[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 126 (Thursday, August 2, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H9549-H9557]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3159, ENSURING MILITARY READINESS
THROUGH STABILITY AND PREDICTABILITY DEPLOYMENT POLICY ACT OF 2007
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 601 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 601
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
3159) to mandate minimum periods of rest and recuperation for
units and members of the regular and reserve components of
the Armed Forces between deployments for Operation Iraqi
Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived except those
arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in
the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Armed Services now printed in the bill shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions of the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services;
and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 3159 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I am pleased
to yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for
debate only.
General Leave
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, Mr. Speaker, this morning I want to continue to express our
great sorrow to the people of Minnesota on their tragic loss. In a way,
they're almost victims of war. A Nation in perpetual war does not have
the money to meet its infrastructure needs. And as we heard this
morning, there are bridges that are in serious condition all over the
United States. So I express my great sorrow for the families who are
suffering and for all the people who have been lost.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my distinguished Chair for yielding. I would like
to join her in extending the thoughts and prayers of every Member of
this institution to those, I know at this moment there are families who
are waiting, living with this moment with the uncertainty as to whether
or not their loved ones have survived the tragedy in the Twin Cities.
{time} 0920
Last night, when our colleague, Mrs. Bachmann, stood here to report
this, it came as a huge shock. I agree completely with my colleague
about the need to ensure that the bridges in our country are safe and
secure as we deal with these challenges.
I thank my friend for yielding.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Mr. Dreier.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 601 provides for consideration of H.R. 3159, the
Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability
Deployment Policy Act of 2007, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1
hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services. The rule waives all
points of order against consideration of the bill, except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule considers as adopted the
Armed Services Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The
rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq has taken us into uncharted territory as
a Nation and as a society. During the Vietnam war, 4 percent of the
general population served in the military. During World War II, fully
12 percent of our people served. Forms of personal sacrifice and
national service were to be found everywhere, planted in victory
gardens or held in war bonds. Even during the Civil War, a conflict
from a different age, more than one in ten Americans fought.
Never in our history has America fought a war of this magnitude, or
one that is this difficult, with an entirely voluntary military force
composed of only 1 percent of the general population. And while so much
of what is going on in Iraq hearkens back to past conflicts, what is
occurring within our society does not.
It is true that the historically high percentage of National Guard
troops fighting abroad has spread the reach of this war farther than
some anticipated. But for nearly all Americans the immediacy of the war
has been dulled by distance. We have never been asked to sacrifice as
people. We have, instead, been told to go about our lives as usual and
ask merely to support the troops in a vague sense.
Within this mass of normality lies the lives of those Americans who
have actually fought in Iraq, the mothers, husbands, sons, daughters
and siblings who have been sent there and who have seen things that few
of us can relate to or even imagine. They have been asked to fight in a
conflict whose architects have largely receded from the public view,
but not before the failures of these officials made themselves felt
every time a soldier was forced to enter a battle without proper body
armor or without a vehicle that would keep him or her safe. In a very
real sense, the families of these soldiers have been asked to endure
the same reality and forced to live every moment of their deployment
with the fear that their loved one will be injured, or worse.
Despite it all, despite everything that the members of our military
and their families have been asked to bear for year after year, the
talk of what is to be done in Iraq is often clinical: We should
increase troop numbers; we should lower them; we should place more
troops here, send more troops
[[Page H9550]]
there. Troops are spoken of as if they were simply another machine to
be moved about and to be used at our will.
Our soldiers are human beings. They are our fellow citizens. They
have dignity. They have rights. They do not deserve to be cast around
as the administration stumbles forward seeking to find a solution to a
problem of its own creation.
Already, a flawed war plan has forced the members of our military to
endure not just the brunt of battle but also to make up for
miscalculation at home. Tours have been extended and then extended
again in an unprecedented way. Previously unknown burdens have been
placed on our men and women in uniform as a result. At a certain point,
we as a society have to say enough is enough.
The legislation before us is supported by men like Senator Jim Webb
and Representative John Murtha for a reason: Former soldiers know what
current deployment schedules are doing to our soldiers and to their
families. It will restore some order to the process by prohibiting the
deployment of any active military unit to Iraq unless that unit's
soldiers have rested for at least as long as they have fought. It is a
simple premise that was followed in virtually every war America has
fought. It should be followed again today.
Mr. Speaker, this bill should not tie the hands of generals. If
national security or the safety of our troops would be put at risk by
shortened deployment, the bill's requirements can be waived. But the
President will have to do so publicly and certify to Congress that his
decision is vitally important. With everything our soldiers are asked
to do, it is long past time that the President was forced to explain to
Congress and to the American people why it is all necessary.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is about who we are as a society and about the
values we hold. Our fellow citizens have been sent to fight in this
conflict and have asked nothing from us in return. But we certainly owe
them everything. We owe them our support, not in a rhetorical sense or
in blind allegiance to the administration's claims but in a real sense,
by making sure that they are given the proper training and armor, by
making sure they are allowed to rest for an adequate amount of time
between deployments.
Mr. Speaker, we have a chance to live up to our responsibilities as a
people today. I hope this body is ready to face that challenge.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to thank my very good friend from Rochester, New York
(Ms. Slaughter), the very distinguished Chair of the Committee on
Rules, for yielding me this time. I am compelled to rise in the
strongest possible opposition to this rule and the underlying
legislation. Once again, the Democratic majority is running scared from
openness and transparency because they know that their policies cannot
withstand any scrutiny. They have shut off all meaningful debate,
amendments and alternatives.
Mr. Speaker, I will say that no matter how intense, no matter how
bitter, no matter how hate-filled the vitriol is that comes towards us,
I will continue to strive to work in a bipartisan way to deal with this
very important issue and other issues as well.
I think we evidenced that last night when we offered an amendment in
the Rules Committee that would have allowed the Members of this body to
replace this proposal with one that actually enjoys strong, bipartisan
support. I am referring, of course, to the Iraq Study Group
recommendations, the so-called Baker-Hamilton Commission.
This group spent literally months, Democrats and Republicans
together. A former Member of this house as the Democratic leader, the
former Secretary of State, James Baker, as the Republican leader, and
an equal number of Republicans and an equal number of Democrats came up
with bipartisan recommendations as to how we, as a Nation, could move
forward.
Knowing that this sound and very responsible policy would very easily
trump the inferior proposal that my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle are hoping to move on the floor today, they took the only route
that they seem to know, and they have a great deal of experience at
this, Mr. Speaker. They just shut down the process completely.
They seemed to know, Mr. Speaker, that, unfortunately, this very
thoughtful work product, which is not supported by everyone, but it
enjoys strong bipartisan support. Again, our former colleague, the very
respected former Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs it is now
called, it was the International Relations Committee and Foreign
Affairs Committee before that, Mr. Hamilton, and the highly regarded
Secretary of State, James Baker, came up with this package.
And what is it our colleagues did? With a very passionate statement
made by our friend from Virginia, my classmate, Mr. Frank Wolf, who was
really the progenitor of this Iraq Study Group, working with a wide
range of people to come up with just the establishment of the group,
and now this work product has come forward, heralded by people all
across this country, and what is it that they have done? They have
chosen to take this inferior proposal and say, we are not going to even
allow consideration of the Iraq Study Group.
Now, having precluded any real debate, they have nothing to fall back
on but really cheap political ploys. The announcement was made several
weeks ago that every single week leading up to Congress' adjournment
for the month of August, we would have votes on Iraq.
One of the Democratic majority's favorite gimmicks is to give their
ill-conceived bills grand-sounding names and shroud them in warm, fuzzy
ideas that no one could possibly oppose.
Earlier this week, they rammed through the House is a massive
giveaway to trial lawyers. And what was it called? The anti-
discrimination bill.
Just yesterday, we considered a bill that slashes Medicare coverage
for millions. What was it called, Mr. Speaker? The Children's Health
and Medicare Protection Act. The audacity of cutting Medicare with a
bill that has ``Medicare protection'' right in the title is, to me,
absolutely staggering.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am proud that we, as Republicans, worked to
address important issues with prudence and deliberation, issues that
affect the quality of life and standard of living for all Americans.
Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side, we will witness it in
just a few minutes once again, they resort to demagoguery and name
calling and all kinds of other vitriol.
When we refuse to be suckered by their slipshod efforts and poor
policies, they accuse us of being pro-discrimination, or anti-
children's health, or any other awful-sounding label that they can come
up with. They will make some great and fascinating political ads. As
this season goes on, we will see some of them on YouTube, I am sure,
and other places. And if you look at these votes on discrimination and
on the issue of Medicare and children's healthcare, obviously, we will
be hearing a lot about the things that have been done here on the House
floor during the campaign season, which obviously is under way right
now.
They will no doubt continue with this tired approach here today. We
are going to hear about how the underlying bill before us today is
about ``troop welfare.'' We are going to hear about the ``terrible
strain'' the war in Iraq has put on the members of our Armed Forces and
their families.
I want to make sure it is absolutely clear that we are all, all, very
concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the welfare of our troops. It is a
bipartisan concern, and anyone who would argue that we are somehow not
concerned about the welfare of our troops is barking up the wrong tree.
We see with sobering clarity, Mr. Speaker, the magnitude the impact the
war has on their families. No American deserves more support than those
who put their lives on the line to protect each and every one of us,
and no one is more determined to fulfill our commitment to these men
and women than my Republican colleagues and I are.
That is precisely, precisely, Mr. Speaker, why I stand in opposition
to both this rule and the underlying legislation. The Democratic
majority can slap any old bill together and say it promotes troop
welfare. But, Mr. Speaker, that does not make it so. And they can slap
any old bill together and
[[Page H9551]]
accuse its opponents of undermining troop welfare. But that doesn't
make it so.
The reality is that this bill undermines our military leadership, who
are already committed to the welfare of our troops and their families.
And to imply in any way that our Nation's civilian and military
leadership is not committed to the welfare of our troops and their
families is again a very specious argument.
The reality is that this bill undermines our military leadership who
are committed to the troops; and, in fact, it opens up the potential to
force troops to stay in the field longer, handle missions for which
they are not prepared, and ultimately create greater risks for our men
and women who are in harm's way.
Mr. Speaker, our Armed Forces are already working toward the goal of
ensuring that every servicemember spends 2 years at home after each
year in the field, and that Reservists get 5 years at home after each 1
year of deployment.
Mr. Speaker, the Marine Corps is already providing what this bill
would mandate, time at home at least equal to time deployed. The
Commandant of the Marine Corps must approve any deviation from this
policy.
Let me say once again, Mr. Speaker, I don't understand why it is that
we are here dealing with this issue when we could in fact pass the
recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. We instead are doing something
that the Marine Corps is doing right now. Again, the Commandant of the
Marine Corps would have to approve any deviation from this policy.
What this bill does is to remove any flexibility that allows our
military leaders to make deployment decisions that best provide for
both troop welfare and, Mr. Speaker, something that we never hear
discussed from our colleagues on the other side the aisle, and that is
mission completion, completing our mission, making sure that we have
success and victory. It adds another layer of bureaucratic red tape.
Ironically, and tragically, it could actually force our commanders in
the field to extend deployments and force our troops to take on
missions for which they are not fully prepared.
Mr. Speaker, preventing our commanders from being able to task each
unit to take on the mission for which it is best prepared and best
trained would needlessly risk the lives of our troops.
I know that we all want the ultimate desire of every member of our
armed services: that they be speedily and, as I said a moment ago,
victoriously returned to the loving arms of their families and the
accolades of a grateful Nation. But, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not,
this bill is not the way to ensure that.
The Democratic majority can keep playing these games. They can
continue to claim that this bill will improve the quality of life of
our troops and their families. They can continue to accuse its
opponents of callousness and indifference to servicemen and
servicewomen. But I don't believe the American people will be fooled,
Mr. Speaker. They are quite capable of seeing past clever bill titles
and phony rhetoric.
This Democratic majority has got to learn that it takes more than
demagoguery to lead this body and to lead this country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, as well as the
underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), whose compassion and
conviction on this issue is probably unsurpassed in the House.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules
Committee for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3159 is a very straightforward bill with a very
straightforward message. Like its name implies, this is a bill to
ensure that our military is ready to carry out combat and combat-
related missions by having a stable, predictable deployment policy.
H.R. 3159 would require that our uniformed men and women, our
military units, receive minimum periods of rest and recuperation
between their deployments to Iraq. We have been hearing for over a year
now about the strain on our active duty, Reserve and Guard units caused
by multiple redeployments to Iraq and the ever-shrinking time at home
provided by many units between deployments.
So why did this legislation work its way through the Armed Services
Committee at this time? There is a very simple reason, Mr. Speaker, why
this bill is so timely now. On May 9, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
announced a change to deployment policy. Secretary Gates changed the
current policy for active Army units from 1 year at home for 1 year
deployed to a policy of 15 months deployed for every 12 months at home.
Mr. Speaker, this is a change that is moving in the wrong direction.
Rather than taking care of our troops, this change increases the stress
and strain on our servicemen and servicewomen. This change has raised
serious concerns about the sustainability and readiness of our active
duty Army and whether such a reduced period at their home bases allows
sufficient time for units and individuals to adequately train, equip,
recover and reconstitute for the next deployment.
If anyone in this Chamber is not concerned about the physical,
mental, emotional and logistical strain placed on every combat unit and
individual subject to multiple deployments to Iraq, then I hope they
will stand up during this debate.
{time} 0940
We hear a lot of talk in this House about ``supporting the troops.''
Only a handful of Members in this body have had to lay it on the line
in Iraq. Only a handful had to bid their families farewell and face
combat in Iraq.
For the rest of us, there is no sacrifice, no strain, no stress
placed on us personally or on our families and loved ones.
Well, here is our chance to show that we genuinely do understand what
we have been asking our troops to do in Iraq, that we genuinely do
understand the toll that it takes on each of them individually, as a
unit and as a service, that we genuinely do understand the sacrifice
that we ask of their families, and that we will require the Pentagon to
provide our uniformed men and women a minimum amount of time to recover
from combat to reconnect with their families and to prepare again for a
return to battle.
There are some in this Chamber who will yelp and yowl that this is
just a ploy to end the war.
Mr. Speaker, as someone who is clearly on record as wanting to end
this war as quickly as humanly possible, I can testify that this is not
the case.
I opposed this war with every fiber of my being, but I strongly
believe that for as long as this war endures, the bare minimum this
Congress must do is take care of the troops who carry out this mission
and make sure this war does not shatter our military from the strain of
multiple deployments.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as one who joins with my colleague from
Worcester in stating that we all want to see this war end as quickly as
we possibly can, and we want to see this mission be victorious, I am
happy to yield 2 minutes to the former Governor of Delaware (Mr.
Castle) who offered a very thoughtful amendment in the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for
yielding.
I do rise in opposition to what I consider to be a closed rule. I do
support the underlying bill, but I object to the leadership's decision
to prevent any substantive debate.
I offered an amendment yesterday that would have credited soldiers
with one additional day of leave for every month that they are deployed
in a combat zone. All members of the Armed Forces, including those
serving the Guard and Reserve, receive 2\1/2\ days of leave time per
month, regardless whether they are deployed in Iraq or back in the U.S.
at their home base.
I developed this legislation, an extra day per month, not from
anything out of my mind but in correspondence with a soldier who had
been in the combat zone. We feel very strongly that spending time with
family and loved ones after returning from deployment is essential to a
soldier's mental health,
[[Page H9552]]
and that is why I prepared the amendment and introduced it.
We think that it is small step to help the troops, but this amendment
was denied in the rule. For that reason, I oppose the rule as we have
it.
But I am also very disappointed that this House continues to prevent
consideration of the Iraq Study Group Recommendations Implementation
Act. They are now getting close to 60 Members, almost evenly divided
between Republicans and Democrats, who support the concepts in this.
My decision is that the time has come to have the discussion of the
Iraq Study Group's recommendations on the floor of the House of
Representatives, and I hope that can happen sooner rather than later.
Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASTLE. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I would like to
congratulate him not only for his amendment, but also for the comments
that the former Governor of Delaware has just offered on the work of
the Iraq Study Group.
Again, this was a bipartisan effort that was launched by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who, as we all know, speaks
passionately and eloquently on this and other issues.
We all want to see this war come to an end. President Bush stood
right here in this Chamber in January delivering his State of the Union
message, and he said the following: I wish this war was over and we had
won.
So there is a shared goal of our trying to bring this war to an end
as quickly as possible and to bring our men and women home to their
families.
Frankly, I join my colleague from Delaware in stating that I believe
that the opportunity for implementation, if not all, most of the work
of the Iraq Study Group, this great bipartisan gathering, would go a
long way towards achieving that goal to which both Democrats and
Republicans claim to aspire.
So I would just like to thank my friend for his remarks, and I thank
him for yielding to me.
Mr. CASTLE. In closing, I think both of these amendments are
extremely important. I sometimes understand the writing on the wall
when it comes to votes on rules, but I would hope that we in this House
would consider the amendment that I put forward on the extra day leave
in the Iraq Study Group recommendations sooner rather than later. I
think it is an important way to move towards actually ending the war.
So I oppose the rule and urge Members to vote against the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule.
While Members of this body will have differing views regarding the
U.S. policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can all agree that the American
soldiers who have been deployed into these combat zones have bravely
risked their lives in the service of their Nation. These men and women
have done everything we have asked of them, and as we all know, many
returning soldiers experience some form of post-traumatic stress.
Under the current Pentagon policies, all members of the Armed Forces,
including those serving in the Guard and Reserve, receive 2.5 days of
leave time per month--regardless of whether they are deployed in Iraq
or back in the U.S. at their home base. My amendment would have simply
credited soldiers 1 additional day of leave time for every month that
they are deployed in a combat zone. For example, if a soldier serves 12
months in Baghdad, that soldier would be credited 12 additional days of
leave to be used when he or she returns stateside.
Although I am obviously the sponsor of this amendment, I cannot take
credit for the idea. My staff developed this legislation after talking
with a soldier who as we speak is deployed in a combat zone.
Corresponding via e-mail, this soldier shared his experiences in combat
and offered his opinion that many of the troops returning home after a
deployment would benefit from being credited with additional leave time
based on the number of months they served in a combat zone. This
soldier noted that the opportunity to spend some time away from
military life once returning stateside would be important in terms of
both mental and physical recovery.
In fact, the Director of the U.S. Army Medical Command's Office for
Behavioral Health has stated that 15 to 30 percent of troops returning
home from combat experience post-traumatic stress or other mental
health symptoms. While the Army Medical Command notes that this is not
unusual after combat, it underscores that in addition to receiving
treatment, it is critical for soldiers returning home from a combat
zone to ``spend time with family,'' ``avoid a busy schedule,'' and
``resume family routines'' as soon as possible.
It is clear that my amendment would not solve every problem that
troops face when they return stateside. Receiving appropriate diagnosis
and treatment is also vital in dealing with post-traumatic stress. And
this amendment is not meant to diminish the efforts of our military
leaders to provide care for soldiers once they return to the U.S. The
Army's Medical Command and its corresponding services have in many
cases gone above and beyond the call of duty to diagnose, treat, and
prevent post-traumatic stress disorder. Still, in many cases spending
time away from military life and reconnecting with friends and family
is the best way for individuals to prepare to resume their service in
the military.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment recognizes the difficulties faced by
soldiers who serve time in a combat zone and would assist them in their
homecoming by providing additional leave time to help improve their
transition. The men and women who have sacrificed so much to serve our
Nation in combat have earned this additional time to spend with their
loved ones. Unfortunately the rule before us prevented any substantive
debate, including debate on my important amendment.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have any other
speakers?
Mr. DREIER. May I inquire of the Chair how much time remains on each
side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 16\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York has 19\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to my
very good friend from Morristown, New Jersey, who is a hardworking
member of the House Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
While I support the military goals of this legislation, all of us do,
I rise in opposition to this rule and this bill. We all want to see the
dwell times for our troops expanded to meet Department of Defense
standards, but this legislation would place handcuffs on our military
commanders as they work to stabilize Iraq.
My colleagues, in many senses this is a political document, pure and
simple. The dwell time requirements appear to be not so much efforts to
improve the readiness of units and quality of life of servicemembers in
our Armed Forces; rather, these requirements are designed to force a
withdrawal and reduction of U.S. forces committed to Operation Iraqi
Freedom.
The proof: This bill slaps deployment prohibitions only on forces
destined for Iraq, but would allow those very same forces, regardless
of dwell time, to be committed to combat in Afghanistan or anywhere
else in the world where they might be needed.
Over the past few weeks, we have heard Members of the majority speak
with varying levels of clarity about their plans to ``end the war'' or
``bring the troops home.'' Of course, we all desire to bring the troops
home. One even proclaimed the ``war is lost.''
But that is not the message we are hearing from Iraq today. Both
General Petraeus and General Odierno have stated that initial
assessments of the new strategy are encouraging as the Iraqi Army is
taking a much more prominent role in the fighting.
In recent days, many of us have read the op-ed in the New York Times
written by two self-described critics of the war effort. From John
Burns, Baghdad bureau chief, New York Times: ``I think there's no doubt
that those extra 30,000 American troops are making a difference. They
are definitely making a difference in Baghdad.''
And from USA Today, ``Coalition forces have uncovered more insurgent
weapons caches in the first 6 months of this year than the entire
previous year.''
Mr. Speaker, we have seen an increase in security, a decrease in
killing, fewer car bombs, lower levels of civilian casualties; all good
things. And what is this House's response to this demonstrable
progress? They would
[[Page H9553]]
offer legislation that would hamstring and handcuff our military
commanders, short-circuit the training of Iraqi soldiers, and endanger
further security progress.
Mr. Speaker, I have always said that I want our war fighters'
deployments to be short and as safe as possible. I do want our troops
out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and anywhere in the world where they are
in harm's way, soon. But this is not the way to do it.
I rise in opposition to this, the rule, and to this type of thinking
that endangers not only our soldiers but endangers the civilians that
we are there to help.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 5
minutes to my good friend from Bridgeport, Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who
next weekend will be making his 18th trip to Iraq. I know he shares my
concern over the fact that, unfortunately, this rule fails to allow
this House to consider the work of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this is a closed rule. It is a continuation of closed
rules on an issue that should be a very open. We went into Iraq on a
bipartisan basis; that cannot be denied. Two-thirds of the House voted
to go into Iraq, three-quarters of the Senate voted to go into Iraq.
The Senate is allowing open debate on the issue of Iraq. There was
the Webb-Hagel amendment, which is basically this underlying bill.
There was the Hagel-Levin amendment, which talked about troops not
being sent in for more than 12 months if they are in the Army and 7
months if they are in the Marines. That was an amendment I would have
liked to have introduced to this bill. Why couldn't we have had a
debate on it? If it doesn't make sense, and there would have been a
number on my side of the aisle who would have voted against it, it
would have defeated it. But we would have started to have some dialogue
about the condition of our troops. That would be a healthy thing to
have.
But the most important amendment that was presented was the effort by
Mr. Wolf to have support for the Iraq Study Group. The thing that is
astonishing is, when we voted about the Iraq Study Group a few weeks
ago, only 69 Members in the Chamber voted against it, but it was
attached to an appropriation. And being attached to an appropriation,
we can't get the Senate to act until Lord knows when, probably after
October when we are supposed to have our budgets done. We need another
vehicle.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAYS. Absolutely.
Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Speaker.
I will say again that it really baffles me as to why this majority
will not allow us to have an opportunity to consider this bipartisan
work product of the Iraq Study Group.
On the opening day, Mr. Speaker, the new Speaker of the House of
Representatives stood and talked about this new sense of
bipartisanship. We all know that the war in Iraq was the key issue in
the November election. We know that the war in Iraq was the key issue
in last November's election, and it is on the minds of all of our
constituents. We are all concerned about the future that this war on
terror holds for all of us, and that's why the Iraq Study Group was
established.
Our former colleague, the former chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, Lee Hamilton, the former Secretary of State, a Democrat and
Republican led eight other Democrats and Republicans, highly regarded
in this country, strongly partisan individuals, they came together with
a bipartisan proposal. Unfortunately, the supposedly new bipartisan
spirit that exists here in the House denies us a chance to even
consider that.
No one demonstrates more passion on this issue than Mr. Wolf. When he
made the arguments before the Rules Committee, they were very
compelling and very strong as only Frank Wolf can offer them.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have not seen a chance to do that.
Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for making this point. The bottom
line is: In this Chamber, only 69 Members voted against having the Iraq
Study Group revisit Iraq so they could come out with a report that
could complement, either agree with or disagree with, what General
Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are going to conclude.
It seems to me it would be in the best interest of both Republicans
and Democrats to find areas where we can agree, where we can work
together. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why this Democratic
Congress is opposed to bringing the Iraq Study Group up for a vote.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I do so to say that just this week we all saw a great deal of
attention focused on an op-ed piece written in the New York Times by
two of the harshest critics of the war in Iraq. I am referring, of
course, to the Brookings Institution Fellows Michael O'Hanlon and
Kenneth Pollack. And I saw Ken Pollack with Wolf Blitzer on CNN the
other day saying he did not write the headline in the New York Times
which talked about this is a war we might win. He did stand by every
word in that piece that was written, and I am going to ask to include
that piece in the Congressional Record.
[From the New York Times, July 30, 2007]
A War We Just Might Win
(By Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack)
Washington.--Viewed from Iraq, where we just spent eight
days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian
personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The
Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all
credibility. Yet now the administration's critics, in part as
a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking
place.
Here is the most important thing Americans need to
understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at
least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly
criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of
Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential
to produce not necessarily ``victory'' but a sustainable
stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice
when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In
previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry
and frustrated--many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were
using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in
pursuit of an approach that could not work.
Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us
they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David
Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real
results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to
make a real difference.
Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing
the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units,
creating new political and economic arrangements at the local
level and providing basic services--electricity, fuel, clean
water and sanitation--to the people. Yet in each place,
operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific
needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates
are down roughly a third since the surge began--though they
remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to
be done.
In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding
Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a
complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a
(largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an
Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni
sheiks--all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist
groups--who were now competing to secure his friendship.
In Baghdad's Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of
the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming
back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents
were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite
officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely
happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi
Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni
militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound
once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.
We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul.
This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni
Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both
cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis
have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man
the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover
the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was
an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the
country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the
long term remains a major question mark.
But for now, things look much better than before. American
advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi
commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The
American high command assesses that more than three-quarters
of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in
[[Page H9554]]
Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as
American forces remain in Iraq).
In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in
terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army's highly
effective Third Infantry Division started out as
overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent
Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.
In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a
few ``jundis'' (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely
American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find
American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations
were useless--something that was the rule, not the exception,
on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.
The additional American military formations brought in as
part of the surge, General Petraeus's determination to hold
areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units,
and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another
critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents
popping back up after the Americans leave.
In war, sometimes it's important to pick the right
adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major
factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the
outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other
Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against
Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.
These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized
average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local
leaders and seized young women to marry off to their
loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months
Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the
Americans for security and help. The most important and best-
known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less
than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the
best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks
there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist
allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting
for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its
streets without body armor.
Another surprise was how well the coalition's new Embedded
Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we
found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders
and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local
economy and build new political structures. Although much
more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on
microloans and small-scale projects was having some success
where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.
In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian
manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has
still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups
from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to
dozens of military officers who before the war had known
little about governance or business but were now ably
immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi
with a decent life.
Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress
so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the
provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For
example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by
the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response,
many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police
forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt
and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords
in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces
beyond their control.
In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In
particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political
front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle
and maneuver for position against one another when major
steps towards reconciliation--or at least accommodation--are
needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we
begin to downsize, important communities may not feel
committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may
splinter along ethnic and religious lines.
How much longer should American troops keep fighting and
dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do
their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces
in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the
reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is
enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that
Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into
2008.
I will say that as one reads the O'Hanlon-Pollack article, it is
clear that there are many very important challenges that lie ahead in
Iraq. But the fact that we have seen a quelling of the violence in the
al-Anbar Province, as we look at the difficulty that we face, but the
fact that we've seen Sunni leaders unite with us in fighting al Qaeda,
we, I believe, are making progress.
War is a very, very ugly thing, and this war is no exception. No one
can say exactly what the outcome will be, but I do know that the cause
of freedom is worth fighting for, and I do know that these constant
attempts to prevent this House from looking at, working on, and
considering the work of the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan work
product of the Iraq Study Group, is just plain wrong, so I am going to
continue to strongly oppose this rule and these continued efforts to
politicize our quest for victory and bringing our troops home.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, despite our great respect and affection for those who
brought their amendments to the Rules Committee yesterday, it is well
known in this House and in the country that the Democrat majority
intends to bring the war to a close as quickly as possible and as quick
as it is practicable to do so.
To reinstitute the Iraq Study Committee, to refinance it, put it back
together, wait for a report would take far longer than we frankly are
willing to give.
But this bill before us today, the underlying bill before us, is
humane. And it says, for goodness sake, don't redeploy troops over and
over and over again unless they have had at least as much time at home
to rest as they have had in combat.
This is a different kind of combat, Mr. Speaker. Soldiers before have
always been given recreation and rest after intense combat. Not this
time. The soldiers in Iraq and all the military people of Iraq face
almost instantaneous death every moment of the day and night without
any respite at all. We are seeing the results of that brought home with
the posttraumatic stress syndrome which is rising so rapidly.
In addition to that, we are demanding at last, because we didn't have
the opportunity before by not being in the majority, that these troops
be equipped properly.
The New York Times said on a front page story recently that 80
percent, Mr. Speaker, of the marines that died in Iraq would have
lived, those with upper body wounds would have lived with the proper
equipment. How can we live with that?
{time} 1000
We know now that instead of sending useless Humvees that were of no
use at all to them against the IEDs, if we had always sent MRAPs, a
technology we have known for 30 years, heaven knows how many of the
nearly 4,000 who died would have been saved and how many of the more
than 30,000 who have been wounded would have been spared that.
That weighs heavily on the conscience of those of us in the House of
Representatives, and it angers the people that we represent.
We've talked to the parents of those who have been sent back two,
three, four times. I have talked to one father who told me as his son
was being deployed for the fourth time; if he gets killed, I will kill
somebody. The anguish of these parents is palpable; and, as I stated
before in my earlier statement, we don't fight this war. The 1 percent
of the military people and their families are fighting this war. We've
been asked for no sacrifice of any kind.
How glib it is for us to stand on this floor and say, leave it to the
generals and look how well they're doing. The number of generals who
have resigned their commission so that they could speak out against
this carnage and this despicable war that was unplanned and planned by
people who have left the scene cannot go on any longer.
And I will tell you that we have to go and look families in the face,
and there are a number of times that I've gone to services, and my
position on the war is well-known, and I've wondered if the families,
how they would accept my presence. I have never been to a single one
where they didn't say to me, bring them home, bring them home.
For heaven's sake, Mr. Speaker, if it's not just for that alone,
those of us here have that obligation to bring them home.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume;
and I will say again to my colleagues that, as we look at this
challenge, this is a very difficult one. It is one that we seek to
address in a bipartisan way, Mr. Speaker, Democrats and Republicans
coming together.
Now, our former colleague, Mr. Hamilton, co-chairman of the Iraq
Study Group, has made it very clear that the
[[Page H9555]]
work product which was unleashed, turned over last December, is still
applicable today. This notion of saying that we need to look at
bringing this group back together, I don't have it with me here, but I
have one downstairs in my office. We have the volume, the work of the
Iraq Study Group, that we've all gotten copies of; and all we're
asking, Mr. Speaker, is that this bipartisan work product be able to be
voted on and supported here.
Now, what is it that we have before us? We have a closed rule. And
I'm saddened greatly to report to the House, by virtue of this closed
rule having come from the Rules Committee, reported out last night, we
have by far exceeded the doubling, the doubling of the number of closed
rules in this Democratic majority than we had in the Republican
majority at this time at the beginning of the last Congress. It saddens
me.
Again, I will say that, Mr. Speaker, while we hear about this great
new day, a sense of openness, transparency, accountability, what is it
that we've gotten? We may not have been perfect when we were in the
majority, but under this new majority that promised all of these great
things to the American people, we have gotten now more than twice as
many closed rules in the first 7 months of the year than we had in the
first 7 months of the 109th Congress, and I just think it's a sad
commentary on where we are.
Now to the issue at hand, Mr. Speaker. As we look at the challenge
that the families of those loved ones face, I would like to share the
remarks of some of the families that I have heard.
There is a young man who was killed tragically in the battle of
Fallujah. His name is J.P. Blecksmith from San Marino, California. His
father, like J.P., was a Marine; and after his son was tragically
killed, Ed Blecksmith said to me, he said, David, if we don't complete
our mission in Iraq, my son J.P. will have died in vain. And he said,
we need to do everything that we possibly can to ensure victory.
And I will tell you that what we're doing here today under this
closed rule, I believe, creates the potential for undermining the
success that, as was pointed out and as I said in my last statement, is
outlined in the remarks in the article in the New York Times, the op-ed
piece written by Ken Pollack and Mike O'Hanlon, and there's another
statement that was made.
I met a woman just a couple of months ago. Denise Codnot is her name.
She came here to Washington, and she walked into my office, Mr.
Speaker, and her son Kyle was killed in Iraq, 19 years old. He was in
the Army. And she looked me in the eye and said, my son wasn't killed
in Iraq. My son proudly gave his life, proudly gave his life for the
cause of freedom. And she said to me, we must do everything within our
power to ensure success and victory.
This war on terror has been very painful for us, Mr. Speaker, very,
very painful for everyone involved, especially the families of those
men and women in uniform. But we know there is an interconnectedness of
this war on terror, and that is the reason that on this rule we are
going to continue our quest to deal with modernization of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Now, I know that my colleagues last night in the Rules Committee, we
passed out a special rule that will allow for consideration of possible
negotiations that would take place on this issue, but, Mr. Speaker, we
have been waiting since April of this year when the statements began to
come forward from the Director of National Intelligence, Mike
McConnell; from the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency,
Michael Hayden; from the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael
Chertoff, the three Michaels I call them, who have come forward with
this urgent plea for us to take the very antiquated, three-decade-old,
three-decade-old 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and
modernize it.
I am going to move, Mr. Speaker, to defeat the previous question, and
I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Albuquerque,
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) whose legislation will be made in order if we
are successful in defeating the previous question.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I thank my colleague from California.
This is something we've been trying to get addressed since April,
since the Director of National Intelligence came to this Congress and
said we need to fix the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. There
are things we should be listening to that we are not listening to, that
we are missing, and it is hurting the security of this country. It
continues to imperil the security of this country, and it is only
because we are now forcing the Democrats to deal with this publicly
that we may be making progress on this issue.
I am disappointed, though, to hear some of my colleagues in this
House suggest in these negotiations that we should have a judge
overseeing foreign intelligence collection overseas that does not
involve any Americans. That has never been the role of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court. The whole point in making these
changes is to make sure that we don't have counterterrorism analysts
who are very valuable, highly trained people, expert in languages in
regions, in organizations, spending their time developing probable
cause statements for foreigners in foreign countries who are
communicating with other foreigners. There's absolutely no reason for
any court to be involved in that kind of an effort.
Speed matters. It matters in a war on terrorism where terrorists are
using our communications networks in order to try to kill us. It is
vital, absolutely vital that we fix the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act before the House adjourns for the August recess.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida, a member of the Rules Committee and a member of
the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Hastings, to assure everyone that the
FISA bill is on the calendar for this week.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
You know, for over a year now the Intelligence Committee and Members
of this body have been in negotiations with the administration
regarding FISA. When I hear my colleague talk about it, I know that, in
the realm of the American public, she's persuasive enough to make it
appear that there's something that's happening that is dreadful and
America's about to be attacked because we don't have sufficient
information that we are receiving from those persons who would do us
harm overseas.
The simple fact of the matter is that Jane Harman, the former Chair
of this committee, and Bud Cramer have been actively involved. It is
not as if nothing has been going on with reference to FISA.
I don't have that same fear. I serve on the same committee that she
does. I have every reason to believe that the negotiations are not
causing this country to not receive the information that is necessary;
and if anyone would argue that this Nation's FISA program is not under
courts at this particular time and that the issue is that the
administration wishes to move it from under the courts, then I would
have them to know that there needs to be greater discussion.
One of the things that has happened is some of the stuff we can't
talk about is being nuanced, and I rather think that that is not the
way to go about trying to change a law. Yes, it's important that we
receive the information about those who are going to do us harm, if
they can. And, yes, it's important that we be able to intercept their
foreign-to-foreign communications. But to give the general impression
that there is this necessity that it be done yesterday is not what the
reality is.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I understand that I only have 1 minute
remaining, and I know that my colleague from Albuquerque would very
much like to have an opportunity to be heard on this issue. I have some
closing remarks. I wonder if the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules has any time she might yield to the gentlewoman from
Albuquerque to respond.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 13\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Mrs. Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New
York for her graciousness.
I would just tell my colleagues that the Director of National
Intelligence, Michael McConnell, has said we are
[[Page H9556]]
missing things we should be getting. In classified session in this
House yesterday, he was much more specific about just what the
magnitude is of what we are missing.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I'm planning to close, if the gentlewoman
from New York has no further requests.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I have no other speakers.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I think it's been very, very clear here this
is a closed rule. It's outrageous that we have continued down this
pattern of closed rules; and we were promised, the American people were
promised much better than that. The underlying legislation is
legislation that the administration just announced the President would
veto if it were to pass. We should be debating the work of the Iraq
Study Group, the bipartisan package; and, unfortunately, with this
closed rule, we're denied a chance to do that.
I also believe that my colleague from New Mexico, while debate seemed
to be very personal among members of the Intelligence Committee, it
comes down to the very strong statements that have been made by the
Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence
and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. We need to
immediately modernize the three-decade-old Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act.
So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so
that we'll have an opportunity to make in order the very thoughtful
legislation that has been introduced by our colleague from Albuquerque,
Mrs. Wilson.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I again want to assure my colleagues that
FISA is on the calendar before we go home, which may be the middle of
next week. We're not going to leave here without getting that fixed.
Let me also state that, in addition to the dreadful, awful loss of
our service persons and the terrible wounding and mangled 30,000 or
more, there's another cost to this war, Mr. Speaker. A new estimate is
that the war in Iraq will cost the taxpayers of the United States $1
trillion. We are spending at the rate of $10 billion a month.
Obviously, this is money that we don't have.
We're borrowing mainly from four sources, the first one being China,
Japan, South Korea; and, Mr. Speaker, as this debt piles up, it will
take generations for our children, our grandchildren, our great-
grandchildren and our great-great-grandchildren simply to pay off.
So let me stop as I began, to again express my sorrow to the people
of Minnesota and make it clear that the spending on this war, which is
rife with corruption, I do need to say, that in addition to 160,000
military persons in Iraq, we have 185,000 contractors, spending tax
money at an enormous rate. We are beginning for the first time in 6
years, as we've taken the majority, to really look at where that money
has gone and try to ferret out the corruption, the cronyism, the unbid
contracts and all of the other scandals that have gone on there.
Just this week again we learned that millions of dollars spent in
construction to turn things over to the Iraqi people is unacceptable to
the people of Iraq because of the shoddy workmanship. This is a scandal
of major proportions, Mr. Speaker. It really is important that we bring
this to an end and try to clean up and maybe hopefully get our
international reputation back to some degree.
But the most important thing is that this bill says simply this: Our
soldiers need rest. How dare we send people into the battle day after
day, night after night, without saying from this House and from this
government that what we want for them is what the military always had
in the past, an opportunity to rest and renew? It's not only critical
for them personally, but it's critical for the units in which they
serve that they are in top form. The fact is that we could do that
quite simply here just today with this bill and also make certain that
we don't ever again send one of them out on one of those roads to
patrol unprepared, untrained and unprotected because we failed to spend
the enormous amount of money on the right kind of equipment.
It's time, Mr. Speaker. We owe it; and I'm ashamed that all these
years, that for the past 6 years, no oversight, not any, no hearings,
have been held on this war. No hearings have been held on where all of
that money has gone, and we're just beginning now to scratch the
surface.
But the first obligation that we have, far more than money involved,
the largest obligation we have is to the men and women that we say
would you please set your life aside and go and fight. We owe them
everything in the world that we can give them.
I'm happy that we have put a lot of money this year on our side into
the Veterans Administration, and certainly it's for traumatic brain
injury which we see so much of it and that the Veterans Administration
is in no way equipped to handle. We have enough money now in the bills
so we can send them to the places where they can get the very best help
available. But young men and women that are 18, 19, 20 years old,
maimed for life. And Mr. Speaker, it is time some intelligence here in
the House reigned.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 601 Offered by Mr. Dreier of California
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point
of order, consider the bill (H.R. 3138) to amend the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to update the
definition of electronic surveillance. All points of order
against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the bill to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution [and] has no substantive legislative
or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what
they have always said. Listen to the definition of the
previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools
[[Page H9557]]
for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and
allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer
an alternative plan.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________