[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 77 (Thursday, May 10, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H4772-H4779]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2237, PROVIDING FOR REDEPLOYMENT OF
UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AND DEFENSE CONTRACTORS FROM IRAQ; PROVIDING
FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2206, U.S. TROOP READINESS, VETERANS' CARE,
KATRINA RECOVERY, AND IRAQ ACCOUNTABILITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007; AND
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2207, AGRICULTURAL DISASTER
ASSISTANCE AND WESTERN STATES EMERGENCY UNFINISHED BUSINESS
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 387 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 387
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall
be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2237) to
provide for the redeployment of United States Armed Forces
and defense contractors from Iraq. All points of order
against the bill and against its consideration are waived.
The bill shall be considered as read. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2)
one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2206) making
emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived except
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment
printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points
of order against the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 3. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2207) making
supplemental appropriations for agricultural and other
emergency assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2007, and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment printed in
part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 4. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 2206, the Clerk
shall--
(1) await the disposition of H.R. 2237 and H.R. 2207;
(2) add the respective texts of H.R. 2237 and H.R. 2207, as
passed by the House, as new matter at the end of H.R. 2206;
(3) conform the title of H.R. 2206 to reflect the addition
of H.R. 2237 and H.R. 2207, as passed by the House, to the
engrossment;
(4) assign appropriate designations to provisions within
the engrossment; and
(5) conform cross-references and provisions for short
titles within the engrossment.
(b) Upon the addition of H.R. 2237 and H.R. 2207, as passed
by the House, to the engrossment of H.R. 2206, H.R. 2237 and
H.R. 2207 shall be laid on the table.
Sec. 5. During consideration of H.R. 2237, H.R. 2206, or
H.R. 2207 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the
operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone
further consideration of any such bill to such time as may be
designated by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume and ask unanimous consent
that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and
extend their remarks on House Resolution 387.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 387 provides for consideration of
three bills, including the supplemental appropriations for the Iraq
war.
It is striking to realize that for 4 years the war in Iraq has been
funded by supplemental appropriations measures. From the beginning the
White House has refused to plan ahead. Instead it has counted on
Congress to accept its demands and pass one supplemental bill and then
another time and time again, with no end in sight and no accountability
required in return.
The American people have rejected a House that blindly accepts the
administration's predictions about Iraq, all the while ceding its role
in deciding matters of war and peace, the most solemn responsibility
given to the Congress.
My fellow Democrats and I promised a new way forward. And so the
first funding bill that we delivered to the President reconciled our
party's conscience with the brutal realities the war presented to us,
realities that we, unlike some in the administration, are willing to
acknowledge.
We sought then, as we do now, to end this war but to do so
responsibly, without adding to the suffering the Iraqi people and our
soldiers have already experienced.
Our first bill provided the President with all of the funding he
requested but attached conditions to it. We asked for the President to
stand before the Nation and justify the war. We asked him to show how
it was meeting the objectives that he himself had set out: the
[[Page H4773]]
promotion of political progress in the country and the increase of
internal security in Iraq, all of which is his responsibility. And we
said the war would not go on forever, that it must have an end, not an
irresponsible end but an end.
The President rejected our offer out of hand. He told us that while
he would never compromise, we had to.
Mr. Speaker, stubbornness is not the same as strength. Being
obstinate is not equivalent to having conviction. This President
famously told the world that he would refuse to alter his policy in
Iraq even if, as he put it, nobody stood by him except his wife and his
dog.
But he is not making decisions that impact only himself. The weight
of his decisions are being borne by the American people and the people
of Iraq. His decisions are costing American lives and they are costing
Iraqi lives. They are overstretching our military. They are undermining
the national security of this Nation. And they are not improving the
wretched conditions of the Iraqis the war is theoretically helping.
The President must not be allowed to ignore everyone: the majority of
the generals, the majority of the House, the majority of the Senate,
the majority of the Nation, and the overwhelming majority of the world.
He must not be allowed to ignore everyone when it is they who are
bearing the burden of his war and suffering the consequences of his
administration's mistakes. He must understand that his opinion, as
sincere as it may be, is not the only one that matters. He must yield.
The bill we are considering today will, once again, give him the
chance to acknowledge the demands of the citizens of this country. They
are demanding a change of direction in Iraq, and this bill delivers it.
This legislation will fund military operations in Iraq between now
and July. By then the President's surge plan will be in full effect,
and its impact, either positive or negative, will be obvious. The
President will report to Congress on the state of political and
military progress in Iraq, and then we will vote on whether or not to
provide the remaining funds that have been requested. Our degree of
financial support at that point will be based not on endless promises
or rosy scenarios, but on concrete reality on the ground in Iraq.
Accountability is being introduced into the conduct of this war.
Mr. Speaker, let me also add that during the last debate on this
supplemental, the President and his supporters told us the measure was
``unclean,'' that it contained spending unrelated to the war effort.
That spending, Mr. Speaker, was for critical projects the last
Congress failed to fund by not passing any budget at all for the year
2007, which included funding for veterans care, recovery from Hurricane
Katrina, health insurance for children, home heating oil for low-income
families, and much more. In other words, there is nothing dirty about
it. My fellow Democrats and I refuse to abandon it. We are going to
fund these vital and important projects because people are counting on
them. What is more, we campaigned on increasing the minimum wage, and
this supplemental spending legislation will do that as well. And I hope
we don't hear anything more about so-called ``unrelated spending.''
Mr. Speaker, it is long past time for this body to abandon the
destructive rhetoric that has labeled this plan a form of
``surrender.'' It is time to stop branding the Democrats, and a growing
number of Republicans, who seek to end this brutal conflict as
``defeatists.''
We want our country to be secure. We want our military to be sound.
We want the Iraqi people to be able to live with dignity. But we see
that this war fought in this way is undermining all of those goals. And
we are not alone. We speak for a clear and vocal majority of the
American people, and we represent their wishes. For the sake of our
citizens, for our soldiers, and the people of Iraq, we will be heard.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise to express my appreciation to my very good friend from
Rochester, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules (Ms.
Slaughter), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
I have to say that this is somewhat unusual for me. Mr. Speaker, I
rise in strong opposition to the rule, but I rise in even stronger
opposition to the underlying legislation.
Here we go again, Mr. Speaker. These bills bring us to round three,
round three of the Democratic leadership's Iraq charade.
First they brought up a bill that they knew the President would veto.
Then they called for a veto override that they knew would fail. And
today we are once again considering the same defeatist policy that
failed in the first two rounds plus, plus, Mr. Speaker, a call for
redeployment, basically withdrawal, within 90 days, to begin withdrawal
within 90 days.
Mr. Speaker, they may think that they made progress, but in truth we
have, in fact, gone backwards. Kicking the pullout vote a few months
down the road is not a solution.
Mr. Speaker, the closing remarks that were just offered by the
distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, I think were
right on target in describing the exact goal that we have here. We want
to make sure that the American people are secure. We want to make sure
that our troops can be successful. We want to make sure that our troops
come home. And we want to make sure that the Iraqi people can live with
dignity. The one thing that I will add with that statement that Ms.
Slaughter just made, Mr. Speaker, is that not only simply live with
dignity but with the kind of self-determination that led to a 70
percent voter turnout in Iraq. So obviously we share the exact same
goal that Ms. Slaughter just outlined.
But I am very, very troubled with the plans that we have before us.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, withdrawal that would begin in 90 days would
undermine every single one of those goals to which Ms. Slaughter just
referred. And this time, Mr. Speaker, it is not just the President's
opposition that stands in their way of what it is that they are trying
to do. Their own colleagues in the Senate have said that the House
Democratic leadership's approach won't work on their side of the
Capitol.
{time} 1230
Senate Majority Leader Reid has criticized their punting strategy and
acknowledged he has serious doubts that the House plan could actually
get through the Senate.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this policy of defeat couldn't prevail in April. It
won't prevail in May. So it would appear the idea is to wait and hope
for the best in July.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq is not a game. Funding our troops
who are in harm's way is not a game. These votes may make my friends on
the other side of the aisle feel good, but they aren't doing anything
to get our troops what they need to protect themselves and to fight
effectively against terrorists around the world. Mr. Speaker, that's
what matters here.
Again, going back to the words of the very distinguished Chair of the
Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, we want to make sure that we are
secure at home. The way to do that is to ensure that the troops have
what they need.
Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation to have a serious, substantive
debate to supply our troops with the funds they need to do their job
and to demonstrate to the American people that we are doing what is
necessary to win in Iraq and to bring our troops home. But rather than
fulfilling our duties as responsible legislators, Democratic leadership
has simply scheduled one more empty political vote under yet another
totally closed process. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats go so far
as to have three closed rules, two of them on appropriations bills.
Now, we will consider four appropriations bills this year, and all of
them, Mr. Speaker, will have been under a completely closed process.
And we all know, under both Democrats and Republicans, the tradition is
that when it comes to wartime supplementals, they be considered under
an open amendment process, but that's been thrown out the door.
This is a far cry, Mr. Speaker, from the open and fair Congress that
was promised to the American people. Worse yet, buried in the
appropriations bill is yet another totally closed rule, completely and
prospectively shutting out Republicans 2 months from now.
[[Page H4774]]
And they even go so far as to totally deny us a motion to recommit,
something that we never did in the 12 years that we were in the
majority. And those were tame restrictions when compared to what they
tried to do to the Senate.
It has been said by my very good friend from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) for whom I have the highest regard. I served with him for
many years on the Rules Committee. I had the privilege for the past 8
years of chairing the Rules Committee, and during that period of time,
Mr. McGovern would regularly say that the Rules Committee is the place
where democracy goes to die. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is only
fitting that it is the rule which provides for this bill, for his bill,
that we will use to pronounce the time of death. And while this tactic
fails to achieve a legislative success here at home, it is already
producing disastrous results in Iraq.
Ryan Crocker, the very highly regarded new ambassador to Iraq, I've
heard a number of leading Democrats, a number of leading outspoken foes
of what it is that we are doing in Iraq speak very highly of Ryan
Crocker. Ambassador Crocker said last week in an interview with Morton
Kondracke of The Roll Call, that the Iraqis are watching the Democratic
leadership's political games play out in Congress. They hear the calls
to abandon our mission, and it is taking away any will to negotiate
among political factions and achieve an effective government capable of
bringing about a political solution to the crisis.
Mr. Speaker, as Kondracke puts it in his piece, and I quote, ``What
is going on in Congress is hurting Crocker's ability to get the sides
in Iraq to make agreements with one another.'' He goes on to say, Mr.
Speaker, ``It hardens the sectarian divisions. They think we are going
to leave, and instead of reaching across lines and making agreements
with the adversary, they are getting ready to go to the mat.''
Now, that is what Mr. Kondracke writes following his discussion with
Ambassador Crocker, and it's very troubling.
What we do here and say here, Mr. Speaker, has consequences. And the
report back from the new Ambassador to Iraq is that those consequences
are not good. Those who would declare this war lost before the new
strategy of, again, the very highly regarded General David Petraeus,
who enjoyed unanimous support of the United States Senate, that means
Democrats and Republicans on a recorded vote provided unanimous support
confirming General David Petraeus. We are now basically, with what we
are trying to do here with this effort, not even giving his new
strategy a chance to succeed, and I believe that it is a huge mistake.
Now, Mr. Speaker, like everyone in this institution and people around
this country, I read the newspapers, and I watch the news. I watch the
pictures on television. And I know that the terrible images of violence
that are broadcast every day permeate. And as we see those horrible
pictures, I don't blame the American people for becoming extremely
discouraged by what is being reported out of Iraq. And I will say that
I am horrified by the pictures and the things that we see coming out of
Iraq. But there is real and significant progress that is being achieved
by our military.
Mr. Speaker, the Chicago Tribune editorialized just yesterday on one
of the great success stories, that success story being the al Anbar
province, which is the large province just to the west of Baghdad. Its
capital city, Ramadi, was once described by the New York Times as the
most dangerous city in Iraq and potentially the most dangerous city on
the face of the earth. Today, Mr. Speaker, this former outpost for the
insurgency is not only a secure city, it is a model for Sunni, Shia and
American cooperation in the fight against the organization that was
responsible for what happened on September 11, 2001, that being al
Qaeda.
Mr. Speaker, the Chicago Tribune editorial said, ``al Qaeda's
terrorists in Iraq now face a new enemy, Sunni tribesmen in the al
Anbar province.'' Their editorial goes on, and I quote, ``These tribal
leaders in the heart of the insurgency are now backing coalition and
Iraqi forces against the terrorists.'' ``You want good news from
Iraq,'' the Chicago Tribune editorial goes on to say, ``there it is,
flashing in neon.''
Now, Mr. Speaker, this editorial goes on to quote the New York Times
report saying, ``The progress has inspired an optimism in the American
command that among some officials borders on giddiness.'' ``There are
some people who would say we have won the war out here,'' one Marine
officer said. I am simply quoting, I would say to my friend, the chair
of the Rules Committee, not something that a Republican said, but the
editorial that appeared just yesterday. I would encourage all of our
Members to look at that editorial in the Chicago Tribune.
Now, Mr. Speaker, through the Joint Services stations that have been
established, local Sunni police, Shia Army officers and U.S. military
have worked hand in hand to take back the city and the province and
drive al Qaeda out. With the full support and cooperation of the local
Sunni leaders, the Shia Army has earned the confidence of the local
population. Through their alliance, they are achieving our objective
for the entire country, peace sustained by the Iraqis themselves
through national unity.
Mr. Speaker, General Petraeus came here, as we all know, just 2 weeks
ago to provide Members of the House of Representatives with a
classified briefing on Iraq. Unfortunately, the Speaker of the House,
Ms. Pelosi, was unable to attend that briefing, but for those of us who
were there, we were given a realistic picture from General Petraeus of
what was taking place. He did not, and I don't know all of the Members
who were there, Mr. Speaker, but I will say, General Petraeus did not
sugarcoat the tremendous challenges that lie ahead in this war in Iraq.
But, Mr. Speaker, he also described tremendous successes, such as this
great success that I just reported on in Ramadi, what was one of the
most dangerous cities on the face of the Earth and has now been
stabilized in the al Anbar province.
General Petraeus described the Sunni Arabs who have turned against al
Qaeda and have joined the Iraqi Security Forces. Our American and Iraqi
forces have succeeded in detaining a number of key network leaders,
getting critical intelligence on how various elements of al Qaeda
operate in Iraq, taking apart a car bomb network that killed 650
citizens in Baghdad and destroying several significant car bomb
factories. These are the kinds of joint efforts that are taking place
at this very moment in Iraq, Mr. Speaker.
Now, Mr. Speaker, General Petraeus has spoken publically about these
successes, about the reduction in sectarian murders in Baghdad by two-
thirds so far this year, about the tripling of seizures of weapons
cashes this year, about the revival of markets and the return of
displaced families to neighborhoods and cities that were previously
totally uninhabitable because of violence. Mr. Speaker, these success
stories are not meant to paint a rosy picture of Iraq. And I will say
that again, Mr. Speaker. I'm not attempting to sugarcoat the situation
in Iraq. I'm not attempting to paint a rosy picture of what is taking
place in Iraq. I know how horrendous and what a difficult situation
this is.
We all know the enormous challenges that our military still faces
there and will continue to face for some time to come, not just to be
solved by September; it will extend longer than that, we all know that.
The other night I was with Ambassador John Negroponte who reminded me
of the public statement that he made just as he left his ambassadorial
post in Baghdad; he said it would be at least 5 years. So we all know
that this battle and this struggle is going to continue.
But what these successes do demonstrate very, very clearly is that we
have not lost this war. They demonstrate that our men and women, when
they have the necessary resources, can achieve victory. We must give
General Petraeus adequate time and adequate resources to build upon
these successes and make his new strategy work. Setting a day for
defeat, whether it is today, next week or at the end of July or
September is simply not an acceptable policy. Rationing funding for our
troops is not an acceptable policy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I offered two amendments yesterday in the Rules
Committee that would have stricken two of the most egregious elements
of
[[Page H4775]]
this legislation. First, I proposed to remove the July cutoff date for
the troops' funding. Our generals in the field have said that this
limitation ties their hands and keeps them from doing even their near-
term planning, which is absolutely essential if the successes that we
have seen are going to continue. Wars aren't won in 2-month increments,
and military victories aren't achieved by congressional decree.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my second amendment would eliminate the requirement
that the President make his reports to Congress on the Internet. Even
in its unclassified form, this highly sensitive information would
provide information to our enemies and the enemies of the Iraqi people.
It would provide them with their blueprint for victory. The notion of
providing this report from the President to the Congress, not in any
kind of confidential way but on the Internet, is absolutely outrageous.
There is no justifiable reason for us to give the people who are
wanting to kill us and are responsible for the violence in Iraq this
kind of information.
Now, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, neither of the amendments that I
offered was made in order. They would have provided an opportunity to
consider a troop funding bill that would actually be enacted and would
actually fund the troops rather than simply staging one more
meaningless vote allowing Members to posture.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand very well, having been in the majority
for a while, I understand that the Democratic leadership is in a very
tough spot. They want to be able to say that they are funding the
troops. At the same time, they have to accommodate their Members who
want to get out yesterday. They want to get out immediately, regardless
of the consequences. So their political situation is to schedule vote
after meaningless vote. They get their weekly opportunity, Mr. Speaker,
to say, ``I support the troops,'' out of one side of their mouth, and
``Let's retreat'' and get out immediately out of the other side of
their mouth.
{time} 1245
But, Mr. Speaker, our troops and the American people deserve more
than political gimmicks. We must stop playing dangerous games with the
lives of the American people, our men and women in uniform, and the
Iraqi people who have been struggling for freedom. We must get our
troops the funding that they need and give our military commanders the
means to win and to do what we all want, Mr. Speaker, to bring our
troops home.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Arcuri), a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just respond to my colleague
from California saying that we can't win the war on 2-month funding
intervals. I would submit we have now been at this Iraq war longer than
it took us to win World War II when we were fighting both Japan and
Germany, and still we are no closer, and, I would submit, further from
what they define as ``victory.''
I, like so many Americans, have tried to be patient with this
administration in extricating us from the difficulties we find
ourselves in in Iraq. They first told us there were weapons of mass
destruction. None were found, yet we were still patient. Then they told
us we were there to remove a tyrant. We removed Saddam Hussein, yet we
are still there, and we continue to be patient. They told us we were
there to fight terrorism, and we have been fighting terrorism, and we
still remain patient.
Now they tell us that we are there to make our families safer. Well,
I don't feel that my family is any safer as a result of our being in
Iraq. And like the American people, I am losing patience with the
hollow promises that this administration has made about getting us out
of Iraq.
I rise today in support of this rule because I think that it is time
that we change the course, we change the direction. How many strategies
is this administration going to adopt before they arrive at success?
Last night in the Rules Committee I got to thinking as we were
discussing this rule about my own children, about my family, and I
thought about how would my children look at me later in life, how would
my grandchildren look at me later on, in terms of how we tried to stop
this conflict in Iraq. Then I thought about a situation that I talked
about a lot during my campaign.
During my campaign, when I was trying to decide whether or not I
would run, my son and my daughter, who are both teenagers, were not
supportive of that. One day my son said to me, Dad, what is it that a
Congressman does? I started telling my son what a Congressman does.
He said, Dad, are you saying that if you get to Congress, you will be
able to stop the war in Iraq?
I said, Not alone, but certainly with the other Members of Congress.
He said then, I really think that you should run for Congress,
because the war in Iraq is a bad thing and too many people are dying.
My son, then 15 years old, got it. He understood what it was about.
He understood that we are in Iraq for the wrong reason. He understood
that it was time to change the course and change the direction.
That is why I rise today. I rise because I support the rule that will
get us out of Iraq, but, more importantly, because my children know
that it is the right thing to do.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), a member of the Rules
Committee.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the honorable chairwoman for the
time.
Mr. Speaker, our troops are brave and capable. They have fought
heroically. But, Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to tell our
President that he can no longer ignore the American people, this
Congress or the reality of the situation we face in Iraq.
We have the responsibility to provide oversight, to ensure that our
brave and honorable troops are provided a mission based on a realistic
assessment and an achievable goal before we ask them to risk life and
limb to implement it. We must end the strain that we have put on our
brave military men and women and their families, and we must act today.
Mr. Speaker, we know we must get our troops out of the crossfire and
the violence of the raging civil war in Iraq. We know what must be done
for our soldiers in Iraq to ensure the protection of them and our
families here at home. Our military and our National Guard are
stretched thin. We must rebuild and re-equip both. Our National Guard
in Ohio is training and working on gear that is obsolete. So not only
are our military men and women at risk in Iraq; we have our homeland
exposed to national emergencies and other threats that we may face. But
our President has refused to acknowledge the reality of the situation
that we face as a Nation, and I and many other Members of this Congress
will not allow the status quo to continue.
For this reason, I cosponsored and will cast a powerful ``yes'' vote
in support of H.R. 2237. This bill, authored by Mr. McGovern, whom I
respect tremendously for his courage and leadership, is responsible and
will ensure the safe redeployment of our troops from Iraq. Our bill
calls for the redeployment of our troops and allows Congress to take
back from the President the reckless decisionmaking that we have seen.
Our bill also very importantly ensures a number of things: it
protects the ability of our military to go after al Qaeda and other
terrorist organizations in Iraq; it provides for the protection of
diplomatic and other related U.S. personnel in Iraq; and, finally, it
will truly shift our role in Iraq to training and equipping the Iraqi
security forces.
Mr. Speaker, the time has come to end this war; and, unfortunately,
the failed policies of this administration and lack of oversight from
past Congresses have left us with few options. 3,372 of our troops,
including 157 brave military men and women from Ohio, have died in this
war. It is time we did the responsible thing for our heroic soldiers,
for their families and for our Nation.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Rules Committee.
[[Page H4776]]
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, we must end this war. On November
7, when the American people spoke in the last election, from Washington
State to Florida, from Vermont to California, they made a very clear
decision that they want to bring our troops home. Their challenge to us
is to implement that policy.
Americans want a new direction in Iraq. The citizens of America know
that the time has come to change direction, to bring our troops home
with their heads held high in honor of a job well done.
Mr. Speaker, many of our finest, most highly decorated members of the
military, now retired, can say publicly what in the past they could
only say privately. It is this: Iraq is engaged in a civil war. It is
not the proper job of our men and women in uniform to referee an Iraqi
civil war.
The citizens of our country also recognize the obvious: if the Iraqi
leadership is unwilling to help itself, how can we expect the American
people and the American military to do that job for them? Iraqi leaders
will not spend $10 billion in funds available to improve electricity
and water, yet expect Americans to spend our taxpayer dollars to do
that.
Commonsense citizens in our country are asking an obvious question:
If the Iraqi Parliament has work to do, why is it taking a 2-month
vacation this summer, a vacation, when they haven't reached agreement
on oil sharing, when they haven't allowed former Baathists, low level
with no blood on their hands, to resume a place in that society, when
they won't crack down on sectarian violence, and, Mr. Speaker, when
they interfere with the efforts of the American military when they
attempt to do so?
Mr. Speaker, there is a very clear recognition on the part of the
American people, and it is this: our men and women in uniform have done
their job. They toppled Saddam, they reported back that there were no
weapons of mass destruction, and they did provide stability in Iraq so
that they could have three elections.
What we face now is a White House that has dug its heels in and a
President who refuses to change and adjust and provide leadership to
the facts as they exist. Those facts: Iraq is engaged in a civil war,
something the White House denies. Those facts: it is the job of the
Iraqi political leadership and the people of Iraq to create a civil
society. It is not the job of the military to do nation-building.
The legislation we have is going to allow us to change the direction
of our policy from escalating militarily, as the President stubbornly
pursues that policy, to a strategy of Iraqi self-control and stability
in the region. I support the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my very good friend from Vermont, my
Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Welch, for whom I have the highest
regard, he talked about the fact that the President was sticking his
heels into the ground and was not willing to make any modifications
whatsoever.
Well, I will acknowledge that the President has in fact, I would say
to my friend from Vermont, Mr. Welch, stuck his heels in the ground
when it has come to his quest for victory, to ensure that we keep the
battle against al Qaeda and those forces that would want to do us in in
Iraq. What he has done in recognizing that mistakes have been made, in
recognizing that there have been challenges, as has historically been
the case in war, we have seen a dramatic change.
I don't know if my friends have noticed, but there is a new Secretary
of Defense, his name is Robert Gates; and there have in fact been a
number of changes made. I don't know if people have noticed, there is
in fact a new commanding general on the ground in Iraq. His name is
David Petraeus. As I said in my opening remarks, he has enjoyed strong
bipartisan support.
Obviously, these military leaders, the Secretary of Defense and other
military leaders, are insistent upon giving a very sober assessment of
what is taking place and not providing an unrealistic, rosy picture of
what is happening in Iraq. And they have reported, they have reported
that we have in fact seen success, especially, as I said in my remarks,
in Ramadi, what was determined to be one of the most dangerous cities
on the face of the Earth; and we have now seen stability there, and
this alliance which exists, Sunni, Shia and American forces working
together to bring about this kind of peace and stability.
So while I am not saying there aren't difficult days, weeks, months,
and, Mr. Speaker, I hope not, but possibly difficult years ahead in
Iraq, the fact of the matter is this President has made it very clear
that he is willing to make modifications so that we can in fact ensure
victory over those who want to do us in.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1300
Mr. INSLEE. Who are the real experts on the question of whether the
lack of a timeline actually fuels the insurgency, the lack of a
timeline actually making the violence worse?
One of them is named Muhammad al-Dini. He is an elected member of the
Iraqi parliament. He was here yesterday, and I met with him. He told me
that a majority, 144 members, of the elected Iraqi parliament 2 days
ago signed a petition that basically said that the lack of a timeline
is fueling attacks against our troops. The lack of a timeline is
fueling this insurgency. The lack of a timeline is playing into the
hands of al Qaeda. And the reason he told us this is that it allows
them to go out and recruit and say, Look, America is going to be here
forever. And they recruit people that go out and attack us.
The other thing he told us is that the Maliki government is using our
taxpayer dollars to run sectarian militias that go out and attack
Americans. He urged us to adopt a timeline. An elected official in the
parliament of the state of Iraq; now there is an expert.
It amazes me that people who have been wrong on Iraq for 4 years come
down and lecture us, lecture us about whether a timeline is going to
work or not. I think it might be handy in Congress to have a penalty
box. If you have been wrong for 4 years on the right strategy in Iraq,
maybe you should to go into the penalty box for a while and allow the
people who were against this war from the beginning to have a say on
what we do in Iraq.
What we are saying is, a lack of a timeline hurts. We need to bleed
the insurgency of the fuel they use, and the fuel they use is the lack
of a timeline.
One more thing, I read this headline: ``Bush Told War is Harming the
GOP.'' I don't care about the GOP or the parties. The GOP members went
and told the President this is hurting the GOP. It doesn't matter who
is getting hurt politically here. I will tell you what matters: Our
sons and daughters are being killed in Iraq.
I hope some of my GOP colleagues, the next time they go to the White
House, I hope they say, we don't care about the GOP or the DEM; we care
about the Army and the Navy and the soldiers who are being killed in
Iraq, and let's get a timetable and get us out of there.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for allowing me the
opportunity to speak this afternoon.
I strongly support the rule. I strongly support our men and women in
uniform who are courageously fighting to defend our freedoms. In my own
district, we lost 14 soldiers. My recent trip to Iraq confirmed that to
support our troops is to support their redeployment. Our troops told me
they were overextended and underequipped. Many are on their second,
third and fourth tour. They face increased risk without proper
equipment and longer stays. In fact, not enough equipment was available
for those new incoming soldiers that were just deployed by this
President. That is what I heard from our troops when I visited there
about a month ago.
Extending the tours of all active-duty personnel is unacceptable, a
price our families shouldn't have to pay, nor our troops. As Members of
Congress, we have the responsibility to protect and
[[Page H4777]]
provide for the best interests of all of our troops. That includes the
redeployment out of Iraq and a safe return home.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and vote for these bills to
support our troops.
One last comment. I want to thank the Speaker of this House for
having the courage to allow us to vote on these very important pieces
of legislation this day. It is indeed a historic day.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes
to my very good friend from Dallas, the distinguished chair of the
Republican Study Committee, Mr. Hensarling.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
rule. What happened to the most open and transparent and fair process
that was supposed to occur in the history of Congress? We have a closed
rule on top of a closed rule on top of a closed rule.
And now what we see is, yet again, the Democrats bringing a bill to
the floor that our Secretary of Defense says is even worse than the
last one they brought to the floor as far as tying the hands of our
troops as they attempt to protect our freedom.
Once again we have a slow-bleed strategy for our troops in Iraq. Once
again we still have a pork-laden supplemental.
Let's talk for a second about the ag bill. Now there is legitimate
debate, and there may be legitimate reasons, and I agree that drought
assistance may be necessary in certain parts of the country. But this
is supposedly the PAYGO Congress? I have looked at this. Number one,
where is the emergency? The drought took place last year. That is when
the emergency was. Why isn't this going in regular order? Where is the
offset?
Had there been an open rule, I would have been happy to offer an
offset amendment. Once again, I don't know how anyone on this side of
the aisle, Mr. Speaker, can call this the PAYGO Congress. There are so
many holes in this PAYGO it looks beyond Swiss cheese. This is one of
the worse rules that I have seen brought to the floor, and every Member
should rise in opposition and defeat this rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, year five of blunders, that is a true slow-
bleed policy in Iraq.
Defeatism? Well, that is an Administration that lacks the courage to
admit its failures and which pays for those failures with the blood of
the brave, the blood of someone else, and with $10 billion of your tax
money every single month.
Gimmicks? Gimmicks are what got us into Iraq in the first place. It
certainly wasn't the ``war on terrorism.''
You can make all of the excuses that you want for continuing to embed
our troops in a civil war, but a vote today for the Iraq Redeployment
Act is a vote to end endless war. It is a vote for a fully funded,
safe, and orderly redeployment that allows us to refocus on the war on
terrorism, which is a threat to our families, rather than the civil war
in Iraq, which is not.
It is not the enemy that has us pinned down in Iraq today; it is this
Administration's unwillingness to admit its mistakes and its lies.
The intervention in Iraq was this country's largest foreign policy
blunder. Now it is time for Congress to intervene. With this war in its
fifth year, for Congress not to act now is for Congress to become an
enabler and an accomplice to the Administration's errors.
Vice President Cheney rightly complains about the Iraqis proposing to
take a two-month vacation. But what is really at fault here is Mr.
Cheney and this Administration's four-year vacation from reality.
``Victory'' is improving our families' security. Pursuing policies
contrary to that objective, committing the same error over and over
again, that is defeatist.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who will explain why we didn't
deal with agricultural disasters last year.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply say in response to the previous
speaker on that side of the aisle, he claims that efforts on our part
to withdraw our troops or redeploy our troops out of a combat situation
represents a slow-bleed policy. I would suggest that the existing
policy is a bleed-forever policy, and it needs to be changed.
The second question the gentleman asked referred to agriculture. He
said, ``Gee, these agriculture disasters occurred last year; why
weren't they handled then?'' That is a very good question. We weren't
in charge last year. The other side was.
In fact, we have had agriculture disaster legislation pending for 2
years. The President declared 70 percent of the counties in this
country to be disaster areas, and yet the last Congress couldn't put
together a two-car funeral when it came to addressing that problem. So
we are simply cleaning up in a separate bill; mind you, we are cleaning
up last year's agriculture disaster problem. It is just another one of
the leftover items from the previous Congress that we are now charged
with the responsibility to finish.
Now let me get to what the real issue is in this bill.
The Washington Post carries a story this morning describing the
efforts of the administration to use Iraqi government officials to try
to get the Democratic lawmakers to ease the pressure on the White House
to have a timetable for the withdrawal of troops. Mr. al-Rubaie is
quoted as saying the following: ``Now, nobody is talking about sliding
into a civil war, as we've been able to avoid it.''
He added, ``Portraying the scene there as Shiite killing Sunni and
Sunnis killing Shiites is totally untrue.''
What are they smoking? What do we see on television every day,
despite the effort of the administration to shut down as much access on
the part of the public to the carnage as is possible?
I strongly support this rule today for one simple reason: The
President has asked the Congress to give him $100 billion in additional
funding to fight this war, no strings attached. The Congress passed a
proposal and put it on the President's desk suggesting that there ought
to be certain limitations on the President's conduct in return for
getting the money. He vetoed that. He believes he is ``the decider.''
Well, under the Constitution, we are all supposed to be deciders. So
now we have before us, in response to the President's action, a
proposal to do three things: First of all, it would provide an
opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on the issue of whether or not
troops ought to be redeployed over the next year. I think that is what
a democratic institution is supposed to do, to make choices like that.
Secondly, what we are proposing under this rule today will allow the
Congress to require the President to report to the Congress on three
things: First of all, since the President has said that, as Iraqi
military units stand up, we should stand down, we have a sense of the
Congress provision in this legislation which says that, as the
President certifies that battalions have achieved full combat
capability, that a certain number of corresponding U.S. units ought to
stand down. It is not mandatory. It is a sense of the Congress that
that ought to happen.
Secondly, we ask the President to report to the Congress on the
progress that Iraq is making on the benchmarks that the President
himself set out last fall as being the criteria by which we should
judge Iraqi progress.
And then thirdly, so that it isn't a softball report, we are also
asking that the President report to the Congress spelling out which of
those benchmarks have actually been achieved. Has the Iraqi parliament
actually passed an adequate oil revenue-sharing law which shares that
oil equitably with Sunni, Shiites and Kurds alike, because if they
don't do that, the Sunnis will never stop fighting?
And then, lastly, what we do is to set up a separate bill that deals
with some of the domestic emergencies that we face that the President
described as ``pork.'' Among those is the agriculture disaster bill.
And so we are considering that as a separate bill to demonstrate to the
White House and to demonstrate to our critics that they are wrong when
they say that we are afraid to let these programs stand on their own.
So we are going to vote on them alone, and I happen to think they are
in a stronger position when we vote on them alone.
[[Page H4778]]
It is going to be very interesting to see how many of our Republican
friends from agricultural districts are actually going to support us in
trying to provide that assistance.
{time} 1315
After all, we did not declare those counties disaster areas. A fellow
by the name of Bush did, and he's the guy that lives in that big white
house, and when he makes a declaration like that, there ought to be
certain consequences that flow from it, and we're simply meeting those
obligations. So that's basically what we are trying to do.
As the gentleman from Washington said earlier, we simply happen to
believe, those of us who are going to be supporting this proposition,
we simply happen to believe that it would be nice if we were fighting
the right war in the right place rather than the wrong war in the wrong
place, and the right place to be taking al Qaeda on is in Afghanistan.
Now, we also provide in our proposition, we say that 60 days after or
60 days from now roughly, by July 13, by the time this bill is passed,
by July 13, we guarantee the administration that the Congress will have
an up-or-down vote on its own request for all the money. I don't know
what more we can do.
What we are simply doing is we are letting the President report,
letting him give his judgments to us. We then give the Congress about
10 days to absorb what the President has said, and then we vote, up or
down, on two issues: number one, whether the President should get all
the remaining money; and, number two, there's another amendment that
would simply have us instead use that money to redeploy our troops out
of combat.
It's a fair, square deal. The administration gets a straight shot at
what it wants and war critics get a straight shot at what they want.
That, to me, is eminently fair.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I had one Member who was hoping to come
over, and I do not see him here. So I'm going to yield myself the
balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, we all know how painful the war in Iraq has been. As I
said in my opening remarks and throughout this debate, no one is trying
to paint a rosy picture of the situation there.
My very good friend from Wisconsin, distinguished Chair of the
Appropriations Committee, has just told us that we should be fighting
the war in the right place. Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that
we have found tragically over the past several years is that al Qaeda
can be found almost anyplace on the face of the Earth.
It was just a few months ago that we saw a successful effort by the
Ethiopians going into Mogadishu, Somalia, to liberate that capital from
the forces of al Qaeda. We know very well that on September 11, 2001,
al Qaeda attacked us here in the United States, and we regularly go
through the litany of the actions of al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah: the
bombing of the two embassies, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi,
Kenya; the USS Cole; the Khobar Towers; the World Trade Center in 1993.
We can go on and on and on about al Qaeda and other terrorist
organizations. And guess what, Mr. Speaker, virtually everyone has
acknowledged that the front line in the battle against al Qaeda is
where they are mostly, and that is in Iraq.
Now, I just reported the great statement that came from our new
ambassador, Ryan Crocker, in Iraq who has talked along with General
Petraeus about the success that we have seen in the al Anbar province,
in Ramadi in particular, one of the most dangerous spots on the face of
the Earth until we saw this alliance develop among Sunni, Shia and
American forces standing up against al Qaeda because, Mr. Speaker, al
Qaeda is there in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that fighting al Qaeda in Iraq plays a
big role in preventing them from attacking us right here in the United
States of America, which is obviously their goal. They have done it
before, and they would love to do it again.
This process around which we are considering this measure is very
unusual to say the least. In fact, my good friend from Rochester,
distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, described this rule as one
of the most complicated that we have ever seen.
Now, my good friend again, the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, just talked about the fact that we are going to give the
President his chance to see this. Well, here is what we are going to
give the President. We are going to give the President a bill that
potentially calls for cut-and-run and immediate withdrawal within 90
days, beginning a pullout of our troops in Iraq; number two, a
supplemental appropriations bill that has all of this redeployment that
creates fits and starts, beginning and reduction, just incrementally
putting it out, which has been harshly criticized by the Secretary of
Defense, Mr. Gates; General Petraeus; Ambassador Crocker and others. So
that is included in this measure, and then the agricultural
appropriations provision.
Now, my friend from Wisconsin just asked how many Members will stand
up and be supportive of the effort that I laud in dealing with
something that we were not able to deal with in the last Congress as we
struggled with the appropriations process, that, among others, being
this agricultural appropriations issue, with the disasters that we have
faced. And of course, there will be Members on our sides of the aisle
who will support that.
But, Mr. Speaker, I think we need to recognize that this is the most
convoluted process because we are not allowing it to stand on its own.
What we are doing with this rule is we are taking all three of these
very separate items, linking them up, and sending them to our
colleagues on the other side of the Capitol in the United States
Senate, where the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, the one who's
already announced that we've lost the war in Iraq, he said there's very
little chance of success there.
That's why I have always considered myself, I like to have that
Jeffersonian spirit of a healthy skepticism, as opposed to a corrosive
cynicism, which sometimes we have seen more than a few people slip to
around here. But I can't help but be skeptical. I'm not going to be
cynical, Mr. Speaker, but I can't help but be a little skeptical as we
look at the one, two, three punch of vote after vote after vote when we
know full well it will most likely die in the Senate; and if it by
chance, as this last bill did, ends up getting to the President, it's
going to be vetoed by the President.
So as I said earlier, it allows our colleagues to stand up, as so
many have, during this debate saying they support the troops, but at
the same time they want to get out immediately and not provide the
troops with the kind of consistency and support that they need for us
to be victorious.
Again, one of the interesting things that we hear, as we juxtapose
the debate that emanates from our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle and ours, is that we regularly talk about victory. We regularly
talk about being victorious in this battle against Islamic extremism,
the battle which we all united to fight on September 11, 2001. It is
tragic that we have gotten to the point where we are not united on
this.
And I will acknowledge that there were some who tried to exude the
image that Iraq was involved on September 11, and I never said that and
most people I know never claimed that Saddam Hussein was involved in
command and control of what happened on September 11, 2001; but, Mr.
Speaker, I will say this: Saddam Hussein had the exact same goal for
the future of the United States as al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and
that's why we need to be prepared to fight them at any spot whatsoever.
I am going to offer when, I say ``when'' because I am going to be an
eternal optimist, when we defeat the previous question, I am going to
offer the amendment that I was speaking about earlier.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that just before the vote on the
previous question that the text of my amendment that I am going to be
submitting when we defeat the previous question be made in order, and I
ask unanimous consent that that be included in the Record, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lynch). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. And let me just briefly say that that amendment says that
[[Page H4779]]
when the President of the United States reports to the Congress that on
the success in training or lack of success in training the Iraqi
security forces, that that report not be made available to the
leadership of al Qaeda by way of the Internet.
The amendment that I am going to offer when we defeat the previous
question, Mr. Speaker, is an amendment that will allow us to say that
we will strike the provision that says that the report from the
President to the Congress is provided on the Internet for the world to
see. We should not be feeding our enemies, those who want to kill us,
with this kind of information.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge defeat of the previous
question, and when we defeat that, I urge support of my quest to make
the amendment in order that will allow us to prevent the President's
report from getting on to the Internet for our enemy to see, and if by
chance I am not successful, I urge defeat of the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to contradict my colleague from
California, but we do not know the pain of this war. Members of
Congress know it a little better than most people because we try to
comfort the bereaved and visit the ones who are maimed, but we don't
really know the pain of this war. We can't know about the 35,000 or
more young people with life-altering wounds, people 18 and 19 years old
who will live with them for the very rest of their lives.
We don't know the loss other people have sustained because nothing
much is required of us except to pay the bill of $10 billion a month,
mostly borrowed from China, so we can finance this war.
There is no compelling reason why we should go on forever with this.
Nothing that we are asking the President to put on the Internet is
anything but classified and who is going to believe it anyway.
If the President is running out of money for the troops, it is simply
because he vetoed the money that he asked us for that we sent to him.
The fault, the blame lies exclusively with him.
And with that I ask all of my colleagues to vote for this rule on
both sides of the House. Obviously, numbers of them didn't want to come
down and talk today. Please vote for this rule. Cleanse your
conscience. Let's do a good thing today for those people who count on
us in Iraq.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 387 Offered by Mr. Dreier of California
(1) Amend section 2 to read as follows:
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2206) making
emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived except
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment
printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points
of order against the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority the Committee member of Appropriations; (2)
the amendment printed in section 6, if offered by
Representative Dreier of California or his designee, which
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order,
shall be considered as read, and shall be separately
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
(2) At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 6. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as
follows:
Strike section 1326(f) (relating to the public availability
of information regarding the combat proficiency of Iraqi
security forces).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.
____________________