David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Chairman, I express my appreciation to the Committee on Rules for making my amendment in order. And I would like to say that this is an amendment which is designed, again, to simply strive in our quest to bring the level of this lobbying reform measure up to the standard that we had in last year's past bill, H.R. 4975. The provision that was included in last year's bill allows for greater transparency and disclosure. It adds language, Madam Chairman, which simply creates a requirement that full disclosure of the starting and ending times for a person who is leaving the employment of the Capitol, what their lobbying constraints are. Now, this bill originally had a 2-year ban on lobbying once someone leaves the Capitol. Chairman Conyers decided that, as the challenge we faced last year, making sure we have first-rate staff here is a challenge, so they pared back from the 2 years that was in the Senate bill and was initially in this bill back to the 1-year level. I understand that, again, this is something that we did last year, but the thing that we did is we felt strongly about the need for disclosure as to exactly what those dates are; and so we called for a letter to be written which has the start times and the end times for the lobbying ban. That letter goes to the individual, and it goes to the office from which that person has left. And it goes actually a step further than we did in the past, and it calls for disclosure of that information on the Internet so that everyone knows, in fact, that there is a ban on that person from engaging in lobbying their former colleagues. I hope very much that my colleagues can support that. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Judiciary, the gentleman from San Antonio (Mr. Smith).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Chairman, I'm inclined to reserve the balance of my time, but if the gentleman from San Antonio wants to continue with the line of argument he was making, I'd yield him the whole rest of my time if he wanted to continue to be as gracious as he was. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 409 I was unavoidably detained during a hearing of the Committee on Rules. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 337 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. DREIER. And let me just briefly say that that amendment says that when the President of the United States reports to the Congress that on the success in training or lack of success in training the Iraqi security forces, that that report not be made available to the leadership of al Qaeda by way of the Internet. The amendment that I am going to offer when we defeat the previous question, Mr. Speaker, is an amendment that will allow us to say that we will strike the provision that says that the report from the President to the Congress is provided on the Internet for the world to see. We should not be feeding our enemies, those who want to kill us, with this kind of information. And so, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge defeat of the previous question, and when we defeat that, I urge support of my quest to make the amendment in order that will allow us to prevent the President's report from getting on to the Internet for our enemy to see, and if by chance I am not successful, I urge defeat of the rule.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my very good friend from Vermont, my Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Welch, for whom I have the highest regard, he talked about the fact that the President was sticking his heels into the ground and was not willing to make any modifications whatsoever. Well, I will acknowledge that the President has in fact, I would say to my friend from Vermont, Mr. Welch, stuck his heels in the ground when it has come to his quest for victory, to ensure that we keep the battle against al Qaeda and those forces that would want to do us in in Iraq. What he has done in recognizing that mistakes have been made, in recognizing that there have been challenges, as has historically been the case in war, we have seen a dramatic change. I don't know if my friends have noticed, but there is a new Secretary of Defense, his name is Robert Gates; and there have in fact been a number of changes made. I don't know if people have noticed, there is in fact a new commanding general on the ground in Iraq. His name is David Petraeus. As I said in my opening remarks, he has enjoyed strong bipartisan support. Obviously, these military leaders, the Secretary of Defense and other military leaders, are insistent upon giving a very sober assessment of what is taking place and not providing an unrealistic, rosy picture of what is happening in Iraq. And they have reported, they have reported that we have in fact seen success, especially, as I said in my remarks, in Ramadi, what was determined to be one of the most dangerous cities on the face of the Earth; and we have now seen stability there, and this alliance which exists, Sunni, Shia and American forces working together to bring about this kind of peace and stability. So while I am not saying there aren't difficult days, weeks, months, and, Mr. Speaker, I hope not, but possibly difficult years ahead in Iraq, the fact of the matter is this President has made it very clear that he is willing to make modifications so that we can in fact ensure victory over those who want to do us in. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Dallas, the distinguished chair of the Republican Study Committee, Mr. Hensarling.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to express my appreciation to my very good friend from Rochester, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules (Ms. Slaughter), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I have to say that this is somewhat unusual for me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule, but I rise in even stronger opposition to the underlying legislation. Here we go again, Mr. Speaker. These bills bring us to round three, round three of the Democratic leadership's Iraq charade. First they brought up a bill that they knew the President would veto. Then they called for a veto override that they knew would fail. And today we are once again considering the same defeatist policy that failed in the first two rounds plus, plus, Mr. Speaker, a call for redeployment, basically withdrawal, within 90 days, to begin withdrawal within 90 days. Mr. Speaker, they may think that they made progress, but in truth we have, in fact, gone backwards. Kicking the pullout vote a few months down the road is not a solution. Mr. Speaker, the closing remarks that were just offered by the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, I think were right on target in describing the exact goal that we have here. We want to make sure that the American people are secure. We want to make sure that our troops can be successful. We want to make sure that our troops come home. And we want to make sure that the Iraqi people can live with dignity. The one thing that I will add with that statement that Ms. Slaughter just made, Mr. Speaker, is that not only simply live with dignity but with the kind of self-determination that led to a 70 percent voter turnout in Iraq. So obviously we share the exact same goal that Ms. Slaughter just outlined. But I am very, very troubled with the plans that we have before us. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, withdrawal that would begin in 90 days would undermine every single one of those goals to which Ms. Slaughter just referred. And this time, Mr. Speaker, it is not just the President's opposition that stands in their way of what it is that they are trying to do. Their own colleagues in the Senate have said that the House Democratic leadership's approach won't work on their side of the Capitol. Senate Majority Leader Reid has criticized their punting strategy and acknowledged he has serious doubts that the House plan could actually get through the Senate. Now, Mr. Speaker, this policy of defeat couldn't prevail in April. It won't prevail in May. So it would appear the idea is to wait and hope for the best in July. Now, Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq is not a game. Funding our troops who are in harm's way is not a game. These votes may make my friends on the other side of the aisle feel good, but they aren't doing anything to get our troops what they need to protect themselves and to fight effectively against terrorists around the world. Mr. Speaker, that's what matters here. Again, going back to the words of the very distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, we want to make sure that we are secure at home. The way to do that is to ensure that the troops have what they need. Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation to have a serious, substantive debate to supply our troops with the funds they need to do their job and to demonstrate to the American people that we are doing what is necessary to win in Iraq and to bring our troops home. But rather than fulfilling our duties as responsible legislators, Democratic leadership has simply scheduled one more empty political vote under yet another totally closed process. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats go so far as to have three closed rules, two of them on appropriations bills. Now, we will consider four appropriations bills this year, and all of them, Mr. Speaker, will have been under a completely closed process. And we all know, under both Democrats and Republicans, the tradition is that when it comes to wartime supplementals, they be considered under an open amendment process, but that's been thrown out the door. This is a far cry, Mr. Speaker, from the open and fair Congress that was promised to the American people. Worse yet, buried in the appropriations bill is yet another totally closed rule, completely and prospectively shutting out Republicans 2 months from now. And they even go so far as to totally deny us a motion to recommit, something that we never did in the 12 years that we were in the majority. And those were tame restrictions when compared to what they tried to do to the Senate. It has been said by my very good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for whom I have the highest regard. I served with him for many years on the Rules Committee. I had the privilege for the past 8 years of chairing the Rules Committee, and during that period of time, Mr. McGovern would regularly say that the Rules Committee is the place where democracy goes to die. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is only fitting that it is the rule which provides for this bill, for his bill, that we will use to pronounce the time of death. And while this tactic fails to achieve a legislative success here at home, it is already producing disastrous results in Iraq. Ryan Crocker, the very highly regarded new ambassador to Iraq, I've heard a number of leading Democrats, a number of leading outspoken foes of what it is that we are doing in Iraq speak very highly of Ryan Crocker. Ambassador Crocker said last week in an interview with Morton Kondracke of The Roll Call, that the Iraqis are watching the Democratic leadership's political games play out in Congress. They hear the calls to abandon our mission, and it is taking away any will to negotiate among political factions and achieve an effective government capable of bringing about a political solution to the crisis. Mr. Speaker, as Kondracke puts it in his piece, and I quote, ``What is going on in Congress is hurting Crocker's ability to get the sides in Iraq to make agreements with one another.'' He goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, ``It hardens the sectarian divisions. They think we are going to leave, and instead of reaching across lines and making agreements with the adversary, they are getting ready to go to the mat.'' Now, that is what Mr. Kondracke writes following his discussion with Ambassador Crocker, and it's very troubling. What we do here and say here, Mr. Speaker, has consequences. And the report back from the new Ambassador to Iraq is that those consequences are not good. Those who would declare this war lost before the new strategy of, again, the very highly regarded General David Petraeus, who enjoyed unanimous support of the United States Senate, that means Democrats and Republicans on a recorded vote provided unanimous support confirming General David Petraeus. We are now basically, with what we are trying to do here with this effort, not even giving his new strategy a chance to succeed, and I believe that it is a huge mistake. Now, Mr. Speaker, like everyone in this institution and people around this country, I read the newspapers, and I watch the news. I watch the pictures on television. And I know that the terrible images of violence that are broadcast every day permeate. And as we see those horrible pictures, I don't blame the American people for becoming extremely discouraged by what is being reported out of Iraq. And I will say that I am horrified by the pictures and the things that we see coming out of Iraq. But there is real and significant progress that is being achieved by our military. Mr. Speaker, the Chicago Tribune editorialized just yesterday on one of the great success stories, that success story being the al Anbar province, which is the large province just to the west of Baghdad. Its capital city, Ramadi, was once described by the New York Times as the most dangerous city in Iraq and potentially the most dangerous city on the face of the earth. Today, Mr. Speaker, this former outpost for the insurgency is not only a secure city, it is a model for Sunni, Shia and American cooperation in the fight against the organization that was responsible for what happened on September 11, 2001, that being al Qaeda. Mr. Speaker, the Chicago Tribune editorial said, ``al Qaeda's terrorists in Iraq now face a new enemy, Sunni tribesmen in the al Anbar province.'' Their editorial goes on, and I quote, ``These tribal leaders in the heart of the insurgency are now backing coalition and Iraqi forces against the terrorists.'' ``You want good news from Iraq,'' the Chicago Tribune editorial goes on to say, ``there it is, flashing in neon.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, this editorial goes on to quote the New York Times report saying, ``The progress has inspired an optimism in the American command that among some officials borders on giddiness.'' ``There are some people who would say we have won the war out here,'' one Marine officer said. I am simply quoting, I would say to my friend, the chair of the Rules Committee, not something that a Republican said, but the editorial that appeared just yesterday. I would encourage all of our Members to look at that editorial in the Chicago Tribune. Now, Mr. Speaker, through the Joint Services stations that have been established, local Sunni police, Shia Army officers and U.S. military have worked hand in hand to take back the city and the province and drive al Qaeda out. With the full support and cooperation of the local Sunni leaders, the Shia Army has earned the confidence of the local population. Through their alliance, they are achieving our objective for the entire country, peace sustained by the Iraqis themselves through national unity. Mr. Speaker, General Petraeus came here, as we all know, just 2 weeks ago to provide Members of the House of Representatives with a classified briefing on Iraq. Unfortunately, the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, was unable to attend that briefing, but for those of us who were there, we were given a realistic picture from General Petraeus of what was taking place. He did not, and I don't know all of the Members who were there, Mr. Speaker, but I will say, General Petraeus did not sugarcoat the tremendous challenges that lie ahead in this war in Iraq. But, Mr. Speaker, he also described tremendous successes, such as this great success that I just reported on in Ramadi, what was one of the most dangerous cities on the face of the Earth and has now been stabilized in the al Anbar province. General Petraeus described the Sunni Arabs who have turned against al Qaeda and have joined the Iraqi Security Forces. Our American and Iraqi forces have succeeded in detaining a number of key network leaders, getting critical intelligence on how various elements of al Qaeda operate in Iraq, taking apart a car bomb network that killed 650 citizens in Baghdad and destroying several significant car bomb factories. These are the kinds of joint efforts that are taking place at this very moment in Iraq, Mr. Speaker. Now, Mr. Speaker, General Petraeus has spoken publically about these successes, about the reduction in sectarian murders in Baghdad by two- thirds so far this year, about the tripling of seizures of weapons cashes this year, about the revival of markets and the return of displaced families to neighborhoods and cities that were previously totally uninhabitable because of violence. Mr. Speaker, these success stories are not meant to paint a rosy picture of Iraq. And I will say that again, Mr. Speaker. I'm not attempting to sugarcoat the situation in Iraq. I'm not attempting to paint a rosy picture of what is taking place in Iraq. I know how horrendous and what a difficult situation this is. We all know the enormous challenges that our military still faces there and will continue to face for some time to come, not just to be solved by September; it will extend longer than that, we all know that. The other night I was with Ambassador John Negroponte who reminded me of the public statement that he made just as he left his ambassadorial post in Baghdad; he said it would be at least 5 years. So we all know that this battle and this struggle is going to continue. But what these successes do demonstrate very, very clearly is that we have not lost this war. They demonstrate that our men and women, when they have the necessary resources, can achieve victory. We must give General Petraeus adequate time and adequate resources to build upon these successes and make his new strategy work. Setting a day for defeat, whether it is today, next week or at the end of July or September is simply not an acceptable policy. Rationing funding for our troops is not an acceptable policy. Now, Mr. Speaker, I offered two amendments yesterday in the Rules Committee that would have stricken two of the most egregious elements of this legislation. First, I proposed to remove the July cutoff date for the troops' funding. Our generals in the field have said that this limitation ties their hands and keeps them from doing even their near- term planning, which is absolutely essential if the successes that we have seen are going to continue. Wars aren't won in 2-month increments, and military victories aren't achieved by congressional decree. Now, Mr. Speaker, my second amendment would eliminate the requirement that the President make his reports to Congress on the Internet. Even in its unclassified form, this highly sensitive information would provide information to our enemies and the enemies of the Iraqi people. It would provide them with their blueprint for victory. The notion of providing this report from the President to the Congress, not in any kind of confidential way but on the Internet, is absolutely outrageous. There is no justifiable reason for us to give the people who are wanting to kill us and are responsible for the violence in Iraq this kind of information. Now, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, neither of the amendments that I offered was made in order. They would have provided an opportunity to consider a troop funding bill that would actually be enacted and would actually fund the troops rather than simply staging one more meaningless vote allowing Members to posture. Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand very well, having been in the majority for a while, I understand that the Democratic leadership is in a very tough spot. They want to be able to say that they are funding the troops. At the same time, they have to accommodate their Members who want to get out yesterday. They want to get out immediately, regardless of the consequences. So their political situation is to schedule vote after meaningless vote. They get their weekly opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to say, ``I support the troops,'' out of one side of their mouth, and ``Let's retreat'' and get out immediately out of the other side of their mouth. But, Mr. Speaker, our troops and the American people deserve more than political gimmicks. We must stop playing dangerous games with the lives of the American people, our men and women in uniform, and the Iraqi people who have been struggling for freedom. We must get our troops the funding that they need and give our military commanders the means to win and to do what we all want, Mr. Speaker, to bring our troops home. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I had one Member who was hoping to come over, and I do not see him here. So I'm going to yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, we all know how painful the war in Iraq has been. As I said in my opening remarks and throughout this debate, no one is trying to paint a rosy picture of the situation there. My very good friend from Wisconsin, distinguished Chair of the Appropriations Committee, has just told us that we should be fighting the war in the right place. Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we have found tragically over the past several years is that al Qaeda can be found almost anyplace on the face of the Earth. It was just a few months ago that we saw a successful effort by the Ethiopians going into Mogadishu, Somalia, to liberate that capital from the forces of al Qaeda. We know very well that on September 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacked us here in the United States, and we regularly go through the litany of the actions of al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah: the bombing of the two embassies, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya; the USS Cole; the Khobar Towers; the World Trade Center in 1993. We can go on and on and on about al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. And guess what, Mr. Speaker, virtually everyone has acknowledged that the front line in the battle against al Qaeda is where they are mostly, and that is in Iraq. Now, I just reported the great statement that came from our new ambassador, Ryan Crocker, in Iraq who has talked along with General Petraeus about the success that we have seen in the al Anbar province, in Ramadi in particular, one of the most dangerous spots on the face of the Earth until we saw this alliance develop among Sunni, Shia and American forces standing up against al Qaeda because, Mr. Speaker, al Qaeda is there in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that fighting al Qaeda in Iraq plays a big role in preventing them from attacking us right here in the United States of America, which is obviously their goal. They have done it before, and they would love to do it again. This process around which we are considering this measure is very unusual to say the least. In fact, my good friend from Rochester, distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, described this rule as one of the most complicated that we have ever seen. Now, my good friend again, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, just talked about the fact that we are going to give the President his chance to see this. Well, here is what we are going to give the President. We are going to give the President a bill that potentially calls for cut-and-run and immediate withdrawal within 90 days, beginning a pullout of our troops in Iraq; number two, a supplemental appropriations bill that has all of this redeployment that creates fits and starts, beginning and reduction, just incrementally putting it out, which has been harshly criticized by the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gates; General Petraeus; Ambassador Crocker and others. So that is included in this measure, and then the agricultural appropriations provision. Now, my friend from Wisconsin just asked how many Members will stand up and be supportive of the effort that I laud in dealing with something that we were not able to deal with in the last Congress as we struggled with the appropriations process, that, among others, being this agricultural appropriations issue, with the disasters that we have faced. And of course, there will be Members on our sides of the aisle who will support that. But, Mr. Speaker, I think we need to recognize that this is the most convoluted process because we are not allowing it to stand on its own. What we are doing with this rule is we are taking all three of these very separate items, linking them up, and sending them to our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol in the United States Senate, where the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, the one who's already announced that we've lost the war in Iraq, he said there's very little chance of success there. That's why I have always considered myself, I like to have that Jeffersonian spirit of a healthy skepticism, as opposed to a corrosive cynicism, which sometimes we have seen more than a few people slip to around here. But I can't help but be skeptical. I'm not going to be cynical, Mr. Speaker, but I can't help but be a little skeptical as we look at the one, two, three punch of vote after vote after vote when we know full well it will most likely die in the Senate; and if it by chance, as this last bill did, ends up getting to the President, it's going to be vetoed by the President. So as I said earlier, it allows our colleagues to stand up, as so many have, during this debate saying they support the troops, but at the same time they want to get out immediately and not provide the troops with the kind of consistency and support that they need for us to be victorious. Again, one of the interesting things that we hear, as we juxtapose the debate that emanates from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and ours, is that we regularly talk about victory. We regularly talk about being victorious in this battle against Islamic extremism, the battle which we all united to fight on September 11, 2001. It is tragic that we have gotten to the point where we are not united on this. And I will acknowledge that there were some who tried to exude the image that Iraq was involved on September 11, and I never said that and most people I know never claimed that Saddam Hussein was involved in command and control of what happened on September 11, 2001; but, Mr. Speaker, I will say this: Saddam Hussein had the exact same goal for the future of the United States as al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and that's why we need to be prepared to fight them at any spot whatsoever. I am going to offer when, I say ``when'' because I am going to be an eternal optimist, when we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer the amendment that I was speaking about earlier. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that just before the vote on the previous question that the text of my amendment that I am going to be submitting when we defeat the previous question be made in order, and I ask unanimous consent that that be included in the Record, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, today I would like to recognize and commend Francis Miko for more than three decades of service to the U.S. Congress at the Congressional Research Service. On April 27, 2007, Francis retired as a Specialist in International Relations with the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of CRS, bringing to an end a distinguished career as an expert on both foreign policy issues and our institution. I have had the pleasure of working with Francis on a number of occasions, particularly in association with two different endeavors that I value among my greatest privileges as a Member of Congress. The first was the Frost-Solomon Task Force, which was established by the U.S. House of Representatives following the collapse of the Soviet Union in order to assist the legislatures in former Soviet-bloc countries. These institutions, which had previously been rubber stamps for a totalitarian regime, were suddenly thrust upon the democratic stage with the responsibility of representing the will of the people. Francis Miko led CRS' efforts on the Task Force, and proved to be a key asset and invaluable expert. In twelve post-Communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe, he coordinated the establishment of parliamentary libraries and research facilities, lent a tremendous amount of technical expertise in legislative functioning and helped to implement the use of information technology. Nearly 10 years after the Frost-Solomon Task Force concluded its work, its mission was reborn with a global focus in the House Democracy Assistance Commission. Once again, this body has relied enormously on the experience and institutional knowledge that Francis has provided. Since its establishment in 2004, HDAC has embarked upon partnerships with 12 developing and re-emerging democracies around the globe. Francis Miko's work in developing these programs and providing the technical assistance necessary to strengthen these vital institutions has been indispensable. We will miss his expertise, his dedication, his professionalism and his depth of institutional knowledge. I commend him for his commitment to public service and to the U.S. Congress, and I congratulate him on his well-earned and much-deserved retirement.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my California colleague and congratulate him on his stellar leadership on this and a wide range of other issues. As I came to the floor just as our colleague the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland, was addressing this House and he talked about politicization of statements that have been made, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, when Saddam Hussein was toppled, it was not a celebration of one political party over another. It was not even a celebration just of Americans. It was a global celebration over the fact that we took this butcher who had murdered literally hundreds of thousands of his people, and we brought his reign of terror to an end, and that was worth celebrating. Now, what we saw yesterday was nothing but partisanship because we know there is a real divide here. We know that the country is divided, and we know and the President of the United States, Mr. Speaker, has acknowledged that mistakes have been made, and we have gone through real difficulty. I also heard the majority leader talk about the fact that there is no definition of victory. Mr. Speaker, it has been very clear from the beginning victory consists of two factors that are very important. First, we need to make sure that we have an Iraqi military force, the ISF, the Iraqi security force, able to defend the country, and we need to make sure that there is a government that can govern the country. Those are the two items that have been placed forward. That is all we want. We have seen self-determination take place with three elections that have taken place in Iraq. We have seen, I believe, positive news come forward. Now, Mr. Speaker, we constantly hear people describe this as the Bush plan. We hear the litany of others, and as my friend from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) just said, we know that the President is not terribly popular. The President knows that he is not very popular. He likes to say everyone likes to be loved, but I would rather be right than be loved. So we know that the President obviously does not have a high approval rating right now, but he is doing the right thing. He is doing the right thing, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this goal is a very valiant one and a very, very important one for us to pursue. We have to bring about some kind of bipartisan resolution. I am very pleased to have indications come from our friends on the other side of the aisle about the fact that we are going to provide important funding for our troops. We have to do that. That is absolutely essential, but we need to realize that we are in the midst of a new strategy. I had the opportunity to talk with my good friend Mr. Murtha, the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the other day, and we agree that we have got to come to some kind of bipartisan resolution of this. But the important point that needs to be made, as we hear the names of these unpopular people, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bush, thrown out there, we have to realize again that this is a new strategy, and this is the Petraeus plan. It was Dave Petraeus who last week said, before a large bipartisan gathering of Members, that Iraqis today are fighting and dying for their country. And it was Dave Petraeus who said, let us have until September, at which time I will report back with my colleagues to the President of the United States and the Congress. I talked to, just day before yesterday, a very strong supporter of Mr. Kerry's when he was running for President, a strong, committed Democrat, and he said that he believed that establishing some sort of artificial timeline would be wrong. The President described it last night following issuance of his veto that it clearly would be a prescription for defeat, and I believe that we need to make sure that, again, as Dave Petraeus said, since Iraq is the central front in the battle against al Qaeda, we need to keep it there. Mr. Speaker, sustain this President's veto. Let's come together and provide the necessary funding for our men and women in uniform.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I will yield to my friend some additional time. I just entered into the Record, and I didn't mention this in my opening remarks, an article that was in the Sunday Times of London last, this past Sunday, ``Is al Qaeda Planning a Big British Attack?,'' and this is a report on intelligence that has just come forward of a massive, large scale terrorist attack on Britain and other Western targets with the help of supporters in Iran. According to a leaked intelligence report that came forward, they talk about this attack being on a par with Hiroshima and Nagasaki in an attempt to shake the Roman Empire. And I have entered this article in the Record that was in the Sunday Times, and I think it is very important that this be related to the remarks the gentleman has made. And I thank him for yielding. And I would yield whatever the balance of my time is on this side to him.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to a hardworking member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Morristown, New Jersey, Mr. Frelinghuysen.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the former member of the Rules Committee, now working hard on the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Rochester, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strongest opposition to both this rule and the underlying conference report. Mr. Speaker, this conference report implements a policy of failure. It is nothing more than a cheap attempt to score political points at a time when the American people have understandably become very weary of war. Rather than offering the American people a policy that allows us to complete our mission in Iraq and bring our troops home, which we all want to do, this bill simply offers them a charade. The President, Mr. Speaker, has made it very clear that he will veto this policy of failure, which does not have enough support to override his veto. We will be right back here in a matter of days voting on another supplemental. And while this political charade plays out, Mr. Speaker, our troops will be left waiting for the funding that they need to do their jobs, and our country trapped in a political quagmire created by the Democratic leadership in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, this very dangerous game of ``chicken'' could have been avoided entirely. The Democratic leadership may be bereft of ideas, but I know for a fact that this entire body is not. Had we considered the original bill under an open process, which, as we all know, is the tradition for wartime supplementals in this House, we could have had a real debate. We could have considered the worthy ideas of Members in this body. Instead, Mr. Speaker, all but a very few were shut out of this process entirely. Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives alike, were denied the opportunity to participate in this process. We didn't get any of their ideas, their expertise, their suggestions in bringing this measure to the floor. And what did that very small group in the Democratic leadership come up with? A constitutionally dubious attempt at micromanaging the Iraq war into inevitable defeat; a cynical political ploy that will leave dire consequences for the region and our own security in its wake. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution lays out a very clear system of checks and balances derived from the ideas of the very brilliant and inspired Framers of our Constitution. James Madison I am thinking of, as I look to my friend from Virginia, Mr. Moran, obviously a native of Virginia. And I will tell you that that Madisonian spirit of giving the three branches of government distinct roles, allows us to guard ourselves against tyranny from any one branch. The President must seek the support of Congress in order to wage war; it is Congress that has the power to authorize; and, as we all know very well, it must be this institution that funds a war. But, Mr. Speaker, once funding and authorization are granted, the President of the United States serves as the Commander in Chief, with the authority to execute the war. This conference report ignores the intentions of our Founding Fathers and attempts to turn the Constitution on its head. I mentioned, looking to my friend Mr. Moran, the father, the author of the Constitution, James Madison. Well, Mr. Speaker, in Federalist No. 51, Madison wrote ``that in framing a government that is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself.'' Mr. Speaker, Madison recognized the inherent challenges in designing a government that is both effective and limited. He knew that without checks and balances, tyranny would ensue. Mr. Speaker, this conference report, like the bill before it, attempts to diminish these checks and balances. It tries to turn Congress into 535 Commanders in Chief. This legislation of micromanagement is based, Mr. Speaker, on a disastrous strategy. Its authors fund the war, and then mandate its failure. They seek to tie the hands of our military commanders, and then force them to retreat when they are unable to meet impossible timetables. We heard in a briefing today from General Petraeus, from Secretary England, from Secretary Negroponte and others that the notion of timetables in fact clearly will undermine the potential for success. Mr. Speaker, that leadership also knew it fell hopelessly short of the necessary support within their own party for passage. But rather than opening up the process so that real ideas and solutions could be considered, they just loaded it up with billions of dollars in unrelated spending. This conference report trades victory for potential electoral gains. Mr. Speaker, what would the consequences of defeat be? The National Intelligence Estimate, the 9/11 Commission, our people on the ground and those who briefed us today, have all made it very clear that a precipitous withdrawal would have disastrous consequences. Violence will spill out across the country and spread to the entire region. We heard about Iran and Syria today and the challenges that exist there. In our absence, Iran and Syria will be utterly unfettered in their ability to incite a regional war that threatens global security, with enormous casualties suffered by the people in the region. Mr. Speaker, as I have said, and I know this very well, and I join Americans who have been very discouraged by this war; it has been ugly, it has been difficult, it has been very painful. We all, Mr. Speaker, feel the toll it has taken and are keenly aware of the price that we are paying, especially in a human sense. I know as I look to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that every single one of us has had the challenge and the difficulty of looking into the eyes of constituents whose family and friends have made the ultimate sacrifice in this war. Their pain is very real, and we all know that their loss is profound. But, Mr. Speaker, we do not honor those who have sacrificed by abandoning their mission. I have regularly quoted my very good friend, a man who has become a friend of mine, a former marine called Ed Blecksmith, whose son J.P. was killed in the battle of Fallujah 2 years ago this past November. He said that if we were to withdraw, his son will have died in vain. Mr. Speaker, we do not honor those in the field who are fighting as we speak by tying their hands and depriving them of the means to succeed. We will honor them by winning the war in Iraq so that our men and women come home having completed their mission. We know that their mission will not be complete in the immediate future. That was pointed out today by General Petraeus and others. As President Bush and General Petraeus have both acknowledged, success will take months, not days or weeks. But to abandon our mission would be disastrous. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the policy of defeat and the potential return of terrorism to our homeland. I urge my colleagues to reject this political charade that leaves our troops in limbo, and let us instead have a real debate with real ideas for a real solution in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I include the following article from the Sunday Times for the Record. [From the Sunday Times, April 22, 2007] Al-Qaeda `Planning Big British Attack' (By Dipesh Gadher) Al-Qaeda leaders in Iraq are planning the first ``large- scale'' terrorist attacks on Britain and other western targets with the help of supporters in Iran, according to a leaked intelligence report. Spy chiefs warn that one operative had said he was planning an attack on ``a par with Hiroshima and Nagasaki'' in an attempt to ``shake the Roman throne'', a reference to the West. Another plot could be timed to coincide with Tony Blair stepping down as prime minister, an event described by Al- Qaeda planners as a ``change in the head of the company''. The report, produced earlier this month and seen by The Sunday Times, appears to provide evidence that Al-Qaeda is active in Iran and has ambitions far beyond the improvised attacks it has been waging against British and American soldiers in Iraq. There is no evidence of a formal relationship between Al- Qaeda, a Sunni group, and the Shi'ite regime of President Mah-moud Ahmadinejad, but experts suggest that Iran's leaders may be turning a blind eye to the terrorist organisation's activities. The intelligence report also makes it clear that senior Al- Qaeda figures in the region have been in recent contact with operatives in Britain. It follows revelations last year that up to 150 Britons had travelled to Iraq to fight as part of Al-Qaeda's ``foreign legion''. A number are thought to have returned to the UK, after receiving terrorist training, to form sleeper cells. The report was compiled by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC)--based at MI5's London headquarters--and provides a quarterly review of the international terror threat to Britain. It draws a distinction between Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda's core leadership, who are thought to be hiding on the Afghan-Pakistan border, and affiliated organisations elsewhere. The document states: ``While networks linked to AQ [Al- Qaeda] Core pose the greatest threat to the UK, the intelligence during this quarter has highlighted the potential threat from other areas, particularly AQI [Al-Qaeda in Iraq].'' The report continues: ``Recent reporting has described AQI's Kurdish network in Iran planning what we believe may be a large-scale attack against a western target. ``A member of this network is reportedly involved in an operation which he believes requires AQ Core authorisation. He claims the operation will be on `a par with Hiroshima and Naga-saki' and will `shake the Roman throne'. We assess that this operation is most likely to be a large-scale, mass casualty attack against the West.'' The report says there is ``no indication'' this attack would specifically target Britain, ``although we are aware that AQI . . . networks are active in the UK''. Analysts believe the reference to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where more than 200,000 people died in nuclear attacks on Japan at the end of the second world war, is unlikely to be a literal boast. ``It could be just a reference to a huge explosion,'' sald a counter-terrorist source. ``They [Al-Qaeda] have got to do something soon that is radical, otherwise they start losing credibility.'' Despite aspiring to a nuclear capability, Al-Qaeda is not thought to have acquired weapons grade material. However, several plots involving ``dirty bombs''--conventional explosive devices surrounded by radioactive material--have been foiled. Last year Al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq called on nuclear scientists to apply their knowledge of biological and radiological weapons to ``the field of jihad''. Details of a separate plot to attack Britain, ``ideally'' before Blair steps down this summer, were contained in a letter written by Abdul al-Hadi al-Iraqi, an Iraqi Kurd and senior Al-Qaeda commander. According to the JTAC document, Hadi ``stressed the need to take care to ensure that the attack was successful and on a large scale''. The plan was to be relayed to an Iran-based Al-Qaeda facilitator. The Home Office declined to comment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, our good friend from Miami (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to one of our hardest-working fighters, the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indianapolis who has been a hardworking fighter on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Burton.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.