H.R. 663 would redeploy United States Armed Forces from Iraq and to establish a new direction for United States policy toward Iraq.
Detailed Summary
New Direction for Iraq Act of 2007 - Prohibits Department of Defense (DOD) funds from being obligated or expended to increase the number of U.S. Armed Forces serving in Iraq so that the total number serving in Iraq at any time exceeds the number serving in Iraq as of the date of the enactment of this Act unless the increase is specifically authorized by Congress.
Directs the Secretary of Defense to begin the redeployment of U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq within 30 days of enactment of this Act, which shall be completed in the shortest appropriate time frame. (Expresses the sense of Congress that the shortest appropriate time frame should be no longer than one year.)
Prohibits: (1) permanent or long-term U.S. military installations in Iraq; and (2) U.S. actions to control Iraqi oil reserves.
Provides for assistance to Iraq for: (1) reconstruction and economic development through Iraqi businesses and nationals; (2) promotion of democracy and civil society; and (3) disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration of militias.
Authorizes the President to terminate all contracts with a contractor having more than one federal Iraqi reconstruction contract for non-fulfillment of one such contract.
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the Attorney General should seek to prosecute criminal fraud in the awarding and carrying out of federal contracts for Iraq reconstruction; and (2) the appropriate House and Senate committees should investigate the awarding and carrying out of specified Iraq-related contracts.
Directs the President, through the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to: (1) undertake a regional diplomatic effort to promote stability in Iraq; and (2) undertake a renewed effort towards securing Israeli-Palestinian peace on a basis similar to the parameters for peace presented to Israel and the Palestinian Authority by former President Bill Clinton in December 2000 and the unofficial Geneva Accords of 2003.
Directs the President, in partnership with the government of Iraq, to develop reconciliation, security, and governance benchmarks. Expresses the sense of Congress that further political and economic support for Iraq should be conditioned on significant progress towards achieving such benchmarks.
Directs the President to appoint a Special Envoy for Iraq Reconciliation.
Directs the President, for any country with a significant Iraqi refugee population, to: (1) seek to negotiate a bilateral refugee resettlement agreement for such refugees' U.S. admission; or (2) devise strategies, in consultation with the host government and international organizations and agencies, for provision of assistance to facilitate such refugees' host country integration.
Status of the Legislation
Latest Major Action: 3/20/2007: House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee Hearings Held.
Points in Favor
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
Points Against
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
Visitor Comments
Sal
This bill reads as though the fighting in Iraq is all but done. It calls for pulling out American forces and sprinkling US money on the Iraqi problems. And for good measure, it provides for the taking in of Iraqi refugees. In other words the losers in the Iraqi vs Iraqi ongoing religious civil war. Sounds like a loophole that terrorists can use to enter the USA legally. I'm not a big fan of this war but now that we are there we should do what it takes to increase the odds that the war in Iraq stays in Iraq. This bill needs further thought.
Brandy
This Bill is a well thought out outline for needed policy changes in Iraq. It provides accountabilty for the profiteers of this war. It adressess the needs of refugees. It requires the executive branch to justify additional spending, create a comprehensive plan for withdrawl, and timely implementation. This bill provides for the diplomacy needed to de-escalate the violence occuring in Iraq.
TOM REYNOLDS
YOU DO NOT RUN A WAR BY POPULAR PUBLIC OPINION. MILITARY LOGIC DEMANDS THAT WE KEEP MILITARY INTENT SECRET IF YOU WANT TO AVOID LOSING MORE MEN. THE LOGIC OF THE INVASION IN IRAQ WAS MILITARY. TWO REQUIRMENT IF YOU EXPECT TO WIN A WAR: 1. YOU MUST SPILT THE ENEMIES FORCES SO HE CAN NOT MASS AGAINST YOU, 2. YOU MUST DESTROY HIS SUPPLY LINES. THIS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED BY SURROUNDING YOU ENEMY WHICH IS REALLY IRAN HENCE YOU CAN COME TO A END WITHOUT GLOBAL WAR WITH SERIOUS CIVILIAN LOSS. THE WAR IN IRAQ ACCOMPLISHED ALL THESE WHICH SPLIT THE ISLAM FORCES, WRECKED THEIR SUPPLY DEPOT WHICH WAS IRAQ (LOOK AT THE MATERIAL WE FOUND THERE) AND RENDERED IRAN INEFFECTIVE TO A LARGE DEGREE. WE HAVE WON THIS WAR AND ARE IN A POSITION TO DEFEAT ANY ENEMY IN THE MIDDLE EAST. DON'T FORGET FRANCE, GERMANY AND RUSSIA'S INVOLVMENT WITH WAS A SUPRISE BUT ONLY TO THE PUBLIC.