[Pages H7674-H7719]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

RESPONSIBLE REDEPLOYMENT FROM IRAQ ACT

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 533, I call up
the bill (H.R. 2956) to require the Secretary of Defense to commence
the reduction of the number of United States Armed Forces in Iraq to a
limited presence by April 1, 2008, and for other purposes, and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 2956

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Responsible Redeployment
from Iraq Act''.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that--

[[Page H7675]]

(1) the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), enacted into
law on October 16, 2002, authorized the President to use the
Armed Forces as the President determined necessary and
appropriate in order to defend the national security of the
United States against the continuing threat posed by the
Government of Iraq at that time;
(2) the Government of Iraq which was in power at the time
the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution of 2002 was enacted into law has been removed from
power and its leader indicted, tried, convicted, and executed
by the new freely-elected democratic Government of Iraq;
(3) the current Government of Iraq does not pose a threat
to the United States or its interests; and
(4) after more than four years of valiant efforts by
members of the Armed Forces and United States civilians, the
Government of Iraq must now be responsible for Iraq's future
course.

SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ARMED FORCES IN
IRAQ AND TRANSITION TO A LIMITED PRESENCE OF
THE ARMED FORCES IN IRAQ.

(a) Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense shall commence
the reduction of the number of Armed Forces in Iraq beginning
not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act and shall complete the reduction and transition to a
limited presence of the Armed Forces in Iraq by not later
than April 1, 2008.
(b) Reduction and Transition To Be Carried Out in a Safe
and Orderly Manner.--The reduction of the number of Armed
Forces in Iraq and transition to a limited presence of the
Armed Forces in Iraq required by subsection (a) shall be
implemented in a safe and orderly manner, with maximum
attention paid to protection of the Armed Forces that are
being redeployed from Iraq.
(c) Reduction and Transition to Further Comprehensive
Strategy.--The reduction of the number of Armed Forces in
Iraq and transition to a limited presence of the Armed Forces
in Iraq required by subsection (a) shall further be
implemented as part of the comprehensive United States
strategy for Iraq required by section 4 of this Act.

SEC. 4. COMPREHENSIVE UNITED STATES STRATEGY FOR IRAQ.

(a) Strategy Required.--Not later than January 1, 2008, the
President shall transmit to the appropriate congressional
committees a comprehensive United States strategy for Iraq.
(b) Matters To Be Included.--The strategy required by
subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) A discussion of United States national security
interests in Iraq and the broader Middle East region and the
diplomatic, political, economic, and military components of a
comprehensive strategy to maintain and advance such interests
as the Armed Forces are redeployed from Iraq pursuant to
section 3 of this Act.
(2) A justification of the minimum force levels required to
protect United States national security interests in Iraq
after April 1, 2008, including a description of the specific
missions of the Armed Forces to be undertaken. The
justification shall include--
(A) the projected number of Armed Forces necessary to carry
out the missions;
(B) the projected annual cost of the missions; and
(C) the expected duration of the missions.
(3) As part of the justification required by paragraph (2),
the President shall, at a minimum, address whether it is
necessary for the Armed Forces to carry out the following
missions:
(A) Protecting United States diplomatic facilities and
United States citizens, including members of the Armed Forces
who are engaged in carrying out other missions.
(B) Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic
positions.
(C) Engaging in actions to disrupt and eliminate al-Qaeda
and its affiliated organizations in Iraq.
(D) Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security
Forces.
(4) Specific plans for diplomatic initiatives to engage
United States allies and others in the region to bring
stability to Iraq.
(c) Update of Strategy.--Not later than July 1, 2008, and
every 90 days thereafter, the President shall transmit to the
appropriate congressional committees an update of the
strategy required by subsection (a), including a description
of the number of Armed Forces deployed to Iraq and the
missions for which such Armed Forces are so deployed.
(d) Form.--The strategy required by subsection (a) and each
update of the strategy required by subsection (c) shall be
transmitted in unclassified form, but may contain a
classified annex, if necessary.
(e) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on
Appropriations, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the
House of Representatives; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on
Appropriations, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate.

SEC. 5. ARMED FORCES DEFINED.

In this Act, the term ``Armed Forces'' has the meaning
given the term in section 101 of title 10, United States
Code.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cardoza). Pursuant to House Resolution
533, debate shall not exceed 4 hours, with 3 hours equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Armed Services and 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) each will control 90 minutes, and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support for the Responsible
Redeployment from Iraq Act.
Mr. Speaker, out of all of this Iraq business, there's one star, and
that star, as every American should know and appreciate, is the young
American in uniform. That is the purpose of this legislation, and I
take this opportunity to compliment those who serve our country
wherever they may be, those in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the
world or here within our United States. I'm proud of them. And they are
our stars.
Mr. Speaker, we have been engaged in Iraq since March of 2003. And in
hearing discussion on the rule, it's obvious that some people wish to
confuse the effort in Afghanistan with the effort in Iraq. They are
separate and distinct.
The war in Afghanistan is something that we needed to do. The Taliban
government gave sanctuary to the al Qaeda terrorists in that country of
Afghanistan, and we did the right thing by going in there.
The war in Iraq is one of choice. There have been discussions and
difficulty and debate over how we got there, but we are there. But
people should know that the insurgency in Iraq and the subsequent
sectarian violence between the Shiite and Sunni is a different and
distinct war from that in Afghanistan.
You know, in history, we learn from the past. Strategic mistakes have
been made, and we're supposed to learn from that. And we have to go to
our revolution in 1776, when the British General Howell did not follow
up his victories against George Washington's troops on Long Island.
Consequently, George Washington's troops were able to encamp at Valley
Forge and later attack successfully Trenton and New Jersey. That was a
strategic mistake that allowed our revolution to be successful.
Lee's invasion of the north, the battles of Antietam and Gettysburg,
were strategic mistakes of the Confederacy.
And, Mr. Speaker, sadly, we have seen not only strategic mistakes in
Iraq, we have seen irretrievable strategic mistakes; no plan for the
aftermath, the initial victory, the number of troops was not as General
Shinseki recommended, far too few; the unguarded caches of weapons and
ammunition, allowing the insurgency to have free access to them; the
dismissal of the Iraqi Army, rather than giving them a pay check and a
shovel, the closing of the Iraqi industries, the deBaathification,
which put thousands of people out of work, including thousands of
school teachers. These irretrievable mistakes made it very difficult
for us to have any sort of positive success in that country.
We hear the call, well, wait until September. There'll be another
report. Well, we have been in Iraq for four Septembers. There is the
old song that those of us with a little gray in our hair remember as
the September song. And one line from that song of yesteryear, ``we
haven't got time for the waiting game.'' That's where we are now. We
don't have time for the waiting game.
The purpose of this is a matter of readiness. It's a matter of
national security. It's a matter that we must face now, or else the
strain and stretch on our ground forces, particularly the Army and, of
course, the Marines, will be beyond repair for many, many years.
It's a matter of strategic importance that we redeploy from Iraq in a
responsible manner, and that's what this bill does. And we are able to
keep our forces strong.
We never know what's going to happen. The last 30 years, we've had 12
military contingencies in which our Armed Forces have been engaged,
four

[[Page H7676]]

of which have been major in size; none of them predictable. We don't
know what the future holds. But for national security interests, we
need to have a ready force, particularly our ground forces, which are
being strained so very much now.
Further, it is important that we pass the security of Iraq over to
the Iraqi government and to the security forces of that country. We
cannot hold their hand forever. They must step up to the plate and take
over their own security. It's important that that happen.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, initially sets forth a sense of Congress that
the authorization for use of military force against Iraq was enacted
into law in October of 2002, and that the government of Iraq that was
in power at that time has been removed and it's leader tried, convicted
and executed by a freely elected government of Iraq; and further, that
the government of Iraq, the current government of Iraq does not pose a
threat to the United States, and for more than 4 years, the efforts of
our Armed Forces have been valiant in their work and in their combat in
that country.
We need a responsible redeployment. This legislation gives it to us.
It states that the Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of
the number of armed forces in that country beginning not later than 120
days after the date of enactment. It also states that such redeployment
shall be complete to a limited presence which is spelled out in the
bill, not later than April 1, 2008.
The question before us, are we, as a country, any safer now than we
were when we went into Iraq in March of 2003? What has it done for the
security of our country?
We see the sectarian violence, on top of the insurgency, the
insurgency being aided by foreign fighters, many of them al Qaeda, and
consequently, we know that the end must be done by the Iraqi security
forces. That's what we are trying to do in this legislation;
responsible redeployment of the American forces, cause the Iraqi troops
and forces to take over their own security, and restore the readiness
to our ground forces here in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1230

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, following my remarks and Mr. Skelton's
remarks, I understand we are going to yield to the Foreign Affairs
Committee, and I would yield an additional 15 minutes of my time to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and also I would yield 30
minutes of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and that
he may be allowed to yield time in turn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, time may be so
controlled.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

July 12, 2007--On Page H7676 the following appeared: The SPEAKER
pro tempore. Without objection, time may still be controlled.

The online version should be corrected to read: The SPEAKER pro
tempore. Without objection, time may be so controlled.

========================= END NOTE =========================

There was no objection.
Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First, I want to express my great respect for my colleague, the
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, a partner on many, many
legislative endeavors and a gentleman who really has the welfare of the
troops of the United States in his heart when he speaks and when he
legislates.
But, Mr. Speaker, let me say this about this piece of legislation
which has been brought by the Democrat leadership before this House.
This is an attempt once again to stampede a retreat from Iraq, and it
is a gratuitous attempt to do this. There is no reason, only 3\1/2\
weeks after the surge of troops has been put in place, to now race for
the borders, to demand that the President start to wind up this
operation and start to leave, especially when General Petraeus will be
making recommendations to us on September 15. There is no reason to do
this. And I am reminded of when the surge was first announced and I was
on the floor in a discussion with a good colleague from the Democrat
side, the day after the surge had been announced when only a few people
were even in country from this increase in forces, and she said, There
has been a car bombing and that proves the surge doesn't work. And she
was ready to immediately start a retreat from the country, and I take
it a number of folks on that side of the aisle were willing to do that.
There is no reason to do this. We have an interim report which has
just come out. The interim report says that in the 18 areas of interest
in which progress has to be registered, there has been progress on
eight of them, there has been unsatisfactory progress on eight of them,
and on two of them it is too early to really make an evaluation. Well,
that is the interim report. And on September 15 we will get a further
report.
And as I look at the important things, the things that to me are
important in this report, one thing that is very important is the fact
that when we needed to get the three additional brigades and that
additional troop strength into Baghdad from the Iraqi Army, we got them
there. Even though they didn't show up early on 1\1/2\ years ago, this
time they showed up. Mr. Maliki was good on his commitment. They got
there. So things that were important to me with respect to this report
are being accomplished.
But the facts are we are only 27 days into this surge. And the
Democrat resolution really spells out no plan whatsoever. It asks the
President to come up with yet another plan, which is highly interesting
since he has a plan and since General Petraeus has stated that he will
recommend adjustments on September 15. So if there are adjustments to
make to the plan, they should come after General Petraeus appears
before us and gives us his recommended adjustments.
So what are we doing here? Well, what we are really doing is counting
votes. This is basically an attempt by the Democrat leadership to get a
hard vote count, see if any more people have slipped, if there are any
more votes on their side of the aisle so that they will be able to tee
this thing up and have another vote, hopefully, from their perspective,
to forward their goal, which is to start a retreat from Iraq as soon as
possible.
There is not a single recommendation in the resolution that is
offered by my good friend. There is no recommendation for a new
strategy. There is simply a series of questions asked of the
administration, and those questions can all best be answered when
General Petraeus comes before us.
So, Mr. Speaker, there are two messages that I see coming from Iraq;
and we all see in this very complex, very difficult mission lots of
messages. A message I saw the other day came from a senior Marine
leader. Do you know what it said? It said, ``We are crushing the enemy
in Anbar.'' And then a few minutes later, I saw a message from the
Democrat leadership that said, ``We have to get out now.'' I have seen
the Democrat leadership many times say, We are going to end this war.
Mr. Speaker, they don't have the ability to end this war. No American
has the ability to end this war. What they do have if they gain enough
power is only the ability to leave this battlefield.
Let's not stampede for the border, Mr. Speaker. This is not a time to
make a precipitous decision to start ordering the President on a policy
that is going to be reported on on September 15. Let's keep our
stability. Let's make sure that we don't pass this gratuitous piece of
legislation, Mr. Speaker, which really is nothing more than a vote
count for the Democrat leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation
and yield myself such time as I might consume.
Mr. Speaker, in Iraq today a misguided war is raging in our country's
name. We in this Congress and the American people across the country
are filled with admiration for the heroism and sacrifice of our
soldiers on the battlefield. But we cannot fathom the mindless
stubbornness of the administration fixated on illusory aids. It is
pathologically preoccupied with pursuing that despite all the evidence
of how destructive the situation has become.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen this movie before, quite literally, as any
classic film buff knows: ``The Bridge on the River Kwai,'' an Academy
Award-winning tale based on real events in World War II. Alec Guinness
plays a British colonel mesmerized and hypnotized by the goal of
building a bridge that will last through the ages even though doing so
will only strengthen the enemy. For a while Alec Guinness persuades his
fellow prisoners of war that completing his weird project will leave a
legacy of which they can be proud.

[[Page H7677]]

But it soon becomes clear that the real goal is to build a monument to
himself as he looks back on his few true achievements in life.
At one point this antihero tells his men, We can teach these
barbarians a lesson in Western methods and efficiency that will put
them to shame. Mr. Speaker, at this point the audience knows where the
real shame lies.
The American people know that what happens by our hand in Iraq will
be our legacy. We are no longer willing to tolerate keeping our sons
and daughters in the midst of a sectarian civil war. The war in Iraq
was launched by an administration using faulty intelligence and
mesmerized by a dream of some sort of monument to democracy in the
Middle East with Iraq at its center. It is past time to stop enabling
the construction of this folly.
The legislation before us directs that the redeployment of U.S.
forces in Iraq be carried out in a safe and orderly manner. It sets a
time certain by which that should start, and it is clearly intended to
bring about a major reduction in our troop presence by April of next
year. And in the meantime, our legislation will compel the
administration to come up with something which amazingly enough to date
it hasn't had: a comprehensive strategy for Iraq addressing our
national security interests not only there but in the entire region and
the ways to maintain our interests even as this redeployment is carried
out.
Mr. Speaker, today the administration issued its interim report on
the troop escalation in Iraq. Though the White House chooses to focus
on the benchmarks that have been met in what it calls a
``satisfactory'' way, the assessment, in fact, shows that Iraq has made
unsatisfactory progress on half of the 18 political and military goals
that Congress set for Iraq this spring.
The people of Iraq and our fighting forces there know the situation
all too well. The index of progress that they face each day tells them
much more than a 25-page report can ever say. With every car bomb that
takes a civilian toll, every insurgent's bullet that finds its mark,
every roadside explosive that maims or kills one of our own brave men
and women in uniform, the sacrifices mount; and the result is anything
but satisfactory.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, our measure deserves our full and
unwavering support. We need to direct a misguided administration to
face reality and to start the responsible redeployment of our forces
from Iraq. By asking this Congress to extend our patience yet again, by
pointlessly risking our troops, and by continuing to ignore the will of
the American people to end this war, the administration is reaching for
a bridge much too far.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, which seeks to impose
a strategy of defeat on our Armed Forces and our country. By binding
our military and our foreign policy in a straitjacket, this legislation
would accomplish what thousands of our enemies have sought: to force
the United States to retreat from Iraq without a plan for victory.
Proponents of rapid withdrawal would like us to ignore the reality
that Iraq is but one of the critical battlefields in an ongoing war
against Islamic jihadists, against global terrorism, a war declared by
the jihadists and which saw its beginnings in November 1979, when
Iranian radicals stormed our embassy, took Americans hostages, and held
them captive for 444 days.
From there Americans, Westerners, innocent human beings were
targeted. Where and when were they targeted? In the bombings of the
Marine barracks in the U.S. embassy in Beirut in 1983, in the bombings
of the World Trade Center in 1993, in the bombings of the Khobar Towers
in 1996, in the attacks of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998,
and in the attacks on the USS Cole in the year 2000.
Proponents of rapid withdrawal want us to look at the bombings in
Iraq in a vacuum, disregarding the similarities to the suicide bombers
that have killed scores of innocent Israelis, those who planned and
carried out the bombings in London, in Madrid, in Bali that claimed so
many innocent lives.

{time} 1245

These may not be the exact individuals, nor the same groups, but they
are part of a global terrorist network working toward the same end, to
destroy and to attack us and our allies.
The Islamic jihadists will not stop their agenda of destruction
simply because we quickly withdraw from Iraq. They will, perhaps, stop
when they see our nations, our cities, our communities burning, just as
the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon burned on that terrible
day of September 11, 2001.
They have clearly articulated their goals, listen to their words; al
Qaeda's second in command, Al Zawahiri, made it clear in May of this
year, and I quote him: ``The empire of evil, the United States, is
about to end and a new dawn is about to break over mankind, which will
be liberated from the caesars of the White House and Europe and from
the Zionists.''
Those seeking to impose an immediate withdrawal deadline are so
intent on rushing through this legislation that they appear to have
failed to consider the consequences of a U.S. national security
interest of what euphemistically is being called a ``phased
redeployment.''
How is the strategy of quick withdrawal different from the strategy
outlined by Al Zawahiri in a letter that he sent to al Qaeda operatives
about driving the U.S. out of Iraq? How would we prevent the
development of Iraq into a full base of operations for al Qaeda and
other terrorist networks? We pretend to be armchair generals, seeking
to undermine the strategies called for by our commanders on the field.
But we should not.
Some label the current strategy of failure long before this full
complement of units had been, in fact, deployed. But those doing the
fighting in Iraq know that we have not failed, patriots such as the
Parsons brothers from my congressional district.
Huber Parsons was serving his third deployment in Iraq, this time
with the Army Stryker Brigade, when his vehicle was struck by a deep
buried IED just a few months ago. His driver was killed, and Huber had
to undergo a number of surgeries. I had the honor of visiting him often
at Walter Reed. He is pictured here saluting his fallen brothers-in-
arms at a memorial service in Fort Lewis, Washington. His twin, Bill,
and his younger brother, Charlie, are both currently serving in Iraq,
also with the Army Stryker Brigade. They, like my stepson, Doug, and my
daughter-in-law, Lindsay, and so many others who are currently deployed
in Iraq, are disheartened when they hear the references to failure and
consider that the talks of this rapid withdrawal shows a lack of
confidence in their ability to defeat the enemy.
Many patriots ask me why the Congress would endanger them and their
fellow service men and women by having them engage the enemy with an
immediately reduced force. Where, in a region of jihadists, are troops
to be deployed to? What Middle Eastern government would want to host a
retreating and defeated American Army? How does withdrawal to Kuwait or
Qatar, as some have proposed, help us fight al Qaeda in Iraq? If al
Qaeda strategies worked in Iraq and forced an American retreat, how can
we not conclude that they will also pursue them in Kuwait and Qatar and
beyond?
Mr. Speaker, George Orwell said that the quickest way of ending a war
is to lose it. We should be discussing strategies for victory, not how
to ensure our own defeat.
And let me close, Mr. Speaker, by reading the words of General
Petraeus in an interview just a few days ago word for word. He said,
``I can think of few commanders in history who wouldn't have wanted
more troops, more time or more unity among their partners. However, if
I could only have one at this point in Iraq, it would be more time.
This is an exceedingly tough endeavor that faces countless
challenges.'' General Petraeus continues, None of us, Iraqi or
American, are anything but impatient and frustrated at where we are.
But there are no shortcuts. Success in an endeavor like this is the
result of steady, unremittent pressure over the long haul. It is a test
of wills, demanding patience, determination and stamina from all
involved.

[[Page H7678]]

General Petraeus, as we know, was unanimously confirmed by the United
States Senate to be our commander in Iraq, yet somehow we have become
better war commanders than General Petraeus.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the senior
member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Wexler of Florida.
Mr. WEXLER. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Speaker, President Bush stubbornly refuses to end the war in
Iraq. It is up to Congress to step forward and mandate that our troops
return home. Congress must deliver to the American people what they
voted for in November. It is Congress that must end this disastrous
war. At long last, this legislation delivers a responsible withdrawal
of American troops.
The stark reality is that the President's escalation strategy has
been an utter failure. Instead of a successful surge, the President's
policy in Iraq has regressed, and the death toll of American troops and
Iraqi civilians has mounted.
This President is unwilling to change course, despite overwhelming
American opposition to the war, despite failing to meet political,
economic and security benchmarks, and despite calls by Senate
Republicans urging a change in course. The President is in denial, and
it is time for Congress to deliver a reality check.
Our troops have sacrificed enough. Our military families have
suffered enough. American taxpayers have spent enough. Congress must
bring our troops home, and this bill does it.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentlelady from Florida for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I voted against the surge. And for 2\1/2\ years, I have
said that we need to keep the troop withdrawal issue on the table, but
I have also said during that time that the date for withdrawal should
be reserved for the commanders on the ground.
The bill before us was not introduced until yesterday, and in my
opinion, it is vague, at best; generously laced again, in my opinion,
with politics.
I excel at an understatement, Mr. Speaker, when I declare that this
war has been mismanaged. It was appropriate to remove Saddam, an
international terrorist, but there was never, in my opinion, a post-
entry strategy; therefore, mismanagement.
The Iraq issue, Mr. Speaker, is neither as favorable as its
proponents contend, nor as unfavorable as its opponents profess. The
good news is the evil-driven terrorists have not attacked us again. And
I am confident that many moderate Muslims do not embrace the useless
killing and destruction of property that has occurred in Iraq, but
their silent vocal opposition has been disappointing, at best. The
Iraqi Government has been disappointing as well, and we need to insist
upon more compliance it seems to me.
But given all the facts surrounding this matter, Mr. Speaker, I
believe this Chamber is well-advised to wait until September. We're
told that the general will be here in September to report what, if any,
favorable or unfavorable results have occurred since the surge, and I
believe that is our best policy today.
The cost has been enormous, as has been said, and we would be remiss
if we tried to deny that. But I think the right vote is against this
proposal today, and then let's revisit it subsequently when the general
comes before us in September.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ambassador Diane
Watson of California.
Ms. WATSON. Thank you very much, Chairman Lantos. And thank you,
Chairman Skelton, for crafting this resolution and giving us the
opportunity to discuss the war. And I want to thank our Speaker, Nancy
Pelosi, who has been steadfast in moving this Congress and this country
towards an honorable exit from our occupation of Iraq.
We are now 6 months into President Bush's vaunted escalation of the
war in Iraq, and we are not seeing progress. Recently, the Washington
Post reported that U.S. military commanders are increasingly relying on
Sunni militias to fight insurgent groups. Our military officers are
giving these militias weapons and intelligence and setting them loose.
Mr. Speaker, just a few months ago, the President told us he needed
to escalate the commitment of the United States soldiers to Iraq to
disarm ethnic militia. Now, we are arming them? Just a few months ago,
the President told us that ethnic militias were undermining the
security and stability of Iraq. Now, they are the guarantors of the
stability and security of Iraq?
When the President's strategy for victory involves arming the people
who, just a few months ago, were our sworn enemies, it becomes
difficult for any of us to explain to our constituents what our troops
are still doing there in Iraq.
The troops have done their job, and in an honorable way, but they
will not be successful if the President cannot decide what the mission
really is. And I remember him several years ago saying ``mission
accomplished.'' I am sure we will hear from a number of people here
that we need to give the escalation more time, that we need to wait
until September. I'm not willing to do that, Mr. Speaker. I'm not
willing to explain to the families of the soldiers who will die between
now and September that it took an extra 3 months to figure out the
President's plan, and there has been no strategy given to us for
success.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I'm pleased to yield 3
minutes to a member of our Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman
from Texas, Judge Poe.
Mr. POE. I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding time on this
important issue.
Redeployment. Withdrawal. These words mean the same thing, ``we
quit.'' ``Quitting'' Iraq is not a plan. It's not even a strategy; it
is a total handoff of responsibility to an unstable government with an
ill-prepared military.
I don't dispute that we must do more to ready Iraqis to handle their
own security. I do insist, however, that we cannot suddenly leave the
Iraqis scrambling to defend their new brand of democracy amidst chaos.
That is what this ``leave at any cost'' plan would do: leave our
enemies and those of the Iraqi people unfettered and free to pursue
their diabolical agenda in Iraq and throughout the world.
So I would like to ask those who want to quit exactly what they plan
to do to fight the terrorist operatives in Iraq when our troops turn
around and leave. What is the plan?
I would also like to know, who, besides the ``New York Times'', is
saying that the fight is lost in Iraq? Reports indicate that our troops
are making progress. Sectarian murders in Baghdad have declined in the
last 6 months. More Iraqis are coming to American troops with
information about the terrorists. And Iraqi citizens are organizing
against al Qaeda at the local level. Good for them.
Mr. Speaker, General Patton sailed with his soldiers from Algiers to
Italy in World War II, and he said to them, ``No man is beaten until he
thinks he is.'' This war is not over unless we quit. And when we quit,
we are certainly defeated.
Here is what the defeatists say about the battle. They say that our
troops were ill-prepared to go into battle, and there weren't enough of
them; that they had inferior equipment; that they had improper uniforms
for the extreme weather; U.S. intelligence was flawed; that we
underestimated the resolve of the enemy; that Americans and our allies
were killed by friendly fire. No, Mr. Speaker, this is not the war in
Iraq, but this is the Battle of the Bulge in World War II, a battle
that my father fought in. Those Americans, led by General Patton and
others, did not run or quit because war is hard. You do not win wars by
evacuating. And Americans won the Battle of the Bulge and broke the
will of the enemy.
I ask this question: How does this plan to force the United States to
withdraw from Iraq differ from al Qaeda's plan to force us to withdraw
from Iraq? Why wouldn't al Qaeda celebrate if this bill is passed?

[[Page H7679]]

Mr. Speaker, General Patton went on to say to his troops, ``The glory
of American arms, the honor of our country, the future of the whole
world rests in our individual hands. See to it that you are worthy of
this great trust.''
I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that the honor of our country is at stake
again today, but that's not all. Our security, the security of Iraqis,
and the future of democracy and liberty in the Middle East, all of
these are in our hands.
Let us be worthy of this trust. And that's the way it is.

{time} 1300

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished Member from the State of Washington (Mr. Smith) of the
Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, in listening to this debate, I
think the biggest problem is the proponents of the stay-the-course plan
in Iraq continually and completely equate the battle in Iraq with the
battle against al Qaeda and the terrorists who struck us. The two are
not the same. In fact, we heard from Ms. Ros-Lehtinen that Iraq is but
one of the battlefields that we are fighting against al Qaeda. That is
absolutely true. Yet we have 80 percent of our assets in Iraq.
Meanwhile, report after report come out that al Qaeda is strengthening
themselves in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where we don't have enough
resources.
Our argument is not for retreat. Our argument is that there is a
better way to fight al Qaeda and those who threaten us than to put all
of our assets in Iraq while not paying enough attention to where al
Qaeda is really strengthening itself. In Iraq, it is primarily a power
struggle in which al Qaeda is a player. It is not primarily about al
Qaeda's threat against the U.S. In Afghanistan, with the Taliban and al
Qaeda, it is a very different story.
Our troops, our assets, the lives and the talents of the people of
this country are tied down in Iraq fighting what is primarily a civil
war instead of better fighting al Qaeda. In fact, our presence, in many
ways, has strengthened al Qaeda. Syria would never be an ally of al
Qaeda in any sort of real-world scenario, because al Qaeda wants to
topple their regime. Yet to defeat us in Iraq, they have come up with
an alliance of convenience.
There is a better way to fight al Qaeda. We are here today to change
course in Iraq because it is a better way to protect this country.
Timing isn't the issue. Six months ago, these facts were basically the
same as they are today. In September, these facts will be basically the
same as they are today. We cannot wait if we are going to have the best
possible strategy for defeating al Qaeda, the group that threatens us
most, instead of getting bogged down in the civil war and in the tribal
differences that are present in Iraq. We want to win, not to quit. This
is the better way to do it.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), the distinguished ranking member of
the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman and my good friend
from Florida for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we are come to this floor today, it seems to me, in an
important moment in the life of two nations. We are come to this floor
at a time when our colleagues in the other body are debating a Defense
authorization bill and will be considering amendments about a new
course in Iraq.
So I do not question the decision of the majority in this chamber to
consider these same issues, particularly in light of the release of the
initial benchmark assessment report by our military and diplomatic
leadership in Iraq. It is a report, I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that
is to me frustrating, as it is, I think, to Members on both sides of
this aisle. Of 18 benchmarks included in the interim report to
Congress, progress on eight of the benchmarks has been characterized as
satisfactory, but progress on another eight are unsatisfactory, with it
being too early to tell on another two.
Two months from now, the Crocker-Petraeus report that Congress has
been promised will provide, we believe, a broader assessment. But,
frankly, I am struggling, as a strong supporter of our effort in Iraq,
with the failure of this Iraqi Government to step forward with progress
toward enacting legislation on de-Ba'athification reform, hydrocarbon
resources reform, and the scheduling of and planning of provincial
elections.
Mr. Speaker, I want to be transparent about that frustration as much
as I was when I met with Iraqi cabinet officials just a short 2 months
ago. The Iraqi Government must do more. If there is any unintended
benefit of this debate today, my hope is that some of this debate with
that message would echo to those people.
But that being said, I will oppose this measure, Mr. Speaker, because
I truly believe that defeat and an American failure in Iraq is not an
option that we can consider.
With great respect to my colleagues who would endorse this proposal
for a precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq by April 1 of next
year, I truly believe that, before we make any decision adjusting our
strategy on the ground, we ought to wait to hear from those Americans
on the ground in Iraq who have been charged with implementing the
strategy the President put into effect in January.
I want to reiterate, and I think I speak for many Republicans, Mr.
Speaker, as the President said in January, our commitment to this Iraqi
Government is not open-ended. But my commitment to an American and
Iraqi success is deep and heartfelt. Whether this Iraqi Government can
rise to that challenge or not, as the gentleman from Indiana in the
other body said, we must find a way to forge agreement to achieve
success in Iraq.
The good news of the assessment that has come before the Congress is
that we have been achieving some progress as a result of the
President's surge strategy on the ground. Between May and June, 26
high-level al Qaeda leaders have been killed or captured.
I know there are some, even the gentleman who just spoke, who
questioned whether we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. Our soldiers don't
question that. Eleven of those al Qaeda leaders killed or captured were
emirs, local al Qaeda leaders; seven were facilitators who smuggled
foreign weapons; and five were cell leaders who commanded terrorist
units.
U.S. operations in the last 2 months, according to the reports
released this week, have also uncovered an al Qaeda media network in a
nondescript facility outside Samarra. U.S. forces also, I am happy to
report, received 23,000 tips during this period of time, which is four
to five times the number of tips we were receiving last year.
But, again, that goes against the backdrop of disappointing news.
While the American soldier performs with courage and effectiveness, the
Iraqi government still fails to demonstrate the urgency.
So as I struggle, I would just ask my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle who share my concerns about the lack of progress in Iraq, as
to this solution you bring to the floor, how will your plan for a
unilateral withdrawal keep American soldiers safe?
We have 160,000 soldiers there now. The majority of this Congress
would call for them to exit Iraq by April 1. Well, in effect it would
take 3,000 large convoys, according to some press reports, to evacuate
the country down the one road out through Basra and into Kuwait.
Also I would ask, how would this plan for unilateral withdrawal
decrease the number of terrorist safe havens in that country? And since
al Qaeda is clearly in Iraq, how would the plan for unilateral
withdrawal succeed in fighting al Qaeda in Iraq?
Lastly, I say as the ranking member of the Middle East Subcommittee,
how will a withdrawal, a precipitous, reckless, irresponsible
withdrawal, make the Middle East safer and more stable?
I fear if we lose Iraq, we will lose Israel. We must come together as
a Nation to find a way forward to succeed in Iraq.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a valued member of the Foreign
Affairs Committee.
Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman, my distinguished friend, the
chairman, for yielding time to me.

[[Page H7680]]

Mr. Speaker, it's time to get our troops out of the middle of an
Iraqi civil war. It's time to start bringing our troops home.
My friends on the other side of the aisle are essentially saying
``stay the course.'' At what point, I would ask my friends, do we say
that the administration's policies in Iraq have failed and it is time
to change course? I think that time is now.
Even the Bush administration's interim assessment of whether the
Iraqis are meeting basic benchmarks shows that they have failed to
achieve any level of political and economic success. Here we are in the
fifth year of the war, longer than World War II, more than half a
trillion dollars and 3,600 American lives lost, and Iraqi politicians
seem further apart than ever. Indeed, the evidence that our soldiers
are involved in an Iraqi civil war is mounting and a solution seems
even further from our grasp.
Young American service personnel cannot solve the problem of Iraq,
because, ultimately, Iraq is not a military problem anymore; it is a
political crisis. And if the Iraqis cannot solve their political
problems, we cannot do it for them. Only Iraqi politicians can bring
about a solution, and our military personnel should not be dying to
hold together the collapsed Iraqi state.
Mr. Speaker, this war has turned into a great strategic fiasco, from
the lack of planning to insufficient number of troops, to incompetent
management of reconstruction projects, to the use of torture in
military prisons. Our blunder in Iraq will affect our ability to
succeed in the Middle East and elsewhere for years to come.
Therefore, I strongly support this bill, which requires that we begin
redeploying American troops home within 120 days of enactment and
ending by April 1, 2008.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the distinguished ranking member
of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of our Foreign Affairs
Committee.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
You know, the things that are being said today, if George Washington
had had television and radio and newspapers, would have been said about
him. Several of his generals wanted him out because he wasn't winning
battles and things were going wrong. Even in the Congress of the United
States, Lee of Virginia led the charge to try to get rid of George
Washington during the Revolutionary War.
Abraham Lincoln, McClellan, one of his chief generals, who wouldn't
fight, ran against him for President, and Lincoln was going to be
defeated if Sherman hadn't taken Atlanta.
War is not a popular thing. It's a horrible thing. Chairman Lantos
was a survivor of the camps during the Holocaust during World War II. I
would like to ask you a question: What would have happened if we hadn't
won that war? How many more Jewish people would have been killed in
those camps? Millions more. Six million died, but many millions more
probably would have died if Hitler had prevailed. But we had Winston
Churchill, who was willing to go to the mat to make sure that they
didn't win and that he was going to defeat Hitler.
If we pull out unilaterally like they're talking about right now, we
leave those people over there who voted and held their fingers up, we
leave those people to their fate with these people who are radicals,
who are going to take over.
Iran has camps. Senator Lieberman talked about that. They have
training camps right there along the border. They are sending
terrorists in to help augment the terrorists in Iraq. And if we
unilaterally pull out, just like you're talking about, those people who
voted for freedom and democracy, many, many, many of those will die,
maybe even more than who have been dying in Darfur, and you have been
talking about how important it is that we do something in Darfur.

{time} 1315

A vacuum will be created, and Iran will fill it. They will not stop
their nuclear development program, and we will be imperiled down the
road from their nuclear development program because they'll have a real
jumping-off point throughout the Middle East, not just in Iran but in
Iraq and possibly Afghanistan, if many of you have your way.
I don't know why we're not waiting on General Petraeus' report. We
just gave him authority and gave him the money to pursue this until he
reports back in September. I don't understand why we're jumping the gun
and trying to force withdrawal right now when General Petraeus, who
talked to all of us, has not had a chance to succeed.
Mr. Speaker, 61 million people died in World War II, 6 million Jews;
61 million. In this nuclear age, if we pull in our horns and let Iran
run wild over there, which they will, and they develop their nuclear
program, how many millions could die in this country as well as around
the world? I submit it probably would be more than 61 million.
In the United States, if we pull out like you're talking about, we'll
probably have to go back in to stop them from developing that nuclear
capability and stop them from training these people to go in and
terrorize not only Iran and also Iraq and other places in the Middle
East. That is a tinderbox over there and we have to make the right
decision.
Every President who has been in a war has been criticized by Congress
at one time or another. Every single President, unless it was a very
short war where you were in for 5 or 6 days or a couple of months. This
is no exception.
Have mistakes been made? You bet. Were mistakes made in World War II?
Eight hundred guys drowned in a mock Normandy invasion off the coast of
England. If we had television then and the newspapers we have today, we
would never have invaded Normandy because they would have stopped it
just like that because of criticism of those 800 guys drowning to
death. They would have said it wouldn't have worked; it wasn't
feasible.
This is a very, very important issue we are talking about. Our brave
soldiers are doing their job over there. And they watch on television
right now, and what are they hearing? Pull out, pull out, pull out.
They are asking, What are we fighting for if the Congress is going to
jerk us out right now? We have heard from a lot of them who say, hey,
we're doing the job, and we're doing better right now.
I just think we ought to think very long and hard about what we're
doing. It could effect a world war. We're in a world war against al
Qaeda right now, but it could be a much more devastating war if we
don't make the right decisions. I would like to say to my colleagues
that I think it's extremely important that you think long and hard
about what you're trying to do. Nobody likes war. Nobody likes war.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to our
distinguished colleague from Texas, a member of the Foreign Affairs
Committee, Mr. Green.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the
Foreign Affairs Committee for allowing me to speak.
Before I get into my prepared remarks, part of the resolution, if my
colleagues would go to page 5 of the resolution, says as part of the
justification required, the President shall, at a minimum, address
whether it is necessary for the Armed Forces to carry out the following
missions: protecting U.S. diplomatic facilities and U.S. citizens,
including Armed Forces who are engaged in carrying out other missions;
serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions; but
also, engaging in actions to disrupt and eliminate al Qaeda and its
affiliated organizations in Iraq.
So while I sat here on the floor listened and heard, ``we are bailing
out of attacking al Qaeda,'' we are not doing that. This resolution
says we will still be there. The President has to certify, though, that
is what we are doing. We are not shoring up the Iraqi Government; we
are fighting al Qaeda, who brought us September 11. So anybody who says
we are leaving is just wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and this
legislation, and thank Chairman Skelton for his work on the bill. Like
Chairman Skelton, I want to thank our soldiers, sailors, airmen and
Marines and their families who are serving our country.

[[Page H7681]]

I have stated before, we must let the Iraqi Government know our
commitment is not open-ended. I have not supported efforts for
immediate withdrawal, but this bill, just like our first supplemental
sent to the President, which he vetoed, lets the Iraqi Government know
that they need to make some tough choices to stabilize their country
within the next several months.
It also gives our administration time to have a comprehensive
strategy in Iraq, and allows the troops to remain to protect our
diplomatic facilities and fight al Qaeda, and training and equipping
the Iraqi security forces.
As this legislation states, we give the President the authority to
use the Armed Forces to defend the national security of the United
States against the continuing threat posed by the Iraqi government at
that time. But we won that battle. The government was removed. The
power and its leader indicted, tried and convicted, and executed by the
newly elected, now-democratic government of Iraq.
This bill will bring our troops home by April 1 of next year--that
will be more than 5 years since the war began. U.S. taxpayers have
spent billions of dollars, and thousands of troops have given their
lives to bring security and stability to Iraq.
While the current Iraqi government has been organizing and security
forces have been training, our forces have been responsible for every
facet of security in Iraq. Our troops defeated Saddam's Army, worked to
control the country, policed Iraq's streets, protected the transitional
and elected governments, and trained Iraq security forces.
Our military has given the Iraqi government, the Iraqi security
forces, and the Iraqi people every opportunity to have a stable,
democratic country. It is time to let the Iraqi people know that 5
years is long enough--they must take responsibility for the future of
their country.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill to bring our
troops home in a safe, responsible timeframe.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Inglis) who has traveled to Iraq several times, I
yield myself a minute to answer some questions posed on the other side
of the aisle.
What we have here is a nonspecific, nondetailed, nothing planned for
victory. The bill on page 3, since the gentleman refers to the bill,
let's look at it. It talks about a reduction, a transition, a limited
presence, a limited presence, again, with maximum attention paid to the
protection of our Armed Forces. What does that mean? So you want our
troops to face the terrorists with even less protection?
It shall be further implemented as part of a comprehensive strategy.
What do these phrases mean? What would General Petraeus do if this
legislation were to become law, which it will not? This is not a plan.
It says nothing. It is making a political statement.
I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Inglis) who has been to Iraq and understands the
situation well.
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we have a huge challenge in Iraq. It is a challenge for
Democrats. It is a challenge for Republicans. It is a challenge for the
President and for the Congress. We need an American solution to that
challenge. The question before us today is whether this resolution is
going to advance that solution or it is actually going to make it more
difficult.
I am one of the 17 Republicans that wasn't convinced of the surge;
but I am aware now that we are doing it. It is underway, and the plan
is clear to have General Petraeus report in September.
I am not certain why it is that we should be debating today a
resolution prior to that time because, between now and then, rather
than having a succession of political kind of resolutions, we could be
working toward an American consensus on this. I would submit, Mr.
Speaker, that that consensus is not that far away. I think we can start
with two very clear observations. First, our military has done exactly
what we have asked them to do. And they have done it very well.
Second, we need to use the American concept of accountability. We
need to impose accountability on the Iraqi regime and say to them, we
have these benchmarks and here are some rewards for success and some
consequences for failure.
And between now and September 30, if we work in a cooperative way, I
think we can find a whole series of success check points that we can
lay out for the regime in Baghdad. We can say to them, Republicans,
Democrats, the President and Congress alike, can say to them, here are
the things that we want you to accomplish, and we have the right to
insist that you accomplish them because after all, we are spending $2
billion a week. But even more important than that, far more important
than that, we have American lives at risk. So we have the right as
their protectors. We want you to achieve these things. If you do, you
get these rewards. If you fail, these are the consequences. We can lay
out a whole series of those if we work together in a cooperative way.
The President, the Congress, Republicans and Democrats, we can come up
with that American solution and we can find a way forward in Iraq.
The question that I think the proponents of this resolution need to
answer is, if you simply set the withdrawal date of April 1, what went
with all of that accountability? What went with all of those success
check points? The question really for the proponents is: How do you
know by April 1, such a date in stone, that you will have succeeded?
Why not work cooperatively between now and September, awaiting the
report, to prepare a series of very carefully thought out success check
points with consequences for failure and rewards for success? And think
through the plan. As it is, I think there is not much of a plan; and,
therefore, I will vote against the resolution.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a valued
member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my colleague from California
(Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Lantos for
the time and Chairman Skelton for bringing this important resolution to
the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, the American people have called for bold action to bring
our troops home, and today we are debating a first step, setting a date
certain to bring them home.
Over the next weeks, we will vote to prohibit permanent bases in
Iraq. We will continue the drumbeat to fund the safe and complete
withdrawal of our troops.
But, Mr. Speaker, despite calls--no, actually pleas--from the
American people, some at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and many
right here in the House are just fine with staying the course. In fact,
they are once again changing the conversation. They are trying to focus
on gut feelings about an upcoming terrorist attack. But the American
people will not stand for changing the conversation, and they will not
stand for staying the course, nor should we in this Congress.
The costs are just too high: $10 billion a month, and worst of all,
the deadliest 3-month period since the escalation; 3,600 troops dead;
at least 26,000 wounded; and tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees
leaving Iraq every day. This is not only unacceptable; it is immoral.
Today, the Congress must take a bold step to bring our troops home.
We must stand up today with the American people. We must say, enough is
enough. End the occupation, bring our troops home.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. McCaul), a member of our Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the
Foreign Affairs Committee for yielding me this time.
Here we are once again. I feel like we have done this before. Once
again, I rise in opposition to the Democratic leadership's latest
attempt to politicize the war, and I strongly urge my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to vote against defeat in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, the debate in this Chamber over the future of Iraq and
the best course of action has been passionate and divisive, and each
Member of this House has their own opinion. Yet the one thing we should
be united on is our end goal and result. That should be the same: a
democratic and stable Iraq.
The Democratic majority has chosen to use this month of July, as they
have

[[Page H7682]]

attempted several times already this year, to hold a series of votes to
withdrawal our troops and force a premature end to Iraq's pursuit of
freedom and democracy.
We have to ask: What would happen if we withdrawal immediately? When
we talk to the experts in the region, the leaders in these governments
and key stakeholders in the region, they will tell you it will be a
fireball in the Middle East. It will create a vacuum, a safe haven for
al Qaeda. Iran will swoop in and take over. They, the key nations in
the region, are quite frankly terrified of this action, and they tell
us that privately.
I believe that we can cannot afford that course of action. The
Democrats have chosen this course not because it is in the national
interest of this country but rather because they believe it provides
them with good talking points to use back home. I submit they are
mistaken.
In my view, Americans are tired and frustrated with the partisan
squabbling over the war which has done nothing to improve the situation
in Iraq. Putting politics above our national interest while the men and
women of our military are fighting overseas is simply unacceptable.

{time} 1330

In a time of war, politics should end at the water's edge.
There is another way forward. I and others have introduced the Iraq
Study Group recommendations Implementation Act of 2007. This
legislation is bipartisan. It is a comprehensive set of
recommendations, a plan of action to succeed in Iraq, a plan which
matches our military might with political solutions, with economic
solutions and with a diplomatic surge which can bring peace and
stability to the troubled nation. This bill has gained strength by
those who recognize that moving forward in a unified way still exists
in the Congress.
The Iraq Study Group report offers a consensus policy that the vast
majority of Americans support. The sponsors of the Democrat withdrawal
bill that we are debating here today, however, have decided that even
though the surge only came into effect 3 weeks ago, that it's already
failed and we need to question it and throw it out.
They further decided that we should declare defeat immediately and
not wait for General Petraeus to come to Congress and give us his
firsthand report. This rush to judgment, this rush to action on their
part makes it clear that they have not reached an informed decision
but, rather, a political one.
Throughout the course of our American history, we've answered the
call for freedom, and we, Mr. Speaker, I submit are at our greatest
when we are united as a Nation; at our worst when we are divided.
We should unite behind the ideals which helped achieve victory
against the threats to our very way of life, such as the victories
against the Third Reich, such as the threats by the Soviet empire and
the victory against the Soviet Union.
Today, the greatest threat is the threat of terrorism, and the
conflict in Iraq poses one of the greatest challenges to the American
experience. We must unite, or we will surely fail.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a
distinguished colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the
Foreign Affairs Committee.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the chairman of
the Foreign Affairs Committee for allowing members of that committee to
show their commitment through their legislative work in a hearing at
the early stages of his leadership when we were allowed to present
solutions. They were not Republican solutions or Democratic solutions.
They were solutions for those of us who love America, and I just want
to simply reinforce that. I thank Mr. Skelton for his leadership.
I have legislation that declares a military success, and I rise today
to make it clear that I believe that the fallen in battle are heroes,
and those who still fight carry their banner, for 3,611 have died, and
I don't know why we're not on this floor declaring a military victory,
thanking our soldiers.
And my good friend from Texas says that he supports the Iraq Study
Group. So do I and I have legislation. We all have legislation that
responds to the Iraq Study Group. I might remind him that that report,
bipartisan report, speaks articulately to redeployment, and so when we
look at the costs of the war, $120 billion, Americans are asking,
should one more drop of blood be shed? And my answer to that is, no.
Should we engage? Yes. Should we involve in the surge of diplomacy?
Absolutely.
We want to make sure that all of those nation states can work to help
solve the divide, the civil war. But we must face the facts that this
process that the President is continuing to repeat does not work. It is
wracked with corruption and misdirection. There were no weapons of mass
destruction.
As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I have been disturbed
this whole week as I listened to the Secretary of Homeland Security
speak about his gut feeling of the possibility of a terrorist attack.
I'm a member of that committee. I live every day with the idea that the
question will be asked by Americans to the Homeland Security Committee
and the Homeland Security Department, does the Secretary realize that
we have fueled the fires of terrorism by training terrorists in this
war.
And so when I speak of why we must end, it is to save lives. It is to
reconcile Iraq, and it is to make America safer. I ask for support of
the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2956, the Responsible
Redeployment From Iraq Act. I rise in strong support of this
legislation because I am listening, and responding to the will of the
American people. Last November 2006, Americans went to polls by the
millions united in their resolve to vote for change. They voted for a
new direction and a change in the Bush administration's disastrous
policy in Iraq. The new Democratic majority heard them and responded by
passing H.R. 1591, the Iraq Accountability Act. The President vetoed
the bill, demanding instead a continuation of the ancien regime under
which the Republican-led Congress gave him a blank check to mismanage
the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq.
Those days are over. No matter how many veto threats the President
issues, this Congress is not going to give him a blank check to
escalate and continue the war ad infinitum. It is long past time for
change in Iraq. It is time for the people and Government of Iraq to
take primary responsibility for their own country. It is time for the
President to recognize the reality on the ground in Iraq. The time when
a surge in troops is useful and necessary is past. It is now time to
redeploy our troops and launch a diplomatic surge for national and
political reconciliation in Iraq. H.R. 2956 will help achieve this goal
and that is why I support the measure.
Mr. Speaker, there is no more important issue facing the Congress,
the President, and the American people than the war in Iraq. It is a
subject which agitates the passions of all Americans, including Members
of Congress. The Framers understood that while the military does the
fighting, a nation goes to war. That is why the Framers lodged the
power to declare war in the Congress, the branch of Government closest
to the people. They knew that the decision to go to war was too
important to be left to the whim of a single person, no matter how wise
or well-informed he or she might be.
Four years ago, President Bush stood under a banner that proclaimed
``Mission Accomplished.'' If the mission was to further place our
troops in harm's way at the hands of insurgents and sectarian violence,
then it is mission accomplished. After spending more than $450 billion
sacrificing the lives of 3,611 of America's finest citizen-soldiers,
what have we accomplished and where are we headed?
I cannot support the President's waging of a war that has no clear
direction, does not meet the benchmarks that the President set, and has
no visible target.
Four years after launching the invasion, conquest, and occupation of
Iraq, the evidence is clear and irrefutable: The preemptive invasion of
Iraq, while a spectacularly executed military operation, was a
strategic blunder without parallel in the history of American foreign
policy. This is what can happen when the Congress allows itself to be
stampeded into authorizing a president to launch a preemptive war of
choice.
It is time to change our strategy in Iraq. It is time to engage the
key stakeholders in the Middle East and make real strides towards
securing a just and lasting peace in Iraq and for the Iraqi people. And
most important, bring our troops home so they can be reunited with
their families, friends, and neighbors.

[[Page H7683]]

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 2956. The Responsible
Redeployment From Iraq Act requires a responsible redeployment of U.S.
troops beginning within 120 days of enactment and ending by April 1,
2008. The legislation requires the President to publicly justify the
post-redeployment missions for the U.S. military in Iraq and the
minimum number of troops necessary to carry out those missions.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is consistent with the advice of
military and foreign policy experts, ensures the safety of our men and
women in uniform, addresses our commitment to fighting terrorism, and
reflects the will of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, the need for a new direction in Iraq could not be
clearer. In the face of mounting evidence that progress is not being
made in Iraq, military leaders, defense experts, Republican and
Democratic Members of Congress, and the American people are demanding
change. Yet the President continues to urge continued support for a
failed policy that is not making America safer or supporting our
troops.
In a report released today by the White House, the administration
concedes that violence continues in Iraq and that the Iraqi Government
has failed to meet key benchmarks endorsed by the President in January
and political reconciliation is nonexistent. By the Bush
administration's own admission, there is unsatisfactory progress on all
of the political reconciliation benchmarks announced by the President
on January 10, 2007.
In fact, just this week, the National Security Network reported that
since the President announced his ``surge'' policy 6 months ago, more
than 25,000 troops have been sent to Iraq, approximately 600 have been
killed and more than 3,000 have been wounded.
Mr. Speaker, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have been given
numerous chances and ample time by the American people and the Congress
to straighten out the mess in Iraq. They have failed. It is little
wonder that the criticism of the administration's failed policy in Iraq
is mounting by the day. Respected military leaders, like LTG William
Odom, have spoken forcefully. According to Lieutenant General Odom,
``No effective new strategy can be devised for the United States until
it begins withdrawing its forces from Iraq. Only that step will break
the paralysis that now confronts us.''
Key Republican Senators are joining the chorus of critics. In
addition to Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Senator Richard
Lugar, some of the President's allies in Congress have spoken out.
Senator Pete Domenici says, ``There's no reason to wait . . . [I am]
trying to tell [Bush] that he must change his ways because there is
nothing positive happening.'' Senator Elizabeth Dole says, ``It is my
firm hope and belief that we can start bringing our troops home in
2008.'' Senator Lamar Alexander says, ``The President needs a new
strategy.''
And just this week, in a USA Today/Gallup Poll, more than 70 percent
of Americans favor removal of almost all U.S. troops from Iraq by April
2008, leaving a limited number for counterterrorism efforts.

Military Success in Iraq Act

Finally Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation because it is
grounded in the fundamental principles I first announced in February of
this year when I introduced H.R. 930, the Military Success in Iraq and
Diplomatic Surge for National and Political Reconciliation in Iraq Act
of 2007. I introduced this legislation, the Military Success in Iraq
Act of 2007, MSIA or ``Messiah,'' to offer an honorable deliverance
from Iraq. Let me explain.

In October 2002, the Congress authorized the President to use
military force against Iraq to achieve the following objectives:
(1) To disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction that could
threaten the security of the United States and international peace in
the Persian Gulf region;
(2) To change the Iraqi regime so that Saddam Hussein and his
Baathist party no longer posed a threat to the people of Iraq or its
neighbors;
(3) To bring to justice any members of al Qaeda known or found to be
in Iraq bearing responsibility for the attacks on the United States,
its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on
September 11,2001;
(4) To ensure that the regime of Saddam Hussein would not provide
weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists, including al
Qaeda; and
(5) To enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
Every one of these objectives has long been accomplished. Iraq does
not possess weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein has been
deposed, captured, and dealt with by the Iraqi people. The American
military has caught or killed virtually every member of al Qaeda in
Iraq that was even remotely responsible for the 9-11 attack on our
country. Last, all relevant U.N. resolutions relating to Iraq have been
enforced. In other words, every objective for which the use of force in
Iraq was authorized by the 2002 resolution has been achieved.
Mr. Speaker, since the objectives which led Congress to pass the 2002
Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) have been achieved, I
believe the authorization to use that military force expires
automatically. My legislation affirms this proposition. Additionally, I
believe, and my legislation provides, that it is the Congress that is
the ultimate arbiter as to whether the objectives set forth in a
congressional AUMF have been achieved.
Mr. Speaker, where a Congressional authorization to use military
force has expired, the President must obtain a new authorization to
continue the use force. My legislation requires the President to do
that as well. Finally, my bill requires that if the Congress does not
vote to reauthorize the use of force in Iraq within 90 days after
determining that the objectives set forth in the 2002 AUMF have been
achieved, all American armed forces in Iraq must be redeployed out of
Iraq. Thus, under my legislation, an up-or-down vote must be held by
the House and Senate to continue waging war in Iraq.
I am not talking about ``cutting and running,'' or surrendering to
terrorists. And I certainly am not talking about staying in Iraq
forever or the foreseeable future. The Armed Forces won the war they
were sent to fight. Their civilian leadership has not succeeded in
winning the peace. That is why the United States should surge
diplomatically and politically.
Title II of my legislation, the ``Diplomatic Surge for Political and
National Reconciliation in Iraq Act,'' implements twelve of the most
important recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. This approach is now
gaining widespread support among many who had previously disparaged
diplomacy in favor of military force.
All six of Iraq's neighbors--Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi
Arabia, and Kuwait--have an interest in a stabilized Iraq because as
the Iraq Study Group report makes clear, none of these countries wants
to live with an Iraq that, after our redeployment, becomes a failed
state or a humanitarian catastrophe that could become a haven for
terrorists or hemorrhages millions more refugees who will stream into
neighboring countries.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the enormous financial cost, the human
cost to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces has also
been high but they have willingly paid it. Operation Iraqi Freedom
has exacerbated the Veterans Administration health care facility
maintenance backlog; placed an undue strain on the delivery of medical
treatment and rehabilitative services for current and new veterans; and
exacted a heavy toll on the equipment, training and readiness
requirements, and the families of the men and women of the United
States Armed Forces.

Mr. Speaker, everyday when I walk into my office I am reminded of the
courageous young men and women who have given their lives in service to
our nation. Outside my office I have displayed a poster-board that
displays the names and faces of those who made the ultimate sacrifice.
The poster-board is nearly full. I do not want to start another board.
Let me call the roll of honor of the remarkable sons and daughters of
Houston, Texas who have made the ultimate sacrifice and gave the last
full measure of devotion: Capt. Eric L. Allton, Petty Officer 1st Class
Howard E. Babcock IV, Spec. Adolfo C. Carballo, Staff Sgt. Brian T.
Craig, Staff Sgt. Terrence D. Dunn, Pfc. Analaura Esparza Gutierrez,
1st Lt. David M. Fraser, Lance Cpl. Phillip C. George, Spec. Clinton R.
Gertson, Capt. Andrew R. Houghton, Master Sgt. Ivica Jerak, Spec. John
P. Johnson, Pfc. Roy L. Jones III, Cpl. Brian M. Kennedy, Staff Sgt.
Dexter S. Kimble,
Spec. Scott Q. Larson Jr., Staff Sgt. Hector Leija, Pfc. Jesus A.
Leon-Perez, Sgt. Keelan L. Moss, Tech. Sgt. Walter M. Moss Jr., Staff
Sgt. Kenneth I. Pugh, Staff Sgt. William D. Richardson, Staff Sgt.
Timothy J. Roark, Sgt. Michael T. Robertson, Cpl. Benjamin S. Rosales,
Staff Sgt. Alberto V. Sanchez, Pfc. Leroy Sandoval Jr., Pfc. Armando
Soriano, Cpl. Tomas Sotelo Jr., Sgt. Danny R. Soto, Spec. Juan M.
Torres, Lance Cpl. Thomas J. Zapp.
Mr. Speaker, the misguided, mismanaged, and costly debacle that is
the Iraq War which was preemptively launched by President Bush in March
2003 despite the opposition of me and 125 of my colleagues in the House
of Representatives has lasted longer than America's involvement in
WorId War II, the greatest conflict in all of human history.
But there is a difference. The Second World War ended in complete and
total victory for the United States and its allies. But then again, in
that conflict America was led by FDR, a great Commander-in-Chief, who
had a plan to win the war and secure the peace, listened to his
generals, and sent troops in sufficient numbers and sufficiently
trained and equipped to do the job.
My friends, I say with sadness that we have not enjoyed that same
quality of leadership

[[Page H7684]]

throughout the conduct of the Iraq War. The results, not surprisingly,
have been disastrous. To date, the war in Iraq has claimed the lives of
3,611 brave servicemen and women. The last three months of the war have
been among the deadliest (104 in April, 123 in May, 101 in June, and 32
in the first week of July). More than 26,690 Americans have been
wounded, many suffering the most horrific injuries. American taxpayers
have paid nearly $450 billion to sustain this misadventure. To grasp
the magnitude of this number, consider that American taxpayers are
spending: $120,000,000,000 per year; $10,000,000,000 per month;
$2,307,692,380 per week; $329,670,330 per day; $13,736,264 per hour;
$228,938 per minute; $3,816 per second.

Mr. Speaker, last November the American people signaled clearly their
loss of confidence in the President's leadership and their desire for a
new direction in Iraq. The new Democratic majority has begun to
deliver. And we will not rest, Mr. Speaker, until we are clearly on a
glide path to the day when our troops come home.
And even then our work will not be done. We must still be about the
business of repairing the damage to America's international reputation
and prestige. But this Democratic majority, led by the Progressive
Caucus and the Out of Iraq Caucus, has ushered in a new era of
oversight, accountability, and transparency to defense and
reconstruction contracting and procurement.
I urge all members to join me in supporting H.R. 2956. This is the
best way to ensure accountability to our soldiers who have been sent
into battle without proper training or equipment or a clear mission. It
is the best way to keep faith with our veterans who are not getting the
best medical care when they come home. Passing this legislation is
essential to restoring our military that is being stretched to the
limits by the Bush policy. Last, it is absolutely necessary to regain
the confidence of the American people who demand a new direction in
Iraq.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume because I'd like to comment on a point that was raised by my
good friend from Indiana (Mr. Burton) regarding the intentions of Iran.
The deputy interior minister for security affairs and the former
deputy head of the Revolutionary Guards in Iran said on April 26 of
this year, ``Iran has long-range missiles that can make nowhere safe
for America.''
He also said, ``Iran is able to fire tens of thousands of missiles
per day at American targets on a daily basis and, with its long-range
missiles, can threaten Israel which is acting as America's'' proxy.
So it is clear to us, Mr. Speaker, that Iran seeks not just to wipe
Israel off the map, as Ahmadinejad has said time and again, but to
destroy the United States. So is the plan to immediately leave Iraq so
that Iran can begin its takeover of the region? Is this in the national
security interests of the United States? Is that going to make us
safer?
I think that we should carefully consider what will happen were we to
withdraw immediately as, it has been called for.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), a member of the
Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act, H.R. 2956, and for the safe
redeployment of our combat troops out of Iraq.
I thank our Chairman Lantos of the Foreign Affairs Committee for
yielding time to me and want to reiterate that for 4 years now our
administration has sacrificed its many soldiers for an Iraqi Government
that has failed to take responsibility for its own security. While many
of these soldiers have made great sacrifices on our Nation's behalf,
the President has failed to support them with a viable strategy to
succeed in Iraq and then to end combat operations.
This bill would force the President to be accountable to this
Congress and to the American people. Yes, the American people deserve
to know how this war is conducted and how it will end.
This bill would force the Iraqi Government to realize that America's
commitment to their nation is not open-ended and that they must be
accountable to their people for security and stability.
This bill would allow our military to safely redeploy from combat in
Iraq to better confront emerging security threats around the world.
This bill would end the drain upon our Nation's resources that could
better be used on our priorities at home such as improving our homeland
security, strengthening our economy, and for providing for our
citizens.
I strongly support this important legislation and request the
President heed the call of this Congress to support our troops by
redeploying them out of Iraq.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her yielding and
for her work on the issue and thank the majority party for their work.
We're involved in a very serious discussion here.
I was in the Air Force in 1970, in Reese Air Force Base in Texas in
pilot training, and the Shah of Iran's son was in the class right
behind me. I didn't know much about the Shah of Iran, coming from
Hobbs, New Mexico, but we began to watch and began to visualize as he
left training, and those Iranians who were in the training class with
me left and went back home to Iran, what their life was like flying
jets in the Middle East. And then in 1979, the Shah was suddenly out of
power, just like that. The ayatollah came to power and instituted a
tremendous repressive regime that continues to this day.
Now, the question that our friends on the other side of the aisle
fail to ask is what is their plan to see that our friends in the Middle
East have stability because, in fact, they're balancing the terrorists
in their own countries every day. They're balancing them using our
force and our will and our promise to help.
So what do our friends in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE,
what do they do? When I went to Israel earlier this year, Israel simply
said they fall. If you leave Iraq, those nations fall.
Now, it's an uncomfortable truth, but somehow we're not going to talk
about some uncomfortable truth these days. It's an uncomfortable truth
that the entire Middle East is facing a problem of stability. If the
entire Middle East faces a problem with stability, the entire world has
a problem of stability because, if the Middle East exports about 25 to
30 percent of the world's oil, which it does, then the world oil market
becomes destabilized, the world economy becomes destabilized, and in
the end, the terrorists win because they have destabilized the world
rather than defeat any of the forces in the world. That's been their
long-term plan, to export instability, and they have been doing a very
good job of it.
Now, the President after 9/11 said we're going to fight a war on
terror that simply does three things: we're going to take away the
training camps, we're going to choke off their funding, and we're going
to take the fight to them. Now, you can agree or disagree that Iraq is
a place of combat with the terrorists, but it looks like to me that the
terrorists from all over the world are coming in there. Iran is
providing terrorists and weapons, Syria, other nations; and so whether
or not it appears that the war is there, our soldiers believe that
they're actually fighting al Qaeda.
So the President's plan has definitely uprooted the training camps.
We've begun to squeeze off the funding to the al Qaeda troops, to the
terrorists worldwide, and we have taken the fight to them. But now
then, when we retreat, when we come home, the question that has failed
to be asked by our friends who have this resolution calling our troops
home, it fails to ask what do we do for world stability at that point.
It is a serious omission. It's not accidental.
I appreciate the gentlelady for yielding.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to a valued
member of the Foreign Affairs Committee who serves with great
distinction as vice chair of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Non-
Proliferation and Trade, Mr. David Scott of Georgia.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I stand 100 percent behind this
bill for a responsible redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. Much has
been said. There are several points I would like to make going forward.

[[Page H7685]]

First of all, this is responsible. This is not something that was
just put together. This was put together with military advisers of the
first order, generals on the ground who were consulted, and by two of
the most distinguished individuals in this Chamber, our distinguished
chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Tom Lantos, and our
distinguished chairman of our Armed Services Committee, Mr. Ike
Skelton. Nobody can argue their credentials. Nobody can argue the
credentials of the military advisers that put this together.
But most importantly, the people that no one has mentioned, the
entity that no one has mentioned, the most important entity of all is
the American people. This bill represents the will of the American
people. Seventy percent of the American people support this action
today.
Now, let me remind you of the words of Robert Jackson, one of our
distinguished Supreme Court Justices in the steel seizure case of 1952,
when a similar situation was in place, where we were at loggerheads
then with the executive branch and the legislative branch, but at that
point, the Supreme Court decided that Congress has the authority. And
Jackson went on to say that when the executive branch denies,
disrespects and disavows the authority of Congress, we enter into what
is referred to as a zone of twilight, or a twilight zone.

{time} 1345

That's where we are now, to get out of this twilight zone of
destruction and mayhem, of instability in the Middle East. You talk
about stability in the Middle East. We are more unstable in the Middle
East now as a result of what we have done.
Get us out of this twilight zone. This bill is the way to do it, and
I commend it and hope we pass it overwhelmingly.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Generals on the ground were consulted on this bill? Seventy percent
of Americans support this bill, support immediate withdrawal of our
troops?
This bill before us is nothing more than political hyperbole,
partisan politics using our troops as cover, because the American
people don't have this bill in front of them. We didn't have this bill
before us until just a few hours ago.
Let me show you exactly what the Democratic leadership has scheduled
for us to debate, and I use the term lightly. For an entire day, rather
than do the hard work of our Congress that we need to do to have more
serious discussions on Iraq, on this bill, on appropriations, it's six
pages long, six pages long.
It was introduced yesterday, so I don't know what commanders on the
field we consulted with. I would be interested in doing that, in
finding that out. The first page is the title. The second page, it's a
``sense of Congress,'' language, nonbinding. The third page says
``reduce forces to limited presence.'' Who understands what that is?
Certainly not the drafters of this bill. The fourth and the fifth page
calls for a strategy.
Yet this Congress already has demanded a strategy from the President,
and it is due in September, a report. That's what the Democrats say
they have asked for. But yet they are not willing to wait for that
report.
The last page is definitions. This is what we are debating today,
Democratic politics using our troops as pawns. Commanders on the field
who were consulted? Give me a break.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a valued member of
the Foreign Affairs Committee, my friend and colleague from California
(Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 2956, the
Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act.
Now, certainly this measure is part of an ongoing effort to try to
bring comprehensive change. We do have a vested interest in the Middle
East as we are engaged in this war on terror throughout the world.
Notwithstanding that fact, though, for 6 years, our administration
has had a blank check in Iraq, and that war on terror, and
unfortunately, I think, by any critical evaluation, at best it has been
bungled. At worst, we have made a mess of things. The previous
Congresses have left little to be desired in terms of real oversight.
With unlimited resources, we have complicated our relations with the
Middle East, and it's unfortunate for our country. It seems for every
step forward, we take a step back. This legislation, then again, is
another effort to begin a new direction, which will protect our
interests in the Middle East and begin to develop a plan to bring our
troops home.
What is lacking in this legislation though is a requirement for the
President to tell us how we are going to, in fact, stabilize the areas
with all the diplomatic resources available to us and our allies
throughout the world in this region. Nonetheless, under the current
circumstances, this legislation, I believe, is the next logical step.
Clearly, doing more of the same continues to risk precious lives of
American men and women in uniform, not to mention our Treasury, with
little responsiveness, unfortunately and cooperation from the Iraqi
Government.
Hopefully, this legislation will allow the administration to engage
and work with us for constructive change that the American people
demands.
I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank you
for keeping such careful order on the floor on such a controversial
topic.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I have the pleasure of yielding 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) who has been to Iraq several
times, has wrestled with his conscience and understands the situation
of jihadist terrorism worldwide.
Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I deeply admire Tom Lantos, my friend, whom I have known for so many
years, and Ike Skelton, the authors of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, this is a debate about an issue we all have strong
feelings about. I regret to say it's a debate that's under a closed
rule that doesn't allow all aspects of this issue to come to the
forefront, and I deeply regret that.
We asked for a new Secretary of Defense. We wanted Rumsfeld replaced,
and he was replaced by Secretary Gates. We asked for a new general on
the ground and a new strategy, and General Petraeus was chosen.
After all that he had already done, he was willing to step in. He
received unanimous support in the Senate, unanimous support. He has
asked one thing from us with this new strategy. He said, give me until
September 15 to show what we can do with this surge.
What this resolution does is it bypasses that. It basically, in my
judgment, pulls the rug out from under General Petraeus. I think we owe
it to him, unless he were to come back and say, we need to change our
strategy right now, but he hasn't done that.
In my 17 visits to Iraq, I have seen good months and bad months.
Since December, I think it's pretty extraordinary that we have won back
Anbar province, an all-Sunni province. The irony is, we had given it
up, and it had become a mini Afghanistan with al Qaeda acting like the
Taliban. The tribal leaders came to us and said, help us get rid of
them.
If we were not there to do that, they would be stuck with an
Afghanistan with a Taliban type leadership in all of the Sunni area in
Anbar province. But, fortunately, we didn't pull the rug out from under
them. We are there to help them.
I think there are at least two inconvenient truths that we are
dealing with. One inconvenient truth is the one that Al Gore talks
about, which I wish more of us paid attention to, and that's global
warming. The other inconvenient truth is what the 9/11 Commission
report says, we are confronting Islamist terrorists.
Islamist terrorists have made it very clear that this is ground zero.
If we were to leave Iraq, Iraq, in my judgment, would be like
Afghanistan, with no troops to prevent the insurgents to do just what
the Taliban did. I just hope and pray that we find a way to work
together, that we look at bringing the Iraq Study Group presentation
before us, because we all say we can support it. Let's build on what we
can agree.

[[Page H7686]]

I conclude by making this point. We ask the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds to
work together and reach out to each other, but Democrats and
Republicans are having a hard time reaching out and working together.
Bring forward a bipartisan proposal and see how well it could do on the
House floor.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my
good friend and distinguished colleague from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill
to finally end this disastrous war. President Bush's war in Iraq has
been the biggest foreign policy catastrophe in our Nation's history. We
have been distracted from doing the job in Afghanistan, the Nation that
harbored al Qaeda. Hundreds of billions of dollars have evaporated into
the sands of Iraq while vital needs have gone unmet at home. Our
international reputation has been battered and bruised. Our Army has
been hollowed out.
The war has cut short the lives of more than 3,600 of our bravest
citizens, injured tens of thousands more. Yet this President continues
to insist that we remain in Iraq.
Today we must tell this President he is wrong. We must take a stand
against this tragic war, begin the hard work of repairing our foreign
policy. We must listen to the American people and vote to end this war.
Let us truly support our troops and vote to bring them home.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. Price of
Georgia.
(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this is a sad and disappointing day for this House and
for America. Once again, the majority is placing politics over national
security, politics over reasoned policy, politics and partisanship over
citizens and sanity.
Clearly this bill was not written in response to what our generals
think, whose interim report was released just hours ago. Instead, it
was written in reaction to polls and to political pressure from
MoveOn.org and others. This isn't a thoughtful piece of legislation to
achieve success in Iraq or success for America.
The lack of definition for a limited presence included in the bill
reveals that this is just another cynical attempt by the majority to
politically pander. How terribly disappointing.
In effect, this legislation is a vote of no confidence in our
military commanders, and it's a shot of encouragement to al Qaeda. It's
pure political opportunism, and it's devoid of military strategy.
As Members of Congress, we have a greater responsibility than just to
politics. We have a responsibility to do what is in the best interest
of long-term American security. We must be thoughtful. We must be
deliberate in our actions.
We have a capable leader, General David Petraeus, unanimously
approved by the Senate, the expert in counterinsurgency strategy. He
was given by this Congress, just a few weeks ago, until September, to
make positive progress in Iraq and report.
But this majority isn't interested in what our military commanders
are capable of, or the situation on the ground. Their only interest is
politics, in raising the white flag and in coming home without any
thought or definition as to when or where they are willing to defend
our security.
But because the political climate is ripe, the majority wants to
undercut our troops. It's upsetting, it's sad, and it's very
disconcerting that politics would trump national security.
This bill signals to our enemies that it doesn't matter what the
commanders say. It says that thoughtful military strategy takes a back
seat to good politics.
This isn't an exit strategy, it's a political strategy. How terribly
disappointing.
I respectfully ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and to
commit to positively working together on behalf of the American people
and American security.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to our last speaker, I want
to express my disgust and outrage at this arrogance which we have just
heard.
The previous speaker assumes that there is a monopoly of virtue and
wisdom on one side. That is not the case.
We have listened to our colleagues on the other side with respect and
attention, and that is exactly what we demand of every single Member on
the Republican side. This was an appalling spectacle debasing what has
thus far been a fine and noble debate.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the conscience of
this House, my good friend from Georgia, Congressman John Lewis.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I am going to thank my friend, my colleague,
Chairman Lantos, for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. This resolution is
not a panacea. It will not get us out of Iraq tomorrow, next week or
next month, but it is a step that will bring an end to this madness.
Our President, the commander in chief, told us a few days ago, that
the surge is just beginning when he deployed more troops 6 months ago.
He asked Members of Congress to wait. He is telling the American people
to be patient.
We cannot wait. We cannot be patient. The American people want an end
to this war and end it now.
How many more of our young people must die before we realize enough
is enough? One more day of involvement is too many. One more death is
one too many. This war is not worthy of another drop of human blood.
It is leaving a stain on the moral fabric of this Nation and
destroying our credibility in the community of nations. We will never
find the answer to Iraq down the barrel of a gun or in the warhead of a
missile.
Vote for this resolution and bring this war to an end and bring it to
an end now.

{time} 1400

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of our
time to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr.
Skelton.

General Leave

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and to insert extraneous materials in the Record on the bill,
H.R. 2956.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and
colleague, the gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter), a
member of the Armed Services Committee.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, the National Counterterrorism Center
recently issued a report entitled, ``Al Qaeda Better Positioned to
Strike the West.'' This report concludes that al Qaeda has reorganized,
regrouped, and is stronger now than it has been in years.
Yesterday, in the Armed Services Committee, we heard testimony that
al Qaeda has established itself in the mountains along the Afghanistan-
Pakistan border and is operating with relative impunity. On Tuesday,
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says he has a gut feeling
we will be attacked this summer.
For years, Democrats have been saying we need to focus our efforts on
combating al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but the President took
our brave soldiers and our resources to Iraq. Now it appears that the
President's disastrous policy of ignoring the real threats and bogging
our military down in Iraq has borne fruit. The area and the country is
destabilized and more dangerous to their neighbors and to us. Thanks to
the President's policy, our military is now overextended, our Nation is
deep in debt, and our international reputation is stained.
This cannot be allowed to continue. We are America the beautiful. We
are the greatest country on Earth. We are the beacon of light and hope.
We need to withdraw from Iraq, place our soldiers in a place where they
can respond to any terrorist threats, and protect our borders as we
once again reclaim our moral reputation.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time that has been yielded to
me, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H7687]]

Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for the chairman of the
Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). I
honor him and respect him deeply. But this legislation is deeply and
fatally flawed. It will damage America and American interests for two
reasons:
First, it is a purely political document, hopelessly vague and
meaningless. Let me explain why. The bill turns on two key terms. One,
that the United States transition to a ``limited presence'' in Iraq
within the next 120 days; and, two, that the President provide a
justification of ``the minimum force levels required to protect the
United States' national security interests in Iraq.''
While I am pleased that the authors recognize that we are in Iraq to
protect our national security interests, again, the legislation is
hopelessly vague and therefore meaningless. Neither of these two key
terms, ``limited presence'' and ``minimum force level required to
protect U.S. national security interests'' is defined. Oh, the bill has
a definition section and other terms are defined, but ``limited
presence'' and ``minimum force level required to protect U.S. national
security interests'' aren't defined.
You might ask yourself, why would the authors of the measure leave
two such critically important terms undefined? Well, the answer is
easy: Because this bill is not about policy; this bill is about
politics.
The chairman of the Armed Services Committee knows exactly why these
terms are not defined, and indeed the Democratic leadership knows why
these terms are not defined. They are not defined because they need
ambiguity. Indeed, ambiguity in this legislation is essential to its
passage. They know that they can't agree on what the meanings of these
terms are. You see, if they defined ``limited presence'' as too many
troops, then their most liberal, most antiwar Members would not vote
for the legislation. They couldn't. And, if they defined limited
presence too low, then their Blue Dog Members would not support the
bill. Again, this bill is about beating up on the President and about
scaring nervous Members of Congress.
Again, let's look at the other term, ``minimum force levels required
to protect U.S. national security interests.'' Why not define what that
minimum is? Answer, again, if they define it too high, those who want
out tonight and want our force levels at the lowest conceivable level
couldn't vote for the bill. And if they define it too low, then those
who recognize we face a threat from Iran and other regions' interests
wouldn't vote for the bill. It is deeply flawed for those reasons.
And I would ask proponents of the bill what they would say if the
President, as he could under the language of the bill, were to decide
that ``limited presence'' means 154,000 troops, just 1,000 fewer than
we have now? That would comply with the letter of the bill, but it
wouldn't satisfy proponents of the bill.
And what if the President, as he can under the language of the bill,
were to define the term ``minimum force level required to protect U.S.
national interests'' not as 155,000 troops as we have today, but rather
at 500,000 troops?
You see, they can't agree on those terms. I wonder how many of the
Members realize that the critical terms in this bill aren't defined.
The bill is also flawed for a second reason, and that is that it
reneges on the essential agreement Congress struck just 2 weeks ago. It
is a little bit like Lucy pulling the football out from under Linus
just before he kicks it. Here, don't rely on my opinion; rely instead
on today's Washington Post. You see, today's Washington Post editorial
makes the case for me. The Washington Post, not exactly a conservative
journal, says, ``It seems like just weeks ago, because it was, that
Congress approved funding for the war in Iraq and instructed General
David H. Petraeus to report back on the war's progress in September.''
Ladies and gentlemen, this isn't September.
The Post goes on to write, ``Before Congress begins ordering
withdrawals, it should at least give those generals the months they
asked for to see whether their strategy can offer some hope.'' We owe
it to those generals to give them, as The Washington Post says, the
months they asked for, but, instead, we have given them 27 days.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, my
colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for this opportunity
to speak. I rise in support of this legislation.
Much has been said these past years about the extent of the U.S.
engagement in Iraq. The Iraqi people have made progress. Saddam is
gone. They have had elections. We are told they have got over 300,000
Iraqi police and soldiers trained, equipped, and in the field. They are
engaged in a civil war, and we cannot be involved in trying to referee
that. As well as others in this body, I have been given assurances that
they have that many troops.
I believe the war in Iraq has had a serious negative effect on the
readiness of our brave men and women in uniform who are serving with
honor and distinction. Their deployments and, oftentimes, redeployments
without adequate time at home to rest and train is affecting our
Nation's ability to meet future contingencies. As it stands today,
listen up, as it stands today, we do not have, repeat, do not have a
single combat-ready brigade ready to be deployed.
The United States cannot chart the destiny of the people of Iraq. The
Iraqi Government must take responsibility for its own nation, and this
legislation puts us on the path to see to that worthy and noble cause.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to my
colleague, my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.
The interim report released by the President today details exactly
what I anticipated, a lack-of-progress report which demonstrates that
the Iraqi Government has made the least progress on those key
benchmarks that are vital to achieving stabilization.
The President at a press conference earlier today stressed the usual
line of excuses that he has far too often utilized in the past, stating
that we need to give General Petraeus time to show that the plus-up is
effective and stress the importance of waiting until the September 15
progress report is released before drawing conclusions on the policy in
Iraq. However, the President forgot to mention that General Petraeus
said in an interview just last month that the chances of having a
stable Iraqi Government in place by September are slim to none. Those
are his words.
Frankly, our troops need our support, and that support must be their
redeployment, which will end the continued bloodshed.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the
Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, my
friend, my colleague, the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to voice my very strong
support for Chairman Skelton's legislation. It represents an
unequivocal belief that the United States cannot and should not be in
the business of fighting Iraq's civil war.
For over 4 years, it has been clear to me that our troops
successfully and bravely accomplished the mission authorized by the
President in the fall of 2002.
Today's report that our troops have done their job but the Iraqi
Government has not underscores the deep problems with the Bush
administration's approach. We are no longer at war with Iraq's
Government; instead, our forces are caught in the middle of an
escalating sectarian conflict in Iraq, with no end in sight. Yet, the
President continues to blindly stay the course, with disastrous and
deadly consequences.
Chairman Skelton's bill would make significant reductions in our
troop presence by April of 2008. Democrats, along with our Republican
colleagues who no longer trust the President's leadership, are doing
all we can to change the President's full speed ahead mismanagement of
the war in Iraq and divert the policy toward returning our troops home
sooner and safer.
This more responsible presence, which limits U.S. presence to
fighting

[[Page H7688]]

terrorism and training Iraq forces, will be a first step in restoring
stability in Iraq and the readiness of our military which has been
badly damaged over the last 4 years.
I appreciate Chairman Skelton's leadership on this matter, and I urge
my colleagues to support this commonsense approach.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona.
And while I have the utmost respect for the chairman, I disagree with
him on this resolution and I do rise to oppose the resolution today.
I guess I don't like the rhetoric of defeat. And I think that if we
look at the situation in Iraq and if we look at the global war on
terror, we have to ask ourselves: If we accept defeat at the hands of
the terrorists, then what type message are we going to send? And I
don't think that we would like that. Because if we pull out now, it is
going to say that the U.S. is weak in the war on terror. It is going to
say that we accept roving death squads in the streets of Baghdad, that
we accept ethnic cleansing and a region engulfed in all-out chaos. That
is the message we send. Just as when we were children, our actions
carry a message with them.
Our soldiers deserve the confidence of their leaders, and not second-
guessing by politicians that are a half world away. I think that they
need to know that we are with them.
I had a message from a Marine parent. And they said, You know, we
have our men out there fighting every day. They are using all the tools
available to them. They are in combat. They are in patrols. They are
using technology to stabilize, to train Iraqi troops. Then at night
they come home, they come back to that post, that forward operating
base, and they hammer out e-mails and blogs to those of us here to help
combat the rhetoric coming out of Washington, DC.
General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker have a plan, the Baghdad
Security Plan. We find out now much of Baghdad is more secure than it
was. Most of the troops to carry out this plan just landed, just got
there 2 weeks ago to start implementing the plan. I think that for us
to second-guess is inappropriate. I think that it may be the
fashionable thing to want to pull out.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey, a member of the Armed Services Committee, my friend and
colleague, Mr. Andrews.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
I support this legislation because it will make America safer. Our
safety depends upon stability in Iraq.
Now, there are two ways to achieve stability in Iraq. The first is to
prop up the present government and hope it succeeds.

{time} 1415

That has failed. The best evidence of that failure is from Iraqi
leaders themselves. Last weekend, a Shiite Member of Iraq's legislature
said, in the absence of enough security forces, authorities should help
residents arm themselves for their own protection. The Sunni president
of Iraq said, people have a right to expect from the government and
security agencies protection for their lives, land, honor and property,
Mr. al-Hashemi said. But in the case of the inability of Iraqi security
forces, the people have no choice but to take up their own defense.
This government has failed, and we are spending the precious blood of
our sons and daughters to prop it up.
The second way to achieve stability in Iraq is to compel a political
solution. This resolution will do that. It deserves our support.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I would start out with the title of
this, the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act. Positively Orwellian
to name a resolution the Redeployment From Iraq Act. I have gone back
and revisited George Orwell, and I can tell you this says, the Cut and
Run From Iraq Act. And however you want to cut it, that's part of it.
Then it says, be moved in a safe and orderly manner. And I'd like to
know from the other side, was the helicopter lifting people off of the
U.S. Embassy in Saigon, was that safe and orderly? Would that comply
with your definition?
Another point, we have in this Congress constitutional
responsibilities and authorities with regard to war. The first thing we
can do in this Congress is declare war. The second thing we can do is
to raise an army and a navy, and the third thing is to fund it, not to
micromanage it. This is another piece of micromanagement. This is
another piece of moving us down the path towards what history will
record as a defeat on the floor of Congress, not a defeat in the field
of battle.
Von Clausewitz said the object of war is to destroy the enemy's will
and ability to conduct war. And we understand that if you don't have
the will, it doesn't matter what your ability is. We're the only
unchallenged super power in the world, and you're breaking down the
will of the American people.
Sun Tzu said it more simply. ``Supreme excellence in warfare lies in
destruction of your enemy's will to resist an advance of perceptible
hostilities.'' And yet the American people's will has been
systematically undermined by the debate here on this floor, by the
debate in the national news media. And I question, in the face of the
opposition that we have to our will here in this country, if we ever
can manage the effort to rise up and defend freedom with this kind of
support that we lack.
And then, when Mr. Price of Georgia lays out that the Defeatocrats in
Congress are invested in defeat, the former gentleman from California
rose up and squealed. And being the leading number one pork-producing
district in America, I can tell you, when you throw a rock into the
pigpen, the ones that squeal are the ones you hit.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to my friend,
my colleague, a gentleman who is a member of the Armed Services
Committee, Mr. Courtney from Connecticut.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, last week, during my work period at home,
my district office in Norwich was visited by a young Army enlisted man
who had in one hand his orders for his fourth deployment over the last
4 years. Over the last 4 years, he did two 1-year deployments in Iraq
and one 7-month deployment in Afghanistan.
In his other hand he held a bag of medication, anti-anxiety
medication, including Zoloft, because of the post-traumatic stress
which we got actually diagnosed from a treating psychiatrist a few days
later, which confirmed that his deployments have taken him to the
breaking point. That is the dirty little secret about this surge
policy, which is that we've broken the ground forces of this country.
This legislation crafted by Mr. Skelton, whose number one focus as
chairman of the Armed Services Committee is always about raising and
maintaining an armed force that can protect our national interest, is
desperately needed, primarily for the people who have borne the
disproportionate share of this war, which is the people who serve in
our uniform and their families.
It is easy for us to talk about commitment in this chamber. It's time
to stand up for the real people who are sacrificing for that
commitment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, my
colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I understand this or any administration's
defensive posture when it comes to criticism of policy. And I
understand the members of his party feeling the need to defend it. This
interim report, ordinarily, I would be one who would wait until
September. But this interim report that shows an appalling lack of
progress on the political front in Iraq leads me to this conclusion.
I was on active duty for 4 years during Vietnam, and I went down to
Vietnam Wall the other night; 50-something thousand dead American names
down there. We have now, 3,500-plus dead American names on the Iraq
wall.
And what was true then, to me, is true now. And General Petraeus
himself said it not long ago when he said, military action is
necessary, but any student of history recognizes that no military
solution to a problem like

[[Page H7689]]

Iraq is there. Military action may be necessary, but it is not
sufficient. There needs to be a political aspect.
The political aspect, as reported in this interim report, shows this:
Of the 275 members of the Iraqi parliament, over one-third are
presently boycotting meetings. Over one-third of the ministers are
boycotting the meetings. Two years after the Iraqi elections, the
government there is dysfunctional.
Now just listen to General Petraeus's words. We have to have a
political aspect. And this present strategy, whether the surge works or
not, is beside the point. These people are unwilling or unable to come
together, after 2 years of a government, to work together to build any
kind of civil society that we can support.
I think that it is now time, with this interim report and the lack of
political progress there, to send a message. Nobody's talking about
precipitous withdrawal. What we are talking about is this Congress
engaging with this administration to support the troops and help them
from this morass.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inquire as to the time
remaining on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross). The gentleman from Arizona has 21
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Missouri has 73 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from California, the former attorney general
of California, Mr. Lungren.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, since I consider
the gentleman from Missouri such a stalwart Member of this House, and a
friend, I rise not in anger but in sorrow as I oppose his amendment. I
have profound disagreements with the specifics of this particular bill.
I came to Congress, returned to Congress after 9/11 precisely because
of 9/11, because I thought we needed, as a country, to respond to the
threat of Islamofascism in an effective way and that we needed to
recognize that our war against Islamofascism was a multi-fronted war.
And one of the fronts of that war is Iraq. You can argue whether it's
the number one front or not, but it is important. And I think everyone
would agree. And what we do there is important. And how we act there is
important. And when we withdraw, even though we call it a redeployment,
that is important. It is a message that goes beyond Iraq. It goes to
all of those who would do us ill in this world.
And I can't understand, when we had General Petraeus look us in the
eye just a couple of weeks ago and say to Members, I believe in my
mission; I've told my men and my women that I believe in the mission;
and if I didn't believe in it, I would tell you immediately because I'm
not going to sacrifice men and women in vain. And he said, give me the
time to do it. And we said, yes, sir, you have the time. And now we
say, when he's over there with his men and women, we're not going to
give you the time. We're going to second guess.
I don't understand how you prosecute a war. One Member got up and
said, let's end this war by passing this resolution. You end a war
usually in America by winning, by defeating the enemy.
We have this bill up now. We're going to have a bill up in another
couple of weeks that's going to tell us we have to change the habeas
corpus issue, we have to grant habeas corpus to unlawful enemy
combatants, for the first time in the history of our Nation, putting us
at a position that we never would have had in World War II. It would
have crippled us during World War II.
And then we're going to hear, close down Guantanamo. Let's look at
this bill as just a piece of the approach that the other side is
taking.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, my
friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Lincoln Davis).
Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of
this resolution. The responsible redeployment of our troops is a brave
step toward a new direction for the war in Iraq. It will remove our
troops from the most dangerous kill zones in Iraq and refocus our
efforts toward defeating terrorism across the globe.
The decision to redeploy is one that I have not come to lightly. This
bill gives the President the power to maintain a military presence in
the region while, at the same time, imposing the accountability the
American people demand that we enforce.
Four years into a difficult and prolonged engagement, I had hoped we
would have seen better proposals for progress in quelling the violence.
Throughout the course of our debate, whether on the air waves, Internet
or in the halls of Congress, we've heard much of the supposed failures
of our military goals. We hear often of continued strife and
instability in the nation we sought to set free; of an Iraqi economy
crippled by the trials of war; of parliamentary disputes, civil unrest
and sectarian violence; and of a peace we all believe in that has yet
to take place in Iraq.
But these stories, however true, are only a portion of our efforts.
They are the darkest side of our endeavors meant to do good and
sinfully omit the triumphs and victories of our sons and daughters
who've done a great service.
For all that remains undone, our troops have accomplished a great
deal. We brought free and open elections to a nation once shackled by a
tyrannical regime. Iraq has experienced freedoms unimagined before, and
Saddam Hussein was put to death for his crimes.
It is in this vein that we must continue our presence in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the greater Middle East and around the world, for it is
essential to our security.
As we prepare to redeploy our troops from Iraq, we must commit as
well to remain ever vigilant in the face of terrorism. Whether they are
threats to America and her allies, whether radicalism threatens the
foundations of the natural freedoms we've sought so hard to prove, we
must prepare ourselves to face those threats and bring their agents
either to justice or a swift demise.
We must continue our hunt for Osama Bin Laden and the instruments of
al Qaeda. While I am behind the efforts to redeploy, our military must
be equipped and prepared to protect American civilians, property and
interests at home and abroad.
As I prepared my case today on the merits of redeployment, I was
reminded of a speech delivered by Congressman Abraham Lincoln on
January 12, 1848, that railed against President James K. Polk of
Tennessee for bringing our country to war with Mexico. Lincoln believed
that Polk had stretched the facts to fit the case for war, just as many
have expressed their belief here that our President stretched the truth
about WMDs to make his case for war.
President Polk's war with Mexico yielded the borders that stand
today. Our nations endured the battle of Vera Cruz, the battle of
Mexico City, but the results of the Mexican-American war remain, and
our two countries live as partners in peace. The results of the war
yielded positive results. History has favorably judged James K. Polk,
just as history will judge this President.
So as the President considers signing the order to redeploy, I hope
he will. I implore him to consider the advice of Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 4
minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Republican Study
Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
thank him for his outstanding leadership on this floor and within the
Republican Study Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to come to the floor today and debate
this resolution with my fellow members of the Republican Study
Committee. But if press reports are to be believed, I am disturbed by
the reason that we are here, and that is, is this a poll driven
resolution?
We all know that our Democratic colleagues now have one of the lowest
congressional approval ratings in almost 50 years. We know they don't
want to spend time on this floor debating how little has been achieved
in their tenure, and perhaps they want to spend even less time talking
about what they have achieved; the single largest tax increase in
American history, a secret earmarking plan gone awry, and a spendorama,
spending millions and millions on peanut storage, NASA and dairy
products, put into a

[[Page H7690]]

bill to support our troops in harm's way.

{time} 1430

Putting polls aside, why are we here? Make no mistake about it. What
we are debating today is whether or not to declare defeat in Iraq, the
battlefront in our war against radical Islam.
Everyone knows that fighting this battle in Iraq is costly, but
losing this battle in Iraq is even costlier.
Mr. Speaker, sometimes life presents us with lousy options, but that
is a reality with which we must deal. Iraq must be seen in the larger
context of our war with radical Islam. The battle lines are drawn; and
whether or not we like it, they are drawn in Iraq.
Don't take my word for it. Take the word of Osama bin Laden: ``The
epicenter of these wars is Baghdad. Success in Baghdad will be success
for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United
States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all of their wars.''
And we have to soberly reflect upon the enemy that we are facing.
Listen to the number two in al Qaeda, al Zawahiri: ``Al Qaeda has the
right to kill 4 million Americans, 2 million of them children.''
Mr. Speaker, two of those children are my children. And I take this
very, very seriously.
Al Qaeda has further vowed to expel the Americans from Iraq. They
have vowed that they will ``launch a jihad wave to the secular
countries neighboring Iraq.''
Again, this is the enemy we face and we face him foremost in Iraq. If
we leave Iraq before subduing him, he will follow us here to our
shores. And make no mistake about it. The consequences are immense.
Read the National Intelligence Estimate. Read the report of the Iraq
Study Group. Precipitous withdrawal declaring defeat will not end this
war. Instead, it will make it worse. It will send it to neighboring
countries. It may lead to genocide.
Now, I have listened to the debate of my colleagues carefully. Some
still complain about the decision to go in. It's a moot point. Many
want to complain about mistakes or incompetence of 3 years, 2 years, or
perhaps 1 year ago that may or may not be accurate. Today they are
irrelevant.
The question is what do we do now? We have a new commander. We have a
new strategy. We have a report due in September. We have signs of hope.
Let's give it a chance. There is too much at stake to declare defeat
today.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland, my friend (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for
yielding.
The question before us today is if failure in Iraq is not an option
and staying the course is not working, what are our options? It is
vital that we focus our attention this morning and this afternoon on
that question, then formulate an integrated set of proposals that
include the basic premise that a stable Iraq and a stable Middle East
is in the vital interest of the United States and the international
community, also taking into consideration here the military's
assertion, through General Petraeus, that the war cannot be won with a
military alone. An integrated set of proposals for an overall strategy
then must include, which is in this bill before us today, diplomatic
efforts, political efforts, economic efforts, social, humanitarian,
cultural, and a military component. We must also garner the
constructive engagement of all of Iraq's neighbors.
When Nixon went to China, the domino theory of Vietnam became
irrelevant. When Nixon went to China, there was a Sino-Soviet split
that advantaged the United States. If we go to Iran, al Qaeda in Iraq
will be irrelevant. If we go to Iran, the idea of a spread of
terrorism, of those problems in the Middle East will be eliminated.
The idea that this piece of legislation moves forward in the next
step of the Iraq Study Group is, in my judgment, on the right mark. It
is profound. And I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding and
for bringing this legislation to the floor.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for
yielding, and I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri for being an
honorable gentleman during this tough time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to start with a couple of warnings. First, I
would suggest anyone on the Republican side shaking hands with the
majority might want to be careful because they have been licking their
fingers and sticking them into the political wind.
Second, government opinion by polls may lead to short-term success at
the ballot box, but in this case it could lead to a catastrophe on a
global scale.
We in this House best serve the United States, Iraq, and the world
community if we establish conditions in Iraq that allow for a somewhat
orderly transition to autonomy for Iraqis. A quick withdrawal from Iraq
would set off a fuse that would eventually blow up not only Iraq but
quite possibly surrounding countries as well.
Iraq foreign minister on Monday warned against a quick withdrawal by
the United States, saying, ``The dangers could be a civil war dividing
the country, regional wars, and the collapse of the state.''
Today when we talk about the Holocaust or when we talk about Rwanda
or when we talk about the Sudan, we ask how could good people stand by
and let this happen. It is an important lesson to remember as we pull
out our voting cards today. Remember, we are trying to help. If we pull
out of Iraq, we guarantee that the Tigris and the Euphrates will run
red with the blood of innocents. We guarantee a safe haven for the
training camps of al Qaeda. We guarantee more free rein for the death
squads of Moqtada al Sadr. We guarantee a civil war between Shiites and
Sunnis. We guarantee even more or worse instability in the region,
perhaps for decades.
No matter how we vote today, we are not going to stop the war. We may
stop fighting, but we are not going to stop the war. As Indonesian
jihadist leader Abu Bakar Bashir said, ``All Muslims should fight to
create an Islamic state. There are only two options for Muslims, to win
or to die.''
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague and
friend, the gentlewoman from California, member of the Armed Services
Committee (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman
for yielding.
I rise today as a cosponsor of H.R. 2956, and although I support this
resolution, I must express my sadness that it has come to this point.
This President was wrong when he claimed that Iraq had weapons of
mass destruction. He has had over 4 years. He has asked for more time,
for more troops, for more surges. And regardless of what our military
experts and our troops on the ground say, this President continues to
claim that we are winning the war in Iraq.
Mr. President, what reports are you reading? Whom are you listening
to? Certainly not the reports that I have read or the military
officials I have spoken to, who tell a very different story about what
is happening in Iraq. To me it is with sadness that this Congress has
to tell you that your war in Iraq is a failure and that we will not let
you leave our brave men and women over there when you have no plan to
allow them to succeed. We will not let them be targets any longer.
History will show, Mr. President, that your war was a failure. But
today the Congress stood up to you and said enough is enough.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague and
friend from the leadership, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Larson).
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Skelton for
yielding me this time.
They buried Andre Craig, 24 years old, last week. He died in the
service of his country. His family held a press conference prior to
that and said, he was exhausted.
Mr. Skelton has put forward a piece of legislation, not a resolution,
a bill that address the men and women in the armed services, that
addresses the problems that they face on a daily basis in Iraq.
There is a difficult choice today to be made. Our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle are honorable people. They understand as well
exactly what it is

[[Page H7691]]

like to go to a funeral service, to look into the eyes of these
families, many who have been deployed three and four times, who are
stretched to the maximum. You know what they are experiencing. It is
hard to reconcile, because we know you are honorable people, the
indifference that seems to lie in the choice between the blind loyalty
to the worst foreign policy endeavor in the history of the country and
the men and women who are there paying for it every single day. You are
right, emotions run deep.
How many more of these services will it take for us to face the truth
and the facts? People have come to this floor and said, well, you know
that the President is going to veto this. One thing we know for sure is
where the President stands and what he has said he will do and how this
will be passed on to another administration. But the thing here is what
we will do, what you will do.
Find your voice. Speak on behalf of the troops. Follow Ike Skelton.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, a member
of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Jones).
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. I thank the chairman for this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2956.
For more than 4 years, our men and women in uniform have faithfully,
skillfully served in Iraq. This legislation makes clear that the
Government of Iraq must now be responsible for Iraq's future.
Mr. Speaker, when Marine General ``Jack'' Sheehan, a former top NATO
commander, declined to serve the White House as war czar for
Afghanistan and Iraq, he stated his reasons for not accepting this
position: ``The very fundamental issue is they don't know where the
hell they're going.'' That is what Marine Corps GEN Jack Sheehan said.
General Sheehan's statement is why the Congress and the administration
need to work together to develop an end point to the war strategy in
Iraq. It is time for Congress to meet its constitutional responsibility
by defining what victory in Iraq will look like.
Stay the course is not the answer. As Colin Powell said last week,
``We have to face the reality of the situation that is on the ground
and not what we would want it to be. It is not a civil war that can be
put down or solved by the Armed Forces of the United States.'' Colin
Powell, I quoted him. That is his statement.
We are now in the 5th year in Iraq, and 3,611 Americans have died in
the war. Mr. Speaker, to this date I have sent over 6,400 letters to
the families and extended families of our men and women in the military
who have lost their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq, and every time I
sign a letter, my heart aches.
Chairman Skelton's plan provides a comprehensive strategy to maintain
and advance the diplomatic, political, and economic components of
United States national security interests in Iraq. It has taken this
country in a direction that it needs to consider.
Mr. Speaker, I close by reminding this Congress what Rudyard Kipling
said in his writings known as ``Epitaphs of War,'' and we need to all
be responsible for this, and this is my quote from him: ``If any
question why we died, tell them because our fathers lied.''

{time} 1445

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm pleased to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished Member of the Republican Study Committee,
the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gresham Barrett.
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
And I hope the chairman of the Armed Services Committee knows how much
I respect him and truly love this man.
Mr. Speaker, I know of no other place than Washington, DC, where it's
okay to look a man in the face, tell him we're going to give him the
time, the resources and everything he needs to accomplish a mission,
and then halfway through the process, say, oops, I'm sorry, time's up.
We made a mistake. Mission over.
No one person I know or have known executing this war on radical
Islam has more credibility than David Petraeus, a gentleman who was
confirmed unanimously in the United States Senate, but instead of
giving GEN David Petraeus, a man whose boots are on the ground, a fair
opportunity and allowing him the time he needs to better implement the
plan and report back, we once again see legislators trying to
micromanage this war. The problem is, we've turned this into a
political war, a war where politicians are pulling the strings, not the
man we said could do it.
If anyone can pull this off, David Petraeus can. If any armed
services in the world can be successful, the men and women of the
United States Armed Forces can. But let them accomplish the mission.
Let them continue to win. Let them bring us victory.
In recent weeks, we've witnessed in Great Britain how real the threat
remains. Whether we're talking about Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the
enemy is there, the enemy is real; and to ignore the threat that they
pose to this Nation is unconscionable.
We owe it to our troops on the ground, to those who have served, to
those who have died, and the American people to allow the plan General
Petraeus developed to take effect.
Mr. Speaker, the stakes are too high. Keep this country safe. Keep
this country strong. Do the courageous thing. Vote against this
legislation.
Mr. SKELTON. I yield 1 minute to the chairwoman of the Subcommittee
on Military Personnel of the Armed Services Committee, Mrs. Davis of
California.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 2956.
I just returned from Iraq. The trip was only a snapshot of what was
happening on the ground, but I heard two messages: One, we need more
time to train Iraqi troops and leadership; but two, progress is not
evident. We are taking two steps back for every step forward. Our men
and women are serving heroically, but it is clear our progress is
limited, at best. So where do we go from here?
Mr. Speaker, we need a plan that moves beyond the surge to a time
frame that says we will continue to support Iraqis in a limited
capacity but that we will redeploy the bulk of our forces within a
prescribed period of time.
We are all concerned about the impact our redeployment could have on
our adversaries, and the region as a whole. However, the reality on the
ground is that, whether it's in 6 months or 2 years, the size of our
current force cannot be sustained. The true focus must be on how we
disengage, how we and our allies work together to support our aims for
a free and open society in Iraq.
Our choices are bad, awful and worse. But this legislation, I
believe, will move us a step closer to a day when Iraq's leaders and
politicians can take back control of their country and our men and
women can return home to their families and a grateful Nation.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very pleased to yield
5\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished Republican whip, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and for the effort he
and others are making on the floor here today.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to this editorial today from the
Washington Post which says, ``It seems like just weeks ago''--because
it was that--``that Congress approved funding for the war in Iraq and
instructed General David Petraeus to report back on the war's progress
in September. Before Congress begins ordering withdrawals, they should
at least give those generals the months they asked for to see whether
their strategy can offer some help.'' Mr. Speaker, I think that, in a
nutshell, sums up what we ought to be talking about today instead of
what we are talking about today.
I've heard this resolution referred to as a ``new way forward,'' but
it doesn't provide a new way forward. It, frankly, serves no purpose in
meeting the challenge that we face today with our totalitarian enemies.
I'm told that, yesterday, in the House Appropriations Committee, 45
minutes was spent debating whether cats should be declawed before they
were allowed into public housing; 45 minutes to decide whether cats
should be declawed in public housing, and by the way, that committee
decided they should, and no minutes spent to talk

[[Page H7692]]

about this bill. No hearing on an April 1 deadline. No outside
testimony on a bill that was quickly put together to serve a purpose
of, I believe, changing the subject of the failure of this Congress to
get its other work done back to a subject that is obviously creating
stress in America today, and that is, what do we do about the
totalitarian enemies we face and their lack of appreciation for
innocent human life?
Commanders in the field say that a responsible deployment from Iraq
would take at least a year. Maybe that's why we didn't have a hearing
on how long it would take to responsibly and safely leave Iraq. There
was no testimony from the military about an April 1 deadline. In fact,
I can't even find any evidence of any consultation with the military
about an April 1 deadline.
And what does ``limited presence'' on page three of this, what does
that mean? What does ``limited presence'' mean? I suppose it means
whatever it needs to mean when you go home and explain why you voted
for the bill, because it doesn't mean anything. Limited presence means
nothing, and it's a key criteria of this approach.
The same people who say we went into Iraq without a well thought-out
plan now want to leave without a plan at all. And that's what is wrong
with what we're talking about today.
Let's go back to page three of the bill itself. The President is
supposed to report back in January things like the projected number of
armed forces necessary to carry out the missions. The projected annual
cost of the missions. The projected duration of the missions, I guess
to suggest that there really aren't going to be missions if you leave
April 1 if you've been on the other side of this issue up to now, if a
few weeks ago you were for giving the generals in the field up until
September, and now you're for deciding what we're going to be doing in
April without knowing what that September situation is about.
And it goes on, on page 3, to talk about whether it's necessary, I
guess defining the missions, whether it's necessary to have Armed
Forces to carry out the following missions; protecting United States
diplomatic facilities and United States citizens, including members of
the Armed Forces who are engaged in carrying out other missions. You
can pretty much make this, I guess, whatever you want it to. Serving in
rolls consistent with customary diplomatic positions. Engaging in
actions to disrupt and eliminate al Qaeda and its affiliated
organizations.
Now, we're going to decide, apparently the President should decide in
January whether that continues to be an important thing, or whether
training and equipping members of the Iraqi Armed Forces continues to
be an important thing.
Where was the effort made to determine the impact on al Qaeda
worldwide, or to determine the impact on Hezbollah or other agents of
terror and how that would affect our security in the United States if
we precipitously leave one more time, if we precipitously leave without
a plan?
Only a few weeks ago, again, as others have verified all over the
country in editorials today, I and others stood on this floor and said,
our troops deserve a funding bill without strings and without
congressional pork. Today, I'm here to say that they deserve a chance
to carry out their mission without looking over their shoulder all the
time to see what the Congress of the United States is about to do next.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from
Texas, Eddie Bernice Johnson.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker,
and thanks to Mr. Skelton, the outstanding Congressman from Missouri.
I rise to support H.R. 2956. If we could stop this war today, it
would please my constituents. And if we could do it without more
violence, I would be picketing to do it.
All of us know, that have any common sense, that we cannot bring the
troops home today, but we can develop a good strategy to make sure that
they get the message in Iraq that we are coming home. We still have
150,336 troops over there. Are we going to stay until they all get
killed?
We talk about how many have lost lives. I was a nurse in the
Veterans' Administration for 15 years, and I saw the damaged lives of
these veterans coming home from war. What are we doing for ourselves
and the future? This is not a partisan issue, this is an issue that
saves America.
Mr. Speaker, the most recent report from the Department of Defense,
states there are 150,336 brave American troops in the middle of a
violent civil war in Iraq.
Meanwhile, the President has repeatedly made it clear that nothing
will discourage him from pursuing a war that has no end in sight.
Congress cannot and should not keep waiting for the President to
change course.
We must change the course ourselves, 2008 must be a year of
transition in Iraq. Iraq has to grow out of the shadow of the United
States.
Iraq needs to take responsibility for its own decisions, learn from
its own mistakes, and find its own solutions to its own problems.
Recently, the Iraq Study Group suggested that the time has since
passed when one country alone could work alongside the Iraqi leadership
to steer Iraq's future.
Rather, as the report says, ``the United States should immediately
launch a New Diplomatic Offensive to build an international consensus
for stability in Iraq and the region.''
This recommendation is perhaps the last- best hope for war weary
Iraqis and Americans alike.
Mr. Speaker, our brave men and women are serving with great honor in
Iraq. Their service has paved the way for a democratic society.
It is time for the Iraqi government to stand up, so our troops can
begin to stand-down.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. SKELTON. I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, my friend, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Armed
Services Committee.
Mr. Speaker, two separate headlines on the front page of today's
Washington Post tell the sad story of two of the Bush Administration's
biggest national security failures. First, its disastrous Iraq policy,
and second, its failure to complete the mission against al Qaeda and
the Taliban along the Afghan/Pakistan border.
One headline reads, ``CIA Said Instability Appeared Irreversible.''
The article describes how, on the same day last November, the Baker-
Hamilton commission received two starkly different portrayals of what
was happening in Iraq. One came from President Bush, who portrayed a
rosy picture, and the other came from the man who President Bush put in
charge of the CIA, General Hayden, who was responsible for providing a
clear-eyed analysis based on cold facts. And what he reportedly told
the commission was, and I quote, ``Instability of the Iraqi Government
was irreversible.'' Irreversible, he said.
These starkly different portrayals of the situation go to the core of
our problems in Iraq because the President has been in a state of
denial. Happy talk is no substitute for a reality-based policy. And
indeed, the President's decisions based on wishful thinking have led to
decisions that have weakened our national security.
Yesterday, the U.S. intelligence experts confirmed the gloomy
assessment that General Hayden made last November, and today's report
to Congress confirms that the Iraqi Government has failed to make
sufficient progress in key areas of national reconciliation.
The other headline on the front page of the paper today on Washington
Post reads, ``U.S. warns of stronger al Qaeda and describes al Qaeda's
growing presence and strength along the Afghan/Pakistan border and
reveals the consequences of our failure to complete the job against al
Qaeda in that area.''
Mr. Speaker, we must insist that the Iraqis assume greater
responsibility for their own future, and we redouble our efforts
against those who did attack us on September 11, 2001. That's what this
bill is about.
It's time to change direction. I urge my colleagues to adopt this
bill.
Mr. SHADEGG. I note the gentleman cited the Washington Post. I wonder
if he has read the editorial today which says that we should be giving
our troops at least until September.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the Speaker.
I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the
Republican Study Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

[[Page H7693]]

{time} 1500

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I want to take my 2 minutes to apologize to
a few families from my district for having to listen, once again, to
the Democratic leadership bringing forward a cut-and-run policy when
these families have given their loved ones in this sacrifice.
I apologize to the Johnson family of Armuchee, Georgia, who
sacrificed their son, Justin. I apologize to the Saylor family from
Bremen, Georgia, who gave up their son, Paul. I apologize to the
Clayton family of Marietta, who misses dearly their son, Captain Hayes
Clayton. To Carey and Sally Brown, of Atlanta, I apologize to you for
the loss of your son, Tyler. From my wife's hometown of Newnan,
Georgia, I express my regret to Robert Stokely for the death of his
son, Mike. Finally, I apologize to the widow of Jack Hensley from
Marietta, a beheaded contract worker.
Mr. Speaker, what an appalling thing to do to these families, whose
sons gave the last full measure of devotion defending liberty and
fighting the terrorist Islamic extremists, to pull the rug out from
under them and say: We are not going to give victory a chance. We are
not even willing to wait until September. I think that it is appalling.
I am ashamed of the Democratic leadership. I apologize to these
families from my district who have given so much.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members are reminded to direct their
remarks to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee), a friend and colleague.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank Chairman Skelton for
yielding, but also for his commitment to our Armed Forces, as the
daughter, Mr. Skelton, of a 25-year Army veteran who loves you dearly
and thanks you for supporting our troops.
As a cofounder of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I rise in support of this
bill. The President has dug us deep into a hole in Iraq. By setting a
clear timeline for the redeployment of United States troops, we are
standing with the American people to stop the digging. If we are to
climb out of this deep hole, we are going to have to make sure that
when our troops come home that they all come home. That means no
permanent bases. It means ending our blind commitment to arming and
training Iraqi security forces. It also means that come September, we
must use the power of our purse, and we must begin to fully fund the
safe redeployment of our young men and women and our contractors out of
Iraq.
The civil war in Iraq is raging within the very security forces we
are arming and training. Our weapons and expertise are being used for
sectarian violence and for killing Americans and Iraqi civilians. This
policy only further endangers our troops and fuels a civil war.
We must end the Bush administration's failed policy in Iraq. It has
failed. We must reconsider this blind commitment to arming and training
Iraqi security forces.
Let us support our troops, and I mean support our troops in a real
way, by bringing them home. This is the will of the American people.
That is the goal of the Out of Iraq Caucus. That is in the national
security interests of our country.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman, once again, for his
leadership and for yielding.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my privilege to yield
the balance of our time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra),
a member of the Republican Study Committee and the ranking member on
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague from Arizona for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the debate today, I end up having a lot
of more questions than I have answers. I have a question as to whether
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that the threat
from radical jihadism is real or not. Have they read the latest
Zawahiri statement, ``Advice of One Concerned,'' where he goes on to
say in the statement, a global system, whose center and heart is the
United States and the European Union? As for the rest of the states of
the world, they are the outlying states.
It goes on to say, the strategy of al Qaeda, the only way to confront
them, the core states, according to al Qaeda's theory, is by taking the
war from the outlying states to the central states, in which case the
damage and consequences of this damage will all take place in the
central states.
Have they not read the other documents that come from al Qaeda that
talk about what their strategy is? Their number one goal and objective
is to defeat the United States and the coalition in Iraq, then to move
out into the region and destabilize the other countries in the region,
eliminate the State of Israel, establish the caliphate, Southern
Europe, Northern Africa, the Middle East, stretch down into Asia and
then establish Sharia law.
Do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that radical
Islam is a threat to the security of the United States and our allies,
or not? If they don't, perhaps pulling out of Iraq is a good strategy.
If they do believe that radical jihadism is a threat to the United
States, if they do believe that looking at the reports in London, in
Europe that radical jihadists actually have attacked in those places
and that they may be attacking in the United States or planning to
attack in the United States, the question becomes, if you are not
willing to fight the threat of radical jihadism in Iraq, where will you
engage radical jihadism, in other parts of the Middle East? Should we
deploy our troops to other parts of the Middle East? Maybe we should
just write off the Middle East and deploy into Northern Africa or into
Western Europe, or maybe what we should do is bring them all home and
redeploy them here in the United States, because they will follow us
home.
So the question is, if you do believe it is a threat, where and when
will you confront the threat that we face? Others have pointed it out.
I have taken a look and read this resolution. I encourage all of the
American people to read this bill. What does it say? Very, very little.
It says that we will commence reductions of our troops. Commence
reductions.
Exactly how many do you want to commence reducing? 100? 5,000?
50,000? Then by April 1 there will be a plan for a limited presence.
What is ``limited presence''? There are some that would say that the
number of troops we have today is a limited presence, because they may
not be enough to get the job done. But the bill doesn't define where we
go. This is no plan.
If this is the way forward, we are in big, big trouble, because it
doesn't recognize the threat and it doesn't have a plan as to how we
are going to move forward.
But there are other things that this Congress should be debating. As
our minority whip said, we debated for 45 minutes as to whether cats
should be declawed before moving into public housing.
The previous question that was defeated earlier today would have
enabled us to deal with a real issue, and that is the modernization of
FISA, our ability to listen to radical jihadists in other parts of the
world as they are communicating their plans and intentions. Today,
there is a massive loophole in FISA for radical jihadists who are
outside of the United States to communicate, and our intelligence
community is prohibited from listening to them. We provide them the
full protection of American law, even though they are not United States
citizens, even though they are outside of the United States, and even
though they are radical jihadists. Let us fix this problem, and let's
make sure that we fix it before we go home in August. We should have
done it today.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my dear
friend and colleague from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Ike Skelton
for getting us to this point today, 1,581 days, 53 months, over 4 years
since this President led this Nation to war in Iraq; 3,600 American
soldiers killed, 27,000 American soldiers seriously injured, 60,000 to
100,000 Iraqis killed; $10 billion per month, $500 billion American
dollars spent on this war.
A civil war is raging in Iraq; there is no credible government in
Iraq; Iraq is

[[Page H7694]]

totally destabilized and Iraq refugees are flooding into neighboring
countries; there is no coalition of the willing supporting the U.S. in
this war; and we are well on our way to destabilizing the entire Middle
East.
President Bush and the chief architect of this war, Vice President
Dick Cheney, are in denial about the disastrous mess they have created.
Some of us have known for quite some time this war must end. Barbara
Lee, Lynn Woolsey and I and several other Members of Congress created
the Out of Iraq Caucus over 2 years ago. We organized this caucus, but
we were dismissed as bleeding heart liberals.
It has taken too long to get to this point we are at today. This bill
will at least demand a strategy to get us out of Iraq and a deadline
will be set. This has been a long time in coming.
However, Mr. Speaker, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
President Bush will apply all kinds of pressure, threaten, mislead,
spend us blind and continue to pursue this immoral war, unless we
decide that we are not going to fund this war anymore.
In the words of the people on the street who are organized against
this war, Mr. President, not another nickel, not another dime, not
another soldier, not this time.
Vote for this bill. It is a good start. And remember, in the final
analysis, we have got to defund this war.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter)
controls 40 minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2956.
The battle in Iraq has left many of us frustrated, and rightly so.
Progress is not as fast as most of us would like it to be.
Some in this House believe that we have lost the war and should
withdraw immediately. Okay, so what happens then? We leave, then what?
Does al Qaeda leave us alone? Can we disband the Department of Homeland
Security? Can we announce that the threat from radical jihadism has
ended?
These are the questions that aren't being discussed. Why? Because the
answers are difficult. We need a long-term strategy that goes against
the political pandering that is preventing us from achieving long-term
national security.
As cochair of the House Antiterrorism Caucus, I have heard warnings
that a withdrawal will only embolden al Qaeda and other radical Islamic
jihad groups. They will carry out more suicide bombing attacks, behead
more innocent Iraqi people, intimidate and suppress and ultimately
recruit peace-loving Muslims around the world to their cause. And what
happens to those Muslims who resist the radical jihadists? They will be
killed.
This is not just my view. This is what the Islamists have been
saying, and, more importantly, doing for the past few years. Muslims in
the Middle East do not have freedom of religion and expression, as we
do here. And while it is convenient to blame America for the problems
in the Muslim world, we are afraid to place the blame on those who have
caused those problems.
I believe passage of this bill will be a huge mistake in our long-
term national strategy and security interests, and it must be defeated.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend
and colleague from Ohio (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. WILSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides a plan for
responsible redeployment of our troops. This is the time to set a new
course. Setting a date certainly gives the Iraqis the incentive to
actually work to meet some benchmarks.
Our military men and women are among our most precious resources.
They are performing admirably with courage in a situation that they
never should have been asked to be in in the first place. They are
doing their job. Now we must do ours. We must bring them home.
On a recent trip to Walter Reed to visit a seriously wounded marine
from my district in Pomeroy, Ohio, I saw again the damage this war has
done. Not just to this young man, but to his family also. They have all
put their jobs and their lives on hold to care for him.
His courage and conviction are not in question. That marine would go
back to Iraq tomorrow if we asked him to. We must not ask. How much
more blood should be shed? How many more families must we shatter?
Enough is enough.

{time} 1515

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield at this time 5 minutes
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton). The distinguished
gentleman has been the chairman in the past of the Terrorism
Subcommittee and is an expert on special operations.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise with great respect for the chairman of the Armed
Services Committee and the author of this bill, but with strong
opposition to H.R. 2956.
Mr. Speaker, the short title of this bill is the ``Responsible
Redeployment from Iraq Act.'' But, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not
responsible. It is irresponsible. This bill is an irresponsible
political act that will put our troops in danger and will result in
catastrophic consequences for the United States, for the Iraqi people,
for Israel, for the greater Middle Eastern region, and for the rest of
the world.
As The Washington Post said in this morning's paper, this bill is
being considered today for ``reasons having more to do with American
politics than with Iraqi reality.''
We must oppose this bill for numerous reasons, but let me mention
just three. First, this bill fails to highlight the consequences of
reducing our force levels too early. Such consequences would have a
devastating effect on Iraq, would embolden al Qaeda in Iran, and would
have severe security impacts on Israel and throughout the Middle East.
Al Qaeda and its proxies are engaged in a jihad against the United
States and against the West. Al Qaeda's second in command, al Zawahiri,
reaffirmed in a July 4 speech an al Qaeda plan to use Iraq, Afghanistan
and Somalia for jihadi planning and training against us.
Second, instead of putting forward legislation that offers an
alternative to the plan being implemented by General Petraeus and
Ambassador Crocker, this political ploy calls for a vague ``troop
reduction'' to be a ``limited presence'' in a ``safe and orderly
manner'' within 120 days; but it fails to define any of these terms.
Specifically, this bill does not define what ``limited presence''
means. Does it mean 50,000 troops or 100,000 troops or 137,000 troops?
What is a limited presence? No one knows. This is not a serious bill;
it is a political bill.
Third, the bill requires the President to address whether it is
necessary for our Armed Forces to carry out missions such as, listen to
this, protecting diplomatic facilities and U.S. citizens, whether it is
necessary to carry out acts like acting to disrupt or eliminate al
Qaeda, or if it is necessary to carry out acts including training and
equipping members of Iraqi security forces. Let me ask my friends on
the other side of the aisle, for goodness sake, what else would we do
there?
It is illogical to ask whether these missions are necessary and only
proves once again that this bill is a political tool and not an
alternative plan.
There are also two other points that my colleagues should consider.
First, the situation in Iraq is not conducive to a force reduction. As
an example of why this is true, the British have indicated their intent
to draw down and have pulled back to the Basra airport. And as a
result, Basra is now in the center of a power struggle between Shiite
elements and tribal leaders over control of oil and political power.
Local governance control has fractured along militia lines because of a
British redeployment like the ones we are talking about in this bill.
Second, we need to remind ourselves of what happened in Beirut and
Afghanistan when forces precipitously withdrew there. In October 1983,
our Marine barracks in Beirut was bombed by Hezbollah with support from
Iran. We withdrew our Marines in February 1984, and by that April, the
remainder of the peacekeeping force had followed. That civil war
continued until 1990 and Hezbollah emerged as a much stronger force,
which to this day threatens the West. We should ask ourselves: Could
the U.S. have prevented the rise of Hezbollah and the influence of
Tehran

[[Page H7695]]

had we not had a precipitous withdrawal like the one provided for in
this bill?
Second, in the 1980s, the Afghan resistance built momentum by
recruiting Muslim fighters to wage jihad against the Soviets. The
Soviet withdrawal of 1989 was followed by a civil war and the collapse
of the government. The Taliban rose in 1993 and gained control of
Afghanistan.
In 1996, bin-Laden moved to Afghanistan where he forged an alliance
between al-Qaeda and the Taliban. What followed were al-Qaeda attacks
on the WorId Trade Center, Khobar Towers, the embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania, the USS Cole, and then September 11th. My colleagues, ask
yourself this: ``Could the U.S. have prevented the rise of al-Qaeda by
responding to these threats?''
I want to urge my colleagues to keep in mind that the world is
watching how the United States handles this tough challenge in Iraq. If
we concede defeat and retreat, we will send a strong message of
weakness and inability to remain committed to our allies and to our
enemies.
Tom Friedman noted in the New York Times this week that our
withdrawal will mean ``more ethnic, religious and tribal killings
across Iraq,'' adding, ``it will be one of the most morally ugly scenes
you can imagine, no less than Darfur.'' The Post today also stated that
a withdrawal will result in a ``full-blown civil war, conflicts
spreading beyond Iraq's borders, or genocide.'' Picture the Iraqis who
have helped us, picture them watch as we prepare to leave and picture
them clinging to our vehicles in fear of their very lives as we start
down the road from Baghdad.
I believe this reckless abandonment of the mission in Iraq would send
a clear message to the Iraqi people, our allies, and potential partners
around the world that Americans are weak and cannot be trusted. In this
world of transnational terrorism and proliferation we can not afford to
stand alone.
It is critical that we give General Petraeus the months we gave him
to implement his strategy, and I urge my colleagues to vote against
this dangerous bill. In this case national security should trump
national politics.

Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds all Members to direct
their remarks to the Chair, and not to others in the second person.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to an
energetic new Member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).
Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Responsible
Redeployment from Iraq Act.
On January 10, President Bush announced an increase of more than
20,000 troops in Iraq. Six months later, it is clear that the
President's surge strategy has yielded no positive results, and Iraq
continues to remain a battleground for sectarian violence and a hotbed
for terrorist activity.
But in spite of the realities on the ground, the President seems
intent on further digging in his heels on a failed policy that has
placed targets on the backs of our troops as they attempt to referee a
civil war. In the 6 months that I have served in Congress, the 17th
Congressional District of Illinois has mourned the lives of six brave
soldiers. In the absence of any visible progress, we can no longer
stand by as more of our troops come home in body bags.
Mr. Speaker, President Bush started this war without a plan to win
the peace. For the sake of our troops, our national security and our
credibility around the world, this Congress must do what this President
refuses to do in order to return stability to Iraq. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, as I read this resolution, I can't help
but think ``there they go again.''
With approval ratings of Congress near record lows, the majority
leadership searches the polls for any issue they can use to political
advantage. Unfortunately, their attempt to improve their standing comes
at the expense of troops on the ground and our country's security.
Of course the American people are concerned about the course of
events in Iraq. Of course they mourn each loss. Of course they want our
troops to come home as soon as possible. Of course they do, because we
all do.
But responsible leadership does not permit pandering to polls and
understandable emotions without facing up to the real consequences of
the vote. And by the way, putting the word ``responsible'' in the title
of a bill does not make it so. It is an understandable, though I
believe misguided, position to require an immediate withdrawal of
forces from Iraq. This resolution, though, is an attempt to play
politics with the issue and avoid responsibility for the consequences
that come from its aftermath.
Requiring withdrawal on a congressionally mandated timetable abandons
those who have worked with us, invites chaos and more death in Iraq and
increases the risk to our security here at home. No one should be able
to stick his or her head in the sand and ignore those consequences.
Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that what goes on in this Chamber with
resolutions like this is encouraging to our adversaries and makes the
job of our troops on the ground even harder than it needs to be. How
can it possibly be responsible to declare failure when all of our
troops have only been in Iraq for just about exactly 1 month today.
This struggle and the broader war against radical Islamist terrorists
will require the best of us, and that requires doing our constitutional
duty. This resolution is far from the best we can do.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to a very thoughtful colleague, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), 2 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R.
2956, which would compel a responsible exit of U.S. troops from Iraq.
I voted against giving the President the authority to go to war in
Iraq. Two years ago, Brad Miller and I introduced legislation to
terminate the authorization and to require of the President a
comprehensive exit strategy. The President has responded to calls for
change by stubbornly adhering to a failed strategy that has cost our
Nation dearly in blood, treasure and moral authority. He has rejected
Congress's constitutional role in determining policy, and he has
ignored the will of the American people. This obstinate, irresponsible,
destructive course must not continue.
Now, the President has put great stock in the recent surge in U.S.
forces, but the surge seems mainly to have shifted the locus of the
fighting. The intent was to create space for Iraq's political leaders
to make the hard choices that will lead their country forward, but
those hard choices are not being made. We can no longer leave our
foreign policy at the mercy of sectarian and political forces we cannot
control.
A mission of simply biding time, at great cost in blood and treasure,
is not one that we can or should support. We must begin to bring our
troops home.
Yet, as I and many others have repeatedly argued, it not only matters
that we leave Iraq, but it also matters greatly how we leave. We cannot
afford the same mistakes that the Bush administration made in entering
Iraq, without a plan for protecting troops, for managing consequences
or for giving the Iraqi people every possible chance to succeed.
Therefore, the bill before us would provide the discipline of a
timeline to the Bush administration for beginning and completing the
termination of combat operations and the redeployment of our troops. It
would also compel the development of a comprehensive strategy for
managing the redeployment and addressing the challenges that Iraq will
continue to present after our troops are gone.
Mr. Speaker, the continued presence of 160,000 American troops in
Iraq is not sustainable and does not serve our national interest. It is
time not merely to urge but to require a change of course. This
legislation does just that, and I urge its passage.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, today President Bush, as required by
Congress, has reported on progress made by the Iraqi Government on
political and military benchmarks. He reported that the Iraqis have not
accomplished any of these goals.
It is time, in fact past time, for the Iraqis to take control of
their own future. It is time for the Iraqis to move forward, resolve
their internal conflicts and begin the process of national
reconciliation.
More than 3,600 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice to bring
freedom

[[Page H7696]]

and democracy to Iraq. Our military has performed exceptionally; for
that and for their sacrifices, our Nation will be internally grateful.
But without progress by the Iraqis themselves, there is little more
that our military can do. And despite the stubbornness of our President
to stay the course, it is time for us to bring our troops home.
I am proud to be with the majority in Congress and across America in
supporting this responsible plan to redeploy our troops, set a new
course in Iraq, and lead our Nation towards greater security here at
home and across the world.
I rise in support of the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act and I
stand in support of a change in strategy for U.S. involvement in Iraq:
one that sets a timetable for prompt and safe withdrawal of our armed
forces.
For many of us on the House Floor today this is not the first time we
have voted for such a change, or demanded a new plan from the
President.
In March, we voted to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, improve troop
readiness, and demand accountability from the administration. The
President vetoed our plan.
In May, Congress enacted specific political and military benchmarks
for the Iraqi government. By tying the goals to funds for military
action in Iraq, we made it clear that progress is a prerequisite for
continued assistance by the United States.
Today, President Bush, as required by Congress, reported on progress
made by the Iraqi government towards those benchmarks. He reported that
the Iraqis have not accomplished any of these goals.
More than 3,600 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice to bring
freedom and democracy to Iraq. Our military has performed
exceptionally. They removed a government hostile to the United States
and took responsibility for providing enough stability to enable the
Iraqi people to establish their own free and independent government.
For that and for their sacrifices, our Nation will be eternally
grateful.
Yet, as the war enters its fifth year, sectarian violence and failure
of political progress has put our troops in a more and more threatening
and dangerous situation. This volatility and the President's surge
strategy have increased U.S. and Iraqi casualties and injuries.
It is time --well past time--for the Iraqis to take control of their
own future. It is time for the Iraqis to move forward to establish an
effective system of government, to resolve their internal conflicts,
and to begin the process of national reconciliation. Without these
actions by the Iraqis themselves, there is little more our military can
do. It is time--well past time--for us to bring them home.
On behalf of the American people, we are seeking to do just that.
Today we will vote once again to end our military involvement on the
frontlines in Iraq and bring our troops home despite the stubbornness
of our President to stay the course.
It is my hope that that Republicans will join us in supporting this
responsible plan to redeploy our troops and to press the President for
a new course in Iraq. As Democrats, we will lead this country towards a
more responsible--more strategic path--to end our military involvement
in Iraq. In so doing, we remain committed to protect our nation, our
people and our strategic interests at home and around the world.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this bill because
it is the wrong debate at the wrong place at the wrong time; and most
importantly, it sends the wrong message.
It is the wrong debate because it serves no useful purpose. We know
this bill will never become law. If it passes, it will be vetoed, and
that veto will be sustained. We are wasting the time and trying the
patience of the American people for no useful purpose.
It is the wrong place because it is what happens in Iraq, not here,
that will determine the outcome of the current struggle. Our forces and
those of the Iraqi Government are in a tough fight. We should reinforce
them, not undercut them, and we should encourage the Iraqi Government,
not abandon it.
It is the wrong time because it is too early to debate the outcome of
the current effort in Iraq. I have great respect for the author of this
bill, but it is General Petraeus's report and assessment that should
guide our deliberations in this body. He has asked us to wait until
September before he offers us an assessment of the progress and
prospects of the current effort. Having given him a tough job, we owe
it to him to adhere to the timeline he has requested.
It is the wrong message, most importantly, because it strengthens
rather than weakens our enemies.

{time} 1530

They know they cannot defeat our forces, but they can and they do
believe they can outlast this Congress. This debate and this bill will
only strengthen them in that belief.
By strengthening our enemies, we undercut the best efforts of our
forces, the forces of Iraq and the Iraqi Government. The best way to
undo the damage that this bill has already done is to defeat it, and I
urge my colleagues to do so.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire how much time is left on
our side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 49\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 29 minutes
remaining.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute at this point
to one of our very focused new Members, the gentleman from Connecticut,
Mr. Chris Murphy.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
For all that we disagree on here today, we agree on one thing: We all
want a stable, independent Iraq. What I can't understand is how anyone
can still believe that our continued, open-ended military intervention
there will lead to a stable nation. In fact, it's doing the opposite.
The Iraqi Parliament and ministries are in unprecedented disarray.
The President's own report to Congress will say that we haven't met any
of our political benchmarks there, and an estimated 13,000 Iraqis are
dead since the escalation began.
The fact is, as someone much wiser than I said, the Iraqis today are
paying wholesale rather than retail for their political decisions. So
long as we are the military bodyguard for every major Iraqi political
group, so long as we are subsidizing the political decisions of Iraqi
political leaders, they will never make the difficult political
concessions necessary to create a stable society there.
I support this bill, Mr. Speaker, because not another American
soldier should die for a strategy that is unfathomably making Iraq less
safe and less stable.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman who
started the Iraq Study Group, the gentleman from Virginia, the very
distinguished Mr. Wolf.
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise against the resolution, and I rise in
support of the Iraq Study Group.
Most Americans favor the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. In
fact, most Members of this body also favor the Iraq Study Group, but
all would favor its consideration. I have asked the Rules Committee on
three different occasions to make the Iraq Study Group recommendations
in order, and I have been denied.
Let me say that we ought not blindly follow the White House, nor we
ought not blindly follow the Democratic leadership in Congress. The
American people have a very low opinion of this institution, as Mr.
Thornberry just said, because all they see us doing is attacking,
dividing, and using political rhetoric.
The American people want us to come together. A majority of your side
have said they support the Iraq Study Group. A majority of my side have
said they support the Iraq Study Group. Lee Hamilton, Jim Baker, Leon
Panetta, and Ed Meese have done an outstanding job. They have 41
experts of all political views that have come together.
This body ought to be voting and debating the Iraq Study Group and
not a resolution that is preordained that it will be vetoed.
Let's come together. Let's bring it up for a vote, but to blindly
follow the White House or to blindly follow the Democratic leadership
that will not give this up, we will continue to have the lowest opinion
poll this Congress has ever had. The American people deserve better.
The men and women who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve
better, and their families deserve better.

[[Page H7697]]

The 79 recommendations of the Iraq Study Group provide a
comprehensive blueprint for dealing with the war in Iraq. Its
conclusions were the result of consensus, and most people favor
implementing the bipartisan panel's recommendations.
Members of the administration, albeit anonymously, have been quoted
as saying the ISG is the way to go. Members of the military have looked
favorably on the report. And so have both sides of the aisle here in
Congress.
H.R. 2574, which would codify the recommendations of the report, and
whose lead sponsor is a Democrat, has 58 cosponsors. 34 Republicans are
on the bill; and there are 24 Democrats.
Look who served on the panel: Jim Baker, Lee Hamilton, Lawrence
Eagleburger, Vernon Jordan, Ed Meese, Leon Panetta, Sandra Day
O'Connor, Chuck Robb, Alan Simpson and Bill Perry. Secretary Gates
served until being appointed Secretary of Defense.
The panel took nearly 9 months to come up with its 79
recommendations--which were all agreed to unanimously.
The ISG met with military officers, regional experts, academics,
journalists and high-level government officials from America and
abroad.
Congress should have opportunity to debate--and discuss--the merits
of the Iraq Study group's recommendations.
It is not adequate to just blindly follow the whims of the White
House or the Democrat Leadership in Congres. We need to be working
together toward building a consensus on this issue rather trying to
score political points.
The American people expect more. The men and women serving in uniform
deserve more. So do their families.
They want to see us the Congress, the administration and the nation
working together; not fighting each other.
Implementing the 79 recommendations of the Iraq Study Group is the
one thing we can do that could have an impact.
I have tried three times now to get this Congress to adopt the
recommendations of the ISG. Each time my efforts have been rebuffed by
the Rules Committee. If we had acted back in January, we wouldn't be
here today. I realize the war has created a bitter divide in our
country. The ISG allows us to come together.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague
from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, the best way to stop a disastrous war would
have been not to have started it, but the American people know that, it
having been started, we did have a moral obligation to the Iraqi people
to give them a reasonable chance to form a government. But after 4
years, after 3,600 lives, after $450 billion of American money sunk
into the sands of Iraq, that moral obligation has been fulfilled in
spades.
Now we have a moral obligation to our sons, a moral obligation to our
daughters, a moral obligation to our husbands and wives. The moral
obligation to Iraq has been completed. The moral obligation to our
families now needs to be honored, and it could only be honored by
passage of this resolution.
Now, people have said that we can't just leave; we need a way
forward. There is only one way forward to security, to reduce the
threats from the Mideast, and that is to break our addiction to oil
from that region of the world.
Take one-half of the $80 billion and put it in energy efficiency,
we'll give you security. Pass this resolution.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased at this time to yield 1 minute
to the chairwoman of the Small Business Committee, the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez).
(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2956. We
must support and protect our troops, and the best way to do that is to
bring them home.
The American people want the troops out of harm's way. The White
House has not met its own benchmarks, and with this resolution, the
Iraqi leaders, for once, will know that we mean business.
Mr. Speaker, the pain and suffering felt because of this war is
unconscionable. New York has lost over a 150 brave young souls; yet,
for this President, there's no ending to this war.
There is a smarter way. Under H.R. 2956, our troops start to come
home in 120 days. Over 70 percent of Americans want us out of Iraq.
Democracy is about elected officials listening to the people. Democracy
is what we are trying to teach Iraqis, how to run their own democracy.
By voting to bring our troops home, we can show them.
The American people want this war to be over. Put your faith and
trust in them. Choose democracy. Choose a way forward. Vote for this
resolution.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased at this time to yield 1 minute
to a leader on our foreign policy issues, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Schiff).
(Mr. SCHIFF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, when the President announced in January that he intended
to escalate the number of American troops in Iraq, he sought to betray
the increase in American combat forces as a necessary precondition for
Iraq's government to make the political compromises necessary to
prevent Iraq's civil war from spiraling completely out of control. In
that speech, the President pledged to hold the Iraqi leadership
accountable and to demand progress in two main areas: political
reconciliation and security.
Now, more than 6 months later, it's unfortunate but also undeniable
that little sustainable progress has been made on either front. Even as
we speak, the administration is downplaying the significance of an
interim report on the effect of the surge in Iraq.
On the security front, the heroism and sacrifices of American forces
has caused a drop in sectarian killings, leading to an overall drop in
the number of Iraqi deaths, but the reduction of Iraqi casualties has
come with a horrific increase in the loss of our own troops. More than
600 Americans have been killed since January.
Moreover, as American troops leave cities that are quieted with their
own blood, there is every indication that Iraqi troops will not be able
to sustain the calm. If the past is any indicator, insurgents and
militias are merely waiting for us to exhaust ourselves and move on
before returning, and Iraqi security forces will be powerless to stop
them.
When President Bush announced in January that he intended to escalate
the number of American troops in Iraq, he sought to portray the
increase in American combat forces as a necessary precondition for
Iraq's government to make the political compromises necessary to
prevent Iraq's civil war from spiraling completely out of control.
In that speech, the President pledged to hold the Iraqi leadership
accountable and to demand progress in two main areas: political
reconciliation and security.
Now more than six months later it is unfortunate, but also undeniable
that little sustainable progress has been made on either front. Even as
we speak, the Administration is downplaying the significance of an
interim report on the effect of the ``surge'' in Iraq.
On reconciliation, the Iraqi Government has failed to meet any of the
political benchmarks endorsed by the President in January and which
this Congress mandated earlier this spring. These political goals are
the best indicator of the prospects for reconciliation in Iraq and,
tragically, all signs indicate that political reconciliation has been
non-existent.
The Iraqi Parliament has yet to begin consideration of the oil law or
an associated revenue-sharing law. Given the disparate geographical
distribution of Iraq's oil reserves, these laws are essential if Iraq
is to have any hope of remaining a united country.
More alarming, is the lack of progress in healing the Sunni-Shiite
rift. Of greatest importance, is the need to reverse some of the more
draconian edicts of the postwar de-Baathification orders promulgated by
former Coalition Provisional Authority chief Paul Bremer. These decrees
removed any incentive for Sunnis to participate in creating a better
future for Iraq. Other laws--to disarm militias and to grant amnesty--
are still being formulated, and most observers believe that the
prospect of disarming militias is so remote that it will not be
possible in the foreseeable future.

On the security front, the heroism and sacrifice of American force
have caused a decline in sectarian killings and suicide bombings,
leading to an overall drop in the number of Iraqi civilian deaths. But
the reduction of Iraqi casualties has come with a horrific increase in
the loss of our own troops--more than 600 Americans have been killed
since January.
Moreover, as American troops leave cities they have quieted with
their own blood, there is every indication that Iraqi troops will not
be able to sustain the calm. If the past is any indicator, insurgents
and militias are merely waiting for us to exhaust ourselves and move

[[Page H7698]]

on before returning--and Iraqi security forces will be powerless to
stop them.
There has been one very positive development--in al Anbar province,
Sunni tribal leaders have decided that al Qaeda's indiscriminate
killing makes them a bigger problem than we are, and they have taken up
arms against our common foe. This alliance of American forces and
former insurgents is desirable and should be encouraged elsewhere. But,
like most marriages of convenience, it is not sustainable and cannot
form the bedrock of a secure Iraq or reconciliation among Iraqi sects.
For almost two years, I have been calling for a change in our mission
in Iraq--from policing a civil war to training, containment and
counter-terrorism. This necessitates a responsible redeployment of our
combat forces from Iraq, and I believe that this bill does an excellent
job of providing a framework for that redeployment, while still giving
our armed forces the flexibility that they need to respond to
contingencies.
Iraq's future must be decided by the Iraqi people and that solution
must come from political reconciliation. Every day that we maintain our
forces in the crossfire between warring sects is another opportunity
for hatreds to harden and radicals to consolidate their grip on Iraq's
ethnic and sectarian communities. We should change our mission now, and
begin the withdrawal of our combat forces.
In planning for the inevitable withdrawal, we must recognize that a
poorly executed departure could result in an escalation of civil war
violence as Iraqi sects compete for power. As we draw down our forces,
we must make every effort to prevent a magnification of this
catastrophic violence. In particular, we must not compound the error of
the lack of pre-invasion planning, with an equally tragic failure to
adequately anticipate the post-occupation environment.
Mr. Speaker, it is long past time to begin to end the war in Iraq. I
support this bill and urge its passage by the House today.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm pleased to yield 1 minute
to a former member of our Armed Services Committee, my friend and
colleague from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, over the recess I had the opportunity to
have several public hearings back home, and Iraq was one on everyone's
mind. The overwhelming consensus was that we need a new strategy in
Iraq, a view shared by national security experts and illustrated by
continued violence in the region. Today, we can chart a new path so
that we can finally bring our troops home.
Americans know the Bush strategy isn't working, and today's Iraq
status report confirms the lack of progress. The Iraqi Government has
failed to promote political reconciliation, and our military is paying
the price. Our troops have done a superb job, but they were not sent to
Iraq to referee a civil war.
Today's bill requires our military to start redeploying out of Iraq
within 120 days, to be completed by April 1, 2008. We will not abandon
Iraq, but we must implement a new strategy based on political, economic
and diplomatic initiatives.
I want to thank Chairman Skelton for his leadership on this measure,
and I urge all my colleagues to support it.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm pleased to yield 1 minute
to a member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from New
Jersey.
I rise in support of this bill. I can't believe the argument in
opposition to this bill, that we should continue to stay the course,
because this is the policy that has led us in the wrong direction for
four straight years. This has been the worst foreign policy fiasco in
American history.
Now we're being told that we're there to fight al Qaeda. There were
no al Qaeda in Iraq when we went into Iraq. Saddam had nothing to do
with 9/11. Now there are about 5,000 there out of a population of 26
million.
We have trained hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Many of them we've
given them more training than we've given our own troops.
This policy is not worthy of the sacrifice of our troops and their
military families. It's leading us down a dead-end street. It's time
that it was changed.
Mr. Speaker, we are told that we need to train the Iraqis more. All
we are doing is equipping and training them in order to kill each other
in a civil war that I'm afraid is going to be inevitable.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), a distinguished member of the
Armed Services Committee.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, just today, while debating this new Iraq withdrawal
bill, reports continue to surface that al Qaeda is now restructuring
its power.
Like several other recent actions on the part of Democrats recently,
this bill communicates to jihadist enemies that we are weakening and
confirms their belief that they have a critical advantage over free
people in the world because their will is far stronger than ours and
they need only to persevere to break our resolve.
Osama bin Laden himself has stated, ``The whole world is watching
this war and the two adversaries. It's either victory and glory, or
misery and humiliation.''
Mr. Speaker, if Democrats continue to insist that the war in Iraq has
nothing to do with the war on terrorism, then I wish they would explain
that to the terrorists because they still don't understand, and they
are continuing to be fundamentally committed to the destruction of the
Western world and to killing us wherever they find us.
Mr. Speaker, the premise behind this bill is that we can have peace
tomorrow so long as we are willing to surrender today. Unfortunately,
with jihadist terrorism, just the opposite is true. If we surrender to
terrorism today, it will only bring greater horror and suffering to all
of humanity tomorrow.
So vital questions arise to those who would continue to demand that
we surrender Iraq to terrorists. Are they also willing to allow the
citizens and families of this Nation to face jihad and what may become
a nuclear jihad here at home? And what will we tell our children when
that day comes?
Mr. Speaker, defeating radical jihad in Iraq and throughout the world
will require the support, perseverance, patience, wisdom and prayers of
the American people. But for the sake of those people and for our
children, for our future generation and for people across the world who
still hope for freedom, I pray that the Members of this body would heed
that warning echoing down through history.
There is no substitute for victory.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
It's not too early. It's too late, too late because the President's
party has enabled these disastrous policies. And listening to some on
the other side of the aisle, there are people still disconnected from
reality.
But each day their congressional support is slowly crumbling as
evidence mounts of the costs of failure. It's not just 10 billions of
dollars a month. It's more lives lost and thousands of hopes and dreams
shattered.

{time} 1545

Even those of us who opposed this from the beginning understand that
300,000 American soldiers and contractors cannot leave overnight. But
that's no excuse not to start now, as rapidly and as responsibly as
possible, to get our people out of crossfire of what is now a religious
civil war. Our soldiers have done all that they can do and can be
expected of them.
I call on the doubters to join us in supporting the strongest most
direct measure possible, not just to send the President a message, but
rein him in and bring our soldiers home from this nightmare.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and
colleague, the gentlelady from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY. I thank my colleague.
Mr. Speaker, today is not cause for celebration, nor is it a time for
high rhetoric. Instead, today is a moment of conscience. Hundreds of
billions of dollars have been spent, 3,600 of our best and brightest
have been called upon to sacrifice in the unforgiving sands of Iraq.
When in a hole, it is best to stop digging. We must make plans to
protect those we can best protect, to institute a rational response
capability

[[Page H7699]]

within the region. But first we must make immediate plans to disengage
ourselves from Iraq.
I urge my colleagues to find consensus on this issue. We owe it to
the brave men and women that have sacrificed and will continue to
sacrifice until we find and implement resolution.
Once we have disengaged ourselves from the Iraqi civil war, maybe,
with patience, dialogue and an open ear, we may find new relationships
within the Middle East to help our partners secure the peace we have
thus far found so elusive.
Let us renew our commitment to finding a solution for Middle East
conflict. It is time we used our heads and hearts rather than fists and
force.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting once again for changing
course in Iraq.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to our
thoughtful friend and colleague from the State of Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, let me just very briefly outline
exactly what we are after in this bill.
First of all, this is a responsible effort for redeployment so that
we can refocus and fight the war on terror. The situation in Iraq is a
civil war compounded by civil wars that have been going on ever since
Abraham, Hagar, Sarah, Isaac, Ishmael, Esau, Mohammed and his son-in-
law, which has broken into the Shi'as and the Sunnis; hundreds of
thousands of years, folks.
None of the people from Iraq came to this country and asked, please
come over and pump in $500 billion, 3,600 of the lives of your precious
sons and daughters to make a democracy for us. That was a decision that
was made counter to the authorization in the first place. It was a go
against weapons of mass destruction.
It is responsible. It is focused. We need to do it, and I urge
passage of this bill.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I spent the Fourth of July recess traveling to Pakistan
and to Iraq.
I came away with a couple of observations. First in Pakistan, our
allies in the war on terror, the Pakistanis, have great concern about
an early withdrawal from Iraq, because they saw first hand, after the
defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, when America left that
region, left Afghanistan to uncertainty and chaos, what happened was
the rise of the Taliban, an extremist group, that then gave basis to al
Qaeda to be able to plan and plot the 9/11 attacks on America.
So the Pakistanis are extremely concerned about an early withdrawal.
Our allies around the world are concerned. The word of America is at
risk. Our allies are watching what we do here in the United States
Congress and what America does.
Second, traveling to Iraq, I came away with some positive reports,
not only from our commanders, but listening to the Iraqi general, who
is in charge of the national police. He said that the Shia, the Sunni
and the Kurds have come together as Iraqis, standing up a national
police force that's fighting to throw out the negative elements that
are in Iraq today. They are standing shoulder-to-shoulder, the Shia,
Sunni and Kurds. Our folks also told us that they need more time to
train the police, the security of the Iraqis.
Talking to our soldiers was the most powerful information I came away
with. One of the sergeants in our Special Forces told us something very
significant. Right about now, he is saddling up, he is getting ready to
go out on a dangerous mission in Iraq tonight to either kill al Qaeda
to take down a production facility for IEDs. He said to me, he said to
the group of us that was there, we cannot leave Iraq prematurely
because chaos will ensue, and what we will find is that the terrorists
will be in the streets of America.
So listening to that powerful statement from somebody who is putting
his life on the line, every single night, that's powerful information.
Those are powerful words.
We have to allow this surge, not just to last for 3 weeks, but to go
for 3 months. Let it go. Let us vote down this resolution.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, my friend
from California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong
support of Chairman Skelton's bill to bring American forces home from
Iraq and to begin to end this tragic war, a war borne of lies,
ignorance and arrogance. The cost of this war has been high to our
country, to our economy but, most importantly, to our men and women in
uniform, for they have taken all of the sacrifice for our President's
decision to take this country to war in Iraq.
Our military responded honorably to the President's decision, but he
failed to honor their sense of duty and their courage with a plan that
was designed to succeed. His failed policy has cost their families,
their communities, and most tragically, it has cost them their limbs
and their lives.
The war in Iraq cannot be won, and it cannot be lost. It can only be
brought to an end. The President continues to display both sheer
arrogance and tragic ignorance as he refuses to change policy. Over and
over again, it says the same thing, to stay the same course, to give
them more time and that success is just around the corner.
The American people realize that staying the course in Iraq was not a
plan, and it is not going to work. I have known, as many of my
Democratic colleagues have, that staying the course is not acceptable.
We honor our troops when we have the courage to bring them home and end
this war.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield 1 minute
to my friend and colleague, a Member of the Ways and Means committee
from the State of Michigan (Mr. Levin).
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues suggested earlier that
debating the war as we are today is breaking the will of the American
people.
On the contrary, it's the people's will that is breaking down the
wall of a tragically mistaken policy. It has become painfully obvious
that the White House is incapable of changing course in Iraq.
The Bush administration's talking points about the situation change
from week to week, but the fundamental strategy remains the same. The
President has determined our troops will remain in Iraq no matter what.
The reality is that the government of Iraq is not meeting the
benchmark.
Six months into the surge, there is no indication that the Iraqis are
coming together to make the political decisions necessary to end the
sectarian violence that's tearing the country apart. They are unlikely
to do so as long as the U.S. military commitment remains open-ended.
We need to change course. Support this bill.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is left
on our side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 38\1/2\
minutes remaining.
The gentleman from California has 23 minutes remaining.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to one of
our thoughtful new Members from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).
Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I am rising today in support of the Responsible
Redeployment from Iraq Act. The time has come to stop this senseless
policy of using our brave men and women in uniform as cops policing a
religious civil war, and it's time for our country to rededicate
ourselves to winning the war on terror.
The data is in. The facts are irrefutable in and the conclusion
clearly demonstrates that the President's continued resolve to engage
in nation building in Iraq has made America weaker and has put our
Nation in greater peril from terrorist attack. It is time that we stop
asking our brave sons and daughters to give the ultimate sacrifice in
support of the President's failed policies.
It is time for the President to listen to his own advisors and the
American people. It is time for the President to admit mistakes he has
made and for him to show leadership by changing direction. It is time
for the President to

[[Page H7700]]

honor our service men and women by rebuilding our military and by using
our finest fighting force the world has ever known to bring Osama bin
Laden to justice, to search out and destroy terrorists and to punish
the nations that support terror.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished Member of the Ways and Means committee, our friend from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, our men and women in the
military have done everything that has been asked of them, and it's
time for a new direction.
The reason we're here is because the Republican party never asked a
question of the administration for all those years, not one question.
They forfeited their oversight responsibilities.
Remember the briefings in the well of this House; we know where the
weapons of mass destruction are; according to the Secretary of Defense,
they are in south Baghdad; we were going to be welcomed as liberators;
the insurgency, as the Vice President stated it, is in its last throws;
and finally, mission accomplished? Now we hear: But just give us more
time. Stay the course.
If we had asked some questions here along the way, and not been
subservient to the White House, we wouldn't find ourselves where we are
today, funeral upon funeral, 26,000 Americans wounded. Yet we are told
by the White House, just give us more time for this policy to take
root.
How much more time? Vote for this resolution.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. Pearce, the
gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we are told today that it's time to refocus on the war
on terror. Yet as I read this bill, and I would encourage each one of
you to go online and read H.R. 2956, I see no refocus on the war on
terror.
I see nothing in H.R. 2956 which describes the threat from radical
jihad. I see no plan.
We are told that we need to communicate with the White House, that we
need to send a bold message to the President. I am sorry, he's right
down the street. It's the people who are causing terror, worldwide
terror, that the communication needs to be sent to.
Now, I can't tell you exactly what our troops are feeling as we
debate these measures.
I can tell you that I was in Vietnam flying missions in Vietnam at
the time that Jane Fonda gave aid and comfort to our enemy, and a time
that this Congress was withdrawing support from that war. And I can
tell you what soldiers at that time felt. They felt dismay. They felt
betrayal. They felt like we had been led down a path.
If this were really an attempt by our majority party to deal with the
situation that they are concerned about, it should have an immediate
withdrawal date. But it lacks that because it's a political tool rather
than an attempt to refocus on the war on terror.
I can tell you that it does not ask key questions, key questions
like, how will unilateral withdrawal prevent al Qaeda, Hezbollah and
other terrorist operatives already in Iraq from establishing robust
training facilities from which to plan and execute additional strikes
against the United States?
It fails to answer the question that both Israel and Jordan have
asked when they said that unilateral withdrawal, much like the
Democrats' plan, would have a devastating consequence on their
countries and the region as a whole.
What impact will our unilateral withdrawal from Iraq have on the
safety of regional allies, such as Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait? Those questions go unasked and unaddressed in H.R. 2956,
because this is not a plan to refocus the war on terror. This is a plan
to withdraw and hope that we can retreat home without anyone following
us.
It just won't happen that way. The terrorists will come with us as we
retreat.
I urge defeat of H.R. 2956.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our friend and
colleague, the hard-working new Member from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

{time} 1600

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, back in February when this Congress started
the 110th, there was a proposal up here, a resolution that passed with
mostly Democrat support, very few Republicans, to say we supported the
troops but we opposed the surge or the escalation. Since that time, we
have put 20,000 or 30,000 more troops into Iraq, and since that time we
have had some of the deadliest months that we have incurred in this
failed war in the Middle East.
As time has gone on, we have seen Senators Voinovich; Lamar Alexander
from my home State; Lugar; and others on the Republican side in the
Senate come forth and say we need a change of direction. The
handwriting has been on the wall in both cloakrooms. The handwriter got
to the Democratic cloakroom a lot sooner than apparently the handwriter
got to the Republican cloakroom. Either that, or the optometrist hasn't
made it over to the other side. But the handwriting is on the wall, and
in the interim there are American men and women dying needlessly. Over
3,600 have died; many, many, many, many more casualties, and the cost
to this country will be great.
While I was home during the home workweek, I saw a lady who told me
her son has been at Desert Storm. He was still in the military. He had
been in Iraq once before. And she told me he told her, Mother, I am
proud to fight for my country. I have done it twice. But there is no
purpose over there, there is no reason to be over there. We need to
come home. I have heard it over and over and over again from the
mothers of the soldiers who come home with testimony to our failed
foreign policy.
How many, how many, how many more must die? How many more limbs must
be lost before the handwriting on the wall in the Republican cloakroom
is read? I ask you to look in your own hearts. Think of the soldiers as
your children, they are your constituents, and help redeploy them. We
are not saying in this proposal that we come home entirely. We keep
troops for certain causes.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members are reminded to direct their
remarks to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend and colleague, the
gentleman from California, Mr. Mike Thompson, 1 minute.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker and Members, our strategy in
Iraq isn't working. It wasn't working 3 years ago, and it won't be
working another year from now. This isn't about defeat; it is about
reality.
Our troops have done a fantastic job. But to risk more lives, more
wounded, and to spend more than the half trillion dollars we have
already spent far exceeds any gain we can expect.
The best thing to do is to get our troops out, and get them out
immediately, and to make the Iraqis take control of their country. But,
today, I will vote for this bill which is a realistic shift in strategy
that every Member should be able to support.
Our focus should be on protecting our home front, stabilizing
Afghanistan, and stamping out terrorism across the globe. And we need
to start looking ahead by developing a containment plan to keep Iraq's
civil war from spilling over into other countries throughout the
region. Mr. Speaker, that is the only way to achieve victory.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlelady from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).
Mrs. DRAKE. A March 2007 Los Angeles Times editorial posed the
question: ``Do we really need a General Pelosi? Too many lives are at
stake to allow Members of Congress to play the role of Eisenhower or
Lincoln.''
How unfortunate that less than a month after the fifth and final
brigade of this surge effort has arrived in Iraq we sit here once again
prepared to put bad politics in front of sound policy and undercut that
mission, putting the lives of our troops, our coalition partners, and
millions of Iraqis at risk.
Once again, the leadership of this institution wants to play general,
so it chooses to circumvent the committee process to rush a hastily
written piece of legislation to the House floor, one that has no chance
of becoming law.

[[Page H7701]]

And so the question that I and many Americans have is: Why?
You can find the answer in today's Washington Times. According to
this body's majority leader, we are here because ``if we don't do
anything, these groups,'' meaning MoveOn and affiliates, ``will feel
like we haven't done anything.''
So that's it. We are here to appease MoveOn.org. Where is the policy?
Where is the plan? Are we to believe that this bill will bring an end
to violence in Iraq? Are we to believe that our withdrawal will make
our Nation or the world any safer? Thus, politics replaces policy. We
are a Nation at war against Islamic terrorists who have no intention of
giving up the fight. We must defend this Nation. We cannot afford to
play politics. This legislation carries no plan for securing Iraq or
the Middle East, only politics.
Mr. Speaker, we have authorized our military to execute this surge
and to report to us in September on its status. Why should we cut the
rug out from under them now? Our troops will not give up on us; let's
not give up on them. I urge rejection of this resolution.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to one of the leaders
of our 30-something younger members, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Meek), 3 minutes.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good
friend from the Garden State.
It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, and I will point to this L.A. Times
editorial since now the L.A. Times is an authority on this issue. The
newspaper said it reluctantly endorsed the U.S. troop surge when it
began. But at the bottom it says: ``We feel that the time has come now
for us to leave Iraq.'' That is the L.A. Times.
I also want to point out another thing as we talk about this
redeployment, a responsible redeployment, the act that is up before the
House right now that we are considering. I just want to make sure the
Members of the House know exactly what they are doing, because when
they get back home in their districts and they start talking to the
heroes and sheroes that have been deployed two to three times and talk
to Americans about why they can't meet the needs that they have to meet
here domestically, I want them to reflect on this:
I want them to look at the fact that you have $120 billion a year
that we are spending in Iraq; per month, $10 billion; per week, $2.3
billion; per day, $329 million; per hour, $13 million since we have
been here on the floor, Mr. Speaker; per minute, which I only have two,
$228,000. And you have to look at per second, as I take a breath,
$3,816.
Also, I want to point out to the Members here, Mr. Speaker, the last
time we passed a measure on behalf of the men and women in harm's way
and to send the message to the Iraqi Government, they can go on
vacation and they don't meet and they don't do the things that we have
put forth as benchmarks that they have to meet in a bipartisan way,
then why should we reward bad behavior?
And I have this picture here, Mr. Speaker, of when the President
called a lot of the Members of the minority here in this House down to
the White House and they had a meeting and the President came out,
mikes and everything, not one Democrat here, saying that we stand with
the President, this is what the minority president said: ``We stand
with the President in not overriding his veto.''
I want to know, Mr. Speaker, how many times the Members of the
minority party are going to go down to the White House and stand on the
schoolhouse door of allowing us to move in a new direction. The
American people are way ahead of us on this issue.
I am so happy that Chairman Skelton has brought this to the House
floor. I am hoping that we have a bipartisan vote on it. I am
encouraging every Member of the House, and I do mean every Member of
the House, even my good friends on the other side of the aisle, to vote
for a commonsense new direction. And I think that is very, very
important as we look at this responsible redeployment act.
Once again, it takes courage to be a Member of the House. It takes
also leadership to be a Member of the House. And some of us have to go
see the wizard and pick up both of those values that we all hold and
that we should hold. So I encourage you to cast an affirmative vote on
the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to Dr. Gingrey, the gentleman from
Georgia, 3 minutes.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member for
yielding. He would make a great Commander in Chief.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to salute my close friend and chairman of
the Armed Services Committee, Chairman Ike Skelton. I hold him in the
highest regard and I admire him dearly, though I must oppose his bill
and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. This bill does not seek to clarify
our objectives or a path to victory. It does not offer an alternative
to the current plan being implemented by General Petraeus and
Ambassador Crocker.
Nowhere to be found are any new ideas or solutions or any talk of
curbing violence or compelling political reconciliation. Why? Because
there is no pressure on the Democrats to put forth any meaningful
ideas. They know that this bill is dead on arrival. The President has
vowed to veto it, and rightly so. This is a defeatist measure that
serves only to placate the Democrats' liberal base.
Mr. Speaker, a few things about this plan immediately jump out to me.
According to this legislation, a date certain withdrawal is to commence
120 days after the enactment of this bill. So why then does the bill
wait another 2 months before asking the President to formulate a
strategy? It is like asking a quarterback to throw Brother Ben passes
until the offensive coordinator can come up with a game plan.
Essentially, this bill says that after our troops have packed their
bags and have begun to come home, or maybe to deploy to Okinawa per the
Murtha plan, then we will receive this master plan detailing how to
provide for the security interests in Iraq.
As a physician, that is akin to calling a patient in for surgery
before you have done the exam, yanking somebody's heart out before you
have inspected the coronaries. In short, Mr. Speaker, it is a recipe
for disaster.
Mr. Speaker, the last troop surge deployed just 3 weeks ago, hardly a
significant time period for us to be here today judging the plan.
However, I do believe Congress should engage in an ongoing, rational
dialogue outlining the expectations of both our troops and the Iraqi
Government and the security forces. Nobody is here suggesting that we
shouldn't. And we will do it in September when we get the Petraeus
report based on that report. But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot capitulate to
extremist views and sinister plans, which is what this bill would do by
sending a message to the terrorists that capitulation begins in 120
days.
I urge my colleagues, oppose this bill.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina, who is the chairman of the Budget Committee and also a
senior member of the Armed Services Committee, a friend, my colleague,
Mr. Spratt.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.
I will be frank to say that I think the time lines are too tight, the
details are too sketchy; but I recognize this resolution for what it
is. It is not a general order or master plan for the redeployment of
our troops in Iraq. This is simply a way to frame the debate with the
President over how we can most effectively reduce and redeploy the
170,000 troops now on duty in Iraq. We are, after all, in the 5th year
of this war.
So far, 3,611 Americans have given their lives, 27,000 have been
wounded in action. We have spent $450 billion through May, and continue
spending now at a rate of $10 billion a month. Had we the foresight 3
years ago, 4 years ago to see these costs, the War Powers Resolution
would not have secured 100 votes in this House.
Opponents of this resolution claim that we are encroaching on the
powers of the President as the Commander in Chief. Those who think that
should read the resolution and read it carefully.
First of all, it does not call for an immediate withdrawal. It allows
4 months for the reduction in forces to begin. Second, it does not call
for withdrawal at all. It calls for a reduction of the

[[Page H7702]]

number of troops deployed or transition to a limited mission. Third, it
spells out the limited missions. These include force protection,
diplomatic protection, pursuit of terrorists, training of Iraqi forces.
The resolution, far from interfering, defers to the President, allows
the Pentagon to decide just what is the minimum force level for the
mission it specifies, provided it justifies its decision.
For the past 3 years, the President has assured us that we would
stand down American troops as soon as Iraqi troops stood up. Well, that
is essentially what this resolution does; 135 Iraqi battalions have
been trained. Many may lack things like logistics to make them
freestanding fighting units, but surely this is a capacity we can
supply over the next 6 months or even longer through embedded advisers
who will remain after April 2008.
This resolution sends the Iraqi troops the message that we are not in
their country, Iraq, indefinitely, and that the day is fast approaching
when they must take responsibility for the security of their own
country.

{time} 1615

For the past 2 years the President has told us that benchmarks or
milestones have been laid down for the Iraqi government to accomplish.
This week we received a progress report on those metrics showing few
measurable gains.
So here's our dilemma: Our presence in Iraq, with 170,000 troops,
allows the Iraqi government an ability to operate, the freedom of
action it would not otherwise enjoy absent our support. But the Iraqi
government has exploited that security to avoid doing the very steps
that are necessary to its becoming a true government of national
reconciliation, which commands the allegiance of all Iraqis.
Yesterday the Deputy Director for Analysis in the Office of National
Intelligence told us, ``current political trends are moving the country
in a negative direction.'' One way to make Iraqi leaders take the reins
of their own government, establish their government, is to announce
reduction of our forces in front-line combat troops and their
transition to a limited mission and make it clear that our commitment
to their country is not open-ended.
Three or 4 months ago, we were told by the administration it was
going to undertake a new strategy, a new plan for securing Iraq called
a surge, concentrated primarily in Baghdad. We now have the early
results from that. We were told we would know in 3 or 4 months. Three
or 4 months have passed, and we've only seen casualties increase. There
have been some successes, sure, and we're thankful for them. And I hope
it succeeds. But we need a new strategy. We do not have one, and this
calls for a rethinking of everything. And for these reasons I will vote
for this resolution, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, my
friend, the gentleman from Illinois who is the chairman of the
Democratic Caucus, Mr. Emanuel.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, this morning the President noted with a
report that we were at the starting line; 3,600 American lives, $485
billion spent, $10 billion a month, 5 years into the war. If that is
the starting line, then I ask you, what is the cost to get to the
finish line? If the President describes today that we are at the
starting line, I ask you, what is the cost to get to the finish line
after all those lives?
That would not be the words I would choose to tell the American
families who've lost their loved ones. That would not be the words I
would choose to tell the people who've put up close to a half a
trillion dollars that we are at the starting line after 5 years, and
our reputation sullied around the world.
Our American men and women in uniform have done brilliantly.
Everything we have asked them to do, they have done. They have defeated
an army. They have seized a nation, deposed a dictator, taken a castle.
There is not one thing we've asked our men and women in uniform and
their leadership to do. The only thing they've asked is that their
civilian leadership do what they have done, and they were let down.
They have won the war, and this administration has failed in the
occupation.
Now, President Kennedy once said, ``to govern is to choose; choices
are between bad and worse.'' And my colleagues on the other side are
not all wrong. They fear that if we leave precipitously, there could be
real violence, worse than we're seeing; not totally wrong.
Those of us have said, after 4 or 5 years of more money, more troops,
more time and more of the same, at a certain point, you have to
understand that there are costs to that because today we see in the
report that, in fact, al Qaeda is reconfiguring and stronger than ever.
There are costs to staying, and there are costs to leaving.
So what are the choices we all have to make? They are choices between
bad and worse. There are those who want to stay and fight the war in
Iraq, and there are those of us who want to fight al Qaeda. This is a
road to fighting al Qaeda.
There are those who want to police a civil war between Sunnis and
Shia, and those of us who believe in fighting the war on terror. That
is the choice. Neither is easy. There are consequences to both, but all
of us recognize that.
But after 5 years, 3,600 American lives, $485 billion, you have to
ask yourself, are we getting stronger, or are we diminishing our
reputation and our power?
As our military's stretched, as we see al Qaeda reconfiguring and
stronger than ever before, that is the choice before us. And I do
agree; it's not a free choice. But staying blindly, without ever having
asked a question, only more money, more time, more troops and more of
the same with no other clear policy has consequences to America.
In that sense, as we measure the Iraqi progress, as the President
noted today, there are also ways to measure our progress.
We were told the insurgency was in its last throes. Not happening. We
were told, at another point, they were placing democracy is the
Mideast. Not happening. We were told that we were going to find WMD,
weapons of mass destruction. Not happening. At every point that this
administration has put a benchmark down for itself, it is not
happening.
There are consequences to moving just down this path that has been
traveled. Too costly. It is time for a new direction for America and
Iraq.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield to Mr. McKeon, the
gentleman from California, for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. McKEON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the motion being
considered. Yet again, I find myself standing in defense of our
military leaders and our honorable men and women in uniform. Today's
ill-conceived resolution is another example of partisan maneuvering by
the Democrats. I think it is important to remind my colleagues exactly
what is being sought by this resolution and the negative effect it will
have. While our troops are fighting in Iraq, Democratic leadership is
attempting to draw attention from any signs of progress and ignore the
sound strategy that we laid out earlier this year. What happened to the
promise of a New Way Forward in Iraq?
General Petraeus has honorably taken on this leadership role in this
war with the support of Democrats in the other body, and yet, here
today the Democrats seek to publicly undermine him. It is shameful. He
was given a job to do--to execute the Baghdad Security Plan--and he is
doing it alongside our troops. The plan is still underway and today's
interim report indicates a reduction in violent attacks in Baghdad. We
should be standing with him, with our plan, and allowing for its full
implementation. Instead, however, we see today the real Democratic
agenda in this resolution: the truth is the Democrats aren't interested
in whether or not the security plan will work.
Mr. Speaker, I question whether this resolution would do more harm
than good. A precipitous withdrawal of troops would seriously endanger
our soldiers and would signal defeat to our enemies around the world.
Mr. Speaker this House speaks loudest when it speaks with purpose,
and voting to remove troops before receiving the report in September,
that we asked for, is contradictory and bad policy. This bill does not
honor the sacrifice and dedication of our troops who have fought to
implement the plan we approved.
We should never miss the opportunity in this House to act in the best
interest of our foreign

[[Page H7703]]

policy and our men and women in harm's way. We should--at every
opportunity--reject undermining the faith and dedicated work of our
brave men and women in uniform.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this
dangerous resolution. It is the duty of this House and of this Congress
and of this Nation to give our men and women the support they need to
see this conflict through. We have allocated a timeframe for our new
General, and now we must allow our military leaders the opportunity to
prevail.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few
words. There's a movie out called ``Groundhog Day'' in which the same
thing happens over and over for a particularly long period of time.
We've had this debate once recently. We're having it again today, and
I understand the leadership on the other side intends to have these
conversations once a week for the next 4 weeks. I don't anticipate that
much different information will be said.
I have the profoundest respect for the chairman of the committee and
the man whose name is on this resolution, but I'm going to have to
oppose it.
Much of what gets said here today, Mr. Speaker, is doublespeak. It's
doublespeak to talk about the failure to get benchmark progress on the
civilian scene, on the political scene in Iraq, and yet to strip $2
billion out of the State Department's funding request, part of the CR,
to strip another $500 million out of the 2008 appropriations request,
money that would go to do the nation-building part, the provincial
reconstruction team part in Iraq, and then to call it a failure. That's
doublespeak in a classic sense.
It's doublespeak, Mr. Speaker, to talk about how wonderful our troops
are, and they are. They are magnificent, and even more magnificent are
the families who support them and let them do what they do. And then to
turn around and say that the implementation of this policy has failed,
but somehow they've not failed as a result of that; I think that's
doublespeak as well.
It's also doublespeak to say the current policy says we're going to
have a report in 60 days from David Petraeus, the right man at the
right spot to give us that report, and then vote on a resolution that
says 120 days we're going to start getting out, when we'll have the
better information in September, in 60 days. That's doublespeak. It's
disingenuous, I believe, to do it that way.
The majority has the ability to get out of Iraq today. And all of the
talk about failure, all of the talk about the lost lives, all of the
talk about the costs, by extending this another 120 days, as they
intend to do, leaves additional lives at risk. And somehow to me, that
just seems to be at counter purposes of what the conversation is.
I encourage my colleagues to vote this resolution down.
Mr. SKELTON. May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, of the time remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pomeroy). The gentleman from Missouri
has 23 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 14 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from
California (Mr. Baca).
(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a veteran who served in the
101st and 82nd Airborne Division in support of H.R. 2956, the
Responsible Redeployment From Iraq Act.
This war is a failure, and it's time to bring back our troops. We can
no longer stay the course.
Mr. Speaker, the President's policy has been a complete failure. We
have lost too many lives. There are too many wounded who will never
have normal lives.
We're proud of our troops and the service they have provided to our
country. But our troops are now trapped in the middle of a civil war
that we cannot end.
This is something that the Iraqi people must do for themselves. Our
military presence in Iraq is not making our country safer. Instead, the
war has taken the lives of 3,610 soldiers.
In my district alone, we have lost 13 brave men and women, and when I
see their faces and their families that have to deal with these
individuals that have lost their lives, we're proud of them, but
they've lost their lives, and the families who continue to suffer.

CA-43's Fallen Soldiers in Iraq

Rialto

Staff Sgt. Jorge A. Molina Bautista: Hometown: Rialto,
California, U.S. Age: 37 years old. Died: May 23, 2004 in
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Unit: Marines, 1st Light Armored
Reconnaisance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine
Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif. Incident: Killed
by hostile fire in Anbar province.
Spec. Luis D. Santos: Hometown: Rialto, California, U.S.
Age: 20 years old. Died: June 8, 2006 in Operation Iraqi
Freedom. Unit: Army, 1st Battalion, 68th Armor Regiment, 3rd
Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort
Carson, Colo. Incident: Died of injuries sustained when a
makeshift bomb exploded near his Humvee during combat
operations in Buritz.
Spec. Victor A. Garcia: Hometown: Rialto, California, U.S.
Age: 22 years old. Died: July 1, 2007 in Operation Iraqi
Freedom. Unit: Army, 1st Battalion, 38th Infantry Regiment,
4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division (Stryker Brigade Combat
Team), Fort Lewis, Wash. Incident: Killed by enemy small arms
fire in Baghdad.
Pfc. William A. Farrar Jr.: Hometown: Redlands, California,
U.S. Age: 20 years old. Died: May 11, 2007 in Operation Iraqi
Freedom. Unit: Army, 127th Military Police Company, 709th
Military Police Battalion, 18th Military Police Brigade,
Darmstadt, Germany. Incident: Killed when a makeshift bomb
device detonated near his vehicle in Iskandariyah. Son of
Rialto Police Captain Tony Farrar.

Bloomington

Cpl. Joseph A. Blanco: Hometown: Bloomington, California,
U.S. Age: 25 years old. Died: April 11, 2006 in Operation
Iraqi Freedom. Unit: Army, 7th Squadron, 10th Cavalry
Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division,
Fort Hood, Tex. Incident: Died of injuries sustained when a
makeshift bomb exploded near his Bradley fighting vehicle and
he subsequently came under small arms fire during combat
operations in Taji.

Fontana

Lance Cpl. Fernando S. Tamayo: Hometown: Fontana,
California, U.S. Age: 19 years old. Died: December 21, 2006
in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Unit: Marines, 3rd Battalion, 4th
Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine
Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, Calif. Incident: Died
while conducting combat operations in Anbar Province.
Sgt. Bryan A. Brewster: Hometown: Fontana, California, U.S.
Age: 24 years old. Died: May 5, 2006 in Operation Enduring
Freedom. Unit: Army, 3rd Battalion, 10th Aviation Regiment,
10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum N.Y.
Incident: Killed when his CH-47 Chinook helicopter crashed
during combat operations east of Abad, Afghanistan.

San Bernardino

Cpl. Nicanor Alvarez: Hometown: San Bernardino, California,
U.S. Age: 22 years old. Died: August 21, 2004 in Operation
Iraqi Freedom. Unit: Marines, 1st Combat Engineer Battalion,
1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp
Pendleton, Calif. Incident: Killed by enemy action in Anbar
province.
Pfc. Alex Oceguera: Hometown: San Bernardino, California,
U.S. Age: 19 years old. Died: October 31, 2006 in Operation
Enduring Freedom. Unit: Army, 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry
Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division,
Fort Drum, N.Y. Incident: Killed when a makeshift bomb
detonated near his vehicle in Wygal Valley, Afghanistan.
Cpl. Sean R. Grilley: Hometown: San Bernardino, California,
U.S. Age: 24 years old. Died: October 16, 2003 in Operation
Iraqi Freedom. Unit: Army, 716th Military Police Battalion,
101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Ky.
Incident: Killed while negotiating with Iraqis congregating
near a mosque after curfew in Karbala when the Iraqis opened
fire.
Spec. Timothy D. Watkins: Hometown: San Bernardino,
California, U.S. Age: 24 years old. Died: October 15, 2005 in
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Unit: Army, 2nd Battalion, 69th
Armor Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort
Benning, Ga. Incident: Killed when a makeshift bomb exploded
near his Bradley fighting vehicle during combat operations in
Ar Ramadi.

Ontario

Spec. Jose R. Perez: Hometown: Ontario, California, U.S.
Age: 21 years old. Died: October 18, 2006 in Operation Iraqi
Freedom. Unit: Army, 1st Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment,
2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, Baumholder,
Germany. Incident: Killed by enemy small arms fire in Ramadi.
Sgt. 1st Class Rudy A. Salcido: Hometown: Ontario,
California, U.S. Age: 31 years old. Died: November 9, 2006 in
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Unit: Army National Guard, 1114th
Transportation Company, Army National Guard, Bakersfield,
Calif. Incident: Killed when an improvised explosive device
detonated near his convoy vehicle in Baghdad.

As a veteran, I say that this war was wrong because you could not
convince me why we were there in the first place. The President sent
our troops away without proper training or equipment or proof of
weapons of mass destruction.

[[Page H7704]]

The President believes that Iraq is making our country safer. This is
not true. It has put more of us in greater risk. Our military is
stretched too thin. We are at risk of not being prepared for any future
emergency.
The Iraq war has cost billions of dollars, $650 billion, $10 billion
a month. The money could be used to defend homeland security, for
police officers, for highway patrol officers, for fire fighters, for
sheriffs, for education, for health care and our seniors.
A change in course in Iraq is overdue. We must bring our troops home
now. It's time for a new direction. We must support this resolution.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), whose son has served a tour of duty
in Iraq.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Thank you, Congressman Hunter. Thank
you for your leadership on behalf of our troops. And I appreciate that
your son, Duncan, Jr., has served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Speaker, just today we received President Bush's report to
Congress on progress in Iraq. I find it sad for American families that
on the same day the House is considering legislation that sets
arbitrary deadlines and timelines for retreat, the provisions of H.R.
2956 mandate a hasty troop withdrawal starting within 120 days.
Additionally, the bill states that this withdrawal would be conducted
in a safe and orderly way. Logistically, it would be impossible to
remove our troops safely from Iraq in this short time line. Such rapid
retreat would embolden the enemy, leaving American forces subject to
ambushes, rockets and IED attacks.
As a 31-year veteran of the Army National Guard, and as a father of
four sons in the military, my oldest an Iraq veteran, I especially
understand the threats to our troops. In my seven visits to Iraq and
three to Afghanistan, I've been continually inspired by the competence
of our military leaders and the dedicated troops.
In today's edition of the Washington Post, the lead editorial makes
the case against arbitrary withdrawal. It states, ``The generals who
have devised a new strategy believe they are making faithful progress.
Before Congress begins managing rotation schedules and ordering
withdrawals, it should at least give those generals the months they ask
for to see whether their strategy can offer some new hope.''
Additionally, al Qaeda has stated that Iraq is the central front in
the global war on terrorism. And I believe to withdraw our troops
before their mission is complete would invite future attacks at home.
The Washington Post editorial states, ``Advocates of withdrawal would
like to believe that Afghanistan is now a central front in the war on
terror, but Iraq is not; believing that doesn't make sense.''
In conclusion, God bless our troops. We will never forget September
the 11th.
I urge defeat of H.R. 2956.

{time} 1630

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend and
colleague, a veteran of the war in Iraq and member of the Armed
Services Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J.
Murphy).
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, for the sixth
time, I rise calling for a change of direction in Iraq. For the sixth
time, I call on the President to stop sending our brave men and women
to referee a religious civil war. For the sixth time I call on this
administration to focus our efforts in fighting the central front on
the war on terror by killing Osama bin Laden and destroying al Qaeda in
Afghanistan.
Mr. Speaker, last week countless folks back in Pennsylvania stopped
me and asked, Aren't you frustrated by this President who refuses to
listen to Congress and the American people?
I told them, I am frustrated that our President refuses to follow the
advice of military experts and the will of the American people. I am
frustrated because my fellow paratroopers are still fighting and dying
in the 138-degree heat of a Baghdad summer. I told them that I will
refuse to stop fighting for the best policy for our troops and our
families back here at home.
Mr. Speaker, leaving our troops in the middle of a religious civil
war isn't resolute. It's reckless. No question that change is slow, but
take heart, America. Change is coming. Congress is not going to stop.
President Bush, the legislative branch of government is back and we
are not going to go away. We will change the course in Iraq and fight
for a smarter global war on terror.
Some Republicans have questioned the patriotism of my fellow
Democrats. Even former soldiers here in the House floor. But those
types of Republicans are the exception and not the rule. In my short
time in Congress, I have learned that most of my colleagues across the
aisle are good, decent, and patriotic Americans. Mr. Speaker, I know
how much pressure my friends across the aisle are under from the
President, from their party leaders to just stay the course.
But I ask you as a soldier, as a father, and as a colleague to
acknowledge what the status quo entails. That means additional
warnings, walking to our desks here in the Halls of Congress, holding
our breath and hoping we don't get word of another fallen soldier.
Mr. Speaker, I implore my Republican colleagues who know in their
heart that we need a change. I implore you to think about how many more
of these calls you have to make, how many more calls to wives, to
fathers, to mothers we all will be forced to make if we don't take
action.
I have heard the other side say 4 more months. This President has had
his 4 months. He has had his 4 years and 4 months. In 2004, the
President said we are turning the corner. In 2005, the Vice President
said the insurgency was in its last throes. In 2006, that was the year
in transition. And now in 2007, the President says just be patient.
In the last month alone in Bucks County, we have buried four of our
finest sons. Four names have been added to the memorial board outside
my office. I, for one, don't want to add any more names.
My Republican colleagues, you have the power today to stop these
tragic phone calls, to stop adding faces and names to our memorials.
Let's change the direction in Iraq and get back to fighting a smarter
war on terror together, not as Democrats and Republicans, but as
Americans.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
comments to the Chair, not to others in the second person.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague and
friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support
of this legislation, H.R. 2956.
I have to remind my colleagues that I am from Florida and it does
matter who is the President, and we should never forget the 2000
election because it matters who is the President of the United States.
President Bush intentionally misled the American people by supplying
false grounds for going to war, and I personally never supported the
war in Iraq.
This war has cost over a half trillion dollars. This war is now
costing over $12 billion per month.
I stand with the American people and I wholeheartedly support our
troops; yet I cannot support a truly senseless war that has killed
3,600 Americans and left over 26,000 severely wounded.
The soldiers did not vote for this war, but when given a mission,
they do the best they can to complete it. The military is doing the job
they were sent to do. There was a flaw in the mission from the
beginning, and the flaw lies with us.
I want to be clear. The President's checking account has been
overdrawn. The Bush administration's manipulation of taxpayer dollars
to fund this war is over, and 70 percent of the American people oppose
this war. This war needs to come to an immediate end.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill. Let's redeploy our
men and women.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair must remind all Members that
remarks in debate may not engage in personalities toward the President
or Vice President.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished
leader, the

[[Page H7705]]

gentleman from Maryland, my friend and colleague (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
We have no more serious matter to debate than war and peace. I thank
the gentleman for his extraordinary leadership and for bringing this
bill to the floor.
I must remark that how different I think the debate would be if not
one of the facts were changed but one: that if it were Bill Clinton in
the Presidency and all the other facts were the same, I ask my friends
on the other side of the aisle what would their comments reflect.
I have said it before many times on this House floor and I will say
it again today. Every Member of this great body who swears an oath to
support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and
domestic, is committed to fighting and defeating terrorism. We must not
lose sight in this debate that terrorism is a real threat to our people
and to our country. We do not lose sight of that on this side of the
aisle. We are committed to defeating terrorists and protecting America.
Any suggestion otherwise demeans our discourse and is beneath, frankly,
the dignity of the Members of this institution and the American people.
After nearly 4\1/2\ years in Iraq, a war that has been, I think,
superbly peopled by our men and women in uniform but they have been
trying to pursue an incompetently planned policy, this is what our
Nation has to show for its efforts:
More than 3,600 brave American servicemen and women have been killed
in action. More than 26,000 others have been maimed and injured. The
American taxpayer has spent $450 billion on this war, with a pending
request by the administration for an additional $147 billion.
And yet the President's policy in Iraq is not succeeding. Just today
the administration released the ``assessment report'' on Iraq demanded
by this Democratic Congress. The bottom line is the Iraq Government has
failed to meet a single one of the security, political, and economic
milestones for success. Perhaps most jarring, the administration rates
as ``unsatisfactory'' the number of Iraqi security units capable of
operating independently. That is over 50 months later.
The report states: ``There has been a slight reduction in units
assessed as capable of independent operations since January, 2007.'' In
other words, the administration says we are going backwards in terms of
the capability of the Iraqi forces.
While the administration and congressional Republicans try to put a
positive spin on the so-called ``progress'' in Iraq, other respected
voices are not so optimistic. Yesterday, Thomas Fingar, the Deputy
Director for Analysis at the National Intelligence Council, told the
House Armed Services Committee that there have been ``few appreciable
gains'' in Iraqi political progress. Even General David Petraeus, our
top commander in Iraq, a gentleman that all of us respect as a military
leader, told the New York Times that ``while some measures of violence
showed a downward trend, it was too early to suggest that there has
been a lasting turnaround in the war.'' That is over 50 months later.
Mr. Speaker, last January in an address to the Nation, President Bush
stated: ``America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it
has announced.'' We have not done so. We said we would do that, but we
have not done so. Today the President shows no intention of changing
course even as the Iraqis fail to meet those benchmarks.
Our fight against terrorism must and will be tough, but it also must
be smart. And it is long past time that we recognize the following: The
President's stay-the-course strategy is not working. The Iraqis must
take responsibility for their own country. This war has severely
diminished our military readiness and diverted our attention in the war
on terror. If that were not the case, Osama bin Laden would still not
be at large and al Qaeda would not be reported as being back at the
strength that it had on September 11 of 2001.
After $450 billion and precious blood being spilled by American
troops and others, we must change course by voting for this
legislation, which calls for a responsible redeployment of American
forces in Iraq and a comprehensive plan in U.S. policy in Iraq and the
broader region.
Mr. Speaker, we must have a specific strategy for missions our
remaining forces would undertake as well as plans to engage Iraq's
neighboring states and to locate and eliminate al Qaeda and allied
terrorist networks, which seek to destabilize and destroy the United
States and other democracies. Jonathan Alter at Newsweek just a week
ago referred to this as a ``pull and strike'' strategy. Redeploy so
that our forces are able to focus on the terrorists, not on the civil
war in which they find themselves embroiled.
Mr. Speaker, the American people and an increasing number of our
friends on the other side of the aisle have lost confidence in the
President's Iraq strategy because we have yet to see demonstrable,
sustainable progress in that effort. Our troops have done everything we
have asked them.
I'll tell you that we are so proud of those of you who have served in
the Armed Forces of the United States. I was so proud of Patrick
Murphy's statement that he gave here today, so proud of all of those
who have served not only in Iraq but in every theater of conflict to
which Americans have responded.
But as Senator Domenici told the Baltimore Sun yesterday, one of the
senior Members of the United States Senate and a leader in the
Republican Party, he said this: ``There is no reason to wait . . . I am
trying to tell the President that he must change his ways because there
is nothing positive happening.''

{time} 1645

That is not a Democratic Member of the Senate speaking, that is a
senior Republican leader saying there is no reason to wait.
This bill is on this floor this day because there is no reason to
wait. Hopefully this body will overwhelmingly respond to the will and
focus of the American people, which are pleading for a change in
strategy, a new direction, a policy of success against terrorists, and
ensuring the safety of our Nation and its people. Let's change our
strategy and demand that the Iraqis step up and be responsible for
their country.
Our presence there, General Casey observed, has been undermining
their taking responsibility, not enhancing it. Let's be responsibly
redeploying our troops. And let's focus our resources and efforts on
disrupting and destroying the terrorist networks that threaten our
national security. This legislation allows us to accomplish that
mission.
I urge my colleagues, for this body, for their constituents, for this
country, and for our troops, pass this legislation.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. You know, every Member of this House has great respect
for the chairman of the Armed Services Committee from Missouri and the
ranking member from California. And like the American people, most
Members of this House are torn in different directions on this issue of
our involvement in Iraq and what steps we should take. But this
resolution says as a requirement that the Secretary of Defense shall
commence the reduction of the number of Armed Forces in Iraq no later
than 120 days after the enactment of this act.
General Petraeus was confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate, and in
the supplemental, there was a requirement that, on September 15,
General Petraeus would make a report to the Congress on the conditions
in Iraq. And I believe that it is premature to come forth with this
resolution today. But if it comes back at the end of September, after
General Petraeus has made his report, the commanding general in Iraq
with the responsibility, I think that all of us have the responsibility
to read his report, to make an assessment which would be best for the
American people.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have, and I offer as part of the Record, Mr. Speaker, a letter I
just received dated July 12 from Lee H. Hamilton from the Woodrow
Wilson International Center of Scholars, who is the national president
thereof. And I will

[[Page H7706]]

read just part of it and not take any more time. But it says, ``Dear
Ike, thank you for sharing H.R. 2956 on responsible redeployment from
Iraq. The legislation outlines the right change in mission for U.S.
forces in Iraq, and redeployment within a responsible time frame. It
effectively outlines the functions of the residual force that would
remain in Iraq after redeployment, and makes an important contribution
by focusing on the need for an accounting of U.S. interests in both
Iraq and the wider region.''
I offer this letter at this time.

Woodrow Wilson International

Center for Scholars,

Washington, DC, July 12, 2007.
Congressman Ike Skelton,
Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Ike: Thank you for sharing HR 2956 on responsible
redeployment from Iraq. The legislation outlines the right
change in mission for U.S. forces in Iraq, and redeployment
within a responsible timeframe. It effectively outlines the
functions of the residual force that would remain in Iraq
after redeployment, and makes an important contribution by
focusing on the need for an accounting of U.S. interests in
both Iraq and the wider region.
Beyond what is outlined in the bill, much needs to be done
in Iraq. The training of Iraqi Security Forces must be
intensified. An aggressive diplomatic offensive is urgently
needed to press for national reconciliation in Iraq, and to
advance stability in the region. And some measure of
consensus needs to be reached in the country--and between the
President and Congress--so that we can move forward with
unity of effort.
The American people want a responsible transition for U.S.
forces out of Iraq. This resolution provides that transition.
It is not perfect, but it moves our national debate forward.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
Lee H. Hamilton.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina who is our distinguished
majority whip, Mr. Clyburn.
Mr. CLYBURN. Let me thank our chairman for yielding me this time.
To date, we have spent almost half a trillion dollars on the Iraq
war. Over 3,600 American lives have been lost, and more than 26,000
Americans have been wounded. When the President announced his
escalation plan 6 months ago, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it
would only last a few months. Majority Leader Boehner said we would
know whether or not the escalation succeeded or failed within 90 days.
And Secretary Rice said we would not stay married to a plan that is not
working.
Since the President announced this surge, we have lost nearly 600
American troops and spent more than $60 billion. In fact, the monthly
cost in lives and resources has increased dramatically since the war
began.
Today, the American people received an interim report from the
President on his escalation plan. This was the verdict: None of the 18
benchmarks he outlined in January have been reached. In fact, it
clearly illustrated how far the Iraqi Government is from political
progress and national reconciliation.
A recently released national intelligence report concludes that al
Qaeda has reconstituted its core network and may be a stronger
terrorist organization than it was a year ago. In fact, it could be
closer to pre-9/11 strength and reach.
Republicans have spoken out against this war, failed policies in Iraq
yet, out of fear of being called names, are reluctant to vote against
this resolution.
What have we come to when if people express their consciences, they
are called names? It's beneath the dignity of the sacrifices of our men
and women, and I ask my colleagues to vote for this resolution.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, it's been asked that we consider this debate
in such a way that our sons and daughters are involved, and that's why
the gentleman who just spoke, Mr. Wilson's son has done a tour in Iraq.
The gentleman I am going to announce now, Mr. Kline, has a son who has
done a tour as a helicopter pilot in Iraq.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the proponents of this bill are fond of citing
historical examples as they declare the futility of combat operations
in Iraq. The Congressional Record is full of stories describing the
failed British invasion of Gallipoli or the far more popular
comparisons to the American experience in Vietnam.
Another more prescient historical comparison, however, was made by
the British author George Orwell. Contemplating the defeatist rhetoric
of the English intelligentsia during the German offensive against
Britain in World War II, he remarked, ``The quickest way of ending a
war is to lose it. And if one finds the prospect of a long war
intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of
victory.'' Those in favor of the bill presented on the floor today, Mr.
Speaker, do not believe in the possibility of victory, despite the
protests of the soldiers and Marines returning from the battlefield
saying otherwise.
By advocating a rapid withdrawal, they endorse the quickest way of
ending the war, by losing it. It has been less than a month since the
full force of troops requested by military commanders arrived in Iraq,
but already some have declared the operation to be a failure. General
Petraeus arrived in Baghdad in February with a new strategy designed to
reinforce the Iraqi security forces confronting al Qaeda, terrorists
and Iranian-supplied insurgents. Rather than giving him the opportunity
to fully implement his surge strategy, opponents in Congress
immediately sought to undermine his credibility and his ability to
command.
Mr. Speaker, our troops serving in Iraq don't need 435 armchair
generals dictating the tactical movements of troops, as this
legislation would surely do. They have true commanders whose
professional military skills have been honed by decades of military
service. They need us to renew our commitment to them and their
commanders. And more importantly, they need us to trust their
commanders' decisions.
General Petraeus said in a letter to his troops, ``Success will
require discipline, fortitude and initiative, qualities that you have
in abundance.'' The question before us today, Mr. Speaker, is, do we
have those qualities?
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. I rise in opposition to the bill.
We've lost over 3,600 of our brave service men and women; 1 million
innocent Iraqis have perished in the war. We're now telling Iraqis,
whose country the U.S. destroyed, whose reconstruction funds the U.S.
mishandled, whose social networks have been shredded, stand on your own
feet, while we try to steal their oil under the cover of occupation.
This bill will not end the war. This bill will not end the
occupation. It doesn't take a vote to end this war. We must inform the
administration that the $97 billion appropriated last month is the end
of the financing for the war. Use the money that is in the pipeline
through October 1st to bring the troops home. Compel the President to
put together an international peacekeeping security force which would
move in as our troops leave.
We could have our troops home by October 1. The question is whether
we're ready to take a stand to do that, or whether or not we're going
to vote on resolutions that give the American people the appearance
that we want to end the war, without actually addressing the central
issue that will end the war: Stop the funding.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow our other two
speakers who have sons who have served in Iraq with another gentleman,
Mr. Akin, the gentleman from Missouri, whose son Perry has served a
tour in Iraq in the United States Marine Corps.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman.
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the reason that Americans send
us here to Congress is to have us to solve problems. And I don't think
any of us mind, and I certainly don't mind, the accusation by Democrats
to say that the war and the situation in Iraq is incompetently planned,
or that we should change course, or that we should have bold, new
initiatives. In fact, I think that's what we should be discussing. But
unfortunately, what we have here today is not a matter of solving
problems but rather of playing politics. Because the bill in front of
us is not a bold plan. It doesn't have any segment of a plan at all. It
just simply says, we're going to pull a bunch of troops out at a
particular time. It

[[Page H7707]]

doesn't say how many; it just says we are going to pull some troops
out. You know, the people who fought World War II would have liked very
much to have ended the war more rapidly if they could just put
something on a wish list and say, we're going to bring some troops
home. But you can't do that until you win a war. And what we have
before us is not a bold plan, and it's not a constructive suggestion to
say, hey, you've incompetently managed the war, so here's a better way.
There's no better way. It offers nothing other than just a bunch of
wishes.
Now, if we want to send this to whoever it is that wants to grant
wishes, that might be useful, but it's absolutely useless in terms of
solving problems. And that's why we should be here.
I have to take the Democrats to task. You forgot, you guys are in the
majority. The people elected you to solve problems. This doesn't solve
a problem, it just simply says we want to bring some troops home. It
doesn't say how or what we're going to do or what the strategy is. It
says, oh, we've already done this one thing for a month, and now we
just want to turn around and bring the troops home.
I think one thing that we can understand and one thing that we need
to do is to stand away from this problem a little bit and put it in the
broadest terms, and that is the terms as Americans.
There is one thing that has joined us together that we just
celebrated, and that's the Fourth of July. And the Fourth of July we
signed a Declaration of Independence, and the heart of that document,
the heart of what America believes in is the fact that it says we hold
these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and
endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; among these
is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And we stand tall on the
Fourth of July when we remember that set of principles.
So the job of government is to protect those rights. And who is it
that our sons and daughters are now fighting? They're people who
believe that we blow up innocent people to make a political statement.
They're people who believe that we use terror to compel people so that
they don't have freedom and that people cannot pursue happiness and
women cannot be educated. And so, is it so odd that we find ourselves
fighting against people who believe the diametric opposite of
everything America has ever stood for?
I taught those principles to my little kids when they were children.
And they started the ``Marine Club.'' Here is a picture of them at a
flag ceremony in their rag-tag uniforms bought from their Army surplus
store, a bunch of little kids. Now what has happened is they have
implemented those ideas. Well, what has happened is this little kid
here is now Special Forces Air Force Academy, just graduated last
month. And this other one, my son, has graduated from the little Marine
club to the big Marine club. Here is a cache of weapons found in
Fallujah. There is my son. And the reason that they are there and the
reason that he risked his life numerous times is because he does
believe there is a God that gives rights to all people, and that
governments should protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And when we, as Americans, forget that, then we start to lose our sense
of direction in what we're doing.
Until there is a specific proposal, then there is nothing being
offered at all. There is not leadership. And this is merely politics.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, my
friend, the gentlelady from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

{time} 1700

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, there is a statement that says: ``To believe that God
will do everything while you do nothing is not faith but
superstition.'' We have an opportunity to do something, not to wait for
God to do it.
But let me start where I was. On May 21, I buried my dad, a veteran
of the Korean War. He died at age 87. As I stood before that flag-
draped coffin, I thought about all the mothers and fathers, aunts and
uncles, children, nieces and nephews who have buried their loved ones
as a result of this Iraqi war--3,600. I don't want to go to another
funeral, I have been to five. Not another deployment, I have been to
three. Not another memorial, I have been to six.
I want our soldiers to come home as soon as possible. We have an
opportunity to do a deployment that makes sense, that fits within all
that we can do as Members of Congress. Members of Congress, step up to
the plate. Don't be afraid. Vote in favor of this redeployment.
Mr. HUNTER. How much time do we have left, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Missouri has 9\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill. I have
great respect for my friend, the chairman of the Armed Services
Committee. We work on many bills together, many pieces of legislation,
and 99 percent of the time we find common cause in supporting the men
and women who wear the uniform of the United States.
This bill is not one of them. I think that this bill, Mr. Speaker, is
a call to retreat by the Democratic leadership of the House, which can
only hurt this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been here before. I have listened to my
colleagues on the Democrat side declare that the operation that we were
undertaking in El Salvador to provide a little shield around that
fragile government back in the 1980s was going to be ``America's next
Vietnam.'' Yet we persevered. We kept that shield in place. We stood up
a democratic government. Today, the free government of El Salvador
supplies troops who stand side by side with Americans in Iraq.
I was here when Ronald Reagan stood up against the Soviet Union when
they were putting SS-20 missiles around our allies, Germany and France,
in Europe. Many people on the other side of the aisle said he was going
in the wrong direction. He was going to start World War III. We were
going to have a nuclear war because of the fact that the President was
standing up to the Soviet Union. Yes, he did that, moving Pershing II
and ground-launched cruise missiles to offset the Soviet missiles. At
one point, they picked up the telephone and said, Can we talk?
Ultimately we brought down the Berlin Wall. We freed, with American
perseverance, hundreds of millions of people.
Now, we all agree that if Iraq works, it is to the benefit of the
United States. When I say that ``if Iraq works,'' I mean if we have a
nation which has a modicum of freedom for its people, a nation which
will not be a state sponsor of terrorism, a nation which will be a
friend to the United States, then we win. That is in our interest. That
is what we are trying to build in Iraq.
We all agree that it is rough and tough and difficult. Mr. Speaker,
it is dangerous. We all know that. That is why I had the last three
speakers being fathers of Americans who have served in Iraq in the
Marine Corps and in the United States Army. So we know it is difficult.
But, you know, every time I hear good news coming out, every time I
hear that, I saw the message from one of our senior Marine commanders
who said, We are crushing al Qaeda in Anbar province, then I pick up a
statement by one of the Democrat leaders saying, We have lost. We have
lost the war. I put this piece of legislation in that same category.
Twenty-seven days, less than 4 weeks after we put the surge in full
force, we are already being called to leave. Now, we were just
criticized, the President was criticized, for saying, This is the
starting line. Well, I think we should criticize the Democrats for
saying, This is the finish line. I have heard so many Democrat leaders
say, We are going to stop the war. That has been said over and over.
Mr. Speaker, there is no Democrat leader here or anywhere who can
stop the war. The only thing we can do is leave this battlefield. We
can't stop this war any more than the people of Great Britain stopped
the war when they just had this incident last week in Scotland. We
can't stop this war any more than the victims in the Kobar Towers
stopped the war. We can't stop this war any more than the marines in

[[Page H7708]]

the Beirut barrack had the power to stop the war. We can't stop this
war any more than the sailors of the USS Cole had any ability to stop
the war. This war has been forced on us. The only way we should end it,
the only way we can end it, is to win.
Now we have the surge going on. It has been going on for 27 days. The
leader in whom we all vest great confidence, General Petraeus, is to
speak to us about the policies, about the tactics, about the
strategies, and he will suggest adjustments on September 15. The idea
that only 4 weeks after we have fully funded and we have fully deployed
this surge we are somehow going to sound the retreat is a real
disservice to this mission.
Mr. Speaker, what I would ask of all of our Members, Democrat and
Republican, is vote against this call to retreat. If we stop fighting
the terrorists, we will start losing this war against the terrorists.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), my friend, my colleague, the Honorable Speaker
of the House of Representatives.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for
yielding, and I want to express the appreciation of so many in this
Congress and this country to him for his tremendous leadership. For 30
years, he has been a great champion for our men and women in uniform;
for the quality of their lives and their families as they serve our
country; for their readiness as they prepare to go to war; for their
well-being as they fight for our country; for his appreciation of the
sacrifice that they and their families are willing to make.
Thank you, Mr. Skelton, for being such a great leader, and thank you
for giving us this opportunity today to speak on behalf of the American
people, to take a step to end the war in Iraq and to have a vision of a
strategic plan for stability in the Middle East.
Your bill is excellent and your timing, Mr. Skelton, is perfect,
because today the Bush administration released a progress report on the
Iraq benchmarks required by the supplemental appropriations bill passed
in May. The report makes clear that not even the White House can
conclude that there has been significant progress on the Warner
resolution benchmarks.
This is hardly surprising, given what is publicly available each day
in the media: truck bombs killing scores of people in the markets; the
supposedly secure Green Zone is rocked by a 30-inute mortar and rocket
barrage; despite 30,000 additional American troops to increase
security, Iraqi leaders are urging their people to arm themselves for
their own protection; legislation to make the Iraqi political process
more inclusive is stalled in the Iraqi legislature; and the cost of the
war in precious lives and wounded American heroes continues to rise.
Since the surge began, we have lost nearly 600 American troops.
The benchmarks that are being reported on today were endorsed by
President Bush and the Government of Iraq to measure political
reconciliation and the promotion of security in Iraq. In the 5th year
of the war, the President's strategy has failed to meet those key
benchmarks.
President Bush continues to urge patience, but what is needed and
what the American people are demanding is a new direction. Remaining
bogged down in a sectarian civil war in Iraq continues an unacceptable
strain on our military and serves as an effective recruiting tool for
al Qaeda. Reports about the resilience of al Qaeda in Iraq are
alarming, but assessments that the global al Qaeda network is
reconstituting its capabilities describes a far greater threat.
The war is not making our military stronger to protect our interests,
the American people safer or the Middle East more secure. It prevents a
refocusing of our efforts on the real war on terrorism in places like
Afghanistan, and it hinders the development of a new direction strategy
for greater stability in the Middle East.
As General Batiste has said, ``Iraq is distracting America from what
should be the focus of main effort. It is in America's best interests
to rethink our national strategy, deliberately disengage from Iraq,
refit and rearm our military, get serious about homeland security, and
prepare to win the next phase of the struggle against worldwide Islamic
extremism.''
The American people see the danger of clinging to an untenable
situation in Iraq. That is why by large margins they favor a
redeployment of our troops. Passage of Chairman Skelton's bipartisan
bill will reflect the will of the American people and reaffirm the
judgment of the House that the redeployment of our troops is a central
element and an effective way forward in Iraq.
We will repeat that judgment legislatively as often as necessary,
hopefully with an increasing level of support from our Republican
colleagues, until pressure from the American people causes the
President to change his mind and his policies.
To those who urge that we wait until September, I say that it has
been 4\1/2\ years and half a trillion dollars, at least. We have
already waited too long. The troops in their third and fourth tours in
Iraq, those who have been so grievously wounded and the families of
those who have died, deserve far better than that.
After more than 3,600 lives have been lost to a flawed strategy, we
have a responsibility to create a new direction. After spending $329
million every day, $329 million every day on the war in Iraq, on a war
that is not making our country safer, we have an obligation to change
course. After 5 years of a failed policy in Iraq, we have a duty, not
just to voice our opposition, but to vote to end the war.
Chairman Skelton's bipartisan bill offers a step we can take today
toward bringing the troops home, to creating a strategic vision for
stability in the Middle East and for beginning to rearm our military.
Let us pass this bill and those that will follow in the coming weeks
and provide the new direction on Iraq that the American people demand
and that is so urgently needed. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Skelton
bill.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our final speaker, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Republican leader.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from California
for yielding and thank all of the Members for what has really been a
very serious debate about our efforts in Iraq.
When we think about what we went through this past spring, the fight
over funding our troops that went on for about 112 days here in the
House, I had thought that we had come to some resolution. Forty-eight
days ago we sent to the President of the United States a bill passed by
this House, passed by the Senate and signed into law that would fund
our troops through the end of September.

{time} 1715

That same bill, we asked General Petraeus to report back to the
Congress on July 15 his interim report and asked him to give a more
complete report by September 15 of this year. And here we are some 48
days later saying, we give up.
One can only imagine why this bill is on the floor today. If Members
were serious about this bill, we would have seen it come through
committee, come through the Rules Committee. No, no, this bill showed
up Tuesday night about 9 o'clock out of thin air that we were going to
have this debate this week. One can only look at what is happening on
the floor of the House and describe it as a partisan political stunt,
because that is exactly what it is.
This House voted to support our troops, to fund our troops, and to
fund our effort in Afghanistan and in Iraq. And here we are, once
again, back here posing for holy pictures, as our good friend from
Wisconsin would say.
This bill that we have before us makes our troops pawns in a partisan
political battle. I don't think that is what anyone wants. I think this
bill on the floor today undermines General Petraeus and undermines the
mission that he has to help make Iraq and America safe.
So what we have here is not leadership; it is negligence. My
colleague, the majority leader, my friend from Maryland, and the
Speaker of the House both say we want to fight the terrorists; we want
to fight them where they are. Well, who is our biggest enemy in

[[Page H7709]]

Iraq today? Who is the biggest fight that we have in Iraq today? It is
al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is losing, and that is why we see the bigger bombs
going off and the bigger demonstrations and the bigger casualties,
because they are losing and trying to influence public opinion here in
the United States.
But what surprises me about what we are doing here today is the
willful ignoring of the consequences of failure in Iraq. If we fail in
Iraq, we know what happens, we make America less safe. We know that we
will provide a safe haven for al Qaeda to operate around the world out
of their new safe haven that they will have in Iraq. We will
destabilize the Middle East, we will endanger Israel. We will embolden
the Iranians even more than they have already been emboldened, and we
will allow al Qaeda to be stronger and to be able to recruit more
people to kill Americans and our allies around the world. These are
serious consequences for the American people and our allies around the
world, and we can't shrink from our responsibility here.
General Petraeus is making progress. Not as much progress as we would
all like for him to make, but he is making progress on the ground, as
he reported in the report that came out today. The Iraqi government has
made some progress. Not nearly enough, but to just pull the rug out
from under General Petraeus, to pull the rug out from under our troops
that are in Iraq fighting for our freedom and fighting for the freedom
of the Iraqi people at this moment is absolutely the most negligent
action that I have seen this House take yet on this issue.
Why can't we sit back and allow General Petraeus's plan to have a
chance to succeed? Why can't we wait until September 15, as we had all
agreed, for his final report to come forward and to assess the progress
that is being made and what, if any, new direction ought to be taken?
I believe, and I think the American people believe, that we ought to
allow the generals on the ground in Iraq to make those suggestions to
us and not sit back and let politicians here in Washington make
decisions about our future and about our safety.
But while we are sitting here debating this meaningless bill that we
have before us, we could be acting on serious legislation to help make
America safer. There is a giant loophole in the terrorist surveillance
program that means that activity between terrorists overseas cannot be
acted upon and cannot be listened to by this government. There is
information that would help make America safe, that would bring more
terrorists to justice; information that is being left on the table
because of partisan political games in this House. Why don't we bring
the FISA modernization bill to this floor? Why don't we give the NSA
the terrorist surveillance program and other agencies the ability to
track these terrorist activities and these terrorist phone calls and
information movement that we know today that we can't touch and we
can't use?
We all know through reports over the last couple of days that al
Qaeda has increased in its strength. We also know from news reports
over the last couple of days that there has been increasing chatter
among terrorists around the world. And yet here we are debating a
meaningless bill that undermines our troops, ignoring the fact that
there is information that could help keep America safer that we can't
touch because this House will not act. I think that is negligent, and I
think it is irresponsible.
I would urge my colleagues to let's let General Petraeus and the
troops have a chance to succeed. Let's help them in their mission to
help make Iraq safer and to make America safer, and the way we do that
is to take this bill that we have before us and defeat it.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I just heard the minority leader say that we are willfully ignoring
the consequences of Iraq. That is what I'm talking about, the willful
consequences of Iraq when I spoke a few moments ago about the stretch
and the strain and the difficulty of gluing our Army and Marines back
together again.
This is serious business. We have a readiness crisis due to our
extended operations in Iraq. Readiness in the Army's combat units has
fallen to a dangerous level. Half of the Army's active brigades are in
combat, and the remaining units are preparing for deployment. Units
preparing for combat do not have all of their assigned personnel or
equipment when preparing for combat. Combat units are experiencing
equipment shortfalls; and let me mention that we have lost over 2,000
trucks and Humvees, over 100 tanks and armored vehicles, and over 100
aircraft. Combat units' readiness is being sustained at the expense of
nondeployed units through the use of emergency war stocks.
I am worried. My heart breaks because no one seems to be listening on
the other side, and no one who is opposed to this legislation mentioned
in this debate anything about the stretch and the strain on our ground
forces of the United States. That concerns me. That is the willful
ignoring of consequences of Iraq. Something must be done.
Lee Hamilton, the co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, spoke in a
letter to me, which I read a few moments ago, endorsing this
legislation as a responsible bill: We must do something, and it must be
done today. This is serious business.
Let me salute the eloquence of my friend from California, Mr. Hunter.
He asked us to wait until September. We have had four Septembers
already in Iraq. And you know what? It reminds me, and maybe some of
those who have a little gray in their hair, Mr. Speaker, will recall a
song that was popular decades ago, and that line in that song, the
September song, that says, we haven't got time for the waiting game. We
don't have time for the waiting game.
This is the right time, the right measure, the right issue. It is
right for our ground forces. It is right for those in uniform. It is
right for their families. It is right for our country. We have been
engaged in Iraq since March of 2003. We have threats yet unforeseen.
If we continue to strain our ground forces as they are, we will not
be ready for them. Hopefully they never come, but as sure as God made
little green apples, those threats will be there. That's the purpose of
this. The readiness of our forces and the capability of what they need
to do for us in the days ahead, that is our job under the Constitution,
to raise and maintain. That's what we are doing.
So with that, Mr. Speaker, I say that we need to pass this
legislation. We need to do so to pass the responsibility back to the
Iraqis, to keep our forces in a higher state of readiness, and to make
sure that the future is all the more safer for those of us here in our
country.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this renewed
debate on the war in Iraq. Iraq is today's signature issue, and it is
one of the most divisive and complex ones before this Congress. The
choices we make regarding Iraq will establish a legacy for the United
States that will define our policy toward the Middle East region for a
generation or longer. For that reason, it is my hope that we, as an
institution and, indeed, as a country can agree upon a policy that will
best protect our national interests and those of our allies and
supports those servicemembers and civiians--and their families--who so
bravely serve our country today in Iraq and elsewhere around the world.
If enacted, H.R. 2956, the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act,
the legislation before us today, would significantly change the
direction of current operations in Iraq. Notably, this legislation
would require the Secretary of Defense to commence the reduction of the
number of United States Armed Forces personnel deployed in Iraq--
beginning as early as 120 days after enactment of this bill--to a more
limited presence by April 1, 2008. Also notable, this legislation would
require the President to submit to Congress a new comprehensive
strategy that would guide future operations in Iraq and that would
include specific plans for diplomatic initiatives to engage United
States allies and others in the region to bring stability to Iraq.
This strategy, according to H.R. 2956, would be written to reflect an
honest assessment of the United States' national security interests in
Iraq and the broader Middle East region. The document would be written
to include the diplomatic, political, economic, and military components
of a comprehensive strategy to maintain and advance such interests as
the Armed Forces are redeployed from Iraq. This bill takes into account
the importance of protecting United States diplomatic personnel and

[[Page H7710]]

combating terrorism in Iraq in any redeployment strategy. The strategy
would also include a justification of the minimum force levels required
to protect United States national security interests in Iraq after
April 1, 2008, based upon a description of the specific missions of the
Armed Forces to be undertaken. Of those missions, the strategy would
require an assessment of the extent to which military personnel would
fulfill roles traditionally performed by diplomatic personnel.
H.R. 2956 will generate Significant debate. Withdrawal timelines and
a date have been discussed during recent debate on this issue.
Consensus on this aspect of this bill will remain hard to reach. But
this bill helps advances our national discussion with respect to the
war in Iraq by calling for a new comprehensive strategy. Such a
comprehensive strategy is long overdue.
I introduced H.R. 744, the Iraq Policy Revitalization and
Congressional Oversight Enhancement Act on January 31, 2007. H.R. 744
would help enhance congressional oversight of Operation Iraqi Freedom
by requiring the President to transmit periodically to Congress a
consolidated, comprehensive report that would detail the terms of
completion for Operation Iraqi Freedom. The bill would also require the
President to seek to enter into a multilateral agreement--based on that
plan--to help provide for the completion of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I
am encouraged that the legislation before us today would require a
similar plan be drafted by the President and communicated to Congress.
Our soldiers and diplomats need a comprehensive, actionable plan that
defines what it is that they need to accomplish in order to
successfully complete their missions.
It is true the Government of Iraq must increasingly shoulder the
burden of, and better fulfill its obligation to, govern from moderate
positions, with uniformity, and with regard to the rule of law. But
recent history tells us that we cannot rely on the Government of Iraq
to govern in that manner. As H.R. 744 notes, the inability or
unwillingness of the Government of Iraq to govern in moderate terms
contributes to violence against United States servicemembers and
Coalition forces, creates barriers to national reconciliation in Iraq,
and impedes the expeditious completion of Operation Iraqi Freedom and
the return of our servicemembers to their peacetime duty stations. The
outcome of policies that are overly dependent upon a reportedly broken,
corrupt, and sectarian government delivering on complicated policies,
against great odds, and during a compressed period of time is
uncertain. This fact underscores the importance of and the need for a
new comprehensive strategy.
I believe that continued, honest and open exchange of views on the
substance of what our country and our allies must achieve in Iraq in
order to complete Operation Iraqi Freedom is needed. Finding an
achievable, expeditious, and honorable way to complete Operation Iraqi
Freedom should be a primary goal for all of us. We owe this to those
who have sacrificed so much for this mission. But the situation in Iraq
will not yield a solution easily. Nevertheless, we must endeavor to
find one. In doing so we will be helping shape in the best way possible
the legacy future generations of Americans will inherit and the one we
will have to defend to history. The United States assumed a moral
obligation to bring a minimum of order to Iraq when we, in a pre-
emptive manner, attacked that county four years ago. History will judge
us harshly if we act to abandon this obligation. The consideration of
H.R. 2956 allows us an opportunity to formulate a national strategy
that more effectively addresses the realities of Iraq.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of H.R. 2956, the ``Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act.''
This legislation would accomplish what the majority of the American
people have said over and over that they support--the redeployment of
American troops from Iraq. H.R. 2956 would require this redeployment to
begin within 120 days, with completion to a limited presence by April
1, 2008.
The evidence continues to mount that the surge is not working. More
than 3,500 troops have lost their lives and more than 26,000 have been
wounded since this war began. The costs are too great to continue this
failed policy.
The progress report that was presented to Congress today states that
the Iraqi government has made limited progress in meeting political,
economic, or security benchmarks and in some instances has made
virtually no progress at all. The President said that when the Iraqis
stand up, our troops will stand down. More than four years later, we
are still waiting.
Increasingly, Republican senators are coming forward to announce that
they support a change in policy in Iraq. I am glad that they are
finally accepting what many of us have been saying for months. Yet the
President continues to dig in by promoting his failed policy against
the will of the American people and despite dwindling support within
his own party.
This bill establishes a new direction for our forces in Iraq. I urge
my colleagues to listen to their constituents and support this
legislation.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation
calling for the safe and responsible redeployment of U.S. troops from
Iraq. Make no mistake about it: The administration's incompetence in
planning and executing the post-war occupation has brought us to this
point. It is now Congress's responsibility to stand up for the majority
of American voices who seek an end to this war. This bill provides for
a redeployment of our troops not only so that they will be safe, but
also so they will be focused on securing our Nation, not caught in the
crossfire of a sectarian civil war in Iraq. We must provide for our men
and women in uniform and their families.
Some assert with no basis that the war in Iraq has made us safer
when, in fact, the opposite is true. I am deeply troubled by today's
report from the National Counterterrorism Center which states that al-
Qaeda is stronger now than at any point since 9/11. Terrorist cells
capitalized on our preoccupations in Iraq to reestablish a presence in
the Middle East and beyond. For years, the Administration has
stubbornly insisted that Iraq is the central front of the War on
Terrorism, but today's report clearly indicates just how damaging this
war has been to our national security.
The President's progress report on Iraq issued today shows
unsatisfactory improvement of security benchmarks. The report predicts
a rise in insurgent violence in the coming months and an increased
effort to disrupt life for Iraqis. In addition, there appears to be no
improvement in eliminating the sectarian influences that have
infiltrated Iraqi security forces. This is not acceptable. The
administration has not delivered on its promises in Iraq and now we
must move forward to establish a new direction. It simply is not fair
to ask our soldiers and marines to continue to police someone else's
civil war. It is especially irresponsible when considering the
mountains of evidence from our own intelligence agencies pronouncing
that this conflict cannot be solved by our military might alone. We
must refocus our attention on the true threats to our Nation and our
citizens.
Americans owe a debt of gratitude to our troops and their families
for the sacrifices they have made during this difficult time.
Servicemembers have had to endure difficult assignments and failed
civilian leadership; but they have done so with honor and dignity. We
must not forget the families who had to go without their loved ones for
months at a time; the missed birthdays, baseball games, long nights
away.
Mr. Speaker, the time for talking has ended; we must act, without
delay, to redeploy our brave troops out of Iraq.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
legislation.
The American people are not happy with the conflict in Iraq; I am not
pleased either. Every day, my constituents tell me their concerns with
Iraq, and I can understand their desire to put this behind us.
The reality is, however, that we cannot snap our fingers and make
things all better; it's not simply going to go away.
My friends on the other side of the aisle have argued for years that
we rushed headlong into Iraq without seriously considering the long-
term consequences. Yet with this legislation they are repeating the
very same mistake, only in reverse.
Staying the course is not a viable option, but neither is the fallacy
of the orderly, phased withdrawal proposed by this legislation. You
cannot gradually blow up a dam; once we begin to leave, chaos will
immediately ensue. So I ask my colleagues, what do you propose to do
after you order our troops away? What's your plan? Where's your
responsible and workable strategy and vision?
Unfortunately, such a scenario may prove inevitable. But my
colleagues hold forth this legislation as a plan: it's not. It's
political pabulum. It might give politicians cover, but it exposes our
servicemen to danger even greater than they already face. Ethnic,
tribal, and religious killings will increase by an order of magnitude.
The current refugee situation, already a disaster for Iraq's neighbors,
will be dwarfed by the exodus to come. Our own men and women in uniform
will be standing in front of a tsunami of violence.
What is required is a thoughtful, deliberative plan to make the best
of an undeniably bad situation. Such a plan is embodied in the
recommendations of the Iraq Study Group--the product of a concerted,
bipartisan and sincere effort on the part of some of our brightest
citizens.
I have long advocated we seriously follow--or at least debate--the
recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Foreign policy and diplomatic
issues are usually complicated, nuanced and multi-leveled; the
situation in Iraq is no different. Yet all we have been given to
consider are all-or-nothing propositions.

[[Page H7711]]

I would welcome a bona fide discussion regarding how to move forward
in Iraq and in the Middle East generally--that is what we owe the
American people. What we have today is nothing but four hours cooing to
the other side's base. This is not leadership. No amendments were made
in order. There was no reaching out to Republicans like myself who felt
the surge was a mistake and are looking for another direction. What we
have is a framed ``take it or leave it,'' ``my way or the highway''
approach. That approach got us where we are--a healthy dialogue with
options is needed to appropriately disengage.
Two months remain until General Petraeus will be summoned before
Congress. He will give us--as we have charged him to do--an honest
assessment on where this ``surge'' has lead our troops and the Iraqi
people. I hope at that time, whether his testimony reveals success or
failure, this body will have the wherewithal to have a serious, open
debate on what options we have left.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the legislation
before us today mandating a hard deadline for the Secretary of Defense
to significantly reduce our troop presence in Iraq.
Over the last several months, similar attempts on the part of the
Democratic leadership to require an arbitrary date for troop withdrawal
have gone nowhere, wasting precious time debating legislation that
would be vetoed by the President. While I believe strongly that we must
change course in Iraq and bring our men and women home, it would be a
mistake for Congress to think it could disregard the complexity of this
conflict by simply picking a random date for withdrawal. Forcing such
an important decision without considering the advice of military and
foreign policy leaders, could lead to the loss of many more lives and
open the door for sectarian chaos to spread across the entire Middle
East.
For this reason, I have been a leading supporter of the Iraq Study
Group, also known as the Baker-Hamilton Commission, which in December
2006 outlined a comprehensive approach for bringing a responsible
conclusion to the conflict in Iraq. In fact, in early 2007, I went to
the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives and called on the Bush
Administration to change course in Iraq and implement the Study Group's
recommendations for a new, robust diplomatic offensive in the Middle
East. Since then, Secretary of State Rice has taken several encouraging
steps to open the lines of communication with key nations like Iran and
Syria, and I am hopeful that my efforts, and those of my colleagues,
have prompted the White House to improve its diplomatic efforts in the
region.
This September, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will
submit a very important report regarding the conflict in Iraq. While I
am hopeful that this report will show progress, I also feel strongly
that we must begin developing a responsible postsurge strategy.
Therefore, on June 5, 2007, I joined over forty other Members of
Congress--Republicans and Democrats--in introducing the Iraq Study
Group Recommendations Implementation Act. The Study Group
recommendations, which would bolster diplomacy, improve political and
economic reconstruction, and handoff the combat mission to the Iraqis,
represent the first truly bipartisan proposal for ending this conflict
and bringing Americans home.
Clearly, there is no easy solution in Iraq. Still, it is extremely
discouraging that the Democratic leadership continues to hold votes on
``symbolic'' withdrawal timelines, while refusing to consider the
bipartisan Iraq Study Group proposal--legislation that as of today has
been cosponsored by 25 Democrats and 33 Republicans in the House.
Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Commission serves as a
model for how we must work together in a responsible fashion to
stabilize Iraq and get our brave soldiers off the streets. Rather than
wasting time debating arbitrary timelines that disregard the complexity
of the situation, it is critical that we come together now in support
of a responsible exit strategy. I am encouraged that thirteen
additional Members of Congress have signed-on to the Iraq Study Group
Implementation Act since we introduced it over a month ago and I am
hopeful that Members from across the political spectrum will join me in
uniting behind this crucial effort.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2956 which, while
a well-intended attempt to reduce our nation's seemingly unlimited
military commitment in Iraq, is in so many respects deeply flawed.
I have been one of the strongest opponents of military action against
Iraq. I voted against the initial authorization in 2002 and I have
voted against every supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war. I
even voted against the initial ``Iraq regime change'' legislation back
in 1998. I believe our troops should be brought back to the United
States without delay. Unfortunately, one of the reasons I oppose this
legislation is that it masquerades as a troop withdrawal measure but in
reality may well end up increasing U.S. commitments in the Middle East
Mr. Speaker, this is precisely the debate we should have had four
years ago, before Congress voted to abrogate its Constitutional
obligation to declare war and transfer that authority to the president.
Some in this body were rather glib in declaring the constitution
antiquated while voting to cede the ability to initiate hostilities to
the President. Now we see the result of ignoring the Constitution, and
we are bringing even more mayhem to the process with this legislation.
To those who believe this act would somehow end the war, I simply
point to the title for Section 3 of the bill, which states,
``Requirement to reduce the number of armed forces in Iraq and
transition to a limited presence of the Armed Forces in Iraq.'' However
the number of troops are limited, this legislation nevertheless will
permit an ongoing American military presence in Iraq with our soldiers
continuing to be engaged in hostilities.
I also wish to draw attention to Section 4(b)(1), which mandates the
President to submit a ``Strategy for Iraq'' by the beginning of next
year. This ``strategy'' is to include:

A discussion of United States national security interests
in Iraq and the broader Middle East region and the
diplomatic, political, economic, and military components of a
comprehensive strategy to maintain and advance such interests
as the Armed Forces are redeployed from Iraq pursuant to
section 3 of this Act.

In other words, far from extricating ourselves from the debacle in
Iraq, this bill would set in motion a policy that could lead to a wider
regional commitment, both financially and militarily. Such a policy
would be disastrous for both our overextended national security forces
and beleaguered taxpayers. This could, in fact, amount to an
authorization for a region-wide ``surge.''
Congress' job is to change the policy on Iraq, not to tell the
military leaders how many troops they should have. I have attempted to
do this with H.R. 2605, a bill to sunset after a six month period the
authorization for military activity in Iraq. During this period a new
plan for Iraq could be discussed and agreed. Plan first, authorization
next, execution afterward. That is what we should be doing in Iraq.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, this legislation brings us no closer to
ending the war in Iraq. It brings us no closer to bringing our troops
home. It says nothing about withdrawal, only about redeployment. It
says nothing about reducing U.S. presence in the Middle East, and may
actually lead to an expanded U.S. presence in the region. We have no
guarantee the new strategy demanded by this legislation would not
actually expand our military activities to Iran and Syria and beyond. I
urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and put forth an
effective strategy to end the war in Iraq and to bring our troops home.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today the administration released
its ``Assessment Report'' on Iraq. While attempting to tout
``progress,'' it is plain to see that this is more of the same rhetoric
that has become so commonplace in this administration. The sad truth is
that since President Bush launched this war, more than 3,600 American
service men and women have been killed in Iraq, more than 26,000 have
been injured, and the American taxpayer has spent nearly half a
trillion dollars on this war.
The report highlights that the Iraqi government has not met a single
one of the 18 security, political, and economic milestones that the
Congress laid out as measurements for success. It also substantiates
the fact that of the 18 benchmarks Congress laid out, Iraqis are making
progress on only eight. The report also shows us that Iraqi security
forces are not providing even-handed enforcement of the law and that
Militia presence is still a prevalent force within the security
services of a number of ministries.
It is for this reason that I am in support of the Responsible
Redeployment from Iraq Act. In addition to requiring the redeployment
of American forces this legislation requires the development of a
comprehensive strategy for U.S. policy in Iraq and limits missions any
remaining forces in Iraq may undertake to duties such as counter-
terrorism, and protecting American personnel at the embassy in Iraq.
It has been said that faith without action is merely superstition. We
now have the opportunity to change course in this war. My father was a
World War II veteran. He died a few months ago at the age of 87. As I
looked at the flag draped across his coffin, I thought about the many
mothers, fathers and families that had to bury their loved ones, many
of them barely adults, and see that flag draped across their caskets.
I, along with the American people, have no more patience with regards
to this war in Iraq. I've been to three deployments, five funerals and
countless memorial services; I don't want to go to any more. I want to
be able to go to one last homecoming celebration when we can bring an
end to this war.

[[Page H7712]]

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.
As a veteran of the U.S. Army myself, I strongly support our troops,
our veterans and their families. Our troops have done everything they
have been asked to do and done it exceptionally well. I am tremendously
proud of all the troops from North Carolina and across America who have
done their duty so admirably. They are our heroes, and we salute them.
But as the Representative for Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, I am
very concerned about the state of readiness of America's armed forces.
I have traveled to Iraq twice, and after I returned last year, I said
the Administration must change this failed policy. Specifically, I said
that we need more focus on the threat of international terrorists. The
National Counterterrorism Center has released a report today entitled:
``Al-Qaida Better Positioned To Strike the West'' that concludes Osama
Bin Laden's network has been reconstructed while America's military is
bogged down in the civil war in Iraq, with no end in sight.
H.R. 2956, written by Chairman Ike Skelton of the Armed Services
Committee, one of the most respected Members of this body and an expert
on military policy, is a good first step for this needed new direction.
It requires the Iraqi leaders to begin to provide for the security of
their own country by redeploying American combat troops from the
sectarian civil war and reconstituting our readiness and transitioning
American forces to the mission of effective counterterrorism anywhere
in the world where radical jihadists threaten America and our
interests. Let me be clear that H.R. 2956 maintains the flexibility of
the Commander in Chief to direct the operations of the armed forces. It
simply calls for a change in policy and public accountability for a
comprehensive U.S. strategy for Iraq.
North Carolina's senior Senator stated it well this week when she
said, ``It is my firm hope and belief that we can start bringing our
troops home in 2008.'' This bill begins to do just that. I urge my
colleagues to join me in voting for it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of ``H.R. 2956, The
Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act,'' and had I been on the floor
today, I would have voted ``yes.''
Unfortunately, I was unable to attend due to the fact that I was
given the high honor of receiving the NAACP Spingarn Award. However,
this is an extremely important piece of legislation. One of our
greatest responsibilities is the protection of our soldiers. The
Democrats are determined to end this war and bring our young men and
women back home. H.R. 2956 will now provide such a policy that will
allow us to meet our national security interests in Iraq and the
broader Middle East region by maintaining a minimal force. The
Administration has provided a failed policy and it is time for a new
direction. We understand that this transition must be well thought out
and handled responsibly; with a view toward an enduring national
security interest in the region.
This legislation, acknowledges that our military has accomplished the
mission they were given in the original 2002 authorization to use force
and that Iraq must now take leadership for its own future. For years
Democrats have advocated for the responsible redeployment of American
forces from Iraq. The relocation and redistribution of our soldiers is
long overdue and enough American lives have been sacrificed for a
failed policy. Democrats have argued that the Iraqis must take primary
accountability for their country and their security. American presence
in Iraq must be re-focused away from playing referee in a civil war. We
must focus and limit our efforts to military missions such as counter-
terrorism, training Iraqi security forces and protecting American
personnel at the embassy.
The bill requires American forces to begin redeploying within 120
days and to complete the transition to a limited presence by April 1,
2008. The bill also requires a comprehensive strategy by January 1,
2008 for U.S. policy in Iraq, including a discussion of American
national security interests in Iraq and the broader region, the
specific missions remaining forces would undertake, and minimum force
levels required to accomplish them. Finally, it requires the President
to submit updates on the use of and need for any forces remaining in
Iraq every 90 days starting on July 1, 2008. The President has been
given ample time to bring our soldiers home. It is now time for us to
act on their behalf.
I am committed to the homecoming of our brave men and women who have
so valiantly completed their mission. So, I am honored to support this
legislation.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2956,
Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act of 2007.
For months, I, along with many of my colleagues in this chamber, have
been calling on the President to forge a new direction with the war in
Iraq. Our pleas have fallen on deaf ears.
Despite failing to meet his own benchmarks of progress, despite new
reports of the unsustainable cost of this war, despite the tremendous
dissatisfaction and disenchantment of the American people and members
of his own party--the President recently made public statements to the
effect that he is unwilling to change the course and try a new
strategy.
The American people are dissatisfied with the deteriorating situation
in Iraq. They are tired of finger-pointing and political gamesmanship.
They want some answers, and they quite rightly expect and deserve one.
As their elected representatives and leaders, I believe it is our
responsibility in Congress to work together to move this country
forward to an honest solution.
It is clear that American troops have accomplished their military
mission. Yet we have now tasked them with forging political compromise
as well, leaving them in the middle of a burgeoning civil war in Iraq.
It is widely recognized that the sectarian strife taking place in Iraq
right now cannot be solved through military means alone, and the
President's refusal to entertain any new strategies has put our troops
in an untenable position. I cannot continue in good conscience to ask
our brave troops to risk their lives because I don't believe their
sacrifice is being met with an equal commitment from the Iraqi people.
The tough but necessary political compromises are not being made.
While the Iraqis are moving toward a transparent and effective
government, what is missing is the necessary political accommodation to
move the country towards reconciliation. Unfortunately, Iraqis by
themselves appear incapable of achieving political progress. Instead,
years later, they continue to lean on the United States and our
military for stability, teetering on the brink of full-blown civil war
without the will to make the political compromises necessary to peace.
Be assured that I am the last person in this chamber that wants to
take irresponsible actions that would take the country into complete
chaos. But American military power is not the solution to the war. More
troops, more time, more money--these are not the answers. Congress
needs to understand, as the American people do, that we must begin
planning for a responsible withdrawal and redeployment of U.S. troops
from Iraq. H.R. 2956 provides for a safe and orderly reduction of
troops in Iraq and a transition to a limited presence of American
troops in country for force protection, training of Iraqi Security
Forces, and counterterrorism missions. I urge my colleagues to support
this measure.
We must send a clear message to the Iraqi government that the
patience of the American people is not endless, and that they must take
control of their future. Passage of H.R. 2956 will help send that
message.
I believe strongly that we must not wait any longer to send this
message. The time to act is now, to force the hand of this
Administration and the Iraqi government. Waiting any longer will simply
lead to more fatalities for U.S. soldiers, Iraqi military, and
civilians.
Finally, I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks and undying
admiration for our men and women in uniform for their service to our
country. May God bless them and their families during this difficult
time. May God provide his special blessings and care for those who fell
in the line of duty. And may God continue to bless these United States
of America.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill
because I strongly support a responsible redeployment of our troops
from Iraq.
It should not have been necessary for us to consider this bill today.
Back in March, I voted for, and Congress passed, legislation that would
have begun a draw-down of combat troops in favor of a disengagement
strategy in Iraq. Regrettably, however, the president vetoed that
legislation and then moved in exactly the opposite direction by
escalating the number of troops committed to Iraq.
So, while a war can't be effectively led by committee, by failing to
exercise responsible leadership, the president continues to make it
necessary for Congress to assert itself. And thus the House is acting
again today--and whatever the outcome, we will act again and again
until we find the necessary support to change course in Iraq.
The war in Iraq has cost this Nation the blood of its soldiers, the
treasure of its citizens, and the good will of our allies around the
world. The average number of attacks, Iraqi civilian deaths, and
coalition deaths are all at their highest levels since the invasion.
Over 3,600 American soldiers have died in Iraq, and we are spending
over $10 billion every month to continue this failed policy.
As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I must point out that
the time is rapidly approaching when we will not be able to sustain the
numbers of troops now deployed in Iraq without calling back our
National Guard and Reserve for second or third tours or extending the
tours of current active duty troops beyond the already extended 15
months.

[[Page H7713]]

And our increasing military and financial commitment to Iraq limits
our options for addressing other critical national security concerns
even as a new intelligence report indicates that al Qaeda is
operationally stronger than a year ago. The most disturbing news is
that al Qaeda has regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001.
Proponents of the President's escalation--the so-called ``surge''--
say we haven't given it a chance to succeed. But it has been under way
since January, with the Iraqi government fully aware of the steps
toward reconciliation it needs to take to enable U.S. forces to stay--
and still, those steps aren't being taken. Today's interim report from
the Pentagon tries to make a bad situation look better, listing
``satisfactory'' progress on a number of benchmarks required by the
Congress several months ago. But in reality, as the report states,
``the security situation in Iraq remains complex and extremely
challenging,'' the ``economic picture is uneven'' and political
reconciliation is lagging.
I had hoped that by holding the president and the Iraqi government
accountable for achieving these benchmarks, we would gain the leverage
necessary to pressure the Iraqi government to forge the political
solution we all know is required. But it appears that the Iraqi
government is either unable or unwilling to bring its feuding factions
together to achieve these goals.
The Pentagon's report blames those of us pushing for redeployment for
the lack of progress toward political reconciliation, saying it has
been hampered by ``increasing concern among Iraqi political leaders
that the United States may not have a long term-commitment to Iraq.''
But if the Iraqis won't make progress when we're there--and then
threaten that they can't make progress if we leave--under what
conditions will we see progress? The president has asked Congress to
wait to act for the next progress report due in September. But what are
we waiting for? He has dressed up his new approaches in many different
ways since this war started over four years ago, and yet little has
changed.
What we need--and what many Democrats and Republicans alike are
calling for--is a responsible redeployment from Iraq. That is what the
bipartisan Iraq Study Group ultimately called for, and that is the main
reason I introduced legislation to implement its recommendations. I
continue to hold out hope that we can forge a bipartisan consensus in
favor of adopting the ISG as a foundation for a phased withdrawal
strategy. I believe in this approach because responsible redeployment
would allow Iraqis to take control of their own security by reducing
U.S. combat forces while limiting the U.S. military to missions such as
counter-terrorism, protecting U.S. Embassy personnel, and training
Iraqi security forces. This bill will also allow necessary flexibility
for our military forces to continue strikes against al Qaeda in Iraq.
This legislation calls for the beginning of redeployment and a troop
draw-down within the next four months. It takes a different approach
from H.R. 2237, the bill introduced by Representative Jim McGovern (D-
MA) that I opposed two months ago, in that it would not prohibit
funding for our troops already in Iraq, and it requires the president
to submit a comprehensive strategy providing specific plans for
diplomatic initiatives and justifying the number of U.S. troops who
would remain and explaining their missions.
I do question whether we can extricate all combat troops by April
2008, as it calls for--it could take as long as six months to move over
one hundred thousand soldiers and their gear and to do this safely.
This is one military exercise that we have to take seriously and spend
time and resources to plan--because it could mean life or death for our
men and women in uniform. But I believe we should set a target date now
and begin this planning. This bill would force a change in strategy and
mandate the start of a phased withdrawal and redeployment, and that is
why I will vote for it.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act. Delivering the solemn
promise we made to set a new direction in Iraq, this legislation
provides us with the opportunity to reaffirm our support for the
responsible redeployment of our troops and a refocusing of our efforts
on the real threat that is facing America--fighting al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan, tracking down Osama bin Laden, and preventing another
terrorist attack against America.
Along with a great many of my colleagues, I spoke out against the
President's surge strategy when it was announced in January. We argued
then, as we reiterate today, that Iraq is engaged in a civil war and
thus political, not military, solutions are needed to address the
problems facing the region. Yet, the President continues to operate
under the assumption that somehow, some way, there is a military path
to success. In other words, his strategy continues to be ``stay the
course'' writ large.
It has now been seven months since the President announced his surge
strategy, with the stated goal of providing stability in Iraq so that
the political reforms that are needed to secure the region can take
place. Since then, more than 25,000 additional troops have deployed to
Iraq, of whom 600 have been killed and more than 3,000 have been
wounded. All of this while the Iraqi government has failed to meet any
of the benchmarks endorsed by the President in January, violence rates
are at an all time high, and a recent government report estimates that
al Qaeda is the strongest it has been since the aftermath of the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Simply put, it is long past time for our involvement in this tragic
episode to come to an end. The Iraqi people are the only ones that can
bring a peaceful conclusion to this war.
It is unfair to ask our troops and their families to continue to
sacrifice while Iraqi leaders have done so little to achieve the
political and security goals asked of them. Therefore, it is imperative
that we begin the gradual redeployment of troops as soon as possible to
protect their lives and ensure the safety of America.
Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate my opposition to this war. I believe
the decision to invade Iraq is the single most devastating and
misguided foreign policy decision our Nation has ever made. I will vote
for the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act because I believe it is
time to bring our troops home and end our involvement in this civil
war.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
The Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act, and I thank Chairman
Skelton for his leadership and his dedication to the readiness of our
troops and the continuing excellence of the United States armed forces.
The President continues to ask this Congress and the American people
to ``stay the course'' in Iraq. Well, Mr. President, today the American
people and the Congress say, ``No more!!''
Instead, I add my voice once again to the growing number of retired
military generals, the Iraq Study Group, and untold thousands of rank-
and-file on the front lines who are calling for a new direction in
Iraq.
The success of our military depends on a sound strategy. Yet, instead
of fighting terrorists in the mountains of Afghanistan, our armed
forces are overextended after four years of refereeing a civil war in
the sands of Iraq.
The President's escalation of this war,--his so-called ``surge''--is
not working. That much is clear. Since the escalation of this war 6
months ago, more than 25,000 troops have been sent to Iraq, 600 more
U.S. soldiers have died and more than 3,000 troops have been wounded.
Countless thousands of Iraqis are dead, and today the violence in Iraq
is at an all-time high!
Our troops have performed heroically in Iraq, but the Iraqi
government has failed to meet any of the benchmarks endorsed by the
President in January. Political reconciliation within Iraq is non-
existent. A change of course is long overdue.
The time has come for the United States to responsibly re-deploy our
troops from Iraq and to refocus our efforts on protecting Americans
from terrorism. The time has come for Iraqis to take primary
responsibility for their country and their security.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will do exactly that.
Let me be clear on one additional point. Democrats support the
troops. As a Member of the Appropriations Committee, I have
consistently voted to fund our troops and provide our soldiers in the
line of fire with the resources they need.
I do this because our brave service men and women are not risking
their lives each and every day for one political party or the other.
They are risking their lives for America.
Our Nation owes our troops a strategy that is worthy of their
sacrifice. But ``stay the course'' is not that strategy. It is a slogan
that continues to fail them.
No, Mr. Speaker, if we really want to support our troops, it is now
time to get them out of Iraq and re-deploy them to other areas where
they can fight the terrorists who have attacked, and who continue to
threaten our Nation.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2956, the
``Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act.''
This legislation mandates that we begin withdrawing our troops from
Iraq within 120 days of enactment. This redeployment would have to be
completed by April 2008. This is a commonsense measure to bring an end
to our military involvement in Iraq. Frankly it is mindboggling that
American troops are still fighting there in the first place.
For over 4 years we have worked to establish a secure, safe, and
peaceful democracy in Iraq. Our military has done a valiant job in
doing everything we asked of it. We have lost over 3,600 soldiers and
more than 26,000 have been wounded in this effort. We have spent about
$450 billion. Unfortunately, death and destruction still reign in Iraq.
President George W. Bush's plan is not working and the evidence of
failure is mounting. President Bush announced his troop

[[Page H7714]]

``surge'' 6 months ago. During that time about 600 troops have been
killed, 3,000 have been wounded, and $60 billion has been spent. The
recently released White House interim report shows there to have been
unsatisfactory progress by the Iraqi government in meeting many of the
benchmarks laid out by President Bush back in January.
With respect to President Bush's political benchmarks, the Iraqi
government has made unsatisfactory progress on all of them. What this
Iraqi civil war requires is an Iraqi political compromise, but the
available evidence suggests that no one within the government is
willing to make the sacrifices needed to make that happen. Why should
American soldiers continue to sacrifice under such circumstances? Not
one more drop of American blood should be shed in pursuit of President
Bush's failed Iraq policy.
The American people agree. Recent polling shows that over 60 percent
of the American people now believe sending troops to Iraq was a mistake
and 71 percent support withdrawing our forces by April 2008, just as
H.R. 2956 would require.
Despite the views of the American public and the clear evidence on
the ground that our continued military presence in Iraq is not the
solution, President Bush stubbornly refuses to change course and bring
our troops home. Congress has the power and obligation to do what is
right and force a new policy. Passing H.R. 2956 is the first step on
that road, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of
this reasoned legislation.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to begin a
responsible redeployment of our forces now in Iraq. The defense of our
homeland is paramount and we are vulnerable for an attack. The war in
Iraq has damaged the readiness of our military. Our ability to defend
our Nation is at stake.
Today's report on benchmarks is further evidence that this
Administration can only see the situation in Iraq through rose-colored
glasses. It's time for serious policy makers--for American patriots--to
find a way out of Iraq so we can focus on defending our Nation against
al Qaeda, as well as other threats to national security.
This administration has no plan to defend the United States, and they
did great damage to the defense of this country with the ``catch and
release'' operation they had on our southern border. ``Catch and
release'' sent all non-Mexicans who came in illegally to the interior
of the Nation with a paper compelling them to return for deportation.
By virtue of ``catch and release'' we face the prospect of possibly
hundreds of cells already in country awaiting an attack order.
What happens if al Qaeda attacks a nuclear facility? Do we have a
plan for that? Who moves into defensive and containment posture? Do we
even have the troops presently in country to provide that defense and
containment?
What happens if there is an attack on a military base? There will be
military officials nearby, but how will they respond?
What happens if there is a bio-chemical attack in an American city?
Who responds--and how will our citizens be protected?
A shoulder launched weapon from a building top in New York,
Washington DC, or another major American city would be devastating . .
. and show our lack of preparation 6 years after 9/11 when many of us
ran from these buildings, not sure we would ever see them again.
Today's report about the resurgence of al Qaeda is no surprise for
us. Ever since Congress was deliberately misled by the President into
authorizing the Iraq war in 2002, the war in Iraq sucked precious
resources away from our focus on al Qaeda. When we invaded Iraq in
2003, the Iraq al Qaeda presence was in a single village in Kurdistan
along the Iranian border. Today, it is impossible to estimate the
number of al Qaeda fighters we have drawn to Iraq through our invasion.
We inadvertently aided al Qaeda through our invasion of Iraq by
giving al Qaeda a recruitment opportunity for radical Muslims
throughout the Middle East; giving al Qaeda the means to perfect urban
warfare; tying down our military in Iraq, giving al Qaeda space to grow
and operate, and most urgently, deeply damaging the readiness of the
U.S. military and making the U.S. less safe for ourselves and our
children.
At least one branch of this government must begin the painfil process
of finding an ending to our involvement in a civil war we facilitated.
Many colleagues here seem to believe our withdrawal will leave behing
an even bloodier civil war. I agree; but that will be the case whenever
we leave there . . . be it today, tomorrow, next year, or a decade from
now. The only difference we can make in that regard is how many
American souls will die on the Iraqi battlefield between now and the
day our forces withdraw.
Others have pinned all hope on the fledgling Iraqi government seated
on March 16, 2005 . . . a government that has been unable to elect a
Speaker for their Parliament and rarely produces a quorum. We have lost
1,282 American soldiers during the same time.
Bear in mind, al Qaeda is not the only threat we face in the future .
. . North Korea, the militarization of South America . . . and many
other threats are a reality for this nation in the decade to come. We
must be prepared for all of them.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this bill.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution.
It is long past time that the disaster in Iraq is brought to an end.
The President's failed policy in Iraq has been repudiated by the
bipartisan Iraq Study Group, his inability to extricate the United
States from a quagmire in the desert has been rejected by the voters,
and we must change course. The President has proven himself to be
either blind to the reality on the ground in Iraq or simply uncaring of
what that reality means for the stability of the Middle East and the
security of the United States of America.
The President took this country to war on false premises. There were
no weapons of mass destruction, there was no imminent threat, there
were no operational ties to al-Qaeda. And the administration knew,
because we had U.N. weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq for months
before the invasion, that the so-called ``intelligence'' pointing to an
active and dangerous Iraqi WMD program was simply wrong. Over and over
again, Hans Blix and his teams of inspectors would launch surprise
visits on sites that the CIA had pointed them to, and over and over
again the U.S. intelligence would be proved incorrect.
We have been fighting in Iraq longer than we fought in the Second
WorId War. Within a few months, we will have spent more money in Iraq
than we did in the more than 10 years we were in Vietnam. And while a
very small segment of our citizenry is being asked to make the ultimate
sacrifice for this adventure by sending their loved ones to war, the
Bush administration has given billions of dollars in tax breaks to the
richest Americans. If this war were truly a national struggle,
underpinned by the faith and support of the public, the sacrifices
would be shared by all instead of borne by the few.
Since President Bush infamously declared ``Mission Accomplished''
over 4 years ago, the situation has only gotten worse and worse. The
administration never had a plan to win the peace, and still does not,
and as a result the peace cannot be won. Our brave men and women in
uniform are caught in the midst of a multifaceted civil war which can
only be brought to an end with political reconciliation, not military
engagement.
Unfortunately, the President stubbornly refuses to understand the
nature of the conflict into which he has dragged us. He refuses to
change course, but more of the same cannot any longer be an option. We
must extricate ourselves from a sectarian civil war which is bleeding
our military every single day. This bill will begin the responsible
redeployment of US forces out of Iraq within 120 days, and complete
that deployment by April 1, 2008. On that date, we will have been in
Iraq for more than 5 years.
Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Skelton for bringing this resolution
before us and I urge its adoption.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and urge my
colleagues to support the bill.
It has become painfully obvious that the White House is incapable of
changing course in Iraq. The Bush administration's talking points about
the situation in Iraq change from week to week, but the fundamental
strategy remains the same. The President is determined that our troops
will remain in Iraq no matter what.
The latest White House talking points are aimed at getting the
American people to believe that the surge in Iraq just began a couple
weeks ago, instead of 6 months ago. In fact, the President announced
the surge back on January 10, and the troop escalation began in early
February.
The White House is emphasizing today that it finds that Iraq is
making ``satisfactory'' progress in some areas, such as the cooperation
between U.S. forces and tribal sheiks in Anbar province as well as the
formation of a Constitutional Review Committee, although the
constitutional review itself is not complete. The reality is that the
Iraqi Government has not approved a law to share Iraq's oil wealth. It
has not enacted legislation to reform the De-Ba'athification laws. It
has not disarmed the militias. It has not made progress on ensuring
that Iraqi Security Forces are providing even-handed enforcement of the
law. It has not made progress toward increasing the number of Iraqi
Security Forces units capable of operating independently. It has not
made satisfactory progress toward establishing a date for provincial
elections.
In the past 6 months, nearly 600 of our troops have died. More than
13,000 Iraqis have died. The level of violence in Iraq has not
decreased. The violence and attacks have

[[Page H7715]]

simply shifted away from places where our forces are concentrated.
Six months into the surge, there is no indication that the Iraqis are
coming together to make the political decisions necessary to end the
sectarian violence that is tearing their country apart. Time has shown
that whatever small chance there is of the Iraqi factions coming
together, it will not happen as long as the U.S. military commitment in
Iraq remains open-ended. We need to change course. The bill before the
House does just that. It requires the Department of Defense to begin a
phased and orderly redeployment of our combat troops from Iraq starting
in 120 days of enactment, with the troop reduction to be complete by
April 1, 2008. No other way has worked to convince the Iraqis that they
need to step up and reach a political settlement to end the sectarian
violence.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I commend my good friend and colleague, Armed
Services Chairman Ike Skelton, for authoring H.R. 2956, the
``Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act.'' the Democratic Congress has
drawn a line in the sand with this bill. It requires accountability
from the Administration that the American people demand and deserve:
stop the open-ended commitment in Iraq; stop the surge; and, stop
sending our brave men and women in uniform to fight a ``winnable'' war.
We have given this Administration enough time, enough U.S. blood, and
too much hard-earned American dollars.
Let's call this war what it is--a civil war.
The solution for Iraq is not military. The solution for Iraq is
political and diplomatic. We must once again engage our allies and
Iraq's neighbors to renew a quest for a peaceful solution in Iraq. I
urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2956. Support our valiant troops by
voting to bring them home. Now.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, in January, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-
Maliki publicly committed to meeting a set of benchmarks, including
quelling sectarian violence, disarming sectarian militias and
developing a plan to share oil revenues equitably among all Iraqis.
In May, Congress, in a bipartisan way, made clear that the Iraqi
government should be held accountable for meeting those benchmarks and
required the President to report on the Iraqi Government's progress in
meeting those goals.
That report, which was released today, demonstrates the President's
surge is failing and that the Iraqi Government is failing to meet the
benchmarks it agreed to meet 7 months ago.
The Iraqi Government has not moved toward national reconciliation.
This morning, we learned that Director of Central Intelligence General
Michael Hayden, an accomplished four-star general, told the bipartisan
Iraq Study Group 8 months ago that Iraq's leaders are ``unable to
govern.''
Now, the inability of the Iraqi Government to govern seems
irreversible. If there is no functioning government in Iraq, how do we
expect to fix the problems in that country militarily?
We continue to see the serious consequences that result from that
inability to govern. Sectarian violence has not been quelled; it
continues to escalate. Sectarian militias have not been disarmed; they
continue to wreak havoc. There has been no progress on a plan to share
oil revenues equitably among all Iraqis.
The situation is rapidly deteriorating and American troops are caught
in the crossfire.
Continued U.S. involvement in Iraq must be contingent on the Iraqi
Government keeping its word. Benchmarks without accountability are not
benchmarks at all. They are blank checks. And I refuse to allow the
Iraqi Government, or any government, to have a blank check on American
lives.
The time has come to redeploy American troops from Iraq and reduce
the U.S. military role in Iraq. We must do so in a responsible way that
will help us better meet our strategic objectives and renew our fight
against global terrorism.
I am convinced that this course, combined with stepping up our
diplomatic efforts, provide the best opportunity to achieve our
strategic objectives, reduce sectarian violence and force Iraq's
leaders to get serious about Iraqi reconciliation and stabilization
efforts.
As their failure to meet the benchmarks clearly illustrates, Iraq's
leaders are unwilling and incapable of moving toward national
reconciliation. If the United States allows the Iraqi government to
have an open-ended timetable to meet these benchmarks, and demands no
accountability, our troops may literally be in harm's way forever. We
cannot continue to allow the safety of our troops to be placed in the
hands of Iraqi leaders who have failed to keep their word or are
incapable of meeting their obligations.
Make no mistake: the deteriorating situation in Iraq is not a result
of military failure. Our nation's armed forces crushed Saddam Hussein's
regime in one of the most complete and impressive military victories in
the history of our country.
The disaster in Iraq is a result of the Bush Administration's failure
to plan and failure to listen. It is a result of misplaced trust in the
Malaki government. It is a result of mismanagement and incompetence.
Even worse, the administration's failed policy in Iraq has limited
the success of our mission in Afghanistan, and hindered our ability to
destroy al Qaeda's international operations. As a result, U.S.
intelligence analysts say al Qaeda is the strongest it has ever been
since the September 11, 2001, attacks. We must renew our commitment to
leading the fight against global terrorism and destroying al Qaeda.
Our Nation is at a critical crossroad in Iraq, and Congress has a
difficult choice to make. But one thing is clear: staying the course is
not an option. We can ill afford to continue down the same course of
failure that has undermined our mission in Iraq, and undermined our
ability to protect our Nation from terrorist threats.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. If enacted,
this act would compel the President to begin redeploying our troops
from Iraq not later than 120 days after it becomes law. It creates the
appropriate framework and mechanisms for ensuring an orderly withdrawal
of our forces, and it puts the responsibility for Iraq's security where
it belongs--on the Iraqis.
But once again, the President has declared--long before this bill was
brought to the House floor--that he would veto it or any other measure
that attempted to correct his failed policy in Iraq. He has become
intransigent and disconnected from the reality on the ground in Iraq,
and indifferent to the will of the American people.
The President's much-vaunted ``surge'' has been underway for 6 months
now, and the results are obvious: Iraq is no less violent and chaotic
than before the ``surge'' began. Indeed, American casualties--both
killed and wounded--have been on the rise for nearly a year, long
before the surge started. By pouring more troops into Iraq, the
President has simply given the insurgents more targets to shoot at.
Perhaps, even worse, he is ruining our ability to work with other
countries to foster peace in the Middle East, and he is fanning the
flames of a conflagration that is now likely to engulf other countries
around Iraq.
The President's refusal to change course in Iraq is an enormous
injustice to the brave Americans he has put in harm's way. Our troops
accomplished the goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power more than 4
years ago. They accomplished the mission that they were given--and then
were given another mission for which they were not provided the proper
equipment and resources: being forced to act as referees in Iraq's
growing civil war. Our troops deserve better.
Moreover, the President and his advisors have continued their well-
established pattern of moving the goal post on his Iraq policy. Every
year, the Congress has been told that Iraq's security forces would be
ready to assume responsibility for their country's security in 12 to 18
months. And every time we reached that 12 to 18 month benchmark, the
Administration would reset the goal post another 12 to 18 months down
the road. The American people have had enough of this bait-and-switch
game. Iraqis must accept responsibility for their country's future.
Indeed, the President's troop increase has played into the hands of
Iraq's current government, which continues to claim that the additional
American forces are needed to quell the violence--without mentioning
that it is Prime Minister Maliki's own policies that are helping to
fuel that violence. Prime Minister Maliki's refusal to purge his
security forces of militias and sectarian death squads is a prime
reason why Sunni insurgents continue their attacks against Iraq's
security forces. Prime Minister Maliki's refusal to compromise on the
distribution of power and oil revenue among Iraqis is why the
insurgency has only gained in intensity over the past year. How long
will we continue to provide military and financial support to his
corrupt and ineffectual government? How much longer should our brave
fighting men and women serve as referees in the middle of a spreading
civil war?
If passed, this bill would compel Iraq's leaders to face the fact
that we will not continue to indefinitely provide for their country's
security with the lives of America's military men and women, and that
they must take the necessary political steps needed to end the
violence. It is for all of these reasons that I urge my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to support this bill.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of ending the War in Iraq.
Last November, the American people demanded a new direction for Iraq.
Today, the new Democratic Congress is taking a concrete step toward
bringing our troops home.
The Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act sends a loud and clear
message to President Bush. It requires the President to begin
withdrawing American forces in the next 120

[[Page H7716]]

days and to complete the transition to a limited presence by April 1,
2008.
This legislation is an important and historic step forward, but it
does not go far enough. I support the immediate withdrawal of all
American troops.
Not next year. Not next month. Today.
I oppose additional funding for the war because the situation in Iraq
isn't getting better, it's getting worse. Since Bush announced his
intent to escalate the war and deploy an additional 20,000 American
troops, 600 have been killed and more than 3,000 have been wounded.
And for what? The administration just acknowledged in a
congressionally mandated report that since the ``surge,'' there has
been little to no progress on a host of political, security and
economic benchmarks proposed by the President himself.
In total, the war has taken the lives of more than 3,600 American
service men and women and injured more than 26,000. Countless innocent
Iraqis have been killed or maimed.
This loss of life is obscene and must stop.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2956 and commit to
withholding additional money for Iraq when Congress debates the next
war funding bill in September.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker just a little over a week ago I
traveled to Fort Bragg in North Carolina to see yet another 100 men and
women of the Virgin Islands National Guard off to Iraq.
Among those who left on Sunday and are now deployed, there are
several who are doing their second tour as well as a father and his
daughter.
It was not easy, but I put my best face forward while there because I
knew that it was much harder--extremely difficult--for their families.
Mr. Speaker, the only reason I could smile and be upbeat in my
message to them is because I knew Democrats would be here today,
passing this measure to set a time limit for our troops to be deployed
in Iraq and to begin their return home.
And so Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this resolution as the first
step to ending U.S. involvement in the civil war that Iraq has become.
And I will be here in full support on the efforts that will follow to
close Guantanamo and to ensure that the White House responds in a
timely and appropriate manner to what they are being directed to do in
H.R. 2956 today.
And I hope we will insist that he does so long before January 2008.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to once again applaud
your leadership and that of Chairman Ike Skelton.
Because of H.R. 2956, ``The Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act'',
and the measures that will follow, I am confident we will see a day, in
the not too distant future, when no other American or son or daughter
of our allies will die for a war we cannot justify.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, the Greek historian Herodotus is often
called the ``father of history.'' In his work, The Histories, he
attempted to chronicle the origin and outcome of the Greco-Persian War
so that future generations could learn from experience. Unfortunately,
for the men and women in Iraq and their families and for the American
people, President Bush refuses to use what we have learned to revise
our strategy for Iraq, redeploy our troops, and refocus on the
priorities and protection of America's families.
The President continues to insist that America's involvement in the
war in Iraq is an integral part of the war on terrorism. The Iraq Study
Group, among other objective observers, repeatedly refuted this
statement. Perhaps worse than this statement is that, despite the
President's claims, the evidence indicates that progress is not being
made in Iraq:
America's families unjustly continue to bear the burden of war; they
have paid the price with the loss of 3,600 lives and with injuries to
26,000 service men and women. The order of nature has been violated--
fathers and mothers are burying their sons and daughters. How many more
of our loved ones will pay the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of
others?
America's families have paid more than $450 billion in taxes that
have been use to fund failure instead of our future. We build stronger
families and a stronger America when we provide our citizens with
access to quality education, affordable housing and healthcare, well-
paying jobs, and financial security. How much more will we spend before
we realize that the very foundation of our future has crumbled beneath
our feet?
The Iraqi Government has failed to meet critical benchmarks endorsed
by the President in January. The President has said, ``when they stand
up, we'll stand down.'' The Iraqis have not amended their Constitution,
passed an equitable oil sharing law, reformed laws to provide
government jobs to former members of the Ba'ath Party, or held
provincial elections. When are the Iraqis going to stand up?
Seventy percent of Americans support withdrawing almost all U.S.
troops from Iraq by April 2008; half do not believe that the increase
in U.S. forces since January of this year has made a difference. In
addition, several Republicans have joined Democrats in calling for a
new direction in Iraq. However, the President continues to wage a war
with complete disregard for the concerns of the American people and the
counsel of military leaders. When will the President connect the dots
and see that the picture he has drawn is not a pretty one?
The Iraq Study Group stated that the use of the military in Iraq has
passed; it is time for diplomacy to take place. Regrettably, diplomacy
has not been seriously considered by the President, and internecine
warfare and outright civil war has filled the vacuum of this viable
option in Iraq. Also, the refugee problem in Iraq has worsened the
situation in the Middle East; to date, the United States has taken in
less than 200 refugees from Iraq after promising to take in thousands.
Why haven't we taken in more refugees or fully allowed diplomacy to
bear fruit?
These are among the many reasons why I support H.R. 2956, the
Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act. I have opposed this war from
the beginning and have been engaged in a continuing fight to change
course. While our troops have performed heroically, violence remains
high, and we must remove them from harm's way; we must require Iraqis
to take responsibility for their own fate, and we must refocus on
investing in America's families. This legislation--which is consistent
with the advice of military and foreign policy experts, ensures the
safety of our men and women in uniform, addresses our commitment to
fighting terrorism, and reflects the will of the American people--
allows us to do just that. This bill:
Acknowledges that our military has accomplished the mission they were
given in the original 2002 authorization to use force and that Iraq is
now responsible for its own future.
Requires American forces to begin redeploying within 120 days and to
complete the transition to a limited presence by April 1, 2008.
Reiterates that the redeployment must be done in a safe and orderly
way, with maximum attention paid to the protection of American forces.
Requires a comprehensive strategy by January 1, 2008, for U.S. policy
in Iraq, including a discussion of American national security interests
in Iraq and the broader region, the specific missions remaining forces
would undertake, and minimum force levels required to accomplish them.
Names specific missions that the President must consider, but it does
not require or authorize those missions.
Requires the President to submit updates on the use of and need for
any forces remaining in Iraq every 90 days starting on July 1, 2008.
Dag Hammarskjold, a Swedish statesman and United Nations official,
once said, ``There is a point at which everything becomes simple and
there is no longer any question of choice, because all you have staked
will be lost if you look back. This is life's point of no return.''
Certainly, the President and administration have reached that point.
For them, the decision to stay the course is simple because it is too
difficult to admit failure. However, as the representative for 670,000
of God's best in Michigan's 13th Congressional District, I am willing
to make the hard choices. I believe the majority of my colleagues are,
too.
The President can no longer afford to let his pride get in the way of
making the right decision. Our troops, our families, our international
reputation, and our future are at stake.
In the Bible, we read in Chronicles 7:14 that ``If my people, which
are called by my name, shall humble themselves . . . and turn from
their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and . . . will heal
their land.'' The international community--the billions of us who
inhabit our home of planet earth--are children of God. We must learn to
walk in the light and in love. It is out of my love of God, my love of
the Constitution, my love of this country, and my love of my
constituents, that I ask my colleagues to join me in support of the
Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act.
Ms. LINDA T. SAENCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, today we take a
firm stand against the President's tragic war policy in Iraq. Today we
vote on H.R. 2956--the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act.
This legislation is another appeal to a tone-deaf administration that
our current path in Iraq is failing. The American people have had
enough. They have had enough of the needless bloodshed; they've had
enough of the misleading explanations; they've had enough of the broken
promises; they've had enough of the lack of vision from this President.
The President's policy is based on false pretenses, for which there
are now only imperfect options. After losing more than 3,500 of our
servicemembers, and spending close to half a trillion dollars, it is
time to bring our troops home. I salute the courage and professionalism
of our soldiers who have served our country in Iraq. They overthrew an
authoritarian regime and captured a dictator. Now it

[[Page H7717]]

is time for our commander-in-chief to bring them home. The ongoing
instability in Iraq is a political problem that requires a political
solution.
To continue to ask our service men and women to make the ultimate
sacrifice for this misguided policy is simply immoral. I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation because we must
bring our troops home.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 533, the bill is considered read and the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. In its present form, I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico moves to recommit the bill, H.R.
2956, to the Committee on Armed Services with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SEC. 1. ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE.

Section 101(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(f)) is amended to read as follows:
``(f) `Electronic surveillance' means--
``(1) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical,
or other surveillance device for acquiring information by
intentionally directing surveillance at a particular known
person who is reasonably believed to be in the United States
under circumstances in which that person has a reasonable
expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for
law enforcement purposes; or
``(2) the intentional acquisition of the contents of any
communication under circumstances in which a person has a
reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be
required for law enforcement purposes, if both the sender and
all intended recipients are reasonably believed to be located
within the United States.''.

{time} 1730

The SPEAKER pro tempore. For what purpose does the gentleman from
Missouri rise?
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I have just received the motion just a few
moments ago, and I reserve a point of order against the motion now
pending.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from New Mexico is recognized
for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Point of Order

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me make the official point of order, if
I may.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized.
He has the right to insist upon the point of order.
Mr. SKELTON. I do insist on it as of this moment, Mr. Speaker.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from
New Mexico rise?
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, was I not recognized to
explain my motion to recommit?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman raised a point of order, and
he had a right to insist upon the point of order, which he so put to
the Chair.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. May I speak on the point of order, Mr.
Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. At the appropriate time.
The gentleman from Missouri.

Point of Order

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I raise the point of order that the motion
to recommit that was just handed to me moments ago, a motion to
recommit with instructions, relates to electronic surveillance and is
not germane to the bill in front of us, which deals with Iraq, and I
claim the point of order that it is not germane and should be stricken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the
point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New Mexico is
recognized.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This motion to recommit would do one very simple and vital thing that
is critical to the security of this country, more critical than the
underlying resolution itself, and I am begging you and pleading with
you to take up this issue.
The motion to recommit would do a very simple thing. It would say
that the United States can listen to phone conversations of terrorists
overseas without a warrant. Why does that matter? It matters because
intelligence is the first line of defense in the war on terror, and we
are now knowingly operating with our fingers in our ears and our hands
over our eyes.
Recent testimony in front of this Congress by Director McConnell----
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will suspend.
The gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. The gentlelady is not addressing the point of order.
She's giving a closing argument. I urge the Chair to rule that she must
confine her remarks to the point of order that I have raised.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
The Chair reminds the gentlewoman that debate on the point of order
must address the point of order and only the point of order.
The gentlewoman from New Mexico.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am addressing the point of order and why it is germane, and I think
that that's important for this House to understand, and I will continue
with my explanation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman may continue provided the
remarks are confined to the point of order.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. My remarks will be confined to the
importance of the point of order and its germaneness.
Director of National Intelligence McConnell recently said in
testimony to this House that we are actually missing a significant
portion of what we should be getting. That is true not only in Iraq and
Afghanistan but for the war on terror in its whole.
This is critical to the security of this country.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will suspend.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Missouri rise?
Mr. SKELTON. I urge the Speaker to have the lady confine her remarks
to the point of order that is pending before the House.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New Mexico is once
again reminded that the remarks on the point of order must be confined
to the point of order.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is what I am
attempting to do.
The question in the point of order has to do with germaneness and the
relevance of my motion to recommit to the underlying bill with respect
to the Iraq resolution. That is what I'm trying to explain to the
House. If my colleague from Missouri would give me a little latitude, I
will continue to explain.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri is right. The
gentlewoman's remarks are not confined to the point of order at issue
before this House.
The gentlewoman may address the point of order.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have a responsibility in this House to do things that matter, the
things that are in our lap and our responsibility. There is something
squarely in the lap of this House, and it

[[Page H7718]]

is our responsibility to deal with the national security matters at
hand.
We all remember where we were on the morning of 9/11 and what we were
doing, who we were with.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will suspend.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Missouri rise?
Mr. SKELTON. I, again, urge the Chair to request the gentlelady to
address the point of order, that this is not germane to the bill
regarding Iraq that is before us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's point is taken.
The gentlewoman is once again advised that the remarks on the point
of order must confine themselves closely to the point of order. If not,
the Chair will recognize other Members to speak on a point of order. If
no others seek recognition, the Chair will rule.
Does the gentlewoman from New Mexico wish to proceed?
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would wish to
proceed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. The question of germaneness is very
important here. The reality is that this underlying bill deals with an
issue of national security vital to this country, and the most
important vital issue that this body must deal with today is to make
sure we have the ability to listen to our enemies. That is the first
line of defense in the war on terror, and that is what we are willfully
ignoring.
I would urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit, and if
this point of order is sustained, I would ask my colleagues to vote to
challenge the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request a ruling on my point
of order on the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member wish to speak on the point
of order? If no other Member wishes to address the point of order, the
Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman makes a point of order that the instructions contained
in the motion to recommit offered by the gentlewoman from New Mexico
are not germane.
Clause 7 of rule XVI, the germaneness rule, provides that no
proposition on a ``subject different from that under consideration
shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
One of the central tenets of the germaneness rule is that an
amendment should be within the jurisdiction of the committees whose
jurisdiction is reflected in the bill.
The bill, H.R. 2956, was referred to the Committees on Armed Services
and Foreign Affairs.
The instructions in the motion to recommit offered by the gentlewoman
from New Mexico address the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978, a law within the jurisdictions of the Committee on the Judiciary
and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Because they address a matter outside the jurisdictions broached by
the bill, the instructions in the motion to recommit are not germane.
The point of order is sustained. The motion is not in order.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I move to appeal the ruling
of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?

Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Skelton

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to lay the appeal on the table will be
followed by a 5-minute vote on the question of passage, if arising
without further debate or proceedings in recommittal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 197, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 623]

YEAS--224

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NAYS--197

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)

[[Page H7719]]

NOT VOTING--10

Berkley
Conyers
Cubin
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Jindal
Lowey
Paul
Tancredo
Young (AK)

{time} 1803

Messrs. TURNER, TOM DAVIS of Virginia, SHUSTER, Mrs. MYRICK, and Mr.
TERRY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, and Messrs. ISRAEL, DINGELL, RUSH, and
GORDON of Tennessee changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223,
nays 201, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 624]

YEAS--223

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NAYS--201

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Ehlers
Ellsworth
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--8

Berkley
Conyers
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Jindal
Paul
Tancredo
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 2
minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1813

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________