Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank my partner, Mrs. Biggert, also for the hard work she has done. It has taken us collectively 12 years to get to this point, and I want to say at the outset we are not talking about some population of people who might have bad genes. We are talking about us, because every one of us has bad genes, between 30 and 40. So this protection goes not just to some employee somewhere, but all of us and the people we love.

It is with great pride that I rise today. As a matter of fact, I could not stop smiling all day. With the passage of this bill, we are going to stand up for the future health of our citizens and one of medicine's most promising fields, genetic research.

It is almost heartbreaking to me to think that we are 10 years behind in genetic research and the people we could have helped up to now, but it is the culmination of a bipartisan effort to prevent the improper use of genetic information in the workforce and insurance decisions.

It is no longer simply the work of science fiction writers.

There have been many instances of genetic discrimination, from a woman who was fired after a genetic test revealed her risk for lung disorder, to a social worker who, despite outstanding performance reviews, was dismissed because some member of her family had Huntington's disease.

Consider the case of Heidi Williams, an individual diagnosed with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency. In 2004, she testified that a large health insurance company had denied coverage for her two children because they were carriers for the disease.

GINA will make these discriminatory practices illegal by prohibiting health insurers from denying coverage or charging higher premiums to a healthy individual because of a genetic predisposition, which means you may never get the disease, might happen.

GINA also bars employers from using genetic information for hiring, firing, job placement or promotion decisions.

In the 12 years since I first introduced this legislation, the need for it has grown rapidly. Scientific research has advanced so quickly that we cannot possibly afford to wait any longer.

It offers immense potential for early treatment and prevention of numerous diseases.

Since the sequencing of the human genome was completed in 2003, researchers have identified genetic markers for a wide variety of health conditions, and new progress is being made every day.

Fifteen percent of all cancers are found to have an inherited susceptibility. Ten percent of adult chronic diseases, heart disease and diabetes, America's top killers, have a genetic component.

Already, over 15,500 recognized genetic disorders affect 13 million Americans, and each and every one of us, as I said before, and it is so important for you to know this, each and every one of us is in that category of carrying between 5 and 50 bad genes, or predicted genes. They may not be so bad.

That is exactly why this bill is so important to all of us, not just those with recognized disorders. There is not a single person on the planet that has perfect genes. Every one of us, and let me make that clear again, are all vulnerable to genetic discrimination.

To give you an idea of the potential that exists from this research, consider that a genetic test can tell a woman with a family history of breast cancer if she has the genetic mutation that can cause it, long before the cancer might develop.

For these exciting scientific advances to continue, for the potential of this technology to be realized, we have to make genetic testing something commonplace rather than something that is feared and kept secret.

But sadly, the threat of genetic discrimination and the fear of being passed over for promotion, forced to pay more for health insurance, or even denied coverage, men and women are much less likely to be tested and to take advantage of that potentially lifesaving information.

Most importantly, if individuals do not participate in the clinical trials, we will never be able to reap the great benefits of this genetic technology.

In a 2006 Cogent Research poll, 66 percent of respondents said they were concerned about how their genetic information would be stored and who would have access to it.

I want to thank everybody, first Dr. Collins who sequenced the human genome and testified before Congress at least 12 times, and I cannot imagine anybody would be not be moved by his testimony. He is here with us today.

I want to thank all the committee members, certainly Mrs. Biggert who has worked so hard, and her staff; and the three committees who have jurisdiction here who have done so much for us. Mr. Miller, the first thing I think in January he told me this bill was coming to the floor.

I want to thank Congresswoman Eshoo for her untiring effort to help bring this, and certainly the member of my staff who has worked so hard.

It is a great day. You may not realize it but it also just turns out to be DNA Day. What a wonderful way to celebrate it.

Seventy-two percent agreed that the government should establish laws and regulations to protect the privacy of individuals' genetic information. And 85 percent said that without amending current law, employers would use this information to discriminate.

Before I close, I want to reiterate the broad support that this bill enjoys. We have over 220 Democrat and Republican cosponsors behind this bill.

In past Congresses, the Senate has passed this bill twice with unanimous support. And I would like to thank the President who today issued a statement of administration policy in support of the bill.

I want to take a moment to thank the lead Republican cosponsor of this bill, Congresswoman Judy Biggert for her dedication to this bill, along with Congresswoman Anna Eshoo for being a strong advocate for this bill over the years.

I also want to thank Dr. Francis Collins for his support. His testimonies over the years should have swayed even the firmest unbelievers that genetics has the potential to change our health care system as we know it.

Lastly, I want to thank the advocates from the health and science community. Over 200 organizations including Hadassah support this bill.

GINA will do more than stamp out a new form of discrimination--it will help our country be a leader in a field of scientific research that

holds as much promise as any other in history.

And it will allow us to realize the tremendous potential of genetic research without jeopardizing one of the most fundamental privacies that can be imagined.

Mr. Speaker, today is a momentous day.

And, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

The Rules Committee is expected to meet the week of April 30 to grant a rule which may structure the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start Act of 2007.

Members who wish to offer an amendment to this bill should submit 30 copies of the amendment and a brief description of the amendment to the Rules Committee in H-312 in the Capitol no later than 2:00 p.m. on Monday, April 30. Members are strongly advised to adhere to this amendment deadline to ensure the amendments receive consideration.

Amendments should be drafted to the bill as reported by the Committee on Education and Labor. A copy of that bill is posted on the Web site of the Rules Committee.

Amendments should be drafted by Legislative Counsel and also should be reviewed by the Office of the Parliamentarian to be sure that the amendments comply with the rules of the House. Members are also strongly encouraged to submit their amendments to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis regarding possible PAYGO violations.

The Rules Committee is also expected to meet the week of April 30 to grant a rule which may structure the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 1868, Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007.

Members who wish to offer an amendment to this bill should submit 30 copies of the amendment and a brief description of the amendment to the Rules Committee in H-312 in the Capitol no later than 2:00 p.m. on Monday, April 30. Members are strongly advised to adhere to this amendment deadline to ensure the amendments receive consideration.

Amendments should be drafted to the bill as reported by the Committee on Science and Technology. A copy of that bill is posted on the Web site of the Rules Committee.

Amendments should be drafted by Legislative Counsel and also should be reviewed by the Office of the Parliamentarian to be sure that the amendments comply with the rules of the House. Members are also strongly encouraged to submit their amendments to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis regarding possible PAYGO violations.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 332 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.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 332.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 332 provides for consideration of the conference report for H.R. 1591, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. It also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, after 4 years of the administration's relentless mismanagement of the Iraq war, mismanagement that has needlessly endangered our soldiers and lost countless Iraqi lives, this new Democratic Congress is determined to exercise our constitutional duty and to change the Nation's course in Iraq. We are hardly alone in our estimation of what must be done there.

A growing chorus of opinion has coalesced around the need for a new direction. Virtually all of our generals agree that this fight cannot be won militarily, and General David Petraeus has said that the American mission in Iraq is 20 percent military and 80 percent political, economic and diplomatic.

He is joined by the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, who applauded this debate, saying it will demonstrate to the Iraqi leadership that America will no longer tolerate an open-ended commitment without any benchmarks for success.

James A. Baker and Lee Hamilton of the President's own Iraq Study Group have called for the American military to focus on training Iraqi security forces instead of conducting endless security sweeps.

Retired generals have joined in as well. Retired Lieutenant General William E. Odom, to name just one, has said that the proposed change in course will, and I quote, ``re-orient U.S. strategy to achieve regional stability, and win help from many other countries--the only way peace will eventually be achieved.''

What of the people of the United States of America? It is their sons and daughters, their husbands and wives, their friends and family who have fought, have been injured and died in this war by the tens of thousands.

They, more than anyone else, have demanded that America's mission in Iraq be changed. This bill is a statement that Congress will no longer fund the war as it exists today.

With it, Democrats are demanding accountability and requiring that future support be based on tangible progress being made. We are refusing to ask our soldiers to continue fighting an open-ended battle to achieve goals that are constantly being altered. Such a request is not worthy of their sacrifice.

Let me say also that while the President said that this bill is nothing more than a political statement, the opposite is the case. Our bill reconciles hard realities with our most fundamental principles. It both protects our soldiers and seeks to give them the best chance to help to produce a secure Iraq. It could not be more sincere, and it will soon be on the President's desk. If he rejects it, that will be his political statement and not ours.

Finally, I must add briefly that this legislation also contains $18 billion to be spent on critically needed health care for the veterans injured in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly for the traumatic brain injury victims, for Katrina recovery operations, for the avian flu vaccines, wildfire prevention, and for health insurance for children, among many other things. Those things are what supplemental bills have always been for, not to fund wars.

The President and his allies have chosen to dismiss this spending as unjustifiable pork. They have asked Congress to deliver a clean bill, in their words, but I can't think of programs much cleaner and more worthy of our support than those I just mentioned.

The definition of a great nation is one that has the power to define its own destiny and that uses its strength wisely to help others in need. Insurgents who seek to destroy what is left of the Iraq society are abominable, but they can do far less damage to our country than we do to ourselves by pursuing flawed policies that deplete our Armed Forces, undermine our alliances, and lessen our influence and moral authority around the world.

Why should we do what they cannot?

At the same time, the Iraqi people deserve so much more than the life of fear they now lead. But America can be true to itself; we must have the humility and the vision to recognize what is working and what is not, and to correct our failures when reality demands it.

I believe that we are, indeed, a great Nation, Mr. Speaker. We have the ability to choose our own way forward. Starting today, starting here, we can choose to reject a path that is failing our soldiers, our citizens, and the people of Iraq. And we can set a new course that offers a real chance for a better future instead of endless, unfulfilled promises.

This bill is the first step on that new course, and I urge everybody in this body and in the White House to see it for what it truly is. It is not an admission of defeat, but it is proof that our country has the courage and the foresight needed to truly act like the great Nation that we truly are.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri and the Chair of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, the Chair of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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 am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely hard pressed to see how some people define ``success.''

I read in the New York Times front page that 80 percent of the marines who died of upper body wounds would have lived if only they had the proper equipment. I know that soldiers who serve in the National Guard and Reserve are losing their homes and their jobs, but never mind about that because the stock market is great. Aren't we doing well? It hasn't hurt us a bit. We haven't called for any sacrifice at all from the American people in this.

My heart is broken. I am ashamed and chagrined that this business about

the booming economy could be brought into this debate about life and death. My worry is about the young people who go over there and don't get the proper care that they need.

I couldn't believe the testimony of Tillman's brother yesterday and Jessica Lynch who said the military lied about them. What are we doing in this country? The country that fought the Second World War to save this world, we've been reduced to this, that we decide as long as the stock market is good, the world is good, and let them go over there and die because we are going to give them some kind of government we don't even know they want? For heaven sakes, to every man and woman in country there comes a moment to decide, Mr. Speaker. This is one of those moments.

We either vote for this rule and this bill, and we tell the President of the United States if he vetoes this, he is absolutely continuing on a road to absolute failure and that we are not going to be a party to it. We want to take care of the soldiers. And if he vetoes the money, it is on his head, not ours. But we will continue until we can get those soldiers and marines out of that morass.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to honor Ms. Christella (Chris) Gress from Grand Island, New York, who today received the first annual Commodore Greanoff Inspirational Leadership Award from the United States Coast Guard.

The Commodore Greanoff Inspirational Leadership Award recognizes the most distinguished United States Coast Guard Auxiliary Flotilla Commander, and parallels existing Coast Guard leadership awards for officers, chief petty officers, and civilians. The United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, established by Congress in 1939, has more than 27,000 members who are engaged in missions that involve boat safety education, search and rescue, and homeland security operations.

Ms. Gress is the Immediate Past Flotilla Commander of Flotilla 35, District 9 Eastern Auxiliary Region. As Commander of her Flotilla, Ms. Gress dedicated over 800 hours of her time to advance the mission and goals of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. Her commitment to the Auxiliary becomes even more impressive when one learns that she is holding multiple college teaching-jobs and working on a doctoral dissertation.

Ms. Gress is described as tireless and a natural motivator, and is credited with developing a strong sense of collective identity within her Flotilla. Ms. Gress hosted team exercises and fellowship events that welcomed new members and increased activity among experienced members. Under her leadership, Flotilla membership participation expanded in programs including vessel examinations, operations, and public education. In addition, Ms. Gress was the driving force behind an award-winning Flotilla newsletter.

Madam Speaker, Ms. Gress has earned the respect and high admiration of her community and the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. I am proud to recognize her as the first recipient of the Commodore Greanoff Inspirational Leadership Award.

Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 209, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 2 Offered by Ms. Woolsey

Mr. Speaker, we meet on what is the fourth day of the fifth year of the war in Iraq. It is a war that has gone on longer than the war in Korea. America has been fighting longer in Iraq than we did during World War II--even though that was an international conflict fought on two fronts against some of the most dangerous threats to our national security ever known.

Too many Members of this Congress and of this Administration have for years seen what they wanted to see in Iraq, and believed what they wanted to believe. But their conceptions couldn't matter less to the men and women of that nation, or to the men and women of the American military who are fighting there.

Civilians and soldiers don't live in the world as politicians say it is. They live in the world as it really is. And they live, every day, with the consequences of the decisions made here in this chamber.

During the first 4 years of the Iraq war, they had to live with an Administration and a Congress that either could not, or would not, see this conflict for what it really was: a war that was not being won, that was being fought by soldiers who often did not have the equipment they needed or the care they were owed, that was not improving the security of the Iraqi people, that was depleting our military and, as a result, endangering the long-term security of this nation, and that was based on a flawed strategy that desperately needed to be changed.

They lived with the former Secretary of Defense dismissing persistent equipment shortages by telling us that our nation had gone to war with the Army it had. By the time Mr. Rumsfeld had uttered those words, on December 9th, 2004, 1,288 U.S. soldiers had been killed.

They lived with predictions that the insurgency in Iraq was in its last throes, a statement made 6 months later. Four hundred thirty-seven more soldiers had lost their lives in those months.

And now, they live with more calls for patience from the Administration and its allies, and more denunciations of anyone who would seek a different course in Iraq.

As of today, more than 3,200 soldiers have died in this war. The civilian death toll is astonishing, with estimates now running as high as 1 million Iraqi men, women, and children killed as a direct or indirect result of the conflict and the chaos it has unleashed. Millions more have been dislocated, driven out of their homes and into refugee camps.

It is long past time for this institution to join with our soldiers and with the people of Iraq in seeing this war for what it really is.

The legislation before us today represents the first real chance Democrats have had since 2003 to change the course of the war in Iraq. And we intend to do it.

We will do it not because we are conceding anything to those who would do our Nation harm, not because we lack the will to continue the fight, and not because, as some would have you believe, we are giving up.

Instead, we are going to change the course of this war because the future of the people of Iraq hinges on it, because a basic level of respect for our soldiers demands it, and because the long-term security of our Nation depends on it.

Mr. Speaker, the simple reality is that the situation in Iraq is stagnant at best, and deteriorating at worst. Politically, economic and military goals are not being met there. Faced with such truths, why should this House pass yet another blank check for the war, as past Congresses have done?

Instead, this bill is based on a simple and logical idea: it makes America's continued involvement in Iraq conditional on the situation there improving.

America's soldiers will no longer be asked to fight in an open-ended war whose goal line keeps moving. This legislation requires Iraqi leaders to make the political compromises necessary to produce a working government that will function for all of Iraq--or else risk losing America's military support. And it will require security benchmarks to be met if American soldiers are to continue sacrificing their own safety for that goal.

But what is more, this bill represents the first step Congress has ever taken towards ending the war in Iraq.

A clear majority of the American people want this body to take decisive steps toward that end. A clear majority of our global allies want the same thing. A significant number of generals and military officials think that ending this conflict must be achieved sooner rather than later.

This bill is a response to their words, and to their counsel. It will not end the war immediately, nor will it end it recklessly.

Instead, it rejects the idea of a war in Iraq without end.

To continue funding this conflict without requiring any tangible progress to be made in Iraq makes no sense. It would achieve neither peace in that nation, nor security here.

But what it would achieve, Mr. Speaker, is the continued depletion and degradation of our military beyond all reason. It would continue to render our armed forces unable to fight in other parts of the world against other threats. And it would continue to force suffering soldiers to return to the battlefield time and again, despite physical and mental injuries.

We know the statistics: in addition to the 3,223 soldiers that have died, tens of thousands more have been injured, some permanently. And there are more than 32,000 Iraq veterans--32,000--who who every day suffer silently from the scourge of mental health problems. More than 13,000 of those men and women have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD.

And yet, they are afforded no relief. The President's escalation of this conflict is forcing more soldiers back into combat sooner, with less rest, with less training, and with less time to heal. There are even reports of men and women being sent back to Iraq who are too injured to wear body armor.

Mr. Speaker, it is important not to view these realities in the abstract. I want to share with you a story I recently heard, the story of one young lieutenant currently awaiting his second deployment to Iraq.

Though he trained as an engineer, his first tour of duty saw him bravely patrolling dangerous streets north of Baghdad. He returned last December, and was initially expecting a year on base during which to rest and train a new platoon.

Instead, he will be heading back months sooner. He says that the soldiers under his command are not going to get the time they need to train properly for their mission. The vehicles and equipment they now use to train for war are failing and often break They are physically weary, with many still suffering from the lingering effects of leg and back injuries. Others are battling more elusive damage, and are in counseling for PTSD. He even told me that the vast majority of the once married soldiers in his unit are now or will soon be divorced. Their lives outside of the war are coming apart.

And yet, if you ask him, he will never complain about these difficulties. They are all part of the life of the soldier, he says, a few of the many challenges he and his men will confront every day they are deployed. When those in the military are given a mission, he told me, they find a way to complete it. That creed is the foundation of the strength of our Armed Forces.

It is the personification of the word sacrifice, Mr. Speaker. This young soldier and those under his charge are going back to Iraq again, even though they are wounded, and tired, and lacking in training and equipment. They miss their families. They miss their lives back home. But they are going all the same--going simply because this body has given the President the right to send them into battle.

But what this soldier did tell me is that our Armed Forces cannot go on like this. He said that if the foundation of our military's strength--its refusal to admit defeat--is misused, then we will end up destroying our system of national defense.

We hear the reports of the 82nd Airborne, for decades able to respond anywhere in the world within 72 hours, now struggling to respond to anything besides deployment orders sending its soldiers to Iraq.

We see men and women in uniform being sent back for tour after tour after tour, our services desperately trying to find a way to meet new troop requirements.

Mr. Speaker, this war represents a dramatic misuse of our military. In the name of our national security, it is undermining the only true guarantor of national security that we have: our Armed Forces. And for 4 years, this Congress let it happen.

But not any more. Today, the House will finally recognize that our military is at the breaking point--not because of any inherent weakness, but because it is being asked to complete a mission no army could succeed at.

And so, that mission must change.

The new strategy this bill sets forth has nothing to do with surrender, Mr. Speaker. Instead, it has everything to do with doing what must be done to work toward a secure Iraq. And it has everything to do with refusing to allow those who would do us harm fool us into defeating ourselves--in the process, attaining a victory that they will never be able to achieve on their own.

Let me say as well that this funding bill also respects our soldiers enough to put their needs at the forefront of our national priorities, instead of leaving them behind. From now on, if they are asked to go into battle without being fully armored, fully rested, and fully trained, then the President himself will have to stand before this country and explain why it is necessary to do so.

This bill will also provide desperately needed funds for veterans' health care. Our country is seeing more wounded soldiers returning from abroad than at any point in 40 years, and yet for years, our health care system has failed thousands of them. It is unconscionable, and it is long past time that it was changed.

Finally, this bill both increases funding for the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan and for a variety of other critically important national security objectives.

Taken together, it represents the beginning of what will be a responsible and ethical shift in our national security priorities away from a mistaken conflict in Iraq and back toward other concerns--the continued rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, for example, and the needs of wounded soldiers at home.

By changing a flawed strategy that has weakened our military for years without getting us any closer to a stable Iraq, this legislation represents our country's best chance to shake both of our nations free from the shackles of a stalemate benefiting neither.

It is an important and historic bill, one that the people of Iraq deserve, that the American people deserve, and that our troops most certainly deserve. I am proud to support it, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee intends to meet on Tuesday, March 27, at 4 p.m. to report a rule that may structure the amendment process for floor consideration of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2008. The Committee on the Budget ordered the concurrent resolution reported on March 22, 2007, and is expected to file its report with the House later today.

Members who wish to offer an amendment to the concurrent resolution must submit 55 copies of the amendment and a brief description to the Rules Committee in H-312 in the Capitol no later than 10 a.m. on Tuesday, March 27. As in past years, the Rules Committee intends to give priority to amendments offered as complete substitutes. The text of the concurrent resolution should be available on the Rules Committee Web site later today.

Substitute amendments should be drafted by Legislative Counsel and also should be reviewed by the Office of the Parliamentarian to be sure that the substitute amendments comply with the rules of the House.

The Rules Committee is also scheduled to meet on Tuesday, March 27, at 4 p.m. to grant a rule which may structure the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 1538, the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act of 2007.

Members who wish to offer an amendment on this bill should submit 55 copies of the amendment and a brief description of the amendment to the Rules Committee in H-312 in the Capitol no later than 3 p.m. on Monday, March 26.

Amendments should be drafted to the bill as ordered reported by the Committee on Armed Services. A copy of the bill is posted on the Web site of the Rules Committee. Amendments should be drafted by Legislative Counsel and should be reviewed by the Office of the Parliamentarian to be sure that the amendments comply with the rules of the House. Members are also strongly encouraged to submit their amendments to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis regarding possible PAYGO violations.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 261 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 such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all

Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 261.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 261 provides for the consideration of the emergency supplemental, the U.S. Troops Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act. The rule provides 4 hours of general debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report shall be considered as adopted. The rule waives all points of order against the bill as amended and provides that the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, with a deep appreciation for how critical this bill is, the Rules Committee reported out a rule that allows for 4 hours of what will be a full debate. It allows for the consideration of clear and concise legislation that everyone in the Congress is familiar with. It is a responsible rule, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

But we are here today to debate much more than procedure, Mr. Speaker. We meet today on the fourth day of the fifth year of the war in Iraq, a conflict that has gone on longer than the Korean War, even longer than the Second World War, that war being fought against the greatest threat to world security.

The scenarios painted by politicians here about the war in Iraq don't affect the men and women fighting it or living it. They actually know what the world for them really is. And what is that reality? This is a war being fought by soldiers who often do not have the equipment they need or the care they are owed. And it is not improving security for the Iraqi people. It is depleting our military and endangering the security of this Nation; and that is to this day based on a flawed strategy that desperately needs to be changed.

Under such circumstances, for this Congress to support an open-ended commitment to this conflict, passing yet another blank check as past Congresses have done, would be a dereliction of duty. By contrast, passing a bill that has a chance of changing a stagnant situation in Iraq is not micromanaging; it is living up to what we owe our soldiers and the Iraqi people, to give them a fighting chance for success.

The supplemental makes America's continued involvement in Iraq conditional on the situation there improving. America's soldiers will no longer be asked to fight in an open-ended war whose goal line keeps moving. The bill would require Iraqi leaders to make the political compromises necessary to produce a working government, or risk losing the American military support. It will require the President's own security benchmarks to be met if American soldiers are to continue sacrificing their safety for that goal. And it will be the first step toward ending the war.

Ending this flawed conflict is crucial not just for Iraq, but also for the future of our own military and, hence, to our own national security.

This Congress was aghast when it learned of the conditions of Walter Reed. But every day, the men and women of our military are suffering beyond reason. Let me briefly share one story with you that I recently heard, the story of a young lieutenant awaiting his second deployment to Iraq.

His first tour saw him bravely patrolling dangerous streets north of Baghdad. He returned last December, expecting a year on base during which to rest and train a new platoon. Instead, with the escalation in place, he will be heading back months sooner. The soldiers under his command are not getting the time they need to train properly for their mission. The vehicles and equipment they use to train for war are failing and often break. They are physically weary, many still suffering from the lingering effects of leg and back injuries. Others are in counseling for post-traumatic stress disorder. Most of the soldiers who were married before the war are now divorced. Their lives outside the conflict are coming apart.

This lieutenant and his soldiers personify sacrifice. They never complain. When those in the military are given a mission, he told me, they find a way to complete it. That creed is why our Armed Forces are so strong.

But what this officer did tell me is that our Armed Forces cannot go on like this. He said that we are in danger of destroying our system of national defense. We see soldiers being sent back tour after tour, some too injured to wear the body armor. Our services are desperately trying to find a way to meet new troop requirements, sending back the wounded.

Mr. Speaker, this war is a dramatic misuse of our military. In the name of our national security, it is undermining the only true guarantor of national security that we have, our Armed Forces. And for years this Congress has let it happen, but not anymore.

Today the House will finally recognize that our military is at the breaking point, not because of any inherent weakness, but because it is being asked to complete a flawed mission. And so that mission itself must change.

Let me add as well that while our soldiers may stoically bear the burdens of short leaves and shoddy equipment, that in no way means that we in Congress should allow it to happen.

This bill respects our men and women in uniform enough to put their needs at the forefront of national priorities. From now on, if they are asked to go into battle without being fully armored, fully rested, and fully trained, then the President himself will have to stand before them, look them in the eye, and explain why he thinks our national safety is worth that level of sacrifice.

The legislation will also provide desperately needed funds for veterans' health care. Our country is seeing more wounded soldiers returning from abroad than at any point in 40 years, and yet our health care system has failed thousands of them. It is unconscionable, and it is long past time that that state of affairs is radically changed.

And, finally, this bill both increases funding for the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan and for a variety of other critically important national security objectives. Taken together, it represents the beginning of what will be a responsible and ethical shift in our national security priorities away from a war in Iraq that we can't end and back towards where it ought to be.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is the first real chance that Democrats have had since 2003 to change the course of the war in Iraq, and we intend to do it. We will do it not because we are conceding anything to those who would do our Nation harm, not because we lack the will to fight for security, and not because, as some would have you believe, we are giving up. With this first step, we will change the course of this war because the future of the people of America depends on it, because a basic level of respect for our soldiers demands it, and because the long-term security of our Nation requires it.

This is an important and historic bill, and I am proud to support it. I urge all of my colleagues to do the same thing.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I have no further speakers, and I will close.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the resolution.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 156. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the Wyland Foundation for its outstanding achievements in environmental education programs. Since 1993, the Wyland Foundation has dedicated itself to protecting the earth's oceans by bridging the world of art and science.

The Wyland Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting, protecting, and preserving the world's oceans, waterways, and marine life. The foundation, led by the artist Wyland, encourages environmental awareness through education programs, life-size public arts projects, and community events. The Wyland Foundation strives to inspire as many people as possible--especially school children--to learn more about our oceans and aquatic habitats.

Perhaps the Wyland Foundation's best known initiative is the Whaling Walls: Art in Public Places. Through Whaling Walls, the Wyland Foundation works with communities to paint large-scale murals of migrating gray whales, breaching humpbacks, blue whales, and other marine life. The program is predicated on the idea that the best way to teach someone about environmental conservation is to show them what they are conserving.

The 81st Whaling Wall was painted at the Aquarium of Niagara in Niagara Falls, New York in 1998. The project allowed children ranging from three to eighteen years old to

work side-by-side with Wyland to create a beautiful indoor mural. Niagara's Whaling Wall is a regional treasure that has helped foster a greater appreciation and awareness for our world's oceans.

Madam Speaker, I want to again commend the Wyland Foundation for their commitment to protecting the world's oceans, and their partnership with the Aquarium of Niagara.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Niagara University Men's Basketball Team on winning the 2007 Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference (MAAC) Tournament on March 5, 2007. Their 83-79 win over Siena University clinched the Purple Eagles' second MAAC championship and NCAA tournament appearance in the last three years. Niagara University has become the first team from Western New York since the 1960s to get to the NCAA tournament twice in a three-year span.

In addition to winning the MAAC championship, Niagara University recorded its 11th straight victory, the program's longest winning streak since its 1992-93 season. Their victory was a total team effort. Freshman guard Tyrone Lewis led the way with a career-high 24 points, earning him the tournament's most valuable player award. Senior guard Lorenzo Miles added 21 points, while classmate Clif Brown recorded 14 points and 16 rebounds. Both Miles and Brown were named to the all- tournament squad. Junior forward Charron Fisher also posted a double- double, his sixth of the season, with 13 points and 12 rebounds.

Certainly all of the talented Niagara University players deserve praise for their part in bringing Niagara University back into March Madness. But a team is only as successful as its leader, and Coach Joe Mihalich is one of the class acts of the NCAA. Now in his ninth season at Niagara University, Coach Mihalich demands accountability from his players both on and off the court, and is a strong role model for the entire university community. Under his guidance, the Purple Eagles have advanced to the MAAC Championship game four times in the last six years, and have posted nine-straight winning seasons. Along the way, Mihalich quietly has collected the second-most wins in school history.

Madam Speaker, I could not be prouder of the Niagara University's Purple Eagles, and I wish to commend University President Father Joseph Levesque, the coaching staff and players, and students for this championship season. I will be watching the team's first round game in the NCAA tournament as they continue their winning streak and keep Niagara University on the national stage.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 219 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.

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

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 219 provides for consideration of House Resolution 202, the 110th Congress committee funding resolution. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration.

The rule makes in order the committee funding substitute adopted by the Committee on House Administration. It also provides for a new Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, the text of which is printed in the Rules report accompanying the rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the resolution and provides that the resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us would allow for the consideration of a bipartisan committee funding resolution. It was reported out of the House Administration Committee with the support of both Chairwoman Millender-McDonald and Ranking Member Ehlers.

I want to take a moment to say how pleased I am with the way in which this bill embodies the spirit of fiscal responsibility that is so often advocated by this body.

The financial pressures on our government are immense. Recent years have left us with an unprecedented amount of foreign debt. At the same time, my fellow Democrats and I are struggling to ensure the safety of tens and hundreds of thousands of troops abroad, while refusing to shortchange vital domestic programs here at home.

The resolution reflects that reality. While not all committees have received the budget increases they hoped for, this funding resolution provides a bipartisan approach to ensuring that they can fulfill their duties and obligations without asking Congress to spend money we don't have. It includes only a 2.4 percent increase in funding from last year, one of the smallest increases in committee funding in the last 12 years.

As vital as it is to start bringing home some fiscal sanity back to Washington, there is another reason why the legislation is significant. As a result of actions taken by the Rules Committee yesterday, it now contains a provision that represents a profound departure from the approach that recent Republican Congresses have taken toward one of the most pivotal issues of our time, global warming.

Global warming is not merely an environmental issue. It is also a social issue and an economic one. It affects all nations and all peoples, and its consequences, if left unchecked, could produce truly dramatic changes to human society the world over.

For decades, evidence has mounted that our planet's temperature is rising, and that evidence has become so universally recognized that it is no longer in dispute. President Bush himself even used the phrase ``climate change'' in his State of the Union Address this year, the first time he has acknowledged it.

But the question raised today by some is a different one: Is global warming caused by human activity? Or is it merely a natural phenomenon akin to the last ice age, something that we have to adapt to but we cannot affect?

Efforts to break the link in the public imagination between human activity and climate change are still ongoing. Doubt is still being seeded in the public mind. Sometimes these efforts are blunt. Despite the President's recent admission, his administration has also been accused of rewriting sections of impartial Federal scientific reports that tie human activity to global warming.

Other times, the efforts are more subtle. We hear all the time Members of this body express their desire to, as they put it, ``get to the bottom'' of the problem of climate change so that we may come to understand its true cause.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I on the Democratic side of the aisle do not share this degree of doubt, nor do we seek to disseminate it. We have been convinced by numerous internationally recognized scientific studies, by years of careful analysis and by endless measurements taken around the world. We have been convinced, as have people the world over, by the overwhelming weight of available, impartial and scientific evidence. We have been convinced of a simple idea, that human beings are altering the planet's environment.

And, as such, we have committed ourselves to being the party of personal, environmental responsibility. We have pledged to confront this great challenge before it is beyond our grasp, beyond our ability to change even if we wanted to.

We have promised a strong path of action, and this bill represents the first steps along that path taken by this Congress in years, if not ever.

The resolution will create a fully funded select committee whose sole purpose will be to focus on global warming. The committee will have 15 members, nine from the majority and six from the minority. It will serve as a much-needed congressional forum for hearings, investigations and discussion, and will have the chance to make recommendations concerning climate change.

Simply put, people all the world over can breathe easier because the resolution will institutionalize the commitment of the House of Representatives to confronting global warming.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a moment to address one of the criticisms of this rule that is likely to be voiced by the minority. We may be told that a hearing and markup process for the select committee did not take place before the rule was authored.

But a question like this one, the question of whether or not we should address global warming, has had an ongoing public hearing for a generation. Numerous arguments on both sides of the question have been made. And at the end of it all, the overwhelming consensus, both among the public and among internationally recognized climate scientists, is that global warming is real; it is human influenced; and it is our responsibility to control.

The creation of this select committee is a response to that international public hearing. Democrats have called for the need to fight climate change for years, and today we have the chance to turn that call into action, and we don't intend to waste it.

Mr. Speaker, we can't forget that, in 1997, the Republican-controlled Senate rejected the Kyoto Protocol, a path-breaking international effort to control global warming. And we must not forget that, back in 2001, one of the administration's first acts of international significance was the dramatic rejection of that same set of principles.

It is time for this House to join the vast majority of the world community that recognizes the threat global warming poses and the role that our Nation plays in it. It is time for us to be leaders on this issue and to take responsibility for our actions.

I urge the passage of this rule and of the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me take 30 seconds to say to my good friend, Mr. Dreier, that while he has made much of the fact that a bipartisan group went before the committee to beg for money, that it was turned down by a bipartisan pair, the Chair and the ranking member of that committee, perhaps he should take up his complaint with Mr. Ehlers who was the Republican ranking member on that committee.

Now I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to enter into the Record a very important piece of information which has just come my way.

Printed in the New York Times this morning: ``Internal memorandums circulated in the Alaskan division of the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service appear to require government biologists or other employees traveling in countries around the Arctic not to discuss climate change, polar bears or sea ice if they are not designated to do so.

``In December, the Bush administration, facing a deadline under a suit by environmental groups, proposed listing polar bears throughout their range as threatened under the Endangered Species Act because the warming climate is causing a summertime retreat of sea ice that the bears use for seal hunting.

``It remains unclear whether such a listing will be issued. Over the past

week, biologists and wildlife officials received a cover note and two sample memorandums to be used as a guide in preparing travel requests. Under the heading `Foreign Travel--New Requirement--Please Review and Comply, Importance: High,' the cover note said.''

`` `Please be advised that all foreign travel requests and any future travel requests involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice and/or polar bears will also require a memorandum from the regional director to the director indicating who'll be the official spokesman on the trip and the one responding to questions on these issues, particularly polar bears.'

``The sample memorandums, described as to be used in written travel requests, indicate that the employees seeking permission to travel `understands the administration's position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice will not be speaking on or responding to these issues.'

``Electronic copies of the memorandums and cover note were forwarded to The New York Times by Deborah Williams, an environmental campaigner in Alaska and a former Interior Department official in the Clinton administration.

`` `This sure sounds like a Soviet-style directive to me,' Ms. Williams said.

``Limits on government scientists' freedom to speak freely about climate change became a heated issue last year after news report showed that political appointees at NASA had canceled journalists' interview requests with climate scientists and discouraged news releases on global warming.''

Mr. Speaker, if there was ever a time for this Congress to take up global warming, and if there was ever a question that it was not the position of this administration to ignore it, I hope this puts it to rest.

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have none. I am ready to close.

Go ahead and use it any way you like.

I am not giving you my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman who chairs the Ethics Committee, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, I just have one statement to say, that it is not the job of the Rules Committee to change the amounts of money given to various committees by House administration. Frankly, I am sorry Mr. Lungren missed his trip, and I do know the Ethics Committee is going to be very busy. We have been reading about it.

I want to say the same thing Mrs. Tubbs Jones said: our leadership is not going to let it go without the money that it requires.

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

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

I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, this week on the floor, the House will provide our Nation with a clear, unambiguous answer to the most important question facing the country: Will this body side with the President's approach to the war in Iraq, or will we demand change?

Since Tuesday we have been debating President Bush's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. It is a debate that was long overdue and one which the American people and our troops risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve.

The simple reality is that two-thirds of the American public, including myself, do not trust the President's judgment when it comes to the war. It is a conflict that has been defined by mismanagement and misinformation since it began, and the results have been devastating for the Iraqi people and for our men and women in uniform.

We know that top administration officials, men like Douglas Feith, abused the public trust and misused the work of the intelligence community when making the case for the war. Since then, every piece of evidence suggests that the strategy employed by this administration has failed in Iraq. Sectarian strife in Iraq has not abated, with routine bombings that kill dozens of civilians daily. The unemployment rate in Iraq is as high as 25 percent and 40 percent. Baghdad has only a few hours of electricity per day.

Our troops have continued to pay the price of being caught in the middle of

another nation's civil war. 84 troops were killed last month, 48 more have been killed already this month.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, corruption, fraud and lack of oversight have haunted every aspect of our involvement in Iraq. Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, has uncovered $10 billion in reconstruction funding that simply disappeared once it was sent overseas. Projects critical to the rebuilding and stabilization of Iraq society have been handed out to private firms, using no-bid contracts, firms that failed to live up to their responsibilities.

To cite one example, the construction of a new Baghdad police college to train Iraqi security officers, a $75 million project of vital importance to stability, was completely undermined by a private construction company. The work was so shoddy that the classrooms it built posed a health risk to the students and had to be abandoned. That same fraud and lack of oversight for years have posed mortal risk to our soldiers.

In January of 2006, we learned that 80 percent of the U.S. Marines who had died of upper body wounds in Iraq would have lived if they had had the proper armor. A Pentagon report released last month stated once again that our troops have been sent into battle time and time again without proper armor equipment, a reality which still exists today.

This simply hasn't been a case of going to war with the army you have, as Mr. Rumsfeld said. We have faced these shortages in part because the Pentagon contracts were given to companies who weren't up to the job and couldn't meet the demands of the conflict.

A legitimate question might be, are we funding the troops or are we funding crooked contractors and Iraqi government officials? Hundreds of dollars have simply disappeared. These are borrowed dollars, ladies and gentlemen, mainly from China.

My friends on the other side of the aisle made two arguments against the resolution. They have told us that to condemn the President's surge means that this Congress is giving up in Iraq, and they told us that we cannot support the troops without supporting their mission.

Our troops have done their job in Iraq and they have risked their lives countless times, but now they are being asked to do something that no army can do, find a military solution to a political problem. If the mission we have given our brave soldiers is the wrong one, and the past 4 years prove that it is, why would we help our enemies by refusing to change course? If that mission is the wrong one, how is supporting the mission that is wrong supporting the troops? If the mission is the wrong one, then how is demanding a change giving up? Giving up means just the opposite, it means insisting on a continuing failing strategy.

This escalation of the war is the same failed strategy, all it will do is put more and more of our young men and women in harm's way. That reality has led it to be opposed by a bipartisan majority in this House. A Republican Representative recently said, ``This is not a fresh approach, it is just more of the same.''

The plan has been publicly opposed by numerous high-ranking generals, such as General John Abizaid, General Colin Powell and General James T. Conway, the Commandant of the Marine Corps. He recently said that the Joint Chiefs ``do not believe that just adding numbers for the sake of adding numbers, just thickening the mix, is the necessary way to go.''

We need to stop this escalation and change what we are doing in Iraq. We need to promote a political solution and a diplomatic solution to the problems.

I urge the passage of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 157 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I am pleased to yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

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

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 157 provides for comprehensive consideration of H. Con. Res. 63. It provides all of the Members of this House with 3 full days of debate on this important matter. It is a momentous day for us, Mr. Speaker.

This is the debate that many of us have yearned for for at least 4 years, and our constituents have long suffered the lack of this debate. Every Member who wishes to speak on the resolution will have the opportunity to do so.

The rule also, in addition to the time in the rule, allows the majority leader at any time, after consultation with the minority leader, to extend the debate when necessary.

On January 10, President Bush announced an escalation of the Iraq war that will put as many as 50,000 more of our men and women in harm's way. Why 50,000 and not 20,000? Because the number of support groups who have to be there to support the troops adds up to nearly 50,000.

This body owes them an explanation for why at this moment in history the sacrifice is justified. Democrats and Republicans alike are determined to defend our Nation from harm and are wholly committed to supporting and protecting the members of our Armed Forces. But numerous military officials of the highest ranks, like General Colin Powell, General John Abizaid, and many, many others, have expressed a strong belief that increasing the number of combat troops in Iraq will not improve the situation in the country.

Two-thirds of the American people believe that further escalating the war is the wrong path to follow. This morning, 67 percent of them polled said we should get out at once. Even respected Members in the House and the Senate have been quick to state publicly that they oppose any troop escalation.

Republican Representative Steve LaTourette best explained this broad bipartisan opposition to the President's plan. Like many Americans, he recently said, I desperately want America to succeed in Iraq and I would welcome a fresh approach, but this is not a fresh approach. This is more of the same.

For 4 years, through the deaths of 3,126 American service people and nearly 60,000 Iraqi civilians and 25 to 30,000 grievously wounded, through the forced dislocation of millions of Iraqi families, through numerous troop escalations, and $379 billion appropriated by this Congress, through unbearable strain stretching our National Guard and Army Reserve, their members, and their families to the breaking point, more of the same has never worked.

As of last June, only 25 percent of the Iraqis had clean water to drink. The oil production has fallen by nearly half since the war began. The unemployment rate in Iraq as of December ranged between 25 and 40 percent.

Sixty-seven more innocent civilians were killed just yesterday in yet another bombing. Eighty-four of our troops were killed last month. Forty-one have been killed in the last 2 weeks alone. My district has suffered six casualties since 2005, and 140 men and women from my State of New York have been killed so far in Iraq.

Every piece of evidence suggests that the strategy currently employed by this administration is failing in Iraq. The only argument being used to support an escalation of the war would be one of trust. If we just give the President one more chance, we are told, things will be different.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the American people and the military leaders who know what war really is and a broad majority of this Congress are tired of giving this administration one more chance and have no reason to give it our trust.

The Pentagon Inspector General recently reported that statements made by Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith, during the runup to war, were ``inconsistent with the consensus in the intelligence community and drew conclusions that were not fully supported by available intelligence.''

Mr. Feith joins the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Rice, and many others who made statements which simply misled us into war. So why should we trust the administration's assessments of Iraq?

Why should we trust the President to give the new troops that he wants to send the protection that they need to come back home unharmed? Despite all the President's rhetoric in support of our Armed Forces, a second Pentagon report released at the end of January bluntly states that for years in Iraq and Afghanistan ``servicemembers experienced a shortage of force protection equipment and were not always equipped to effectively complete their mission.''

In fact, the report speaks of soldiers having to trade off Kevlar vests because there were not enough for each of them. This is what is happening today, Mr. Speaker. We were aware when we first went into the war that we were ill prepared, but 4 years later it is no better.

The Washington Post noted just yesterday that many Humvees still do not have the armor needed to protect them from the bombs that are killing and injuring 70 percent of our troops abroad.

While our troops have gone unprotected, corruption exploitation and incompetence has squandered billions of dollars and allowed vital reconstruction projects to be handed to well-connected companies that failed to fulfill their duties. Unbid contracts proliferate. Despite it all, for years the administration treated accountability as if it were a dirty word.

And why should we expect that without a radical change, of course, that things will suddenly improve?

Mr. Speaker, changing a broken course in Iraq is not going to demoralize our troops or abandon them. Frankly, they must wonder what it is we have been doing here all along. To the contrary, it is the only way to support the troops.

Changing a broken course will not provide our enemies with encouragement either. If our strategy is not working, then why would we help our enemies by resolutely adhering to the failing plan?

Now, that is a question that needs to be asked again. If our strategy is not working, why would we help our enemy by resolutely adhering to the failing plan?

Democrats are insisting on a new level of accountability in Congress, calling 52 hearings since January 4. But we also need a new course in Iraq. We need to oppose this escalation and stubborn adherence to a failing strategy.

We need to shift our focus and footprint in the region and to accept what so many observers have known for years: The conflict in Iraq will only be solved politically, not militarily.

As strongly as I feel on this matter, Mr. Speaker, I recognize that many of my colleagues in the House have a different perspective.

What is needed is a serious discussion conducted by serious people. The first step of such a discussion is a focused, clear and full debate on the question of the escalation itself. We need an unambiguous up-or- down vote on the escalation. We are keeping this rule and

this bill so straightforward in order to best achieve that result.

I want to emphasize that this is the first step, and Congress will have many opportunities during discussions of the supplemental funding request, for example, to debate the numerous dimensions of this war and to present new ways forward.

But we must first know where we stand. Our goal this week is to establish whether Congress disagrees or agrees with the President's current approach to Iraq. If the answer is no, then we will have the basis for forcing the President to work in a bipartisan way with us to change that approach.

The obvious truth is that a failure to achieve such a change will seal the fate of this war as one of the greatest blunders in America's history.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

Mr. Speaker, I have one remaining speaker. Is my colleague ready to close?

That is right.

No, I have one remaining speaker.

Do you have any further speakers?

All right. Why don't you go ahead then and we will have our speaker after you.

I have only got the one speaker. My understanding is if you want to close, you need to do it now.

Yes. Mr. Sestak will be my final speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the remainder of our time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 56 minutes

p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, February 13, 2007, at 9 a.m., for morning hour debate.