Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4156) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to express my appreciation to my friend from Worcester for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my long-time Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Worcester, I am reminded of a great speech that was delivered last Friday. Last Friday, our very distinguished colleague, the Senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, in an address, said something that I think encapsulates exactly what we just heard from my very good friend.

Senator Lieberman, in speaking of the Democratic Party, and he is now an independent Democrat, sometimes I see him listed as a Democrat, I know he organizes with the Democrats, he is listed as an independent as well, he said, ``The Democrats are emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat.''

Mr. Speaker, I have got to say as I listened to the words of my colleague from Worcester, I can't help but think that Senator Lieberman was right on target when he used that language, ``emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat.'' I was so struck with that when I heard it that I committed it to memory, and I think, again, it really takes on exactly what we have just heard.

It comes as no surprise that I rise in very, very strong, vigorous opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation as well. We have had 40 votes on Iraq policy, and today's bill brings us to vote No. 41. Not one, Mr. Speaker, not one of the withdrawal bills went through the normal legislative process. Not one, not one of these 41 measures is the product of a committee markup. Not one got its own hearing. Not one has been brought up under an even slightly open process, allowing for amendment, and consequently not allowing for any kind of real debate.

Mr. Speaker, most telling of all, not one has been enacted into law.

Now, we all know that the Democrats control both the House and the Senate, and still they cannot produce a single legislative victory on Iraq. Not once, not twice, not 10 times. Forty times. Mr. Speaker, 40 times we have gone through the motions of their failed, bankrupt strategy. I can't recall a more naked display of demagoguery.

Now we come to vote No. 41. It has all the hallmarks of the Democratic majority's work: no deliberation, no gesture towards bipartisanship, and no hope of being enacted.

But there is something different about the vote this time, and that is context. We are considering this vote in a much different context than we have the 40 previous votes that we have addressed on this. In fact, our colleague in the Senate, Johnny Isakson, Senator Isakson, said this debate was understandable in May. He said in July, it was questionable. He said now it is absolutely ridiculous.

For many months, the situation in Iraq has been very bleak. While there were many promising signs of progress, the turnaround in al Anbar province most notably, the overall picture was one of great challenges and struggles. I have argued repeatedly that a precipitous withdrawal would only create more challenges, and, Mr. Speaker, I have highlighted the signs of progress amid the struggles all along.

But today, the tide is turning in Iraq. We are seeing far more than pockets of success, as my friend has said. We are seeing a dramatic shift in the landscape. It began in al Anbar, as I have said. The Sunni sheiks there turned on al Qaeda, joined with the largely Shiite Iraqi army and with coalition forces, and reclaimed the province. Ramadi, its capital, the city that we have all heard of described as the most dangerous city in the world just a year ago, hasn't had an attack in 3 months. The city and the province are rebuilding. They are constructing small business centers so that the entrepreneurial spirit of Iraqis can flourish once again.

A delegation, including the Anbar governor, the Ramadi mayor, several prominent religious leaders and Ahmed Abu Risha, the brother of Sheik Sattar Abu Risha, the father of the Sunni Awakening, was just here in Washington a couple of weeks ago. They came here, Mr. Speaker, to spend several days receiving training in institution building, good governance, transparency and the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, these are Anbar's political, business and religious leaders, not coming here to seek security assistance, not seeking military assistance. They have achieved security in al Anbar. Now what they want, Mr. Speaker, is help from us in their quest to build a democracy. But, most important of all, they are serving as a model for the rest of Iraq.

Prior to their trip, they participated with Shiite leaders in a summit in Karbala. Sheiks from Karbala and Najaf, Iraq's two holiest cities for Shiite Muslims, reached out to their Sunni brothers in Anbar and asked for their help in combating al Qaeda. This comes at a time when Sunni and Shiite leaders in Baghdad are reaching out to each other to begin the process of reconciliation as well.

Baghdad's notorious Adhamiya neighborhood that we have heard so much about, formerly the site of some of Iraq's worst sectarian violence, is now a place where Sunni and Shiite sheiks are meeting regularly to discuss how to bring their people together, just the things that my friend from Worcester said are so imperative. They are taking place at this very moment.

Now, all of this has been possible, Mr. Speaker, because of the dramatic drop in violence brought about by General Petraeus' counterinsurgency strategy. This strategy, which included the surge, has resulted in months of plummeting IED attacks, plummeting American troop deaths, plummeting Iraqi civilian deaths, and plummeting sectarian attacks.

Many of my colleagues have pointed out that this has been the deadliest year for American troops yet in Iraq, and, Mr. Speaker, I will acknowledge that this has been the deadliest year for American troops in Iraq. And it is true over the past year we have tragically seen that great number. But that does not reflect what is happening now in this post-surge world.

The past few months have seen the most dramatic decline in the deaths of American troops because we have had a new strategy. Mr. Speaker, we have had a new strategy, and that strategy is working. And perhaps most important for all of us, that strategy has enabled our military commanders to begin a drawdown in U.S. troop levels.

Not because of artificial timetables. Not because of the micromanagement of Members of Congress from the comfort of our offices thousands of miles away from the front lines. But by empowering our commanders on the ground, they have created a stable security situation that is allowing for both the beginnings of Iraqi reconciliation and the safe withdrawal of our troops.

Mr. Speaker, the big question for today is this: Will the dramatic improvement in Iraq prove to be a true turning point or nothing more than a lull in the war? I don't know the answer to that. Neither outcome is a foregone conclusion. Whether it is a major turning point in the war or just a lull, no one knows for sure. What we do know now will profoundly affect the future of Iraq. Will we fund our troops and empower our commanders to continue to do what is best for our long-term interests? Or will we pull the rug out from under them now at the precise moment they have achieved what we have asked of them?

As one of my friends just said to me, it seems like our friends on the other side of the aisle want defeat before we can win.

For my colleagues who would resort to the latter option out of political expediency, Mr. Speaker, let me remind them of another war our men and women are fighting. Today our troops are also battling a very real enemy in Afghanistan.

We got a terrible reminder just a few days ago of the viciousness of that fight when six of our counterparts, members of the Afghan Parliament, were brutally targeted in the worst attack in Afghanistan's history, and I would like to express my appreciation for the bipartisan support that my colleague, David Price, and I offered as leaders of the House Democracy Assistance Commission.

We have been working with those parliamentarians in Afghanistan, and we are hoping to work with those in Iraq as soon as possible. And we once again express our condolences to the people of Afghanistan who have suffered the single worst attack in their nation's history when a week ago yesterday six parliamentarians and 44 other people were brutally murdered.

Let me also remind my colleagues that this war that we are seeing in Afghanistan is not our first war in Afghanistan. Many of us were intricately involved in their war against the Soviets in the 1980s, many Members who are still here today. And what did we do after the Soviets were defeated? We withdraw and left the Afghans to fend for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot forget that democracy is hard work. For over a decade, unfortunately, in Afghanistan we indulged in the luxury of ignoring what was going on there. And then on a sunny Tuesday six Septembers ago, 3,000 Americans paid a horrible price for that mistake.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot refuse to learn from history or we are doomed to repeat it. Our support for our troops in Iraq has earned us a far more stable, secure situation. And yet what does the Democratic leadership propose to do? Their bill would reward our military commanders' success by cutting them off.

It would provide constitutional protections for terrorists, while leaving our veterans, including Iraq veterans, without funding. It would force the same disastrous, shortsighted withdrawal that led to the terrorist sanctuary in Afghanistan. It would do all of this at a time when we are achieving not just pockets of success in Iraq but broad-based improvements, and at a time when Republicans have been trying every possible means to get an appropriations bill for our veterans to the President, which he will certainly sign if we can ever get it to him.

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic majority's priorities, foolhardy policies, and constitutional rights for terrorists have never been so out of whack. I suppose we can take comfort in the fact that this is all a meaningless charade that will never be enacted, because we all know this will never be enacted. But that is a hollow comfort when we consider our troops in harm's way and our veterans in need.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very cruel comfort for the families of those who have made incredible sacrifices in this war.

I often think of my good friend, Ed Blecksmith, a former marine and the father of JP Blecksmith, also a marine, who died in November 2004 just 3 years ago in the very famous battle of Fallujah. I have talked about the Blecksmith family here on the House floor many, many times. I didn't know JP, but from everything that I have read, and I have a recent article that has just come out about him, he was a very talented young man with a very bright future. He had so many opportunities before him, and he chose to be a marine because he wanted to serve as his father had done. His family proudly, but soberly, supported him. As a

former marine, Ed Blecksmith knew in a very real way the cost of war. JP Blecksmith would not return to his family, having made the ultimate sacrifice.

And his father said something to me that I will never forget. He looked me in the eye and asked me to make sure that we complete his son's mission in Iraq. He has said to me on countless occasions, You must complete the mission or my son JP will have died in vain.

Mr. Speaker, it is deeply heartening to see the beginnings of victory. And no, I am not saying ``mission accomplished'' or anything like that because we know full well that we have difficult days ahead. But it is deeply heartening to see the beginnings of victory in Iraq, for JP's sake and for the sake of all who have paid a very dear price.

We have a profound responsibility to allow our commanders to continue on this path.

Mr. Speaker, after 41, 41 wasted efforts, I can only hope that the Democratic leadership will finally abandon empty demagoguery for substantive legislation, meaningful debate, and a quest at bipartisanship so we can work with the President to come to an agreement. Until that time, I urge my colleagues to reject this closed rule and the terribly wrongheaded policy that it seeks to shield.

[From Details, Holiday 2007]

The Fallen: 2nd Lieutenant JP Blecksmith, 24

(By Jeff Gordinier)

On the night before 2nd Lieutenant JP Blecksmith shipped

out to Iraq, after his family took him out for dinner in

Newport Beach, California, his older brother, Alex, picked up

a pair of clippers and shaved JP's head. When that was done

and JP looked ready for combat, Alex gave his brother a hug.

Then Alex climbed into JP's green Ford Expedition and drove

it north, back to the family's house in San Marino, weeping

part of the way. He had a feeling. So did his parents. A

premonition. They didn't talk about it much, but two months

later, in November 2004, when JP joined a wave of U.S.

Marines roaring into the city of Fallujah as part of

Operation Phantom Fury, the feeling intensified.

On the night of November 10, Blecksmith and his closest

friend in Iraq, Lieutenant Sven Jensen, slept on a rooftop in

Fallujah. It was, miraculously, a quiet night, and chilly.

They got a decent night's sleep. They awoke just before

sunrise and were amused to find a small pet bird with green

wings and a yellow belly perched a couple of feet away from

their faces. Jensen took a picture of the bird. There were

other ones like it all over Iraq, because when U.S. troops

were searching abandoned houses, they often found cages that

had been left behind. The soldiers let the birds go free so

they wouldn't starve to death.

Hours before, JP had sent a letter to his girlfriend,

addressing it formally, as always, to ``Ms. Emily M. Tait.''

In it he wrote, ``By the time you receive this, you will know

we have gone into the city. We've been preparing for it the

last few days, and my guys are ready for the fight, and I'm

ready to lead them. It'll be hectic, and there will be some

things out of my control, but the promise of you waiting at

home for me is inspiring and a relief.'' Now he was in the

thick of it. Blecksmith and Jensen came down from the

roof, ate their MREs for breakfast, and got their orders.

Before the invasion the battalion commander, Colonel

Patrick Malay, had given his men an analogy: `` `Imagine a

dirty, filthy windowpane that has not been cleaned in

hundreds of years,' '' he recalls saying. ``That's how we

looked at the city of Fallujah. Our job was to scrub the

heck out of that city, and then take a squeegee and wipe

it off so that it was clean and pure.'' Most of Fallujah

was empty, and anyone left in the city was presumed to be

an insurgent.

Blecksmith and the other members of the India Company of

the Third Battalion, Fifth Marines Regiment, moved south

through the city, with their blood types scrawled in

indelible marker on the sleeves of their uniforms. The

streets smelled terrible--a stubborn aroma of rotting food

and bodies. Late in the day on November 11, things started to

go wrong. A marine in Blecksmith's platoon, Klayton South,

was shot in the mouth by an insurgent when he kicked open the

door of a house. Blood gushed from his mangled teeth and

tongue. The medics cut into South's throat to give him an

emergency tracheotomy. (He survived. He's since had more than

40 operations to repair the damage.) ``It shook the platoon

up,'' Jensen says now, ``and JP was the most in-control

person I saw. He had a sector to clear, so he rallied his

guys and said, `Okay, we've got to continue clearing.' ''

Blecksmith's and Jensen's platoons moved off in different

directions, and the two friends shot each other a glance.

``I'll never forget looking at his eyes the last time I saw

him,'' Jensen says. ``He turned and he gave me almost an

apprehensive look, like, Oh, s-it, we've got some s-it going

on. I wanted to say `Hey, I'll see you later.' But I didn't

say anything to him.''

Minutes later, Blecksmith led his platoon into a house and

climbed a flight of stairs to the roof to survey the

surrounding landscape. Shots came from a building across the

street. Blecksmith stood up to direct the squads under his

command, shouting at them to take aim at the enemy nest. He

was tall, and was now visible above the protective wall. ``He

was up front a lot, and he made a big target, and we'd talked

to him about that,'' Colonel Malay says. ``He exposed himself

consistently to enemy fire in the execution of his duties. He

displayed a fearlessness to the point that we had to talk to

him about the fact that nobody is bulletproof.''

As Blecksmith stood on the roof, a sniper's 7.62-mm bullet

found one of the places on his body where he was vulnerable.

It was a spot on his left shoulder, less than an inch above

the rim of his protective breastplate. The bullet sliced

downward diagonally, coming to rest in his right hip, and

along the way it tore through his heart. ``I'm hit,''

Blecksmith said. He fell. He raised his head for a moment,

and that was it. A Navy medic got to Blecksmith immediately,

but he was already dead, and his men carried his heavy body

back down the stairs. He was 24.

That night in San Marino, Alex Blecksmith came home from

work and noticed that the house was dark. He opened the front

door and saw his mother, Pam, sitting at the kitchen table

with a couple of marines in dress blues and white gloves, and

he heard the phrase ``We regret to inform you . . .''

The funeral was so magnificent, so full of pageantry, that

at times it was difficult for Alex to remember that the guy

being buried was his brother. The Marines do it right when it

comes to honoring the fallen. They do it so right that you

can get swept up in the ceremony and feel as though you're

watching a parade. The funeral took place at the Church of

Our Saviour in San Gabriel--the church where the most

celebrated of San Marino's favorite sons, General George S.

Patton, had been baptized as a baby. As the flag-draped

casket was carried out of the sanctuary and into the

California sun, a long, silent line of almost 2,000 people

followed. There were marines and midshipmen and local

firefighters in uniform. There was a 21-gun salute. Four

World War II fighter planes swooped toward the cemetery in

the ``missing man'' formation--just as they passed over the

funeral, the fourth plane symbolically split from the quartet

and veered into the sky. A bagpiper played a Scottish dirge.

One of JP's old friends would later observe that the day, in

all of its glory and pomp, made him think of Princess Diana's

wedding.

As public support for the war in Iraq wavers, it's easy to

forget that people like JP Blecksmith even exist. The

American military is so predominantly blue-collar that we

tend to assume that the sons and daughters of the rich never

voluntarily die in warfare anymore. Blecksmith was born in

September 1980, just weeks before his state's own Ronald

Reagan was elected president, and he spent most of his youth

in the small Los Angeles County town of San Marino during

what felt, for many of its wealthy and conservative

inhabitants, like something of a ``Leave It to Beaver''

golden age. To look at a photograph of him, blue-eyed and

suntanned and grinning, is to understand the enduring

magnetism of the word ``California.'' He stood six foot three

and weighed 225 pounds. His chest was a keg; his biceps were

gourds. His biography reads as though it were scripted by a

Hollywood publicist: legendary quarterback on the Flintridge

Prep football team, track star, graduate of the United States

Naval Academy.

His father, Ed Blecksmith, who is 64, runs an executive-

recruiting firm in Los Angeles. He and Pam met in the early

seventies, while both were working in the White House. Along

a wall leading into their kitchen hang framed Christmas cards

from Dick and Pat Nixon. ``Here's a kid,'' Ed says, ``who

didn't need to do this.'' It's as though JP were transplanted

into our world from the Eisenhower years. Somehow, in an

ironic age of Jon Stewart and ``South Park,'' the guy grew up

in a kind of pre-Summer of Love bubble in which young men of

strength and valor still yearned to distinguish themselves on

the battlefield. He was groomed, in a sense, for something

that no longer exists, at least not for guys who grow up in

the wealthiest zip codes in the country. He believed in

ideals of duty and sacrifice that have become, for many men,

anachronistic and even unfathomable.

``I was in awe,'' says Peter Twist, Blecksmith's closest

friend since preschool. Twist played wide receiver to

Blecksmith's quarterback on the Flintridge Prep football

team; a local newspaper called the duo ``Fire & Ice.''

Blecksmith was known for being fast, composed, smart, and

unflappable, and his giant arms could propel the ball a good

80 yards down the field. If he had an athletic flaw, it was

that he was aware of his own flawlessness. ``He had such

personal confidence,'' says Tom Fry, a mentor to Blecksmith

in high school and one of the assistant coaches on his team.

``He felt that if all the stars aligned, there was nothing he

couldn't do--it was JP's world.'' When they graduated in

1999, Twist and a couple other teammates went off to the

University of Arizona, where it's safe to say the prospect of

partying was on their minds, while Blecksmith opted for the

rigors and restrictions of Annapolis. ``I was stoked for the

man'' says Twist, 26, who lives in Newport Beach and works in

the mortgage business. ``Most of us are still trying to

figure it out, but JP always had a goal.''

November 11, the date on which JP Blecksmith died, was

noteworthy for other reasons. It's Twist's birthday. It also

happens to be the birthday of General Patton, who grew up in

San Marino and holds a prominent place in the town's history.

This coincidence has only bolstered the mythology of JP

Blecksmith--a feeling that it was his destiny to die in

combat. The Blecksmiths have a statue of Patton on a shelf in

their home, and it becomes clear in conversation that Ed, a

decorated Vietnam veteran himself, sees a kind of mystical

link between the fate of his son and the military, triumphs

of the legendary general (who was a passionate believer, it

just so happens, in reincarnation).

Indeed, JP Blecksmith fit the ``hero'' mold in such

classic, square jawed American style that a kind of cult of

JP has begun to develop in San Marino. They give out awards

in his name at the local schools. On the Fourth of July, San

Marino hosts a JP Blecksmith 5K run. A Marine Corps training

center in Pasadena has been christened Blecksmith Hall. On a

hot Sunday morning this past August, Alex parked his

brother's Expedition in the cemetery and walked across the

grass to the pale granite stone that says JAMES PATRICK

BLECKSMITH. An elderly man wandered over to the headstone,

hand in hand with a grade-school kid who had a blond Mohawk,

and told Alex, ``I never met JP, but I go by here and show my

grandson his grave''

THREE YEARS AFTER BLECKSMITH'S death, his bedroom still

looks the way it did when he left for Annapolis in 1999.

There's a Green Bay Packers poster over the bed, a dense

forest of athletic trophies, toy race cars lined up on the

dresser. ``This is all his stuff from Iraq that they sent

over,'' Alex says, looking down at a cardboard box on the

floor. ``We haven't gone through it, really.''

Ed Blecksmith walks into the bedroom, and within a few

seconds his voice is cracking and his blue eyes are growing

wet. ``It's still tough,'' he says. ``You see all these

pictures and things . . .'' He insists on sitting down in

front of the TV downstairs and watching DVD footage of that

magnificent funeral, fighting back a sob at the moment when

one of the eulogists, a Navy SEAL, describes JP as having

been ``the best of the best.'' Ed has some Fox News footage,

too. In it, you can see JP speaking to his men hours before

the battle in Fallujah, and that's where you get a brief

glimpse of the regular guy behind the mythology. Because

there stands JP, in fatigues and a floppy Boonie hat, holding

a map, telling his marines to ``expect everything you can

possibly imagine.'' When he looks at the camera for a moment,

he's smiling.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to yield 4 minutes to my distinguished friend from Redlands, I would simply say that my friend from Worcester never mentioned the word ``victory'' in his analysis.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my very good friend from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence), a hardworking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I will say to my colleagues that it's very interesting to listen to this debate, because as we've proceeded, I have yet to hear the word ``victory'' come from the other side of the aisle at all. I have yet to hear anyone interested in trying to build a democracy.

Now, we saw three elections take place in Iraq, as we all know, with a 70 percent voter turnout.

We know that there are problems there. My friend from Worcester correctly said that we have problems with corruption in government in Iraq. We've had corruption problems in this country as well. But the fact of the matter is we have seen dramatic improvement. There is no doubt about the fact that we've seen improvement.

And I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, that we continue to hear this term ``redeployment.'' That means one thing. It doesn't mean victory. It doesn't mean build a democracy. It means withdraw and lose. And I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, we are determined to ensure that that doesn't happen.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds, and I do so to say I still have yet to hear the term ``victory'' come from the other side of the aisle. I still have yet to hear anyone talk about the notion of building a democracy in Iraq so that self-determination and the rule of law and the building of democratic institutions can, in fact, have a chance to succeed. And there is no recognition of the fact that we have seen a tremendous number of reduction in IED attacks, and the number of overall attacks has dropped dramatically.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I've still not heard the term ``victory'' or ``building democracy.''

I would inquire of the Chair, how much time is remaining on each side?

I think at this juncture I might reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I'm very sorry that my friend wouldn't yield so that we could engage in debate. And I will say, victory means ensuring that our children don't face the threat of another terrorist attack like what we saw on September 11. We know that Iraq is the central point for al Qaeda, and I am absolutely determined to ensure that we achieve victory.

There have been tremendous achievements when it comes to democracy building. We can't ignore that. But we want to bring our troops home as soon as possible.

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

Let me just first say this has been an interesting debate and I do think that victory, a dramatic reduction in the number of attacks, the fact that reconciliation is, in fact, taking place in Baghdad is something that cannot be ignored.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, before the House voted for the 12th time to allow the House to go to conference with the Senate on the Veterans Affairs funding bill, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and I had a brief colloquy after which a Member on the other side of the aisle claimed that we had misrepresented the facts about this Congress's track record on getting the Veterans Affairs appropriations measure signed into law.

Well, I take this as akin to being accused of lying. Here is what we said, and, Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: The House passed the Veterans and Military Construction funding bill on June 15, 2007, by a vote of 409-2, with the Senate following suit and naming conferees on September 6. Unfortunately, the majority leadership of the House has refused to move the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations act to conference and has refused to name conferees.

So whether the majority likes it or not, that is a fact. Now, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and the gentleman from New York said that we were misrepresenting the facts. How is this so? For 68 days, Mr. Speaker, the message from the Senate requesting a conference has languished at the Speaker's desk without action. How is this fact disputable? Just look at the

calendar and count the days between September 7 and today, and you'll come up with 68. Every day the Democrats choose not to act to move this bill forward, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million.

Those are the facts surrounding this bill in this Congress. The gentleman from Texas went on earlier to malign Republicans for what we did or didn't do concerning veterans funding over the last 12 years, which begs the question, what does the last 12 years have to do with this year? Are Democrats trying to use past Congresses' shortcomings as excuses for their own failed policy? Otherwise, how is this even relevant?

I am sure that the gentleman from Worcester would stand up and attempt to deflect this plea by criticizing Republicans, just as his colleagues before him, and touting the increases in funding for our veterans provided by this Congress which all but two Members of this body voted for. The sad fact is that this Congress hasn't provided the funding that the gentleman has espoused. Why is that? That's because not one dime will flow from the Treasury to the Department of Veterans Affairs until the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill is signed into law, and in order to do so, this House has to go to conference with the Senate and send a bill down to the President to sign. So let's finally get that process started.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who is concerned about funding for our veterans must join us in voting against the previous question so that I can amend the rule and we can go to conference with the Senate on this much-needed and far-delayed funding measure.

I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material appear in the Congressional Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the American people get it. Over 50 percent of the American people believe that we should now begin a reduction of our troops.

As I listened here on the floor of the house, and I listened to my good friends on the other side of the aisle claiming the me-me's and the I-I's, I hear no one talking about victory.

Victory in what sense? So that we can pound our chests and brag about what this Congress and this President has done?

We're talking about lives here. We're talking about lives. And I am sick and tired of listening to people bragging about who can claim a victory.

Well, my belief is that the soldiers on the battlefield, the most deadliest year that we've ever had, 2006, we buried more than we could ever imagine. Those soldiers have already claimed victory. They took Fallujah. They took Baghdad.

And my concern is why have we not championed the victory of those soldiers? Why haven't we welcomed them home, given them accolades because they have been victorious?

Someone on the other side has not read this bill. This bill allows for a redeployment in an orderly manner, and it demands that the President use these dollars to redeploy.

I am not going to trample on the graves of dead soldiers and continue a war that has no end. That government has the ability in Iraq to diplomatically deal with democracy. We have died so they can deal with democracy.

It is time to end this war now and to bring our soldiers home with the dignity and victory they deserve.

Right now, in the Nation's hospitals, we are seeing the results of his victory. We are seeing soldiers with brain injury, soldiers with no limbs. And we have a broken health care system that can't even address the question of those soldiers with posttraumatic stress brain injury and otherwise.

My voice is gone, but I am tired of this question of victory because I believe, and I have a bill, and I ask my good friend from California to join it, the Military Success Act of 2007 that chronicles the victories of our soldiers.

We can bring them home with dignity. I am not going to tolerate one more dead body. And it is time to end this war and end it now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4156, introduced by my colleague, Mr. Obey. I would like to thank him for his ongoing leadership as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and on this important issue in particular.

The legislation we are considering today provides our troops with the resources they need, but it does not give the President the blank check he has asked for to fund an endless combat operation in Iraq. Instead of his additional $200 billion, we are considering a $50 billion package, which institutes a redeployment timeline, as well as other critical directives designed to transition our role in Iraq and bring our troops home.

Madam Speaker, the funds provided by this legislation are, crucially, tied to a requirement for the immediate start of the redeployment of U.S. forces. It sets December 15, 2008, as the target date for the completion of the redeployment, and requires redeployment to begin within 30 days of enactment.

As lawmakers continue to debate U.S. policy in Iraq, our heroic young men and women continue to willingly sacrifice life and limb on the battlefield. Our troops in Iraq did everything we asked them to do. We sent them overseas to fight an army; they are now caught in the midst of an insurgent civil war and continuing political upheaval. The United States will not and should not permanently prop up the Iraqi Government and military. U.S. military involvement in Iraq will come to an end, and, when U.S. forces leave, the responsibility for securing their nation will fall to Iraqis themselves. However, whether or not my colleagues agree that the time has come to withdraw our American forces from Iraq, I believe that all of us in Congress should be of one accord that our troops deserve our sincere thanks and congratulations.

For this reason, I extremely please to have worked with the Democratic leadership to include language recognizing the extraordinary achievements of our men and women in uniform. Paragraph 2 of Title I reads, ``the performance of United States military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan should be commended, their courage and sacrifice have been exceptional, and when they come home, their service should be recognized appropriately.'' I believe that the inclusion of this language makes it clear that we are proud of the accomplishments of our troops, and we look forward to commending them as they return safely home.

I also worked with the Leadership to include the language in Paragraph 3 of Title 1. This paragraph reads, ``the primary purpose of funds made available by this Act should be to transition the mission of United States Armed Forces in Iraq and undertake their redeployment, and not to extend or prolong the war.'' This language makes explicit that this legislation is providing funding for the safe and responsible redeployment of our troops, not for the continuation of combat operations.

This legislation protects our troops, by providing them with the funding they need to safely and successfully redeploy from Iraq. It also prohibits the deployment of forces to Iraq who are not fully trained and fully equipped. In addition, this legislation includes an extension to all U.S. Government agencies and personnel of the current prohibition in the Army Field Manual against the use of certain interrogation techniques.

Mr. Speaker, this bill contains important language that changes the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq to diplomatic and force protection, targeted counterterrorism operations, and limited support to Iraqi security forces. I firmly believe that we must make diplomacy and statecraft tools of the first, rather than the last, resort. We must seek constructive engagement with Iraq, its neighbors, and the rest of the international community, as we work to bring resolution to this calamitous conflict that has already gone on far too long.

Because of my deeply held belief that we must commend our military for their exemplary performance and success in Iraq, I have introduced legislation, H.R. 4020, with the support of a number of my colleagues, entitled the ``Military Success in Iraq Commemoration Act of 2007.'' This legislation recognizes the extraordinary performance of the Armed Forces in achieving the military objectives of the United States in Iraq, encourages the President to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe a national day of celebration commemorating the military success of American troops in Iraq, and provides other affirmative and tangible expressions of appreciation from a grateful Nation to all veterans of the war in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, we have already expended 3,500 American lives and $400 billion in taxpayer dollars in Iraq. We have occupied the country for over 4 years. And our President continues to push a strategy devoid of clear direction and visible targets, while rejecting congressional calls to solidify an exit strategy.

Last November, the American people clearly stated that they did not want to see an endless conflict in Iraq; they went to the polls and elected a new, Democratic Congress to lead our Nation out of Iraq. I am proud to be a member of the Congressional class that listens and adheres to the will of the American people, as we did when both houses of Congress approved Iraq Supplemental bills that instituted a timetable for U.S. withdrawal. We need a new direction, because we owe our brave, fighting men and women so much more. Washington made a mistake in going to war. It is time for politicians to admit that mistake and fix it before any more lives are lost.

This Congress will not, as the previous, Republican, Congress did, continue to rubber stamp what we believe to be an ill-conceived war. As we continue to receive reports on the situation in Iraq, it is important that we continue to look forward, to the future of Iraq beyond a U.S. military occupation.

Despite the multitude of mistakes perpetrated by President Bush and former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, our troops have achieved a military success in ousting Saddam Hussein and assisting the Iraqis in administering a democratic election and electing a democratic government. However, only the Iraqi government can secure a lasting peace. Time and time again, the Iraqi government has demonstrated an inability to deliver on the political benchmarks that they themselves agreed were essential to achieving national reconciliation. Continuing to put the lives of our soldiers and our national treasury in the hands of what by most informed accounts, even by members of the Bush Administration, is an ineffective central Iraqi government is irresponsible and contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the American people.

Our Nation has already paid a heavy price in Iraq. Over 3,810 American soldiers have died. In addition, more than 27,660 have been wounded in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003. June, July, and August have marked the bloodiest months yet in the conflict, and U.S. casualties in Iraq are 62 percent higher this year than at this time in 2006. This misguided, mismanaged, and misrepresented war has claimed too many lives of our brave servicemen; its depth, breadth, and scope are without precedent in American history. In addition, the United States is spending an estimated $10 billion per month in Iraq. This $10 billion a month translates into $329,670,330 per day, $13,736,264 per hour, $228,938 per minute, and $3,816 per second.

For this huge sum of money, we could have repaired the more than 70,000 bridges across America rated structurally deficient, $188 billion, potentially averting the tragedy that occurred August 1 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. We could have rebuilt the levees in New Orleans, $50 billion, protecting that city from future hurricanes that could bring Katrina-like destruction upon the city. We could have provided all U.S. public safety officials with interoperable communication equipment, $10 billion, allowing them to effectively communicate in the event of an emergency, and we could have paid for screening all air cargo on passenger planes for the next 10 years, $3.6 billion. And, we could have enrolled 1.4 million additional children in Head Start programs, $10 billion. Instead of funding increased death and destruction in Iraq, we could have spent hard-earned taxpayer dollars on important progress here at home.

The Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I am proud to be a member, has recently heard a string of reports from military and civilian officials about the political, military, social, and economic situation in Iraq. Two weeks ago, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, informed the Congress that the Iraqi government has met only 3 of the 18 legislative, economic, and security benchmarks. Despite the surge, despite increasing U.S. military involvement, the Iraqi Government has not made substantial progress toward stabilizing their country.

President Bush rationalized his surge, over opposition by myself and other House Democrats, by arguing it would give the Iraqi government ``the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas,'' bringing about reconciliation between warring factions, Sunni and Shia. However, non-partisan assessments, such as last week's GAO report, have illustrated that escalating U.S. military involvement in Iraq is instead hindering that nation's ability to move beyond the devastation of war and death, to build a successful new government, and to create a stable and secure environment. In the 7 months since the surge began, increased American military presence has not been able to end the relentless cycles of sectarian violence that continue to plague Iraq. Nor have larger numbers of U.S. troops been successful in unifying and strengthening the Iraqi Government.

Instead, the security situation continues to deteriorate. Sectarian violence remains high, and even the Bush administration has noted the unsatisfactory progress toward political reconciliation. The Sunni-led insurgency continues, with insurgents conducting increasingly complex and well-coordinated attacks. The August 2007 National Intelligence Estimate cited ongoing violence, stating, ``the level of overall violence, including attacks on and casualties among civilians, remain high; Iraq's sectarian groups remain unreconciled.'' The report went on to note that al-Qaeda in Iraq, AQI, ``retains the ability to conduct high-profile attacks,'' and ``Iraqi political leaders remain unable to govern effectively.''

The ever-increasing sectarian violence is causing immense daily challenges for Iraqis. Millions have been displaced, and an Iraqi Red Crescent Organization has reported an increase of nearly 630,000 internally displaced persons from February 2007 to July 2007. The same organization predicts an additional 80,000 to 100,000 persons are displaced each month. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has estimated that 1.8 million Iraqis are now refugees, with an additional 40,000 to 50,000 fleeing to neighboring countries each month. Iraq has become a humanitarian disaster, and one that continues to get worse every day.

The United States military is a skilled and highly proficient organization, and where there are large numbers of U.S. troops, it is unsurprising that we see fewer incidents of violence. However, it is our responsibility to take a longer-term view. The United States will not and should not permanently prop up the Iraqi Government and military. U.S. military involvement in Iraq will come to an end, and, when U.S. forces leave, the responsibility for securing their nation will fall to Iraqis themselves. And so far, we have not seen a demonstrated commitment by the Iraqi Government.

In addition, evidence suggests that not only is increased U.S. military presence in Iraq not making that nation more secure, it may also be threatening our national security by damaging our ability to respond to real threats to our own homeland. The recently released video by Osama bin Laden serves to illustrate that President Bush has not caught this international outlaw, nor brought him to justice. Instead, he has diverted us from the real war on terror to the war of his choice in Iraq.

The former Chairman and Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, share this view. In a recent op-ed, Kean and Hamilton note that our own actions have contributed to a rise of radicalization and rage in the Muslim world. Kean and Hamilton write that ``no conflict drains more time, attention, blood, treasure, and support from our worldwide counterterrorism efforts than the war in Iraq. It

has become a powerful recruiting and training tool for al-Qaeda.''

Our troops in Iraq did everything we asked them to do. We sent them overseas to fight an army; they are now caught in the midst of an insurgent civil war and political upheaval. I have, for some time now, advocated for congressional legislation declaring a military victory in Iraq, and recognizing the success of our military. Our brave troops have completed the task we set for them; it is time now to bring them home. Our next steps should not be a continuing escalation of military involvement, but instead a diplomatic surge.

Democrats in Congress will not continue to rubber stamp the President's ill-conceived war effort. Last November, the American people spoke loudly and clearly, demanding a new direction to U.S. foreign policy, and we here in Congress are committed to seeing that change be brought about. We are working to see the extensive funds currently being spent to sustain the war in Iraq go to important domestic programs and to securing our homeland against real and imminent threats.

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 pure fantasy to imagine that President Bush's military surge has created the necessary safety and security to meet economic, legislative, and security benchmarks. It is time for a new strategy, a new plan that will encourage Iraqis to take charge of their own destiny, seek constructive and sustained regional engagement, and substitute the ill- advised military surge for a thoughtful diplomatic one. It is time to be realistic and pragmatic, to recognize that our troops achieved what they were initially sent in for and that continued U.S. military engagement is not bringing about the desired results.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides our brave soldiers in Iraq with the resources they need, while requiring that the President begin to redeploy our troops. It keeps our soldiers safe, and it keeps our Nation safe. By bringing an end to this conflict, this Democratic Congress is making significant strides forward toward protecting and securing America.

I strongly urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting today's legislation, and in giving the troops the resources they need to safely redeploy from Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up H. Res. 818 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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.

I yield myself 6 minutes.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 818.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 818 provides for consideration of H.R. 4156, the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act of 2008. The rule provides 2 hours of debate and provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq has gone on for nearly 5 years. Thousands of our brave men and women have lost their lives. Many more thousands have returned home with injuries so severe that they will require a lifetime of medical treatments.

We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the war, virtually none of it paid for, almost all of it on our national credit card. That means that the bill will be paid for not by us, but by our kids and our grandkids.

The war has diminished our standing in the world. It has distracted us from the war in Afghanistan, the very place where those responsible for 9/11 are now regrouping. And it has put incredible strain on the readiness of our Armed Forces.

The President of the United States and many of my Republican friends have argued fiercely over the years for a blank check. They want no strings, no conditions, no benchmarks, no end dates, no accountability, no nothing.

Today, they will tell us that the President's strategy is working; that the recent decrease in deaths and casualties in certain areas of Iraq prove it, and, therefore, we should provide yet another blank check.

Mr. Speaker, let me caution my friends about declaring ``mission accomplished'' yet again. While all of us pray that the violence continues to subside, we should also appreciate history enough to know that lulls in intense violence are not always permanent. Let me also state that the current levels of violence in Iraq are still unacceptably high.

As Joe Christoff of the Government Accountability Office recently testified, this recent reduction in violence should be put into the proper context as it coincides with increased sectarian cleansing and a massive refugee displacement. Let me quote:

``You know, we look at the attack data going down, but it's not taking into consideration that there might be fewer attacks because you have ethnically cleansed neighborhoods, particularly in the Baghdad area. It's produced 2.2 million refugees that have left, and it's produced 2 million internally displaced persons within the country as well.''

Mr. Speaker, we must remember that the justification for the surge and the justification for the Bush military strategy in Iraq has always been to foster Iraqi political reconciliation. And there is precious little evidence of any such thing.

Over 10 months ago, President Bush said, ``A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi Government to the benchmarks it has announced.''

But, Mr. Speaker, as the GAO reported last month, ``Iraq has not yet advanced key legislation on equitably sharing oil revenues and holding provincial elections. In addition, sectarian influences within Iraqi ministries continue while militia influences divide the loyalties of Iraqi security forces.''

Mr. Speaker, the Maliki government continues to be corrupt, inept and without the support of the vast majority of the Iraqi people. When will the Bush administration live up to its word and hold the Iraqi Government accountable for its actions, or inaction?

The fundamental crisis facing Iraq remains the same: the inability of Sunni, Shiites and Kurds to agree to set aside their sectarian divisions and live in peace. As long as we remain there indefinitely, Mr. Speaker, there is no incentive for anything to change.

Mr. Speaker, our soldiers have already given so much to create an opportunity for the Iraqi Government, an opportunity that that government has squandered. So, today, we are saying we want a different course. We reject the President's vision of an endless war that will cost more lives and bankrupt our Nation.

Today, we will vote on a bill that requires the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq to begin within 30 days of enactment, with a target for completion of December 15, 2008. It would prohibit the deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq who are not fully trained and equipped. And it changes the mission of our forces.

It also extends to all government agencies and personnel the limitations in the Army Field Manual on permissible interrogation techniques, which means that torture will be absolutely banned, and anyone who engages in such practices will be committing a crime under U.S. law, no ands, ifs or buts.

Mr. Speaker, it is no longer acceptable for Congress to simply write yet another blank check. It is not acceptable for the President to simply run out the clock and hand this problem off to his successor.

This is a war that George Bush started, and this is a war that he needs to end. For the sake of our troops, for the sake of our country, we need to support this legislation. Enough is enough.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California mischaracterized my position and what I am invested in. I am invested in what is best for this country, Mr. Dreier. And I am invested in what is best for our troops. And I am opposed to this Bush policy of an endless war, and I think it would be a mistake for this Congress to give this President another blank check.

This is not a meaningful charade, Mr. Dreier. Those of us who are arguing for this legislation want to bring this war to an end.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

The gentleman says give the Iraqi Government a chance. We are on our fifth year, Mr. Speaker. Three American soldiers lost their lives in Iraq yesterday, bringing the total to 3,858 deaths. I think we have given them more than a chance.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I and everybody in this Chamber, hopefully, wants to see democracy flourish in Iraq. But the fact of the matter is that the status quo isn't producing that. And maybe, just maybe, the corrupt and inept Maliki government will get its act together if it finally realizes that we won't be there forever, that this will not be an endless war.

Our troops have sacrificed enough. They have sacrificed enough.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, let me go back to the subject that we are debating here today, and that is the war in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, we have been fighting this war for nearly 5 years. That's longer than we fought World War II. My friends on the other side of the aisle have said over and over and over, just give the Iraqi Government a chance. Well, Mr. Speaker, after 5 years, I say, give me a break.

It is not us, not any of us in this Chamber who are in harm's way. But we have sent thousands and thousands and thousands of our fellow citizens to battle in Iraq. They are in harm's way. They wake up tomorrow in a situation where they are refereeing a civil war, and that, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, is wrong.

My friends on the other side of the aisle talk about al Qaeda. Well, we're all worried about al Qaeda, too. That's why we wish we were doing the job in Afghanistan better. That's why we wish we weren't so diverted from that mission in Iraq that we could actually have better results in Afghanistan than we're having right now. We are worried, Mr. Speaker, about the fact that al Qaeda is regrouping in Afghanistan, is regrouping in Pakistan. That should be a worry to every single Member in this Chamber. And yet we are stretched so thin, we are so preoccupied in Iraq that we have lost sight of what our central mission needs to be.

Mr. Speaker, victory is what is in the best interest of the American people. And this war in Iraq has not only diminished our standing in the world, it has spread our troops so thin that we can't complete missions like the one that we need to be completing in Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, too often in this place we talk about numbers instead of the people behind those numbers. Yesterday, as I mentioned earlier, another three American soldiers lost their lives in Iraq, bringing the total to 3,858. Also yesterday, Mr. Speaker, CBS News reported that there is an epidemic of suicide among our soldiers and our veterans. Thousands and thousands of these men and women have taken their own lives. For too many, the war does not end when they return home. And behind each one of those numbers is a devastated family, a heartbroken father, a new widow, a child without a father. Mr. Speaker, we will be paying for this war for a very long, long time.

Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle say we all want the war to end, we all want our troops to come home. Well, I say to my friends, here is your chance. You have a voice. Use it. You have a vote. Use it. You have the opportunity to change the direction of this policy. You have the opportunity to force the Iraqi Government to live up to its promises. You have the opportunity to finally, finally, honor the will of the American people and to safely redeploy our troops. I ask my friends to seize that opportunity and to support this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And we are still suffering the consequences today.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the evening, we have heard some very, very interesting speeches. I listened with great respect to all of them. I agreed with some, I disagreed with some, I wasn't sure about some. Nevertheless, it was a good debate at a high level. I paid special attention to the very distinguished Speaker of the House because in her opening comments, she talked about how Monday, Veterans Day, America honored our veterans. She spoke about the Veterans appropriations bill in great, glowing terms. I agree with that. It is a really good bill. It provides a lot of benefits for the veterans. There are 400,000 veterans claims backed up. That bill provided money to hire additional adjudicators to get rid of that backlog and get the veterans what they need.

The problem is that as she spoke about the importance of this bill and what a great bill it was and great bill it is, she failed to say that the House passed it on June 15, the Senate passed it in September, and here we are in November still waiting to get that bill on the House floor.

I say, Madam Speaker, let's vote on the VA appropriations bill.

I mentioned the fact that there were great speeches. But, Mr. Speaker, tonight we will not be voting or be recorded on how those speeches went, or what those speeches said, or what those speeches included. We are not going to be voting on opinions. We are not going to be voting on politics. We are going to be voting on what is in this bill. What has been said about this bill is not necessarily what is actually written in the bill. But we are going to vote for what is written in that bill. We will be held accountable for our vote on what that bill says, not on what some speaker said about it.

One of the things that I mentioned in my opening comments that I was really offended by is that this legislation gives constitutional protection to terrorists, the same constitutional protection that all of our constituents enjoy. I refer to page 3 of the bill itself, ``Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the rights under the United States Constitution of any person in the custody or under the physical jurisdiction of the United States.''

Now, that gives terrorists the same protection that your constituents have. And that's just not right. By giving them that protection, do we give them for example, do we have to read them their Miranda rights if we capture them on the battlefield? Do we have to allow them to pay bail and get out of jail or get out of detention? What kind of rights will we be giving to terrorists with just this one sentence that says they shall have rights under the Constitution? These are terrorists, Mr. Speaker. These aren't even people who are signatories to the Geneva Convention. They don't play by any rules. They do whatever they must do, and they have killed thousands and thousands of Americans, and they have killed thousands and thousands of the Muslim populations.

Now, something about this bill, on page 6 of this bill, ``After the conclusion of the reduction and transition of United States Armed Forces to a limited presence as required by this section, the Secretary of Defense may deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq only for the following missions.'' Now, pay attention to this because this is what you will be allowing. For those of you that think you're getting troops out of Iraq, this is what this bill will permit. The Armed Forces in Iraq can be there for the following missions: ``Protecting United States diplomatic facilities, United States Armed Forces, and American citizens.'' We do that now. That is one of the things that we are doing right now.

So you think you're getting out of that. This bill keeps you in that. The next paragraph, ``Conducting limited training, equipment, and providing logistical and intelligence support to the Iraqi Security forces.'' We're doing that now. So if you think this bill is going to change anything, it doesn't because you are allowing them to stay

to do the same thing that they are doing now.

The next paragraph, ``Engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other terrorist organizations in Iraq.'' Mr. Speaker, we're doing that now.

On page 12, we go to the Iraqi Security Forces Fund provided in this bill. ``For the `Iraq Security Forces Fund', $500 million, Provided, that such funds shall be available to the Secretary of Defense, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the purpose of allowing the Commander, Multinational Security Transition Command-Iraq, or the Secretary's designee, to provide assistance, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to the security forces of Iraq.'' Mr. Speaker, we are doing that now. So if you think we're making a change here, read the bill.

It goes on to say, ``Including the provision of equipment, supplies, services, training, facility and infrastructure repair, renovation, and construction, and funding, and to provide training, reintegration, education and employment programs for concerned local citizens, former militia members and detainees and former detainees.'' Mr. Speaker, we're doing all that now.

So this bill doesn't make very many changes if you think this gets you out of Iraq. It doesn't. If you read the bill, you will see that it doesn't. Now, these are things that we would be allowed to do under this bill. But if this bill were successful, and it will not be because I have an idea the President would veto it in its present form, we would have to do all of these same things that we are doing today but with a smaller force, a smaller force, minus the surge, for example. The change in policy that we all demanded early on came about, and it was called the ``surge.'' The surge has had many positive effects. When you get to the point that The New York Times and the L.A. Times and the Washington Post are writing stories about the positive effects of the surge, you have to admit there is something real there in the surge. So do you want to go back and have to do all of the same things we are doing today with a smaller force? I don't think so.

We will have a motion to recommit. And if that motion to recommit is successful, we will have a bill that we can all vote for and that I believe the President would be willing to sign. So let's vote based on what is in this bill, not what the speeches say about it, not about the politics, not about the opinions, but let's actually vote on what is in this bill and let's support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and anywhere else in the world where they might be deployed. We owe them no less. This bill is not a good bill today. Let's vote against it tonight and vote for the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its current form, I am.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is a simple forthwith motion. That means a vote for this motion will allow the House to immediately vote tonight on a bill that can pass the Congress and be signed into law. That means that our troops in harm's way will get the funding they need before Congress leaves town for a 2- week Thanksgiving recess.

The motion would amend the bill to strike the provisions which have nothing to do with providing for our troops and are nothing more than political gamesmanship. The motion would strip the provisions that give our enemies a complete blueprint and timeline for troop withdrawal. The motion would strip the provisions in the bill which signal to our troops and our enemies that Congress will not provide any more funding for our troops, except for withdrawal. The motion would strip the provisions in the bill that substitute politicians' judgments on troop deployment for the judgment of our military commanders in the field.

At the same time, we leave intact the $50 billion in critical funding included in the bill. We leave intact the prohibition on torture, which has been adopted previously by this Congress and Congresses before. But we strip the new provisions which could give terrorists killing our soldiers and our citizens constitutional protections under our legal system.

We modify provisions to more clearly express Congress's commitment to our troops and to bringing them home safely in victory as soon as possible. We leave intact a new requirement that the President submit to the Congress within the next 3 months a comprehensive, long-term strategy to achieve stability in the Middle East over the next 5 years.

As events of the last few months have shown, the situation on the ground has, and we all hope will, continue to improve dramatically. Congress has and will continue to debate the proper course of the war, as it should. However, we should not and cannot vote to hold troop funding hostage to that debate. The only ones hurt by that are our troops and their families.

As we go home to enjoy the holidays with our families, how can any of us look our soldiers' families in the eye and explain to them that we are withholding their funding so that we can score political points. That is just wrong. Our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen and their families deserve more from all of us.

I urge adoption of this motion.

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

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