Providing for Consideration of H. R. 3159, Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act of 2007

Floor Speech

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3159, ENSURING MILITARY READINESS THROUGH STABILITY AND PREDICTABILITY DEPLOYMENT POLICY ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - August 02, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. CASTLE. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I would like to congratulate him not only for his amendment, but also for the comments that the former Governor of Delaware has just offered on the work of the Iraq Study Group.

Again, this was a bipartisan effort that was launched by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who, as we all know, speaks passionately and eloquently on this and other issues.

We all want to see this war come to an end. President Bush stood right here in this Chamber in January delivering his State of the Union message, and he said the following: I wish this war was over and we had won.

So there is a shared goal of our trying to bring this war to an end as quickly as possible and to bring our men and women home to their families.

Frankly, I join my colleague from Delaware in stating that I believe that the opportunity for implementation, if not all, most of the work of the Iraq Study Group, this great bipartisan gathering, would go a long way towards achieving that goal to which both Democrats and Republicans claim to aspire.

So I would just like to thank my friend for his remarks, and I thank him for yielding to me.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHAYS. Absolutely.

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Speaker.

I will say again that it really baffles me as to why this majority will not allow us to have an opportunity to consider this bipartisan work product of the Iraq Study Group.

On the opening day, Mr. Speaker, the new Speaker of the House of Representatives stood and talked about this new sense of bipartisanship. We all know that the war in Iraq was the key issue in the November election. We know that the war in Iraq was the key issue in last November's election, and it is on the minds of all of our constituents. We are all concerned about the future that this war on terror holds for all of us, and that's why the Iraq Study Group was established.

Our former colleague, the former chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Lee Hamilton, the former Secretary of State, a Democrat and Republican led eight other Democrats and Republicans, highly regarded in this country, strongly partisan individuals, they came together with a bipartisan proposal. Unfortunately, the supposedly new bipartisan spirit that exists here in the House denies us a chance to even consider that.

No one demonstrates more passion on this issue than Mr. Wolf. When he made the arguments before the Rules Committee, they were very compelling and very strong as only FRANK WOLF can offer them. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have not seen a chance to do that.

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for making this point. The bottom line is: In this Chamber, only 69 Members voted against having the Iraq Study Group revisit Iraq so they could come out with a report that could complement, either agree with or disagree with, what General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are going to conclude.

It seems to me it would be in the best interest of both Republicans and Democrats to find areas where we can agree, where we can work together. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why this Democratic Congress is opposed to bringing the Iraq Study Group up for a vote.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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
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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I think it's been very, very clear here this is a closed rule. It's outrageous that we have continued down this pattern of closed rules; and we were promised, the American people were promised much better than that. The underlying legislation is legislation that the administration just announced the President would veto if it were to pass. We should be debating the work of the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan package; and, unfortunately, with this closed rule, we're denied a chance to do that.

I also believe that my colleague from New Mexico, while debate seemed to be very personal among members of the Intelligence Committee, it comes down to the very strong statements that have been made by the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. We need to immediately modernize the three-decade-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we'll have an opportunity to make in order the very thoughtful legislation that has been introduced by our colleague from Albuquerque, Mrs. Wilson.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Source