In order to support OIF requirements during Fiscal Year 2008 and comply with the minimum period between deployments proposed by provisions like H.R. 3159, a one-to-one ratio, the Marine Corps would have to adjust force generation plans. These plan adjustments would include extending unit deployments.''

Somebody has to stay on the battlefield. The battlefield is not going to be empty. So if you are not going to allow new Marines to come in, the Marines that are there right now are going to have to stay there.

It is the same with the Army. These plan adjustments could include extending unit deployments, creating provisional units. That means you are going to have to put new units together because the old unit hasn't had its meter expire yet. And forcing units to execute missions as in- lieu-of forces, meaning that units that don't have that specialty are going to have to become units that have that specialty. That means ``quickie'' training and moving people immediately into the battlefield to fill a role that otherwise could be filled by people who have a deep specialty in that capability.

Mr. Speaker, he finishes with this statement that every Member of Congress should listen to very carefully. He said, each of these adjustments that will be required by Mrs. Tauscher's bill, among others, incurs higher risk than that associated with deploying the unit at a deployment-to-dwell time of seven to six.

I want to remind my colleagues, higher risk means higher risk of casualties. That is what happens when the guy that is supporting you on the battlefield doesn't have as much experience as you would like him to have, doesn't have that specialty, hasn't been there before, doesn't have that insight that is going to keep you alive.

Mr. Speaker, this is a well-meaning bill. But if you ask this question, does it help the troops or hurt the troops, this bill hurts the troops.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), who is a former chairman of the Terrorism Subcommittee and the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

Mr. Speaker, I want to address my remarks to the gentleman, for a second, to the gentleman who just spoke.

My son is a marine who is doing his third tour. He is calm. He is determined. He loves his country, just like all of his fellow marines. The constant illustrating or projecting of our Armed Forces as somehow victims is something that finds absolutely no truth when you go out among our uniformed personnel.

The Marine Corps has never been more effective. They have never had higher morale. They have excellent reenlistment rates. Interestingly, there are high reenlistment rates among the

people that are in combat. They are not deployed to the point where they are depleted, and they are not desperate and their families are not desperate.

With those happy words, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am just constrained again, and I yield myself 30 seconds.

The military is not broken. The Army is not broken. The Marine Corps is not broken. This continued depiction of our military people as victims who are totally desperate, as the last Member of Congress who spoke on the other side depicted them, that they are somehow desperate, their families are desperate, they are ineffective, they are broken, is totally in error.

We have never had better morale. We have never been more effective. The interesting thing is the people who are reenlisting are reenlisting from the combat units. That means that they think that their mission has value, and that means that they have high morale.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) whose son has served as a marine in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to Mr. Shimkus, the gentleman from Illinois, 3 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to Dr. Gingrey, the gentleman from Georgia, 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, could you tell us how much time we have left.

Mr. Speaker, let me make this point: we are in two warfighting theaters right now, Afghanistan and Iraq. We have troops deployed.

We are, by all accounts at this point, doing well in those warfighting theaters. Somebody stays in battle space. For the gentlelady who asked me, who do you stand with, the planner in the Pentagon, or the troops in the field, I would answer very firmly, I stand for the troops in the field. I stand for that marine corporal who needs to have that gunnery sergeant, who's been there before, who understands how you avoid that roadside bomb, who understands how you approach that village, who understands how you work that cannon, who understands how you interrogate people without risking your own troops.

That comes from experience, and the idea that we are going to deny these experienced, noncommissioned officers, these old hands whose experience can make the difference between life and death because their meter didn't expire when they were back home, and they only got 6 months' worth of dwell time in country, rather than 7, is the wrong reason to vote for this bill.

Please oppose this bill, readiness mandates, with a ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, thank you. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their decorum during this debate and for their true interest and their motivation in support of our troops.

We all want to conclude this war. We all want to do everything that we can for military families. We simply have a difference of opinion as to whether or not mandating certain rest periods before a soldier or a marine can go back to battle is in the interest of the war fighting troops.

My answer is, it's not in the interest. It will not raise their morale. What it will do is it will deprive our war fighting troops. It will deprive that corporal, it will deprive that squad in Fallujah or Baghdad or up in Mosul. That experienced old hand, that NCO, who is in the military for a career, and who knows that particular area, and he knows how to avoid roadside bombs, and he knows how to interrogate insurgents, and he knows how to approach a certain canyon so that you don't expose yourself to fire. He won't be there if the gentlelady's motion passes, because he will only have spent 6 months instead of 7 months back at Camp Pendleton, and he won't be available to move to the field of battle.

Now, you know, this is a war of specialties, and I notice that one thing that the majority did, which I think was a good move, was that they excluded the special operations forces from this particular law. The reason they excluded them is because they are special operations forces who have to move back and forth in the theater and have to move out of the theater on a regular basis, sometimes going back and forth between Afghanistan and Iraq, because they have specialties which mean life or death to our war fighters in both of those theaters, and they can't be held back, chained back by this law.

I have got news for my colleagues. There are a lot of people in the regular forces whose presence also means life or death to the combatants in those forces. You have to have experience.

Even the line units are full of specialties. If you have a person who is an expert in roadside bombs, and he comes back after a 7-month tour, if he is a marine, or after a 1-year tour, if he is an Army soldier, he comes back and he gets the latest schooling on a jamming device that will keep that 152 round from blowing up, that roadside bomb, and destroying a Humvee and destroying American soldiers.

He has that capability. But he now cannot go back into theater because the Tauscher amendment has passed, and he can't be deployed. So he stays here with that particular insight, that particular capability, and probably the Marines or the Army will rush a team in. They will try to give them a fast learning period and rush them in, to be a poor substitute for this guy who really has the expertise of telling our people how to jam those signals that detonate those deadly roadside bombs.

Now, what if we need decontamination, we have got a decontamination team in the regular military. They can't go over unless they get a waiver from the President.

Well, it was argued that these waivers will be easy to get. But you know the Marines have told us that they can't plan for a waiver, because they can only follow along. The law will say you can't go.

I have got a picture that I have kept in the Armed Services Committee for a

long time, as the former chairman of the committee, and now ranking member, serving alongside my great friend, Mr. Skelton.

It is a picture of a 5-ton truck that was struck by a Humvee with a particular armor equipment and an armor package that this committee sent those soldiers. And there is a letter attached to it and it is a letter of thanks that says, ``Thanks to you on the Armed Services Committee for making sure that we got this armor.'' And this was after this 5-ton truck has been blown up. And it said, ``We owe our lives, the fact that all eight of us were able to escape, to you on the Armed Services Committee,'' but it also says, ``to our gunnery sergeant.'' That gunnery sergeant that had the capability, that had that certain expertise of being able to do what it took to make sure that all eight of his people survived.

Mrs. Tauscher has said, who do you stand with, the big Pentagon planners or the troops?

The worst thing you can do, Mrs. Tauscher, for my son who is on his third deployment, or anybody else's son, is to take away that gunnery sergeant or that senior NCO or that expert who can stand by their side and help them to survive in this very dangerous warfighting theater.

Please vote for this motion to recommit. This motion to recommit says that you cannot make this law certain unless you----

I would ask the gentlelady for 30 additional seconds.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to offer H.R. 3159, a bipartisan bill to mandate minimum periods of rest, training and recuperation for units and members of the regular and Reserve components of our Armed Forces between deployment. Fixing our troops' unpredictable rest and retraining policy is long overdue.

In an interview last Monday, Marine Corps Commander General James Conway highlighted repeated deployments and short periods of time between them to rest as factors contributing to increased mental stress and burdens on families of service men and women.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am intimately acquainted with how this war has damaged our national security, our diplomatic standing and the readiness of our military; and, as a Californian, I am well aware of how it is draining the defense and security resources of my home State and others.

As we speak, a unit from Walnut Creek, California, in my district, is leading a task force comprised of six units that come from armories throughout the East Bay and Northern California. The California Army National Guard indicates that the unit of 824 soldiers is the largest single California National Guard unit to be deployed since the Korean War. These are men and women who will benefit from this legislation in real time.

We are sending more and more men and women to Iraq every day. The Bush administration is failing to accurately account for all of the costs of these repeated deployments. On the microlevel, our deployed men and women are being taken away from their families in a revolving door of service because the war has gone on much longer than the President believed it would. And on a larger scale, we are damaging the readiness for our Armed Forces to defend against future attacks here at home and around the world, as well as national emergencies here at home.

Mr. Speaker, my bill simply states that if a unit or a member of a regular

component of the Armed Forces deploys to Iraq, they will have an equivalent amount of time at home before they are redeployed. No unit or member of a Reserve component, including the National Guard, could be redeployed to Iraq within 3 years of their previous deployment. In the event of an operational emergency posing a threat to vital national security interests, the President may waive the amendment's limitations by certifying to Congress that deployment of the unit or a member is necessary for national security.

The military departments also are provided waiver authority in the bill for individual volunteers who seek to redeploy before the expiration of the mandated time of rest between the deployments. This bill in no way, shape or form hinders the Commander in Chief's ability to manage military personnel.

Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we come together and take a very critical step to preserve the readiness of our men and women in uniform for them and for our national security.

If we are honest about wanting to support our troops, there is no better place to start than to correct our troop rotation policy. For far too long, the members of the Guard and Reserve have been unrepresented in Congress. Today, every Member has an opportunity to help them.

Mr. Speaker, I include the following letters of support for my bill from the Reserve Enlisted Association and Veterans for America.

Reserve Enlisted Association,

July 27, 2007.

Hon. Ellen Tauscher,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congresswoman Tauscher: Thank you on behalf of the

members of the Reserve Enlisted Association of the United

States (REA) for keeping enlisted men and women serving in

the Reserve Component in the forefront of your work as

evidenced by your introduction of a bill to mandate minimum

periods of rest and recuperation between deployments.

REA appreciates the intent of the bill to provide

predictability for serving reservists, their families and

their employers.

Your continued support of the Reserve Components is greatly

appreciated.

Sincerely,

Lani Burnett,

CMSgt, USAFR (RET),

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues that opposing this bill is to ratify the status quo; and if my colleagues choose to say that things are going just great, that we are not damaging our readiness, that we are not damaging the ability for the Guard to be home when they are needed by their Governors to do emergencies here, that we are not overstressing our troops, then I urge my colleagues not to support my bill. They are then ratifying the status quo.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that voting against this bill is to vote for the status quo.

At this time I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. Speaker, I'm so happy to yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3159.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm honored to yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from New Hampshire

(Ms. Shea-Porter) who's a cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to my friend, colleague and neighbor from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, who is the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Scott.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Admiral Sestak.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, what I continuously hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are arguments that speak for poor Pentagon planners that are going to have to work a little harder to put units together and handcuffing the Commander in Chief.

Let me remind my colleagues that this Presidential waiver, which is inside of this bill, is not only substantive, but it is there to prevent further degrading of our military readiness. I think we all understand that we have heard from people like General McCaffrey, who most recently reported to Congress that 88 percent of nondeployed Army Guard units are rated not ready or poorly equipped, that the Army is overextended, and that we will soon be unable to meet our Homeland Security commitments and meet any new threats if we maintain the current abusive and untenable dwell-time policy.

The question for the Members of the House today is who do you stand for. Do you stand for military planners or other members of the Pentagon who have the executive branch to speak for them, or do you stand with the American people, the families of our troops, and the troops themselves, to be sure that we increase our readiness to make sure that we honor their service and their valor and their sacrifice by making sure that they are not only retrained and ready, but they have time to be home with their family before they are redeployed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my colleague, because I think it's important that we make sure that we have everything on the table and that we are very clear about who we are standing for and who we are putting the burdens on.

What is clear to me is that we have the finest military in the world, that we have men and women, sons and daughters, spouses, brothers and sisters, employees, friends and neighbors that have decided to give their country their time, ultimately, perhaps, pay the sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice, and go fight for the American people and their ideals to protect us here at home.

We have an opportunity today to do what is right, to do what the Pentagon has not done for many reasons. I know my colleagues want to make this about the Iraq war, but I know this is really about our families and our troops.

If we cannot guarantee them some predictability for their dwell time at home, for retraining and rest, we are going to continue to degrade the readiness of our military. We are in no shape in this very dangerous world to continue on that path.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters).

I don't have the time, sir.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear what this motion to recommit does. This motion to recommit guts our bill and prevents us from giving the dwell time necessary to our troops so that they are not overcommitted, that they can be rested, that they can be retrained, and that they can be resuscitated and spend time with their family.

This motion to recommit prevents us from having the readiness that we need for our national security. It prevents the 50 Governors from having their National Guard back home and rested, with good equipment, to deal with contingencies here at home.

This motion to commit is just another delaying tactic by the minority to deny our troops the dwell time that they need to train, equip, and rest.

The best part about this is the motion to recommit is absolutely unnecessary. If the Secretary of Defense determines that the proposed dwell times in this bill will cause tour lengths of currently deployed units to be extended, or increases the operational risk to deployed units, the underlying bill already provides the President's ability to waive the deployment mandate.

So this motion to recommit is not necessary. It is, once again, perhaps the last fig leaf on the last fig tree that my colleagues can find to not stand with the troops and their families to provide them the dwell time they need at home to be ready for the next deployment.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I close by saying I urge my colleagues to defeat the motion to recommit and vote ``aye'' on H.R. 3159.

I yield to the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the motion to recommit, which will deny our troops the dwell time that they desperately need and will deny the American people the readiness in their military. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3159, and vote for its passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my good friend and thank her for her leadership on the Armed Services Committee; and to my friends on the other side of the aisle, it is great news that we have a new direction in the Armed Services Committee that takes seriously the issues of readiness and the quality of life for our troops.

Some would ask the question, troops are in battle, why are you worrying about the quality of life? Because my friend who cited the Constitution failed to recognize Article I, Section 8, that indicates that Congress does have the authority to declare war. Embodied in that declaration is a responsibility for our troops.

And might I refer my friend to the letter by the Reserve Enlisted Association which is thanking Congresswoman Tauscher for acknowledging the importance of rest time, rest time between battles. These soldiers are battle worn, mentally and physically. The first part of their duty they were over there with no equipment, no Humvees that were reinforced, no equipment that protected them from those weapons they were being shot at by. The Veterans for America emphasizes we are compounding the wounds of war.

When I visited Iraq, I would talk to individuals who are carpenters and painters. They were given a gun, and they were told to get into battle. Readiness is a key.

I just was home in my district, and a mother came to me crying. Her son is a naval Reserve officer who's been in the Reserves for some 20 years or so, 38 years old, is being handed a gun and said go off to war. There are disciplines and there are training that we must give to these individuals.

And just a few appropriation cycles ago, I offered an amendment dealing with the time frame for redeployment. We're seeing soldiers being redeployed once, twice, three times, four times with no rest. And so we have a balance here for active duty, Reserve, National Guard forces, and others.

We are clearly doing the right thing in this bill, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3159, the Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act of 2007. I would like to thank my colleague Ms. Tauscher for introducing this legislation, and the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, for his leadership on this Issue.

Mr. Speaker, no issue will define this Congress more than how we handle the ongoing conflict in Iraq. In recent weeks and months, this Congress has taken definitive action to end what we, and the people of the United States, believe to be a conflict without tangible goals and targets. The American people made their views clear last November: The time has come to end U.S. military involvement in Iraq.

And yet, the Bush Administration has decided to instead increase the numbers of American soldiers in Iraq. President Bush's ``New Way Forward'' strategy, announced in January, calls for the deployment of over 20,000 additional U.S. combat forces, to be used to stabilize Baghdad and the Anbar Province. This is coming at a time when, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll, 59 percent of Americans believe we should be reducing the number of troops in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this effort are our brave troops, the men and women who courageously risk and too often lose their lives thousands of miles from home. The Iraq war has already cost over 3,500 American lives. More than 25,000 Americans have been injured. Thousands of U.S. personnel have lost limbs or suffered debilitating mental and physical injuries. Yet as casualties rise, the Bush Administration pushes for the escalation of American soldiers into the most hostile communities in Iraq. In addition to the enormous expenditure of lives, American taxpayers have paid more than $400 billion to sustain this misadventure.

When a soldier is deployed away from home for lengthy periods of time, his or her entire family suffers. Earlier this week, the United States Army released a report that stated that the children of enlisted soldiers are 60% more likely to be abused or neglected when a parent is deployed to a combat zone. The author of this study commented, ``The surprising finding was that the effect of deployment was so consistent. Just about any way we could divide the population, we found increased rates of child maltreatment during deployment. We looked at pay grade, rank, single or multiple deployments, whether the family lives on or off post--all showed increases.'' Researchers attributed this to the increasing trend of continuous deployment of our soldiers. As Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I would like to register my strong concern about the impact this war is having on American children and families.

This bill, H.R. 3159, contains important provisions to ensure that those who are sent to fight in what I have always considered to be an ill-advised war have adequate time to rest and recover between deployments: time to spend with their families and loved ones, and time to recover from the mental and psychological problems that are all too common after combat deployment. As we continue to work here in Congress to bring this war to a speedy and comprehensive conclusion, I believe we must make every effort to provide consideration for those who bear the brunt of this Administration's ill-advised preemptive war in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that our service men and women deserve enough time to rest and recover at home between combat deployments for Operation Iraqi Freedom. This legislation reaffirms the stated Department of Defense policy for deployment, which is currently being waived for Iraq, calling for a 1:2 deployment ratio for active duty and a 1:5 ratio for reserve soldiers. It continues to allow the President and the Chiefs of the Military services to waive these requirements, if unforeseen circumstances arise.

Four years after our ill-advised invasion, the evidence is clear and irrefutable: The 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 rethink our strategy in Iraq, to encourage and engage in diplomacy, and to sit down with the various players in the Middle East and make real strides towards securing Iraq, the Iraqi people, and most importantly our most precious resource: the troops we love so dearly.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to strongly oppose this war until we are finally able to end this conflict. In the meantime, I believe it is our responsibility, here in Congress, to make sure that those we send to fight and risk their lives in Iraq receive the very best care and services. This includes adequate time to rest and recover between deployments.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.