[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 77 (Thursday, May 10, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H4796-H4808]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AND DEFENSE
CONTRACTORS FROM IRAQ
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 387, I called up
the bill (H.R. 2237) to provide for the redeployment of United States
Armed Forces and defense contractors from Iraq, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 2237
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AND
DEFENSE CONTRACTORS FROM IRAQ.
(a) Commencement of Redeployment.--Not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Defense shall commence the redeployment of units and members
of the Armed Forces deployed in Iraq as part of Operation
Iraqi Freedom and contractors operating in Iraq and funded
using amounts appropriated to the Department of Defense.
(b) Completion of Redeployment.--The Secretary of Defense
shall complete the redeployment of the Armed Forces and
defense contractors from Iraq within 180 days beginning on
the date of the commencement of the redeployment required
under subsection (a).
(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds to Increase Armed Forces
Serving in Iraq.--Funds appropriated or otherwise made
available to the Department of Defense under any provision of
law may not be obligated or expended to increase the number
of members of the Armed Forces serving in Iraq in excess of
the number of members serving in Iraq as of January 1, 2007,
unless the increase has been specifically authorized in
advance by an Act of Congress.
(d) Authority To Determine Locations Outside of Iraq for
Redeployment.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to
restrict the locations outside of Iraq to which units and
members of the Armed Forces redeployed from Iraq may be
transferred, including redeployment to an adjacent or nearby
country at the invitation of the government of the country or
redeployment to bolster military forces deployed in
Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.
(e) Authority to Retain Armed Forces in Iraq for Limited
Purposes.--The Secretary of Defense may retain in Iraq
members of the Armed Forces for the purpose of providing
security for the United States Embassy and other United
States diplomatic missions in Iraq; protecting American
citizens, including members of the Armed Forces; serving in
roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions;
engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and
scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other
terrorist organizations with global reach; and training and
equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces. At the
request of the Government of Iraq, the Secretary of Defense
may retain in Iraq members of the Army Corps of Engineers and
defense contractors engaged in reconstruction projects in
Iraq, to the extent necessary to complete such projects.
(f) Availability of Funds for Safe and Orderly
Redeployment.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds appropriated or otherwise made available in any Act are
immediately available for obligation and expenditure to plan
and execute a safe and orderly redeployment of the Armed
Forces and defense contractors from Iraq, as required by this
section.
(g) Transfer of United States Military Facilities in
Iraq.--The President of the United States shall transfer to
the Government of Iraq all right, title, and interest held by
the United States in any military facility in Iraq that was
constructed, repaired, or improved using amounts appropriated
to the Department of Defense and occupied by a unit of the
Armed Forces.
(h) Prohibition on Use of Funds to Further Deploy United
States Armed Forces to Iraq.--Beginning on the date of the
completion of the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq
under subsection (b), funds appropriated or otherwise made
available under any provision of law may not be obligated or
expended to further deploy units or members of the Armed
Forces to Iraq, including through participation in any
multinational force in Iraq, except as provided under
subsection (e) or unless such deployment of units or members
of the Armed Forces is specifically authorized in advance by
an Act of Congress.
(i) Assistance to Iraqi Security Forces and Multinational
Forces in Iraq.--Nothing in this section shall be construed
to prohibit or otherwise restrict the use of funds available
to the Department of Defense for the purpose of providing
financial assistance or equipment to the Iraqi Security
Forces or multinational forces providing security or training
in Iraq at the request of the Government of Iraq.
(j) Continuation of Diplomatic, Social, and Economic
Reconstruction Activities in Iraq.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to prohibit or otherwise restrict the use
of funds available to any department or agency of the United
States (other than the Department of Defense) to carry out
diplomatic, social, and economic reconstruction activities in
Iraq at the request of the Government of Iraq.
(k) Asylum or Other Means of Protection for Iraqi
Citizens.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to
prohibit or otherwise restrict the authority of the President
to arrange asylum or other means of protection for Iraqi
citizens who might be physically endangered by the
redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq.
(l) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Armed Forces''
has the meaning given the term in section 101(a)(4) of title
10, United States Code.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 387, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lewis) each will control 30 minutes.
[[Page H4797]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
General Leave
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on
H.R. 2237.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts, the sponsor of the bill (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this war is a terrible tragedy, and it is
time to bring it to an end. This is a straightforward bill to redeploy
our military forces from Iraq and to end the war in Iraq, and I want to
thank the leadership for bringing it to the floor today.
This bill would allow the administration and joint chiefs 3 months to
plan a safe and orderly redeployment process, and then an additional 6
months to carry it out. It provides for the orderly transfer to Iraqi
authorities the military bases and facilities we have constructed and
occupied on their national territory, as General Petraeus himself has
always insisted would happen when we depart from Iraq.
The bill permits U.S. Armed Forces to remain deployed in Iraq in
order to protect U.S. embassy and diplomatic personnel. It also allows
limited special operations to pursue members of al Qaeda and other
global terrorist organizations, and it continues the training and
equipping of Iraqi security forces.
Mr. Speaker, this bill does not walk away from Iraq or the Iraqi
people. It specifically continues diplomatic, social, economic, and
reconstruction aid; and it allows the President to provide asylum or
other means of protection to those Iraqi citizens who might be
physically endangered by our leaving Iraq because of services they
provided to our military personnel.
Finally, this bill leaves all the decisions on the locations outside
of Iraq to which our troops will be redeployed wholly in the hands of
our military commanders. They may be deployed to neighboring countries
or transferred to Afghanistan. Many, I hope, would be sent home by
commanders, grateful that their service is now completed. And many of
our proud Guard and Reserve units would, I hope, return to their
stateside duties to protect our homeland.
Mr. Speaker, there is no nice, neat, easy way to leave Iraq. Every
Member in this Chamber understands that. But it is the right thing to
do. The American people have chosen us to act on this matter, and we
must act.
Redeployment of our troops will set a new dynamic into motion in Iraq
and the region. It will force the Iraqis, their neighbors, and the
international community to finally confront the tough issues of
reconciliation. Until we leave, no one has to make the hard choices
about how Iraqis are going to live together or die together.
Like all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I stand in awe
of our uniformed men and women, who have performed fearlessly and
tirelessly in Iraq. But we should no longer demand that their sweat,
blood, and lives be sacrificed on the altar of Iraqi sectarian
violence. They are needed elsewhere, in Afghanistan, in the region, and
here back home. Their duties, their global mission and purpose
continue, but Iraq must find its own way.
Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. For four long deadly years, this
administration and their allies in Congress have been flat wrong about
Iraq. The time has come for us to begin redeploying our troops from
Iraq in a safe and orderly manner.
Now, every one of us, whether we voted for or against the war, has a
responsibility for the men and women who have been put in harm's way.
It is easy to say stay the course; but I would remind my colleagues,
none of us will wake up tomorrow in the midst of a civil war in Iraq.
None of us will have to go on patrol in Fallujah or Baghdad. We owe our
troops better than rhetoric; we owe them honesty and action.
For me, this is a vote of conscience. For me, this is a way to
restore the good and decent name of the United States. For me, this is
a way to best serve our men and women in uniform, by bringing them home
to their families.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill and vote to end the war.
{time} 1600
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, if today's actions by the House
are any indication, it appears that the Out of Iraq Caucus within the
Democratic majority is now running the legislative agenda of the
Congress.
How else can one explain that the rule governing consideration of
debate of funding of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan provides only
two legislative options with regard to U.S. troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan?
The first, which we are now debating, is an immediate withdrawal of
troops from Iraq. The second, which we will debate shortly, rations
funding to our troops over a 60-day period. Both options are short-
sighted, and they are also dangerous.
My colleagues, where did this bill come from?
I gather it was hastily written and introduced last night in an
attempt to obtain votes for the Obey Iraq supplemental we will be
considering a little later.
Indeed, the consideration of this withdrawal legislation is nothing
more than an attempt by the Speaker and the majority leader to appease
members of the Out of Iraq Caucus so they will support the second
version offered by Chairman Obey.
Once again, the majority has brought legislation to the House floor
under a closed rule without an opportunity for amendment or meaningful
debate. Not only is this an abuse of the legislative process, it is an
overt violation of the longstanding traditions of the House. The
majority is making a mockery of the time-honored customs of this body.
That, in and of itself, is shameful. It is the People's House and the
people of our country who suffer when open debate is stifled in order
to preordain a legislative outcome.
Fortunately, this legislation, which embraces surrender and defeat,
will not pass today. Most Members of the House, both Republican and
Democrats, have grave reservations about the manner in which this
legislation undermines our troops and the authority of the President
and the commander in chief.
Members on both sides of the aisle have expressed concern about the
effects of an ill-conceived military withdrawal. And Members are
rightfully concerned about any legislation that places military
decisions in the hands of politicians rather than the military
commanders in the field.
The last thing our country or our troops need is to have 535 Members
of the House and Senators micromanaging the war in Iraq. Recent history
reminds us that the enemy we face in Iraq, Afghanistan and other
countries that harbor terrorists, will stop at nothing to attack the
United States and our allies. They view the consideration of this
measure and the Obey bill we will consider shortly, as a sign of
weakness.
Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are watching us closely,
hoping this lack of resolve will prevail. We must not let that happen.
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, 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 lives in the future.
It is absolutely essential that America, the last remaining
superpower on earth, continue to be a voice for peace and a beacon for
freedom in our shrinking world.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the McGovern/Out of Iraq
Caucus bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).
Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, I speak in support of this bill because it
would change our strategy in Iraq towards the successful outcome, while
ensuring that America will be more secure. It
[[Page H4798]]
does so by providing, most importantly, a date certain by which we will
not be in Iraq, approximately 9 months from its enactment, that serves
as the sole remaining leverage we have to change the structure of
incentives in that country and in the region toward stability.
Presently, the Iraqi ministries are personal fiefdoms where the
leaders pursue their personal ambitions while we provide them political
and military cover in what is now principally a civil war.
Political reconciliation. How? When their very top Shia and Kurdish
leaders recently told Senator Hagel and me that the re-Baathification
law is only appeasement to the Sunnis. But our U.S. leaders in Iraq say
it is critical to success and stabilization.
A date certain finally forces the Iraqis to make the difficult
political compromises they are presently avoiding; more importantly, it
changes the incentives and therefore the behavior of Iran and Syria
from being involved destructively in this war because we are bleeding
towards working for stability.
As our top political leader in Iraq said, Iran does not want a failed
state if we depart.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Kentucky will control the time of the gentleman from California.
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I hope the American public sees the irony in
the votes that we are going to take this afternoon and evening. Before
us now we are going to take a vote to pull out of Iraq immediately.
Then, right after that, we are going to take a vote to fund the troops
so they can stay a while.
So I guess the only difference between the House Democrats today and
Senator Kerry a year ago, where he voted for Iraq before he voted
against Iraq, is that our friends get to do it all in the same day.
Now, the other irony that I thought was interesting today is that we
had a visitor, the deputy prime minister of Iraq, that was coming here
with a message of what is really going on in Iraq. And he met with a
group of us this morning in HC-9, separated only by a thin wall to the
caucus that was occurring with our friends from the other side of the
aisle where they were plotting the strategy of how to get out of Iraq.
I think it shows one of the differences between the two parties where
we are meeting with the government officials on how to get them stood
up, how do we strengthen the government there so they can take over
their own operations without falling to the al Qaeda; at the same time,
our friends are plotting on the other side to pull out and abandon
them.
I think the day is just full of ironies, and I hope that the general
public gets to see those today.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and of
our troops. The tragedy in Iraq has gone on far too long. For 4 years,
this administration and its supporters have put forth arguments based
on misinformation and fear. I would urge my colleagues to remember this
during today's debate.
This administration and the Republican leadership in Congress have
presided over perhaps the biggest foreign policy and national security
blunder in our Nation's history. They have ignored, shouted down and
attempted to intimidate anyone who has dared to disagree.
And now, after 4 years, we see the thousands of brave Americans
killed or seriously injured, untold numbers of Iraqis dead and the
country in chaos.
Our troops have done everything, and I mean everything, that has been
asked of them. But they have been let down by the administration that
dishonors their tremendous service and sacrifice with its incompetence
and arrogance.
Let us, please, finally make a change in Iraq. Let us end the war and
bring our troops home.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and support our troops.
I rise in strong support of this bill and of our troops.
The tragedy in Iraq has gone on far too long.
This legislation would bring our involvement there to an end.
I have listened now for more than 4 years as the administration and
its supporters up here have come forward with one reason after another
for: why we have to invade, why we have to stay, and what will happen
if we ``fail.''
They've never made sense to me. Their arguments have been based
either on misinformation or fear.
The Bush administration has stumbled and bumbled, dissembled and
distorted on Iraq so much that no one--no one--believes a word it says.
Last night, NBC News quoted a Republican Congressman telling the
President that ``word about the war and its progress cannot come from
the White House or even you, Mr. President. There is no longer any
credibility.''
That is the reality.
So I would urge my colleagues, as they listen to this debate and hear
from the Republican leadership and White House why the McGovern bill or
the Supplemental Appropriations bill are so wrong, to remember this
history.
Mr. Speaker, this administration and the Republican leadership in
Congress have presided over perhaps the biggest foreign policy and
national security blunder in our Nation's history. They've ignored,
shouted down and attempted to intimidate anyone who has dared disagree.
After 4 years we are left with thousands of brave Americans killed or
seriously injured, an untold number of Iraqis dead, and the country in
chaos. Most tragically, the cost for all these mistakes has been borne
by the men and women who wear the uniform, and their families.
Our troops have done everything--everything--that has been asked of
them. But they have been let down by an administration that dishonors
their tremendous sacrifice with its incompetence and arrogance.
Let us please, finally, make a change in Iraq. Let us end the war and
bring our troops home.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to support our troops.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished ranking member on the Armed Services Subcommittee on
Appropriations, Mr. Young of Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me the time. I didn't intend to speak on this until I read the bill,
and I didn't have much chance to read the bill because it didn't go
through any committee, and it was only introduced last night.
But this bill is an illusion. It is not what it is proposed to be. It
is one of those situations where you giveth on one hand, and you take
away with the other hand.
I am looking specifically at subsection (e). After saying that we
have to remove our troops out of Iraq within so many days, subsection
(e) says, ``the Secretary of Defense may retain''--in other words, keep
troops in Iraq--``for the purpose of providing security for the
embassy, the U.S. embassy''; we do that now. And ``other United States
diplomatic missions in Iraq''; other diplomatic missions in Iraq; we do
that now. ``Protecting American citizens''; we do that now. ``Including
members of the Armed Services serving in roles consistent with
customary diplomatic positions''; we do that now.
Listen to this one: ``engaging in targeted special actions limited in
duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al Qaeda and
other terrorist organizations''. My goodness, that is what we are doing
now.
``Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces.'' That
is what we are doing now. ``And may retain in Iraq members of the Army
Corps of Engineers and Defense contractors engaged in reconstruction
projects in Iraq.'' We are doing that now.
Subsection (h) on page 4. ``Prohibition on the use of funds to
further deploy United States Armed Forces to Iraq.'' The funds may not
be obligated or expended to further deploy units or members of the
Armed Forces to Iraq, including through participation in any
multinational force, except as provided under subsection (e), which is
the subsection that I just referred to.
And then it goes to subsection (i), assistance to Iraqi security
forces. ``Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or
otherwise restrict the use of funds available to the Department of
Defense for the purpose of
[[Page H4799]]
providing financial assistance or equipment to the Iraqi Security
Forces or multinational forces providing security or training in
Iraq.'' We do that now.
You have to get out of Iraq, but you are allowed to stay to do all of
these things that we are already doing.
Vote yes if you want to. Vote no if you want to. That is not up to
me. But I just wanted to point out the fact that, if you think this
bill gets you out of Iraq, think again. Read subsection (e), because it
doesn't accomplish what we are told that it does.
So I say again, this is an illusion. It gives with one hand, but it
takes away with the other.
Mr. OBEY. In that case, I assume the administration is going to
support the bill.
I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Democrats in the House voted four times to end this
war in Iraq, yet the President and most of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle refuse to acknowledge the realities on the ground and
continue to ignore the pleas of the American people.
Sadly, the President is dealing with an Iraq that exists only in his
imagination. It is time for the President to understand that this House
will not endorse a blank check for an endless war. Our resolve remains
unwavering because we know the American people have our back.
Under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, we are united in our efforts
to bring an end to this war. Congressman McGovern's bill moves us
closer to achieving that goal.
The phones in my office are ringing off the hook with constituents,
as I am sure they are across the Capitol, asking me to vote, begging me
to vote for this bill to put an end to the war in Iraq.
Listen to the mothers of America on this Mother's Day weekend. They
are saying, support our children in uniform by bringing them home.
This bill does that. I urge strong support for it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
commend the gentleman from Massachusetts for offering this important
piece of legislation.
{time} 1615
I voted against the war in Iraq, but I have since voted to give our
troops the resources to succeed in their mission. They have done
exceptional work. But they are now being asked to take sides in a civil
war. This is not what we sent them to do, and it is time to bring our
troops home.
Let us be clear. Removing our troops from the midst of a civil war
does not mean we are abandoning Iraq. We will continue to train Iraqi
security forces, support political reconciliation and economic
reconstruction, and engage the international community to promote a
lasting peace. Most importantly, we will continue to hunt down al Qaeda
wherever they may hide. What we will not do is blindly follow the
President's failed strategy, which has damaged our military without
improving national security.
The situation on the ground has changed, and our plan should too. I
urge my colleagues to support this legislation to demand a new
direction and end the conflict in Iraq and bring our troops home.
I thank the gentleman for offering this important piece of
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this measure will allow us to begin redeploying our
combat forces in Iraq and pursuing a new strategy for success. I voted
against giving the President authority to go to war, but I have since
voted to give our troops the resources to succeed in their mission.
They have done exceptional work, but they are now being asked to take
sides in a civil war--resolving conflicts that stretch back for
centuries. That is not what we sent them to do, and it is time to bring
them home.
Let us be very clear about what this bill does, because there is a
lot of rhetoric clouding this debate. Removing our troops from the
middle of a civil war does NOT mean we're abandoning Iraq. We will
continue to train the Iraqi Security Forces. We will continue to
support political reconciliation and economic reconstruction. We will
continue to engage the international community to promote a lasting
peace. Most importantly, we will continue to hunt down al Qaeda
wherever in the world they may try to hide. What we will not do is
blindly follow the President's failed strategy--a strategy that has
damaged the readiness of our military without improving our national
security. The situation on the ground has changed, and our plan should
be adjusted accordingly. Sadly, the President has decided to trust his
own judgment over that of our military commanders, millions of Iraqis,
and, most importantly, the American people. I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation to demand a new direction that strengthens our
military and ends the conflict in Iraq.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Chairman Obey, first of all, for
his strong and determined effort and his diligent effort to end this
war. And, also, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) for offering this bill.
H.R. 2237 does reflect the goals of what we call the Lee amendment,
which was sponsored by Congresswomen Waters, Woolsey, Watson, and
Clarke. But let me tell you the goal of this bill, as the goal of the
Lee amendment really is an effort to fully fund the safe and timely
redeployment of our troops from Iraq. It is responsible. It is
practical. It does not cut the funding. But it designates what the
supplemental can be used for, and that is to fully fund a safe
withdrawal and redeployment and help the Iraqis stabilize their country
with a diplomatic, social, and reconstruction effort.
Members of Congress now can choose between standing with the
President or the American people who want an end to this occupation, or
the President, as I said, who wants an open-ended commitment to this
failed policy.
History will record that this war was a deadly mistake. History will
document the damage that it has already done to our security and the
security of the world, just as it already records the case for the war
as fraudulent, something that we all would have known had the House
approved my amendment in 2002 that would have allowed the United
Nations inspectors to finish their job.
One day history will record that this unnecessary occupation ended.
What remains to be seen is when it will end and at what cost in lives
and treasure and what cost to our security and the security of the
world.
For those Members who recognize that the President's policy is a
failure but are concerned about voting to end this failed policy and to
redeploy our troops, I have a question for you: At what point will you
be comfortable with that vote? When the death toll hits 5,000 or
10,000?
Please vote for this. Please vote to end this occupation and bring
our young men and women home. Please stop the deaths.
We have already paid close to half a trillion dollars pursuing this
failed policy.
Mr. Speaker, you cannot ``win'' an occupation, just as the United
States cannot ``win'' an Iraqi civil war.
We know that there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq.
Our generals have told us that. The fact is that, the presence of our
troops, who are seen as an occupying force, enflames the very
insurgency that they are asked to deal with.
In listening to this desperate rhetoric about ``surrender,'' and
about ``defeat'' I am confident that history will look upon such
remarks with the same ridicule that it reserves for the Vietnam war
supporters discredited ``domino theory'' or the President's ``mission
accomplished'' speech on the decks of the USS Abraham Lincoln, more
than 4 years ago.
Today, members of Congress will decide what side of history they will
be on. I urge them to stand with the American people and all those who
recognize that there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq,
and to vote for H.R. 2237, legislation to fully fund the safe and
timely withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that I have come
down to this well to demand that our troops come home and that we end
the occupation of Iraq. In fact, I have come to the floor over 200
times. And as the first Member of Congress to call on the
[[Page H4800]]
President to bring our troops home and the author of the first
amendment on the floor requiring the President to bring a plan to the
House on how he will end this debacle that he started, you can know
that I am very pleased that this vote is before us today. Finally,
after 4 years here we are.
Many of the provisions in the bill were included in H.R. 508, the
Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act, a bill that
I introduced with Representative Lee and Representative Waters. These
provisions will fully fund bringing the troops home, prohibit permanent
bases, give the Iraqi people sovereignty and a sense of hope for their
future.
My colleagues, I urge you to support H.R. 2237. The American people
are asking that we stand up for our troops, and we do that by fully
funding them to bring them home. Bring them home to their families.
Bring them home so that we can end this misguided occupation. By
passing H.R. 2237, we will bring our troops and our military
contractors out of Iraq safely.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am thinking about a teddy
bear that is in my office, and I think about it because I remember
going to a funeral when a mother placed a teddy bear and a red fire
truck in the coffin of her young fallen hero, a member of the United
States military that lost his life in Iraq.
No, it is not the Iraq Caucus that is running this very poor and
devastating agenda of this White House. Rather, I would like to say
that I am proudly a member of the Iraq Caucus. And I thank Mr.
McGovern, the Speaker of the House, Mr. Obey, and Mr. Murtha for
understanding that our children are dying and that we must do something
that faces the fact that our troops have won the victory. So I hope
that we will debate H.R. 930 that says there has been a military
success but this is a devastatingly wrong political mission that we are
on.
The President has to listen. This is 90 days plus 180 days, 9 months
to redeploy. That's fair. We will fund our troops. That's fair. It is
time now to bring our troops home because we love our children and we
love America.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2237, the ``Iraq
Redeployment Act.'' I rise in strong support of this legislation
because I am listening, and responding to the will of the American
people. Last November, Americans went to polls by the millions united
in their resolve to vote for change. They voted for a new direction and
a change in the Bush administration's disastrous policy in Iraq. The
new Democratic majority heard them and responded by passing H.R. 1591,
the Iraq Accountability Act. The President vetoed the bill, demanding
instead a continuation of the ancient regime under which the
Republican-led Congress gave him a blank check to mismanage the
occupation and reconstruction of Iraq.
Those days are over. No matter how many veto threats the President
issues, this Congress is not going to give him a blank check to
escalate and continue the war ad infinitum. It is long past time for
change in Iraq. It is time for the people and government of Iraq to
take primary responsibility for their own country. It is time for the
President to recognize the reality on the ground in Iraq. The time when
a surge in troops is useful and necessary is past. It is now time to
redeploy our troops and launch a diplomatic surge for national and
political reconciliation in Iraq. H.R. 2237 will help achieve this goal
and that is why I support the measure.
Mr. Speaker, there is no more important issue facing the Congress,
the President, and the American people than the war in Iraq. It is a
subject upon which no one is indifferent, least of all members of
Congress. The Framers understood that while the military does the
fighting, a nation goes to war. That is why the Framers lodged the
power to declare war in the Congress, the branch of government closest
to the people. They knew that the decision to go to war was too
important to be left to the whim of a single person, no matter how wise
or well-informed he or she might be.
Four years ago, President Bush stood under a banner that proclaimed
``Mission Accomplished.'' If the mission was to further place our
troops in harm's way at the hands of insurgents and sectarian violence,
then it is mission accomplished. After spending more than $400 billion
dollars sacrificing the lives of 3,381 of America's finest citizen-
soldiers, what have we accomplished and where are we headed?
I cannot support the President's waging of a war that has no clear
direction, does not meet the benchmarks that the President set, and has
no visible target.
Four years after launching the invasion, conquest, and occupation of
Iraq, the evidence is clear and irrefutable: the preemptive invasion of
Iraq, while a spectacularly executed military operation, was a
strategic blunder without parallel in the history of American foreign
policy. This is what can happen when the Congress allows itself to be
stampeded into authorizing a president to launch a preemptive war of
choice.
It is time to change our strategy in Iraq. It is time to engage the
key stakeholders in the Middle East and make real strides towards
securing a just and lasting peace in Iraq and for the Iraqi people. And
most important, bring our troops home so they can be reunited with
their families, friends, and neighbors.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, in February of this year I introduced H.R.
930, the ``Military Success in Iraq and Diplomatic Surge for National
and Political Reconciliation in Iraq Act of 2007.'' Title I of my
legislation, the ``Military Success in Iraq Act of 2007'' (M-S-I-A) or
``Messiah,'' offers an honorable deliverance from Iraq. Let me explain.
In October 2002, the Congress authorized the President to use
military force against Iraq to achieve the following objectives:
1. To disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction that could
threaten the security of the United States and international peace in
the Persian Gulf region;
2. To change the Iraqi regime so that Saddam Hussein and his Baathist
party no longer posed a threat to the people of Iraq or its neighbors;
3. To bring to justice any members of al Qaeda known or found to be
in Iraq bearing responsibility for the attacks on the United States,
its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001;
4. To ensure that the regime of Saddam Hussein would not provide
weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists, including al
Qaeda; and
5. To enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
Every one of these objectives has long been accomplished. Iraq does
not possess weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein has been
deposed, captured, and dealt with by the Iraqi people. The American
military has caught or killed virtually every member of al Qaeda in
Iraq that was even remotely responsible for the 9/11 attack on our
country. Last, all relevant U.N. resolutions relating to Iraq have been
enforced. In other words, every objective for which the use of force in
Iraq was authorized by the 2002 resolution has been achieved.
Mr. Speaker, since the objectives which led Congress to pass the 2002
Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) have been achieved, I
believe the authorization to use that military force expires
automatically. My legislation affirms this proposition. Additionally, I
believe, and my legislation provides, that it is the Congress that is
the ultimate arbiter as to whether the objectives set forth in a
congressional AUMF have been achieved.
Mr. Speaker, where a Congressional authorization to use military
force has expired, the President must obtain a new authorization to
continue the use force. My legislation requires the President to do
that as well. Finally, my bill requires that if the Congress does not
vote to reauthorize the use of force in Iraq within 90 days after
determining that the objectives set forth in the 2002 AUMF have been
achieved, all American armed forces in Iraq must be redeployed out of
Iraq. Thus, under my legislation, an up-or-down vote must be held by
the House and Senate to continue waging war in Iraq.
I am not talking about ``cutting and running,'' or surrendering to
terrorists. And I certainly am not talking about staying in Iraq
forever or the foreseeable future. The Armed Forces won the war they
were sent to fight. Their civilian leadership has not succeeded in
winning the peace. That is why the United States should surge
diplomatically and politically.
Title II of H.R. 930, the ``Diplomatic Surge for Political and
National Reconciliation in Iraq Act,'' implements 12 of the most
important recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Significantly, it
creates a high-level Special Envoy for National and Political
Reconciliation in Iraq (SENPRI). This Special Envoy would consist of
individuals like former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Madeleine
Albright, or James Baker who would undertake the peaceful
reconciliation of the major stakeholders in a free and democratic Iraq,
particularly the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds.
All 6 of Iraq's neighbors--Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia,
and Kuwait--have an interest in a stabilized Iraq because
[[Page H4801]]
as the Iraq Study Group report makes clear, none of these countries
wants to live with an Iraq that, after our redeployment, becomes a
failed state or a humanitarian catastrophe that could become a haven
for terrorists or hemorrhages millions more refugees who will stream
into neighboring countries.
Mr. Speaker, every day when I walk into my office I am reminded of
the courageous young men and women who have given their lives in
service to our Nation. Outside my office I have displayed a poster-
board that displays the names and faces of those who made the ultimate
sacrifice. The poster-board is nearly full. I do not want to start
another board.
That is why I rise in strong support of H.R. 2237. This legislation
significantly reduces the U.S. military presence in Iraq over a 9 month
period. The legislation does not abandon the Iraqi people. On the
contrary, it recognizes the need to complete our mission by training
Iraqi military forces and providing Special Forces to continue to
pursue al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and destroy terrorist networks
working out of Iraq. The bill also provides the full array of non-
military assistance for Iraq's economic and political reconstruction.
This legislation recognizes and respects Iraqi sovereignty. This bill
also respects the decision-making judgment of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and U.S. military commanders in the field in determining where forces
leaving Iraq might next be deployed. Finally, this legislation provides
balance between the security priorities of the United States and Iraq
to complete key military missions, and the political imperative to
reduce the presence of U.S. military forces inside Iraq.
For all of these reasons, I strongly support H.R. 2237 and urge all
members to do likewise.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia, a member of the committee (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let's just say that the critics of the war, and I don't
mean the Members of the House, but the critics in the general public
who often say ``Bush lied'' and put up posters to that effect and they
bring in Halliburton and Blackwater and bumper stickers that say ``No
War for Oil,'' let's say all that is true, absolutely true, that
everything was a trick to get us there, and just say we can agree with
that, and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry never made the statements that
Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which, of course, they
did make those statements.
But if all that was the case, regardless, we are there and we are
there now.
I met with the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq today, and he said, in
fact, the surge is working. And maybe he has a view that might be
suspect by some. But I have also spent a lot of time this week looking
at a report of indexes in Iraq put out by the Brookings Institute,
which, as you know, is left of center. But they track the number of
civilian deaths, the number of IED attacks. They track the number of
newspapers and radios, economic and political progress. They track the
benchmarks, revenue sharing, oil sharing, and elections and so forth.
And in that there is a glimmer of hope that is important to know that
there is some progress that is being made.
But I think between the Brookings Institute and the Prime Minister's
report, there is a very bleak picture; but it is a picture nonetheless
that progress is being made.
If you pass this legislation today, you wouldn't just erode that
progress. You would sign a death sentence to people like this Prime
Minister and his family. Now, I agree that the Republican Party
probably lost the majority in the House because of the war as much as
anything else, but for us that is just politics. It is a political
death. For the people over there that we are helping, this is real
death. What would happen to this Deputy Prime Minister if we pulled
out, and what would happen to all the other Iraqis who have been there
trying to take a step forward as Sunnis, as Shiites, as Kurds, trying
to work together in a cooperative agreement? Do the proponents of this
bill believe that Iraq would suddenly say to them, Okay, you all can go
home; we are going to switch governments? If this passed, there would
be more chaos and a civil war that we have never seen before in the
Middle East, and it would spill over to other countries in the Middle
East.
One of the things the Prime Minister said that Americans have failed
to understand is there is a cultural shift going on in the Middle East
right now, and it is not unique to Iraq, and that is that al Qaeda is
becoming a mainstream group. Al Qaeda and an Islamic radical
fundamentalist movement with sights on the West is growing.
If we withdraw from Iraq, it is victory to them. A defeat means it is
not just going to stay in Iraq, but the momentum probably would go to
Israel next. It would probably encourage the Iranians to get nuclear.
Saudi Arabia would follow suit. They would need to have nuclear
weapons, and Jordan. The good, the bad, and the ugly in the Middle East
would happen.
The previous speaker said the troops did win the war. I agree. But we
have not finished the war. We should vote this down and give Petraeus
time, which is very much needed.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a course
correction in foreign policy. The bills before us today reflect the
will of the American people and the reality on the ground.
We have invested 4 years in a war that was predicated upon the
fantasy that Iraq would, Iraq could, become a bastion of democracy
without a massive investment of time, talent, and treasure. This
President had no plan to win the war he wanted to fight. He had no
strategy to finish the job he started.
We must bind the wounds of a Nation that has lost over 3,300 men and
women in a war precipitated by the arrogance of an administration that
made decisions based upon the world they wanted instead of the world
that is. We must extract ourselves from what has become a civil war in
Iraq. We must stand up to a President that is so insulated that members
of his own party cannot even persuade him to change course.
I have stood in this Chamber to mourn the passing of fallen heroes.
Sadly, but most assuredly, I will stand here again to mourn more.
But today I stand here asking you to explore your own conscience and
stand up for our country, our families, and our troops. Let us renew
our commitment to making the difficult choices we were sent here to
make, and let us begin today.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control
the balance of the time of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, I take this opportunity to thank
the leadership for honoring the work and the request of the
progressives of this House to place a bill before this body that we
could feel good about supporting.
Some of us have been against this war. We have come to the floor. We
have done interviews. We have worked the floor. We have done everything
that we possibly can to communicate what we believe are the feelings of
the American public about this war. The November vote indicated to us,
and should have to others, that Americans are sick and tired of this
war. They want to bring our soldiers home. They want to stop the loss
of lives. They want to stop the money that is being spent, over $400
billion on Iraq and Afghanistan; 3,200 or more lives that have been
lost; over 25,000 soldiers who have been seriously injured.
{time} 1630
Some of us are not willing to spend other another dime on this war.
And this bill that is before us, thanks to Barbara Lee and Mr. McGovern
and to Lynn Woolsey and I, we have this bill that represents the
thinking of the progressives of this House that simply says, we will
give no more money to continue fighting this war, but rather, any money
that is expended would simply be funds to help wind down this war and
to bring our soldiers out; no permanent bases left in Iraq; and
basically that no money would be spent on a surge. This surge that the
President has initiated is placing our soldiers at
[[Page H4802]]
great risk. As a matter of fact, there is no safety in the Green Zone.
As a matter of fact, we do not have friends in Iraq. The Sunnis are
against us. The Shias are against us. The Kurds are against us. And
those Iraqi soldiers that are embedded are undermining our soldiers. I
would ask for an ``aye'' vote on this very progressive piece of
legislation.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read excerpts from a letter about Iraq.
It reads as follows:
``I am deeply concerned about Iraq. The task you have given me is
becoming really impossible . . . incompetent Arab officials are
disturbing some of the provinces in failing to collect revenue. We have
overpaid almost half a million [dollars] on last year's account, which
it is almost certain Iraq will not be able to pay this year, thus
entailing a Supplementary Estimate in regard to a matter never
sanctioned by [the legislative body]; a further deficit, in spite of
large economies, is nearly certain this year on the civil expenses
owing to the drop in revenue. I have had to maintain . . . troops at
Mosul all through the year in consequence of the Angora quarrel: This
has upset the programme of reliefs and will certainly lead to further
expenditures . . . In my own heart, I do not see what we are getting
out of it.
``I think we should now put definitely . . . to the Constituent
Assembly the position that, unless they beg us to stay and stay on our
own terms in regard to efficient control, we shall actually evacuate
before the close of the financial year. I would put this issue in the
most brutal way, and if they are not prepared to urge us to stay and to
cooperate in every manner, I would actually clear out.
``Surveying all the above, I think I must ask you for definite
guidance at this stage as to what you wish and what you are prepared to
do. The victories of the [opposition] will increase our difficulties
throughout the [region]. At present, we are paying . . . millions a
year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano out of which
we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having.''
That is a letter written by Winston Churchill in 1922 to David Lloyd
George. I would suggest not very much has changed since then.
I do not know if the timetable in this bill is exactly the correct
timetable or not. What I do know is that I intend to vote for every
responsible action that I can take that will increase pressure on this
administration and on the government of Iraq and the politicians of
Iraq so that they both finally understand there must be a change in
policy; there must be a recognition that our troops do not have the
capacity to produce the political compromises that are necessary to end
this carnage. That power is only in the hands of American politicians
and Iraqi politicians. It is about time we get about the business of
using it and insisting that the Iraqis use it.
I would urge support for this proposition.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I ask unanimous consent to control the
balance of the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for months Democratic leaders have tried to
dictate military strategy by press release with little regard for the
service men and women putting their lives on the line every day.
Perhaps my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not realize
that the privileges of the majority come with an actual responsibility
to govern. Let me say to them, the time for tantrums is over. At long
last, we are presented with an opportunity to vote yes or no on
abandoning our mission in Iraq. But let's not mistake this newfound
direction for some kind of profile in courage.
After months of factual disarray, the Democratic Party has not
suddenly found its spine; it has simply realized that the liberal
agents who drive this majority, MoveOn.org, the labor unions, they have
run out of patience. And it is them that demand a vote on abandoning
our mission and abandoning it ASAP. Sadly, the Democrats have little
concern for the demands of our military or for its waning patience for
the funding that they so desperately need.
More than 3 months, Mr. Speaker, have passed since the President
requested emergency funding for our troops. Over the past 94 days, the
Democrats have succeeded only in putting politics over policy and
trying to substitute their judgment for that of the combatant
commanders. For the past 94 days, they have chosen to beat their chest
at press conferences, and yes, on this floor, rather than finding ways
to actually get our troops the funding that they need to achieve
victory.
But, astoundingly, over the past 94 days, Democrats have never once
grasped the consequences of resigning ourselves to defeat in Iraq. The
void created by our departure would be filled by religious extremists
and terrorists. Iran's path to develop nuclear weapons would be
cleared. Violence in Iraq would grow exponentially. Shiite death squads
and al Qaeda terrorists would further destabilize the democratically
elected government. Another rogue regime could take root, leading to
genocide. The terrorists, freshly emboldened by our surrender, would
then be able to export terrorism around the world.
Today, each of us has a critical decision to make: Do we stand by the
side of victory or on the side of defeat? Do we stand with our troops
or with those who would want to abandon them? Do we rise to the
challenge of fostering freedom, or do we capitulate to the political
pressure of special interests? The choice, Mr. Speaker, is ours. For
the sake of our soldiers and our Nation. I implore my colleagues to
choose wisely.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this is one of those debates that you just have to take
a deep breath and say, is this our finest hour or one of our worst, or
somewhere in between? With this new Democratic majority, I thought
there would be a reaching out to both sides of the aisle. I thought, on
something so important, they would say, we went into Iraq on a
bipartisan basis, two-thirds of the House, including Mr. Murtha and
others, and three-quarters of the Senate voted to go into Iraq.
We did not find weapons of mass destruction. And this administration
made some terrible mistakes early on in disbanding the army, the police
and the border patrol and allowing the looting. I understand the
tremendous discontent. And this war has not turned out the way many had
hoped. And certainly when we look back we can say a lot of it was
predictable. But we attacked them; they did not attack us. I want to
say it again: We attacked them; they did not attack us. We abolished
their entire security force. I think of New York State. New York State
had 19 million people. Imagine if a hundred thousand prisoners had been
let out from Rikers Island and Attica, and then we said, no police in
New York City, no police in Albany, no police in Syracuse, no police in
Buffalo, no police in any of the towns in between. But do not worry, we
are going to have 150,000 Arabic speakers spread out across all of New
York, and they will keep the peace. Well, we did that to Iraq, but it
is much larger than New York, and it has 26 million people instead of
19 million. So a lot of what has happened is predictable.
But now, when you talk with the Iraqis and you talk with the
neighbors of Iraq, they say, we did not want you to go in, but we sure
as heck do not want you to leave until you leave this a better place.
We could, on a bipartisan basis, work this out. And there will be a
point where bills like this will not be considered because we will come
up with a bill that says, well, there are some of you on this side of
the aisle that do believe in timelines, but timelines that actually
work, not timelines that guarantee defeat of any chance of success.
We expect that maybe you would say to us, well, we call you an
occupying Nation, that is what you say we are.
[[Page H4803]]
Well, fine. Then let's negotiate with the Iraqis like we negotiated
with the South Koreans. That is a possibility. Why aren't we
negotiating with them?
The Iraqis, if they want, could ask us to leave. They have their own
government. They have their own leadership. Why not have a plebiscite
in that Nation? Why not have the Iraqi Council of Representatives vote?
Why aren't we talking about those things? Why aren't we talking about
the Iraqi Study Group, which Republicans and Democrats have both agreed
have merits to it? We could potentially have a resolution that many of
us could support. Why aren't we having an approach on the other side of
the aisle that says, we need to find common ground and work it out
together? I believe this: I believe two-thirds of the Iraqis want us to
leave, and I believe two-thirds want us to stay. That is what the polls
say. They do not want us to leave until we leave it a better place.
I believe the Iraqis are a proud people, and they want to be treated
with dignity. What this resolution does is simply pull the rug out from
under our new Secretary of Defense, which all of you said you wanted,
pulls the rug out from General Petraeus, who received 100 percent
support in the Senate. Our general has said, give me a chance to show
that we can win back Baghdad. That is what he has asked.
What this resolution does is say that one part of the equation, the
military, disappears. And we all have agreed you cannot win it
militarily, but you cannot win it without the military. You cannot win
it just with a change in politics, but you cannot win it without it.
You cannot win it just with economics, but you cannot win it without
it. It takes all three. And it is almost like, in a way, you want us to
lose. It is almost like we are going to tie one hand behind our back
and then say there is a failure because we have not given them all
three parts.
I cannot tell you how objectionable I find this. I find it
objectionable that we would not allow the Iraqis to stand up on their
own. They need us to train their military, their police and their
border patrol. They need our troops embedded in there because they do
not have any sergeants and corporals. We are embedded in there to help
identify who among all those privates that we are training can be
leaders among those troops.
This is an unwise resolution. It is a partisan resolution. It is a
bad message for us to send the Iraqi people. They do not know what to
think about this Congress, but they do know this: We are more divided
than they are, and we do not even have bombs blowing up.
Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know why we should be surprised that we are
divided as a Nation when in fact we have an administration whose
governing principle has been to govern by dividing.
I would simply observe that there are some Members of this body
evidently and some members of the administration who are willing to
fight to the last drop of somebody else's blood. We are not, and that
is why we are here with this proposal today.
I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Murtha).
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, I would not have voted for this
resolution. Two years ago, I would not have voted for this resolution.
One year ago, I would have voted for this resolution. But after seeing
no progress in Iraq, none, zero, having misrepresentation coming from
even the Pentagon, I am beginning to believe it is time that we have to
send a very strong message to this administration.
{time} 1645
The total number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq is 3,382. Killed since
President Bush announced his surge is 366. We have lost more people in
the last 4 months than we lost in any other period of the war, and that
doesn't count the number that have been wounded, and all of us have
been out there and seen the ones that have been wounded.
The foreign minister of Saudi Arabia in The New York Times last week
said, ``We don't see anything happening in Iraq in implementation. Our
American friends say there is improvement; improvement in violence,
improvement in the level of understanding, improvement in disarming the
militia. We don't see it.''
Admiral Fallon, he is the new commander in Iraq, the central
commander. Admiral Fallon said last week in the Senate Armed Services
Committee, ``Prime Minister Maliki's progress thus far has been
disappointing. They are not moving, in my opinion, fast enough to
support what we are trying to do. The number one question in my mind is
the ability as well as the willingness to do this.''
Now, I said to the Iraqi National Security Adviser when he was here
visiting me, I said, Look. I said, Originally we need a diplomatic
effort, an international diplomatic effort. I urged him to change the
Constitution. I urged him to pass a bill to spread out the oil
revenues.
He said, Well, it's a slow procedure, and he started talking about
how we needed to stay, and he talked about the war, he didn't call it a
civil war, the insurgency and the al Qaeda.
I said, There is 2,000 al Qaeda. You don't think you can take care of
2,000 al Qaeda when you have in your country 26 million people? I said,
Let me tell you a story. My great-grandfather's Civil War hat sits on
that shelf there. And I took it out and I showed him that. We fought
our own civil war. And then I said, My ancestors fought in the
Revolutionary War. They were rag-tag. They didn't have shoes. They
fought in cold weather without cold-weather gear. They fought the
greatest army in the history at that time, the greatest navy in the
history at that time, the greatest empire in history at that time, and
we beat them. We beat them by ourselves, with a little help from the
French.
You have to do this yourself, I said to the National Security Adviser
for Iraq. You have to win this yourself. We can't do it for you. I
said, Your Parliament takes a 2-month vacation in the middle of a time
when it is crucial to the history.
The American people, three-fourths of them, are unhappy with what is
going on. The Congress more and more. Even some of our Republican
friends need to help us convince this President that we need to move in
the right direction, we need to change the direction of this war. I see
in a news release that the President is now, after all this time,
considering benchmarks. After all this time, the President of the
United States is saying I'll consider benchmarks. He finally is
starting to compromise. He has come off the pedestal and the President
is starting to begin to realize that something has to be done to change
the direction of this country.
All of us want to solve this. All of us want stability in the Middle
East. All of us want to do the right thing. But it is not working.
Electricity production, below pre-war level. Oil production, below pre-
war level. It has been that way for the last 4\1/2\ years. Incidents
are up. If you look at the way the incidents have gone, every month
they have gone up. They have gone down a little bit, but they have gone
up the whole time. And more Americans were killed in the last 4 months
than any other period during this war.
We need to change direction. We need to send a message. We need to go
to conference and have some kind of a conversation with the White House
so that they understand. I am glad to see some Republicans went to the
White House and spoke the truth to this President and said to him, Mr.
President, we need a change. You are destroying the Republican Party.
Well, that is one of those things where I won't go there.
But let me say this: we need to have a strong vote. We need to vote
for this resolution, and then we need to pass the other bill and get on
with our business.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4
minutes to the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, my
colleague, the gentleman from California, Duncan Hunter.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from California
for giving me some time.
You know, in Iraq it is tough, it is difficult, it is dusty and it is
dangerous; but we are following the same pattern that we followed for
the last 60 years in bringing freedom to other parts of the world. It
is not a smooth road.
First, you stand up a free government. We have done that. It is an
inept
[[Page H4804]]
government. It bumbles along, as most new governments do. But it is a
free government, and it represents the people.
The second thing that you do is stand up a military capable of
protecting that free government.
Thirdly, the Americans leave, because we don't covet anything that
another country has.
We are right now in the second phase of standing up a military
capable of protecting this government. My good friend who just spoke
talked about the difficulty of standing up the Iraqi military. I know a
couple of years ago in the first battle of Fallujah when we rushed
green Iraqi troops to that battle and we thought they were going to
help the United States Marines, the next day they were gone. They
didn't show up for roll call. But this time when you go out there and
you are in Fallujah and Ramadi, the Iraqi military is standing and
fighting.
We sat there about a month ago with the Sunni leaders of the national
police in Ramadi and Fallujah, and they sat there side-by-side with the
Shiite leaders of the Iraqi Army and talked about how they are working
together, this time to push back against al Qaeda, whose rough edge has
made enemies in the Anbar province.
Now, we got 129 battalions in the Iraqi Army, and, personally, I
think that the standup of the Iraqi Army and the reliability of the
Iraqi Army is the key to America's success in Iraq and our successful
turnover of the security burden.
We have got to make sure that every one of those 129 Iraqi battalions
moves into an operation where they do two or three months in a military
operation where they have to work out, exercise their logistic chain,
their chain of command, the commander has got to coordinate with the
guy on the right and the guy on the left. At that time they can rotate
into the battlefield and displace American heavy combat forces. That is
the right way to leave Iraq. Not this way.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for
yielding me the time, and I thank all of those who participated in this
debate today.
Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle apparently
believe in and want to continue the status quo. That is their right.
But I believe they are wrong. They have been wrong for 4 long, deadly
years. So it is time for new leadership, for a new direction, for a new
policy, a policy based on reality, not spin, not press release, not
intimidation.
My friends say that we can't leave Iraq until the Iraqis ask us to
leave. I saw a story that appeared on the Associated Press wire today
which states that a majority of Iraqi lawmakers endorsed a draft bill
calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops and
demanding a freeze on the number already in the country.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we just heard from the gentleman from California
that the Iraqi Government represents the Iraqi people, and apparently
the Iraqi Government is telling us they want us to have a time certain
when we leave.
Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Our friends on the other side of the
aisle argue that the best way to support the troops is to ask them to
participate in a failed policy. Well, I disagree.
The question before us is simple: Do you want to end this war? If you
do, then you will vote for the bill before us.
Mr. Speaker, let me end this debate the way I began it, by reminding
everyone in this Chamber, Republican and Democrat, reminding everybody,
whether you supported the war initially or whether you opposed the war,
that we all have a responsibility. We have a responsibility to those
men and women who we have put in harm's way, and that responsibility is
to act responsibly, to make sure that we are giving every consideration
before we put them in harm's way.
We are now entering the fifth year of this war. We have a President
who refuses to admit one error, one misjudgment. The fact of the matter
is, there are two ways to end this war: one, with the cooperation and
the help of the President, which we all want. The other way is for
Congress to do its job, to take its responsibility seriously and to do
what is necessary to bring this war to an end.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the underlying bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2237, the
legislation offered by Mr. McGovern that would provide for the
redeployment of United States Armed Forces and defense contractors from
Iraq.
H.R. 2237 would significantly reduce the U.S. military presence in
Iraq over a 9-month period. It requires that the Department of Defense
begin redeployment of armed forces and military contractors no later
than 90 days after the date of enactment, allowing the Department the
time necessary to plan, prepare and execute the process of drawing down
troops. The redeployment would be completed within 6 months, at which
point further funding for an increased presence in Iraq would be
prohibited.
H.R. 2237 respects the decision-making powers of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and U.S. military commanders in the field. It specifically leaves
decisions about where U.S. troops should be redeployed in the hands of
the Pentagon. Troops drawn down from Iraq may be redeployed to
neighboring countries, to Afghanistan, to other U.S. bases abroad, or
back to the United States in support of homeland security and other
national needs.
This legislation also recognizes and respects Iraqi sovereignty by
ensuring that the present conflict will not provide for the
establishment of permanent American military bases in Iraq. H.R. 2237
provides for the orderly transfer of bases and facilities constructed
or occupied by the U.S. military to Iraqi control. Nothing in this bill
precludes the United States from negotiating base rights or shared use
in the future, as is our practice with other sovereign nations.
H.R. 2237 provides strong support for the Iraqi people by continuing
assistance for social, political and diplomatic reconstruction.
Additionally, aid is permitted, at the request of the Iraqi government,
for assistance or equipment to the Iraqi Security Forces or
multinational forces providing security or training in Iraq. U.S.
military forces would be authorized to remain in Iraq to complete the
training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, pursue foreign
terrorist networks operating inside Iraq, and provide protection to
U.S. citizens and embassy and diplomatic personnel.
Recent news reports indicate that two days ago, a majority of Iraqi
parliamentarians signed a petition calling on the United States to
establish a timeline for our military to withdraw from their country.
Poll after poll indicates that a large majority of Iraqis believe the
large-scale presence of U.S. military forces inside Iraq is fueling,
rather than abating, both the Iraqi insurgency and an increasing
presence of foreign jihadists. Reducing our footprint in Iraq provides
that country, its neighbors, and the international community with a new
opportunity and a new environment in which to pursue reconciliation and
a political solution to the violence currently devastating Iraqi
society.
I applaud Speaker Pelosi for allowing this bill to come to the floor,
and join with members of the Out of Iraq and Progressive Caucuses in
supporting it.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Democratic
efforts to end the War in Iraq.
We are considering two bills today, both of which are significant
improvements over legislation passed by Rubber Stamp Republican
Congresses over the last four years. The Iraq Accountability Act
provides funding for the war, but only until July. After receiving a
report on the progress in Iraq--or lack thereof--Congress would then
decide whether or not to extend funding through September. Unlike the
legislation President Bush demanded, this bill holds him and his
administration accountable for concrete economic, political and
security benchmarks in Iraq.
Though I appreciate the attempt to keep President Bush on a ``short
leash,'' I cannot vote to continue funding a tragic war that has
already taken the lives of thousands of American troops and tens of
thousands of Iraqis. Every time I hear the President lie to the
American people about the situation in Iraq and about the patriotism of
those who dare criticize his many foreign policy failings, I can't help
but think he needs a muzzle, not a leash.
It's past time for us to get out of this mess and for our troops to
come home from Iraq.
That's why I'm excited to join my colleagues in supporting the Iraq
Redeployment Act. This bill requires the withdrawal of American troops
to begin in the next three months and be completed in the next nine. It
also prohibits funding for the ``surge'' and permanent United
[[Page H4805]]
States military bases in Iraq. My constituents have been calling for
withdrawal for years and I'm proud for vote for it on the House floor
today.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, like H.R. 2237, this bill has
serious flaws. However, while I could not vote for H.R. 2237, which
would have required rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq, I will vote
for this emergency supplemental appropriations bill.
I could not support H.R. 2237 for two reasons:
First, I do not support the idea of rigidly insisting on a date
certain for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq. I remain
convinced that we should steer clear of arbitrary public deadlines for
military actions and focus instead on realistic diplomatic and
political goals.
Second, I am very troubled by the provision that would prohibit
funding for troops described as being part of the ``surge.''
My concerns do not reflect support for the administration's strategy.
On the contrary, I still think an open-ended escalation--and that is
the reality behind the Administration talk about a ``surge''--is no
substitute for what is really needed, which is a strategy for
containing civil war and a wider regional war.
That is why in January, I voted against President Bush's plan to
increase the number of troops deployed in Iraq--a course he took
against the best advice of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, military
leaders, and other policy experts who have warned against extending our
military commitment in Iraq.
But now nearly 14,000 additional troops have been deployed, and I
think it would be irresponsible to vote to cut funding for their
weapons and equipment and for all they need to keep them alive and
fighting for our country in the midst of Iraq's civil war.
In short, while I remain convinced that it was a strategic mistake to
go to war in Iraq in the way that the Bush administration did, the fact
is that we are still deeply engaged there--and while our troops are in
the field, we must provide them what they need.
On the other hand, I will vote for H.R. 2206, the revised
Supplemental Appropriations bill, primarily for the same reason that I
voted for the previous supplemental appropriations bill.
I believe we must vote to provide America's men and women in uniform
with the equipment and resources they need and with the best health
care they may require when they come home. I think it would be grossly
irresponsible not to provide these resources.
And we must hold the president accountable to the benchmarks set by
his own administration and the Iraqi government--including enactment of
a hydro-carbon law; conducting of provincial and local elections;
reform of current laws governing the de-Baathification process;
amendment of the Constitution of Iraq; and allocation of Iraqi revenues
for reconstruction projects.
The bill seeks to hold the president accountable by ``fencing'' half
the funds until the Secretary of Defense reports on meeting the
benchmarks and Congress votes again to release the remaining funds.
I am not convinced that is a workable approach. But, I do not think
its effectiveness will be tested, because I do not think it will become
law in its present form--partly because the president has said he will
veto it if it should reach his desk and partly because every indication
is that the Senate will take a different approach.
Under these circumstances, I think the most important thing is for
the House to pass a supplemental appropriations bill today and then to
proceed to a conference with the Senate without further delay. I hope
that the result will be a bill that will both provide essential funding
for our troops and also hold the president accountable--but for that
hope to be realized, it is necessary for the House to act today, and so
I will vote for the supplemental appropriations bill now before us.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 2237 with certain
reservations. Very few bills that pass this House are written exactly
as each of us would like. My own plan for the redeployment of U.S.
forces would not take this exact form. However, the general thrust of
this plan is in the right direction. It establishes a timetable to
extricate U.S. forces from a bloody, sectarian civil war while
providing the flexibility to carry out other missions both inside and
outside Iraq for the purpose of going after al Qaeda and other
terrorist organizations with global reach. It also provides for U.S.
forces to train and equip the Iraqi Security Forces, and to protect the
U.S. Embassy and diplomatic missions.
Mr. Speaker, I preferred the approach taken by the House in the
Supplemental Appropriations bill we recently passed. Unfortunately, the
President vetoed that measure. He wants the funds without any
accountability. We cannot give the President a blank check. While I do
not agree with every provision in this bill, it sends the right
message--it is time to end the President's failed policies in Iraq and
change direction.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 387, the bill is considered read and the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Saxton
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. SAXTON. In its present form I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Saxton moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2237 to the
Committee on Armed Services with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AND
DEFENSE CONTRACTORS FROM IRAQ.
(a) Factors Applicable to Any Redeployment Decision.--A
determination to withdraw or redeploy units and members of
the Armed Forces deployed in Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi
Freedom and contractors operating in Iraq and funded using
amounts appropriated to the Department of Defense shall be
based, among any other relevant factors, on the following
factors:
(1) The protection of members of the Armed Forces deployed
in Iraq.
(2) The protection of members of the Army Corps of
Engineers and defense contractors engaged in reconstruction
projects in Iraq.
(3) The protection of American citizens in Iraq and the
security of the United States Embassy and other United States
diplomatic missions in Iraq.
(4) The ability to engage in actions to kill or capture
members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with
global reach.
(5) The training and equipping of members of the Iraqi
Security Forces to achieve stability and security in Iraq.
(6) The regional security of the Middle East, including the
security of the State of Israel.
(7) The national security of the United States.
(b) Report to Congress.--The Secretary of Defense, the
Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, and the combatant
commander of the United States Central Command shall report
to Congress periodically, but not later than September 30,
2007, and periodically thereafter, on the factors specified
in subsection (a).
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Armed Forces''
has the meaning given the term in section 101(a)(4) of title
10, United States Code.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my colleagues to resist the
urge to begin a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq within 90 days as
this bill requires. Doing so would have a devastating impact on our
ability to fight terrorism here and abroad and would have severe
security impacts, not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East and
the entire region. My motion to recommit will ensure that when we
withdraw from Iraq, we do so based on the conditions on the ground by
requiring we take into account our national security assessments and
the regional security implications, as outlined by the National
Intelligence Estimate for Iraq.
We are not in the position to determine when U.S. forces should
redeploy from Iraq. Only the commanders on the ground have that
information. Only our commanders and diplomatic representatives on the
ground can determine effectively when conditions are in place to
warrant a troop withdrawal. It would be irresponsible for us to assign
such an arbitrary timeline and impose it upon our leadership in
theater.
We have to consider the conditions that we would leave the Iraqi
Government to deal with going forward if we were to precipitously
withdraw our personnel.
In my view, there are two significant threats that would remain
behind, and the Iraqi Government would not be prepared to effectively
counter either one. The al Qaeda threat in Iraq is significant. Al
Qaeda's deputy commented a few days ago that the establishment of an
Islamic state of Iraq is an important milestone on the way to reviving
the Islamic caliphate. He noted that the defeat of American forces in
Iraq is a key to this objective.
Securing control over Iraq is the strategic objective for al Qaeda
that
[[Page H4806]]
will enable it to conduct operations against their targets in the
Middle East, particularly against Israel, in addition to Europe and
other U.S. global interests. Al Qaeda is particularly interested in the
Persian Gulf oil fields, and Iraq would serve as a valuable staging
area for such attacks.
{time} 1700
Right now the Iraqi forces, security forces working in partnership
with U.S. forces, are building momentum to erode al Qaeda's influence
over Sunni insurgent groups in Iraq. A premature withdrawal would
derail those efforts.
Al Qaeda in Iraq has been conducting indiscriminate attacks on Iraqi
civilians. Sunni Arabs reject this tactic, and there is a growing
backlash among the population. Sunni communities have encouraged
thousands to join the local police forces and improve security. This is
real progress.
A few days ago, al Qaeda's deputy warned Iraqi citizens that have
supported the U.S. to consider what will happen to them after the
Americans leave. If we abandon them now, we will be hard-pressed to
gain their trust any time again in the future.
Iran also has an interest in seeing us fail and leave Iraq early. We
know that Iran has been arming militia groups within Iraq. We know that
Iran has infiltrated various levels of Iraqi government and its
security forces.
If we redeployed from Iraq before the Maliki government has the
capability to contain this threat, we would leave Iraq vulnerable to
becoming an Iranian surrogate.
The porous Iraqi-Syrian border would provide Iran with contiguous,
unfettered access to the coast of Lebanon. Through its support of Hamas
and Hezbollah, Iran would then become even more a danger to the
prospect of security and stability in the Middle East.
It would be irresponsible for us to even consider withdrawing from
Iraq before the Maliki government has the capacity to deter these two
threats. We must be conscious of the dangerous message we are sending
with an early withdrawal.
First, we would lose the trust and will of the Iraqi people and the
democratically elected government we worked so hard to create. The
extremists associated with al Qaeda will hear a message that will tell
them that Americans acknowledged defeat, and do not have the stomach
for this war or any other war with al Qaeda. Our defeat would only
inspire like-minded jihadists to take up their cause.
One need only look as far as yesterday to see the headlines of what
could happen here in this country. A couple of days ago, we were
reminded how close to home the terror threat is. The Fort Dix, New
Jersey, individuals are just one example.
I ask everyone on both sides of the aisle to support this motion to
recommit.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this recommittal motion is something that we
have seen for approximately 5 minutes. I think it is a dubious
proposition to be voting on something this serious with less than 10
minutes of consideration.
But upon a cursory reading of it, it is apparent that the purpose of
this proposition is simply to prevent people from voting on the
underlying bill. It is designed to gut the bill by adding two
additional conditions that would enable our troops to stay in Iraq
indefinitely. Those conditions make reference to the regional security
of the Middle East and the national security interest of the United
States. That language is so broad that virtually any deployment of any
armed force could be justified under that language.
It is obvious that would in fact essentially gut the proposal, and so
I would urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would simply
say that obviously this is yet another cynical attempt to try to avoid
dealing with the issue that I think both Democrats and Republicans want
to deal with, and that is whether or not we should have a timetable for
withdrawal and redeployment from Iraq.
This is a procedural motion that, as the gentleman from Wisconsin
pointed out, is so broad, this could justify keeping us in Iraq forever
and ever and ever. And for the ``regional security of the Middle
East,'' what does that mean? This is an open-ended invitation for our
military involvement and for our permanent occupation of Iraq forever.
This in and of itself is not particularly well thought out.
I understand what you are trying to do, and that is to avoid giving
people the opportunity to vote on this. But essentially what you are
doing is gutting this legislation.
I would strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion. We
are on our fifth year, our fifth year of this war, no accountability
and no admission that perhaps we need to take a different course; and
the best you can do is come before us with this motion that would,
again, if passed, would allow us to stay and occupy Iraq indefinitely.
I think this is a bad idea. I think it is a cynical idea. I think the
people on the other side should have the guts to vote ``no'' on the
timetable if you don't want to withdraw our troops. If you want a
never-ending war, then have the guts to vote for it, but this is not
the way to do it. I urge rejection of this motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair may reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage of
the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 210,
nays 218, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 329]
YEAS--210
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
Cardoza
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
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
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
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
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
[[Page H4807]]
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--218
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)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
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
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
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
NOT VOTING--5
Brady (PA)
Engel
Fattah
McMorris Rodgers
Souder
{time} 1731
Messrs. BISHOP of Georgia, FILNER, PALLONE, LARSON of Connecticut,
MITCHELL, McNERNEY and WATT changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. LaHOOD, SHADEGG, FERGUSON, KIRK and GOODE changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171,
noes 255, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 330]
AYES--171
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson
Castor
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Ellison
Emanuel
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--255
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Capito
Cardoza
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNerney
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Ortiz
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--7
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Cantor
Engel
Fattah
McMorris Rodgers
Souder
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in the vote.
{time} 1739
So the bill was not passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, due to unforeseen
circumstances I failed to vote on rollcall No. 330, which provided for
the redeployment of United States Armed Forces and defense contractors
from Iraq.
[[Page H4808]]
Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________