David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Marietta, Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Mariposa, California (Mr. Radanovich).

Mr. DREIER. Thanks for telling me that. I was wondering.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Kiron, Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a hardworking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Alexander, Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to yield 2 minutes to our colleague from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, let me just tell you the guarantee of the process. I was very happy to yield to my friend, and I will be happy to yield to her again, but I will say, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is we have not had any dilatory tactics put into place since passage of the SCHIP bill. All the time we spend on this rule could have been spent discussing exactly what the gentlewoman has been speaking about. Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Morristown, New Jersey, a hardworking member on the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Frelinghuysen. (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with the utmost respect for my good friend from New Haven, the distinguished Chair of the subcommittee, I will say that we could at this moment be debating this bill if we continued with this open amendment process. The SCHIP measure is over and done. My friends on the other side of the aisle have won this debate. We are prepared to move ahead with an open amendment process that will allow for a free-flowing debate.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize to the House for calling for the motion to adjourn, and I do so because in 15 minutes a memorial service is going to be held for our former colleague, Guy VanderJagt, over in the Ways and Means Committee room. And I will say that Guy VanderJagt is someone who served longer in the minority than any Member on the other side of the aisle. But no one understood about the rights of the minority better than Guy VanderJagt; and I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, those rights are outlined very clearly in the opening of Jefferson's Manual. Now, we have been excoriated over the past hour for having used what have been called dilatory tactics 2 days ago before we passed the SCHIP bill. The fact of the matter is that is now ancient history. We have been struggling to ensure that we continue with the debate on this very important bill under an open amendment process. I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we will have the opportunity to table this measure and go back to an open amendment process. Why? Because this rule represents the trifecta of bad process. It has shut down the amendment process, it has restricted the period of time for debate, and it has rewritten the bill through self-execution in this rule. And I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can go back to what was promised on the opening day, and that is an open process. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I'm planning to close, if the gentlewoman from New York has no further requests.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I understand that I only have 1 minute remaining, and I know that my colleague from Albuquerque would very much like to have an opportunity to be heard on this issue. I have some closing remarks. I wonder if the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules has any time she might yield to the gentlewoman from Albuquerque to respond.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume; and I will say again to my colleagues that, as we look at this challenge, this is a very difficult one. It is one that we seek to address in a bipartisan way, Mr. Speaker, Democrats and Republicans coming together. Now, our former colleague, Mr. Hamilton, co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, has made it very clear that the work product which was unleashed, turned over last December, is still applicable today. This notion of saying that we need to look at bringing this group back together, I don't have it with me here, but I have one downstairs in my office. We have the volume, the work of the Iraq Study Group, that we've all gotten copies of; and all we're asking, Mr. Speaker, is that this bipartisan work product be able to be voted on and supported here. Now, what is it that we have before us? We have a closed rule. And I'm saddened greatly to report to the House, by virtue of this closed rule having come from the Rules Committee, reported out last night, we have by far exceeded the doubling, the doubling of the number of closed rules in this Democratic majority than we had in the Republican majority at this time at the beginning of the last Congress. It saddens me. Again, I will say that, Mr. Speaker, while we hear about this great new day, a sense of openness, transparency, accountability, what is it that we've gotten? We may not have been perfect when we were in the majority, but under this new majority that promised all of these great things to the American people, we have gotten now more than twice as many closed rules in the first 7 months of the year than we had in the first 7 months of the 109th Congress, and I just think it's a sad commentary on where we are. Now to the issue at hand, Mr. Speaker. As we look at the challenge that the families of those loved ones face, I would like to share the remarks of some of the families that I have heard. There is a young man who was killed tragically in the battle of Fallujah. His name is J.P. Blecksmith from San Marino, California. His father, like J.P., was a Marine; and after his son was tragically killed, Ed Blecksmith said to me, he said, David, if we don't complete our mission in Iraq, my son J.P. will have died in vain. And he said, we need to do everything that we possibly can to ensure victory. And I will tell you that what we're doing here today under this closed rule, I believe, creates the potential for undermining the success that, as was pointed out and as I said in my last statement, is outlined in the remarks in the article in the New York Times, the op-ed piece written by Ken Pollack and Mike O'Hanlon, and there's another statement that was made. I met a woman just a couple of months ago. Denise Codnot is her name. She came here to Washington, and she walked into my office, Mr. Speaker, and her son Kyle was killed in Iraq, 19 years old. He was in the Army. And she looked me in the eye and said, my son wasn't killed in Iraq. My son proudly gave his life, proudly gave his life for the cause of freedom. And she said to me, we must do everything within our power to ensure success and victory. This war on terror has been very painful for us, Mr. Speaker, very, very painful for everyone involved, especially the families of those men and women in uniform. But we know there is an interconnectedness of this war on terror, and that is the reason that on this rule we are going to continue our quest to deal with modernization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Now, I know that my colleagues last night in the Rules Committee, we passed out a special rule that will allow for consideration of possible negotiations that would take place on this issue, but, Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting since April of this year when the statements began to come forward from the Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell; from the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Michael Hayden; from the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, the three Michaels I call them, who have come forward with this urgent plea for us to take the very antiquated, three-decade-old, three-decade-old 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and modernize it. I am going to move, Mr. Speaker, to defeat the previous question, and I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Albuquerque, New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) whose legislation will be made in order if we are successful in defeating the previous question.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I do so to say that just this week we all saw a great deal of attention focused on an op-ed piece written in the New York Times by two of the harshest critics of the war in Iraq. I am referring, of course, to the Brookings Institution Fellows Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack. And I saw Ken Pollack with Wolf Blitzer on CNN the other day saying he did not write the headline in the New York Times which talked about this is a war we might win. He did stand by every word in that piece that was written, and I am going to ask to include that piece in the Congressional Record. [From the New York Times, July 30, 2007] A War We Just Might Win (By Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack) Washington.--Viewed from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration's critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place. Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily ``victory'' but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated--many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work. Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference. Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services--electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation--to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began--though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done. In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks--all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups--who were now competing to secure his friendship. In Baghdad's Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived. We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark. But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq). In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army's highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab. In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few ``jundis'' (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless--something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005. The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus's determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave. In war, sometimes it's important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best- known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor. Another surprise was how well the coalition's new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants. In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to dozens of military officers who before the war had known little about governance or business but were now ably immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi with a decent life. Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control. In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation--or at least accommodation--are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines. How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008. I will say that as one reads the O'Hanlon-Pollack article, it is clear that there are many very important challenges that lie ahead in Iraq. But the fact that we have seen a quelling of the violence in the al-Anbar Province, as we look at the difficulty that we face, but the fact that we've seen Sunni leaders unite with us in fighting al Qaeda, we, I believe, are making progress. War is a very, very ugly thing, and this war is no exception. No one can say exactly what the outcome will be, but I do know that the cause of freedom is worth fighting for, and I do know that these constant attempts to prevent this House from looking at, working on, and considering the work of the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan work product of the Iraq Study Group, is just plain wrong, so I am going to continue to strongly oppose this rule and these continued efforts to politicize our quest for victory and bringing our troops home. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 5 minutes to my good friend from Bridgeport, Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who next weekend will be making his 18th trip to Iraq. I know he shares my concern over the fact that, unfortunately, this rule fails to allow this House to consider the work of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend from Morristown, New Jersey, who is a hardworking member of the House Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Frelinghuysen.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as one who joins with my colleague from Worcester in stating that we all want to see this war end as quickly as we possibly can, and we want to see this mission be victorious, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the former Governor of Delaware (Mr. Castle) who offered a very thoughtful amendment in the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank my very good friend from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), the very distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. I am compelled to rise in the strongest possible opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation. Once again, the Democratic majority is running scared from openness and transparency because they know that their policies cannot withstand any scrutiny. They have shut off all meaningful debate, amendments and alternatives. Mr. Speaker, I will say that no matter how intense, no matter how bitter, no matter how hate-filled the vitriol is that comes towards us, I will continue to strive to work in a bipartisan way to deal with this very important issue and other issues as well. I think we evidenced that last night when we offered an amendment in the Rules Committee that would have allowed the Members of this body to replace this proposal with one that actually enjoys strong, bipartisan support. I am referring, of course, to the Iraq Study Group recommendations, the so-called Baker-Hamilton Commission. This group spent literally months, Democrats and Republicans together. A former Member of this house as the Democratic leader, the former Secretary of State, James Baker, as the Republican leader, and an equal number of Republicans and an equal number of Democrats came up with bipartisan recommendations as to how we, as a Nation, could move forward. Knowing that this sound and very responsible policy would very easily trump the inferior proposal that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are hoping to move on the floor today, they took the only route that they seem to know, and they have a great deal of experience at this, Mr. Speaker. They just shut down the process completely. They seemed to know, Mr. Speaker, that, unfortunately, this very thoughtful work product, which is not supported by everyone, but it enjoys strong bipartisan support. Again, our former colleague, the very respected former Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs it is now called, it was the International Relations Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee before that, Mr. Hamilton, and the highly regarded Secretary of State, James Baker, came up with this package. And what is it our colleagues did? With a very passionate statement made by our friend from Virginia, my classmate, Mr. Frank Wolf, who was really the progenitor of this Iraq Study Group, working with a wide range of people to come up with just the establishment of the group, and now this work product has come forward, heralded by people all across this country, and what is it that they have done? They have chosen to take this inferior proposal and say, we are not going to even allow consideration of the Iraq Study Group. Now, having precluded any real debate, they have nothing to fall back on but really cheap political ploys. The announcement was made several weeks ago that every single week leading up to Congress' adjournment for the month of August, we would have votes on Iraq. One of the Democratic majority's favorite gimmicks is to give their ill-conceived bills grand-sounding names and shroud them in warm, fuzzy ideas that no one could possibly oppose. Earlier this week, they rammed through the House is a massive giveaway to trial lawyers. And what was it called? The anti- discrimination bill. Just yesterday, we considered a bill that slashes Medicare coverage for millions. What was it called, Mr. Speaker? The Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act. The audacity of cutting Medicare with a bill that has ``Medicare protection'' right in the title is, to me, absolutely staggering. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am proud that we, as Republicans, worked to address important issues with prudence and deliberation, issues that affect the quality of life and standard of living for all Americans. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side, we will witness it in just a few minutes once again, they resort to demagoguery and name calling and all kinds of other vitriol. When we refuse to be suckered by their slipshod efforts and poor policies, they accuse us of being pro-discrimination, or anti- children's health, or any other awful-sounding label that they can come up with. They will make some great and fascinating political ads. As this season goes on, we will see some of them on YouTube, I am sure, and other places. And if you look at these votes on discrimination and on the issue of Medicare and children's healthcare, obviously, we will be hearing a lot about the things that have been done here on the House floor during the campaign season, which obviously is under way right now. They will no doubt continue with this tired approach here today. We are going to hear about how the underlying bill before us today is about ``troop welfare.'' We are going to hear about the ``terrible strain'' the war in Iraq has put on the members of our Armed Forces and their families. I want to make sure it is absolutely clear that we are all, all, very concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the welfare of our troops. It is a bipartisan concern, and anyone who would argue that we are somehow not concerned about the welfare of our troops is barking up the wrong tree. We see with sobering clarity, Mr. Speaker, the magnitude the impact the war has on their families. No American deserves more support than those who put their lives on the line to protect each and every one of us, and no one is more determined to fulfill our commitment to these men and women than my Republican colleagues and I are. That is precisely, precisely, Mr. Speaker, why I stand in opposition to both this rule and the underlying legislation. The Democratic majority can slap any old bill together and say it promotes troop welfare. But, Mr. Speaker, that does not make it so. And they can slap any old bill together and accuse its opponents of undermining troop welfare. But that doesn't make it so. The reality is that this bill undermines our military leadership, who are already committed to the welfare of our troops and their families. And to imply in any way that our Nation's civilian and military leadership is not committed to the welfare of our troops and their families is again a very specious argument. The reality is that this bill undermines our military leadership who are committed to the troops; and, in fact, it opens up the potential to force troops to stay in the field longer, handle missions for which they are not prepared, and ultimately create greater risks for our men and women who are in harm's way. Mr. Speaker, our Armed Forces are already working toward the goal of ensuring that every servicemember spends 2 years at home after each year in the field, and that Reservists get 5 years at home after each 1 year of deployment. Mr. Speaker, the Marine Corps is already providing what this bill would mandate, time at home at least equal to time deployed. The Commandant of the Marine Corps must approve any deviation from this policy. Let me say once again, Mr. Speaker, I don't understand why it is that we are here dealing with this issue when we could in fact pass the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. We instead are doing something that the Marine Corps is doing right now. Again, the Commandant of the Marine Corps would have to approve any deviation from this policy. What this bill does is to remove any flexibility that allows our military leaders to make deployment decisions that best provide for both troop welfare and, Mr. Speaker, something that we never hear discussed from our colleagues on the other side the aisle, and that is mission completion, completing our mission, making sure that we have success and victory. It adds another layer of bureaucratic red tape. Ironically, and tragically, it could actually force our commanders in the field to extend deployments and force our troops to take on missions for which they are not fully prepared. Mr. Speaker, preventing our commanders from being able to task each unit to take on the mission for which it is best prepared and best trained would needlessly risk the lives of our troops. I know that we all want the ultimate desire of every member of our armed services: that they be speedily and, as I said a moment ago, victoriously returned to the loving arms of their families and the accolades of a grateful Nation. But, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not, this bill is not the way to ensure that. The Democratic majority can keep playing these games. They can continue to claim that this bill will improve the quality of life of our troops and their families. They can continue to accuse its opponents of callousness and indifference to servicemen and servicewomen. But I don't believe the American people will be fooled, Mr. Speaker. They are quite capable of seeing past clever bill titles and phony rhetoric. This Democratic majority has got to learn that it takes more than demagoguery to lead this body and to lead this country. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, as well as the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my distinguished Chair for yielding. I would like to join her in extending the thoughts and prayers of every Member of this institution to those, I know at this moment there are families who are waiting, living with this moment with the uncertainty as to whether or not their loved ones have survived the tragedy in the Twin Cities. Last night, when our colleague, Mrs. Bachmann, stood here to report this, it came as a huge shock. I agree completely with my colleague about the need to ensure that the bridges in our country are safe and secure as we deal with these challenges. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.