[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.

                          ____________________