[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3829-3839]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 63, IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 157 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 157

       Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
     Res. 63) disapproving of the decision of the President 
     announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 
     additional United States combat troops to Iraq. The 
     concurrent resolution shall be considered as read. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     concurrent resolution to final adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) 
     debate not beyond midnight on Tuesday, February 13, 2007, 
     equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the 
     Minority Leader or their designees; (2) debate not beyond 
     midnight on Wednesday, February 14, 2007, equally divided and 
     controlled

[[Page 3830]]

     by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their 
     designees; (3) 12 hours of debate commencing on Thursday, 
     February 15, 2007, equally divided and controlled by the 
     Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees; 
     and (4) one motion to recommit which may not contain 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 
     63 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this resolution, on each demand of the Majority 
     Leader or his designee after consultation with the Minority 
     Leader, it shall be in order at any time to debate the 
     concurrent resolution for an additional hour equally divided 
     and controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader or 
     their designees.
       Sec. 3. During consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 
     63 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation 
     of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the concurrent resolution to a time 
     designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weiner). The gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  For the purpose of debate only, I am pleased to yield the customary 
30 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. Dreier). All time 
yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 157 provides for comprehensive consideration of 
H. Con. Res. 63. It provides all of the Members of this House with 3 
full days of debate on this important matter. It is a momentous day for 
us, Mr. Speaker.
  This is the debate that many of us have yearned for for at least 4 
years, and our constituents have long suffered the lack of this debate. 
Every Member who wishes to speak on the resolution will have the 
opportunity to do so.
  The rule also, in addition to the time in the rule, allows the 
majority leader at any time, after consultation with the minority 
leader, to extend the debate when necessary.
  On January 10, President Bush announced an escalation of the Iraq war 
that will put as many as 50,000 more of our men and women in harm's 
way. Why 50,000 and not 20,000? Because the number of support groups 
who have to be there to support the troops adds up to nearly 50,000.
  This body owes them an explanation for why at this moment in history 
the sacrifice is justified. Democrats and Republicans alike are 
determined to defend our Nation from harm and are wholly committed to 
supporting and protecting the members of our Armed Forces. But numerous 
military officials of the highest ranks, like General Colin Powell, 
General John Abizaid, and many, many others, have expressed a strong 
belief that increasing the number of combat troops in Iraq will not 
improve the situation in the country.
  Two-thirds of the American people believe that further escalating the 
war is the wrong path to follow. This morning, 67 percent of them 
polled said we should get out at once. Even respected Members in the 
House and the Senate have been quick to state publicly that they oppose 
any troop escalation.
  Republican Representative Steve LaTourette best explained this broad 
bipartisan opposition to the President's plan. Like many Americans, he 
recently said, I desperately want America to succeed in Iraq and I 
would welcome a fresh approach, but this is not a fresh approach. This 
is more of the same.
  For 4 years, through the deaths of 3,126 American service people and 
nearly 60,000 Iraqi civilians and 25 to 30,000 grievously wounded, 
through the forced dislocation of millions of Iraqi families, through 
numerous troop escalations, and $379 billion appropriated by this 
Congress, through unbearable strain stretching our National Guard and 
Army Reserve, their members, and their families to the breaking point, 
more of the same has never worked.
  As of last June, only 25 percent of the Iraqis had clean water to 
drink. The oil production has fallen by nearly half since the war 
began. The unemployment rate in Iraq as of December ranged between 25 
and 40 percent.
  Sixty-seven more innocent civilians were killed just yesterday in yet 
another bombing. Eighty-four of our troops were killed last month. 
Forty-one have been killed in the last 2 weeks alone. My district has 
suffered six casualties since 2005, and 140 men and women from my State 
of New York have been killed so far in Iraq.
  Every piece of evidence suggests that the strategy currently employed 
by this administration is failing in Iraq. The only argument being used 
to support an escalation of the war would be one of trust. If we just 
give the President one more chance, we are told, things will be 
different.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the American people and the military 
leaders who know what war really is and a broad majority of this 
Congress are tired of giving this administration one more chance and 
have no reason to give it our trust.
  The Pentagon Inspector General recently reported that statements made 
by Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith, during the runup to war, 
were ``inconsistent with the consensus in the intelligence community 
and drew conclusions that were not fully supported by available 
intelligence.''
  Mr. Feith joins the President of the United States, the Vice 
President of the United States, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Rice, and 
many others who made statements which simply misled us into war. So why 
should we trust the administration's assessments of Iraq?
  Why should we trust the President to give the new troops that he 
wants to send the protection that they need to come back home unharmed? 
Despite all the President's rhetoric in support of our Armed Forces, a 
second Pentagon report released at the end of January bluntly states 
that for years in Iraq and Afghanistan ``servicemembers experienced a 
shortage of force protection equipment and were not always equipped to 
effectively complete their mission.''
  In fact, the report speaks of soldiers having to trade off Kevlar 
vests because there were not enough for each of them. This is what is 
happening today, Mr. Speaker. We were aware when we first went into the 
war that we were ill prepared, but 4 years later it is no better.
  The Washington Post noted just yesterday that many Humvees still do 
not have the armor needed to protect them from the bombs that are 
killing and injuring 70 percent of our troops abroad.

                              {time}  1030

  While our troops have gone unprotected, corruption exploitation and 
incompetence has squandered billions of dollars and allowed vital 
reconstruction projects to be handed to well-connected companies that 
failed to fulfill their duties. Unbid contracts proliferate. Despite it 
all, for years the administration treated accountability as if it were 
a dirty word.
  And why should we expect that without a radical change, of course, 
that things will suddenly improve?
  Mr. Speaker, changing a broken course in Iraq is not going to 
demoralize our troops or abandon them. Frankly, they must wonder what 
it is we have been doing here all along. To the contrary, it is the 
only way to support the troops.
  Changing a broken course will not provide our enemies with 
encouragement either. If our strategy is not working, then why would we 
help our enemies by resolutely adhering to the failing plan?
  Now, that is a question that needs to be asked again. If our strategy 
is not working, why would we help our enemy by resolutely adhering to 
the failing plan?
  Democrats are insisting on a new level of accountability in Congress, 
calling 52 hearings since January 4. But we also need a new course in 
Iraq. We need to oppose this escalation and stubborn adherence to a 
failing strategy.
  We need to shift our focus and footprint in the region and to accept 
what so many observers have known for years: The conflict in Iraq will 
only be solved politically, not militarily.
  As strongly as I feel on this matter, Mr. Speaker, I recognize that 
many of my colleagues in the House have a different perspective.

[[Page 3831]]

  What is needed is a serious discussion conducted by serious people. 
The first step of such a discussion is a focused, clear and full debate 
on the question of the escalation itself. We need an unambiguous up-or-
down vote on the escalation. We are keeping this rule and this bill so 
straightforward in order to best achieve that result.
  I want to emphasize that this is the first step, and Congress will 
have many opportunities during discussions of the supplemental funding 
request, for example, to debate the numerous dimensions of this war and 
to present new ways forward.
  But we must first know where we stand. Our goal this week is to 
establish whether Congress disagrees or agrees with the President's 
current approach to Iraq. If the answer is no, then we will have the 
basis for forcing the President to work in a bipartisan way with us to 
change that approach.
  The obvious truth is that a failure to achieve such a change will 
seal the fate of this war as one of the greatest blunders in America's 
history.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my appreciation to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York, the 
distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules. And I appreciate having 
the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and the 
underlying resolution. This rule lays out a bad process, and the 
underlying legislation lays out bad policy.
  This rule silences any meaningful debate on the floor by denying both 
Republicans and Democrats the right to offer any amendments or any 
substitute whatsoever.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democratic leadership has attempted to mask this 
denial of real debate by providing us with 36 hours of floor time. But 
this nearly unprecedented amount of time is really little more than a 
joke; 36 hours of debate, without any opportunity whatsoever to voice 
dissent with a substitute, amounts to nothing more than 36 hours of 
talk. The American people want and deserve a real and meaningful 
debate, not empty gestures that show utter disregard for an honest and 
open discussion on this issue.
  Why can't we have a discussion that explores real options and real 
solutions?
  The reason is very clear, Mr. Speaker. Our Democratic colleagues have 
none.
  It was bad enough when we addressed issues like stem cell research 
and minimum wage without any transparency or openness whatsoever. We 
have dealt with several important issues in a complete vacuum. But now, 
our Democratic colleagues are running roughshod over our national 
security, what is clearly the number one priority that we as a Federal 
Government, as federally elected officials, address.
  We know, Mr. Speaker, that the war on terror and policy in Iraq is 
very clearly the single most important issue that will be addressed by 
the 110th Congress. It clearly ranked very high on the list of issues 
voters cared about most in last November's election. The American 
people are concerned about this war, and they want to know that their 
elected officials are developing a sound and effective policy.
  So what have the Democrats offered us? What is the substance of their 
proposal in a nonbinding resolution that denies the troops the numbers 
that they need to succeed? In other words, their proposal is, in fact, 
meaningless as legislation, and it is disastrous as a policy.
  Mr. Speaker, it is an admission of defeat. And it is a vote of no 
confidence in our troops. Like it or not, it is a vote of no confidence 
in our troops. Why? Because it does not provide our troops what they 
need to succeed.
  Mr. Speaker, we are all opposed to the status quo in Iraq. And the 
President stood right here when he delivered his State of the Union 
message and made it very clear. He wants this war to be over, and he 
wants it to be won.
  We all know about the tremendous challenges that our men and women 
are facing over in Iraq. We all know that. We hear it regularly from 
our constituents, the families, and we hear it directly from the men 
and women who are serving. We all feel very deeply about the enormity 
of the sacrifice that so many have made in service to their country. 
And we know that they look to their Commander in Chief for a strategy 
for victory.
  The President has put forth his strategy, Mr. Speaker. With the 
advice and close consultation of our generals in the field, he has 
called for a surge in troop levels in order to give our Armed Forces 
the support that they need.
  Why, again is he doing this? So that he can give our men and women in 
uniform, our troops, the support that they need so that they can 
succeed.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, it is our role as a Congress to thoroughly vet the 
President's proposal to ensure that we develop an effective policy for 
moving forward. With this resolution, the Democrats have ignored our 
constitutional role. They have not held a single hearing on this 
resolution. They have called not one expert witness to testify for the 
record on the merits of this resolution. All that they offer is a knee-
jerk reaction against anything that the President says. Again, anything 
that the President says is wrong in the eyes of so many of our 
colleagues.
  Obviously, we, Mr. Speaker, cannot be a rubber stamp for the 
executive branch, the second branch of government. But neither can we 
afford, neither can we forfeit our duty as a deliberative body to fully 
explore the plan that has been put forward and to craft sound public 
policy as it relates to this.
  Mr. Speaker, in the absence of any deliberation, the Democrats have 
concocted a resolution that simply does, as I say, concede defeat. To 
the American people, it admits the Democratic leadership is devoid of 
ideas. And to the troops, it admits that they have no faith in their 
mission, no faith in the troops' mission whatsoever, because they need 
this sound strategy that has been put into effect so that we can, in 
fact, attain victory and they can be successful.
  What is worse, it tries to shroud their lack of faith in our military 
with platitudes about supporting our troops. You can't claim support 
for our troops without supporting their mission, Mr. Speaker. Again, 
you cannot claim to support our troops without supporting their 
mission. It is an outrage that they would deny our men and women in 
harm's way the traditional and additional support that they need to 
succeed.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon I had an opportunity to talk 
with one of my constituents, a former marine called Ed Blecksmith. Very 
tragically, 2 years ago this past November, his son, J.P. was killed in 
one of the most famous battles in the war in Iraq, the battle of 
Fallujah. Mr. Blecksmith implored me to support a policy of victory. He 
said that his son's death will have been in vain if we do not complete 
our mission. He made that very clear to me. Again, we got into this 
battle to win, and victory is, in fact, the only option. That is from 
the father of a man who was tragically killed in Iraq.
  And I know that we are going to hear a wide range of views over the 
next 36 hours that have come forward from different families. And, of 
course, our hearts go out to them. But I will say that this proud 
former marine does not want his son to have died in vain, and he is 
insistent that we do all that we can to ensure that we complete this 
mission.
  Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq, like all wars, has been very long, very 
difficult and very painful. It has come at a very high price, and we 
all know that it has taken its toll on the American people.
  But, Mr. Speaker, we go to war to win. We go to war with a mission, 
and we dishonor the lives of those who have made the ultimate 
sacrifice, if we, in fact, abandon that mission.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution offers no hope to the troops, and it 
offers no hope to the people of this country who want to see the 
conflict in Iraq resolved so that our troops can come home to their 
families.
  Mr. Speaker, they deserve better. We have a duty to offer them 
something

[[Page 3832]]

better. We have a duty to pursue nothing less than victory.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, reject this resolution, 
and, instead, work together to fulfill our constitutional 
responsibility as effective legislators.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by first thanking my 
colleagues, Tom Lantos, Ike Skelton and Walter Jones for working 
together in a bipartisan way to create this very simple, 
straightforward and clear resolution. Their work will allow this House 
to have a full and fair debate and, at the end of this week, have a 
clear up-or-down vote on whether or not we support or oppose the 
President's plan to escalate this war in Iraq.
  I also want to thank all my colleagues on the Rules Committee for a 
very thoughtful and productive debate last night.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are way ahead of the politicians in 
Washington on this issue. They want this war ended, and they want our 
troops to come home. Any Member of this House who has been home 
recently knows that the questions are increasing, the concern is 
growing, and the patience is running out.
  The American people are tired of the bickering and partisan 
posturing. They are also tired of people trying to muddy the waters and 
confuse the issue. They want their leaders to be less concerned with 
saving political face and more concerned with saving lives.
  It is my hope that at the end of this debate, the House will send a 
strong bipartisan message to the President of the United States that it 
is time to change course in Iraq.
  I hope that the President will listen and will take the opportunity 
to sit down with us, roll up his sleeves and do the hard but necessary 
work of bringing this tragic war to an end.
  If he does not, if he continues to ignore the will of the Congress 
and of the American people, then we will have no choice but to go 
beyond nonbinding resolutions.
  Mr. Speaker, Members like me, who believe it is time to exercise the 
power of the purse, will get that opportunity when we take up the 
President's supplemental appropriations request and the fiscal year 
2008 defense bills.
  The best way to support our troops is to bring them home safely to 
their families. The best way to protect them is to begin their 
immediate, safe and orderly withdrawal from Iraq.
  But this week we are focused, rightly in my opinion, on the narrow 
and important question of whether we support the President's desire to 
escalate the war.
  The irony is that Members of this House will be given more time to 
debate this nonbinding resolution than they were given by the previous 
majority on the question of authorizing the war itself.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a meaningless exercise, which is what some 
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said. For the 
first time in 4 years, the people's House will be on record opposing 
the President's policy in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are watching. They want to know 
where each Member stands on the issue of escalating the war in Iraq. 
That is the issue before us today. That is the only issue we shall be 
debating. It is what the American people want to know, and it is what 
the President of the United States needs to hear.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct honor of yielding 5 
minutes to my very distinguished colleague from Miami, Mr. Diaz-Balart.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman, my dear friend from California, for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, after the debate in the Rules Committee last night where 
I hoped, and I made clear that it was my hope, that there would be an 
opportunity for the minority to present an alternative to this debate 
in the form of an alternative motion, an amendment, it was 
disappointing that that was not made possible. So now we are faced with 
a resolution before us that we cannot seek to amend with regard to that 
extraordinarily serious problem facing the United States of America: 
the crisis in Iraq.
  Iraq presents the United States, Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the 
free world, with very difficult options, tough options. None of the 
options before us are simple nor easy. Clearly, as in every war in 
history, mistakes have been made. I believe, for example, that we 
should have learned the lessons from a neighbor of Iraq, from the 
creation in the 20th century of the Turkish state, modern Turkish 
state, by Ataturk, the father of that state, where the ability of 
religious parties, for example, to insert themselves into the political 
process was significantly limited. I think we could have done things 
such as that.
  I admit, we all must admit, that mistakes have been made. But, Mr. 
Speaker, as the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset said: ``Man is man 
plus his circumstances,'' and our circumstances in Iraq today 
constitute our options.
  What are our options? One option is partition. I do not believe that 
it is reasonable nor appropriate nor acceptable to very important 
realities in the region and factors in the region, I don't think that 
is a reasonable alternative. Another alternative is to withdraw before 
the situation is stabilized, before the democratically elected 
government in Iraq is stable. That is an option.
  I happen to believe that the resolution before us, in effect, says 
this is the beginning of withdrawal. That is what the resolution says 
in effect. Melt it down. The resolution states this is the beginning of 
withdrawal, despite the fact that the situation in Iraq by the 
democratically elected government has not been stabilized.
  So what will occur if we withdraw prematurely? Ethnic cleansing on a 
massive scale; obviously, the collapse of the current government; the 
creation of an ideal vacuum in power, a power vacuum for international 
terrorism. We would see the creation of terrorist camps that would 
dwarf what we saw in Afghanistan before 9/11. Inevitably a surge in 
influence and the projection of power by the Iranian dictatorship. That 
uncontrolled projection of power in its quest to acquire, by the way, a 
nuclear weapon, that uncontrolled projection of power by Iran may very 
possibly lead to a regional war, Mr. Speaker, because the reality of 
the matter is that that region of the world cannot permit the 
uncontrolled projection of power by the Iranian dictatorship.
  Now, the withdrawal could be, as I have stated, either announced and 
immediate or announced and phased. The reality of the matter is what 
the new congressional majority is bringing to the floor today is an 
announcement of withdrawal irrespective of what the situation may be on 
the ground in Iraq.
  Another alternative, Mr. Speaker, is the President of the United 
States' attempt to stabilize the situation, to provide sufficient 
order, sufficient absence of chaos, for the government of Iraq to 
survive, for the sake not only of Iraq but of our national security. 
That is an option the President of the United States is trying to 
convert into a reality for the sake of our national security.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, the options before us are not difficult. The 
resolution before us constitutes the wrong message at the wrong time in 
the wrong manner.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding me the time and for her outstanding leadership on our 
committee.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate is long overdue. There is no issue more 
serious or more urgent. The American people said loud and clear in the 
last election that they consider bringing this war to a close to be the 
singular imperative of their leaders. Yet rather than beginning to 
bring the troops home, the President has proposed escalating this 
conflict.

[[Page 3833]]

  The American people deserve to know where their elected 
representatives stand on this, the most critical issue at this moment 
in history. This week the people will get their answer.
  Mr. Speaker, here is where I stand: I opposed this war from the 
beginning, and I support several responsible proposals to bring this 
war to a close. I believe the President's proposed escalation would be 
a tragic mistake. It will most likely result in an increase in violence 
while only postponing the hard political choices the Iraqi people must 
make. It will also increase the strain on a military that is already 
stretched to the breaking point.
  Mr. Speaker, it is critically important to make clear that Iraq has 
spiraled into civil war because of the failure of this country's 
political leadership, not our troops. Our brave men and women in 
uniform have done everything that has been asked of them. The real 
tragedy is how ill served they have been by their political leadership.
  I have heard firsthand from many families in Sacramento the impact 
this has had on their lives. Linda, a concerned mother, told me about 
her son, Nicholas, who serves as an Army sergeant in the 82nd Airborne 
in Germany. Shortly, he will be returning to Iraq for his third tour. 
And there are some 30 soldiers in the Sacramento area who have died in 
this war. I have met several times with members of the National Guard 
and Reserve and their families. Every Member knows what I am talking 
about. We have all done it. We all know the pain.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this administration has failed to meet 
the most basic requirements of responsible leadership. As a result, it 
has abdicated any claim to deference from this Chamber on this war and 
has certainly relinquished the moral authority to send men and women 
into this catastrophe.
  Undoubtedly, this Chamber will need to take more forceful action if 
we are to bring this war to a conclusion. But today is an important 
first step.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to oppose this 
gravely mistaken proposal to escalate the war.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate is long overdue. There is no issue more 
serious . . . or more urgent. The American People sent a message in the 
last election. That message was that they consider bringing this war to 
a close to be the singular imperative of their leaders.
  Yet rather than beginning to bring troops home, the President has 
proposed escalating this conflict . . . sending tens of thousands of 
additional troops to Iraq.
  Rather than change direction . . . they would instead continue down 
our current, disastrous path . . . only at a faster pace and with more 
human life placed in harm's way.
  This week, every Member of the House of Representatives will have an 
opportunity to let their constituents know where they stand on the 
President's proposed escalation. That is only right.
  The American people deserve to know where their elective 
representatives stand on this, the most critical issue at this moment 
of our history.
  Mr. Speaker, here's where I stand. I opposed this war from the 
beginning, and I support several responsible proposals to bring this 
war to a close.
  I believe the President's proposed escalation would be a tragic 
mistake. His stubborn insistence on pursuing the present course has 
been rejected by our military leaders . . . the independent Iraq study 
group . . . and a strong majority of the public. And with good reason.
  This escalation will most likely result in an increase in violence 
while only postponing the hard political choices the Iraqi people must 
make.
  Escalation of this conflict will also increase the strain on a 
military that is already stretched to the breaking point.
  Mr. Speaker, it is critically important to make clear that Iraq has 
spiraled into civil war because of the failure of this country's 
political leadership . . . not our troops.
  Our brave men and women in uniform have done everything that has been 
asked of them. They courageously put their lives on the line every day 
for us.
  The real tragedy is how ill-served our men and women in uniform have 
been by their political leadership.
  I have heard firsthand from many families in Sacramento about the 
impact this has had on their lives.
  In 2005, I spoke with a group of women whose husbands were serving in 
the National Guard in Iraq.
  One woman told me she bought her husband a Kevlar vest before he 
deployed . . . something all too many families were doing for their 
loved ones because the military wasn't providing it. Imagine the stress 
. . . sending a loved one into danger without the confidence that he 
would be given the needed equipment for protection.
  And I have heard countless stories about the hardships being created 
by the multiple tours this conflict has demanded.
  Linda, a concerned mother from Sacramento, told me about her son, 
Nicholas, who serves as an Army sergeant in the 82nd Airborne in 
Germany. He lives on-base with his wife and two children, ages four and 
five. Another child is on the way.
  Nicholas recently learned that he was going to have to return to Iraq 
for his third tour.
  Linda wrote me and said that his family . . . and I'm quoting . . . 
``. . . will be all alone in Germany when he leaves and each time he 
has gone, the children have terrible nightmares and anger issues 
because they do not understand the long separations.''
  Another Sacramento couple that wrote me are the proud parents of 
three Army soldiers . . . one is currently serving his second tour in 
Iraq . . . the other two have already completed two tours in Iraq. They 
ask . . . will their sons be asked to go back a third time?
  My friend Richard Beach served as a chaplain in the U.S. Army 
Reserves in Iraq. Richard served in Iraq early in the conflict, and 
realized that 4 years since he went there, many of his fellow 
reservists are still serving there.
  Richard shared with me a note he sent to some of his fellow members 
of the 114th. He wrote . . . and I quote . . . ``I remember four years 
ago we were getting ready for our trip to Fort Lewis and then on to 
Iraq. I hope as the fourth anniversary of the war comes up you are all 
in good health and living life to the fullest. I too pray that soon 
this war will end, and we will stop sending our soldiers off to war.''
  Four years later . . . and still many of the same soldiers and their 
families are making the same sacrifice. But that is the heartbreaking 
reality here.
  There are some 30 soldiers in the Sacramento area who have died in 
this war. I've met several times with members of the National Guard and 
Reserve and their families. Every member knows what I am talking about. 
We've all done it. We all know the pain.
  The notion of ``shared sacrifice'' is something that helped make this 
country great.
  But with this administration . . . only our soldiers and their 
families share in the sacrifice.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that this country 
has tried troop increases before . . . to no avail. Sadly, this 
administration simply lacks credibility when arguing that this proposal 
will work.
  As a result of this administration's failure to meet the most basic 
requirements of responsible leadership, it has abdicated any claim to 
deference from this chamber on this war . . . and it has certainly 
relinquished the moral authority to send additional men and women into 
this catastrophe.
  Today's step is only a first step. Undoubtedly, this chamber will 
need to take more forceful action if we are to bring this war to a 
conclusion. But it is an important first step.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution . . . and to oppose 
this gravely mistaken proposal to escalate the war.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 5 minutes 
to a hardworking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from 
Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member 
for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 157 and the 
underlying resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation is engaged in a Global War on Terror, a war 
that we did not seek, but a war that was brought to our shores on 
September 11, 2001. Today, we fight an enemy without borders that is 
determined to destroy our Nation by any means necessary. An al Qaeda 
leader said that they have the right to ``kill 4 million Americans, 2 
million of them children, and to exile twice as many and wound and 
cripple thousands.''
  The President of Iran has called a world without America and Israel 
``possible and feasible.''
  It is also undeniable that Iraq is the central front on the war on 
terror. But you don't have to take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. The 
terrorists themselves have told us it is so. Al Qaeda's deputy

[[Page 3834]]

leader has repeatedly said that Afghanistan and Iraq are the ``two most 
crucial fields'' in the Islamists' war. In a letter he said that 
expelling Americans from Iraq is the first step in expanding the jihad 
wave.
  If this, Mr. Speaker, is what the terrorists are telling us, why 
should we not believe them?
  As much as I wish that our troops were home, I recognize that 
arbitrary pulling out of Iraq would provide a sanctuary for terrorists 
and have serious consequences for our U.S. security. A self-sustaining 
government there is critical to our security here.
  I share the frustration of all Americans who had hoped that the 
Iraqis would be protecting and governing themselves by now, but that 
simply is not the reality. Previous strategies to stabilize Iraq have 
not succeeded and things cannot continue as they have been. In order to 
succeed, Iraqis must step up and take responsibility for their own 
security. And under the new strategy, Mr. Speaker, announced last 
month, they will be held more accountable in the future.
  Some say this new strategy is wrong; yet they fail to say what is 
right. They call for an arbitrary pullout yet have not answered the 
question ``what then?'' They seek to cut off funding for our troops yet 
offer no plan for fighting terrorists.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no easy answer. But simply declaring that we 
don't wish to be at war anymore does not make our enemies surrender. 
Withholding military personnel, failing to provide funds for our 
troops, or pulling out of Iraq with no plan to win the war on terror 
are simply not options. The consequence of failure is simply too dire. 
If we are defeated, Iraq will become a haven that our enemies will use 
to launch attacks against us. The Middle East will remain destabilized. 
Terrorists will fight us on our soil. And it will send a dangerous 
signal to countries like Iran, North Korea, and Syria, and embolden 
terrorists around the world.
  The Baker-Hamilton Commission warned specifically against a 
precipitous withdrawal. They said: ``The near-term results would be a 
significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional 
destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would 
depict our withdrawal as a historic victory.''
  So our challenge, Mr. Speaker, is to insist on victory and not accept 
defeat. So, accordingly, I will not vote to deny our troops the support 
they need to protect themselves and America.
  The nonbinding resolution before us today is contradictory on 
supporting the troops. On the first page it says we will continue to 
support the troops in Iraq, but on the next page it expresses 
opposition to sending reinforcements that our military says are needed 
to support our troops currently on the ground.
  Mr. Speaker, how can you support the troops but not the mission?
  Let me say again that I will not vote to deny our troops the support 
they need to protect themselves and America. What I would vote for, if 
given the opportunity, is a plan that would have the force of law, that 
would set benchmarks to measure progress, that would ensure that 
funding for our troops is not cut off, and that would keep Congress 
fully apprised so that they can make informed decisions.
  In closing, I would just say that we must not forget the sacrifice 
that our troops are making. They are fighting the enemy abroad so that 
we will not have to fight them here. The bottom line is that this is 
about America and our security and a set of enemies who have said again 
and again that their goal is to destroy us.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this closed rule and 
the underlying resolution.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, today we begin debate on the 
question of whether to escalate the war in Iraq.
  The administration's policy on Iraq has failed. It failed yesterday, 
it is failing today, and it will fail tomorrow. These failures have 
left America weakened, not strengthened.
  Today, we must chart a new course. We must end the war in Iraq.
  Each one of us is immeasurably proud of the service of our troops. 
They answered the call to duty, and they have done their job.

                              {time}  1100

  I am particularly proud of our Vermont troops and our families. No 
State has sacrificed more per capita in the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan than our State of Vermont. But while our men and women in 
uniform have done their jobs, the President's policies have failed this 
country and failed our troops, demonstrably and repeatedly.
  Mr. Speaker, it is now our responsibility to chart a new direction; 
one that brings our troops home, restores diplomacy to foreign policy 
and improves the readiness of our military. And we start today. No more 
troops, no more phony intelligence, no more blank checks. We must end 
this war.
  Top military commanders have made it clear that no amount of American 
military force can take the place of the political consensus required 
to end Iraq's civil war. We now face two questions: What is best for 
America and what is best for Iraq? And the answer to both questions is 
to end this war.
  This resolution, Mr. Speaker, is just a beginning. The President has 
left us no choice. America must change the direction of the war. If the 
President won't, we will.
  Today, we choose the path which offers us the best hope for success: 
escalating the military conflict, as the President proposes, or taking 
the first step in a new direction. To strengthen America, we must 
choose a new path. Top generals have said it, the bipartisan Iraq Study 
Group confirmed it, and the American people demand it.
  Mr. Speaker, the troops have done their job. Now we must do our ours.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 4 
minutes to our colleague the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. 
Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Los Angeles.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today as a result of the meeting in the 
Rules Committee last night where members of the Republican minority 
tried to speak about our desire to have more added to this ``simple 
resolution,'' as it is being called by the minority. And that it is, a 
simple resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, we implored upon the committee to make in order more 
amendments which would specifically speak directly to the needs of 
trying to provide direction and to work with the President of the 
United States on where we are in Iraq. In fact, on March 15, 2006, 
Members of both parties from this body supported the creation of a 
bipartisan Iraq Study Group to review the situation on the ground and 
to propose strategies on a way to move forward.
  For more than 8 months, the study group met with military officials, 
regional experts, academics, journalists and other high-level 
officials. This study group included James Baker and Lee Hamilton as 
cochairmen. It included Lawrence Eagleburger, Vernon Jordan, Ed Meese, 
Sandra Day O'Connor, Leon Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles S. Robb 
and Alan Simpson.
  Mr. Speaker, we believe that the things which were embodied within 
this Iraq Study Group report, which came out this last December, embody 
the kinds of things that the President of the United States is 
attempting to do now in Iraq. The President stood before each and every 
one of us as we sat in this Chamber just a few weeks ago and he 
outlined very clearly the changes that are taking place and his 
willingness not only to work with this body, but willingness to be more 
specific.
  I would like to read some of the things from the Iraq Study Group 
report that we will not be hearing as the voice of the United States 
Congress. That is, that the United States should work to ``provide 
political reassurance to the Iraqi Government in order to avoid its 
collapse and the disintegration of the country.''
  America should ``fight al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in 
Iraq using more special operations teams.''

[[Page 3835]]

  We should ``train, equip and support the Iraqi security forces.''
  And we should ``deter even more destructive interference in Iraq by 
Syria and Iran.''
  But there is more. The ``more'' is ``We could, however, support a 
short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize 
Baghdad, or to speed up training to equip the mission.''
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is what this resolution, that is 
nonbinding, is all about is to politically neuter the President of the 
United States, and, I believe, our forces and our mission in Iraq. It 
is about trying to do something that is politics, rather than policy.
  The Rules Committee last night heard from several of our colleagues, 
one of them Sam Johnson, who brought forth an amendment that would 
clarify that Congress and the American people support our troops and 
the funding for our Armed Forces that are serving in harm's way to make 
sure that we do not put that element at risk.
  Our colleague from Virginia, Frank Wolf, brought forth the things 
that I just spoke about. He brought to the Rules Committee the 
recommendations from the Iraq Study Group, with this emphasis on 
providing American commanders in Iraq with the strategic and tactical 
means to support this war. However, my colleagues on the Democratic 
side have decided that what they want to do is they want to have this 
be all about politics and not about policy. They are after a simple 
answer.
  Last night, the Rules Committee met--and after hours of testimony 
from members from both parties, the Democrat members of the Committee 
voted along party lines to shut out every opportunity for amendment to 
the Resolution that the House will be considering over the next 3 days.
  Our colleague from Texas, Sam Johnson, brought an amendment that 
would have clarified that Congress and the American people support our 
troops and that funding for our armed forces serving bravely in harm's 
way will not be cut off or restricted in any way.
  Our colleague from Virginia, Frank Wolf, also brought to the Rules 
Committee a very comprehensive amendment that would have made clear 
that Congress supports the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group--
with its emphasis on providing American commanders serving in Iraq with 
the strategic and tactical means that they need for success and 
accelerated cooperation with Iraqi leaders to meet specific goals--as 
the strategy for moving forward to success in Iraq.
  A number of other members also spent a large part of their evening 
sitting in the Rules Committee, waiting to share their ideas about how 
to improve this resolution--however, unfortunately the 13 members of 
the Rules Committee are the only ones who will have the benefit of 
hearing and debating these good ideas, because none of them were given 
the opportunity to be considered and voted on by the House.
  Instead, today we are on the floor with a completely closed process 
to debate a non-binding resolution with no teeth and a serious logical 
flaw.
  In 2 short paragraphs, without explicitly stating that funds will not 
be cut off from our troops serving in harm's way, the resolution 
asserts that Congress and the American people will continue to support 
and protect the members of Armed Forces who are serving in Iraq. This 
non-specific language is something that every member of this House 
clearly supports.
  It also states that Congress disapproves of the President's plan to 
deploy 20,000 reinforcements to Iraq to bolster the mission and provide 
additional support to troops already serving on the ground.
  This resolution gives no direction about how we should proceed in 
Iraq--instead, it settles for some generic language about supporting 
the troops without guaranteeing that Congress will continue to fund 
their efforts as they remain in harm's way--and it simply amounts to a 
vote for the status quo.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a serious debate for serious people. We all 
understand that the cost of failure in Iraq is too great to bear--it 
would embolden radical Islamic terrorists and give them a base from 
which to train and attack America for generations.
  But with this resolution my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
provide the troops with nothing: no guarantees that we will continue to 
fund their heroic efforts; no guarantees that Congress will heed the 
advice of the Iraq Study group--which notes on page 73 of their report 
that it would ``support a short-term redeployment or surge of American 
combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and 
equipping mission.''
  Nor does it provide the American people with a clear picture of our 
direction in Iraq--it merely says ``no'' to the only strategy for 
success which has been put forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that Congress can do better than this nonbinding 
vote for the status quo in Iraq. I know that a number of my Republican 
colleagues tried to improve this legislation, but were denied the 
opportunity by the Democrat majority.
  But I know that our troops serving in harm's way, and the American 
people deserve better than this simplistic resolution that provides no 
new ideas, outlines no strategy for victory, and makes no guarantee 
that we will continue to fund the efforts of our troops.
  I am greatly disappointed in this resolution and the Democrat 
majority's efforts to prevent this body from considering amendments 
from thoughtful members to improve it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Rules Chair.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to bring this debate to the floor of the 
Congress. I oppose escalation of the war in Iraq that is being pushed 
by President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Their intention to send 
more young American men and women into what is largely a sectarian 
civil war is more of the same ``stay the course'' mentality.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am 
particularly concerned that the reckless Bush escalation will undermine 
our country's readiness and ability to address other global threats to 
our national security. Indeed, in recent testimony, the Marine 
Commandant and the Army Chief of Staff testified that America will run 
a strategic risk by implementing the escalation and staying on the same 
course in Iraq. The generals confirmed that if our personnel and 
equipment are tied up in Iraq, then our ability to handle future 
threats and contingencies is reduced.
  For example, in my State of Florida, the National Guard does not have 
all of the equipment it needs to train and deploy soldiers. They are 
only 28 percent equipped.
  President Bush in essence confirmed that the escalation will harm our 
Nation's readiness when he sent over his proposed 2008 budget last 
week. He requested an additional $235 billion for this war. That is on 
top of already $350 billion of taxpayer money. In effect, Bush's war in 
Iraq is swallowing the defense budget and our country's ability to 
prepare for any other threat to our national security.
  The Bush plan also sacrifices health care for children and our 
seniors and investments in our own towns and neighborhoods, while 
continuing this war without end.
  We will debate budgets and appropriations in the coming months, but 
after 4 years of war, over 3,100 deaths of Americans, $350 billion, and 
the Bush-Cheney failure to aggressively pursue a political solution, it 
is important that we have this debate in the House of Representatives 
this week. It is important for Members to go on record, and it is 
important to demand a new direction on behalf of the American people.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 3 minutes 
to a very hardworking former member of the Rules Committee, our good 
friend from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and 
the underlying legislation.
  We are about to begin 3 days of debate over the Democrats' nonbinding 
resolution, 3 days of debate over a resolution that is nothing more 
than a political statement against our President.
  Considering that last month Democrats rammed six bills through this 
House in a mere 100 hours, I would say we have ample time this week to 
also debate a Republican alternative to this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, as you well know, last week one of the Democratic 
Members in this body repeatedly referred to us as the ``Republic 
Party.'' I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that that Member was necessarily 
trying to pay us a compliment. But indeed he did, because this is a 
Republic, and we speak on behalf of 650,000 constituents.

[[Page 3836]]

  But the Democrats have taken that away from us, Mr. Speaker. The 
Democratic leadership has shown us time and time again their pledge of 
an open and inclusive Congress amounts to nothing more than tired 
campaign rhetoric. So over and over the next 3 days, you will hear many 
Republican opinions and ideas, but you will see no Republican 
legislation.
  Perhaps the Democratic leadership is afraid that a Republican 
alternative, like the bill introduced by a true American war hero, Sam 
Johnson of Texas, would force the Members to finally put their money 
where their mouths are and vote ``yes'' or ``no'' to cut funding for 
the troops. But instead, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats prefer to debate 
nonbinding resolutions that criticize the President's plan without 
offering any alternative or strategy for victory.
  Mr. Speaker, we should be using the next 3 days to debate substantive 
legislation, not political attacks. This nonbinding resolution may have 
been crafted with the 2008 election in mind, but I implore my 
colleagues to look far beyond 2008 to the future of our Nation and this 
global war on terror. Don't play politics with the security of the 
United States of America. Don't play politics with possibly our last 
best chance to secure freedom for the Iraqi people on the greater 
stability in the Middle East.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have sometimes accused Republicans in this 
Congress of being ``yes men'' for the President. Well, I believe the 
Democrats are being ``no men'' for the President, blindly saying no to 
any plan he proposes, without considering the merits or what is best 
for the security of this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely unbelievable that the Democrats are 
proposing 3 days of debate on an issue as critically important as Iraq 
without any Republican input or alternative. The manner in which this 
debate will be carried out is an affront to the American people and to 
our troops. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposition to this 
shameful rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this rule on a clear and concise resolution 
that expresses the will of the American people. Our troops are brave 
and capable. They have fought overwhelming odds and in the face of 
incomprehensible difficulty. They have engaged in many acts of heroism. 
And this resolution makes it unequivocally clear that those of us who 
feel it incumbent to speak out in opposition to the President's 
escalation nonetheless continue to support our troops.
  All of us and all Americans support our troops. They must have and we 
must provide that which they need for any mission which they are sent. 
But Congress also has a responsibility to provide oversight, to ensure 
that our brave and honorable troops are provided a mission based on 
realistic assessments and an achievable goal before we ask them to risk 
life and limb to implement it.
  The President has asked Congress and the American people to support 
his plan to escalate our involvement in the war in Iraq by sending an 
additional 20,000 troops, and that doesn't count the additional 20,000 
support personnel that will be part of the escalation.
  This war is almost 4 years long now. Congress has not spoken as 
loudly and as clearly as its responsibility requires. As the 
Representative of the 13th District of Ohio, I cannot sit silent. I am 
opposed to the President's plan for escalation, and, as such, I fully 
support this rule and resolution.
  The President's own military commanders and experts have advised 
against this course of action. My constituents and the American people 
have made their position known. People across this Nation voted for a 
change in direction in Iraq. The plan to escalate is directly 
contradictory to that call for change. It takes us further down the 
wrong path, getting us deeper and deeper with a policy that asks our 
military to accomplish the nonmilitary mission of creating a viable, 
unified government in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and resolution.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is much more time on 
the other side, so I would like to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy).
  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I take the floor 
today not as a Democrat or a Republican, but as an Iraq war veteran who 
was a captain with the 82nd Airborne Division in Baghdad. Three years 
ago I came home, but 19 of my fellow paratroopers did not.
  I rise to give a voice to the hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians 
and veterans across the globe who are deeply troubled by the 
President's plan to escalate the number of American troops in Iraq.
  I served in Baghdad from June 2003 to January 2004. I saw firsthand 
this administration's failed policies in Iraq.
  In this new Congress, there are 49 new faces. I am proud that five of 
those 49 new faces are veterans. All five of those veterans are 
Democrats.
  Today, I stand with my other military veterans, Sergeant Major Tim 
Walz and Admiral Joe Sestak. We stand together to tell this 
administration that we are against the escalation and to say with one 
voice that Congress will no longer be a blank check to the President's 
failed policies.
  Mr. Speaker, the time for more troops was 4 years ago, but this 
President ignored the military experts like General Shinseki and 
General Zinni, who in 2003 called for more troops, several hundred 
thousand more troops, to secure Iraq.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, our President is ignoring military leaders again, 
patriots like General Colin Powell, General Abizaid and the bipartisan 
Iraq Study Group who were clear: the President's plan to send more of 
our best and bravest to die refereeing a civil war in Iraq is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a time for a new direction in Iraq. From my time 
serving with the 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq, it became clear that 
in order to succeed we must make it clear to the Iraqis that we are not 
going to be there forever. Yet 3 years after I left Iraq, Americans are 
still running convoys up and down Ambush Alley and securing Iraqi 
street corners.
  Today I am proud to stand with my fellow veterans and support this 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, we often hear from our colleagues on the other side that 
the only way to support the troops is to blindly support the President.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask anyone to look at Admiral Joe Sestak, a man who 
was responsible for the safety and security of 15,000 sailors and 
marines, and tell him that he does not support the troops. I ask them 
to look at Sergeant Tim Walz, a man who served his country for 24 years 
in the Minnesota National Guard as a noncommissioned officer, the 
backbone of our Army, and tell him he does not support our troops.
  Mr. Speaker, we are the troops, and we oppose the President's 
escalation of troops.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very 
good friend, who is the progenitor of the Iraq Study Group, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, last night I testified before the Rules 
Committee asking that the Iraq Study Group report be made in order for 
debate today. The Iraq Study Group offers the way forward, a new 
approach, and is authored by former Secretary of State Baker and former 
chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Lee Hamilton. Yet 
there has been no vote allowed. The American people have been shut out 
with regard to having a vote on the Iraq Study Group report. You cannot 
pick and choose with regard to the Iraq Study Group.
  Let me read you some of the comments that have been made by the 
members who served on the Iraq Study Group. Lee Hamilton, Jim Baker:

[[Page 3837]]

``There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq. However, 
there are actions that can be taken to improve the situation.''
  ``Our political leaders must build a bipartisan approach to bring a 
responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly war. Our 
country deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric, and a 
policy that is adequately funded and sustainable.''
  That is the Iraq Study Group. Members on both sides have said they 
support the Iraq Study Group, and yet there is no vote allowed on the 
Iraq Study Group.
  ``In this consensus report,'' Hamilton and Baker go on to say, ``the 
10 members of the Iraq Study Group,'' bipartisan, five and five, 
``present a new approach because we believe there is a better way 
forward.''
  The better way forward, and the gentleman who just spoke mentioned 
the Iraq Study Group, is the Iraq Study Group, and yet the Rules 
Committee last night foreclosed a vote on the Iraq Study Group which is 
bipartisan.
  Lee Hamilton, Jim Baker, Leon Panetta, Bill Perry, Ed Meese. Ed 
Meese's son is one of the colonels with General Petraeus. Leon Panetta, 
who served here in the Congress, but yet for some reason the American 
people are not to be given an opportunity whereby their Congress can 
vote on the Iraq Study Group.
  There are good people on both sides. Every resolution should be in 
order. God bless you, what you are offering is fine, but give the 
country, give the American people, give us an opportunity to vote on 
the Iraq Study Group. You cannot pick and choose.
  I urge a defeat of the resolution and urge that we allow this to be 
voted on whereby we can have a successful policy to bring this country 
together.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise against this rule and against the underlying 
resolution.
  I've been to Iraq three times since the United States sent Armed 
Forces there. I continue to be deeply concerned about the violence that 
continues to take the lives of U.S. personnel as well as innocent Iraqi 
citizens.
  That's why, upon my return from my third trip in 2005, I worked to 
promote an independent, bipartisan review of ongoing operations in 
Iraq--what I called ``fresh eyes on the target. ``
  I initiated the legislation authorizing and funding the Iraq Study 
Group, which was set up through the U.S. Institute of Peace. The 10-
member group--5 Republicans and 5 Democrats--was led by cochairs James 
A. Baker III, the Nation's 61st Secretary of State and honorary 
chairman of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice 
University, and Lee H. Hamilton, our former colleague in this House and 
director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, who 
also cochaired the 9/11 Commission.
  The other members of the study group included: Lawrence S. 
Eagleburger, former Secretary of State; Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., former 
advisor to President Clinton; Edwin Meese III, former Attorney General; 
Sandra Day O'Connor, retired Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme 
Court; Leon E. Panetta, former White House chief of staff for President 
Clinton; William J. Perry, former secretary of Defense; Charles S. 
Robb, former Governor and Senator of Virginia, and Alan K. Simpson, 
former Senator from Wyoming.
  After more than 8 months of work, the panel presented its report last 
December 6. The Iraq Study Group was a truly bipartisan group who came 
together--like this body should be coming together--and offered the way 
forward in Iraq.
  I believe the group's work provides an important framework to move 
forward in Iraq and on January 24 I introduced H. Con. Res. 45, 
expressing the sense of Congress that all the recommendations of the 
Iraq Study Group become the new baseline strategy for dealing with 
Iraq. That's the resolution we should be advancing today.
  In my car coming to the Capitol this morning I heard a member of this 
body on a radio interview say he's voting for H. Con. Res. 63 because 
what we're looking for is a new solution for Iraq. We have that. It's 
the Iraq Study Group report. Look at the cover of the report--``The way 
forward--A new approach.''
  The Iraq situation has created a bitter divide in our country. We all 
want to see an end to the fighting in Iraq and stability there, as well 
as an end to violence perpetrated by terrorists around the world. I 
continue to pray for the protection of the American service men and 
women and civilians who are putting their lives on the line every day 
and also for their families here at home who continue to make 
tremendous sacrifices.
  The Iraq Study Group met the test of developing a bipartisan 
consensus on how to succeed in Iraq. When our country is divided we are 
weak. When we are together we are strong.
  I want to read from the letter penned by Secretary Baker and 
Congressman Hamilton as the prelude to the Iraq Study Group's 
recommendations:

       There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq. 
     However, there are actions that can be taken to improve the 
     situation and protect American interests.
       Many Americans are dissatisfied, not just with the 
     situation in Iraq but with the state of our political debate 
     regarding Iraq. Our political leaders must build a bipartisan 
     approach to bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a 
     lengthy and costly war. Our country deserves a debate that 
     prizes substance over rhetoric, and a policy that is 
     adequately funded and sustainable. The President and Congress 
     must work together. Our leaders must be candid and forthright 
     with the American people in order to win their support.
       No one can guarantee that any course of action in Iraq at 
     this point will stop sectarian warfare, growing violence, or 
     a slide toward chaos. If current trends continue, the 
     potential consequences are severe. Because of the role and 
     responsibility of the United States in Iraq, and the 
     commitments our government has made, the United States has 
     special obligations. Our country must address as best it can 
     Iraq's many problems. The United States has long-term 
     relationships and interests at stake in the Middle East, and 
     needs to stay engaged.
       In this consensus report, the ten members of the Iraq Study 
     Group present a new approach because we believe there is a 
     better way forward. All options have not been exhausted. We 
     believe it is still possible to pursue different policies 
     that can give Iraq an opportunity for a better future, combat 
     terrorism, stabilize a critical region of the world, and 
     protect America's credibility, interests, and values. Our 
     report makes it clear that the Iraqi government and the Iraqi 
     people also must act to achieve a stable and hopeful future.
       What we recommend in this report demands a tremendous 
     amount of political will and cooperation by the executive and 
     legislative branches of the U.S. government. It demands 
     skillful implementation. It demands unity of effort by 
     government agencies. And its success depends on the unity of 
     the American people in a time of political polarization. 
     Americans can and must enjoy the right of robust debate 
     within a democracy. Yet U.S. foreign policy is doomed to 
     failure--as is any course of action in Iraq--if it is not 
     supported by a broad, sustained consensus. The aim of our 
     report is to move our country toward such a consensus.

  This last sentence is the essence of what we should be addressing 
this week. The recommendations of the Iraq Study Group provide the 
blueprint for a consensus. The work has been done. The recommendations 
have been made. Now is the time for implementation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, today we will begin a long 
overdue debate about the President's troop escalation plan, and the 
Iraq war in general. I spoke earlier this morning, and I had the 
opportunity to address some of the conflict between the testimony of 
experts and this administration's wishful thinking in regard to this 
escalation.
  What is said here on the floor of Congress, what is said by our 
experts and what is said by the administration matters. It matters 
because our troops will be asked to fulfill the mission that comes out 
of these discussions. Our debate on this resolution is about far more 
than expressing our disapproval for the President. We offer this debate 
in the hopes that it will shape the mission that our soldiers are asked 
to carry out, one that is based on facts and reality, not blind 
ideology.
  I retired from the Army National Guard in the spring of 2005, and the 
unit I served with is now in Iraq. Many of these soldiers were kids 
that I taught in my high school classroom, that I coached on our 
football team. They joined my Guard unit, and I trained them. We 
deployed together in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, and now 
they are deployed again to Iraq.
  As a 24-year veteran of the Army National Guard, I know that our 
soldiers are trained to fulfill the mission they are given, but having 
a mission that is achievable is the key to any military success.

[[Page 3838]]

  The previous Republican Congress failed to hold the administration 
accountable for providing a mission that could succeed; and in so 
doing, they failed to support our troops.
  Last week, I had the opportunity to speak with a field commander from 
the Minnesota National Guard serving in Iraq. He told me that our 
soldiers are performing magnificently, every minute of every hour of 
every day. That is not the issue at hand here. The issue at hand is 
providing a mission that can succeed.
  Mr. Speaker, when we recess for our district work period next week, I 
will go home and look into the eyes of the families of these soldiers. 
These are the same families and the men and women who learned on cable 
television that they would be extended in their tour of duty. These are 
the same men and women who will face financial loss because many of 
them had the plan to return to their jobs after an 18-month deployment 
to work in agriculture and construction businesses, and now they will 
be delayed in their return. They will miss the critical season. They 
have been deployed for 2\1/2\ of the last 4 years.
  Mr. Speaker, we can and must do better by our soldiers. The 
resolution we will debate today and that I am in support of is meant as 
a first step to giving them an achievable mission and a chance to 
return. Our soldiers are trained to fulfill their mission without 
question. We as civilian leaders have a duty to question it on their 
behalf.
  For the past 4 years, this Republican-led Congress has failed in 
their duty. This resolution is about this Congress standing up and 
saying we will achieve our duty to the same level of excellence that 
our soldiers have.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my distinguished Chair of 
the Rules Committee how many speakers are remaining on the other side.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have one remaining speaker. Is my 
colleague ready to close?
  Mr. DREIER. One remaining speaker, then your close?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. That is right.
  Mr. DREIER. Or you are prepared to close now?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. No, I have one remaining speaker.
  Mr. DREIER. Then I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Do you have any further speakers?
  Mr. DREIER. Here I am.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. All right. Why don't you go ahead then and we will 
have our speaker after you.
  Mr. DREIER. I would like to close the debate on our side just before 
you close the debate on your side.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I have only got the one speaker. My understanding is 
if you want to close, you need to do it now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman seek to close for her 
side?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Yes. Mr. Sestak will be my final speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. To the gentleman from California, Mr. Sestak 
represents the close for the majority side.
  The gentleman from California is recognized.
  Mr. DREIER. I would encourage the gentleman to sit down so he can 
listen to my eloquence, and then I will look forward to hearing his.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the Civil War, that great 
philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote: ``War is an ugly thing but it is 
not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and 
patriotic feeling which think nothing worth a war is worse.''
  No one likes this war that we are in. As I said earlier, the 
President stood here just weeks ago, and in his State of the Union 
message he said, I wish very much that this war were over and that we 
had won. That is the goal. The goal is victory.
  We need to make sure that our men and women in uniform, many of whom 
are paying the ultimate price every single day, as we look at the 
tragic loss of life, we need to make sure that they have everything 
necessary so that we can, as my constituent Ed Blecksmith, a father of 
a man who was killed 2 years ago last November in the battle of 
Fallujah, said, so that we can complete our mission.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe very fervently that you cannot support our 
troops without supporting their mission. This resolution that is before 
us unfortunately undermines the ability of our troops to complete their 
mission.
  We have had some very thoughtful proposals that have come forward. We 
just had Mr. Wolf stand here and talk about the opportunity that was 
denied him to have a vote on the very important bipartisan work of that 
Iraq Study Group. Much of what the Iraq Study Group has done has been 
already implemented by this administration, but there is more that 
needs to be done. Mr. Wolf was tragically denied an opportunity to even 
have a vote on whether or not we should support that bipartisan effort 
of the Iraq Study Group.
  We also had testimony last night, Mr. Speaker, from a man who just 
yesterday marked the 34th anniversary from being freed after 7 years as 
a prisoner of war in Vietnam, our colleague from Dallas, Texas, Mr. 
Johnson. He was denied a chance to have a substitute that would simply 
say that we are not going to cut off funding for our troops.
  Now, there are many who have argued, Mr. Speaker, that this 
resolution that we are going to consider in the next few days is simply 
a first step. It is a first step towards ultimately cutting off 
funding, and, Mr. Speaker, I think that would be wrong, and that is why 
I am urging defeat of the previous question. When we do that, we will 
be making in order, when we defeat the previous question, an 
opportunity for us to say that we will not cut off funding for our men 
and women in uniform.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote against the previous question; and if 
by chance we fail on that, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, and I 
urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying resolution which does, in fact, 
undermine the goal of completing our mission and bringing our men and 
women home.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1130

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the remainder of 
our time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).
  Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, as this essential debate begins today, I am 
quite honored to be asked to make opening remarks at its beginning.
  I served in our military for over three decades, entering during the 
Vietnam War and serving under Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, 
Bush, Clinton, and our Commander in Chief today, President Bush. I had 
the honor of leading men and women in harm's way, the highest honor 
that our Nation can give to anyone; most recently in combat, over at 
Afghanistan and Iraq, where I commanded an aircraft carrier battle 
group of 30 ships and 15,000 sailors and marines.
  Having worn the cloth of this Nation so long, I know that duty of 
choice, that the citizens of this great country have about the future 
course of this war in Iraq is not an unpatriotic one, nor is what 
anyone will say in the next few days unpatriotic.
  If my 31 years in the military taught me anything, it was that we 
serve in this all-volunteer military to defend Americans' freedom to 
think as they please and to say what they think, even if they disagree 
with their leaders. A democracy is based on freedom of expression, and 
those who join the military do so to fight, if necessary, the wars 
which defend that freedom, hoping that our use will be to a wise end. 
And that is what concerns me about Iraq.
  The continuing use of our national treasure in what is an 
inconclusive, open-ended involvement within a country with long-term 
benefits does not match what we need to reap. It is why I am opposed to 
a troop surge that doubles down on a bad military debt that has been 
tried already.
  We need to apply our resources elsewhere in the world, where 
terrorists

[[Page 3839]]

come from, including Osama bin Laden who is still on the loose, or 
emerging nations such as in the Western Pacific have growing political 
and economic interests and, therefore, influence that may challenge 
ours.
  I do not think that my extensive military experience alone gives me 
license to disagree with our strategy in Iraq, but just being an 
American who has closely watched and thought about the trade-off and 
benefits for our future prosperity, interest, and values does.
  Our military is a national treasure that should not be used 
recklessly, nor should it be hoarded like miser's gold. It is a vital 
resource if we are to continue to be a force for peace and prosperity, 
but throughout the world. And that is why I firmly believe in a planned 
end to our military engagement in Iraq within the next year as the 
primary catalyst for change in Iraq so their leaders are forced to 
accept the political and military responsibility for their country, 
with our diplomatic and economic help, and limited military support 
from outside Iraq, but within the region is best. It is for our 
Nation's greater security that I believe this, and why I cannot support 
a troop surge that strains our military readiness further and, more, 
our overall strategic security in a war that does not serve our 
Nation's greater interest in this world and our future.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier is as follows:

     Amendment to H. Res. 157 Offered by Rep. Dreier of California

       (1) In section 1, insert ``and any amendment thereto'' 
     after ``previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the concurrent resolution''.
       (2) At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 4. Notwithstanding section 1, it shall be in order at 
     any time to consider the amendment printed in section 5, if 
     offered by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas or his 
     designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be 
     separately debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
       Sec. 5. The amendment referred to in section 4 is as 
     follows:
       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the 
     following: ``That Congress and the American people will 
     continue to support and protect and Congress will not cut off 
     or restrict funding for members of the Armed Forces who are 
     serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq.''
                                  ____


 (The information contained herein was provided by Democratic Minority 
         on multiple occasions throughout the 109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________