[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 71 (Wednesday, May 2, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H4315-H4326]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
U.S. TROOP READINESS, VETERANS' CARE, KATRINA RECOVERY, AND IRAQ
ACCOUNTABILITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 110-31)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney) laid before the House the
following veto message from the President of the United States:
To the House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 1591, the ``U.S.
Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007.''
This legislation is objectionable because it would set an arbitrary
date for beginning the withdrawal of American troops without regard to
conditions on the ground; it would micromanage the commanders in the
field by restricting their ability to direct the fight in Iraqi; and it
contains billions of dollars of spending and other provisions
completely unrelated to the war.
Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq is not a plan to bring peace to the
region or to make our people safer here at home. The mandated
withdrawal in this bill could embolden our enemies--and confirm their
belief that America will not stand behind its commitments. It could
lead to a safe haven in Iraq for terrorism that could be used to attack
America and freedom-loving people around the world, and is likely to
unleash chaos in Iraq that could spread across the region. Ultimately,
a precipitous withdrawal could increase the probability that American
troops would have to one day return to Iraq--to confront an even more
dangerous enemy.
The micromanagement in this legislation is unacceptable because it
would create a series of requirements that do not provide the
flexibility needed to conduct the war. It would constrict how and where
our Armed Forces could engage the enemy and defend the national
interest, and would provide confusing guidance on which of our enemies
the military could engage. The result would be a marked advantage for
our enemies and greater danger for our troops, as well as an
unprecedented interference with the judgments of those who are charged
with commanding the military.
Beyond its direction of the operation of the war, the legislation is
also unacceptable for including billions of dollars in spending and
other provisions that are unrelated to the war, are not an emergency,
or are not justified. The Congress should not use an emergency war
supplemental to add billions in spending to avoid its own rules for
budget discipline and the normal budget process. War supplemental
funding bills should remain focused on the war and the needs of our men
and women in uniform who are risking their lives to defend our freedoms
and preserve our Nation's security.
Finally, this legislation is unconstitutional because it purports to
direct the conduct of the operations of the war in a way that infringes
upon the powers vested in the Presidency by the Constitution, including
as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. For these reasons, I must
veto this bill.
George W. Bush,
The White House, May 1, 2007.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objections of the President will be
spread at large upon the Journal, and the veto message and the bill
will be printed as a House document.
The question is, Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill,
the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California
(Mr. Lewis), and pending that I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this issue before us is the kind of issue that the
Congress was designed to deal with. This Congress exists today because
in 1215, almost 800 years ago, our forefathers many times removed, by
adopting the Magna Carta, established for the first time in the
English-speaking world the principle that the monarch was not
unilaterally sovereign.
That expression wound up being turned into a reality for our country
in 1789, when the Constitution of the United States was adopted. That
Constitution created three coequal branches of government. It gave this
body, the legislative body, the Congress, the ability to declare war.
It certainly gave us the obligation to oversee the conduct of war. It
gave us the obligation to oversee the use of taxpayers' money in
dealing not just with war, but with every other issue as well.
The President yesterday vetoed the legislation now before us, which,
for the first time, had he chosen to use it, would have given him the
opportunity to have an exit strategy for a war that has brought
incredible frustration and agony not just on the people of Iraq, but
the people of our own country.
Now, the President has told the public that he is ``the decider.''
Well, he is a very important decider, but he is not the only decider in
a democratic form of government. The ultimate deciders are our
constituents, and we are elected to speak on their behalf and to
participate in that decisionmaking. That is what the Congress did when
it passed this legislation through both Houses.
I regret very much that the President did not use this legislation to
establish a bipartisan approach to the war which has plagued us now for
more than 4 years.
As we all know, yesterday was the fourth anniversary of the
President's landing on that aircraft carrier under the banner ``Mission
Accomplished'' and telling us that our troops had fulfilled their
mission. Indeed, they had;
[[Page H4316]]
our troops won the war in Iraq, but it is the White House, in its
pursuit of its Iraqi policy, it is the civilian leadership of the
Pentagon which systematically, especially in the early days, ignored
the judgment of the military that has brought us to the chaos that we
see in Iraq today.
Now, the legislation before us attempted to do a number of things. It
attempted to meet the financial needs of the budget in supplying our
troops with everything that they need. Secondly, it attempted to hold
the administration accountable and to hold the Iraqi Government
accountable for the actions that they have taken. And thirdly, it was
meant to provide the beginnings of an exit strategy from that civil
war. The President has decided to veto that legislation, and the
question before us now is whether we will override that veto or not.
The President said in his veto message yesterday that we had all too
many so-called nonrelated items in this bill, along with funding for
the troops in Iraq. I don't believe that the American people would
agree with the President that $1.8 billion for veterans health care,
$3.3 billion for defense health programs, $2.2 billion for additional
Homeland Security initiatives, $6.9 billion for Katrina recovery, $663
million to protect the country from the ravages of a potential world
flu pandemic, or $650 million to prevent kids from losing health
insurance is unnecessary funding. I think the American public
recognizes each of those as a legitimate expenditure of public funds.
I also think that the President has focused so much attention on
those items simply to divert public attention from the fact that this
bill is first, last and foremost about the war. It is about how we get
our troops out of the war. It is how we send a message to the Iraqi
politicians that our troops cannot be expected to accomplish the
compromises that only they can reach if that war is to be brought to a
conclusion.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge every Member of this House, regardless of
party, to vote to override the President's veto.
And I would point out to the President that we already have provided
for two major compromises in this legislation. When we first
established the Murtha principles for unit readiness, the White House
objected. And so we said, all right, we'll change that, we will give
the White House a waiver. When the White House objected to the
timetable that we laid out for withdrawal of our troops from that civil
war, again we compromised, and we said we will keep as hard deadlines
the deadlines by which we must begin that process of redeploying
troops, but we made the end date for the actual withdrawal of our
troops from combat in a civil war, we made those dates extremely
flexible in response to the President's views. So we have already
compromised on two very major items in this bill.
Now that the President has laid down his veto, it seems to me that he
has an obligation to lay on the table what compromises he is willing to
make in order to bring us together in pursuit of an exit strategy from
a war that we should never have gotten into in the first place.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS OF California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes
to the gentlelady from Florida.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman from California.
Mr. Speaker, last month, a member of the majority leadership stated,
``This war is lost, and the surge has not accomplishing anything.'' He
further stated, ``We are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of
this war,'' and adding that he had been shown numbers that are
compelling and astounding.
{time} 1300
I cannot imagine that there were many in either party who were not
shocked by these brazenly cynical words.
This past Saturday, I sat down with Phyllis and Huber Parsons,
constituents from my congressional district who have three sons serving
in Baghdad. They are pictured here in the poster behind me. They are
officers with the Army Stryker Brigade. They said to me that remarks
such as the ones that I just quoted by our congressional leaders ``made
them sick.'' Their sons, Charlie, Huber and Bill, are not bullets to be
used to hit a political target. And while some of my colleagues may not
agree with the administration's efforts to win the battle against
Islamic jihadists in Iraq, the Parsons brothers should not be abandoned
without ammunition to defend themselves.
My stepson, Doug, and my daughter-in-law, Lindsay, both served in
Iraq. Lindsay is now in Afghanistan. They were not following the orders
of would-be generals here in Congress. They were serving their country
and their President, whom the Constitution clearly states is the
commander-in-chief.
Not one of us here in Congress can usurp that role. Nor can we fill
the role of General David Petraeus, who bears the enormous burden of
directing this war and who has said that our mission is just and
necessary.
These men and women of our Armed Forces, such as the Parsons brothers
and my stepson and daughter-in-law, understand their mission. They
understand that they are locked in a generational struggle with global
Islamic radicals who seek our destruction. If we declare that we have
been beaten in this phase of the struggle and then retreat, it will
only grow, it will follow us home, and it may never end.
Imposing a timetable for withdrawal of our forces and retreating over
the horizon, as some have suggested, will not insulate us from the
terrible strategic consequences that would result. This fighting will
spill into neighboring countries, threaten our allies and then spread
throughout the Middle East.
In addition to these frightening strategic consequences, if we
surrender the Iraqi nation to the terrorists, we would open the gates
to a potential humanitarian crisis of epic proportions, including mass
murder and displacements of thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqi
men, women and children that our retreat helped make possible.
Let me remind the advocates of defeat of the words of one of our
former presidents who battled against the legions of those who sought
to block his efforts to save democracy for this country and for the
world. He said, ``This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with
destiny. In this world of ours, there are some people, who seem to have
grown too weary to carry on the fight. I believe in my heart that only
our success can stir their ancient hope. They begin to know that here
in America we are waging a great and successful war. It is a war for
the survival of democracy.''
These are the words of Franklin Roosevelt, and I think were he here
today, I am confident that he would never give in to those who say that
we have lost and who demand that we retreat.
I ask my colleagues to uphold the President's veto and demand a clean
supplemental to support our troops in the field, to give Bill, Charlie
and Huber Parsons the resources they need to achieve victory in Iraq.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want
to acknowledge the exceptional leadership of Chairman Obey, Chairman
Murtha and Chairman Skelton in putting together this important piece of
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, Congress passed this bill, and yesterday we sent it to
the President of the United States. We did so with great pride, because
it is a bill that supports our troops, honors our promises to our
veterans, holds the Iraqi government accountable and winds down this
war. It is a bill that honors the sacrifice of our men and women in
uniform. Thank you, Chairmen Obey, Murtha and Skelton.
The President had an historic opportunity. He had an opportunity to
take yes for an answer, because the bill contained what the President
had proposed. The President proposed benchmarks. His very own
benchmarks were contained in this bill. The Department of Defense has
guidelines for readiness for our troops, for their training, their
equipment and the time they can spend at home and overseas. They are in
the bill, even with a waiver for the President, giving the President
more latitude. The President said no. The President said no.
[[Page H4317]]
I had hoped that the President would see the light, instead of
turning a tin ear to the wishes of the American people and a blind eye
to what is happening on the ground in Iraq.
The President, in signing the veto, is reporting that progress is
being made in Iraq. Well, I don't know what his definition of
``progress'' is, but, sadly, April was the deadliest month this year,
with over 100 of our troops killed there.
The President, in his statement on vetoing the bill, said that he
vetoes the bill because, in his words, ``It makes no sense to tell the
enemy when you start to plan withdrawing.''
In criticizing these timelines, of course, the President is wrong.
But when he was a candidate for President, it made sense to him to say
to President Clinton, ``I think it's also important for the President
to lay out a timetable as to how long our troops will be involved and
when they will be withdrawn.'' This is candidate Bush on the war in
Kosovo, where we did not lose one single American soldier; this from a
President whose initiative has lost over 3,000 Americans and countless,
countless, countless Iraqis.
Bipartisan congressional majorities approved of using timelines for
redeployment to instill urgency into benchmarks that have already again
been endorsed by the President and the Iraqi leaders. They have agreed
to this, except they reject them in this bill.
A wide range of people have noted the value of timelines in
persuading the Iraqis to make the political compromises needed to end
the violence, including Secretary of Defense Gates, who said, ``The
strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably
have had a positive impact in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that
this is not an open-ended commitment.''
The Congress will not support an open-ended commitment to a war
without end. He wants a blank check. The Congress will not give it to
him.
Next the President said that Congress is substituting our judgment
for the judgments of commanders in the field 6,000 miles away. Wrong
again, Mr. President. We are substituting our judgment for your
judgment 16 blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House. We are
substituting the judgment of this Congress for your failed judgment.
The American people have lost faith in the President's conduct of the
war. They have said that they want accountability and a new direction.
This bill gives them both.
Next the President claimed, and Mr. Obey again referenced this, that
this bill is loaded with non-emergency spending. Well, it may be a non-
emergency to the President, but it certainly is an emergency to the
people affected. Once again, the President is wrong.
The needs of the survivors of Hurricane Katrina think it is an
emergency, and so does any person of conscience in our country who
cares about the victims of Katrina. That millions of children are about
to lose their health insurance is an emergency for them and for our
country. America's farmers, devastated by natural disasters, think it
is an emergency.
These situations remain emergencies because the President and the
last Congress, the Republican Congress, refused to act. So now we must.
So they have made it even more of an emergency.
Today, the President faces consequences of his own making. This is
the seventh supplemental for the war in Iraq. Certainly somebody was
planning something at the White House and could have put over the years
the funding necessary for this war into the budget. Instead, the
President did not do that. I don't know why. Maybe they didn't want the
American people to see the real cost of this war in dollars. Certainly
we know the price that we have paid more seriously in lives, in health,
in reputation, in the readiness of our military and in probably $2
trillion now for this war.
The President claims that this legislation infringes upon the powers
vested in the President by the Constitution. The President is wrong.
Congress is exercising its right as a coequal branch of government to
work cooperatively with the President to end this war.
By voting ``yes'' to override, Congress sends a strong message:
To support our troops. They have done everything that has been asked
of them, and excellently. They deserve better.
To rebuild our military, which has been seriously strained by this
war in Iraq.
To honor our commitment to our veterans, our heroes.
And to demand accountability.
With passage of this bill, we then can refocus our energy on the
efforts against terrorism by bringing the war in Iraq to an end,
bringing this war in Iraq to an end.
The President said there are real enemies out there. Yes, we know
that, Mr. President, and we are prepared to make that fight. We will do
whatever is necessary to protect the American people.
The war on terrorism was in Afghanistan. We took our fullest
attention from Afghanistan to go into Iraq, and now Iraq is a magnet
for terrorists. The war in Iraq has made matters worse in the war on
terrorism.
What we have to do is work together, Democrats and Republicans, with
the President of the United States, to bring stability to that region.
Now into the fifth year of a failed policy, this administration
should get a clue. It is not working. This is the fourth surge they
have proposed. When they proposed it in January, they said in 60 to 90
days we will know. It is 120 days, and now they are saying September.
And then they say maybe by the end of the year. So what is this? We
will be into another whole year of this war, far longer than World War
II.
Nobody who serves in this body, who takes the oath of office to
protect and defend the Constitution, needs anybody to tell them,
whether you are a Democrat or Republican, what our responsibility is to
protect the American people. Nobody needs a reminder of what the threat
of terrorism is to our country. But we do need to work together to keep
our focus on where the war on terror really is. If we clear up this
matter, bring this war to an end in Iraq, we can give the war on terror
our fullest attention.
Let us stop this war without end. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady who spoke just before me, our respected
Speaker, is a person I have worked with for most of my life in public
affairs. Our Speaker suggested that the President was wrong, and, Mr.
Speaker, I humbly suggest that in this instance, our esteemed Speaker
is wrong.
Madam Speaker, it was no secret that this conference report was going
to be vetoed. Early on, the President made very clear his intention to
veto this legislation because of the Iraq withdrawal language and the
many unrelated and costly spending items that have absolutely nothing
to do with the global war on terror and recovery efforts on the gulf
coast.
It is no secret that many Members of the House and Senate, both
Republicans and Democrats, had strong reservations about the manner in
which this legislation undermined the authority of the President, our
Commander in Chief.
From the beginning of this process, Members have expressed their
concern about how this legislation placed military decisions in the
hands of politicians rather than military commanders in the field. The
last thing our country or our troops need is to have 535 Members and
Senators micromanaging the war in Iraq. That simply is not our job,
Madam Speaker.
Recent history reminds us that the enemy we face in Iraq, Afghanistan
and in other countries that harbor terrorists will stop at nothing to
attack the United States and our allies.
My colleagues, now is not the time for the United States to back down
from its commitment to the war on terror. Now is not the time for
America to signal retreat and surrender. Indeed, now is not the time
for the House of Representatives to throw in the towel, wave the white
flag or signal retreat and surrender in Iraq.
How could this Congress walk away from our men and women in uniform?
How could we walk away from them now? We must not let that happen. We
must support our troops. Our failure to learn the lessons of history,
our failure to lead, will result in devastating consequences, including
an even greater loss of life and even more resources needed to fight
tomorrow.
[[Page H4318]]
{time} 1315
It is absolutely essential that America, the last remaining
superpower on Earth, continue to be a voice for peace and a beacon of
freedom in our shrinking world. Walking away would further signal to
Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, and others that the United States is no
longer committed to a successful outcome in Iraq.
Before closing my remarks, I want to express my disappointment and
dismay at yesterday's political and theatrical display by Speaker
Pelosi and Senator Reid.
The delivery of this conference report to the White House was
intentionally delayed so the President's veto would coincide with the
fourth anniversary of the President declaring ``Mission Accomplished.''
This display in sending the supplemental to the President was a
deliberate and shameful attempt at scoring political points solely at
the expense of our troops.
Mr. Speaker, this veto has been anticipated for some time. The
majority party has had ample time to plan and prepare for the next
step. Passing a clean supplemental free of arbitrary deadlines and
excessive spending is obviously the path we should be following.
There is $20 billion, $20 billion, in this package unrelated to the
war effort and the gulf coast recovery. That money is designated as
emergency spending. Every nickel of this unrelated spending should be
removed from the emergency supplemental. All this spending should be
debated in regular order through the fiscal year 2008 appropriations
process.
In closing, I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle:
You've made your point. You've had your dog-and-pony show. You have
posed for political holy pictures on TV. Now what is your plan to
support the troops?
It is time to put the posturing and political stunts aside and do
what is in the best interest of our troops. It is time to do the right
thing and pass a clean emergency supplemental free of arbitrary
deadlines and arbitrary spending. It is time to support our Commander
in Chief and sustain the President's veto. I strongly urge a ``no''
vote.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members on both sides of the aisle are
reminded that remarks in debate should be directed to the Chair and not
to others in the second person.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
The gentleman expresses his concern about funding designated as
emergency spending. In fact, I would point out that the President
himself asked for the antiflu money that we put in this bill. The
President himself asked for that money 2 years ago as an emergency
request.
I would also note, since he has expressed concern about our
micromanaging the war, I would simply say we have had the
administration providing us with bad intelligence. We have had the
administration demonstrating bad judgment in saying we would be
welcomed with open arms. We have had them demonstrate bad judgment in
ignoring General Shinseki's warnings about the number of troops that
would be needed to pacify a postwar Iraq. We have seen bad judgment in
the President's refusal to talk to the Syrians and the Iranians. We
have seen bad judgment all across the board for the last 4 years. It
seems to me that we are badly in need of having some kind of management
to that war, and if it is not going to come from the executive branch,
then the only alternative is for the Congress to express its views.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Maryland, the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me comment on the ranking member's
observation about political posturing.
First, let me say I wonder what the President was doing standing in
front of that sign saying ``Mission Accomplished'' on that aircraft
carrier with taxpayers' dollars. Let me suggest to you that he was
politically posturing, trying to take credit for a great victory that
occurred 4 years ago. No one in America believes that the mission has
been accomplished. No one in America thinks we have had a success.
Let me say that it was totally appropriate for the Speaker and for
the majority leader in the United States Senate to sign a bill and let
the public know that this is what the Congress believes.
My friend may think political posturing is taking responsibility,
which is our constitutional duty, as opposed to simply rubber-stamping
what the President wants done. There has not been any question asked
for the last 4 years by this Congress. There has not been any
interposition of a correct policy as opposed to the President's failed
policy.
We don't see that as political posturing, I tell my friend--we see it
as exercising the constitutional duty that the American public expects
us to do as their independent representative.
This is only the second veto. Why is it only the second veto? Because
you wouldn't pass anything the President didn't want. That is not the
role of the Congress of the United States. The role of the Congress of
the United States is to make policy. That is what article I says. That
is what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, regrettably, the President has chosen not to follow the
will of the American people and bipartisan majorities in the House and
Senate by vetoing legislation that fully funds our troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan, that holds the Iraqis accountable for making progress, and
that calls for a responsible redeployment of American forces who are
mired in a civil war.
It is our duty now as the elected representatives of the people to
try to override the President's veto even though we may not succeed,
and even as we prepare to meet with the President today to discuss next
steps. That is our responsibility. We intend to do it.
Mr. Speaker, I believe our President, who was wrong 4 years ago when
he stood under a banner announcing ``Mission Accomplished,'' is wrong
again. The escalation of American troops in Iraq does not represent a
change in this administration's failed policy. In fact, it is the
fourth time we have escalated troops. In fact, it has been tried,
unsuccessfully.
The President's claim last night that ``We've begun to see some
important results'' is unfortunately contradicted by the facts. I wish
it were true. I want to succeed in this effort, although what success
is is ill-defined or not defined by the President.
In fact, Iraq is wracked by violence, including massive car bombs,
almost daily. The U.S. death toll in April of 104 made last month the
deadliest of the year and the sixth most lethal month since the war
started, notwithstanding this increase in troop presence.
Senator Hagel, who recently returned from Iraq, stated: ``This thing
is coming undone quickly, and the Maliki government is weaker by the
day.''
And the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction just
reported: ``The U.S. project to rebuild Iraq remains far short of its
targets, leaving the country plagued by power outages, inadequate oil
production and shortages of clean water and health care.''
I suggest to my friend, in that context, the Congress ought to be
impacting on the policies that are being pursued that are not
succeeding.
Finally, let me say, and I call the attention of my friend, the
ranking member, to this because he referenced this. The President's
claim last night that this legislation ``substitutes the opinions of
politicians for the judgment of our military commanders'' is totally
inaccurate.
But let me tell you what is not inaccurate is that our military
commanders have made none of the decisions on the policies we have been
pursuing in Iraq, and that is the tragedy. The decisions have been made
not by military men and women, but by the President, by Mr. Cheney, by
Mr. Rumsfeld, by Mr. Wolfowitz, and, yes, by Mr. Bremer.
We have seen nothing, I tell my friend, but a series of political
decisions made on this war over the last 4-plus years; would that it
have been otherwise. We do not seek to micromanage our military, which
has done everything we have asked of them. Rather, we do continue to
question the decisions of top administration officials, including, yes,
the President,
[[Page H4319]]
whose judgments regarding this war have proved repeatedly, almost
without exception, wrong.
Indeed, it is ironic that the President makes this claim when, in
fact, we are mired in Iraq, because politicians who I have just
referenced made decisions that prove to be wrong and did not lead to
success.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress must not continue to simply rubber-stamp
this administration's request. Our Founding Fathers did not think that
was our role. They thought our role was to make independent judgments
on the people's behalf and have the courage to pass legislation
reflecting that judgment.
This legislation responds to the will of the American people and sets
forth a policy to take us in a new direction that requires Iraqi
responsibility and the pursuit of the political solution that General
Petraeus and the Iraq Study Group say was essential if we were going to
succeed.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle:
Listen to the American people, fully fund our troops, hold the Iraqis
accountable, support responsible redeployment of American troops. Vote
to override this veto.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a member of the Appropriations
Committee.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I want to make five points.
First, we need to realize that this threat is real. And I say to the
members of the Get Out of Iraq Caucus that if we were not in Iraq
tomorrow, this threat is not going away. We don't spend enough time
focusing on this fact that the jihadists within Islam are insulated
within the Islamists and the moderates, and there is not enough
confrontation from them to each other. This threat is mounting
globally. It is spreading. Europe is basically lost. And I don't want
America to end up alone, but this threat is not going away, and we need
to know it.
Former Senator Fred Thompson said here 2 weeks ago, and he is right,
that when we do leave Iraq, it is either going to be a dangerous world
or a more dangerous world, and it depends on what we do in Iraq as to
whether it is dangerous or more dangerous, and this legislation is at
the heart of that challenge.
Number two, words matter. The majority leader of the United States
Senate saying that the war is lost was on the front page of al-Jazeera
in Arabic. That is not good for our country, not in this conflict or
the future. Words matter.
Number three, this legislation was flawed. We said it early on. You
shouldn't have this kind of micromanagement, tying the hands of the
generals, telegraphing retreat, and then adding a bunch of extraneous
matters to this legislation that should go through the regular order
and the regular appropriations process. It was a bad bill. You porked
it up and slowed it down.
Number four, the veto was the right thing to do. The President is not
popular. We all know that. But isn't it refreshing that the President
is doing the right thing even though it is unpopular because he is
putting the interest of our country above that of his party or even
this moment doing the right thing? That is leadership.
Our distinguished Speaker came and said a few minutes ago that she
was substituting the President's judgment for her judgment. And I say
respectfully to our Speaker, I have served under three Speakers. She
has her constitutional role, and it is not the Commander in Chief. She
is the Speaker, not the Commander in Chief. She is also not General
Petraeus, and this is a wrong-headed approach. We can do better.
Lastly, the solution is for the leadership to go and sit down with
the President of the United States and put our troops above our
parties. Clearly ask: What do you require?
{time} 1330
The President should clearly ask what can I do for the Congress, and
let's not go through this again.
My nephew is on his way to Iraq, as many Members of this House know.
Let's make sure they have what they need. Let's not give up here. We
don't need another Somalia. We don't need another Beirut. We don't need
to lose this war. We need to stay and improve and do better and come
out with our head up.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Speaker, when the President vetoed this bill, he said it was
because he felt that decisions like this should be left to the
military, not the politicians. But Mr. Speaker, the fact is that when
the President declared that Iraq was part of the global war on
terrorism, there was not one single military officer who agreed. That
was a political decision made in the White House to go into this war.
Had he listened to the military, we wouldn't be in this war.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that none of us have been asked to sacrifice
anything in pursuit of this war. The sacrifice has fallen exclusively
on the backs of our military and their families.
Mr. Speaker, this week, the 2,108th child was told that they will
never see their mommy or daddy again because they will never return
from Iraq. How many more children have to lose their parents before
this policy is reversed, Mr. Speaker? 3,351 American soldiers have lost
their lives. More than 24,000 have been seriously wounded. This past
month, more than 100 soldiers lost their lives, the deadliest month on
record.
Things are getting worse rather than better.
The British Broadcasting Corporation and the American Broadcasting
Corporation just completed an extensive survey of Iraqis. It turns out
that 82 percent have lost confidence in U.S. policy in Iraq, that 86
percent have lost a member of their household due to violence, and the
majority feel that this policy is ineffective, and in fact, they were
better off under Saddam Hussein than under the American occupation.
Mr. Speaker, the State Department just reported that the number of
terrorist incidents has gone up by 25 percent, most of them in Iraq.
This policy has been a failure. I urge a rejection of the President's
veto of this bill. This bill will set the course that the American
people are demanding.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, only because we are rambling on
time, could I have a check of time, please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis)
has 18\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
has 17 minutes remaining.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 4 minutes
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member on
the Rules Committee.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my California colleague and
congratulate him on his stellar leadership on this and a wide range of
other issues.
As I came to the floor just as our colleague the distinguished
majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland, was addressing this House
and he talked about politicization of statements that have been made, I
will tell you, Mr. Speaker, when Saddam Hussein was toppled, it was not
a celebration of one political party over another. It was not even a
celebration just of Americans. It was a global celebration over the
fact that we took this butcher who had murdered literally hundreds of
thousands of his people, and we brought his reign of terror to an end,
and that was worth celebrating.
Now, what we saw yesterday was nothing but partisanship because we
know there is a real divide here. We know that the country is divided,
and we know and the President of the United States, Mr. Speaker, has
acknowledged that mistakes have been made, and we have gone through
real difficulty.
I also heard the majority leader talk about the fact that there is no
definition of victory. Mr. Speaker, it has been very clear from the
beginning victory consists of two factors that are very important.
First, we need to make sure that we have an Iraqi military force, the
ISF, the Iraqi security force, able to defend the country, and we need
to make sure that there is a government that can govern the country.
Those are the two items that have been placed forward. That is all we
[[Page H4320]]
want. We have seen self-determination take place with three elections
that have taken place in Iraq. We have seen, I believe, positive news
come forward.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we constantly hear people describe this as the Bush
plan. We hear the litany of others, and as my friend from Tennessee
(Mr. Wamp) just said, we know that the President is not terribly
popular. The President knows that he is not very popular. He likes to
say everyone likes to be loved, but I would rather be right than be
loved.
So we know that the President obviously does not have a high approval
rating right now, but he is doing the right thing. He is doing the
right thing, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this goal is a very
valiant one and a very, very important one for us to pursue. We have to
bring about some kind of bipartisan resolution.
I am very pleased to have indications come from our friends on the
other side of the aisle about the fact that we are going to provide
important funding for our troops. We have to do that. That is
absolutely essential, but we need to realize that we are in the midst
of a new strategy.
I had the opportunity to talk with my good friend Mr. Murtha, the
distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the
other day, and we agree that we have got to come to some kind of
bipartisan resolution of this.
But the important point that needs to be made, as we hear the names
of these unpopular people, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bush, thrown out there,
we have to realize again that this is a new strategy, and this is the
Petraeus plan. It was Dave Petraeus who last week said, before a large
bipartisan gathering of Members, that Iraqis today are fighting and
dying for their country. And it was Dave Petraeus who said, let us have
until September, at which time I will report back with my colleagues to
the President of the United States and the Congress.
I talked to, just day before yesterday, a very strong supporter of
Mr. Kerry's when he was running for President, a strong, committed
Democrat, and he said that he believed that establishing some sort of
artificial timeline would be wrong.
The President described it last night following issuance of his veto
that it clearly would be a prescription for defeat, and I believe that
we need to make sure that, again, as Dave Petraeus said, since Iraq is
the central front in the battle against al Qaeda, we need to keep it
there.
Mr. Speaker, sustain this President's veto. Let's come together and
provide the necessary funding for our men and women in uniform.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, three points. First, why is this
an emergency? It is an emergency because the administration has never
funded this war on the books. The people who will pay for this are the
sons and the daughters of the men and women in the military who are now
fighting it. That is wrong and irresponsible.
Number 2, the military has done its job. They were asked to get rid
of Saddam. He's gone. Find weapons of mass destruction. They don't
exist. And allow Iraq to have democratic elections. They have had
three.
Third point, the President says ``no'' to timetables. Of course we
must have timetables. How else to hold the Iraqi politicians
responsible? They have to have an oil law. They have to renounce
sectarianism in the security force. And the only way that we are going
to stop asking our military and our taxpayers to referee a civil war
and to finance it is by having the President of the United States do
what he must do and say we want accountability from the Iraqi political
leadership.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much and I thank
the whip for allowing me to go at this time.
Let me just say I remember my Democrat colleagues after 9/11. They,
along with us, were one voice saying we're going to go after these
terrorists, no matter where they are; no matter how long it takes,
we're going to get them.
The terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, the Cole, our
barracks. They've attacked us many times. They attacked us once before
at the World Trade Center. And al Qaeda has attacked in France,
England, Spain, Indonesia, and elsewhere.
Now, the leader of the military wing of the terrorists in Iraq is al
Qaeda. He's the guy that's going to lead the fight to make Iraq an
Islamic State, a jumping-off point for terrorism around the world, al
Qaeda, the same ones that attacked the World Trade Center and these
other things.
I can't understand how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
knowing al Qaeda is in charge over there, the military wing of the
terrorists, knowing that they want to destroy us, knowing that Osama
bin Laden said he wants to destroy America, that you want to pull out,
that you want to tell them exactly when you're going to leave.
We're going to start moving in 4 months. We're going to be out of
there in 12 months. You want to cut our troops off at the knees, and do
you think al Qaeda is not going to be happy about that? What do you
think Iran is thinking right now? What do you think Syria is thinking
right now? What do you think al Qaeda is thinking right now? They're
thinking we don't have the guts to go get 'em, and so they're
encouraged.
Al Jazeera was mentioned just a minute ago. That paper has got all
kinds of articles saying we're going to get out, and you guys are
giving them all the information they need to know that they can prevail
if they wait us out. If they do, we're going to have more terrorist
attacks here in America. They're waiting for us to get out so they can
focus all their attention on the United States and our allies.
We must not do this, and that's why we should sustain the President's
veto.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I would simply point out to the gentleman who just spoke that the
bill before us specifically allows our troops to continue to go after
al Qaeda in Iraq, even after they are repositioned out of fighting that
miserable civil war.
I would also simply say, the gentleman asks ``What do you think al
Qaeda thinks.'' I think al Qaeda wants us to stay in Iraq. It is clear
from the beginning that they were happy that we went there, that we got
sucked in there, because we have served as a recruiting poster for al
Qaeda. That is what al Qaeda thinks.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Republican whip.
Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We all know that in a few minutes the President's veto will be
sustained. We didn't all figure that out this morning. We didn't all
figure that out last week. We didn't even all figure that out last
month. We've known that since the very start of this debate, 90 days of
debate at a time when there are real consequences for our troops.
There are consequences, we are told this week, in the preparation for
troops going to Iraq and action. There are consequences of maintenance
on bases in this country. There are consequences in the way we are
dealing with our equipment and our repairs, and we have taken 90 days
to get to this point so we can start all over again.
I hope when we start all over again this afternoon that we will start
all over again with a commitment to get this job done as soon as
possible, rather than to take as long as possible. It does matter. The
message we send to the world matters. The message we send to our troops
matters. This bill needs to be as clean as possible. It needs to be
straightforward.
There are things in this bill that in another bill I could support.
There are things in this bill I couldn't support in any bill, but there
are things here that should be done that have nothing to do with this
bill. I don't know why they were put on. Maybe they were put on to try
to see if the majority could get the last votes necessary to pass a
bill that has restrictions on the military that this Congress should
never have advanced to the President's desk.
The President has vetoed. We will uphold that veto. Let's work
together now to get the job done to support the
[[Page H4321]]
troops in Afghanistan, in Iraq and everywhere else around the world who
are feeling the consequences of this 90 days we have already taken.
I will work with you. I hope you will work with us. We need to get
this job started.
{time} 1345
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I believe our Republican colleagues are correct. This
Congress spoke with one voice on the war on terrorism, and we continue
to do so. Indeed, if President Bush had pursued the war on terrorism
and the perpetrators of 9/11, instead of getting diverted to Iraq,
which had nothing to do with
9/11, then when he hoisted that ``Mission Accomplished'' banner four
years ago, it would have had meaning.
Instead, we have a burn rate of $10 billion every month in Iraq, $14
million every hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, every week, every
month of the year. More importantly, the real burn rate is in the loss
of more than 3,300 American lives, brave men and women over there
fighting for our country; 96 percent of those deaths, almost all of
them, lost their life after President Bush declared ``Mission
Accomplished.''
Today, the President can veto our attempt to secure a safe, orderly,
phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq, but he can't veto reality.
Our troops are coming home. It's just a question of what price is paid
in blood and money before that happens.
The President talks about listening to the commanders and the
generals. I wonder if he was listening to General William Odom, the
former National Security Agency Director, last Saturday when he said
the President has let the Iraq war proceed on ``automatic pilot, making
no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy
cannot be rescued.''
If the President had listened to the generals, we would never have
gone into Iraq in the first place. It was General Schwarzkopf who said,
we would become ``like [a] dinosaur in a tar pit.''
If he had listened to the generals like General Shinseki, if he had
insisted on going into Iraq, he would have sent enough troops to get
the job done and not turned over all those weapons dumps to be
converted into IEDs.
If he had listened to the generals, he would have provided our
veterans with the health care that they have earned and deserved
instead of subjecting them back here to the facilities and care they
found in the United States.
The generals who disagree with this President earn a new title:
Retired.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes
to the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter
of California, now the ranking member.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to interpret this debate. I have
heard the Speaker talk about redeployment and say that there is a lot
of discretion that is left to the administration. There is no
discretion. The dates of so-called redeployment are defined. You either
start going out July 1 or October 1. Redeployment means withdrawals.
If generals do not start redeploying, do not start withdrawing from
the battleground, you can bet Democratic leadership will be here
pulling them into hearings, asking them why they didn't saddle up their
brigades, their battalions and their divisions and start to move them
off the battlefield. So let's get this straight. This is about
withdrawing from the battlefield.
Listening to this debate, and listening to the controversy and the
statements by Democratic leadership that have preceded this vote today,
there is a constant theme: Somehow American soldiers and marines are
victims. They are victims of extended tours; they are victims, the last
gentleman said, they claim, of not getting enough health care. They are
people that have been victims in the war against terror.
Let me tell you, I have seen the timelines that are given, the 270
days for Marines, the 365 days. A number of them have gone through one,
two, three and sometimes four tours. Our Americans, and that includes
my son, who is deploying now for the third time, will not fail, they
will not crack, they will not stretch. They will hold, and they will
carry out this mission against terrorists.
We are right now in the second phase of a program we have used for 60
years to stand up free governments around the world. You stand up a
free government. We have done that.
Secondly, you stand up a military capable of protecting that free
government. That is a second stage. That is a stage we are in right
now.
Thirdly, we leave, because America doesn't covet anything that
another nation has.
We are in the second stage right now. It's tough, and it's difficult.
This is a tough, difficult mission, but it is a mission that we can
accomplish.
I am reminded, lastly, that the Speaker talked about stopping the
war. That is how she described this bill. The Democratic leadership
does not have the power to stop the war against terror. All they have
the power to do is to leave the battlefield. That would be a disaster
for the United States of America.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
I would also observe that our soldiers don't have the power to
require Iraqi politicians to quit killing each other and make the
diplomatic and political compromises necessary to end this civil war.
Only Iraqi politicians have that, and we are trying to send them a
message with this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, by vetoing this bill, the President refuses
to sustain the troops that we have sent to Iraq. Every dollar they
need, every ounce of protection they need, and the health care they
need when they come home is in this bill that he has vetoed. We refuse
to sustain a failed, endless policy that takes us nowhere.
The President refuses to acknowledge the reality that we have sent
our sons and daughters to be referees in a bloody civil war. We
acknowledge that reality, and we want to stop it.
The President refuses to acknowledge the comments of General
Petraeus, who says that ending this civil war is a political mission,
not a military one. We acknowledge that reality, and we provide the
tools to achieve success in that political mission.
Today the President has refused to acknowledge the will of the
American people, but we are expressing the will of the American people.
We will vote to override this veto, and the result will obtain. But
we will never yield, never quit, never back up in this effort to change
this failing policy and bring our troops home from Iraq.
Vote to override this veto.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire about the
amount of time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 8 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 11\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman from California.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we have to sustain this veto today. I think
it's the right thing to do, because I think we need to go back to the
drawing board on this. Number one, the President does have the
constitutionally defined duty to fight wars, to direct the militia,
particularly in a time of war, and I think that we are getting into a
position where we have a lot of folks on Capitol Hill, perhaps as high
as 535 of us, who think we can run the war more than the Commander in
Chief.
I think we have to recognize that constitutionally the President has
to do that. I think the President really has to veto this bill. It's as
much for the preservation of the office as it is for his own personal
views today.
I think, secondly, while the benchmarks themselves make sense, and
there is a lot of bipartisan agreement on the benchmarks, there is also
great division as to can these benchmarks be achieved by the dates
outlined in the bill.
One of the things General Petraeus said to Congress last week is that
the
[[Page H4322]]
new Government of Iraq, and keep in mind, this is the fourth election
that they have had and the first permanent government, but one of the
things they need, as much as anything, is our push. This bill serves to
push them. But it also needs our assurance, our assurance that we will
be with them through this process.
If you pointed out in 1870 would America be in a position to pass
major civil rights legislation, we would not be at that point. The
Government of Iraq might not be ready to bring in all the Baathists or
to the level in which we would like to see it done by July or by
October, and so I think that we have to give them a little more
assurance that we're going to push you, but we're not going to pull the
rug out from under you.
I think that we, on this committee, the defense committee, the
Appropriations Committee, which historically is known for getting
things done at the end of the day, often have friends say to me, as a
Republican, but I often have the question asked to me, we know you're a
Republican, and we know you can be partisan, but do you do things
bipartisanly?
I am always proud to say, you know, the number one committee that I
serve on, which I also think is the number one committee in the House,
is a very bipartisan committee. Now, we will debate things, gun
control, abortion, things, always are putting riders, environmental
stuff, on our bill. Yet we clash about it in committee time and time
again on ideological, principle-based positions. Yet at the end of the
day, we know that the bill has to be passed, because if you don't get
the appropriations train to the station, the government shuts down.
I think at this point, the Appropriations Committee can go back to
the drawing board and come up with something that is still based in
principle that both sides can respect. But it does put the troops
forward, as we do have strong bipartisan basis to want to do right now,
but it would also take care of some of the politics of Iraq and the
diplomacy. For that reason, I think we have to vote to sustain the
veto.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
Mr. SKELTON. I thank my friend from Wisconsin.
Mr. Speaker, it really depends on where you put the spotlight. The
spotlight has, unfortunately, been on some goals or a goal to redeploy
troops, when truth in fact the spotlight of this legislation should
have been and should be on the readiness of the troops of the United
States. I am truly concerned about the readiness, let me tell you.
In the last 30 years, there have been 12 military contingencies in
which the United States military has been involved. If this means
anything in the future, sure as God made little green apples, we are
going to have conflicts or concern, we hope none, but in the future.
Readiness is a major part of it. The testimony is that a large, large
percentage of our equipment, Active Duty, National Guard and Reserve
for the Army, is in the Middle East. It's not here; it's not available
for training. What is over there, of course, because of the sand, the
conditions and the usage, is getting worn.
I truly worry about the training and the equipment for our Army and
for our Marines in particular, because we don't know what the future
holds. That is where the spotlight ought to be on this legislation, the
positive aspects of it in preparing the readiness for tomorrow as well
as for the readiness of today for the groups that are going over time
after time, whether it be for 12 or for 15 months.
My hats off to those young people in uniform. It's our job to
maintain them and take care of them. This bill would have done that.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I believe that both of us are
coming very close to the end of our time.
Mr. OBEY. We are ready for our summary statement.
Mr. LEWIS of California. As we do that, why don't we just join
together, as we approach our closing speaker, and express our
appreciation, is that all right with you, to the staff of both sides?
Mr. OBEY. Absolutely.
Mr. LEWIS of California. A fabulous job has been done on this. I am
very proud of the people over here. I know you feel the same, and
presuming that you would like to have me yield, I would be happy to.
Mr. OBEY. I would simply say that I appreciate the work that the
staff has done on both sides of the aisle, and the work that they will
continue to do. It's going to be a long time before this issue is
disposed of. I appreciate the fact that they worked, literally, night
and day to bring us to this point.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to yield 1
minute to the Republican leader of the House, John Boehner of Ohio.
{time} 1400
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the President was right to
veto the bill that we have before us. And I believe that the House
today will sustain the President's veto because the bill that we have
before us that is purportedly there to pay for our efforts in
Afghanistan and Iraq and other issues, in my opinion, ties the hands of
our generals and our troops on the ground and almost mandates failure
in Iraq.
I think it is time for us to work across the aisle to produce a clean
bill that the President can sign into law to sustain our efforts in
Afghanistan and in Iraq, and to make sure that at the end of the day we
have victory.
The fundamental question that we are all dealing with in this Chamber
and elsewhere is, why is Iraq important? Why is winning in Iraq so
important?
In my view, and in others, al Qaeda has made Iraq the central front
in their war with us. Those aren't my words, those are their words.
They started this war when they attacked us all through the 1990s and
when they attacked us in New York City on 9/11.
And while we went to Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein and to help
build a more stable, democratically-elected nation in that part of the
world and bring more stability there, it has turned into much more than
that.
According to the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism,
a nonprofit organization funded by a grant from the Homeland Security
Department, Iraq today is home to 77 different terrorist organizations.
They have made this, they have made Iraq the central front in their war
with us.
We all know that there is a growing movement around the world of
radical Islamic terrorists that want to kill Americans and want to kill
our allies. They are operating all over the world and they are
attacking people all over the world. Just think about where they have
been over the last several weeks, whether it was Bangladesh last night
or elsewhere. They are continuing their efforts to try to gain control
of the world, and part of that effort is aimed directly at us.
Americans, freedom loving people, up against people who don't want
freedom for people, that want to impose radical Islamic law on all of
us. And so they have made Iraq the central front in their war with us.
And if we walk out of Iraq, if we don't give this plan a chance to
succeed, we encourage the terrorists. We will encourage them. They will
be able to recruit new people all over the world. They will have a safe
haven in Iraq itself. We will destabilize the entire Middle East,
including the very existence of Israel. And who doesn't believe that if
we don't deal with the terrorists in Iraq, that we won't be dealing
with them on the streets of America? That is why Iraq is important. And
if we are not willing to stand up to the terrorists and defeat them in
Iraq, when and where will we draw the line to protect the American
people, our ultimate responsibility?
We have a serious responsibility, and there is no greater
responsibility for those of us who serve in this Chamber, than to
provide for the safety and security of our constituents and our people
in our country.
So tell me, if we are not going to stand up to them in Iraq, if we
are not going to take them on in Iraq and defeat them there, when and
where will we do it?
And the fact is, is that our troops are doing a great job in Iraq
under very difficult circumstances. They deserve the support of all the
Members of this House.
And so I say to my colleagues, it is time for the games to stop, it
is time
[[Page H4323]]
for the political points to be taken off the board, and it is time for
us to sit down as Members on both sides of the aisle and give the
President a clean bill that funds our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan,
that furthers our effort to take on the terrorists and defeats them,
and doesn't do it with some $20 billion worth of excess spending that
has nothing to do with this bill.
I urge my colleagues to sustain the President's veto.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who just spoke said that
withdrawing from Iraq will destabilize the Middle East. The President's
policy has already destabilized the Middle East.
He says that this policy endorses failure. The fact is that the only
endorsement of failure comes on the part of those who will vote to
continue the President's existing policy, because the President's
policy in Iraq has been a 4-year failure.
We need a change in direction. The only question about the
President's policy is whether it will produce a disaster or whether it
will produce a catastrophe, and I am afraid it will produce the latter.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, we will have appropriated in one year, $1.2
trillion. This bill that we are voting on today is called the Iraq
Accountability Act.
Now, it's fine to have loyalty to the President of the United States.
All of us know how important loyalty is; all of us know how important
it is to be loyal to our friends, but there comes a time when this
independent Congress has to stand up to the President of the United
States.
We will have appropriated $95.5 billion. And if you vote against this
bill, you're voting against that which is $4 billion more. You're
voting for loyalty to the President, but you're voting against $4
billion more, $95.5 billion for the amount for the Department of
Defense programs.
If you vote for President Bush, you're voting against $12.3 billion
for military personnel pay and benefits, everything the President asked
for. If you vote for loyalty to President Bush, you're voting against
$1.2 billion, mostly to cover housing allowances which were left out of
the last bill. The total amount provided is $13.5 billion. If you vote
for President Bush and loyalty to President Bush, the conference
committee has added $1.15 billion to cover the full cost of housing
allowances. The committee has also added $2.3 billion to cover the full
cost of 36,000 Army troops and 9,000 Marines. If you vote to be loyal
to the President, you're voting against those troops.
When you talk about support the troops, I am talking about supporting
the troops. Conferees recommend $50.4 billion for military operations
even more than the President requested. We are adding $2 billion to
address training and equipment shortfall.
The chairman of the Armed Services Committee talked about readiness.
Right now, we have a tremendous shortfall of equipment. We have no
strategic Active Duty Reserve in this country. And we put extra money,
we put $2 billion in to start to replenish the strategic reserve.
This conference proposes to fully fund the President's request to
train and equip Iraqi and Afghanistan troops. If you vote against this
bill, if you vote for the President and to be loyal to the President,
you're voting not to include $25.6 billion in equipment purchases, $800
million above the President's request.
If you vote against this bill, you're voting not to allocate $3
billion to purchase the mine resistant, new vehicle with the V-shape
which resists the IED, one of the most important pieces of equipment
that we will send to Iraq. We put $400 million for Abrams vehicles,
Abrams tank, and we put $768 million for the Strykers.
Now, let me talk about defense health. Today, the Subcommittee on
Defense just had a hearing on defense health. Every single year, Dr.
Chu, the Defense Department shorts the health care system of $2
billion. Every year. Every year, the Congress has to make it up.
We have extra money, we have $3.3 billion for the defense health care
programs; $2.1 billion above the budget request. If you vote against
this bill, you're voting against those requests. $450 million for
traumatic stress brain disorders; $450 million for traumatic brain
injuries and post traumatic stress; $661 million to cover funding
shortfalls created by the Congress in having disapproved the
Department's proposed increase in health insurance premiums; fees for
military beneficiaries; $62 million for amputee care; $12 million for
caregivers. This is an important point. For caregivers. We heard from
the Department of Health, from the Defense Department about the problem
caregivers have.
All of us go to the hospitals as often as we can. I get post
traumatic stress seeing these young wounded people. I am inspired by
them. I see the families when I went to Fort Bragg and Fort Stewart and
Fort Hood. I admire them. I admire their discipline, I admire their
courage. I admire their patriotism. But let me tell you something:
They're burned out. They're hurting.
If you vote against this bill, you're voting not to give them the
money that they need. If you vote against this, you're voting against
the provision that says no permanent bases in Iraq. If you vote against
this, you're voting against 15 percent that comes out of Defense for
the contractors. We have 125,000 contractors in Iraq and there has been
no oversight, and we had 2 months before we could even find out about
the contractors.
One of the provisions we put in this bill was a provision that said
you can't deploy troops unless they are trained and equipped. You can't
deploy troops unless they've had at least a year at home. Now, more and
more I am seeing, they are saying that's the most important provision
in this bill. They need a year at home to recuperate from their
deployment; they need a year at home to retrain and to get ready to
make another deployment. The Secretary of Defense made that decision,
and we appreciate him making that decision. But at the same time,
because of the policy of the White House, he had to make the decision,
in order to sustain this deployment he had to make the decision to
extend them to 15 months. I hear rumors that he is going to extend them
for 18 months.
The troops that I talked to, the troops that I talked to just
recently, were very frank with me. I said, ``Look, we want to help in
any way we can. Tell us what the problems are.'' And they went through
the myriad of problems they have with these deployments.
These are individuals. These are individual people. They've got
families. They have loved ones. One first sergeant said to me, ``I hate
to tell my kids I have to go overseas again. I hate to tell the kids.''
One woman in Iraq, and this is in an article in The Washington Post,
she sighed and she says, ``This war is a war between the Iraqis,'' she
said. Another soldier said, ``We're just interfering and letting our
soldiers die.''
I have to say that when you say there is some success in Iraq, we had
four of the deadliest months in the history of this 4-year war in Iraq.
We had more people killed in the last 4 months than any other period of
time during this war. We have had 330 killed since the surge started.
And these are individuals. These are not numbers, these are
individuals.
We have less electricity than we had before the war started, less oil
production than we had before the war started, less potable water,
higher unemployment.
We have a provision in this bill that says the Iraqis have to take
over this fight themselves. The Iraqis just maybe killed one of the
highest leaders. That's what we want. We want to give them the
incentive to take over the security themselves.
And let me say what's important on this floor of the United States
Congress and what's important to the President of the United States: It
is the national security of the United States. That's what's important.
It is important that Iraq take over their national security, but our
own need concerns me. Our strategic reserve is depleted completely, our
troops are burned out, and we need to find a way to do a diplomatic
effort, to put an all-out surge in diplomatic efforts in order to bring
our troops home as soon as practicable.
[[Page H4324]]
So I urge the Members to override this veto, and start to bring our
troops home as soon as practical.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today there are two distinct messages coming
out of Washington. The first message is from a majority of the Congress
and underscores impatience with the lack of political progress in Iraq.
We call for a new direction, including enforceable benchmarks for the
performance of the Iraqi government. The other message is from the
White House. The message the President is sending is that America's
military commitment in Iraq remains open-ended, no matter what.
The President keeps saying that we're making progress in Iraq. This
claim cannot be reconciled with the facts. Nearly everyone agrees that
there is no military solution possible in Iraq; rather, the Iraqis must
make the political compromises necessary to end the violence.
But where is the progress on the benchmarks that the President
himself has endorsed? Where is the agreement to fairly share Iraq's oil
wealth among all of Iraq's people? Where is the law reversing the
disastrous de-Baathification policy? Where are the promised new
election laws? Where is the progress on amending the Iraqi constitution
to address longstanding Sunni concerns? The Iraqi government has
repeatedly promised action on all of these, but there is little forward
movement after many months.
Benchmarks are only real if there are consequences for failure to
meet them. Back in January, the President said, and I quote, ``if the
Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose
the support of the American people--and it will lose the support of the
Iraqi people.'' But by vetoing the Iraq Accountability Act, the
President has made it clear that failure to follow through on the
benchmarks will not result in the loss of the White House's support for
this open-ended war.
From the beginning, the Bush Administration has been wrong so many
times about nearly every aspect of the war in Iraq. Now the President
comes to Congress again to ask for yet another blank check. We should
not give him one. I urge the House to override the President's veto.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of overriding the
President's misguided veto of H.R. 1591, U.S. Troop Readiness,
Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act. We need a new direction
in Iraq.
This legislation contains every penny the President has requested for
our troops in Iraq and adds $4 billion more. The bill includes
additional funding for military health care and military housing and
provides $1.8 billion not requested by the President to begin meeting
the unmet health care needs of veterans returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan.
As the Representative for Fort Bragg, I strongly support our troops,
their families and their communities. Our superb military men and women
have done everything that has been asked of them and done it well.
America's military victory in Iraq was achieved when Saddam Hussein's
regime was toppled. But the Administration went to war without a plan
to win the peace, and our military victory has been bogged down in a
mindless occupation led by bitterly stubborn politicians here at home.
Just last month, Vice President Cheney insisted that Saddam Hussein
had been allied with Osama bin Laden's terrorist network despite all
evidence to the contrary. Last night, the President vetoed this
legislation in favor of his failed strategy of stay the course. The
leadership of this Administration continues to be in a state of denial,
and Congress must assert its rightful role in our nation's
policymaking. I will vote to override this veto for a new direction in
Iraq, and I urge my colleagues to join me in doing so.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as a proud member of the
Progressive and the Out of Iraq Caucuses, I rise to announce that I
will proudly cast my vote to override the President's veto of H.R.
1591, the ``U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans'' Health and Iraq
Accountability Act.'' By vetoing the bipartisan Iraq Accountability Act
last night, the President vetoed the will of the American people. The
President vetoed a responsible funding bill for the troops that would
have provided more funding for our troops and military readiness than
even the President requested.
By vetoing the Iraq Accountability Act, the President rejected a bill
that reflects the will of the American people to wind down this war. By
vetoing the Iraq Accountability Act, the President turned a deaf ear to
the loud message sent by the American people last November.
I will vote to override the President's veto because the Iraq
Accountability Act 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, in vetoing the legislation, the President claimed the
Iraq Accountability Act, 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. It is nearly as ridiculous as the President's often
stated claim of ``progress'' in Iraq. The facts, of course, are
otherwise. The U.S. death toll in Iraq reached 104 for April--making it
the deadliest month of the year and one of the deadliest of the entire
war. It is therefore 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 that the Iraq Accountability Act
undermines our troops and threatens the safety of the American people
here at home is simply not true.
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel recently returned from Iraq and paints
a bleak picture: This thing is coming undone quickly, and [Prime
Minister] Maliki's government is weaker by the day. The police are
corrupt top to bottom. The oil problem is a huge problem. They still
can't get anything through the parliament--no hydrocarbon law, no de-
Baathification law, no provincial elections.
Mr. Speaker, many of the Nation's most highly respected generals and
several leading Republicans 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 service men 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.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to hold the Bush Administration and the Iraqi
government accountable. This bill's timetable and benchmarks finally
hold the Iraqis accountable. As retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton has
stated, This bill gives General Petraeus great leverage for moving the
Iraqi government down the more disciplined path laid out by the Iraq
Study Group. The real audience for the timeline language is Prime
Minister al-Maliki and the elected government of Iraq.
Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates has noted that the timetable is
helpful--and sends
[[Page H4325]]
the message that ``the clock is ticking.'' Gates said ``The strong
feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably have
had a positive impact. . . . in terms of communicating to the Iraqis
that this is not an open-ended commitment.''
Mr. Speaker, in overriding the President's veto, this House will be
doing the business and expressing the will of the American people. In
the latest CBS News/New York Times poll, 64 percent of Americans favor
a timetable that provides for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq
in 2008. In the same poll, 57 percent of Americans believe that
Congress, not the President, should have the last say when it comes to
setting troop levels in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, in overriding the President's veto, Congress is
fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities and exercising the first
check on the President's power in 6 years. As Iraq Study Group Co-
Chairman Lee Hamilton has pointed out, The Founders of our Nation never
envisioned an unfettered president making unilateral decisions about
American lives and military power. They did indeed make the president
the commander in chief, but they gave to Congress the responsibility
for declaring war, for making rules governing our land and naval
forces, for overseeing policy, and of course the ability to fund war or
to cease funding it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all members to join me in overriding the
President's veto of Iraq Accountability Act, 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. Overriding the
President's veto 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.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, the President is making a terrible and
costly mistake by vetoing the war funding bill and rejecting the clear
desire of Congress and the country for a swift redeployment of U.S.
ground forces from Iraq.
The veto and the insistence on staying the course is not a mistake
simply because it ignores public opinion; we wouldn't want a Commander-
in-Chief to be simply a weather vane.
And it is not a mistake just because our courageous troops and
military families are exhausted from bearing the full weight of
sacrifice themselves. We know they are prepared to pay any price for
American security, which is why we owe them such a debt of gratitude.
No, the President's veto is a grave mistake because refusing to
change course in Iraq is compromising U.S. security.
Administration rhetoric notwithstanding, policing the civil war in
Iraq does not bring us closer to defeating the global network of
extremists who wish to harm us. To the contrary, in order to improve
national security and best address our other strategic interests around
the world and here at home, we must dramatically change our current
direction in Iraq.
Our men and women in uniform have always served our country
courageously and performed brilliantly. But asking them to stand
between warring factions is not only unfair, it is counterproductive.
Redeployment from Iraq will enhance our security by allowing us to
properly address other potential challenges around the world from
Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran to Latin America, the Horn of
Africa, and the greater Middle East. In particular, it will allow us to
put our attention back on Afghanistan and the fight against a resurgent
al Qaeda and Taliban, the enemies who actually did engineer 9/11.
Bringing troops home also allows us to resolve the concerns about the
readiness of our Armed Forces, which have been strained to the breaking
point because of this Administration's careless management of the war
in Iraq.
Only by extricating ourselves from the mess of Iraq can we begin
moving our country back to a common-sense policy of strength through
leadership. Every day our military is in Iraq our standing in the
international community erodes further.
Already we've seen respect for the United States plunge from record
highs after 9/11 to record lows now. This loss of moral authority
compromises our ability to lead multinational efforts to fight national
security threats from terrorism and nuclear proliferation to global
warming and drug trafficking.
Our continuing military involvement in Iraq carries these steep costs
with little prospect of benefit. Only the Iraqis can bring about the
needed reconciliation in their country. Their political leaders must
take the difficult political steps needed to cease the violence in
their country, by building coalitions among competing sects, ensuring
minority rights, balancing power between provincial and central
governments, and sharing oil revenues among all regions in Iraq. We
simply cannot do this work for them.
By setting a deliberate timetable for redeployment, we force the
Iraqi political leaders to acknowledge and accept that they are the
ones who must take steps to bring about an end of the sectarian
violence.
Bad things may happen when our Armed Forces leave Iraq if the Iraqis
cannot or will not choose reconciliation over conflict. But that will
be true if we leave at the end of this year, the end of next year, or
in 2015. Delaying redeployment simply delays the Iraqis' moment of
responsibility.
Our strong leaders of the last century, like Presidents Roosevelt,
Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan, recognized that while American military
might was important, American values were our greatest strength.
Just as we rallied the world in the Second World War and defeated the
Soviets in the Cold War on the strength of our Nation's democratic
ideals, ultimate victory against this generation of enemies will
similarly be won in the minds of millions around the world, not on the
battlefield in Iraq or anywhere else. Indeed, that long-term victory is
impossible while we are in the middle of Iraq's civil war.
There is no easy solution to the problems in Iraq, but it would be
irresponsible to push a difficult decision off to another day, another
Congress, or another President. We must stand firm and hold the Iraqi
leaders responsible for their country. It is time for the United States
to turn its attention to its broader global security and redeploy from
Iraq.
Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my
disappointment with President Bush's veto of the Iraq Accountability
Act. Sadly, this is just the latest example of the President's
unwillingness to change his mistaken policy towards Iraq. After more
than 4 years of the President's stay-the-course strategy in Iraq, we
must provide a responsible plan to redeploy our troops and require the
Iraqi government to meet basic benchmarks for stability. This bill
presented that plan and the President should have signed it into law.
Last month, 4 years after the President declared ``Mission
Accomplished,'' was the deadliest month for American troops in Iraq
this year. For too long, the Republican-led Congress failed to exercise
its Constitutional responsibility to hold the Bush Administration
accountable--with disastrous results for the American people. No
longer.
I have opposed the war in Iraq since its start, and today with my
vote to override the veto I was proud to vote once again to take our
policy in Iraq in a new direction. More than 4 years after the
President declared the end of major combat in Iraq, we suffered over
100 U.S. military casualties in April alone. We must provide a
responsible plan to redeploy our troops and require the Iraqi
government to meet basic benchmarks for stability.
Our country faces serious threats. There are dangerous people in this
world that seek nothing more than to kill as many Americans as
possible. The number of people who died from my district on September
11th make me acutely aware of this dire threat. I was proud to vote for
a bill that allows us to refocus our military on that threat. That
would allow us to seek out, capture, or kill those who were responsible
for September 11th or who currently plot to kill Americans rather than
police a civil war in Iraq.
I'm disappointed that the President chose to ignore the American
people and veto the Iraq Accountability Act. He should have signed this
bill, in order to get these needed resources to our troops and our
veterans, hold the Iraqi government accountable, change course in Iraq
and refocus on destroying Al Qaeda.
As we move forward, the President must realize that this Congress is
not going to give the President a blank check with which to ignore the
will of the American people on Iraq. Four years of a flawed strategy
are 4 years too long.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the
contrary notwithstanding?
Under the Constitution, this vote must be by the yeas and nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222,
nays 203, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 276]
YEAS--222
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
[[Page H4326]]
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
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
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
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
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
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
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--203
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
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
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
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
Goode
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
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McNulty
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
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
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)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Kucinich
NOT VOTING--7
Davis, Jo Ann
Engel
Gillibrand
Lampson
McMorris Rodgers
Ortiz
Westmoreland
{time} 1437
Mr. CULBERSON changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. CUELLAR changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So, two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof, the veto of the
President was sustained and the bill was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, due to being unavoidably delayed, I
missed a vote on H.R. 1591, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care,
Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007--
Passage, Objections of the President Not Withstanding (rollcall No.
276). I would have voted ``nay'' had I been present to record my vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The message and the bill are referred to the
Committee on Appropriations.
The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of the House.
____________________