Recognizing the remarkable example of Sir Nicholas Winton who organized the rescue of 669 Jewish Czechoslovakian children from Nazi death camps prior to the outbreak of World War II.

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, 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 move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 583) recognizing the remarkable example of Sir Nicholas Winton who organized the rescue of 669 Jewish Czechoslovakian children from Nazi death camps prior to the outbreak of World War II.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

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

I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I thank the leadership of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Chairman Lantos and our senior ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for their support on this resolution.

Let me also especially congratulate the chief sponsor and author of this important resolution, my good friend and member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Klein, as well as the lead Republican cosponsor, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, for recognizing the unsung hero of World War II, Sir Nicholas Winton.

Mr. Speaker, whenever humanity is enshrouded in the darkness of atrocity and violence, there are a few scattered lights of moral decency and personal courage that give hope to all mankind that darkness will not prevail.

Arguably, Mr. Speaker, there has not been a more terrible period of darkness than that of World War II when Nazi Germany systematically murdered more than 6 million Jewish people. Even during that terrible period there were lights in the moral darkness and who kept alive the values of decency, compassion and courage. One such person was a 29- year-old British businessman, Mr. Nicholas Winton.

During his frequent business trips to Germany, Mr. Winton observed firsthand the virulent anti-Semitism that prevailed in that country and manifested itself in arrests, harassment, and physical attacks on Jewish people. In 1935, Germany codified anti-Semitism by enacting the Nuremberg Race Laws.

Mr. Speaker, after the Munich Agreement of 1938 and the subsequent annexation of Germany of the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia, Mr. Winton became concerned that Nazi Germany could not be appeased. Indeed, on November 9 of that year, 1938, anti-Semitic violence exploded across Germany and Austria. Because of the broken glass in the streets, that date is remembered as Kristallnacht.

Soon afterwards, Mr. Winton was encouraged even by a friend at the British Embassy in Prague to forgo a ski vacation in the Alps and instead to visit what was left of Czechoslovakia in order to see the refugee camps filled with freezing Jewish families who had fled the Sudetenland.

Mr. Speaker, he was deeply moved by the suffering he saw and was convinced immediate action had to be taken. Mr. Winton conceived of an idea. Upon his return to Great Britain, he organized volunteers to collect names of children whose parents were desperate to get them beyond the reach of the Nazi Government.

Mr. Winton then identified foster homes for those refugee children in Britain and in Sweden. He raised money to fund their transportation and to pay fees imposed by the government to cover the costs of future repatriation.

Mr. Speaker, on March 14, 1939, the first 20 children of this venture left Prague. The very next day the Nazi Army overran the remainder of unoccupied Czechoslovakia. Mr. Winton and his volunteers continued their dangerous work for another 6 months, until the full outbreak of World War II on September 1st.

During this time, Mr. Winton and his volunteers saved 669 children. These were children who escaped the Holocaust and who later had their own lives and families, thanks to the efforts of this one man.

Mr. Speaker, tragically, a final group of 250 children scheduled to leave on September 3 was prevented from doing so. None of them lived to see the end of World War II.

It is by coincidence that we even learned about the heroic efforts of now 97-year-old Mr. Nicholas Winton, who never sought any recognition for his actions. Even his wife was unaware of what he had done until she found an old leather briefcase in an attic that contained documents pertaining to the rescue operations.

Mr. Speaker, the world has now begun to pay tribute to the brave acts of this modest hero, a true man, in my opinion. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II and made a member of the British Empire. He received the honor of the Freedom of the City of Prague and was made a member of the order named for the father of Czechoslovakia.

It is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, for this House to recognize the courageous efforts of this one man, Sir Nicholas Winton, during one of history's darkest moments.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I yield all the time that he needs to the author of this important resolution, my good friend and also a senior member of our committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his most eloquent statement. Maybe some day these 5,000 children of Mr. Winton might have a reunion somewhere in the United States to express a real sense of appreciation to this gentleman.

I recall, Mr. Speaker, the statement by the late Martin Luther King, Jr., who said that in the end we will not remember the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. Here is one gentleman that was not silent about human rights and what he did for some 669 children whose descendants now enjoy the benefits of what he did some 60 years ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 583, recognizing the remarkable example of Sir Nicholas Winton, who organized the rescue of 669 Jewish Czechoslovakian children from Nazi death camps prior to the outbreak of World War II. I would like to thank my colleague, Congressman Ron Klein, for introducing this important legislation, as well as the lead Republican cosponsor, Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart.

Mr. Speaker, today we recognize one of the great unsung heroes of World War II; a man who stood up against extraordinary evil to defend innocent children. Sir Nicholas Winton is an individual of profound moral decency and personal courage, who, in the midst of the immense darkness of World War II, offered hope that the perpetrators of horrendous atrocities would not prevail.

In 1938, Nicholas Winton, a 29-year-old clerk at the London Stock Exchange, visited Prague and was immediately concerned by the refugee situation. His frequent business trips to Germany had given him first- hand knowledge of the virulent anti-Semitism codified by the 1935 Nuremberg Race laws, manifesting itself in ever-increasing attacks, harassment, and arrest of Jewish people in Germany. The 1938 Munich Agreement, which gave Hitler control over the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia and was hailed by British Prime Minister as a ``peace for our time,'' did not ease Winton's fears, and he came to recognize that Germany could not be appeased.

When Winton visited Prague, he found refugee camps, full of freezing Jewish families who had fled the Sudetenland. In particular, he was alarmed that nothing was being done to help the many innocent children, trapped in the gathering storm of war. Before returning to London, he set up a system of Kindertransport, where the names of children where collected and paired with foster homes in Britain and Sweden. When families could not pay to transport their children beyond the reaches of the Nazis, Winton raised money to fund transportation and other fees.

On March 14, 1939, only a day before the Nazi army occupied all of Czechoslovakia, the first 20 children left Prague. Over the next six months, a total of 669 children were sent via 8 trains to London, where families waited to shelter them. These children were spared the horror of the concentration camps by the courageous efforts of one man. Vera Gissing, one of the many children who, thanks to Winton's work, survived the war, later wrote, ``He rescued the greater part of the Jewish children of my generation in Czechoslovakia. Very few of us met our parents again: they perished in concentration camps. Had we not been spirited away, we would have been murdered alongside them.''

A 9th train was scheduled to leave on September 3, 1939, with 250 children onboard. Tragically, Great Britain entered the war that very day, and the train was prevented from leaving Prague, and it later disappeared. None of the children on board was ever heard from again, and none survived the war. In all, 15,000 Czech children were killed in the Holocaust.

Nicholas Winton is a reluctant hero, who never bragged about his courageous work. He never sought recognition for his actions, and we only learned about his efforts by coincidence. His good deeds did not end with the war's conclusion, and he was awarded a Member of the Order of the British Empire title in 1983 for his charitable work with the elderly. He was further recognized by the City of Prague and the nation of Czechoslovakia.

Sir Nicholas Winton epitomizes the greatness of the human spirit. He stood against the forces of darkness and helped the powerless during one of history's blackest hours, and then never sought recognition for his extraordinary accomplishments. Six hundred and

sixty-nine children were saved from suffering the horrific fate that befell so many of their friends and family members due to his daring, creativity, and compassion. I am grateful for the opportunity to pay tribute to this extraordinary man, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution.