Providing for consideration of 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.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, which seeks to impose a strategy of defeat on our Armed Forces and our country. By binding our military and our foreign policy in a straitjacket, this legislation would accomplish what thousands of our enemies have sought: to force the United States to retreat from Iraq without a plan for victory.

Proponents of rapid withdrawal would like us to ignore the reality that Iraq is but one of the critical battlefields in an ongoing war against Islamic jihadists, against global terrorism, a war declared by the jihadists and which saw its beginnings in November 1979, when Iranian radicals stormed our embassy, took Americans hostages, and held them captive for 444 days.

From there Americans, Westerners, innocent human beings were targeted. Where and when were they targeted? In the bombings of the Marine barracks in the U.S. embassy in Beirut in 1983, in the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, in the bombings of the Khobar Towers in 1996, in the attacks of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and in the attacks on the USS Cole in the year 2000.

Proponents of rapid withdrawal want us to look at the bombings in Iraq in a vacuum, disregarding the similarities to the suicide bombers that have killed scores of innocent Israelis, those who planned and carried out the bombings in London, in Madrid, in Bali that claimed so many innocent lives.

These may not be the exact individuals, nor the same groups, but they are part of a global terrorist network working toward the same end, to destroy and to attack us and our allies.

The Islamic jihadists will not stop their agenda of destruction simply because we quickly withdraw from Iraq. They will, perhaps, stop when they see our nations, our cities, our communities burning, just as the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon burned on that terrible day of September 11, 2001.

They have clearly articulated their goals, listen to their words; al Qaeda's second in command, Al Zawahiri, made it clear in May of this year, and I quote him: ``The empire of evil, the United States, is about to end and a new dawn is about to break over mankind, which will be liberated from the caesars of the White House and Europe and from the Zionists.''

Those seeking to impose an immediate withdrawal deadline are so intent on rushing through this legislation that they appear to have failed to consider the consequences of a U.S. national security interest of what euphemistically is being called a ``phased redeployment.''

How is the strategy of quick withdrawal different from the strategy outlined by Al Zawahiri in a letter that he sent to al Qaeda operatives about driving the U.S. out of Iraq? How would we prevent the development of Iraq into a full base of operations for al Qaeda and other terrorist networks? We pretend to be armchair generals, seeking to undermine the strategies called for by our commanders on the field. But we should not.

Some label the current strategy of failure long before this full complement of units had been, in fact, deployed. But those doing the fighting in Iraq know that we have not failed, patriots such as the Parsons brothers from my congressional district.

Huber Parsons was serving his third deployment in Iraq, this time with the Army Stryker Brigade, when his vehicle was struck by a deep buried IED just a few months ago. His driver was killed, and Huber had to undergo a number of surgeries. I had the honor of visiting him often at Walter Reed. He is pictured here saluting his fallen brothers-in- arms at a memorial service in Fort Lewis, Washington. His twin, Bill, and his younger brother, Charlie, are both currently serving in Iraq, also with the Army Stryker Brigade. They, like my stepson, Doug, and my daughter-in-law, Lindsay, and so many others who are currently deployed in Iraq, are disheartened when they hear the references to failure and consider that the talks of this rapid withdrawal shows a lack of confidence in their ability to defeat the enemy.

Many patriots ask me why the Congress would endanger them and their fellow service men and women by having them engage the enemy with an immediately reduced force. Where, in a region of jihadists, are troops to be deployed to? What Middle Eastern government would want to host a retreating and defeated American Army? How does withdrawal to Kuwait or Qatar, as some have proposed, help us fight al Qaeda in Iraq? If al Qaeda strategies worked in Iraq and forced an American retreat, how can we not conclude that they will also pursue them in Kuwait and Qatar and beyond?

Mr. Speaker, George Orwell said that the quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. We should be discussing strategies for victory, not how to ensure our own defeat.

And let me close, Mr. Speaker, by reading the words of General Petraeus in an interview just a few days ago word for word. He said, ``I can think of few commanders in history who wouldn't have wanted more troops, more time or more unity among their partners. However, if I could only have one at this point in Iraq, it would be more time. This is an exceedingly tough endeavor that faces countless challenges.'' General Petraeus continues, None of us, Iraqi or American, are anything but impatient and frustrated at where we are. But there are no shortcuts. Success in an endeavor like this is the result of steady, unremittent pressure over the long haul. It is a test of wills, demanding patience, determination and stamina from all involved.

General Petraeus, as we know, was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate to be our commander in Iraq, yet somehow we have become better war commanders than General Petraeus.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to a member of our Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of our Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis) who has traveled to Iraq several times, I yield myself a minute to answer some questions posed on the other side of the aisle.

What we have here is a nonspecific, nondetailed, nothing planned for victory. The bill on page 3, since the gentleman refers to the bill, let's look at it. It talks about a reduction, a transition, a limited presence, a limited presence, again, with maximum attention paid to the protection of our Armed Forces. What does that mean? So you want our troops to face the terrorists with even less protection?

It shall be further implemented as part of a comprehensive strategy. What do these phrases mean? What would General Petraeus do if this legislation were to become law, which it will not? This is not a plan. It says nothing. It is making a political statement.

I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis) who has been to Iraq and understands the situation well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), a member of our Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume because I'd like to comment on a point that was raised by my good friend from Indiana (Mr. Burton) regarding the intentions of Iran.

The deputy interior minister for security affairs and the former deputy head of the Revolutionary Guards in Iran said on April 26 of this year, ``Iran has long-range missiles that can make nowhere safe for America.''

He also said, ``Iran is able to fire tens of thousands of missiles per day at American targets on a daily basis and, with its long-range missiles, can threaten Israel which is acting as America's'' proxy.

So it is clear to us, Mr. Speaker, that Iran seeks not just to wipe Israel off the map, as Ahmadinejad has said time and again, but to destroy the United States. So is the plan to immediately leave Iraq so that Iran can begin its takeover of the region? Is this in the national security interests of the United States? Is that going to make us safer?

I think that we should carefully consider what will happen were we to withdraw immediately as, it has been called for.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

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

Generals on the ground were consulted on this bill? Seventy percent of Americans support this bill, support immediate withdrawal of our troops?

This bill before us is nothing more than political hyperbole, partisan politics using our troops as cover, because the American people don't have this bill in front of them. We didn't have this bill before us until just a few hours ago.

Let me show you exactly what the Democratic leadership has scheduled for us to debate, and I use the term lightly. For an entire day, rather than do the hard work of our Congress that we need to do to have more serious discussions on Iraq, on this bill, on appropriations, it's six pages long, six pages long.

It was introduced yesterday, so I don't know what commanders on the field we consulted with. I would be interested in doing that, in finding that out. The first page is the title. The second page, it's a ``sense of Congress,'' language, nonbinding. The third page says ``reduce forces to limited presence.'' Who understands what that is? Certainly not the drafters of this bill. The fourth and the fifth page calls for a strategy.

Yet this Congress already has demanded a strategy from the President, and it is due in September, a report. That's what the Democrats say they have asked for. But yet they are not willing to wait for that report.

The last page is definitions. This is what we are debating today, Democratic politics using our troops as pawns. Commanders on the field who were consulted? Give me a break.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank you for keeping such careful order on the floor on such a controversial topic.

I have the pleasure of yielding 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) who has been to Iraq several times, has wrestled with his conscience and understands the situation of jihadist terrorism worldwide.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. Price of Georgia.

(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)