[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18783-18795]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1030
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2956, RESPONSIBLE REDEPLOYMENT FROM 
                                IRAQ ACT

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 533 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 533

       Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     2956) to require the Secretary of Defense to commence the 
     reduction of the number of United States Armed Forces in Iraq 
     to a limited presence by April 1, 2008, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the bill and against 
     its consideration are waived except those arising

[[Page 18784]]

     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) four hours of debate, with three hours 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Armed Services and one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 2956 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 533 provides for consideration of H.R. 2956, the 
Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act, under a closed rule. The rule 
provides 4 hours of debate, with 3 hours equally divided and controlled 
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed 
Services and 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs. The rule waives all points of order against the bill 
and its consideration except those arising under clause 9 or 10 under 
rule XX. The rule provides for one motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, let's be very clear about what we will be told today by 
the President. We will be told that adequate progress has been made in 
some areas of Iraq but more work needs to be done in others. What this 
really means, of course, is that once again security and political 
benchmarks have not been met, that vast areas in Baghdad that were 
supposed to be under control by now are not, that a drop in violence in 
some areas has been met with increases in violence elsewhere, that 
political compromises are not being made with sufficient speed by the 
Iraqi leadership, nor is there any available evidence that the 
situation is going to change, that the escalation will suddenly become 
more effective next week or next month. Instead, all signs indicate 
that in September when General Petraeus reports to Congress, he will 
deliver the exact same message that we are hearing today: to be 
patient.
  But patience means nothing when deadlines are constantly moved. In 
January a leading Member of the minority said that we would be able to 
tell in a few months if the escalation was working. Now we hear it is 
still too early to tell. It has been 7 months. Which prediction are we 
supposed to believe?
  As time has advanced, an absence in progress has not been met by an 
absence in tragedy. At the present rates, between now and September, 
another 200 Americans will be killed, 200 more families changed 
forever. And hundreds, if not thousands, more innocent Iraqis will have 
died as well.
  We will hear today that to change our course in Iraq will signal 
defeat. But this willfully ignores the entire history of the Iraq War. 
After more than 4 years of relentless conflict, including recent months 
of historically high troop numbers, experts tell us that in Iraq al 
Qaeda is stronger than ever. A military official told ABC News 
yesterday al Qaeda's ``operational capability appears to be 
undiminished.''
  The conclusion is clear: The American military is not being given a 
chance to bring peace to Iraq or to fight our enemies, not because our 
troops are not good enough but because the current mission is 
inherently flawed.
  It is not weakness to admit a strategy is not working and to change 
it. It is the very opposite: a sign of strength. Our leaders corrected 
failing courses when they arose during the Civil War and during World 
War II. Why should this war be different?
  What Democrats are calling for today is not a retreat. It is not a 
surrender. It is a statement that Congress will not wait for another 
ambiguous so-called progress report and will not give the 
administration another chance to move the goalposts. Instead, we will 
refuse to needlessly sacrifice our soldiers, weaken our military, 
undermine our national security, and bleed our country in ways that 
even the worst terrorists could ever dream of. And it is a statement to 
the Iraqi people that they will no longer have to live as dual victims: 
victims of violence and victims of a flawed military strategy that is 
at best failing to bring peace to the country and at worst perpetuating 
their suffering.
  The bill will refocus our troops on fighting terrorists. By doing so, 
the disastrous strain being placed on our Armed Forces will be lifted 
without sacrificing security objectives, and their healing can begin.
  Second, it will remove a strategy from the playing field that is 
certainly not working and throw open the door to new approaches which 
may actually succeed. For example, the legislation requires the 
President to report by January on how he is engaging U.S. allies and 
regional powers in the effort to bring stability to Iraq. Far from 
abandoning the Iraqis or lessening American security, we will finally 
make the rehabilitation of Iraq the international priority that it must 
become. The only thing we will be abandoning, in other words, Mr. 
Speaker, is this administration's mistakes.
  And to my friends on both sides of the aisle, yesterday I received an 
advance copy of a report from the Defense Department's Inspector 
General that will be made public today. It detailed the work of some of 
the first companies to make armored vehicles and armored kits for our 
soldiers in Iraq. They were given sole-source, unbid contracts even 
though senior defense officials objected, favoring a competitive 
process instead.
  I hope people heard what I said. Senior officials at DOD wanted 
competitive bidding for these machines, but they were overridden by the 
Under Secretary of Defense.
  The results were sadly predictable. The companies failed to meet 
demand and sent critically important equipment late. Some of the armor 
that our soldiers were sent had cracks that had simply been painted 
over to try to fool them instead of fixing it. In certain instances two 
left doors were sent for the same vehicle. Troops already fighting a 
deadly foe had to use their precious time and energy to improvise and 
come up with ways to turn useless equipment into something that could 
protect them.
  Our soldiers have been asked to endure terrible hardships, as well 
have their families, some of which, I am ashamed to say, have been the 
direct result of the practices of this administration, and they are 
enduring them to this day and at this very hour. For Congress to leave 
them there, to ask them to continue fighting to survive under the 
mounting weight of a flawed mission--that, Mr. Speaker, is the true 
definition of abandonment. And after 4 years, Democrats are tired of 
this Congress abandoning our troops to a fate they have never deserved.
  I would ask everyone in this Chamber how they would justify this 
continued carnage to the families of our soldiers. With all we know 
now, how can we still say to the children of those killed or to the 
young men and women maimed for life, your loss was needed?
  We cannot. What we must say to them is this: You have given enough. 
It is time to come home.
  The American people know what must be done and the majority of this 
Congress knows what must be done. And all that remains is for those of 
us here who are still opposed to this bill to decide that they too have 
had enough and that they will join their countrymen in voting not with 
the President but with the troops, with the

[[Page 18785]]

people of Iraq, and with the people of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, here we go again. It has actually been several weeks now 
since we have had a meaningless vote on the issue of Iraq, and so I 
suppose we are overdue for another one. This Democratic leadership, Mr. 
Speaker, as we all know very well, still bereft of any real ideas, has 
been forced once again to resort to demagoguery, bringing up a bill 
that they know, they know full well, will not be enacted into law. And 
knowing that their proposal cannot withstand any critical scrutiny, 
they have once again shut down the process and brought this to us under 
a completely closed rule, not allowing any of the very thoughtful 
proposed alternatives to be considered whatsoever.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment 
that would have allowed us to have the opportunity to substitute their 
policy with the very thoughtful and responsible recommendations that 
were included in this bipartisan Iraq Study Group package of 
recommendations proposed by Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton, a group of 
Democrats and Republicans, very respected, authorized by this Congress. 
And they refused to allow us to have any opportunity whatsoever to even 
debate, much less vote, on the issue of the Iraq Study Group 
recommendations.
  Now, just yesterday morning in an interview on National Public Radio, 
our former colleague Mr. Hamilton, who, as I said, was the co-Chairman 
of the Iraq Study Group, had a very eloquent and thoughtful interview 
on the need for us to implement the Iraq Study Group recommendations. 
Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership, I guess fearful that 
responsible policy would prevail and that this institution might, in 
fact, pass the measure calling for implementation of the Iraq Study 
Group, prevented us from having the chance to debate or vote on the 
Iraq Study Group recommendations.
  The last time we went through this charade, they at least had the 
luxury of making dire predictions of failure for the new strategy in 
Iraq led by General Petraeus, and the distinguished Chair of the 
Committee on Rules once again basically talked about failure and said 
that we haven't met any benchmarks. Even then, Mr. Speaker, the 
strategy was actually showing early signs of success. But this time, 
this time, the counterinsurgency offensive is well under way and making 
clear and irrefutable progress.
  I will say once again, Mr. Speaker, that we are seeing clear and 
irrefutable progress taking place. As one major newspaper recently 
editorialized, ``Demands for withdrawal are no longer demands to pull 
out of a deteriorating situation with little hope. They are now demands 
to end a new approach to this conflict that shows every sign of 
succeeding.''
  Mr. Speaker, U.S. forces, working side by side with Iraqi Army and 
police forces, have penetrated enemy strongholds in the belt 
surrounding Baghdad and are driving them out. They have cut off al 
Qaeda's supply lines and transport routes. They are destroying car bomb 
factories. Sectarian deaths have plummeted. Al Qaeda operatives are 
finding themselves increasingly isolated, their safe havens destroyed, 
and their ability to move freely between neighborhoods severely 
diminished.
  Mr. Speaker, our efforts have been significantly bolstered by former 
Sunni insurgents who have joined the fight against al Qaeda. I am going 
to say that again. Former Sunni insurgents have now joined our effort 
in the fight against al Qaeda. Nowhere has this process been more 
critical than in the al-Anbar province.

                              {time}  1045

  Last year, a leaked Marine intelligence report conceded this province 
as completely lost. That was the report that came out. Today, Mr. 
Speaker, al-Anbar is our best success story, and a template for U.S. 
Forces working together with both Sunni police and Shia army forces to 
combat al Qaeda.
  General David Petraeus, the man who has received bipartisan praise 
and was confirmed unanimously by a vote of 82-0 in the United States 
Senate as he began his work, he said to the New York Post, ``We are 
beginning to see a revolt of the middle against both extremes.''
  Now, Mr. Speaker, it is our commanders on the ground who have 
repeatedly pointed out that the tipping point didn't come until the 
tribal leaders sought a prolonged offensive by U.S. and Iraqi forces.
  Now, let's think back to what life was like in Iraq under Saddam 
Hussein. After a quarter-century reign of terror by Saddam Hussein, 
Iraqis clearly would not immediately rise up against any force until 
that force has been driven into retreat. We had to demonstrate our 
strength and our commitment before we earned the trust of the tribal 
leaders and their support in the fight against al Qaeda. That is 
exactly what we're doing today in Baghdad and the surrounding areas.
  The New York Times recently reported on the Anbar success and how we 
are currently applying it to the fight to secure Baghdad. According to 
a July 8 report, former insurgents in Sunni neighborhoods of Baghdad 
are now taking up arms against al Qaeda. Now, that is July 8th, a 
report that came out just 4 days ago. Now, it quotes Petraeus as 
saying, ``Local security is helped incalculably by local support and 
local involvement.''
  Now, Mr. Speaker, this success is so critical because it gets to the 
heart, it gets to the very heart of our twin goals in Iraq. First, that 
Iraqis will be able to provide their own security, that we have an 
increased ISF, the Iraqi Security Forces, and that they are trained 
adequately; and second, that this security will provide the environment 
that makes a political solution possible.
  The quicker that Iraqis achieve security and a peaceful, stable 
democracy, the quicker our troops will come home. And as we listen to 
the speeches that will come following mine about the quest for our 
troops to come home, make no bones about it, I share the goal and the 
vision that is put forth by our friends, Mr. McGovern and Ms. 
Slaughter, and others, who will argue to bring our troops home. We all 
want to make sure that that happens.
  Our new strategy, Mr. Speaker, has clearly brought us closer to that 
goal. And if our fight against extremism was not urgent enough, the 
Associated Press report that came out just late yesterday afternoon 
that al Qaeda's global network is again on the rise and has regained 
much of the strength that it had in September of 2001 is an important 
thing for us to recognize.
  Mr. Speaker, as the terror network rebuilds and regroups, it seems 
absolutely preposterous that we would abandon not only a key front in 
the global war on terror, but a place where we have al Qaeda on the 
defensive and where we are diminishing their capabilities, especially 
in light of that report that came out just last night about their 
renewed strength. Yet, the Democratic leadership inexplicably wants to 
pull the rug out from under our military commanders. Well, Mr. Speaker, 
perhaps not so inexplicable if we consider that their planned 
withdrawal would be complete just in time for the 2008 elections.
  But let's pretend that there is no election looming on the horizon 
here. Regardless of this bill's impact on American electoral politics, 
what would be the effects on Iraq? Now, Mr. Speaker, even the New York 
Times editorial board, which apparently doesn't often read its own news 
reports and is calling for an immediate withdrawal, acknowledges the 
inevitable dire consequences of its recommended course of action. In 
the very editorial calling for surrender, it outlines the overwhelming 
refugee and humanitarian crisis that would immediately ensue, how the 
fight would spill out all across the region. And Mr. Speaker, in the 
most callous way, it acknowledges the terror that would be inflicted 
upon those Iraqis who worked with us because they believed our 
promises. How cold and cynical. How callous can we be to stand here and 
debate the notion of abandoning the Iraqi people, not

[[Page 18786]]

only to genocide, but to the targeting of the very individuals who have 
bravely worked with us.
  The Democratic leadership wants to wave a magic wand and make this 
war go away. I wouldn't mind a magic wand myself, and certainly the 
American people would appreciate a quick and tidy solution. But I'm 
afraid that this solution attempts to salvage nothing but party 
politics. The Iraqi people, Mr. Speaker, would not be quite so lucky.
  Furthermore, NPR recently reported that the quick withdrawal time 
frame that the Democratic leadership dreamed up has no basis in 
reality. It would take a year or more to safely withdraw all U.S. 
troops from Iraq, and it would take significant combat forces to 
protect the withdrawal. We would have to fight our way out all the way 
to the Kuwaiti border. There simply is no magic wand in this war, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Perhaps the greatest irony of this bill is that it calls for detailed 
reports for a strategy in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, we have a strategy, and 
while it was only fully operational less than 1 month ago, it is 
already succeeding. The Democratic leadership, in their absurdist 
logic, want our military to abandon their strategy, go home and write a 
report about what they would have wanted to accomplish if they had 
stayed. And if that weren't cruel enough, Mr. Speaker, they would have 
to watch terror and genocide unfold as they retreated. Now, I cannot 
fathom a more disastrous policy for our security or the Iraqis'.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the 
underlying bill itself.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record an 
article from the Washington Post this morning entitled, ``White House 
Isn't Backing Iraq Study Group Follow-Up,'' and points out that the 
House voted 355-69 last month to reestablish the study group, but the 
President is blocking it.

                [From washingtonpost.com, July 12, 2007]

          White House Isn't Backing Iraq Study Group Follow-Up

                           (By Robin Wright)

       Despite an overwhelming House vote last month to revive the 
     Iraq Study Group, the White House has blocked reconvening the 
     bipartisan panel to provide a second independent assessment 
     of the military and political situation in Iraq, said several 
     sources involved in the panel's December 2006 report.
       Co-Chairman Lee H. Hamilton, several panel members and the 
     U.S. Institute of Peace, which ran the study group, were 
     willing to participate, according to Hamilton and the 
     congressionally funded think tank. But the White House did 
     not give the green light for co-chairman and former secretary 
     of state James A. Baker III to participate, and Baker is 
     unwilling to lead a second review without President Bush's 
     approval, according to members of the original panel and 
     sources close to Baker.
       White House support is critical for any follow-up review. 
     ``It is not likely to happen unless the White House approves 
     it,'' Hamilton, a Democratic former congressman from Indiana, 
     said in an interview. ``The group can't go ahead without its 
     concurrence or acquiescence, as we need travel support and 
     access to documents.''
       The White House does not want independent assessments to 
     rival the upcoming Sept. 15 reports by Gen. David H. Petraeus 
     and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, U.S. officials said.
       The White House indicated that it sees no need for an 
     immediate follow-up to the report, noting that it is 
     implementing a strategy consistent with many of the panel's 
     recommendations. ``The next report due in September by 
     General Petraeus must include an assessment of our objectives 
     as they relate to Baker-Hamilton. September will be the 
     appropriate time to determine how that strategy is 
     progressing,'' said National Security Council spokesman 
     Gordon Johndroe. ``We look forward to remaining in contact 
     with members of the group.''
       The House voted 355 to 69 last month to allocate $1 million 
     for the U.S. Institute of Peace to reestablish the group of 
     10 prominent Republicans and Democrats, which included former 
     Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, former defense 
     secretary William J. Perry and, until his appointment, 
     Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.
       Congressional sponsors called the White House's reluctance 
     a missed opportunity. ``The ISG provides an opportunity to 
     bring the country together.. . . If you had a serious 
     illness, you would want a second opinion. We are at war. You 
     want to have the best minds looking at a problem,'' said Rep. 
     Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), who proposed the ISG and co-sponsored 
     the bill to reconvene it. ``Having another independent, 
     bipartisan assessment will take out the venom in the 
     debate.''
       Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), another co-sponsor, 
     warned that the White House's move would cost further support 
     among Republicans.
       ``It's really shortsighted,'' he said. ``It's going to 
     further isolate the president.. . . You can't rely just on 
     Petraeus and Crocker. They are good people, but they're still 
     in the thick of battle and you need the view from the 
     outside. The fact the White House doesn't want it indicates 
     they are afraid of what the ISG might say.''
       The White House did not initially embrace the ISG report. 
     But it has gradually adopted key recommendations, including 
     the controversial proposal to pursue diplomatic talks with 
     Iran and Syria, the countries that have most aided or abetted 
     Iraq's insurgents and illegal militias. Last month, 23 
     Democrats and 34 Republicans co-sponsored a House bill to 
     implement all the ISG recommendations as the way forward in 
     Iraq.
       But other groups are pursuing independent reviews of U.S. 
     policy and Iraq's performance. The Iraqi Security Forces 
     Independent Assessment Commission--made up of 14 former 
     generals and defense officials--is examining Iraqi military 
     capabilities. The panel, which is mandated by Congress, is 
     chaired by retired Gen. James L. Jones. The group is 
     currently in Iraq; its report is due in October.
       The Government Accountability Office is doing a separate 
     congressionally mandated study on the 18 benchmarks set for 
     the Iraqi government to meet. And the U.S. Institute of Peace 
     is reconvening many of the experts the ISG originally relied 
     on to discuss Iraq's future.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the 
underlying bill, H.R. 2956, the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe this House ought to voice its gratitude to the 
distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, 
for bringing before this House a thoughtful, responsible bill that 
outlines what we must do next in Iraq.
  The bill clearly notes that our uniformed men and women have carried 
out and completed their mission for which they were authorized by 
Congress. The search for weapons of mass destruction is over. There 
were none, not a single one. The regime that put Iraq in an impossible 
international position no longer exists. So it's time that we draw down 
our troops from Iraq and require this administration to clearly define 
what the troop requirements and costs will be for the next phase of 
U.S. involvement in Iraq, a far more limited mission to root out al 
Qaeda and protect our diplomatic personnel inside Iraq.
  The bill also promotes the kind of active diplomacy with Iraq's 
neighbors necessary for achieving a more lasting climate of stability 
in Iraq and throughout the region. Much, much more, Mr. Speaker, must 
be done. I expect to see stronger legislation in September, but this 
bill puts us on the right path.
  For 5 long, deadly years, this Congress has done nothing but rubber-
stamp a tragically flawed policy. It is shameful. Whatever the cause 
the President and many Members of Congress thought they were pursuing 
in Iraq, it is lost. Political leaders inside Iraq appear incapable of 
putting national interest ahead of sectarian and personal agendas. 
Iraqi security forces operate more like sectarian militias. And despite 
their best efforts, the additional military forces we have poured into 
the Baghdad region have not been able to change the equation.
  Over 3,600 of our troops have lost their lives to this battle. 
Thousands more have been wounded. It is wrong, Mr. Speaker, simply 
wrong to ask them to continue to sacrifice their lives and their limbs 
for this failed policy.
  The war in Iraq is breaking the back of our military. It is causing 
severe damage to the Federal budget to the tune of $10 billion each 
month, and causing grave harm to the future fiscal health of our 
Nation. It continues to undermine our most important political, 
diplomatic, military and strategic alliances. It saps our ability to 
focus on global terrorism and to safeguard

[[Page 18787]]

our own people. And it has contributed to the chaos inside Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, it is past time for change. And while President Bush 
keeps scorning deadlines and promising breakthroughs that never come, 
it is clear that he lacks the vision, the wisdom or the courage to 
chart a new course. It is frighteningly clear that the President plans, 
instead, to stay the course and dump this mess on the next President.
  It is time for Congress to step up to the plate and change direction 
in Iraq. It is time for every Member of this House to work together to 
draw down our forces and bring our troops home to their families and 
their communities.
  For too long Congress has been complicit, and the American people are 
frustrated, and they are angry. We don't need more studies or 
commissions. We don't need more excuses. We don't need more delay. Too 
many lives are being lost. What we need is for Members of Congress to 
make a choice, to stand up and be counted. Will you continue to rubber-
stamp the current disastrous policies in Iraq or will you vote for 
change?
  We must act now, Mr. Speaker. This is simply too important to wait 
any longer. Too many lives are on the line.
  All of us, no matter how we originally voted on the war, share in the 
responsibility in what is happening in Iraq. All of us, by not voting 
to change course, are responsible for sending so many of our brave men 
and women into a civil war where far too many of them have been killed.
  If the President of the United States will not respect the will of 
the American people and end this war, then Congress must.

              [From the Los Angeles Times, July 11, 2007]

                U.S. Troop Buildup in Iraq Falling Short

                  (By Julian E. Barnes and Ned Parker)

       Baghdad.--In the Ubaidi neighborhood in the eastern part of 
     this city, American soldiers hired a local Iraqi to clean the 
     Porta-Potties at their combat outpost. Before the man could 
     start, members of the local Shiite militia threatened to kill 
     him.
       Today, the Porta-Potties are roped off, and the U.S. 
     soldiers, who could not promise to protect their sewage man, 
     are forced to burn their waste.
       As part of the Bush administration's troop ``surge'' 
     strategy, the U.S. unit here had moved into an abandoned 
     potato chip factory hoping to push out the militia, protect 
     existing jobs and provide stability for economic growth. 
     Instead, militia members stymied development projects, cut 
     off the water supply and executed two young Iraqi women seen 
     talking to U.S. soldiers, sending a powerful message about 
     who really controls Ubaidi's streets.
       In the next few days, the Bush administration is scheduled 
     to release a preliminary assessment of its overall Iraq 
     strategy. Officials may point to signs of progress scattered 
     across the country: a reduction in death-squad killings in 
     Baghdad, agreements with tribal leaders in Al Anbar province, 
     offensives north and south of the capital.
       President Bush defended his strategy Tuesday, demanding 
     Congress give his administration more time and insisting that 
     America can ``win this fight in Iraq.'' To underscore his 
     request, Bush sent top aides to lobby lawmakers on Capitol 
     Hill.
       But as the experience of the troops in Ubaidi indicates, 
     U.S. forces so far have been unable to establish security, 
     even for themselves. Iraqis continue to flee their homes, 
     leaving mixed areas and seeking safety in religiously 
     segregated neighborhoods. About 32,000 families fled in June 
     alone, according to figures compiled by the United Nations 
     and the Iraqi government that are due to be released next 
     week.
       U.S. forces have staged offensives to push insurgents out 
     of some safe havens. But many of the insurgents have escaped 
     to new areas of the country, launching attacks where the U.S. 
     presence is lighter.
       And there has been no sign of any of the crucial political 
     progress the administration had hoped to see in Iraq.
       U.S. commanders are painfully aware that they are running 
     out of time to change those realities. Army Gen. David H. 
     Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, has made 
     several efforts to slow the clock in Washington. Each time, 
     it has sped up.
       The full complement of the ``surge'' arrived in Iraq last 
     month, bringing the total to 28,500 additional troops. 
     Military officers originally hoped to have until 2008 before 
     they had to render a verdict on the strategy. Then the 
     Washington timeframe shrank to September. Now, it is 
     shrinking further, with Congress demanding answers even 
     sooner.
       Supporters of the troop buildup insist that small steps 
     could grow into larger and more long-term successes if 
     lawmakers are patient.
       ``Right now we are three weeks into this. It's not like 
     flipping a light switch,'' said a military officer in 
     Baghdad, expressing the frustration of many commanders. 
     ``Time has to be given for things to work.''
       Commanders point to Ramadi, the capital of Al Anbar 
     province, as a showcase for the kind of results the military 
     wants from the current strategy. Once a battlefield, the city 
     is now largely peaceful, calm enough that in March, Iraqi 
     Prime Minister Nouri Maliki was able to pay his first 
     official visit.
       But military officers stress that it took about nine months 
     of sustained effort to make Ramadi a relatively pacified 
     city. And with its volatile mix of Sunni and Shiite Muslims, 
     Baghdad presents a far more complex challenge than all-Sunni 
     Ramadi.
       The interim progress report that Bush promised to release 
     this week is likely to emphasize the success the military has 
     had in killing Sunni militants in the ``Baghdad belts,'' the 
     cities and towns that dot the major rivers and highways 
     leading to the capital. In recent weeks, the newly arrived 
     U.S. forces have been focused on fighting members of Al Qaeda 
     in Iraq, a militant Sunni group made up of Iraqis and foreign 
     fighters.
       Top generals say the strategy is crucial to securing 
     Baghdad. Only by controlling the routes into the capital, and 
     denying militants safe havens, can the U.S. and Iraqi 
     militaries keep out the car bombs that stoke sectarian 
     violence inside the capital.
       But leading Iraqis are less sure of the strategy.
       Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of the Iraqi parliament, 
     said the U.S. approach may be successful at weakening Al 
     Qaeda in Iraq. But he said Americans would not be able to 
     solve Iraq's sectarian conflict or stop clashes between armed 
     groups in Baghdad neighborhoods.
       ``The surge has an important effect in fighting Al Qaeda,'' 
     the independent politician said. ``On the Sunni-Shiite 
     conflict, it hasn't had any effect. . . . Extremist Shiites 
     and Sunnis are fighting each other. The Americans can't stop 
     this.''
       U.S. officials have made little, if any, progress with 
     their persistent calls for Iraqi officials to take steps 
     toward reconciliation between Shiites and Sunnis.
       Key administration officials, most prominently Defense 
     Secretary Robert M. Gates and Vice President Dick Cheney, 
     have visited Iraq to push for passage of an oil-revenue 
     sharing law, provincial elections and reform of rules barring 
     members of the former ruling Baath Party from government 
     jobs.
       But the Iraqi government is bogged down by fighting among 
     Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish parties. It is unclear whether the 
     oil law, the one piece of benchmark legislation still given 
     hopes for passage before September, will reach a vote any 
     time soon.
       The number of death-squad killings in the capital, one sign 
     of sectarian divisions, is down from earlier this year. But 
     the number remains roughly at the level seen after the 2006 
     bombing of Samarra's Golden Mosque, which served as a 
     catalyst for the extreme sectarian violence.
       In Baghdad, the number of bodies found dumped in the 
     streets dropped to 540 last month from 830 in January. Some 
     American officers say those numbers could rise again. And 
     others say that the decline may simply represent the 
     depressing reality that most Baghdad neighborhoods are now 
     segregated, meaning there are fewer people left for death 
     squads to kill.
       Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil, Jr., the commander of U.S. forces in 
     Baghdad, said that American troops at the end of June 
     controlled about 42% of the city's neighborhoods, up from 19% 
     in April.
       But to many Iraqis, that is little comfort. ``The Americans 
     do not make me feel safe,'' said Amin Sadiq, a 30-year-old 
     Shiite worker in the Ghadeer neighborhood of east Baghdad. 
     ``When you hear the speeches of the top U.S. military 
     leaders, you think that everything is ideal and perfect and 
     Iraq will be better. But when you see how the U.S. soldiers 
     behave, I really feel I should not trust the leaders.''
       The American military has helped bring a tense truce in 
     some areas, but has not re-integrated once-mixed 
     neighborhoods.
       The western Baghdad neighborhood of Ghazaliya, once a 
     prosperous mixed middle-class area, was riven by sectarian 
     violence in 2006. It is now divided between Shiites in the 
     northern end and Sunnis in the south, with the U.S. military 
     stuck in the middle, trying to keep the peace.
       ``Last year, things were bad. This year is worse than 
     before,'' said a man in his 50s who identified himself as 
     Qais Qaisi.
       The presence of Iraqi and American security forces means 
     that Sunnis cannot fight back against the Shiite militias, 
     which have the tacit support of the Iraqi army unit in the 
     area, Qaisi said. But he nevertheless voiced concern about a 
     possible American pullout.
       ``If the multinational forces withdraw, there will be very 
     bloody sectarian battles,'' he said.
       Military officers routinely say that improving the economy 
     is a prerequisite to improving security. And U.S. forces, by 
     putting

[[Page 18788]]

     up barriers and controlling traffic, have been able to reopen 
     some marketplaces that had been targeted by suicide bombers. 
     Although that has allowed some neighborhood commerce, success 
     with other projects has proved more elusive.
       The Pentagon is working to reopen state-owned factories and 
     has identified several dozen that can be renovated and 
     restarted. But that work is slow, and many residents say they 
     see few improvements in their neighborhoods.
       Although U.S. forces have been able to overcome militia 
     threats and start small neighborhood projects such as 
     installing streetlights, they are not able to initiate larger 
     undertakings.
       ``We aren't doing anything meaningful,'' said one mid-level 
     noncommissioned officer. ``Where are the real projects? We 
     aren't offering these people enough safety, or money, or 
     jobs.''
       Amid the political setbacks and continuing violence, 
     however, there are signs of relative calm in some areas.
       Earlier this year, the streets of Baghdad were desolate at 
     sunset. Now, in places, there are signs of life.
       In Yarmouk, a neighborhood in west Baghdad, 18-year-old 
     Ahmed Shakir used to see bodies on the street every day. 
     Snipers fired from hidden perches and gunmen clashed with 
     U.S. and Iraqi soldiers. But last month, after weeks of U.S. 
     patrols, his neighborhood started to feel safe--safe enough 
     for Shakir to stay outside on the basketball court until 8:30 
     p.m.
       ``It is usually me and three of my friends, we always go 
     play basketball,'' he said. ``Now we have U.S. and Iraqi 
     patrols roaming the streets every day. If they continued 
     doing this, things will remain better. If not, then it will 
     get worse for sure.
                                  ____


                      Center for American Progress

     To: Members of the 110th Congress.
     From: John Podesta, Lawrence Korb, and Brian Katulis.
     Re: Iraq Study Group's Recommendations Overtaken by Events in 
         Iraq.
     Date: July 11, 2007.

       Senators Ken Salazar (D-CO) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) have 
     introduced legislation that would adopt all of the 
     recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. There are growing 
     signs that the White House and Republican legislators, having 
     previously rejected the ISG report late last year, will now 
     seek to co-opt the ISG recommendations this summer and fail 
     to provide a bipartisan veneer to their efforts to pretend 
     they are shifting course in Iraq.
       We acknowledge the important contributions made by the ISG 
     and its co-chairmen James Baker and Lee Hamilton, but 
     progressives need to point out that some of the ISG's 
     recommendations are ambiguous and others have been overtaken 
     by events. Congress needs to understand that the ISG's three 
     main recommendations face five key issues that raise 
     questions about the relevance of the ISG's recommendations 
     today.
       The ISG report had three main recommendations:
       1. Place greater emphasis on political benchmarks for the 
     Iraqi government to ensure disaffected groups (specifically 
     the Sunnis) are brought into Iraq's political process.
       2. Accelerate and increase the training of Iraqi security 
     forces to allow them to take over from U.S. forces and 
     transition U.S. forces from combat missions in 2008.
       3. Initiate a region-wide diplomatic offensive to contain 
     and resolve Iraq's conflicts.
       The ISG recommendations now face five practical obstacles:
       1. Conditioning U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq on the 
     outdated ``We'll stand down when the Iraqis stand up'' 
     formula.
       The main problem with the ISG report is that it conditions 
     the eventual U.S. troop withdrawal on Iraq's splintered 
     national leadership. The ISG report spells out a long list of 
     preconditions for withdrawing U.S. troops, which actually 
     gets the situation backwards--the United States needs to put 
     Iraqis and the countries in the region on notice to motivate 
     them to act more constructively in their own self-interest in 
     order to contain and resolve Iraq's multiple internal 
     conflicts.
       The fundamental challenge with Iraq's security forces is 
     not skills building and training. It is instead a problem of 
     motivation and allegiance. The last six months in Iraq have 
     reinforced the point that Iraqis will not take responsibility 
     as long as U.S. forces remain in the country in such large 
     numbers. Despite the latest escalation, the Iraqi government 
     has not made any progress toward reconciliation.
       The Bush strategy as well as the core ISG recommendations 
     ignore a fundamental reality--that the situation in Iraq has 
     little chance to improve until U.S. troops begin redeploying.
       2. Placing too much focus on Iraq's central government, a 
     dysfunctional and divided government that lacks the unified 
     support of its own leaders.
       The ISG recommendations place a strong emphasis on getting 
     the Iraqi national government to meet several political 
     benchmarks that are not only unachievable in the short term 
     but irrelevant today because of changed conditions in Iraq. 
     In fact, the Iraqi national government is increasingly 
     trapped in bitter disputes along sectarian lines that have 
     paralyzed the government.
       Iraq's leaders fundamentally disagree on what Iraq is and 
     should be. The benchmarks passed by Congress in May--the 
     subject of a forthcoming report from the Bush 
     administration--ignore the key reality that Iraq may suffer 
     from unbridgeable divides.
       Meeting these political benchmarks will likely have no 
     effect on the major conflicts in Iraq and may well exacerbate 
     the Kurd-Arab and intra-Shi'a conflicts emerging in Iraq's 
     northern and southern regions. As such, these benchmarks 
     provide false hope for resolving a series of conflicts that 
     require a much deeper solution than the United States can 
     provide unilaterally.
       3. Paying insufficient attention to the 2005 Iraq 
     Constitution and the will of the Iraqi people.
       The ISG report outlines a course that would lead to the 
     unraveling of Iraq's constitution. One of the ISG's main 
     recommendations is that ``the [United States] should support 
     as much as possible central control by governmental 
     authorities in Baghdad, particularly on the question of oil 
     revenue.'' But this cuts against the grain of what Iraqis 
     supported in their own constitution, passed by popular 
     referendum in 2005. Iraq's constitution establishes a 
     framework for a strongly decentralized federal system.
       Not surprisingly, many Iraqi leaders objected to the 
     recommendations of the ISG report. Iraqi President Jalal 
     Talabani, a Kurd, rejected the ISG report. In addition to 
     criticisms from Iraq's leaders, the ISG recommendations lack 
     a broad-base of support among Iraqis, a strong majority of 
     whom want U.S. forces to leave Iraq within a year.
       According to a poll of the Iraqi public conducted in 2006, 
     71 percent of Iraqis wanted the Iraqi government to ask for 
     U.S.-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or 
     less. Another 61 percent support attacks on U.S.-led forces. 
     In short, many Iraqis are opposed to the ISG recommendations, 
     and as a result the United States would face severe problems 
     attempting to implement them.
       4. Supporting the unconditional training of Iraq's security 
     forces, which is deeply problematic.
       The core of the ISG report is the recommendation that the 
     United States accelerate and increase the training of Iraqi 
     security forces. It proposes an American advisory effort of 
     between 10,000 and 20,000, comparable to the U.S. advisory 
     strength in Vietnam at its height. Increasing the capacity of 
     the Iraqi security forces, however, won't rectify their three 
     main problems:
       The Iraqi security forces are far from reliable. The 
     Pentagon estimates that at least one-third of the Iraqi Army 
     is on leave at any one time; desertion and other problems 
     bring the total to over half in some units. Of the 11,000 
     Iraqi soldiers assigned to the recent U.S.-led offensive in 
     Baquba in June, only 1,500 showed up. Infiltration by 
     sectarian militias into the Interior Ministry has been 
     identified as a severe problem. Many Iraqi security forces 
     have been implicated in sectarian violence, most notably the 
     National Police and certain elements of the Iraqi Army. 
     Allegations have emerged during the Baquba offensive that 
     Sunni and Shiite soldiers cooperated with Sunni insurgents 
     and Shiite militias, respectively. Some have even tried to 
     kill American troops. Giving weapons and training to Iraq's 
     security forces in the absence of a national political 
     consensus in Iraq risks inflaming Iraq's conflicts. In fact, 
     the violence has escalated at the same time as the number of 
     trained Iraqi security forces has increased.
       Iraq's government has used Iraqi security forces to promote 
     their sectarian interests rather than the national interest. 
     Most troubling is the manner in which the government of Prime 
     Minister Nouri al-Maliki has used the Iraqi security forces. 
     He has focused primarily on going after Sunni insurgents with 
     Iraqi forces, leaving the impression that he is acting on 
     behalf of Shi'a sectarian interests. Worse still, officials 
     in the prime minister's office have often replaced officers 
     that are perceived as competent and non-sectarian.
       Force protection concerns for the United States. The ISG's 
     training recommendation suffers from two more flaws: force 
     protection and time. The number of troops dedicated to 
     protecting American advisors from insurgents would drain 
     resources needed to perform other missions crucial to U.S. 
     interests such as counterterrorism. In addition, many experts 
     observe that it takes years if not decades to train a 
     professional, competent army. Past experiences of unpopular 
     foreign military forces facing an insurgency while training 
     local security forces do not inspire confidence in the 
     success of future efforts. There is no reason to presume we 
     will be able to do any better even if we had unlimited time 
     in Iraq (which we don't).
       5. Offering undeveloped ideas on a regional diplomatic 
     offensive.
       The ISG proposed creating a regional contact group to help 
     solve Iraq's internal and external problems diplomatically. 
     While it is important for the United States to undertake a 
     diplomatic offensive as it begins a phased redeployment from 
     Iraq, the ISG approach is too broad.
       Rather than dealing with Iraq's multiple internal conflicts 
     as discrete problems that

[[Page 18789]]

     require separate attention, the ISG approach could result in 
     a ``one-size-fits-all'' diplomatic package. Progressives 
     should recognize that each of Iraq's neighbors have differing 
     interests in each ofIraq's conflicts, and then advocate that 
     the United States tailor its diplomacy to each conflict in an 
     attempt to deal individually with the myriad problems 
     confronting Iraq.


                               Conclusion

       Progressives should not allow the recommendations of the 
     ISG report to be accepted without question. Nor should they 
     allow the White House to legitimate its still-stay-the course 
     policy by paying lip service to the ISG recommendations.
       Rather, progressives should advocate a policy that allows 
     us to strategically reset our military forces, our diplomatic 
     personnel, and our intelligence operations by redeploying out 
     troops in 12 months, partitioning our diplomatic effort to 
     better deal with Iraq's multiple conflict, rethinking our 
     approach to Iraq's government and its security forces, and 
     redirecting our immense national power toward destroying 
     those terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. The time is past 
     for more half-way measures.
       The United States needs to move toward a ``Strategic 
     Reset'' of its policy in Iraq and the Middle East, one that 
     recognizes the increasingly fragmented situation on the 
     ground and build a more sustainable approach to advancing 
     long-term U.S. interests in the region.

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I yield to my friend from Pennsylvania, 
let me just say, we do have a great chance to work together, that's why 
we were, in fact, proposing an alternative, that being a chance for us 
to work on the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommendations.
  With that, I'm happy to yield 4 minutes to my very good friend from 
Erie, Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the strongest possible opposition to 
this rule.
  In the panoply of public policy issues, there is no more important 
question than starting or ending an armed conflict. The decision we 
make today will determine whether men and women will live or die, not 
only on the battlefields of Iraq but also potentially in the cities of 
Europe and America.
  The discussion that we conduct today should transcend crass political 
partnership and narrow ideology to reflect our deepest concern for the 
Nation and, indeed, for the community of nations.
  The House of Representatives today should be prepared to engage in a 
free and fair debate regarding all of the potential options for the 
future conduct of combat operations and diplomatic initiatives in Iraq 
and the broader Middle East. We should be discussing the 
recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. We should be 
examining some of the ideas laid out by Senator Lugar. We should be 
considering the suggestion of Congresswoman Heather Wilson and I that 
we made to the President recently encouraging him to convene a high-
level summit of Iraqi sectarian leaders. We should exclude no viable 
alternative, even that offered by my colleague from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich).
  The legislation we will consider later today does have the potential 
to serve as a starting point of determining a new course of action in 
Iraq, but it is badly flawed, and it needs substantial improvement, and 
unfortunately, that will not be possible. The rule the Democrats have 
laid before the House today demonstrates their motivations are, at 
core, political. And I remember when politics ended at the water's 
edge.
  They do not offer us an open rule, allowing full and free debate. 
They don't even allow us a structured rule, permitting, at the very 
least, discussion of some of the major alternatives that I've outlined.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that certain parties want things from this 
debate today. They've already recorded their robo calls, purchased 
airtime for their attack ads. They've scheduled buses for their rent-a-
mobs. And the last thing they really desire is a free, open and 
informed debate that might result in a unified policy regarding our 
Nation's future efforts in Iraq. They seek not to unite our Nation but 
to divide it.
  The people who bring this rule to the floor today do not allow 
amendments because they're afraid. They're afraid that some of these 
amendments might prevail. They're afraid that, given viable 
alternatives, some Members of their own party will choose cooperation 
over confrontation.

                              {time}  1100

  Mostly, they are afraid they might lose a major issue for their 
campaign to maintain their majority. Their fear may or may not be 
justified, but its very existence is a sad commentary on their faith in 
the Members of their own party, this body, and the American people.
  I remind my colleagues that the only thing we have to fear is fear 
itself. Reject this cynical rule. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. 
Let's have a full and fair debate on this, the most critical issue of 
our generation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, give me 3 seconds to say that under the 
Republican administration, not a single Iraqi measure was brought up 
under an open rule.
  And now I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me 
time and for her leadership on the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the 
underlying bill. Today presents us with another opportunity to change 
direction in Iraq, a change that is desperately needed. I have opposed 
this war from the beginning. I have long supported ways to bring this 
war to a responsible close. I urge my colleagues to seize this 
opportunity now before we do further disservice to the brave men and 
women in Iraq.
  The last time I rose in opposition to Iraq policy, I talked about 
George and Dee Heath from my hometown of Sacramento. All three of their 
sons served in Iraq. Recently, I learned that one of their sons, David, 
was hit in an RPG attack on his convoy. Thank goodness he was not 
wounded gravely, and he will be coming home to recover.
  Mr. Speaker, today's vote is about our responsibility to the Heath 
sons and to the more than 150,000 other men and women in harm's way. 
They are doing what is being asked of them heroically and 
patriotically. It fills me with sorrow that more than 3,600 soldiers 
have paid the ultimate price for their heroism, including 385 from my 
home State of California.
  Our responsibility to them as their elected leaders should be, it 
must be, to ensure that their mission is clear and achievable. Today, 
we have the opportunity to fulfill our responsibility as the President 
has not. Sadly, the President's disastrous leadership is ignoring his 
duty to the troops. We cannot sit idly by.
  The Iraqi Government is not meeting any of its political, economic, 
or military benchmarks. The President's surge policy has had disastrous 
results. In fact, 600 troops have been killed and more than 3,000 have 
been wounded since he announced this policy.
  Our troops are stranded on the front lines without clear guidance and 
without a clear mission. In light of such inept leadership by the 
President, the American people have lost their patience. Most Americans 
support removing troops by April. They want us to refocus on terrorism. 
Yet, still the President refuses to reconsider. It is clear from the 
President's blind stubbornness that Congress must show the President 
the way.
  Our troops are at the breaking point. We are refereeing a civil war. 
The solution is a political one, not a military one. But in this late 
and crucial hour, you have to do more than talk about change. You have 
to vote for it. You have to fight for it. Chairman Skelton's bill keeps 
the safety of our troops and our Nation's security at the forefront by 
changing course in Iraq. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely laughable to listen to the 
distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, after having berated us 
for the longest period of time, use us as a model for the procedure 
around which we are considering this legislation. This is a bill, not a 
resolution, which is what we brought up in the last Congress.

[[Page 18790]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman, a former member of the Rules Committee, from Marietta, 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my former chairman of the Rules 
Committee, the gentleman from California, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this rule and condemn the 
underlying bill, hastily leaving Iraq without any clear exit strategy.
  Mr. Speaker, the timing of this legislation should raise some serious 
questions for the American people. It comes at a critical point in the 
global war on terror, a point at which our efforts should be focused on 
defeating terrorism inflicted by Islamic jihadists, not usurping the 
power of our military commanders, as this bill clearly does.
  Today's debate comes on the heels of an intelligence analysis stating 
al Qaeda has regrouped to a level not seen since 9/11 with a greater 
ability to strike inside the United States. It comes in the immediate 
aftermath of the Muslim extremist attacks in London and Glasgow. In 
sum, it comes at a time when our decisions must be based on strategic 
interests and not political grandstanding.
  However, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not designed to help us fight 
terrorism to secure the United States' interests. In fact, its timing 
has nothing to do with national security at all.
  Today, the Democratic leaderships want us to vote on a change of 
course before we have had the opportunity to fully analyze the 
President's interim report on our strategy in Iraq, and well ahead of 
the much anticipated September report to be delivered by General 
Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.
  So why are we debating this now? Curiously, it comes at a time when 
this Democratic Congress has an approval rating as low as 14 percent. 
That's right, Mr. Speaker, their approval is at an all-time low. Their 
base, the extremist left, is very angry. They are angry at the 
Democrats' Out of Iraq Caucus because they failed to deliver. Indeed, 
Cindy Sheehan, their poster child, has now announced her candidacy 
against Speaker Pelosi.
  So what do the Democrats do? They take another shot at Old Faithful. 
When all else fails, when they can't get anything accomplished, when 
all they can deliver to the American public is the most closed Congress 
in history, they engage in another round of political theater 
engineered to do nothing but grab a few headlines and appease that 
liberal base.
  Mr. Speaker, let's not waste the time of this body by debating vague 
bills with absolutely no chance of becoming law. Let's instead examine 
the upcoming September report from our top military commanders and 
then, yes, then make informed decisions on the best path forward.
  My friend, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, the 
gentlewoman from New York, stated in her opening remarks that if we 
wait until September, as I suggest, 200 more troops would be lost and 
the lives of 200 families would be changed forever.
  Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues that within a 20-minute 
period of time on September 11, 2001, 3,000 lives were lost, some of 
our brightest and best; and, indeed, the lives of 3,000 families were 
changed forever.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to urge my colleagues to oppose this rule 
and to oppose the irresponsible underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I vigorously opposed the war in 
Iraq before it began, and now, well into its fifth year, the need for a 
new policy has never been clearer. The toll of this war has been 
devastating: more than 3,600 of our most courageous men and women 
killed, tens of thousands seriously wounded; the toll on civilians much 
higher still. And while we struggle to fund domestic priorities in 
Vermont, in all our States across this Nation, health care, a crumbling 
infrastructure, transportation, the cost of education, we now spend $12 
billion every single month on this war.
  From last November's elections, to public opinion polls, to the 
comments I hear from Vermonters every single day, the voice of the 
American people is loud and it is clear: we must end this war. And 
since the President refuses, absolutely refuses, to act, Congress must. 
Since the President refuses, Congress must make it clear that the 
United States will not maintain permanent military bases in Iraq. Since 
the President refuses, Congress must denounce the use of torture. It 
must finally close Guantanamo Bay. And since the President refuses, 
Congress must bring our troops home and ensure they receive the care 
they deserve when they return.
  Mr. Speaker, 7 months ago, under the leadership of the previous 
Congress, a bill like this never would have been allowed to come to the 
floor. Now, 7 months later, today, there is an emerging bipartisan 
consensus that the President must be forced to change his course.
  By passing this bill today, Congress will demonstrate with the force 
of law what the American people well know: it is time to end the war in 
Iraq.
  I cosponsored and voted in favor of legislation offered by my 
colleague Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts that called for redeployment of 
our troops from Iraq within 6 months. I voted against additional funds 
for the war without a timeline. And I cosponsored legislation that 
would close Guantanamo Bay, outlaw torture, defend the right of habeas 
corpus, and prohibit the establishment of permanent military bases.
  At the end of the day, Americans know that no action in the House of 
Representatives is not enough until all of our troops are returned 
home. This bill provides a starting point for progress towards 
realizing that goal. Until our troops are home, I will not stop, and 
Congress must not stop in its efforts to compel the President to end 
this war.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me at this time yield 2 minutes to our 
friend from Bridgeport, Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has made 17 trips 
to Iraq and unfortunately was denied an opportunity to have us consider 
and vote on a very thoughtful amendment that he proposed in the Rules 
Committee last night.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as I walked into this Chamber, Congressman McGovern said 
we need to work together to bring our troops home. He is right. But the 
resolution we will be debating today does not allow us to consider 
bipartisan proposals. There were a number of amendments presented to 
the Rules Committee, and they rejected all of them.
  The gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Slaughter, can say, when 
Republicans were in control, they didn't do that, they didn't allow 
bipartisan amendments. That is about the most insignificant and 
meaningless statement she could make, because Democrats are now in 
charge, and they are in charge in part because of the war in Iraq and 
because they promised to be different and have open debate and allow us 
all to say what we needed to say and from that find consensus.
  There are two things I agree on: we need to bring our troops home, 
and we need a deadline to do that. But this deadline begins in 120 days 
and concludes by April of next year, guaranteeing absolute failure, 
laying waste to all the investment we have talked about.
  We need to bring our troops home, but not by the deadline that has 
been offered. It is the only deadline. So when I vote against what I 
think is a foolish deadline, the media is going to say exactly what my 
Democratic colleagues want them to say, that we voted against a 
deadline and that we are not sincere about bringing our troops home.
  Give me a deadline I can support, and I will vote for it. Give me an 
opportunity to at least debate a deadline that I could support.
  We are going to bring our troops home because we can't maintain this 
level of engagement in Iraq without extending troops from 15 months to 
18 months. We are not going to allow that to happen. Our troops will be 
coming home, but not by April. They will be

[[Page 18791]]

coming home in a more thoughtful way.
  I urge defeat of this resolution. In particular, it did not allow for 
the Wolf amendment, which was the Iraq Study Group proposal. This is 
what we need to be voting on. We all say that we agree with it and 
support it. Well, why not bring it to the floor? What are we afraid of?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me have about 2 seconds to say that 
we have allowed 4 hours of general debate. I think everybody will have 
an opportunity to discuss what they think of the deadline.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor).

                              {time}  1115

  Ms. CASTOR. I thank the distinguished chair of the Rules Committee 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor of the Responsible Redeployment 
from Iraq Act under this rule, and urge my colleagues to pass it today, 
because in this summer of 2007, in the fifth year of the Bush-Cheney 
war in Iraq, it is imperative that we chart a new direction for our 
national security and be more strategic in the defense of America.
  As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, it is clear to me 
that the reckless White House policy and now the escalation of the war 
is undermining our country's readiness and ability to respond to other 
global threats to our national security. Indeed, in testimony before 
our committee, top commanders have testified that America runs a 
strategic risk by staying on the same course in Iraq.
  The generals confirm that because our personnel and equipment are 
tied up in Iraq, our ability to handle future threats and contingencies 
is reduced. In my State of Florida, for example, the National Guard 
does not have all of the equipment it needs to train and deploy 
soldiers. They are only 28 percent equipped. In effect, President 
Bush's war in Iraq is impairing our country's ability to prepare for 
any other threat to our national security.
  Florida also feels the pinch of multiple deployments because, time 
and again, our brave men and women are being asked to go back, to leave 
their families, leave their jobs, return to the field of battle after 
inadequate rest at home. Florida currently has the second highest 
number of troops out of the 50 States deployed in Iraq, over 23,000. 
And 172 Floridians have been killed and over 1,200 have been wounded 
since military operations began there over 4 years ago. Hardly a week 
goes by that my office is not contacted and informed of another sad but 
heroic death in this cause. In fact, last week, two more Tampa Bay area 
brave, heroic soldiers were killed by IEDs.
  People ask me, why are our young American men and women refereeing 
the ongoing Shiite-Sunni civil war? American troops cannot resolve the 
Iraqi sectarian and religious conflict; only Iraqis can find the 
political resolution required to stabilize Iraq. America has now spent 
over $450 billion in Iraq. When will the Iraqi government take 
responsibility for the future of their country?
  President Bush's war in Iraq has been very costly. Over $10 billion a 
month now, costly not just in terms of degradation of our Nation's 
readiness, the waste and fraud due to the lack of oversight, but 
President Bush is sacrificing the health care of our children and our 
seniors and investments in our towns and neighborhoods while continuing 
this war without end.
  So after 4 years of war and over 3,500 American lives, and the Bush-
Cheney failure to aggressively pursue a political solution, we demand a 
new direction and a comprehensive strategy for our great Nation.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, for 4 long years our country has endured a tragic war, a 
treacherous journey down a dark and winding path, with no clear routes, 
no clear destination and fatal hazards lurking around every blind 
corner.
  Today I rise again with Chairman Skelton and my colleagues to act to 
clear the road ahead, to bring its end into the light. I rise again to 
push, to prod, to urge my colleagues to help us end the President's 
failed policy; to help us change the mission to a mission based in 
reality; to help us end the ravages that our brave soldiers who have 
performed so heroically, remove them from the crossfire in which they 
are caught, to remove them from the snipers' bullets and the life-
ending IEDs.
  I rise with the hope that those who have stood with the President and 
have given his Iraq policy a chance to succeed and another chance to 
succeed and another chance to succeed, that they will today choose a 
responsible change in direction based in reality that will establish a 
comprehensive and clear strategy for our role in Iraq.
  Congress has allowed the President to lead our troops down this path 
for too long. It is time to demand accountability, to demand an exit 
strategy that is clear, and to demand an end to the injury and death 
that our brave soldiers face every day as they courageously proceed 
down this undefined road on which the President has placed them and 
they have dutifully traveled.
  The President's ambling course has led our troops through the 
deadliest 3 months of the war in April, May and June of this year. 
During those three deadly months, 329 American soldiers died in Iraq. 
The cost of continuing down this path is too great. We must act to 
bring direction and accountability to the United States' mission for 
the sake of our troops and the families that love and support them.
  It brings me great sadness to report that, since the war began in the 
spring of 2003, 163 brave men and women from Ohio have been killed. And 
25 of those precious lives have been lost since the surge. The 
President's escalation of this war means six more grieving families in 
Ohio since when I last spoke in favor of the redeployment bill in May 
of this year. How many more times will we come to this floor to demand 
responsibility and accountability from our President? How many more 
families will be devastated by the loss of a loved one? How many more 
times will we hear the administration continue to argue that we are, 
quote, ``just about to make progress''?
  Last November, the people of the 13th District of Ohio made their 
voices heard when they went to the polls. Their voices joined with the 
voices of people across this Nation. They voted for a change in 
direction, and today we act to give it to them.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes 
to one of the most respected Members of this House on intelligence and 
defense matters, the gentlewoman from Albuquerque, New Mexico (Mrs. 
Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I want to let my colleagues 
know that I will be asking for a recorded vote on the previous question 
on this rule.
  We have a problem, a very serious problem that we must address before 
the House adjourns in August, and this resolution which we have done 
before does not deal with the real issues that this House must address 
because of the threat that we face.
  If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to 
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that clarifies one very 
simple and critical thing, that the United States Government will no 
longer be required to get a warrant to listen to terrorists who are not 
in the United States.
  The Director of National Intelligence has testified to us, as has the 
director of the CIA, that their hands are currently tied. They are 
being tied up, requiring warrants with probable cause, to listen to 
people who are terrorists who are not even in the United States because 
of the way the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is written.
  We cannot allow ourselves to be deaf and blind because of a law that 
is woefully outdated. All of us have heard what the Department of 
Homeland Security has said, the chatter is at levels we have not seen 
since the summer of 2001. And the Director of National Intelligence has 
testified we are missing

[[Page 18792]]

significant portions of intelligence. We have to open our ears and open 
our eyes to keep this Nation safe. That is the critical issue we should 
be debating here today. And if we defeat the previous question, I will 
immediately offer that for the consideration of the House.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
would point out to our colleagues that the action just described in my 
view is not necessary.
  I rise in support of the rule, the underlying bill, and in strong 
support for ending our combat mission in Iraq and redirecting our 
efforts towards stability in the region, including Iraq, but also in 
trouble spots like Iran, Lebanon, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
  Let me make three points.
  First, based on firsthand experience from my fourth visit to Iraq 
just weeks ago, Baghdad is not safer. True, we have worked successfully 
with tribal leaders against al Qaeda in Anbar Province, but the major 
population center, Baghdad, the focus of our military surge, is not 
turning around. Progress will not be made by a continuation of our 
combat mission.
  Second, the Skelton bill mirrors a companion bill in the other body 
which has impressive bipartisan support. I urge Republicans to support 
this measure, and know that some will do so.
  The message our constituents want to hear is that 290 of us, a veto-
proof bipartisan majority, insist on a responsible end to our combat 
mission in Iraq beginning now with passage of this bill.
  Third, though I feel Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff's use of 
the words ``gut feeling'' was unwise, I share the view that our country 
could be attacked at any time. Al Qaeda has regrouped in Pakistan and 
expanded its reach throughout North Africa. Homegrown cells in England 
and elsewhere are increasing, and our assumption must be that they are 
here as well.
  Low-tech, low-scale vehicle-borne attacks are, sadly, not hard to 
execute. At a minimum, those, and attacks on soft targets like our mass 
transit systems, may be in our near future.
  DHS, FBI and our exceptionally talented local police departments are 
working overtime, though their ranks are depleted and their equipment 
and they are surged in Iraq. But 100 percent protection is impossible.
  Mr. Speaker, this is where our attention must be, and our resources. 
Pass the Skelton bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 4 minutes 
to my friend from Holland, Michigan, the former chairman, now the 
ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, later on, my colleague from California 
will make a motion to defeat the previous question, as the gentlewoman 
from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) indicated. That will then enable us to 
address a very serious issue, the problem that, right now, we are blind 
and deaf to people who may want to attack the United States.
  As Secretary Chertoff indicated earlier this week, all of the 
indications are that we still remain very, very vulnerable. The 
chatter, the signals, indicate more clearly that America is still at 
risk. And it is not only the chatter. All you really need to do is take 
a look at what al Qaeda says. They are clear on their intent to attack 
the United States again.
  Take a look at what happened in the U.K. 2 weeks ago. Planned attacks 
in the heart of London, a planned attack at an airport indicate that al 
Qaeda and radical jihadists want to attack the U.K.; they want to 
attack in Europe, and they want to attack us in the United States.
  One of the things that needs to be clear is that what has helped keep 
us safe is our intelligence community. And as our ability to gain 
information has changed and adapted over the last couple of years, it 
has become even more clear that FISA needs to be updated, and FISA 
needs to be updated now. It needs to be done before we go home in 
August because if we expect to stay safe, we need to make sure that our 
intelligence community has all of the tools at its disposal to identify 
risks, to identify potential terrorists and to identify individuals who 
want to do us harm.
  FISA should not be used to protect international terrorists. It 
should not be used to protect radical jihadists. It should not be used 
as a screen to protect members of al Qaeda. Remember, FISA was designed 
in the 1970s, designed to handle a Cold War surveillance of countries 
like the Soviet Union. Back then and into the 1980s and early 1990s, 
our intelligence community only needed to be one step faster than the 
former Soviet Union. We didn't have to be that fast. And the risks and 
the threats were not as real or as immediate to our homeland as what 
they are today.
  Today our intelligence community needs to be one, two, three steps 
faster than radical jihadists, radical jihadists who use technology and 
who use the Internet and who use the communications world of today to 
drive their message and to plan their attacks. We need to be able to 
penetrate into it and penetrate into it very effectively.

                              {time}  1130

  Now is the time to modernize FISA. Now is the time to make sure that 
the intelligence community has the capability to identify the threats 
and the individuals who may want to attack the United States and make 
sure that they are in a position to identify these threats and get this 
information to our law enforcement individuals in the United States in 
a seamless way.
  We've made progress in a number of areas in intelligence reform. 
There's still much work to do, but one of the areas that we have not 
done is update FISA.
  Defeat the previous question and allow for the modernization of FISA 
now.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today it was reported that al Qaeda is as strong now as 
it was prior to the 9/11 attacks. Meanwhile, our troops who have served 
with honor and distinction are mired in the middle of a religious civil 
war in Iraq. The men and women of Iowa's National Guard have faced 
multiple redeployments at great sacrifice to them and their families.
  The American people continue to demand a new way forward in Iraq. 
Even Members of the President's own party are demanding change. We must 
immediately begin to chart a new course.
  I'm a cosponsor of the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act because 
it provides for the safe withdrawal of combat troops by April 1, 2008. 
We must bring home our troops safely and responsibly. We must also 
redirect our efforts against terrorism.
  This bill represents a step forward, and I urge its passage and the 
rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my very good friend from 
Rochester, New York, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, 
how many speakers she has remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I have two.
  Mr. DREIER. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and also the underlying bill, 
the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act. We can't afford to spend 
$10 billion a month on this failed war and continue to see the loss of 
lives, 3,600 now. From my district alone, 14 individuals have not come 
home to see their families. 27,000 have come home injured from the war.
  I want to tell you that in March I had the opportunity to visit some 
of our troops in Iraq, many from California representing southern 
California's San Gabriel Valley. Many of them told me they did not have 
appropriate equipment, that they were there for an insurmountable time, 
many on their second, third and fourth tour. One family

[[Page 18793]]

member from the City of Azusa told me that he had not even seen his 
child. It had been already 14 months.
  I would ask Members of Congress to remember who our constituents are. 
I have the adjoining district next to Congressman Dreier. In my 
district alone, 4-1 in a survey said, Republican and Democrat, we want 
the Congress to get us out of the war.
  I ask for support of our bill and the rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we were reassured that ``progress'' was 
being made in Iraq 500 deaths ago, 1,000 deaths ago, 2,000 deaths ago, 
and 3,000 deaths ago.
  Like the boy who cried wolf, this President cries ``progress.'' What 
progress?
  With all this talk about benchmarks, I think it's time to get off the 
bench and bring our troops home now, with an immediate, responsible, 
and safe redeployment.
  President Bush says as we approach five years of being in Iraq, he 
says ``listen to the generals.''
  Well, we've listened to them, and his top general says if we followed 
his course, if we stay his course, we'll be in Iraq fighting for 
another five to ten years.
  Real progress would begin by adopting today's very modest proposal 
and moving forward united so that our troops are not caught up in a 
final disastrous position in Iraq, and that we responsibly redeploy to 
protect our families, rather than generating one generation after 
another of jihadists.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time and ask 
if the gentleman has more requests.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to close the debate now, so I 
yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just begin by talking about procedure. We 
continue to hear the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules talk 
regularly about an open amendment process, and I will say with absolute 
certainty, I had the privilege of chairing the Rules Committee for 8 
years, and I will tell you that we have brought more rules to the floor 
of this House under a completely closed process during the first 7 
months of this year than we did during any 7 months during the 8 years 
that I was privileged to serve as chairman of the Rules Committee. So 
much for a new and open process.
  Now, let's look at what it is we're considering here, Mr. Speaker. 
Mr. Speaker, we know full well that this is a bill, unlike resolutions 
that may have been brought up under closed rules in the past, this is 
actually a bill, a bill that's scheduled to go to the President's desk. 
Everyone knows that this bill is not going to become law.
  What we've found is gross politicization once again, a commitment 
made that every week we're going to have some kind of vote on Iraq.
  We all know that the war in Iraq is very unpopular. We know that the 
President is a great punching bag on this for virtually everyone, but 
the fact of the matter is we are in the midst of a very important 
global war on terror, and as the President said in the past, you know, 
we all like to be loved, but I'd much rather be right than be loved.
  The fact of the matter is, we want to bring this war to an end. The 
President stood right here in this chamber in January and said I wish 
that this war were over and that we had won, but we need to ensure 
victory. And, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we are not given the 
opportunity to consider any thoughtful, bipartisan alternative to this 
measure which calls for the withdrawal to begin within 120 days. I 
mean, how crazy is that when we're looking for a report to come in 
September and as we are looking at success that has begun even after 
only 1 month, 1 month of this plan having been put into place under the 
greatly heralded General David Petraeus?
  Now, Mr. Speaker, as my friends from New Mexico and Michigan have 
said, I'm going to move to defeat the previous question. I'm going to 
move to defeat the previous question so that we can actually ensure 
that we have the tools to win this war on terror. We've had a number of 
anniversaries marked. We've spent a lot of time talking about them, but 
we fail to remember the success that we've had at preempting attacks on 
this country.
  Just last month, we marked the first anniversary of the discovery of 
the proposed attack on the Sears Tower and the FBI headquarters in 
Miami.
  Just last week, we marked the first anniversary of the proposed 
attack on the plan to blow up the Hudson River tunnel between New 
Jersey and Manhattan.
  Just in May, we had a report of the plan, as you all know, to see 
some of these people go in and start killing our people at Fort Dix in 
New Jersey.
  And then of course, just a few weeks ago, we had the plan to blow up 
JFK International Airport.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, we've been able to discover those, but we know 
full well from those in our intelligence operations and the Department 
of Homeland Security that we are, as Mr. Hoekstra said, blind and deaf, 
and I believe that we need to make sure we defeat the previous question 
so that we'll be in a position to amend this proposal so that we can 
ensure that we have the tools necessary to win this war on terror.
  So vote ``no'' on the previous question.

      Amendment to H. Res. 583 Offered by Mr. Drier of California

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the 
     following:
       That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2956) to 
     require the Secretary of Defense to commence the reduction of 
     the number of United States Armed Forces in Iraq to a limited 
     presence by April 1, 2008, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) four hours of debate, with 
     three hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed 
     Services and one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs; (2) the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute printed in section 3 of this resolution, if 
     offered by the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Hoekstra, or his 
     designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of 
     rule XXI, shall be considered as read, and shall be 
     separately debatable for two hours equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 2956 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
       Sec. 3. The amendment in the nature of a substitute to be 
     offered by Mr. Hoekstra of Michigan, or his designee, 
     referred to in section 1 is as follows:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:
       Subsection (f) of section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801) is amended to read 
     as follows--
       ``(f) `Electronic surveillance' means--
       ``(1) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, 
     or other surveillance device for acquiring information by 
     intentionally directing surveillance at a particular known 
     person who is reasonably believed to be in the United States 
     under circumstances in which that person has a reasonable 
     expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for 
     law enforcement purposes; or
       ``(2) the intentional acquisition of the contents of any 
     communication under circumstances in which a person has a 
     reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be 
     required for law enforcement purposes, if both the sender and 
     all intended recipients are reasonably believed to be located 
     within the United States.''

[[Page 18794]]



COMPARISON OF 110TH TO 109TH TYPES OF AMENDMENT PROCESSES FOR BILL CONSIDERED BY THE HOUSE THROUGH JULY 12, 2005
                 (EXCLUDING MEASURES CONSIDERED BY SUSPENSION OR UC) CURRENT AS OF JULY 12, 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           109th--Through July 12, 2005                                    110th--To date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Percent                            Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open: 12 (including approps).................................                 27.3       6 (including       9.4
                                                                                             approps)
Modified Open: 0.............................................                  0                    7      10.95
Structured: 21...............................................                 47.7                 25      39
Closed: 11...................................................                 25                   26      40.6
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total: 44..............................................                100                   64     100
                                                              ==================================================
Open: 12 (including approps).................................                 27.3       6 (including       9.4
                                                                                             approps)
Restrictive: 32..............................................                 72.7                 58      90.6
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total: 44..............................................                100                   64     100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Prepared by the Committee on Rules Republican Staff.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, once again, we're always treated to the 
inventive memory of the former Chair of the Rules Committee.
  Let me just state for the record that this time last when he was 
Chair, we had three open rules. At this time, we've had eight open 
rules.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and also on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 533, if ordered; and 
approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225, 
noes 197, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 620]

                               AYES--225

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

                               NOES--197

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

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Berkley
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Jindal
     Jordan
     Kucinich
     Stark
     Tancredo
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1204

  Mr. GRAVES changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House floor 
during today's rollcall vote on ordering the previous question on the 
rule, H. Res. 533, for H.R. 2956.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page 18795]]


  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 196, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 621]

                               YEAS--221

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

                               NAYS--196

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

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Berkley
     Cole (OK)
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Jindal
     Kucinich
     Lewis (CA)
     Musgrave
     Pickering
     Saxton
     Stark
     Tancredo
     Wilson (OH)
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1210

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

                          ____________________