[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 176 (Wednesday, November 14, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H13917-H13937]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   ORDERLY AND RESPONSIBLE IRAQ REDEPLOYMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

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

                               H.R. 4156

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

     That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, namely:

   TITLE I--POLICY ON REDEPLOYMENT AND CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS IN IRAQ

       Sec. 101.  It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the war in Iraq should end as safely and quickly as 
     possible and our troops should be brought home;
       (2) the performance of United States military personnel in 
     Iraq and Afghanistan should be commended, their courage and 
     sacrifice have been exceptional, and when they come home, 
     their service should be recognized appropriately; and
       (3) the primary purpose of funds made available by this Act 
     should be to transition the mission of United States Armed 
     Forces in Iraq and undertake their redeployment, and not to 
     extend or prolong the war.
       Sec. 102. (a) No person in the custody or under the 
     effective control of the United States Government shall be 
     subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not 
     authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field 
     Manual FM2-22.3 Human Intelligence Collector Operations.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any 
     person in the custody or under the effective control of the 
     United States Government pursuant to a criminal law or 
     immigration law of the United States. Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to affect the rights under the United 
     States Constitution of any person in the custody or under the 
     physical jurisdiction of the United States.
       Sec. 103.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of the following laws enacted or 
     regulations promulgated to implement the United Nations 
     Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or 
     Degrading Treatment or Punishment (done at New York on 
     December 10, 1984)--
       (1) section 2340A of title 18, United States Code;
       (2) section 2242 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and 
     Restructuring Act of 1998 (division G of Public Law 105-277; 
     112 Stat. 2681-822; 8 U.S.C. 1231 note) and regulations 
     prescribed thereto, including regulations under part 208 of 
     title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, and part 95 of title 
     22, Code of Federal Regulations; and
       (3) sections 1002 and 1003 of the Department of Defense, 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes 
     in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 
     (Public Law 109-148).
       Sec. 104. (a) The Congress finds that United States 
     military units should not enter into combat unless they are 
     fully capable of performing their assigned mission. The 
     Congress further finds that this is the policy of the 
     Department of Defense.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to deploy any unit of the 
     Armed Forces to Iraq unless the President has certified in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the 
     Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives at least 15 days in advance of the deployment 
     that the unit is ``fully mission capable''.
       (c) For the purposes of subsection (b) the term ``fully 
     mission capable'' means capable of performing a unit's 
     assigned mission to the prescribed standards under the 
     conditions expected in the theater of operation, consistent 
     with the guidelines set forth in the Department of Defense's 
     Defense Readiness Reporting System.
       (d) The President, by certifying in writing to the 
     Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed 
     Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives that 
     the deployment to Iraq of a unit that is not assessed fully 
     mission capable is required for reasons of national security 
     and by submitting along with a certification a report in 
     classified and unclassified form detailing the particular 
     reason or reasons why the unit's deployment is necessary, may 
     waive the limitations prescribed in subsection (b) on a unit-
     by-unit basis.
       Sec. 105. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act 
     are available immediately for obligation to plan and execute 
     a safe and orderly redeployment of United States Armed Forces 
     from Iraq.
       (b) Within 30 days after enactment of this Act, the 
     President shall commence an immediate and orderly 
     redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, which 
     shall be implemented as part of the comprehensive regional 
     stability plan described in subsection (g). The President 
     shall endeavor to begin such redeployment with units of the 
     Armed Forces that have been deployed in excess of 365 days, 
     except to the extent those units are needed to provide for 
     the safe withdrawal of other units of the Armed Forces or to 
     protect United States and Coalition personnel and 
     infrastructure.
       (c) The reduction in United States Armed Forces required by 
     this section shall be implemented in conjunction with a 
     comprehensive diplomatic, political and economic strategy 
     that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and 
     the international community for the purpose of working 
     collectively to bring stability to Iraq.
       (d) The goal for the completion of the transition of United 
     States Armed Forces to a limited presence and missions as 
     described in subsection (e) shall be a date that is not later 
     than December 15, 2008.
       (e) After the conclusion of the reduction and transition of 
     United States Armed Forces to a limited presence as required 
     by this section, the Secretary of Defense may deploy or 
     maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq only for the 
     following missions:
       (1) Protecting United States diplomatic facilities, United 
     States Armed Forces, and American citizens.
       (2) Conducting limited training, equipping, and providing 
     logistical and intelligence support to the Iraqi Security 
     forces.
       (3) Engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations 
     against al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda affiliated groups, and other 
     terrorist organizations in Iraq.
       (f) Not later than February 1, 2008, and every 90 days 
     thereafter, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report setting forth the 
     following:

[[Page H13918]]

       (1) The current plan for and the status of the reduction of 
     United States Armed Forces in Iraq and the transition of the 
     Armed Forces in Iraq to a limited presence whose missions do 
     not exceed the missions specified in subsection (e), 
     including the associated force reductions and adjustments and 
     expectations with respect to timelines and the force levels 
     anticipated to perform those missions.
       (2) A comprehensive current description of efforts to 
     prepare for the reduction and transition of United States 
     Armed Forces in Iraq in accordance with this section and to 
     limit any destabilizing consequences of such reduction and 
     transition, including a description of efforts to work with 
     the United Nations and countries in the region toward that 
     objective.
       (g) Not later than February 15, 2008, the President shall 
     submit to the Congress in classified and unclassified form a 
     comprehensive regional stability plan for the Middle East, 
     which shall include a military, diplomatic, political and 
     economic strategy that provides for the national security 
     interests of the United States in the region and for the 
     engagement of targeted counterterrorism operations. The plan 
     shall include a detailed description of the projected United 
     States military force presence in and around the Middle East 
     region for the 5-year period beginning on October 1, 2008.
       Sec. 106.  The amounts appropriated by this Act are 
     sufficient to fully meet the immediate needs of the United 
     States Armed Forces deployed to Iraq. Congressional 
     consideration of additional funding shall be deferred until 
     the first report required by section 105(f) is submitted to 
     the Congress.

                 TITLE II--SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

                    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army'', 
     $713,700,000.

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy'', 
     $95,624,000.

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine 
     Corps'', $56,050,000.

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air 
     Force'', $138,037,000.

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'', $27,429,490,000.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy'', $2,071,560,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps'', $2,429,323,000.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force'', $3,582,560,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', $1,330,540,000, of which not to exceed 
     $333,000,000, to remain available until expended, may be used 
     for payments to reimburse key cooperating nations, for 
     logistical, military, and other support provided to United 
     States military operations, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law: Provided, That such payments may be made in 
     such amounts as the Secretary of Defense, with the 
     concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation 
     with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, may 
     determine, in his discretion, based on documentation 
     determined by the Secretary of Defense to adequately account 
     for the support provided, and such determination is final and 
     conclusive upon the accounting officers of the United States, 
     and 15 days following notification to the appropriate 
     congressional committees: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Defense shall provide quarterly reports to the 
     congressional defense committees on the use of funds provided 
     in this paragraph.

                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army Reserve'', $61,223,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy Reserve'', $47,500,000.

            Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps Reserve'', $26,157,000.

              Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force Reserve'', $8,089,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army National Guard'', $378,381,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air National Guard'', $34,422,000.

                    Afghanistan Security Forces Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the ``Afghanistan Security Forces Fund'', $500,000,000: 
     Provided, That such funds shall be available to the Secretary 
     of Defense, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     the purpose of allowing the Commander, Office of Security 
     Cooperation Afghanistan, or the Secretary's designee, to 
     provide assistance, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 
     State, to the security forces of Afghanistan, including the 
     provision of equipment, supplies, services, training, 
     facility and infrastructure repair, renovation, and 
     construction, and funding: Provided further, That the 
     authority to provide assistance under this heading is in 
     addition to any other authority to provide assistance to 
     foreign nations: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Defense may transfer such funds to appropriations for 
     military personnel; operation and maintenance; Overseas 
     Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid; procurement; research, 
     development, test and evaluation; and defense working capital 
     funds to accomplish the purposes provided herein: Provided 
     further, That this transfer authority is in addition to any 
     other transfer authority available to the Department of 
     Defense: Provided further, That upon a determination that all 
     or part of the funds so transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes herein, such amounts may 
     be transferred back to this appropriation: Provided further, 
     That contributions of funds for the purposes provided herein 
     from any person, foreign government, or international 
     organization may be credited to this Fund, and used for such 
     purposes: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense 
     shall notify the congressional defense committees in writing 
     upon the receipt and upon the transfer of any contribution, 
     delineating the sources and amounts of the funds received and 
     the specific use of such contributions: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary of Defense shall, not fewer than 5 days 
     prior to making transfers from this appropriation account, 
     notify the congressional defense committees in writing of the 
     details of any such transfer: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit a report no later than 30 
     days after the end of each fiscal quarter to the 
     congressional defense committees summarizing the details of 
     the transfer of funds from this appropriation.

                       Iraq Security Forces Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the ``Iraq Security Forces Fund'', $500,000,000: 
     Provided, That such funds shall be available to the Secretary 
     of Defense, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     the purpose of allowing the Commander, Multi-National 
     Security Transition Command--Iraq, or the Secretary's 
     designee, to provide assistance, with the concurrence of the 
     Secretary of State, to the security forces of Iraq, including 
     the provision of equipment, supplies, services, training, 
     facility and infrastructure repair, renovation, and 
     construction, and funding, and to provide training, 
     reintegration, education and employment programs for 
     concerned local citizens, former militia members and 
     detainees and former detainees: Provided further, That the 
     authority to provide assistance under this heading is in 
     addition to any other authority to provide assistance to 
     foreign nations: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Defense may transfer such funds to appropriations for 
     military personnel; operation and maintenance; Overseas 
     Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid; procurement; research, 
     development, test and evaluation; and defense working capital 
     funds to accomplish the purposes provided herein: Provided 
     further, That this transfer authority is in addition to any 
     other transfer authority available to the Department of 
     Defense: Provided further, That upon a determination that all 
     or part of the funds so transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation: 
     Provided further, That contributions of funds for the 
     purposes provided herein from any person, foreign government, 
     or international organization may be credited to this Fund, 
     and used for such purposes: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional defense 
     committees in writing upon the receipt and upon the transfer 
     of any contribution, delineating the sources and amounts of 
     the funds received and the specific use of such 
     contributions: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Defense shall, not fewer than 5 days prior to making 
     transfers from this appropriation account, notify the 
     congressional defense committees in writing of the details of 
     any such transfer: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit a report no later than 30 days after the 
     end of each fiscal quarter to the congressional defense 
     committees summarizing the details of the transfer of funds 
     from this appropriation.

                           Iraq Freedom Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For ``Iraq Freedom Fund'', $3,168,000,000, to remain 
     available for transfer only to support operations in Iraq and 
     to fight terrorism: Provided, the Secretary of Defense and 
     the Director of National Intelligence shall, no fewer than 30 
     days prior to making transfers under this authority, notify 
     the Committees on Appropriations in writing of the details of 
     any such transfer made for intelligence activities: Provided 
     further, That funds transferred shall be merged with and be 
     available

[[Page H13919]]

     for the same purposes and for the same time period as the 
     appropriation or fund to which transferred.

             Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Joint Improvised Explosive 
     Device Defeat Fund'', $1,638,500,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2010: Provided, That such funds shall be 
     available to the Secretary of Defense, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, for the purpose of allowing the 
     Director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 
     Organization to investigate, develop and provide equipment, 
     supplies, services, training, facilities, personnel and funds 
     to assist United States forces in the defeat of improvised 
     explosive devices: Provided further, That within 60 days of 
     enactment of this Act, a plan for the intended management and 
     use of the Fund is provided to the congressional defense 
     committees: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit a report not later than 60 days after the end of 
     each fiscal quarter to the congressional defense committees 
     providing assessments of the evolving threats, individual 
     service requirements to counter the threats, individual 
     service requirements to counter the threats, the current 
     strategy for predeployment training of members of the Armed 
     Forces on explosive devices, and details on the execution of 
     this Fund: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense 
     may transfer funds provided herein to appropriations for 
     operation and maintenance; procurement; research, 
     development, test and evaluation; and defense working capital 
     funds to accomplish the purpose provided herein: Provided 
     further, That this transfer authority is in addition to any 
     other transfer authority available to the Department of 
     Defense: Provided further, That upon determination that all 
     or part of the funds so transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purpose provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall, not 
     fewer than 5 days prior to making transfers from this 
     appropriation, notify the congressional defense committees in 
     writing of the details of any such transfer.

                              PROCUREMENT

                       Aircraft Procurement, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, 
     Army'', $302,200,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2010.

        Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Weapons and 
     Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'', $1,574,217,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2010.

                    Procurement of Ammunition, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition, 
     Army'', $154,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2010.

                        Other Procurement, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Army'', 
     $1,976,100,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010.

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, 
     Navy'', $25,300,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2010.

                        Other Procurement, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Navy'', 
     $88,281,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010.

                       Procurement, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Marine Corps'', 
     $729,232,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $147,800,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2010.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $42,125,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2010.

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'', 
     $102,588,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010.

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

                         Defense Health Program

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Health Program'', 
     $649,001,000; of which $599,001,000 shall be for operation 
     and maintenance; and of which $50,000,000 shall be for 
     research, development, test and evaluation, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2009, only for peer reviewed 
     research on traumatic brain injury and psychological health, 
     including post-traumatic stress disorder.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 201.  Appropriations provided in this Act are 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2008, unless 
     otherwise provided in this Act.

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 202. (a) Upon a determination by the Secretary of 
     Defense that such action is necessary in the national 
     interest, the Secretary may transfer between appropriations 
     up to $4,000,000,000 of the funds made available to the 
     Department of Defense in this Act.
       (b) The Secretary shall notify the Congress promptly of 
     each transfer made pursuant to the authority in this section.
       (c) The authority provided in this section is in addition 
     to any other transfer authority available to the Department 
     of Defense and is subject to the same terms and conditions as 
     the authority provided in section 8005 of the Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Act, 2008, except for the fourth 
     proviso.
       Sec. 203.  Funds appropriated in this Act, or made 
     available by the transfer of funds in or pursuant to this 
     Act, for intelligence activities are deemed to be 
     specifically authorized by the Congress for purposes of 
     section 504(a)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 
     U.S.C. 414(a)(1)).
       Sec. 204.  None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used to finance programs or activities denied by the Congress 
     in fiscal years 2007 or 2008 appropriations to the Department 
     of Defense or to initiate a procurement or research, 
     development, test and evaluation new start program unless 
     such program or project must be undertaken immediately in the 
     interest of national security and after written prior 
     notification to the congressional defense committees.
       Sec. 205. (a) From funds made available for operation and 
     maintenance in this Act to the Department of Defense, not to 
     exceed $500,000,000 may be used, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, to fund the Commander's Emergency Response 
     Program, for the purpose of enabling military commanders in 
     Iraq and Afghanistan to respond to urgent humanitarian relief 
     and reconstruction requirements within their areas of 
     responsibility by carrying out programs that will immediately 
     assist the Iraqi and Afghan people.
       (b) Not later than 15 days after the end of each fiscal 
     year quarter, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report regarding the 
     source of funds and the allocation and use of funds during 
     that quarter that were made available pursuant to the 
     authority provided in this section or under any other 
     provision of law for the purposes of the programs under 
     subsection (a).
       Sec. 206. (a) During fiscal year 2008, funds available in 
     this Act to the Department of Defense for operation and 
     maintenance may be used, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, to provide supplies, services, transportation, 
     including airlift and sealift, and other logistical support 
     to Coalition forces supporting military and stability 
     operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense shall provide quarterly 
     reports to the congressional defense committees regarding 
     support provided under this section.
       Sec. 207. (a) Supervision and administration costs 
     associated with a construction project funded with 
     appropriations available for operation and maintenance, 
     Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, or Iraq Security Forces 
     Fund, and executed in direct support of the Global War on 
     Terror only in Iraq and Afghanistan, may be obligated at the 
     time a construction contract is awarded.
       (b) For purposes of this section, the term ``supervision 
     and administration costs'' includes all in-house Government 
     costs.
       Sec. 208.  Each amount appropriated or otherwise provided 
     in this Act is designated as an emergency requirement and 
     necessary to meet emergency needs pursuant to subsections (a) 
     and (b) of section 204 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress), 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
       Sec. 209. (a) Not later than January 15, 2008 and every 90 
     days thereafter through the end of fiscal year 2008, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall set forth in a report to the 
     Congress a comprehensive set of performance indicators and 
     measures for progress toward military and political stability 
     in Iraq.
       (b) The report shall include performance standards and 
     goals for security, economic, and security force training 
     objectives in Iraq, together with a notional timetable for 
     achieving these goals.
       (c) The report shall include, at a minimum, the following 
     specific provisions:
       (1) With respect to stability and security in Iraq, the 
     following:
       (A) Key measures of political stability, including the 
     important political milestones that must be achieved over the 
     next several years.
       (B) The primary indicators of a stable security environment 
     in Iraq, such as number of engagements per day, numbers of 
     trained Iraqi forces, trends relating to numbers and types of 
     ethnic and religious-based hostile encounters, and progress 
     made in the transition to Provincial Iraqi Control (PIC).
       (C) An assessment of the estimated strength of the 
     insurgency in Iraq and the extent to which it is composed of 
     non-Iraqi fighters.
       (D) A description of all militias operating in Iraq, 
     including the number, size, equipment strength, military 
     effectiveness, sources of support, legal status, and efforts 
     to disarm or reintegrate each militia.
       (E) Key indicators of economic activity that should be 
     considered the most important for determining the prospects 
     of stability in Iraq, including--
       (i) unemployment levels;
       (ii) electricity, water, and oil production rates; and
       (iii) hunger and poverty levels.
       (F) The criteria the Administration will use to determine 
     when it is safe to begin withdrawing United States forces 
     from Iraq.
       (2) With respect to the training and performance of 
     security forces in Iraq, the following:
       (A) The training provided Iraqi military and other Ministry 
     of Defense forces and the equipment used by such forces.

[[Page H13920]]

       (B) Key criteria for assessing the capabilities and 
     readiness of the Iraqi military and other Ministry of Defense 
     forces, goals for achieving certain capability and readiness 
     levels (as well as for recruiting, training, and equipping 
     these forces), and the milestones and notional timetable for 
     achieving these goals.
       (C) The operational readiness status of the Iraqi military 
     forces, including the type, number, size, and organizational 
     structure of Iraqi battalions that are--
       (i) capable of conducting counterinsurgency operations 
     independently, without any support from Coalition forces;
       (ii) capable of conducting counterinsurgency operations 
     with the support of United States or Coalition forces; or
       (iii) not ready to conduct counterinsurgency operations.
       (D) The amount and type of support provided by Coalition 
     forces to the Iraqi Security forces at each level of 
     operational readiness.
       (E) The number of Iraqi battalions in the Iraqi Army 
     currently conducting operations and the type of operations 
     being conducted.
       (F) The rates of absenteeism in the Iraqi military forces 
     and the extent to which insurgents have infiltrated such 
     forces.
       (G) The training provided Iraqi police and other Ministry 
     of Interior forces and the equipment used by such forces.
       (H) Key criteria for assessing the capabilities and 
     readiness of the Iraqi police and other Ministry of Interior 
     forces, goals for achieving certain capability and readiness 
     levels (as well as for recruiting, training, and equipping), 
     and the milestones and notional timetable for achieving these 
     goals, including--
       (i) the number of police recruits that have received 
     classroom training and the duration of such instruction;
       (ii) the number of veteran police officers who have 
     received classroom instruction and the duration of such 
     instruction;
       (iii) the number of police candidates screened by the Iraqi 
     Police Screening Service, the number of candidates derived 
     from other entry procedures, and the success rates of those 
     groups of candidates;
       (iv) the number of Iraqi police forces who have received 
     field training by international police trainers and the 
     duration of such instruction;
       (v) attrition rates and measures of absenteeism and 
     infiltration by insurgents; and
       (vi) the level and effectiveness of the Iraqi Police and 
     other Ministry of Interior forces in provinces where the 
     United States has formally transferred responsibility for the 
     security of the province to the Iraqi Security forces under 
     the Provincial Iraqi Control (PIC) process.
       (I) The estimated total number of Iraqi battalions needed 
     for the Iraqi Security forces to perform duties now being 
     undertaken by Coalition forces, including defending the 
     borders of Iraq and providing adequate levels of law and 
     order throughout Iraq.
       (J) The effectiveness of the Iraqi military and police 
     officer cadres and the chain of command.
       (K) The number of United States and Coalition advisors 
     needed to support the Iraqi Security forces and associated 
     ministries.
       (L) An assessment, in a classified annex if necessary, of 
     United States military requirements, including planned force 
     rotations, through the end of calendar year 2008.
       Sec. 210.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act shall be obligated or 
     expended by the United States Government for a purpose as 
     follows:
       (1) To establish any military installation or base for the 
     purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United 
     States Armed Forces in Iraq.
       (2) To exercise United States control over any oil resource 
     of Iraq.
       Sec. 211.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be obligated or expended to provide 
     award fees to any defense contractor contrary to the 
     provisions of section 814 of the John Warner National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364).
       Sec. 212.  During the current fiscal year, appropriations 
     made available to the Department of Defense for operation and 
     maintenance in this Act may, upon determination by the 
     Secretary of Defense that such action is necessary to meet 
     the operational requirements of a Commander of Combatant 
     Command engaged in contingency operations overseas, be used 
     to purchase items having an investment item cost of not more 
     than $500,000.
       Sec. 213.  Section 3303(c) of Public Law 110-28 shall apply 
     to funds appropriated in this Act.
        This Act may be cited as the ``Orderly and Responsible 
     Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act, 2008''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 818, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lewis) each will control 1 hour.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, because of unusual 
circumstances, I would choose at the floor well to yield control of the 
time to the former chairman of the committee, the ranking member of the 
Defense Subcommittee, Bill Young of Florida.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida will be 
recognized.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we hear so many voices in this country and in this 
Chamber who are willing to fight to the last drop of someone else's 
blood. Those of us who are supporting this resolution today are being 
accused of being for ``precipitous withdrawal.'' I hardly think that 
seeing this war continue for another 14 months constitutes precipitous 
withdrawal.
  Mr. Speaker, it is 56 months since the United States first launched 
its attack against Iraq. It is 4\1/2\ years since the President 
appeared before his ``Mission Accomplished'' banner on that carrier. It 
is almost 5 years since the administration ignored the advice of 
General Shinseki. It is 2\1/2\ years since Vice President Cheney said 
that he thought the insurgency was in its last throes. Since that time, 
we have had 3,800 Americans killed and 28,000 wounded. We have had 
8,000 Iraqi military personal killed and 38,000 civilians killed. We 
have had 4 million Iraqis displaced. 2.3 million of them have been 
displaced internally in the country. One and a half million have fled 
to Syria, 1 million to other countries. Not a pretty picture.
  This war is the most colossal blunder in modern U.S. history. It is a 
mistake that has shattered our influence in the region, and it has made 
the one country in the region that we did not want to see strengthened, 
Iran, it has made them infinitely stronger in that region. We are in 
the process of borrowing $600 billion and we are not having the guts to 
pay the bill ourselves.
  There is no sense of shared sacrifice in this country. The only 
families being asked to sacrifice are military families and they're 
being asked to sacrifice again and again and again and again. We aren't 
even willing to tax ourselves to pay for the cost of this war, so we're 
shoving off the cost to our kids. Shame on every one of us for making 
that decision.
  In November, the public tried to send two messages to this Congress. 
The first was that they wanted a change in policy in Iraq. The second 
is that they wanted a change in domestic policy. And yet after blowing 
$600 billion in Iraq, after signing a Defense bill which adds $39 
billion to spending levels over last year, the President has yesterday 
blocked our efforts to add $6 billion to pay for investments in 
education, health and medical research here at home.

                              {time}  1915

  The President is telling the American people, ``Forget what message 
you think you sent in November in the election.'' He is stiffing the 
American people. He is saying, ``Forget what message you thought you 
were sending to Washington; I am the `Great Decider' and we are going 
to do things my way.'' That is what we are getting out of the White 
House. Instead of compromise and instead of searching for common 
ground, the President is making clear that he prefers to govern through 
confrontation, he prefers to go it alone, with one-third support in the 
country and one-third support in the Congress.
  The same is true in Iraq. This is the same President who decided to 
go it alone, with almost no allies, who decided to go it alone when it 
came to evaluating intelligence, ignoring the caution alerts that were 
sent by the State Department intelligence people and the CIA analysts. 
He bulldozed through. When Baker-Hamilton was produced to offer an 
opportunity for change, the President simply used that as an 
opportunity to say ``full steam ahead, no change in course'', and he 
has deepened and intensified our involvement in Iraq.
  At home, he insists that Congress cuts 50 percent out of vocational 
education; he insists that we cut 1,100 grants out of medical research 
at the National Institutes of Health; he insists that we cut rural 
health programs by 54 percent; he insists that we cut low-income 
heating assistance programs by 18 percent; he insists that we cut 
financial support for programs under No Child Left Behind that he 
mandated in the first place. He insists that we cut all of that, and 
yet he demands $200 billion more for Iraq. I say enough is enough.

[[Page H13921]]

  He gave a speech to the American people which was designed for the 
purpose of public deception, in my view, because it was designed to 
leave the impression that the President intended to reduce steadily our 
troop commitment in Iraq, when in reality it was intended to assure 
that 6 months from now we have the same number of troops we have there 
that we had 6 months ago.
  Mr. Speaker, the President is asking for $200 billion more, and as 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I announced that I had no 
intention of providing that money, but I made it clear I'd be happy to 
provide it all, provided that the President would recognize that we 
needed a policy change and would get on board with the determination to 
have a goal of removing our troops from combat operations by the end of 
next year. That is hardly precipitous.
  So what this measure does, instead of giving the President $200 
billion to continue the war, it gives him $50 billion to shut the war 
down. Instead of having troops there for the next 10 years, as the 
President indicated in his speech, we want to have them out by December 
of 2008. It requires redeployment to begin in 60 days, and it ends the 
authority for any agency of the United States Government whatsoever to 
engage in torture.
  We are mired, Mr. Speaker, in Iraq because of the self-important 
illusions of hopeless romantics in the administration. We hear tell 
these days that the President talks a lot about Teddy Roosevelt and 
Winston Churchill. If that is the case, he is harboring dangerous 
illusions. He ought to heed the advice of a statesman 80 years ago who 
wrote the following. I will read excerpts from this letter.
  ``I am deeply concerned about Iraq. The task you have given me is 
becoming really impossible. Incompetent Arab officials are disturbing 
some of the provinces and failing to collect revenue. We overpaid on 
last year's account, which it is almost certain Iraq will not be able 
to pay this year, thus entailing a supplementary estimate. . . I have 
had to maintain troops in Mosul all through the year in consequence of 
the Angora quarrel. This has upset the program of relief and will 
certainly lead to further expenditures. . . . I do not see what 
political strength there is to face a disaster of any kind, and I 
certainly cannot believe that in any circumstances any large 
reinforcements would be sent . . . In my own heart, I do not see what 
we are getting out of it. I think we should now put definitely to the 
assembly the position that unless they beg us to stay, and stay on our 
own terms in regard to efficient control, we shall actually evacuate 
before the close of the financial year. I would put this issue in the 
most brutal way, and if they are not prepared to urge us to stay and to 
cooperate in every manner, I would actually clear out. . . .
  ``I think I must ask you for definite guidance at this stage as to 
what you wish and what you are prepared to do. At present, we are 
paying millions a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful 
volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth 
having.''
  That was the real Winston Churchill speaking in 1922 in a letter to 
Lloyd George. It seems to me that the President in the White House 
today ought to heed the words of Winston Churchill so long ago and at 
long last reconsider a policy change in Iraq. That is what this 
legislation is designed to stimulate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the majority chairman of the committee 
bringing this bill before the House because we do need the money, not 
for our troops at home, not for the basic bill, because that basic bill 
was signed by the President yesterday. What we need is to make sure 
that our troops in the field have the equipment that they need, the 
force protection measures they need, the body armor that they need, the 
MRAPs that they need, the ammunition they need, whatever they need to 
take on the enemy to accomplish their mission, to protect themselves 
while they are doing it. So I want to speak directly to the bill rather 
than to the politics or the history of the political aspect of this 
legislation.
  Fifty billion dollars is a good number. I wish it would have been a 
little higher because I don't think it takes us all the way to where we 
need to be for a supplemental next spring as far as what we are doing 
in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the $50 billion that is in this bill, the 
dollars are good. What is provided by those dollars is needed for our 
troops in the field. That has to be the important decision that we make 
tonight: Are we going to fight a political battle here on the floor 
while our soldiers overseas are facing the enemy of terrorism? I don't 
think that is what we are here for today. I think we are here to pass 
this bill.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned a policy change; that this 
bill is going to bring about a policy change. There was a policy change 
earlier in the year. Most everybody referred to it as the surge, and 
many Members of this body opposed the surge. But if you listened to the 
briefers this afternoon in the Rayburn building, that policy change has 
produced a lot of very positive effects.
  So there was a policy change. But, nevertheless, whether you still 
support the policy change or not, that is up to everybody's individual 
decision. Despite what your position is on the war, on the battle, you 
have got to be prepared to provide for the troops that are there, 
whether you like the fact that they are there or not. I want them home. 
I want them home as soon as we can get them home.
  Along with Chairman Murtha of the subcommittee, I have seen too many 
wounded soldiers and marines in our military hospitals. We have both 
attended too many funerals of our war heroes who were sent home after 
having lost their life on the battlefield. So I want this war over and 
I want our troops home as soon as we can get them home in victory; 
victory in a war that didn't start on September 11 and it didn't start 
in March of 2003 when we went into Iraq or Afghanistan. It started back 
in 1983, October 23 of 1983. Terrorists bombed our Marine barracks in 
Beirut. Those marines were there as peacekeepers, not as part of any 
other expeditionary force, other than to keep the peace, and 241 of our 
military marines and soldiers lost their lives there.
  In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed; in June of 1996, the home 
of the airmen in Saudi Arabia in the Khobar Towers were bombed, and 19 
of our airmen lost their lives. In August of 1998, our embassies in 
Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists and 11 Americans lost 
their lives and hundreds of others were injured. In October of 2000, 
the USS Cole, on a peaceful mission off the shore of Yemen, was bombed 
by terrorists and 17 lives were lost. All this started before September 
11, and of course I don't think anybody denies what happened to us on 
September 11. So this war started a long time ago, and this threat is 
basically the same threat that we saw starting in 1983.
  I am pleased that sufficient funds are included for the Army 
operation and maintenance account to allow for 6 months of war 
operations. Other accounts would apparently allow for only 4 months of 
operations, however. The size of the package is secondary to the policy 
provisions that have been attached to the bill. Many Members have 
stated they cannot vote for war funding without language requiring a 
withdrawing from Iraq. The reality is most of them have already done 
that.
  When we passed the Defense appropriations bill, the basic Defense 
appropriations bill for 2008, we provided transfer authority, large 
amounts of transfer authority so that if we didn't get a bridge fund 
passed, if we didn't get a supplemental passed, the Services could 
reach into their basic accounts to pay for fighting the war in 
Afghanistan and Iraq.
  So those who voted for that bill have already voted to fund the war, 
whether they like it or not. That legislation has now been signed into 
law, so the money is there to borrow. We are going to start hearing 
about cuts in services at military bases here in the United States if 
we don't pass a supplemental or a bridge fund and the Services will 
have to borrow from their basic funds. We don't want that to happen. We 
don't want the Services to run short on anything that they have to do 
to provide for the security of our Nation.
  So whatever your position on the war, whatever decisions are going to 
be

[[Page H13922]]

made about withdrawal from Iraq, this money, this $50 billion and more 
will be needed in the next 6 months and it needs to be passed.
  This bill was only filed last night. Some of the provisions have not 
been sufficiently reviewed, in my opinion.

                              {time}  1930

  I have read this bill twice, word for word, and I am concerned about 
some of the sections of this bill.
  Section 102 regarding interrogations says in part that ``nothing in 
this section shall be construed to affect the rights under the United 
States Constitution of any person,'' and I will repeat, ``any person in 
the custody or under the physical jurisdiction of the United States.''
  Now, to me, that means that terrorists who we capture on the 
battlefield, who have been killing our own American soldiers on the 
ground, I read that to mean that they will be given the same 
constitutional protections as any citizen of the United States of 
America. And I object to that. I don't think they deserve the 
protection of the Constitution.
  I wonder, does that mean we have to read the terrorists their rights 
under the Miranda ruling? Can they be released on a technicality? Can 
they get out on bail? Those are protections guaranteed to American 
citizens. Are we going to give terrorists that same right? Well, this 
bill says that we are going to give terrorists that same right. 
Terrorists go by no rules. They do not subscribe to the Geneva 
Convention and they do not deserve the same protection under our 
Constitution that our constituents enjoy.
  I think this bill needs a lot of repair work before it can become 
law.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Lincoln Davis).
  Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of this 
bill and the effort by this Congress to bring accountability to the war 
in Iraq.
  This war is in desperate need of a new direction. For nearly 5 years, 
our brave men and women have valiantly toed the line for this 
administration, and I'm proud to say that they have had great successes 
in their mission. We have seen a terrible dictator overthrown, tried 
and put to death, and in his place the people of Iraq carried out free 
and open elections. For all of this, we owe our soldiers and their 
families a debt of thanks.
  But today's debate is not about the purpose of this war. We are here 
to make a decision on how best to bring accountability to this 
engagement. Today's legislation will keep soldiers on the ground to 
oversee diplomatic missions, protect U.S. citizens, equip and train 
Iraqis to stand on their own and continue to engage in targeted attacks 
on terrorists as we seek them out. This is a responsible strategy that 
worked for Eisenhower in South Korea when troops remained to oversee 
the DMZ after major operations had ended, and it can work for America 
today in Iraq.
  However, I have long felt that it is time to remove our men and women 
from the kill zones of Iraq. Our soldiers are trained to do the job of 
the United States military, not the job of police-on-the-beat for the 
nation of Iraq. We need to redeploy our troops so they can continue to 
carry out the work of defending America from terrorist threats around 
the globe. It is time for the Iraqis to occupy their own country with 
their own military and police force.
  This bill begins the redeployment of our combat troops, while 
continuing to fund initiatives for our men and women that protect them 
from IEDs, traumatic brain injury and more. But the days of a blank 
check from this Congress must come to an end. The American people 
deserve a new direction in Iraq, and this legislation is an important 
step.
  I would like to add that I bristle when I hear the other side talk of 
``cut and run'' Democrats. The legacy of the Democratic Party is one of 
great wartime leaders. Andrew Jackson may have done the cutting at the 
Battle of New Orleans, but it was Colonel Packingham who did the 
running. It was President Wilson who convinced the American people to 
take on the oppressors in the First World War. It was President 
Roosevelt who said ``we have nothing to fear but fear itself'' before 
leading the charge into the battlefields of Asia and Nazi Germany. And 
it was President Truman who ended that war by dropping a nuclear 
weapon.
  I am a member of a Democratic Party that has never cut and run, but 
has been responsible with our men and women in regard to their safety 
and families, as well as our national security. We need a change in 
Iraq and a change in course. This must happen.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very 
distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague from Florida for yielding.
  Let me just say that the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of 
the committee, is a Member that I know well and have great respect for, 
and along with the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, they have spent over 30 years doing everything they could 
to support our troops. But if you think that the debate that we are 
having tonight is something that we have heard before, it is. Over 40 
times this year, we have had votes and debates in this house on the 
issue of Iraq.
  Let me just say that my colleague from Wisconsin is known for his 
famous statement about Members coming to the floor of the House posing 
for ``holy pictures.'' Now, if there has ever been a case over my 17 
years here in Congress of people posing for holy pictures, it is over 
this issue of Iraq.
  When I came to the Congress in 1991 as a brand new Member, my first 
vote in this Chamber was on whether to go to war with the Iraqis in 
Kuwait. I remember coming here as a brand new Member, Members in the 
well of this House who had been here 30 and 40 years, tears in their 
eyes, talking about this being the most difficult vote they had ever 
cast. It was a very difficult moment for me and all of my colleagues. 
But we went through that, and we went through it successfully.
  So when we have the issue of war debated here on the floor of the 
Congress, there is no issue, no issue that is more personal, no issue 
that is of greater significance to our country, than all of us casting 
our vote on sending our young men and women into battle anywhere 
overseas. So I understand the passion that we have on both sides of the 
aisle over this issue.
  But I think we all have to understand that we are in Iraq for a very 
important reason. We went there to get rid of Saddam Hussein. I think 
everybody understands that. We went there to make sure that the weapons 
of mass destruction were gone. They are gone. Where they went, I don't 
think we will ever know. We went there to set up a democratically 
elected government, and, frankly, we have succeeded.
  It was al Qaeda 3 years ago that made Iraq the central front in their 
war with us. We didn't start this war with al Qaeda. They did. And as 
the gentleman from Florida pointed out earlier, it didn't start on 9/
11, it started back in the early eighties. And it persisted through the 
eighties and the nineties, and America and the rest of the world looked 
up, looked away, and just hoped the problem would go away.
  Well, it didn't go away. After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died on 
9/11, what was America to do? Look up, look away and just hope the 
problem would go away one more time? No. So we went to Iraq. But it was 
al Qaeda and it was Iran who have made this the central front in their 
war with us.
  America has no choice but to succeed in our efforts in Iraq. We all 
know what failure in Iraq will bring. Failure in Iraq brings a 
destabilization of Iraq itself, a safe haven for the terrorists to 
operate from, a destabilization of the entire Middle East, the end of 
Israel as we know it, and who doesn't believe that if we leave Iraq and 
we leave in failure, that the terrorists don't follow us home and that 
we have to deal with the problem here on the streets of America?
  This is not what America wants. America wants us to succeed, and it 
is success that we are having in Iraq. You all know the statistics. You 
have all seen the headlines over the last several weeks and the last 
several months. Our troops in Iraq are doing a marvelous job on our 
behalf. They are succeeding. They are training the Iraqi Army to take 
our place. The Iraqi Army is more

[[Page H13923]]

out in front than ever before. The amount of violence in Iraq is down 
significantly. Our troops, our troops, are dying in less numbers each 
and every day. Why? Because we are having success there.
  So we ought to thank our troops, thank our troops for the great job 
they are doing, because General Petraeus put forward a plan that is 
working.
  Now, I understand that a lot of my colleagues on the other side have 
invested all their political capital over the course of this year in 
failure in Iraq. It hasn't happened, thankfully, because for the good 
of our Nation, not today, not tomorrow, maybe not next week, but for my 
kids and their kids, success in Iraq is critically important. And I 
think all the Members in this Chamber understand just how important 
success is there. We are taking on an enemy that is growing in all 
parts of the world, and if we are not willing to take them on in Iraq, 
if we are not willing to draw the line and defeat them, where will we 
draw the line? Where will we stand up for America, and where will we 
stand up for American values? Iraq is the place to do it.
  The bill that we have before us goes back to the same old tired plan, 
the plan for failure, if you will. That is what the bill that we have 
before us does. It ties the hands of the administration, it ties the 
hands of our generals, it ties the hands of our people on the ground, 
and it will lead to nothing other than failure.
  We have been down this path. We have been down this path all year 
long. And I will admit to my colleagues, we have had plenty of mistakes 
that have been made in Iraq. There has never been a war when there 
haven't been a lot of mistakes made. You can go back to the Civil War 
and look at all the mistakes that were made. The First World War, the 
Second World War, Vietnam, there were a lot of mistakes that got made 
in wars, and mistakes have been made in this war.
  But, ladies and gentlemen, you all know that we have no choice, no 
choice, but to succeed, and the plan that we have before us, to fund 
our troops for the next 4 months, will lead to nothing other than 
failure.
  So I am going to ask my colleagues, let's stop the political games. 
We all know what is going on here. It is another political stunt, 
another political stunt trying to trap the President, trying to trap 
the generals and putting handcuffs on them. Let's stop it.
  I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle want us to succeed. 
Instead of playing these political games, what we ought to be doing is 
passing this bill cleanly. And we ought to be passing the Military 
Quality of Life Veterans bill, because our troops are coming home. We 
have got 3,000 troops that have been sent out of Diyala on their way 
home. We are going to have troops coming home all year. And if we don't 
pass the Military Quality of Life Veterans bill, the benefits they are 
entitled to, the services we ought to be providing to those veterans 
coming home will not be there.
  So let's vote ``no'' on this bill. Let's find a way this week to make 
sure that the veterans bill is up on this floor and passed and in the 
President's hands.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the chairman of the Defense 
appropriations subcommittee.
  Mr. MURTHA. As the gentleman from Florida said, we just passed a $459 
billion bipartisan Defense appropriation bill, and it funds the troops, 
it funds the health care, it funds almost all the Defense Department. 
It does not fund the war in Iraq.
  Now, when I spoke out 2 years ago, I said we need stability in the 
Middle East. All of us want stability in the Middle East. We can talk 
about Iraq, but it's not in isolation that you talk about Iraq. You 
have to talk about Pakistan and what's happening in Pakistan and why we 
haven't had an overall diplomatic success there. You can talk about 
Turkey, on the verge with tanks moving towards the border and might go 
into Kyrkystan, which would completely disrupt what is going on in 
Iraq.
  You can talk about Iran and the policy that we have had in Iraq and 
how it has disappointed us with the influence that Iran has gained. 
When we were attacked, Iran was one of the first countries to come to 
the support of the United States with their concern about what had 
happened, their concern about al Qaeda.
  What we are trying to do here today is stop torture. We do it by 
saying the Army Field Manual has to be the guideline for torture. If 
you're going to have prisoners, and I have talked to service people, 
Colin Powell agrees with this, Gates agrees with this, almost all the 
military understands if you don't have guidelines set by the Army Field 
Manual, it hurts our troops. It's pretty hard to argue. If you're for 
torture, I don't say you vote for this or you vote against this bill, 
but this stops torture by saying you've got to comply with the Army 
Field Manual.
  The other thing we say in this bill is you have to have fully 
equipped and fully trained troops. Can anybody argue about that? Is 
there anybody that can say to me we shouldn't have fully trained and 
fully equipped troops? I don't think so.

                              {time}  1945

  The other thing, it sets a goal. And the goal is to start the 
redeployment out of Iraq and have them out within a year. That doesn't 
mean that we are going to necessarily get it, but we have to start it. 
At some time we have to convince the Iraqis that we need to change the 
direction and they are going to have to take responsibility. I think 
they have started that. I think we have backed off a little bit.
  What we did in Vietnam was make the mistake that every time they made 
a mistake, we took over. In this particular case, we have to let the 
Iraqis continue to do their job.
  Now, the government has let us down; there is no question about it. 
The government has not changed the policies. There has been ethnic 
cleansing. There have been 4 million people ethnically cleansed either 
by sending them out of the country or by moving them from Sunni areas 
into Shiite areas or vice versa.
  This is one of the reasons that the military commanders have said 
over and over, the Iraqis are finally taking an interest. The al Qaeda 
has been defeated, according to what the military commanders are 
saying.
  What is the point in us being there if al Qaeda has been defeated? I 
said a couple of years ago, there are only 2 or 3,000 al Qaeda, and the 
Iraqis know where they are and know what they have to do to take care 
of them.
  I am convinced that this bill starts to force the Congress to have 
oversight. We are the board of directors, somebody said to me today. 
The President is the executive officer. We are the board of directors. 
When the board of directors sees the policies going in the wrong way, 
and actually, the people of the United States are the board of 
directors and we act for the board of directors by the people of the 
United States. If we think it is going the wrong way, we have to change 
the policy.
  This is a change in policy. This holds the President accountable for 
the decisions he is making. It doesn't tie the commanders' hands. No 
torture. They are supplied with equipment and training. That is not 
tying the hands of the commanders. And we are starting to get them out 
already.
  Al Qaeda has been defeated. The civil war has wound down. It is time 
to get us out. Let's remember, stability in the Middle East doesn't 
depend just on Iraq. It depends on Pakistan with nuclear weapons or the 
possibility of nuclear weapons. Stability depends on Iran. Stability 
depends on Syria. Stability depends on Turkey, our allies. We need a 
diplomatic effort.
  As I said and the Chief of the Joint Chiefs said, we cannot win this 
militarily; it has to be won by the Iraqis and it has to be won 
diplomatically.
  This helps us hold the administration accountable, and I would ask 
for all Members to vote for a bill that changes the direction of this 
Congress and this country in this effort in Iraq.

[[Page H13924]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14NO07.001



[[Page H13925]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14NO07.002



[[Page H13926]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14NO07.003



[[Page H13927]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14NO07.004



[[Page H13928]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14NO07.005



[[Page H13929]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14NO07.006



[[Page H13930]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14NO07.007



[[Page H13931]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14NO07.008



[[Page H13932]]

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to 
point out, and I agree strongly with Mr. Murtha's statement about 
torture. I don't think Americans want to be known as a Nation that do 
torture.
  But we have put prohibitions on torture in our Defense appropriations 
bills almost from the beginning of the war, and so we have made it very 
clear that we are opposed to the use of torture. We just wish the other 
side would go by the same rules.
  I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. 
Hunter.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time. I want to also thank everyone who works on this committee and has 
spent so much time over the years working to prepare our military 
forces to be able to handle contingencies and wars around the world. We 
appreciate that, and you have lots of great experience.
  But let me tell you, this provision in this particular bill is 
terrible for the warfighters. Let me talk about a small piece of it.
  You have what I call a 15-day wait, notify and hold provision. That 
means before any unit can go into Iraq, a 15-day period, waiting 
period, has to expire after you have notified the Armed Services 
Committees and the Defense appropriations committee that unit is 
``ready for battle'' and meets a mission-capability standard.
  Now, the problem with that is we have a war against terror in which 
teams, whether they are special operations teams, medivac teams, EOD 
teams, special fire support teams like C-130, A-6 gun ships are 
constantly moving across the boundaries between Iraq and the rest of 
the world. Some of our assets come off of carriers. Some of them come 
out of Incirlik, Turkey. Some from Kuwait and some of them come from 
other places.
  This idea that before a special forces team can move across a line 
you must have a 15-day notify and wait period is totally unworkable.
  I want to give to you what Admiral Fallon, head of the Central 
Command, said when we asked him what he thought about the notify and 
hold provision. He said, ``I would ask for consideration that we not 
limit the flexibility of our commanders in allowing them to use forces 
that might be necessary to meet a situation or a mission which they 
might be asked to undertake. And so I would opt to allow our commanders 
to have the flexibility of making that decision rather than have some 
dictated requirement in advance.''
  I would say to my good friend, Mr. Murtha, who has several times 
stated that the administration should listen to its generals: Every 
team that goes into that warfighting theater goes in because one of the 
battlefield commanders has requested their presence.
  I can remember talking to my son when he was in the battle of 
Fallujah as an artillery officer and he was inside the city as a 
forward observer. And I asked him what the most important platforms we 
had out there were. He said the A6 C-130 gunship. I said, Where are 
they? He said, They come and they go.
  Ladies and gentleman, we move firefighting teams, all types of 
special operations crews and teams, EOD teams, A6 C-130 gunships across 
those borders constantly, and to have a requirement where you are going 
to have to give a 15-day notification and wait before you can move that 
unit in is devastating to our warfighting capability.
  I would ask for a ``no'' on this measure.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, as one who opposed the invasion of Iraq and as 
one who has led efforts to end the occupation of Iraq, I rise today to 
support the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations 
Act of 2007.
  First, I would like to thank Speaker Pelosi, Chairmen Obey and Murtha 
for really crafting this historic legislation that takes the first step 
to end the occupation of Iraq. This bill's main purpose, main purpose, 
is to begin to fund the end of this occupation.
  This is also the very first time that this Congress will explicitly 
tie funding to bringing our troops home. It mandates a start date for 
the President to begin redeployment of our brave troops within 30 days 
of his signature. It also once again puts Congress on record 
prohibiting the establishment of permanent military bases and United 
States economic control of Iraqi oil and also of torture.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not perfect. I strongly feel that 
there should be additional clarity on the numbers and nature of U.S. 
forces that remain for protection of diplomats and training of Iraqi 
forces. And given the President's determination to protect his legacy 
by allowing the occupation to continue indefinitely, we really must be 
wary of providing him opportunities to prolong or extend this war.
  So we made sure in this legislation that this bill explicitly states 
that ``the primary purpose of this $5 billion should be to transition 
the mission, redeploy troops in Iraq, and not to extend or prolong the 
war.''
  But I am also disappointed that the end date in this legislation is a 
goal no later than December 2008. But hopefully, the Senate will pass 
this and send it to the President.
  This legislation does conform to what Congresswomen Waters, Woolsey 
and myself have been working on all year. Earlier this year, we 
authored the Lee amendment that stipulates funding for Iraq should be 
used to fully fund, fully fund, the safe and orderly redeployment of 
our troops from Iraq. We did this way back in March. Now, 92 Members of 
Congress wrote to the President to put him on notice to this effect. So 
I am glad this remains the main purpose of this legislation.
  This legislation represents for many of us a very important step 
forward to end the combat operations in Iraq. Otherwise, believe you 
me, I would never vote for it.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not give the President a blank 
check for his occupation. It provides a down payment on redeploying our 
troops from Iraq and ending the occupation. It clearly says these funds 
are to be used to begin to end the death, the violence, and the 
destruction that the Bush administration has brought on Iraq, which he 
has brought on our brave young men and women, and our country and the 
world.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to 
the very distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, the former vice 
chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in strong opposition to this legislation, 
the process that brought it here tonight, but not to the money that is 
badly needed for our troops in the field.
  For each of the last 3 years, the Defense appropriations bill, ably 
led by Chairman Young and Chairman Murtha, has included a 
straightforward bridge fund to cover the cost of ongoing operations in 
Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Indeed, the continuing resolution we passed last month gave our 
military access to the bridge funding until November 16. This funding 
allowed our warfighters, all volunteers, the ability to fuel their 
Stryker vehicles and Humvees, restock their ammunition, resupply their 
mess halls, power the systems that allow them to keep in touch with 
their families at home, and even to ship their new MRAP vehicles to the 
battle zone so they may be better protected from IEDs. And yes, protect 
their fellow soldiers and innocent Iraqis.
  But bowing to antiwar sentiment, the majority leadership pointedly 
chose to keep this important bridge funding out of the defense bill 
that we approved last week.
  So while our brave warfighters are hard at work in Iraq in a hellish 
environment, they find they have to watch their own backs from those in 
Washington who want to choke off funding for their missions, both 
military and humanitarian.
  I submit that this deliberate attempt to starve our operations in 
Iraq threatens the very safety of those troops and the lives of 
hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. No, Mr. Speaker, we should be 
sending to the President a clean bridge fund that does not tie the 
hands of commanders in the field and allows them to build on their 
undeniable successes in recent months in Iraq. Cutting money does tie 
their hands, limits those commanders' options, as does the setting of 
date certain.

[[Page H13933]]

  My colleagues, the ill-advised process this House started last week 
is not without its costs. While Congress deliberately procrastinates, 
and some say throws roadblocks in front of our brave warriors battling 
violent international terrorists every day, military operations in Iraq 
and Afghanistan will run out of money, causing the Department of 
Defense to borrow from other important programs to support their 
operations.
  I am told this process could completely drain the Army's operations 
and maintenance accounts by the end of next January.
  In fact, it is my understanding that the Deputy Secretary of Defense 
has warned that the military would have to start preparing in December, 
next month, to close domestic military facilities, lay off civilian 
workers, and delay contracts if the bridge funding is not provided. 
This could have very damaging consequences for those communities 
privileged to host a military installation.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also troubled that this bill requires the 
withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and slaps restrictions on the 
mission of U.S. troops, again, both military and humanitarian.
  This harkens back to what was recently described by the junior 
Senator from Connecticut as the ``narrative of defeat and retreat.'' As 
Senator Lieberman said yesterday, and I quote, ``Rather than supporting 
General Petraeus and our troops in the field, antiwar advocates in 
Congress are instead struggling to deny or disparage their 
achievements, and are now acting, once again, to hold hostage the 
funding our troops desperately need and to order retreat by a date 
certain, regardless of what is happening on the ground.''
  I would remind my colleagues that even the Iraq Study Group warned us 
against setting arbitrary deadlines. We should let the troops and their 
commanders do their work.
  I have always maintained that our brave troops' service in Iraq 
should be as short and as safe as possible. This legislation does 
nothing to advance either of these goals. I urge rejection of this 
bill.


                             General Leave

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent all Members may have 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include tabular and extraneous material on H.R. 4156.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha).
  Mr. MURTHA. I would say to my good friend from New Jersey, he voted 
for the $459 billion bill where we had a CR that fully funded the 
MRAPs, fully funded, $16 billion for the year. We are not holding up 
the MRAPs. And we provided the transportation.

                              {time}  2000

  We were very careful with this bill. The gentleman knows how careful 
I am in taking care of the troops. The gentleman knows how careful he 
is in taking care of the troops. None of us are trying to put 
roadblocks in the way. What we are trying to do is hold the 
administration accountable for what they have done. We want stability 
in the whole Middle East, not just in Iraq. So we have got to focus 
also on the future of the country. Russia is starting to come up, China 
is starting to come up. And in our bill, which the gentleman from New 
Jersey was a part of, we started to look ahead. Iraq is occupying us as 
well as we occupying Iraq.
  So I have to say to the gentleman, I just want to make sure we keep 
the facts straight. We have fully funded the MRAPS, even though it's 
costing $150,000 per MRAP to get them overseas because of the lateness 
of the request.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Iraq supplemental bridge 
fund. While no one is declaring victory in Iraq, the tide is turning. 
But nothing changes here on Capitol Hill. And here we go again, by some 
estimates, the 41st effort by the majority to come to this floor and 
force a precipitous and reckless withdrawal of forces from Iraq, 
another Democrat plan for redeployment from Iraq tying $50 billion in 
necessary combat funds for our troops to a Democrat plan for 
withdrawal.
  With unambiguous evidence of progress on the ground filling the 
newspapers of America, the Democrats in Congress seem to have decided 
to add denial to their plan of retreat and defeat in Iraq. And the 
newspapers speak for themselves.
  The Washington Post last week wrote, ``The number of attacks against 
U.S. soldiers has fallen to levels not seen since before the February 
2006 bombing of a Shia shrine in Samarra that touched off waves of 
sectarian killing.'' The death toll of American troops in October fell 
to 39, the lowest since March 2006.
  And on Thursday last, The New York Times noted, `` `American forces 
have routed al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from 
every neighborhood in Iraq,' a top general said today, `allowing 
American troops involved in the surge to depart as planned.' ''
  The Washington Times would say, ``Responding to the good news, 
Speaker Pelosi has unveiled her newest legislative strategy to damage 
the war efforts. House Democrats this week,'' they wrote, ``will try to 
enact a bill calling for immediately beginning to withdraw U.S. troops 
from Iraq. The surrender language will be attached to a 4-month, $50 
billion funding.''
  ``The contrast could hardly be more striking,'' they said. ``American 
soldiers performing heroically and successfully, risking their lives on 
the battlefield in Iraq, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat leadership by 
contrast look for ways to advertise American weakness to the enemy.''
  And I say from my heart, with great respect to the good and patriotic 
Americans with whom I differ on this point, I urge my colleagues to 
reject this Democrat plan for withdrawal. But I also urge my countrymen 
to give our soldiers a chance. I know things have not always gone as we 
had all hoped in Iraq.
  In my role as the ranking member of the Middle East Subcommittee and 
before, I have traveled to this war-torn country five times over the 
last 4\1/2\ years. I have seen success and I have seen less than 
success. I have seen advance and I have seen failure. But today, we are 
seeing hope spring. Freedom and stability are beginning to take hold in 
Iraq. And I say from my heart, we cannot lose faith in ourselves. We 
cannot lose faith in freedom. We must reject this latest plan for 
retreat and defeat.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This is almost the 250th time I have been down on this House floor to 
talk about Iraq in the last 2 years. I can't remember, so I say almost 
how many times it's been.
  During that time, the American people have been demanding two things, 
that the Congress step up to our responsibility and bring our troops 
home, and that we take bold steps to face up to the President by using 
our power, the power of the purse, to hold him accountable for what is 
going on in Iraq.
  Today, Speaker Pelosi is leading the House of Representatives in a 
bold direction. It is the first time so far that we have tied funding 
to redeployment. Ninety-two Members of the House have written a letter 
to the President demanding that no more funding for Iraq go forward 
without it, meaning bringing our troops home and redeployment.
  This vote also leads to next year's appropriations where we can use 
the power of the purse and fully fund bringing our troops home in a 
very responsible and very timely and actually safe way.
  This bill is not perfect. It is the boldest step yet, however, and we 
must support it. I would not support it if we were not tying the 
funding to responsible redeployment. I would not support it unless 
there was a start date for the President to begin the redeployment of 
our brave men and women in uniform. This bill is the beginning, but it 
is a bold beginning. I think we should consider everything that is in 
it, and then build on that for the future and get our troops home as 
soon as possible.

[[Page H13934]]

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it seems like not that long ago, but it was 
a year or so ago, we heard repeatedly: We're losing in Iraq. We're 
losing in Iraq. We've got to have a policy change. We're losing in 
Iraq. We've got to have a policy change. And we got a policy change.
  It's kind of refreshing to hear so many say we're winning, and a 
little bit surprising to hear we're winning, so we need a policy 
change. We're winning, so we need a policy change? We know if we pull 
out too quickly, we don't leave a stable area.
  Hearing comments earlier about somebody won't listen to anyone else; 
they get no input. I thought they were talking about the Democratic 
majority. Just today on FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act, I'm told at 1:30 that we've got to have amendments in by 4 o'clock 
on a bill that we weren't even allowed to see. You want input? Let's 
start it right here on the floor.
  I heard comments about Vietnam mistakes. The biggest mistake that 
history teaches us about Vietnam was that it was micromanaged from 
Washington. If you want documentation, go to Sam Johnson's book. After 
the carpet bombing finally took place and we went after and took it to 
them, the bombing stopped, we gave away the farm at Paris, and as the 
prisoners left the Hanoi Hilton, one of the leaders said, ``You know, 
you Americans are so foolish. If you'd have kept it up another week, we 
would have had to unconditionally surrender.'' But we were micromanaged 
from Washington.
  We show the greatest reverence for those who have given their last 
full measure of devotion not by pulling out before we leave a stable 
area, but by seeing that we finish the job and leave a stable area so 
they will not have died in vain.
  I leave with a comment of Travis Buford's mother as we stood there by 
his casket in Nacogdoches, Texas at the funeral home earlier this year. 
I said to his mother as we stood near his coffin, ``Is there anything I 
can do?'' She gritted her teeth and she said, ``Go back and tell the 
Congress to shut up and let the military finish their job.''
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, after that very thoughtful statement, I would 
like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Kagen).
  Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of H.R. 4156 
because people in Wisconsin want their country back.
  This bill supports our troops and demands the President begin to move 
our forces away, away from Iraq and back after our real enemies, Osama 
bin Laden and his followers.
  Iraq will forever be President Bush's war, an unnecessary war based 
on lies and deceptions. His poor judgment has written perhaps the 
saddest chapter in our Nation's history, wearing down our military and 
the endless, centuries-old Iraqi civil war.
  The vote today will end not the hatred between the Shiites and 
Sunnis, but it will redirect our efforts away from Iraq as soon as 
humanly possible. A ``yes'' vote supports our troops by protecting them 
from a President who does not understand reality.
  People in Wisconsin have asked me to deliver their message here, here 
on the House floor: I want my country back. I want my country back. 
Tonight, we will begin to move our country in a new direction, away 
from Iraq and back after Osama bin Laden and his followers.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  (Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in strong opposition to H.R. 
4156, the so-called Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment 
Appropriations of 2008, because in fact, Mr. Speaker, the bill should 
be called the Disorderly and Irresponsible Iraq Redeployment 
Appropriations Act.
  Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. What we are debating tonight, disguised 
as a genuine bridge fund to sustain operations in the global war on 
terror, is nothing more than another defeatist measure intended to 
placate the Democrats' liberal base as we approach this Thanksgiving 
recess.
  The Democratic leadership apparently has decided it's more to stand 
with the Out of Iraq Caucus, MoveOn.org and Code Pink than with our 
brave men and women in uniform. Rather than funding our soldiers' needs 
and delivering a decisive blow to the terrorist campaign in Iraq, the 
Democrats are again conditioning the funding on a date certain for 
withdrawal.
  At a time of sustained progress by our forces, Mr. Speaker, it seems 
that what is great news for America and for our troops is consequently 
bad political news for a Democratic majority who has literally bet the 
farm on a defeatist agenda.
  Just last weekend, Prime Minister Maliki stated that violence between 
Sunnis and Shias has nearly disappeared from Iraq, disappeared from 
Baghdad, with terrorist bombings down 77 percent.
  The Washington Post reported that attacks against United States 
soldiers have fallen to levels not seen since the February 2006 bombing 
of the Shia shrine in Samarra. And an Investor's Business Daily article 
detailed that military analysts, including many who are opposed to the 
war, have concluded that the United States and its allies are on the 
verge of winning in Iraq. And, thankfully, United States casualties in 
Iraq are at their lowest level since March of 2006, Mr. Speaker. Now is 
not the time to risk impeding the progress we are making. Now is the 
time to continue building on the turnaround we have made, and to state 
unequivocally that we are on the verge of victory in Iraq and that we 
will finish the job.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot give in to the terrorists' extremist views and 
sinister plans for the Middle East and the world. And we certainly 
should not send a message to the terrorists that such a capitulation 
will begin in 30 days and will wrap up by December of 2008.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on tying funds for 
our troops to a date certain withdrawal from Iraq. I urge all my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this dangerous bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2156, the so-
called ``Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations of 
2008.'' Because, in fact, this bill is a ``disorderly and irresponsible 
Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act.''
  Let me be very clear, Mr. Speaker. What we are debating today--
disguised as a genuine bridge fund to sustain operations in the Global 
War on Terror--is nothing more than another defeatist measure intended 
to placate the Democrat's liberal base as we approach the Thanksgiving 
recess.
  The Democratic leadership has decided it is more important to stand 
with the ``Out of Iraq Caucus,'' MoveOn.org and Code Pink than with our 
brave men and women in uniform. Rather than funding our soldiers' needs 
and delivering a decisive blow to the terrorist campaign in Iraq, the 
Democrats are again conditioning the funding on a date-certain 
withdrawal.
  At a time of sustained progress by our forces, Mr. Speaker, it seems 
that what is great news for America and for our troops is consequently 
bad political news for the Democrat majority and their defeatist 
agenda.
  Mr. Speaker, a July New York Times editorial authored by Michael 
O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack stated ``We are finally getting somewhere 
in Iraq, at least in military terms. . . . The soldiers and marines 
told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in General 
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.''
  In September, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker spoke 
optimistically about the future of Iraq citing concrete progress. 
Acknowledging we still had a long way to go, they recognized we had 
achieved tactical momentum and were building momentum toward local 
reconciliation. Indeed, local Iraqis were turning against extremists.
  Last weekend Prime Minister al-Maliki stated that violence between 
Sunnis and Shi'ites has nearly disappeared from Baghdad, with terrorist 
bombings down 77 percent. The Washington Post reported that attacks 
against U.S. soldiers have fallen to levels not seen since before the 
February 2006 bombing of a Shi'ite shrine in Samarra. An Investor's 
Business Daily article detailed that military analysts--including many 
who are opposed to the war--have concluded that the U.S. and its allies 
are on the verge of winning in Iraq.

[[Page H13935]]

  And thankfully, U.S. casualties in Iraq are at their lowest level 
since March 2006. Now is not the time to risk impeding the progress we 
are making. Now is the time to continue building on the turn-around we 
have made and to state unequivocally that we are on the verge of 
victory in Iraq, and that we will finish the job.
  Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues of the consequences of 
giving up on Iraq: the collapse of a democratic Iraqi government, 
likely leading to mass killings and genocide in the nation; an 
emboldened al-Qaeda; regional instability; Iran and Syria setting the 
course of Iraq's future; and Israel being pushed into the Mediterranean 
sea.
  The stakes are too high for political posturing. Ayman al-Zawahiri 
has said ``the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals. The 
first stage: expel the Americans from Iraq.''
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot give in to their extremist views and sinister 
plans for the Middle East and the world. And we certainly should not 
send a message to the terrorists that such a capitulation will begin in 
30 days and will wrap up by December of 2008.
  Mr. Speaker, never have I been so glad that we've got General 
Petraeus leading our troops in Iraq and not the Democratic leadership 
of this house. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on tying funds for 
our troops to a date-certain withdrawal from Iraq. I urge all of my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New 
Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I have had to listen as my colleagues on the 
opposite side of the aisle have made comments like, give our soldiers a 
chance.
  This is not about our soldiers. This is about a failed policy. I 
think we need to go over some of the facts again, the facts that 70 
percent of Americans remember but my colleagues on the opposite side of 
the aisle seem to have forgotten.
  Number one. There were no Iraqis on the plane that day.
  Number two. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

                              {time}  2015

  They weren't there. They were never found.
  Number three. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq before the war, so it 
doesn't matter if we reduce the number. There were none before the war.
  Number four. This could have been a war against terrorists, should 
have been a war against terrorists, not a war against the Iraqis.
  Now we have almost 4,000 dead Americans. We don't even know how many 
dead Iraqis. It's a terrible tragedy in our Nation. And we're making 
decisions to spend billions of dollars in Iraq while we tell our 
people, sorry, we don't have money for education. Sorry, we don't have 
money for health care. Sorry, we don't have money to build bridges.
  Bring these troops home. And this is what we are doing responsibly. 
We're saying ``no'' to the President and ``yes'' to the American 
people.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, before we vote on this measure, the 
American people need to know that U.S. troops in Iraq have achieved 
significant security gains. Violence against U.S. troops and Iraqi 
civilians has fallen dramatically, and forces of chaos have had their 
safe havens and supply lines systematically eliminated. In fact, it was 
recently announced that the curfew in Baghdad may soon be lifted.
  Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that the goal is to end the war, but 
this must be done in a solicitous and strategic manner. While there is 
clearly military momentum in Iraq, the situation remains fragile and 
complex, and our work continues to be very dangerous and difficult. 
Establishing an arbitrary deadline for withdrawal of our troops would 
potentially undermine the stabilization of the country, especially in 
light of recent security gains.
  However, I would submit that one area of potential agreement in this 
body involves a renewed spirit of diplomacy for the region. It is time 
for a diplomatic surge. The gains made possible by the steadfast 
competence of our troops gives rise to a new diplomatic potential in 
the effort to curtail regional destabilizing influences, promote 
political and economic progress, as well as provide for the safe and 
stable transition of refugees throughout the area.
  The recent meeting in Istanbul, Turkey of countries neighboring Iraq, 
the upcoming meeting in Annapolis to further the Middle East peace 
process, and the United Nation's own recent reengagement in Baghdad are 
all positive diplomatic trends that should be aggressively supported 
and augmented by our efforts in this House to facilitate the rapid 
stabilization of Iraq, potentially empowering an even more rapid 
drawdown of our troops and a sustainable peace for the country.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hare).
  Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4156.
  For the last 4 years, President Bush has demanded more and more money 
from this Congress for the war in Iraq, draining funding from domestic 
priorities in the process. And this year's just no different.
  True to form, in October the President casually requested an 
additional $200 billion to continue his failed policy.
  Mr. Speaker, every time I travel back to my district, constituents 
plead with me to stand up to this President and end the war. 
Fortunately for them, the days of the rubber-stamp Congress are over. 
This bill before us holds the President accountable.
  The bill provides only $50 billion of the President's $200 billion 
request, which serves to meet the immediate needs of our troops 
currently deployed, while the balance is dependent upon progress in 
Iraq.
  The funding is also conditioned on the redeployment of troops from 
Iraq to begin within 30 days of enactment, with a target for completion 
by December of 2008.
  Passage of this bill is the first step towards forcing a change of 
course in Iraq, shifting the mission from the combat forces to a 
comprehensive strategy.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4156.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you advise us as to the time 
available on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 32\1/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 34 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to reserve my time at 
this point.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, leadership is about getting results. I want to 
thank our leadership for bringing a bill to the floor for the first 
time that gets results.
  I've never voted for funds for this war, and I've been waiting a long 
time to vote for a bill that would bring our troops home.
  On March 20, 2003, the United States invaded Iraq. It was a mistake 
then, and every day we've failed to correct this mistake costs us in 
cash, in credibility, and in lives. Every day we are not working to get 
out of Iraq, we make our Nation weaker and less safe. Every day that we 
do not get our troops out of Iraq is another day of mistakes.
  The road out of Iraq starts with the first step. This bill is the 
first beginning. To start a withdrawal, this bill jump-starts that 
withdrawal. It starts in 30 days.
  Passing this bill tonight makes clear that the U.S. House of 
Representatives has acted to bring our troops home, to end this war, 
and to put our country back on the right track. This leadership 
deserves your support.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, today I'm proud to join with a unified 
Democratic Caucus to cast my vote in support of H.R. 4156, the Orderly 
and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act. This legislation 
marks the first time redeployment language has been attached to 
funding, and includes the strongest worded language to date, by stating 
Congress's explicit commitment to end the war in Iraq as safely and 
quickly as possible and bring our troops home.
  The letter my colleagues Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and I sent to 
President Bush stating that we would only support funding for the 
redeployment of our troops has grown from 70 to 92

[[Page H13936]]

signatories. As the letter stated, and as the title of this legislation 
echoes, we choose to support our military and look out for the best 
interests of this country by funding an orderly and responsible 
redeployment from Iraq.
  While this bill is far from perfect, there's a lot in this bill to be 
proud of. This bill requires the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq 
within 30 days. It prohibits the deployment of U.S. troops not deemed 
fully trained, and it effectively bans the awful practice of 
waterboarding by any affiliate of a U.S. agency. I applaud the shared 
commitment of the Democratic Members in both the House and Senate to 
end the war in Iraq.
  I share the public's dismay at the slow pace of Congress's action to 
end President Bush's failed war. It is, of course, the administration, 
not Congress, who ultimately deserves the blame for this terrible war. 
Before every major debate on the Iraq war, like clockwork, President 
Bush fires up the propaganda machine to twist reality and obscure the 
facts on the ground.
  Those who stand in the way of real change in Iraq must be held 
accountable. They must not be allowed to quietly throw wrenches in the 
gears of change slowly rotating within this country.
  A large and growing majority of Americans now believe it was a 
mistake to invade Iraq and that Congress should force a change in the 
President's irresponsible policies.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, before us tonight is yet another Democrat 
plan, a plan for failure. I guess it's really not quite so much a plan 
as just a schedule for failure.
  It seems ironic to me that when there is actually success, the 
Democrats are having a hard time seeing the success. And that's, 
perhaps, because the success that is going on in Iraq is not a big 
government, Washington, D.C. beltway kind of success. It's not the 
Parliament in Baghdad where the success is going on. No, it's a 
uniquely American and a special success. It's the success that bubbles 
from the hearts of the very people that are involved, from the local 
communities, from the streets, and particularly from the sheiks. It's 
the kind of thing that happened in America where local communities 
stood up against the biggest military power in the world and defended 
our declaration in the same way these sheiks now are paying a 
tremendous price. One, Sheik Meshin al-Jamari, he was encouraged to 
come back from his safe haven in Jordan. He came back to take up 
responsibility for his tribal area just to the east of Fallujah. And 
what was the cost when he turned on al Qaeda? First, his daughter was 
killed, then his brother shot, and then his family rounded up inside a 
house in Karma, and the house imploded upon their heads. And yet, that 
sheik is standing firm because he does have a vision for the 
possibility that there will one day be an Iraq where people can be 
free.
  Our General Allen was asked by some of the Iraqis in his tribe, they 
said, When the British left, they left us a big skyscraper. When 
America leaves Iraq, will you leave a skyscraper? And General Allen 
said, No. We'll leave the ideas that leave you a free people. And one 
day there will be Iraqis who come to us and they will say, Hey, GI Joe, 
we believe it too. We believe that there is a God that gives 
inalienable rights to all people, the right to life and liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness, and we will also stand with you because you have 
that hope.
  It is my hope that the Americans and the Democrats will rediscover 
why we have always gone to war in America, because we do believe in our 
battle cry from years ago that there is a God that gives basic rights 
to all people and that we must have the courage to stand behind those 
things. I hope that the Congress will vote to reject a plan of defeat.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The war in Iraq is a disaster and it's time to bring 
our brave troops, the men and women who volunteered to serve their 
country for the right reasons but were sent to Iraq for the wrong 
reasons. It is time now for them to come home.
  For that reason, I support this bill which, for the first time, ties 
funding to the responsible redeployment of our troops out of Iraq, 
beginning within 30 days of passage and to end in December 2008.
  I'm supporting this bill for another important reason. It establishes 
once and for all that the United States of America does not torture 
people. This bill is not confused about waterboarding. Waterboarding is 
clearly made illegal, as well as electric shocks and mock executions 
and every other gruesome interrogation method that is currently 
prohibited in the Army Field Manual.
  The American people elected the Democratic majority in this House 
last November because they're done with the war. They're sick and tired 
of losing American lives in Iraq. And they're sick and tired of losing 
vital programs at home to continue to finance this tragic war.
  This is a vote of conscience. I urge every one of my colleagues to 
vote in favor of this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard significant discussion tonight about al 
Qaeda. And people seem to think that Iraq, the Iraq war was necessary 
in order to tackle al Qaeda. Well, that's backwards.
  I can recall being out at CIA headquarters after 9/11. I can recall 
sitting out at CIA headquarters watching the Predator aircraft as they 
flew over Afghanistan, transmitting pictures back here in the search 
for bin Laden and al Qaeda. And I remember what those CIA people out 
there said, and the frustration they expressed because half of their 
resources were being diverted from the search for bin Laden and al 
Qaeda to prepare for the attack on Iraq.
  It isn't that the war in Iraq was necessary to get at al Qaeda. The 
war in Iraq diverted us from concentrating on al Qaeda and bin Laden.

                              {time}  2030

  And we are still suffering the consequences today.
  So let's keep the facts straight. Let's keep history straight. And 
let's keep our heads straight. The fact is that Iraq got in the way of 
our effort to get at al Qaeda and we have been suffering from that fact 
ever since.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate his 
leadership in bringing this important legislation, the Orderly and 
Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, America honored our veterans, something that 
we do every day in our hearts but which we openly celebrated on that 
day. I am very proud that this year we could celebrate also the biggest 
increase in veterans benefits in the 77-year history of the Veterans 
Administration thanks to the New Direction Congress.
  Yesterday, the President of the United States signed the Defense 
appropriations bill with the biggest increase in defense spending, made 
necessary because we must rebuild the capacity of our troops, which 
capacity has been weakened by the war in Iraq. And today, we bring 
before the Congress new direction legislation regarding the orderly and 
responsible redeployment of our troops out of Iraq.
  This legislation is necessary because whatever you may have thought 
about the war or the conduct of the war or the origin of the war, 
whatever you may think about the performance of the Iraqi Government 
there, and I have my views on that subject, the fact is we can no 
longer militarily sustain the deployment in Iraq. Staying there in the 
manner that we are there is no longer an option.
  Our troops have performed their duties magnificently, excellently, 
patriotically, and courageously. We owe them the deepest gratitude for 
their courage, their patriotism, and the sacrifices that they and their 
families are willing to make. But even as they tried

[[Page H13937]]

to create and had their military successes, God bless them for that, 
the secure framework was established to enable the Iraqi Government to 
make the political change necessary to end the civil war. Well, the 
sacrifice of our troops was simply not met by the actions of the Iraqi 
Government.
  How much longer should we expect our young people to risk their 
lives, their limbs, their families, for an Iraqi Government that is not 
willing to step up to the plate?
  This legislation today offers something fundamentally different from 
what President Bush is proposing, a 10-year war, a war without end, 
costing trillions of dollars at the expense of our military readiness. 
In fact, it offers something different than this House has done before. 
Indeed, it provides the tools to our troops so that they can get their 
jobs done with the greatest respect for that job. But it also presents 
a strategy that will bring them home responsibly, honorably, safely, 
and soon.
  The legislation is different because it ties the funding to a 
strategy for redeployment. It is different because the funding provided 
is for the short term so that we can measure the administration's plan, 
if there is such a plan, to redeploy the troops on the schedule 
established in this bill.
  We do have a military crisis not seen since Vietnam. Equipment is 
wearing out and needs to be replaced. Our troops, wherever they are, 
are only being trained for counterinsurgency in Iraq instead of a wider 
training for a full range of missions that they may be called on to 
perform. The deployment schedule of the Bush administration is wearing 
down our forces, plain and simple.
  The distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee has made 
this readiness issue the cornerstone of his opposition to this war in 
Iraq. The distinguished chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on 
Defense has told us over and over again that this deployment in Iraq 
cannot be sustained without weakening our national security, without 
diminishing the capacity of our armed services to meet challenges to 
our national security wherever they may occur. As such, this readiness 
crisis poses a grave threat to America's national security.
  Yet under the President's plan, and this was expressed by 
representatives of the administration on more than one occasion, the 
President's plan would bring 30,000 troops, the number of troops that 
were sent in for the surge, that 30,000 troops would be redeployed back 
to the U.S. by July of 2008. So let's understand this. This means that 
by July of 2008, we will have the same number of troops in Iraq as we 
had in November of 2006 when the American people called for a new 
direction in Iraq. Again, we cannot afford the President's commitment 
in Iraq. It traps us. It traps us, and we cannot, while we are in that 
trap, address our readiness crisis.
  This redeployment, in addition to undermining our military capacity 
to protect the American people, is also unsustainable financially. 
According to a recent report by the Joint Economic Committee, this war 
could end up costing American taxpayers $3 trillion. We will pay any 
price, as President Kennedy said, to protect the American people, but 
without us going into the shortcomings of this war and the President's 
execution of it, $3 trillion, think of the opportunity cost of that 
money in our readiness, in the strength of our country, in our 
reputation in the world.
  The legislation before us is important. Again, the title of it is the 
Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act. It would 
begin redeployment within 30 days of enactment and have a goal of 
completing the redeployment by December 15, 2008. The legislation 
requires a transition in the mission of U.S. forces from being in 
combat to diplomatic and force protection, to targeted counterterrorism 
and limited support for the Iraqi security forces. It would prohibit 
the deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq who are not fully trained and 
fully equipped. Thank you, Mr. Murtha, for your leadership on that 
subject and on this one as well and so many others. It requires that 
all U.S. Government agencies and personnel abide by the Army Field 
Manual's prohibition against torture.
  The legislation that Mr. Obey has brought to the floor, and I salute 
your leadership over and over again on this subject and so many others, 
Mr. Chairman, the House must choose between the President's plan for a 
10-year war without end, no end in sight, the longer we're there, the 
harder it is to come out, the longer we're there, the more severely it 
hurts our military readiness; or a Democratic plan for responsible, 
honorable, safe redeployment out of Iraq and soon.
  Our troops have already paid too high a price for this war: 3,850 
U.S. troops killed, 28,000 injured, thousands of them permanently. That 
is, of course, the biggest price to pay. But the price that we are 
paying in our reputation in the world for us not to be able to take our 
rightful place as a leader in the world to make the world safer, to 
make the region, the Middle East, more stable, and so many other 
challenges that the world faces, whether it's the eradication of 
disease, the alleviation of poverty, the curbing of global warming, 
keeping peace, ending the fury of despair that contributes to the 
violence in the world. The countries of the world are crying out for 
American leadership, and at the same time they disrespect us for what 
is happening in Iraq.
  We must act now to provide a new direction because it is clear that 
the President has turned a blind eye to all of this. And in addition to 
what I said earlier, our troops paying the biggest price, our 
reputation in the world, the several-trillion-dollar price tag to the 
taxpayer, and the cost to our readiness, despite the fact that the 
President has turned a blind eye to the facts of Iraq and a tin ear to 
the wishes of the American people to take a new direction in Iraq and 
bring our troops home, we must act today. I hope that our colleagues 
will all support this legislation because in doing so and if it is 
enacted into law and if this policy is pursued, we can resume our 
rightful place in the world. We can refocus our attention, as Mr. Obey 
said earlier, on the real war on terrorism, and we can make the 
American people safer by rebuilding and restoring the readiness and the 
capacity of our military to protect the American people wherever our 
interests are threatened.
  All of us stand here and take an oath of office by pledging to 
protect and defend the Constitution. In that preamble, to provide for 
the common defense is one of our first responsibilities. Unless we do 
that, protect the American people, nothing else is possible.
  So let us support this legislation which helps us honor our oath of 
office to defend the American people and to respect the sacrifice, the 
courage, the patriotism of our troops to make us the home of the brave 
and the land of the free.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important legislation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the distinguished chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee.
  Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of this resolution.
  It's very important that we take a good look at where we are in the 
country of Iraq. It's important that we take a good look at the status 
of the United States military forces, in particular our Army, which is 
being stretched and strained nearly beyond recognition.
  You can't help but have a great deal of pride in the young men and 
young women in doing the duty upon which they have been called. But it 
is important for us to turn the reins, give the baton over to the Iraqi 
forces, to the Iraqi Government. We cannot hold their hand there 
forever. It is important that we redeploy our forces in a responsible 
and reasonable manner so that their readiness is assured in case of 
some future challenge.

                          ____________________