[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 67 (Wednesday, April 25, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H4121-H4131]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1591, U.S. TROOP READINESS,
VETERANS' HEALTH, AND IRAQ ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2007
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 332 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 332
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall
be in order to consider the conference report to accompany
the bill (H.R. 1591) making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007,
and for other purposes. All points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration are waived.
The conference report shall be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
General Leave
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks on House Resolution 332.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 332 provides for consideration of
the conference report for H.R. 1591, making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for
other purposes. The rule waives all points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration. It also provides that
the conference report shall be considered as read.
Mr. Speaker, after 4 years of the administration's relentless
mismanagement of the Iraq war, mismanagement that has needlessly
endangered our soldiers and lost countless Iraqi lives, this new
Democratic Congress is determined to exercise our constitutional duty
and to change the Nation's course in Iraq. We are hardly alone in our
estimation of what must be done there.
A growing chorus of opinion has coalesced around the need for a new
direction. Virtually all of our generals agree that this fight cannot
be won militarily, and General David Petraeus has said that the
American mission in Iraq is 20 percent military and 80 percent
political, economic and diplomatic.
He is joined by the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, who applauded
this debate, saying it will demonstrate to the Iraqi leadership that
America will no longer tolerate an open-ended commitment without any
benchmarks for success.
James A. Baker and Lee Hamilton of the President's own Iraq Study
Group have called for the American military to focus on training Iraqi
security forces instead of conducting endless security sweeps.
Retired generals have joined in as well. Retired Lieutenant General
William E. Odom, to name just one, has said that the proposed change in
course will, and I quote, ``re-orient U.S. strategy to achieve regional
stability, and win help from many other countries--the only way peace
will eventually be achieved.''
What of the people of the United States of America? It is their sons
and daughters, their husbands and wives, their friends and family who
have fought, have been injured and died in this war by the tens of
thousands.
They, more than anyone else, have demanded that America's mission in
Iraq be changed. This bill is a statement that Congress will no longer
fund the war as it exists today.
With it, Democrats are demanding accountability and requiring that
future support be based on tangible progress being made. We are
refusing to ask our soldiers to continue fighting an open-ended battle
to achieve goals that are constantly being altered. Such a request is
not worthy of their sacrifice.
Let me say also that while the President said that this bill is
nothing more than a political statement, the opposite is the case. Our
bill reconciles hard realities with our most fundamental principles. It
both protects our soldiers and seeks to give them the best chance to
help to produce a secure Iraq. It could not be more sincere, and it
will soon be on the President's desk. If he rejects it, that will be
his political statement and not ours.
Finally, I must add briefly that this legislation also contains $18
billion to be spent on critically needed health care for the veterans
injured in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly for the traumatic brain
injury victims, for Katrina recovery operations, for the avian flu
vaccines, wildfire prevention, and for health insurance for children,
among many other things. Those things are what supplemental bills have
always been for, not to fund wars.
The President and his allies have chosen to dismiss this spending as
unjustifiable pork. They have asked Congress to deliver a clean bill,
in their words, but I can't think of programs much cleaner and more
worthy of our support than those I just mentioned.
The definition of a great nation is one that has the power to define
its own destiny and that uses its strength wisely to help others in
need. Insurgents who seek to destroy what is left of the Iraq society
are abominable, but they can do far less damage to our country than we
do to ourselves by pursuing flawed policies that deplete our Armed
Forces, undermine our alliances, and lessen our influence and moral
authority around the world.
{time} 1815
Why should we do what they cannot?
At the same time, the Iraqi people deserve so much more than the life
of fear they now lead. But America can be true to itself; we must have
the humility and the vision to recognize what is working and what is
not, and to correct our failures when reality demands it.
I believe that we are, indeed, a great Nation, Mr. Speaker. We have
the ability to choose our own way forward. Starting today, starting
here, we can choose to reject a path that is failing our soldiers, our
citizens, and the people of Iraq. And we can set a new course that
offers a real chance for a better future instead of endless,
unfulfilled promises.
This bill is the first step on that new course, and I urge everybody
in this body and in the White House to see it for what it truly is. It
is not an admission of defeat, but it is proof that our country has the
courage and the foresight needed to truly act like the great Nation
that we truly are.
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, 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
[[Page H4122]]
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
[[Page H4123]]
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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Chair of the
Rules Committee for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I want this war to come to an end now. I had
reservations when I voted in support of the supplemental a few weeks
ago, and I have misgivings about the conference report that is before
us today. I believe very deeply that this war represents one of the
biggest blunders in our history and that we must change course and
bring it to an end.
But, Mr. Speaker, to defeat this conference report tonight would
provide President Bush with a victory that he does not deserve and that
he has not earned, and it would affirm a disastrous policy in Iraq. A
vote against this conference report is a vote to support the status
quo, which is essentially a vote to support a failed policy.
Since the President decided to escalate the war in Iraq, the violence
has gotten worse. This administration has demonstrated a contempt for
the American people, who have demanded a change in our Iraq policy.
Mr. Speaker, this President is presiding over a policy and a war in
Iraq that is making the United States more vulnerable, not more secure.
He refuses to listen. He refuses to acknowledge the facts. He refuses
to compromise.
Now he has threatened to veto this conference report. And if he does
so, then this President will make perfectly clear to the American
people that the only way this war is going to end, the only way our
troops will ever come home to their families and loved ones, the only
way the Iraqis will ever be held accountable for governing their own
country and ending their sectarian violence, will be if Congress finds
a way to end it.
Every day it becomes more and more clear that the President has
decided to kick the ball down the field to make this war somebody
else's problem. Two years ago, President Bush announced his exit
strategy for Iraq. He said, ``That's a problem for the next
President.''
Mr. Speaker, that is unacceptable and it is false. It is a problem
for all of us. None of us in this Chamber wake up each morning in
harm's way. None of us stare death in the eye or see our comrades fall
to bullets and bombs. Not even the Green Zone provides a sense of
security any longer.
Instead of demanding reconciliation, we are building walls to keep
Shiites away from Sunnis. Every day, thousands of Iraqis are fleeing
the horror that has become their country. The best and the brightest
are leaving. The average shopkeeper, the next-door neighbor, all are
packing their bags and trying to find a way out of town, out of the
country, away from the violence, the death and destruction.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that whenever we finally leave Iraq, it
will not be pretty. This failed policy has left Iraq with few options.
But until we begin to leave, no one has to make the hard choices about
how Iraqis are going to live together or die together.
Mr. Speaker, this terrible chapter in our history must come to an
end, and I urge all my colleagues to join with me in saying to the
President of the United States, enough is enough.
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).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California
for the time.
At this difficult moment and in previous difficult moments in our
Nation's history, there have always been those ready to declare that
all was lost. Now we hear the voices of those proclaiming that the war
against Islamic extremists in Iraq is lost. They say they support the
troops, but the soldier cannot be separated from his mission.
When I consider the Parsons brothers from my congressional district,
I know that our country has immense resources of courage and
determination on which to draw. Huber Parsons was with the 101st
Airborne for two long deployments in Iraq, and is currently on his
third in Iraq with the Army Stryker Brigade. His twin, Bill, has served
two tours in Afghanistan and two tours in Iraq. Their little brother,
Charlie Parsons, is on his first deployment to Iraq. All three are
serving in Baghdad right now, all three proud graduates of West Point.
Given the sacrifices and bravery of the Parsons brothers and all of
the men and women serving our Nation in Iraq, we must not put them at
risk by mandating artificial deadlines for withdrawal and surrender.
The consequences for our troops is a personal one for me. My stepson
Doug and my daughter-in-law Lindsay both served in Iraq as marine
fighter pilots, and Lindsay is currently deployed in Afghanistan.
{time} 1830
Last time I spoke on the floor, I said Lindsay was about to be
deployed. Well, she is there now, we are proud of her service. We are
proud of all of the men and women serving our Nation wearing our
Nation's uniform.
Imposing an artificial, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal of our
forces before Iraq is stable and secure will give the insurgents and
the Islamic terrorists a road map, a how-to guide on how to defeat the
U.S., our Iraqi partners and other coalition forces in Iraq.
Let's help the Parsons brothers. Let's help all of our troops. Vote
against the rule and against the conference report.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri and the Chair of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton.
Mr. SKELTON. I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee. Mr.
Speaker, I am blessed to be a Member of the House of Representatives.
Under the Constitution of our country, this is a co-equal branch of
government. We are charged here in Congress to raise and maintain the
military of the United States. The President is charged with being the
Commander in Chief. Our job is clear. We must prepare and maintain our
military to the highest standard possible.
1950, the North Koreans invaded South Korea. We had a small force
there. General MacArthur, supreme commander in that part of the world,
sent a unit that was untrained, underequipped and undersized, called
Task Force Smith to stem the tide of the North Korean armies. They
fought valiantly and found themselves in the southeast corner of South
Korea in what is now known as the Pusan perimeter, and they were in
serious trouble. General MacArthur's brilliant Inchon landing on the
western coast of Korea changed the nature of the Korean War at that
moment.
But the lesson of all of this is the lack of readiness of the United
States
[[Page H4124]]
Army as it was in 1950. Our job is to see that that does not ever
happen again.
This rule, this bill, this resolution is the right one for our time.
It will help the readiness of the United States military, in particular
our Army. I am very concerned about the stretching and the straining of
the Army in Iraq, so much so we just have to fund them, and this is a
major step in that direction.
Now, some object for some Iraqi language, which frankly leaves a lot
to the discretion of the White House. But what we are overlooking is
the fact that this bill, this resolution does lead to supporting the
troops and keeping the readiness at a higher level. A large percentage
of the equipment of the active duty of the National Guard and of the
Reserve is not here in America, is overseas in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Readiness capability of the future is what this is all about.
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. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on 9/11, 2001, two planes flew
into the World Trade Center and killed over 3,000 Americans, the worst
attack on America in the history of this country, worse than Pearl
Harbor. The people who are behind it were al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden
said numerous times he wanted to destroy America. They are the mortal
enemy of the United States of America.
General Petraeus today, when he talked to the Members of Congress,
said numerous times that they were fighting al Qaeda, al Qaeda, al
Qaeda in Iraq, the mortal enemy of the United States of America.
Now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to pull us out
of there. And if they do succeed, then I believe that that will become
a gathering point for all of the al Qaeda operatives and other fellow
travelers in the world, and they will try to attack the United States
in numerous ways, probably on our home soil again. They attacked the
USS Cole, our embassies in Africa, they attacked housing in Saudi
Arabia.
I just want to say to my colleagues, remember what you are doing. If
you force us out of Iraq now, you are helping al Qaeda. You are helping
al Qaeda set up a base of operation, and they will be able to attack
the United States of America again.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I will be happy to yield to my colleague.
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. BURTON of Indiana. Let me just say that appeasement and weakness
led to World War II, and 62 million people died. We are now in the
nuclear age, and we have an enemy that will tie a nuclear weapon or
plastic explosives around themselves and blow themselves up. If they
come to America with a nuclear device, a suitcase nuclear device, they
could destroy this place and kill all of us three blocks away from here
by detonating that kind of a device.
Remember, they are our mortal enemy. Osama bin Laden said it. They
are in Iraq. We have got to stand firm.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). All Members are reminded to
address their comments to the Chair and not to other Members in the
second person.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota, the Chair of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report, but not
the rescission of highway contract authority which this bill uses to
offset non-highway spending elsewhere in the conference report.
The report provides an additional $683 million for the Federal
Highway Administration's Emergency Relief Program. No offset is needed
for that emergency relief.
Nonetheless, the conference report rescinds $683 million in
unobligated balances of highway funds that have been apportioned to the
States. Now, the rescission does protect highway safety programs, but
it leaves transportation environmental programs vulnerable.
The rescission of highway contract authority is the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and
this provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House.
These types of rescissions adversely affect the Federal aid highway
program, specifically the ability to ensure that the Nation's
transportation system has modal choices.
More than a dozen States have applied these rescissions
disproportionately to cut contract authority for critical
transportation and environmental programs, Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality Improvement and the Transportation Enhancement Program.
CMAQ funds are only 4 or 5 percent of highway apportionment every
year, but they have accounted for 20 percent of the funds rescinded in
recent years, and particularly in the State of Texas.
In fiscal year 2006 States rescinded $888 million in CMAQ funds. One
out of every $4 rescinded by States in 2006 came from CMAQ programs. In
2006 also the States rescinded 602 million of enhancements funds in
which Texas cut $223 million of enhancement funding and completely
suspended its program.
The House, I think, will have an opportunity to reconsider the
rescission issue in a future supplemental. And we, with all the
environment problems that we have and the climate change problems, this
is one area that we should not allow to be cut.
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. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
rule and to this conference report.
Fundamentally, this bill is about providing funding for our troops,
making sure that men and women who are on the front lines as we speak,
have the resources they need to stay safe and do their military and
humanitarian missions in Iraq.
It is clear that our troops have the support of this House and the
American people. Surely, no one wants to see our soldiers defeated in
Iraq. We all want their mission in Iraq to be as short as possible. We
want the war to end. We want our young soldiers, all volunteers, to
return home.
But this conference report before us today prejudges the
effectiveness of our young warfighters as they seek to secure Baghdad
under a new plan, under new military leadership.
This proposal starts withdrawal of our forces from Iraq on October 1,
irrespective of the judgment of our military commanders on the ground.
My colleagues, the reinforcement of the Army in Baghdad and the
Marines in Anbar, designed and executed by General David Petraeus, is
underway. It won't be complete for weeks.
And yet, there are some signs of progress. The plan must be given
time to work. Make no mistake about it. There will be wide and
dangerous consequences if we abandon the Iraqi people and their
government, now just 1 year old, before it is capable of governing and
protecting its own people. First, for our own soldiers there are
consequences. And secondly, we could have an explosion of sectarian
violence, killing and bloodshed on a larger, more barbaric scale than
we have now.
Mr. Speaker, we are a Nation at war and the stakes are extremely high
for America. Our troops need this money now. They deserved it
yesterday.
[[Page H4125]]
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join together to honor the
service of our young men and women and to work with the President, our
Commander in Chief, to have some measure of success in Iraq. I urge a
``no'' vote on the rule and the conference report.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, last week the 2,100th American
child had to be informed that they will never see their daddy or mommy
again because their parent was killed in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, our military families deserve a policy worthy of their
sacrifice. They deserve better. This war is going to turn out to be one
of the worst military, political, economic and moral blunders in
American history.
I heard my colleague refer to 9/11. We now know that we were brought
into this war through deliberate deception and the politics of fear.
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, wouldn't allow al Qaeda
into his country. In fact, he wasn't trying to get nuclear weapons. He
had no weapons of mass destruction. All those mobile labs didn't
manufacture chemical weapons. Nor is this war being paid for with Iraqi
oil.
And yet, you want us, 4 years later, to believe the very same people
that brought us into this fiasco. When do you start to lose your
credibility? After we have had 58,000 soldiers killed as in Vietnam? We
are up to 3,300 now. About 25,000 seriously wounded. And how can you
stand before them and tell them that this fiasco was worthy of their
sacrifice?
The government that we are supporting doesn't go outside the Green
Zone in Baghdad. They don't serve their people. In fact, many of its
ministers are corrupt. That is the reality of our policy in Iraq.
{time} 1845
And the fact too is that if the government we are supporting had the
opportunity, they would turn Iraq into a Shi'a theocracy. Is that
really worth our military families' sacrifice? The answer is no.
Support this rule and vote for this supplemental.
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. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, firmly and resolutely opposed
to both this rule and the underlying conference report.
I regret to say that the Democratic leaders have once again
demonstrated that it is either their way or the highway, except this
time it is our fighting men and women who are left stranded in the
middle of the road.
Mr. Speaker, I am truly saddened and, in truth, even angered by the
majority's insistence on putting this war, our generals, and our war
fighters on auto pilot with a forced retreat and an inflexible
timetable.
The consequences of this decision, should it become law, will echo
long beyond this date, this year, this decade. Defeat should not be an
option, and yet it seems that this majority believes it is the only
option.
We are at a critical juncture in history when the defenders of
liberty and freedom have to stand firm against tyrants and terrorists.
And I will remind the gentleman from Virginia that just spoke,
indeed, the famous quote says, ``There are times in our history when
the tree of liberty must be nourished by the blood of patriots.''
Sure, without question, this war has been hard fought every step of
the way, and it will continue to be. But few things worthwhile in life
are ever easy.
Regrettably, this majority was bought and paid for by MoveOn.org and
liberal extremists, and now they have come to collect, unfortunately,
at the expense of our military and our security, today, tomorrow, and
for decades to come.
When the Speaker of the House pushes to rewrite our foreign policy
and yet refuses to meet with General Petraeus, our commander on the
ground in Iraq, it becomes abundantly clear this majority would rather
push left-wing politics over sound policy.
This political theater would be funny if its consequences weren't a
matter of life and death, of victory and defeat. Every day that we
delay a legitimate war-funding bill, the resources of our military and
our soldiers' quality of life are diminished. In fact, this delay has
forced the Pentagon to move $800 million from the Air Force's personnel
accounts, money to pay our servicemembers, to make up for the gaps in
the war funding.
I implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, oppose this rule,
oppose this conference report. Let us end this political game and truly
give victory a chance.
We can do better, Mr. Speaker. We have an obligation to do better for
the sake of the men and women who put their lives on the line in Iraq
and Afghanistan to protect ours.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, take a moment to travel
through the Nation's hospitals and speak to those in this final injury
ward, see the young women bending over their soldier husbands who now
have lost the use of all of their limbs, 25,000-plus injured and 3,000-
plus dead.
It is not the policies of this Democratic majority that is causing
this absolute disaster. It is the misdirected policies of those in the
administration who are causing harm to our soldiers.
Let me thank our soldiers for their leadership, for their service,
and their patriotism. But as I stand here today and look at my Members,
the Speaker of the House who went into the Mideast, Mr. Giuliani, there
is no white flag on this side of the aisle, and I reject your insult
and insensitivity.
This legislation will not give the administration a blank check. It
will give a new direction to Iraq. It will begin to redeploy soldiers
if the President cannot certify the readiness in July and then in
October of 2007. It provides funding for veterans hospitals, for the
injured with spinal injuries, with brain injury. And, yes, there are
those on this side of the aisle who understand the shedding of blood of
our soldiers.
That is why this legislation will allow us to go and fight the
terrorists, to find Osama bin Laden, and to do the job that we have not
done since the tragedy and the terrorism of 9/11.
This is a sad day in this body. I want us to support the rule and the
underlying bill because there is no white flag. We have the solution,
and that solution is a policy that responds to the needs of the
American people and our soldiers on the battlefield. No more nine
soldiers of the 82nd Airborne. We thank them for their service. We
declare a military success. And we bring our soldiers home.
And maybe it will be good if some of those who did not serve would
understand what it means to serve.
Mr. Speaker, as a proud member of the Progressive and the Out of Iraq
Caucuses, I rise to speak in support of the Conference Report on H.R.
1591, the ``U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq
Accountability Act.'' I support the Conference Report because this
compromise offers us the first real chance to end the misguided
invasion, war, and occupation of Iraq. It puts us on the glide path to
the day when our troops come home in honor and triumph and where we can
``care for him who has borne the battle, and for his widow and
orphan.'' This legislation helps to repair the damage to America's
international reputation and prestige. It brings long overdue
oversight, accountability, and transparency to defense and
reconstruction contracting and procurement. Finally, it places the
responsibility for bringing peace and security where it clearly belongs
and that is squarely on the shoulders of the Iraqi government.
Mr. Speaker, the House and Senate conferees have approved legislation
providing $124.2 billion primarily for the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. As part of the legislation, conferees approved a sensible
plan to redeploy U.S. forces in Iraq paired with progress made by the
Iraqi government in meeting diplomatic and security benchmarks. These
legislative provisions, which are subject to a Presidential waiver,
will ensure adequate rest between tours of duty of both active duty and
Guard and Reserve forces, while also requiring that their service in
Iraq not be extended beyond a year for any tour of duty.
President Bush would be required to certify that the Iraqi government
is meeting the diplomatic and security benchmarks. If he makes that
certification, deployment shall begin no later than October 1, 2007,
with the goal of
[[Page H4126]]
completing the redeployment within 180 days. After that period, a
limited number of U.S. forces could remain in Iraq for force
protection, training and equipping Iraqi troops, and targeted
counterterrorism options. The legislation makes it possible for the
U.S. military to focus its resources on Osama bin Laden, whose
organization attacked the nation on 9/11, and destroying his base of
operations in Afghanistan.
Additionally, the U.S. commander in Iraq would provide regular
progress reports to Congress on both the progress of the Iraqi
government to take control of that country as well as the status of the
redeployment efforts.
Finally, the conferees are also to be commended for providing needed
funding to improve health care for returning soldiers and veterans, for
continued Hurricane Katrina recovery for the Gulf Coast, to fill major
gaps in homeland security, and to provide emergency drought relief for
farmers.
Overall, the conference agreement provides more than $100 billion for
the Department of Defense, primarily for continued military operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan. The legislation includes a $1 billion increase
for the National Guard and Reserve equipment and $1.1 billion for
military housing. The legislation also provides $3 billion ($1.2
billion more than the President's request) for the purchase of Mine
Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAP)--vehicles designed to
withstand roadside bombs and more than $5 billion to ensure that
returning troops and veterans receive the health care that they have
earned with their service.
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not point out that the tragic
loss of life last week at Virginia Tech still weighs heavily on our
hearts and minds. Neither the mind nor the heart can contemplate a
cause that could lead a human being to resort to such senseless
violence to injure and destroy fellow human beings. The thoughts and
prayers of people of goodwill everywhere go out to the victims and
their families. In the face of such overwhelming grief, I hope they can
take comfort in the certain knowledge that unearned suffering is
redemptive.
The war in Iraq has also caused a lot of unearned suffering in Iraq
and here at home. This is the same war, Mr. Speaker, whose proponents
misrepresented to the nation would last no more than six months and
likely less than six weeks. This same war in Iraq, we were led to
believe by the Administration, would cost less than $50 billion and
would be paid out of the ample revenues from Iraq's oil fields. The war
in Iraq, the American people were promised, should have ended years ago
with Americans troops greeted as liberators by jubilant Iraqis throwing
rose petals at their feet.
The President has threatened to veto the legislation now before us if
it passes. According to the President and the Vice-President, H.R. 1591
``would undermine our troops and threaten the safety of the American
people here at home.'' Coming from an Administration that has been
wrong on every important question relating to the decision to launch
the Iraq War as well the conduct of it, this claim is laughable. Little
wonder that nearly 70 percent of Americans disapprove of the way the
President is handling the war. But more important, the President's
claim is simply not true.
Mr. Speaker, many of the nation's most highly respected generals have
endorsed H.R. 1591; all of them oppose the President's plan to escalate
the war in Iraq. Take, for example, Maj. Gen. John Batiste, U.S. Army,
Ret.
``This important legislation sets a new direction for Iraq. It
acknowledges that America went to war without mobilizing the nation,
that our strategy in Iraq has been tragically flawed since the invasion
in March 2003, that our Army and Marine Corps are at the breaking point
with little to show for it, and that our military alone will never
establish representative government in Iraq. The administration got it
terribly wrong and I applaud our Congress for stepping up to their
constitutional responsibilities.''
Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, USA, Ret. Supports this legislation because it
``gives General Petraeus great leverage for moving the Iraqi government
down the more disciplined path laid out by the Iraq Study Group.''
According to Major Eaton, the real audience for the timeline language
is Prime Minister al-Maliki and the elected government of Iraq:
The argument that this bill aides the enemy is simply not mature--
nobody on the earth underestimates the United States' capacity for
unpredictability. It may further create some sense of urgency in the
rest of our government, beginning with the State Department.
Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), President Reagan's
Director of the National Security Agency, supports the bill because it
``gives the president a chance to pull back from a disastrous course,
re-orient U.S. strategy to achieve regional stability, and win help
from many other countries--the only way peace will eventually be
achieved.''
Mr. Speaker, to date, the war in Iraq has lasted longer than
America's involvement in World War II, the greatest conflict in all
of human history. But there is a difference. The Second World War ended
in complete and total victory for the United States and its allies. But
then again, in that conflict America was led by FDR, a great Commander-
in-Chief, who had a plan to win the war and secure the peace, listened
to his generals, and sent troops in sufficient numbers and sufficiently
trained and equipped to do the job.
As a result of the colossal miscalculation in deciding to invade
Iraq, the loss of public trust resulting from the misrepresentation of
the reasons for launching that invasion, and the breath taking
incompetence in mismanaging the occupation of Iraq, the Armed Forces
and the people of the United States have suffered incalculable damage.
The war in Iraq has claimed the lives of 3,316 brave servicemen and
women (64 in the first 16 days of this month). More than 24,912
Americans have been wounded, many suffering the most horrific injuries.
American taxpayers have paid nearly $400 billion to sustain this
misadventure.
The depth, breadth, and scope of the President's misguided,
mismanaged, and misrepresented war in Iraq is utterly without precedent
in American history. It is a tragedy in a league all its own. But it
was not unforeseeable or unavoidable.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health
and Iraq Accountability Act the House passed last month provides real
benchmarks and consequences if the Iraqi Government fails to live up to
its commitments. First, it requires the President to certify and report
to Congress on July 1, 2007 that substantial progress has been made on
security, political and reconstruction benchmarks by the Iraqi
government.
If the President cannot certify that the Iraqi government has made
substantial progress, redeployment of U.S. combat troops must begin,
with a goal of being completed within 180 days (by December 31, 2007).
If the July certification is made, redeployment of U.S. combat troops
must begin by October 1, 2007, with a goal of being completed within
180 days (by March 31, 2008).
The measure changes the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq after
redeployment from combat to training and equipping Iraqi troops,
targeted counterterrorism operations, and force protection.
I have to say, Mr. Speaker, the Iraqi Government is not off to a good
start. The Green Zone surrounding Baghdad remains insecure. Two weeks
ago, a suicide bomber managed to penetrate the security perimeter of
the Iraqi Parliament and detonated a bomb that killed at least three
members of the Iraqi parliament and wounded scores of others.
Additionally, the market represented by Senator McCain as an example of
the improved security situation in Iraq was turned into a killing field
within days after Senator McCain's visit. And just last week, we saw
the bloodiest and deadliest day in Baghdad since the so-called
``surge'' began when 198 Iraqi civilians were massacred by insurgents.
Mr. Speaker, radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has
reasserted his political power by yanking his loyalists from the
Cabinet, a move aimed at showing his supporters he retains his
credentials as an opposition leader and which increases the pressure on
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to loosen his embrace of the U.S.
occupation, which many Iraqis blame for violence in the country.
These developments, Madam Speaker, illustrate the wisdom of requiring
benchmarks the Iraqi Government must meet to justify continued American
blood and treasure in Iraq. Moreover, because those benchmarks are
established pursuant to President Bush's policies, it is passing
strange indeed that he would threaten to veto the bill since it
necessarily means he would be vetoing his own benchmarks for the
performance of the Iraqi government. He would be vetoing his own
readiness standards for U.S. troops. The President demands this
Congress send him an Iraq war bill with ``no strings.'' But the only
``strings'' attached, Madam Speaker, are the benchmarks and standards
imposed by the President himself.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the enormous financial cost, the human
cost to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces has also
been high but they have willingly paid it. Operation Iraqi Freedom has
exacerbated the Veterans Administration health care facility
maintenance backlog; placed an undue strain on the delivery of medical
treatment and rehabilitative services for current and new veterans; and
exacted a heavy toll on the equipment, training and readiness
requirements, and the families of the men and women of the United
States Armed Forces.
The emergency supplemental acknowledges the sacrifices made by, and
the debt of gratitude, we and the Iraqi people owe to Armed Forces of
the United States. But more than that, it makes a substantial down
payment on that debt by providing substantial increases in funding for
our troops.
[[Page H4127]]
The supplemental includes a total appropriation of $2.8 billion for
Defense Health Care, which is $1.7 billion above the President's
request. The additional funding supports new initiatives to enhance
medical services for active duty forces and mobilized personnel, and
their family members. Included in this new funding is $450 million for
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder/Counseling; $450 million for Traumatic
Brain Injury care and research; $730 million to prevent health care fee
increases for our troops; $20 million to address the problems at Walter
Reed; and $14.8 million for burn care.
Unlike the Republican leadership of the 109th Congress and the Bush
Administration, the new Democratic majority is committed to America's
veterans. What's more, we back up that commitment by investing in their
well-being. For example, the supplemental includes $1.7 billion above
the President's request for initiatives to address the health care
needs of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and the backlog in maintaining
VA health care facilities, including $550 million to address the
backlog in maintaining VA health care facilities so as to prevent the
VA from experiencing a situation similar to that found at Walter Reed
Medical Center.
We provide an additional $250 million for medical administration to
ensure there are sufficient personnel to support the growing number of
Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and to maintain a high level of services
for all veterans; $229 million for treating the growing number of Iraq
and Afghanistan veterans; $100 million for contract mental health care,
which will allow the VA to contract with private mental health care
providers to ensure that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are seen in the
most timely and least disruptive fashion, including members of the
Guard and Reserve; and $62 million to speed up the processing of claims
of veterans returning from Iraq and Aghanistan.
Madam Speaker, when American troops are sent into harm's way, America
has an obligation to do all it can to minimize the risk of harm to the
troops. That is why it was so important that we included additional
funding above the President's request to support our troops. We provide
$2.5 billion more to address the current readiness crisis of our
stateside troops, including ensuring that they are better equipped and
trained. We include $1.4 billion more for military housing allowances
and $311 million more for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP)
vehicles for troops in Iraq. And there is included in the supplemental
$222 million more for infrared countermeasures for Air Force aircraft
to address the growing threat against U.S. air operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan
Equally important, Mr. Speaker, the supplemental contains language
directing the President to adhere to current military guidelines for
unit readiness, deployments, and time between deployments.
The supplemental requires the Defense Department to abide by its
current Unit Readiness policy, requiring the chief of the military
department concerned to determine that a unit is ``fully mission
capable'' before it is deployed to Iraq. The President may waive this
provision by submitting a report to Congress detailing why the unit's
deployment is in the interests of national security despite the
assessment that the unit is not fully mission capable.
The Defense Department is also required to abide by its current
policy and avoid extending the deployment of units in Iraq in excess of
365 days for the Army and 210 days for the Marines. The provision may
be waived by the President only by submitting a report to Congress
detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit's extended
deployment is in the interests of national security.
Mr. Speaker, to reduce the incidence of combat fatigue and enhance
readiness, it is important that our troops have sufficient ``time out
of the combat zone and training between deployments. That is why we
require the Defense Department to abide by its current policy and avoid
sending units back into Iraq before troops get the required time away
from the war theater. The President may waive this provision by
submitting a report to Congress detailing why the unit's early
redeployment to Iraq is in the interests of national security.
Mr. Speaker, the American people spoke loudly and clearly last
November when they tossed out the Rubber-Stamp Republican Congress.
They voted for a New Direction in Iraq and for change in America. They
voted to disentangle American troops from the carnage, chaos, and civil
war in Iraq. They voted for accountability and oversight, which we
Democrats have begun to deliver on; already the new majority has held
more than 100 congressional hearings related to the Iraq War,
investigating everything from the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse of
Iraq reconstruction funding to troop readiness to the Iraq Study Group
Report to the shameful mistreatment of wounded soldiers recuperating at
Walter Reed Medical Center.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the President should sign this measure, in order
to get these needed resources to our troops and to our veterans and to
hold the Iraqis accountable. By signing this legislation the President
can help deliver the message to the Iraqi people that they must take
responsibility for their own future. By signing this measure the
President can show some leadership in the transitioning of the mission
of U.S. troops from combat to training Iraqi troops and
counterterrorism. Last, this legislation will help restore and
strengthen our military, with a new Strategic Reserve Readiness Fund
among other measures.
Last November the American people signaled clearly their loss of
confidence in the President's leadership and their desire for a new
direction in Iraq. In less than 120 days, the new Democratic majority
has begun to deliver. And we will not rest, Madam Speaker, until we are
clearly on a glide path to the day when our troops come home.
And even then our work will not be done. We must still be about the
business of repairing the damage to America's international reputation
and prestige. But this Democratic majority, led by the Progressive
Caucus and the Out of Iraq Caucus, has ushered in a new era of
oversight, accountability, and transparency to defense and
reconstruction contracting and procurement.
I urge all members to join me in supporting the Conference Report to
H.R. 1591. This is the best way to ensure accountability to our
soldiers who have been sent into battle without proper training or
equipment or a clear mission. It is the best way to keep faith with our
veterans who are not getting the best medical care when they come home.
Passing this supplemental appropriations bill is essential to restoring
our military that is being stretched to the limits by the Bush policy.
Last, it is absolutely necessary to regain the confidence of the
American people who demand a new direction in Iraq.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members of the House are once again
reminded that they should direct their comments to the Chair.
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. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in great opposition to this rule and to this
conference report.
We are here, yet again, discussing a Democrat plan for a statutory
date certain for America's defeat in Iraq. We are here, yet again,
discussing the Democrats' ``slow bleed'' strategy for our brave men and
women in uniform in Iraq, designed to gradually deny them the critical
equipment, support, and reinforcements they need to do the job. We are
here, yet again, discussing just how much pork and unrelated spending
can be shoved into this conference report to encourage or persuade
reluctant Members to support this legislation.
And, Mr. Speaker, according to today's L.A. Times and other major
media outlets, we are likely to have this vote again and again and
again because the majority party's leadership somehow believes it is in
their political interests to do so.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know about the recent announcement of the
Democratic leader in the Senate. He has announced to our troops, he has
announced to al Qaeda, he has announced to the world that the war in
Iraq is lost.
Mr. Speaker, Corporal Tyler Rock of the 1st Battalion, 6th Marines
seems to disagree. I would quote him directly, but I believe the House
rules would not permit it; so allow me to paraphrase that he has a
quote for the Senate majority leader. Let me go on to say that he has
said, ``We could leave this place and say we are sorry to the
terrorists, and then we could wait for 3,000 more American civilians to
die before we say, `Hey, that's not nice again.' ''
Mr. Speaker, I suspect that Corporal Rock speaks for most of our
troops. Let's not cut their support. There will be no greater event to
empower radical Islam than our defeat and retreat from Iraq.
The terrorists that we fight there believe they have the moral
authority to kill 2 million, 2 million of our children, two of them
being my own.
They are the ones that say the battlefield is in Iraq. Why can't we
understand that in the Halls of Congress?
There is no doubt that fighting this war is costly. There is no more
difficult duty I have, or any of us have, than to meet with the mothers
of those who have lost loved ones on the field of battle. But as
difficult as that duty is, I
[[Page H4128]]
never, never, never want to meet with the mothers who lose children in
the next 9/11 because we turned our back on our duty.
The cost of fighting this war is great. The cost of losing it is
greater.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, according to our military leaders, the
status quo is not working in Iraq. Major General Batiste said, ``The
administration got it terribly wrong and I applaud Congress for
stepping up.'' Lieutenant General Odom said our bill ``gives the
President a chance to pull back from a disastrous course, reorient U.S.
strategy to achieve regional stability, and win help from many other
countries, the only way peace will eventually be achieved.''
Our military has done everything the President and the Congress and
American people have asked it. The President asked our men and women in
uniform to invade a country, and they did. The President asked them to
go to war against a nation's army, and they did. The President asked
them to seize a capital, and they did. The President asked the men and
women in uniform to depose a dictator, and they did. The President
asked the men and women in uniform to capture that dictator, and they
did.
Given all these military achievements by our Armed Forces, why do we
have today the worst national security crisis in over a generation?
There is not now, nor has there ever been, a political plan that
matches the military leadership that we have seen from our Armed
Forces. But this administration has offered no real plan for success,
and our troops have been asked to back the Iraqi Government that has
yet to stand up for itself. The entire plan over the last 4 years
offered by the President and the Republican Congress has been more
troops, more time, more money, and more of the same, even though we
know that the challenges we face today require more than the status
quo. The President's policy has come down to the status quo plus.
Secretary of Defense Gates had it right: ``Any solution in Iraq is
not purely military but also political.''
Our plan holds the Iraqi people accountable for their own nation. It
requires the Iraqi people to meet the benchmarks for success, the same
benchmarks that the President outlined on January 10 before he turned
against his own benchmarks. We will give our troops and commanders the
resources and freedom to do their job. But we will do the one thing
that a Republican Congress has refused to do over the years: demand
accountability from the Iraqis.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support this
legislation.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the President says send him the money. Let's be clear.
This bill provides every penny the President asked for to fund the
troops in Iraq. It also provides for something the President did not
ask for: funds to help improve the treatment of our wounded soldiers at
Walter Reed and other places around this country.
It also provides something that the American people have now insisted
on but the White House doesn't ask for, and that is accountability with
respect to the war in Iraq. That is why the President doesn't like the
bill before us. We know the White House has become an accountability-
free zone. The White House got used to a Congress, the old Republican
Congress, that gave the President a blank check, money without
accountability. And this provides funding with accountability. That is
why they don't like it.
Let us be very clear. If the President vetoes this bill, he will be
saying ``no'' to ensuring that our troops have the training and
equipment that they need. If he vetoes this bill, he will saying ``no''
to ensuring that we hold the Iraqi Government accountable to the
benchmarks which the Bush administration and the Iraqi Government have
said are absolutely necessary to achieve political stability in Iraq.
If he vetoes this bill, he will be saying ``no'' to those additional
funds for our wounded soldiers at Walter Reed and for our veterans
health care system.
He will also be saying ``no'' to the additional funds that we put in
this bill to the fight against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Here we are so
many years after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Al Qaeda remains a
vibrant organization and Osama bin Laden remains at large; we provide
funds to go after Osama bin Laden, additional funds; the President will
be saying ``no'' to that.
And the President, if he vetoes this bill, will be saying ``no'' to
the overwhelming sentiment of the American people who understand the
failed policy and say we need to change direction.
Let's change direction. Let's say ``yes'' to this conference
committee report.
{time} 1900
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, we here highly resolve that starting today
we will no longer allow President Bush to make an infinite number of
mistakes with an infinite number of our sons and daughters.
We know one thing, the President believes he has done a heck of a job
in Iraq; the American people disagree. The people who are now doing our
bidding in Iraq proudly are standing up for democracy, and we want some
democracy here. We know that there is a difficult road to hoe in Iraq,
but we know there should be an infinite wisdom in one source in
America, and that is the American people.
There is no sovereignty, there is no king, there is no person who
always does a heck of a job. When push comes to shove, we have got to
listen to the American people, and the American people have spoken to
us loudly. They have said it is time for the Iraqi leadership to quit
fiddling around and form a government. And they know, as we do, as the
retired generals who have come out full force and said that the
American people are right, we cannot expect our service personnel to
solve the political problem in Iraq. And now, 13 months have gone by
since supposedly they formed this constitution and they were going to
solve this problem of what to do with their oil, and they still haven't
got an agreement. They are still fiddling around while our sons and
daughters die.
Now, the troops and the generals understand that there is a message
being sent by this resolution, and the message is to Maliki and the
rest of the Iraqi leadership: You have got to stop fiddling around and
form a government, and you have got to reach an agreement about oil.
And until you do, there is going to be civil strife, civil war and
Americans driving in the middle of that. This is a message to them:
Solve this problem.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, we have a moral obligation to support our
troops while they are in combat and when they come home; that is why in
this bill we fully fund our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. So a ``no''
vote against this bill is a vote against $3.1 billion to build better
barracks, housing and training facilities here at home for troops
returning from war.
We believe that supporting our veterans is a real cost of war, just
as real as guns, tanks and bullets. A ``no'' vote on this bill is a
vote against $1.8 billion and funding high priority health care
programs for our veterans, with a special focus on taking care of those
who need it the most, those suffering from traumatic brain injury,
PTSD, or a loss of arms and legs. Our veterans' sacrifices don't end
after they come home, and neither should our commitment to them.
A ``no'' vote on this bill is a vote against a $100 million for
contracting out health care services so that members of the Guard and
Reserves in rural areas can receive the timely health care that they
need and deserve. For some, that timely care can mean the difference
between good health and depression, for others the difference between
life and death.
[[Page H4129]]
To prevent a Walter Reed Annex 18 tragedy from occurring in VA
hospitals, we fund $550 million to address serious maintenance and
repair needs at our VA facilities. A ``no'' vote on this bill is a vote
against that funding for veterans. The needs addressed in this bill are
real, the dollar amounts are fiscally sound, and our troops and our
veterans deserve no less.
A vote for this bill is a vote for better health care and housing for
America's heroes. By voting for this bill, we can honor and respect our
troops, our veterans and their families, not just with our words, but
with our deeds.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and a ``yes'' vote for our troops
on this conference report.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation
because where continuity is merited, we have continuity, and where
change is demanded, we have change.
The continuity comes from the fact of a bipartisan consensus to
provide every dollar that our troops in the field need, and this bill
does that. That will not change. What must change, though, is the
abrogation of constitutional responsibility by the erstwhile majority.
For over 3\1/2\ years, the erstwhile majority, Mr. Speaker,
vacillated between apology and inaction. Yes, the President is the
Commander in Chief, but no President should be the sole source of law
and judgment. And for nearly 4 years, the erstwhile majority sat
silently by as the quagmire deepened. That is changing under this
legislation.
What also must change is the policy itself. We have been asked what
our plan was. Here it is. We say to the Iraqis, you promised to pass an
oil law. Pass it. You promised to have local elections. Have those
elections. You promised to stand up your own security and police
forces. Put them into the fight. If you succeed, we will then stay for
an 18-month period of time to facilitate your success, but if you fail,
the days of the blank check and the endless commitment are over.
The erstwhile majority, Mr. Speaker, has a hard time recognizing this
plan because they have no plan. Their only approach is to ratify the
failure of the status quo. The troops in the field and the American
people deserve much, much better, and that is what this legislation
provides.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on
both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 8 minutes
remaining; the gentlewoman from New York has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago we lost a very dear
friend of mine, one of our Nation's great former leaders, a woman who
was a lifelong Democrat, and in 1984 she became a Republican when she
addressed the Republican National Convention. Her name was Jeane
Kirkpatrick; she served as Ronald Reagan's ambassador to the United
Nations.
I will never forget the speech that she delivered at our party
convention in 1984. She quoted the contemporary French writer, Jean-
Francois Revel, who said, ``Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty
for everything that it is and does will lack the energy and conviction
to defend itself.''
Mr. Speaker, I was struck with that because that was at a time when
there were many people who were maligning the United States of America;
they said that we had gone to hell in a handbag. They were attacking
all of the policies of Ronald Reagan, tax cuts which were ruining the
country. And I have to say that on a regular basis, Mr. Speaker, I
continue to hear the same kind of criticism, and yet we have what is
obviously the greatest Nation the world has ever known.
Today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average crashed through 13,000. We
saw last month 185,000 new jobs created, an unemployment rate of 4.4
percent. It is amazing that during this very difficult time in which we
are trying to successfully prosecute the war on terror, we are enjoying
such success because of the greatness of the United States of America
and because of our people.
I am very proud of the record that we have put forward, and I am
saddened regularly when I hear people malign us. And now we have this
debate, we have this debate, which led, as was said by my friend from
Marietta and by the gentleman from Dallas, the statement by the
majority leader of the United States Senate that this war has been
lost. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the American people
are convinced that we can be successful.
I know that there are many who today are critical of the fact that we
have gone to war. People are very upset about the fact that we have
gone into Iraq. I happen to still at this moment believe that we did
the right thing, but I know there are many people who have said that it
was the wrong thing. And I've had constituents who have come up to me.
In fact, just over this most recent district work period, I was at
numerous meetings in California and a number of people came to me and
they said, you know, I didn't support our going into Iraq, I think it
was a mistake, but the fact of the matter is we are where we are. We
have our men and women in uniform who are in Iraq.
We have seen elections take place in Iraq. We know the threat that
continues to exist from Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda, you
can go right down the line. And people have said we want to figure out
a way for victory. I've had people who said we shouldn't have gone into
Iraq say to me, we need to figure out a way that we can be victorious.
And the word ``victory'' is one that unfortunately we really haven't
heard from the other side of the aisle. In fact, one of the questions
asked today at the briefing with General Petraeus is, how do we define
what victory is? Well, it is really twofold. It still is. It is, Mr.
Speaker, an Iraq that can defend itself. And General Petraeus said to
us today that there are members of the Iraqi Security Forces who are
fighting and dying for their country, those are the exact words that he
used, and an Iraq that can govern itself, Mr. Speaker.
We understand the fragility of this government, with the Shia, Sunni
and Kurdish populations and the challenges that Prime Minister Maliki
faces, but we do believe that we can be successful because we have to
be successful.
Now we have gone through this process and we have heard people say on
both sides of the aisle that we want to make sure that we get funding
to our troops. Mr. Speaker, the best way for us to get funding to our
troops is to defeat this rule and defeat the conference report. Why?
Everyone has acknowledged that the President of the United States will
veto a bill that guarantees failure, which is what this bill would do
by establishing these arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal. So we have
all acknowledged that the President is going to veto the bill.
Mr. Speaker, why don't we make sure that our troops have the support
that everyone has said that they need by not going through the
challenge of the Presidential veto, the time-consuming process of the
Presidential veto, having this bill go to the other body to be
considered tomorrow. Let's defeat it right now, defeat the rule. And if
we don't defeat the rule, at least defeat the conference report itself
so that we can immediately get down to work. When we do that, Mr.
Speaker, I hope very much that we won't have a small cadre of
individuals within the Democratic leadership preventing Democrats and
Republicans from participating in this very important process to make
sure that we have everything that is necessary so that the American
people, who want victory, can in fact see victory achieved.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely hard pressed to see how
some people define ``success.''
I read in the New York Times front page that 80 percent of the
marines who died of upper body wounds would have lived if only they had
the proper equipment. I know that soldiers who serve in the National
Guard and Reserve are losing their homes and their jobs, but never mind
about that because the stock market is great. Aren't we doing well? It
hasn't hurt us a bit. We haven't called for any sacrifice at all from
the American people in this.
My heart is broken. I am ashamed and chagrined that this business
about
[[Page H4130]]
the booming economy could be brought into this debate about life and
death. My worry is about the young people who go over there and don't
get the proper care that they need.
I couldn't believe the testimony of Tillman's brother yesterday and
Jessica Lynch who said the military lied about them. What are we doing
in this country? The country that fought the Second World War to save
this world, we've been reduced to this, that we decide as long as the
stock market is good, the world is good, and let them go over there and
die because we are going to give them some kind of government we don't
even know they want? For heaven sakes, to every man and woman in
country there comes a moment to decide, Mr. Speaker. This is one of
those moments.
{time} 1915
We either vote for this rule and this bill, and we tell the President
of the United States if he vetoes this, he is absolutely continuing on
a road to absolute failure and that we are not going to be a party to
it. We want to take care of the soldiers. And if he vetoes the money,
it is on his head, not ours. But we will continue until we can get
those soldiers and marines out of that morass.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you in opposition to this
resolution. Once again, it champions a dismally irresponsible and
dangerous course of action. Setting a date certain for withdrawal of
our troops from Iraq would envelope Iraq in a cloud of chaos and self
destruction and expose us to a heightened threat of terrorism at home.
It ignores the President's plan for success in totality. It makes no
consideration for the effort to make progress on diplomatic and
economic fronts--essential components for that success to occur. They
offer no solutions in this bill, only criticism.
Mr. Hoyer's failed attempt on April 19th to correlate my involvement
regarding the U.S. efforts in Bosnia in the 1990s to that of the
situation in Iraq today stretches into the realm of absurdity. However,
what was clear from that debate was that Mr. Hoyer at the time, as well
as Mr. Murtha, agreed that we should not tie the hands of our President
in military operations, even in operations that the Congress did not
approve.
Mr. Speaker, let me refresh everyone's memories of that debate which
took place in this Chamber, a debate in which I was the lead sponsor of
three significant resolutions or amendments that set the course of this
Congress--all three which passed by significant margins with support
from both sides of the aisle.
But before I begin let me remind the Nation that there are
significant differences and some similarities between the debate of
Bosnia and today in Iraq. First, Congress did not authorize the
President to use force in Bosnia. Congress did authorize the President
to use military force in Iraq. Second, we did not begin the conflict in
Bosnia, but we did in Iraq. Third, the Republican majority in Congress
did in fact try to work with President Clinton to find a solution.
Former Senator Bob Dole and I with others traveled with President
Clinton to Bosnia and worked with him to set benchmarks for the civil
implementation of the Dayton Accords. I did not assign a date certain
to define success for each benchmark, this would have been folly. At
the time the leaders of the peace were once leaders during the war and
they focused more on these differences than that which brought them
together as a nation. President Clinton did a very good job focusing
the Bosnian leaders to accomplish the benchmarks and move to resolve
their differences and build their new nation.
Last week on the House Floor my colleague, Steny Hoyer attempted to
re-write the history of my involvement, claiming that I supported a
date certain for withdrawal of our troops from Bosnia and therefore I
should do the same with our forces in Iraq. The two contexts are
dissimilar. Let me set the record straight.
On October 30, 1995, the House agreed to House Resolution 247, a bill
that I sponsored with my Democrat colleague, Paul McHale of
Pennsylvania, by a vote of 315 to 103. Representatives Hoyer, Murtha,
and Pelosi voted ``no,'' Mr. Skelton voted ``yes.'' The bill stated
that there should not be a presumption that the United States Armed
Forces would be deployed to enforce a peace agreement that resulted
from the negotiations regarding the conflict in the Republic of Bosnia
and Herzegovina.
In early December 1995, the Dayton Accords concluded, laying a basis
for the path to peace in Bosnia.
On December 13, 1995, I sponsored House Resolution 302 with Ike
Skelton, a bipartisan bill that passed the House by a vote of 287 to
141. Representatives Hoyer, Murtha, and Pelosi voted ``no.'' That bill
reiterated the serious concerns and opposition to the President's
policy that would result in the deployment of 20,000 members of the
U.S. Armed Forces on the ground in the territory of the Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Despite the expressed will of the House, President Clinton chose to
proceed with the deployment of those members of the Armed Forces to
enforce the Dayton peace agreement in Bosnia. H.R. 302 declared the
policy of the House was that the President should rely on the judgment
of the commanders of U.S. forces on the ground on all matters affecting
safety, support, and well being of U.S. forces. Congress also declared
to furnish the resources to support the needs of President and the
Secretary of Defense.
Also on December 13, 1995, the President expressed to Congress that
the military mission in Bosnia would be accomplished in 1 year, and our
troops would be pulled out no later than December 1996. No one believed
that the goal could be accomplished within 1 year. A date certain does
not define success, the mission does.
However, despite that assertion, in November 1996, without the
consent of Congress, President Clinton announced that the timeline was
slipping and that our troops would not be withdrawn until June 1998.
By that point, the United States Armed Forces had acted quickly to
achieve their military objectives in Bosnia. In short order, the
courage, dedication, and professionalism of those personnel resulted in
a significant mitigation of the violence and suffering in that region.
However, the implementation of the civil infrastructure--the
humanitarian support, the establishment of a judicial system and a
validated police force--all of the fundamental parts that help make a
society function had stalled and there was no definitive plan to remedy
the situation.
In response, on June 24, 1997, I offered an amendment to the National
Defense Authorization Act of 1998 that passed the House by a vote of
278 to 148. Representatives Hoyer, Murtha, and Pelosi voted ``no'',
Skelton voted ``yes.'' That amendment would have cut funding to U.S.
military operations in Bosnia after June 30, 1998--a date set by the
President. I did not set the date Mr. Hoyer, this was President
Clinton's date. This amendment was later incorporated into the
conference report that included provisions that would allow U.S. forces
to remain if the President made certain certifications and accomplished
certain benchmarks. While I used the date certain given to us by the
President, I made it clear that I supported benchmarks that set the
conditions for a withdrawal of U.S. forces after the mission had been
successfully completed.
President Clinton had set an arbitrary date without articulating a
comprehensive plan--he did not identify the conditions to be met into
order to trigger a troop withdrawal from Bosnia. He simply set a date,
and then revised that date. We in Congress took that date, and required
certain benchmarks to be met, while at the same time allowing the
President the flexibility to allow troops to remain if he thought it
was in the interests of U.S. national security.
In Bosnia, we worked in a bipartisan manner with the President to set
the conditions for success in Bosnia and gave the President maximum
flexibility. Today, this President gets no such deference or
flexibility from the Democrat majority. Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Murtha want
to enforce a date certain for this President. They do not want to work
with this President to set the conditions for success. They simply want
to trigger a date for withdrawal, before the mission is done.
It is ironic that Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Murtha voted against that
amendment--they did not want to set a date certain for withdrawal and
tie the hands of their President. They wanted to give him the latitude
that he needed to insure that the mission in Bosnia met with success;
to re-establish civility, an effective government, a validated police
force and civil infrastructure. Today, their position is the opposite.
President Bush is not setting a date certain as President Clinton had
done.
Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer and Mr. Murtha all are seeking
to tie the hands of this President. They want to cut off funds to our
forces who are only doing what this Congress has asked them to do.
Congress should not tie the hands of the President with a date
certain for withdrawal from Iraq. Unlike President Clinton with Bosnia,
President Bush had the approval of Congress to go into Iraq. He has
given us a plan, conditions that must be met before we start to bring
our troops home. Yet, Mr. Hoyer and his party want to set an arbitrary
date, a date certain for withdrawal that does not correspond to those
conditions whatsoever--cut off funding for our troops who seek only to
succeed in their mission. This is defeatist strategy.
We need to help establish a stable Iraq before we withdrawal our
forces--the provisions in this bill do not allow us that flexibility
and
[[Page H4131]]
the price that we will pay is chaos in Iraq and further exposure to
terror here at home.
The majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid talks about polling
data from Senator Schumer that indicate ``political'' gains by their
party on Iraq. It is unfortunate that the Democrat majority think of
Iraq in terms of political points, not national security. If we do not
resolve this issue with immediacy, the readiness of our troops will be
compromised. They are struggling to determine how they will
redistribute funds to pay for their operations while we are here
politicking. We must stop the defeatist strategy of the majority now--
the one by which they hope to gain political capital from to the
detriment of our troops in the field.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226,
noes 195, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 264]
AYES--226
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--195
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Blunt
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Gilchrest
Goode
Lampson
Radanovich
Reynolds
Watson
Waxman
Westmoreland
{time} 1937
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________