Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 111 (Thursday, July 12, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 111 (Thursday, July 12, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H7663-H7674]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1030
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2956, RESPONSIBLE REDEPLOYMENT FROM
IRAQ ACT

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 533 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 533

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
2956) to require the Secretary of Defense to commence the
reduction of the number of United States Armed Forces in Iraq
to a limited presence by April 1, 2008, and for other
purposes. All points of order against the bill and against
its consideration are waived except those arising under
clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the bill to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) four hours of debate, with three hours equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Armed Services and one hour equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Foreign Affairs; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 2956 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 533 provides for consideration of H.R. 2956, the
Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act, under a closed rule. The rule
provides 4 hours of debate, with 3 hours equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed
Services and 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the Committee on
Foreign Affairs. The rule waives all points of order against the bill
and its consideration except those arising under clause 9 or 10 under
rule XX. The rule provides for one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, let's be very clear about what we will be told today by
the President. We will be told that adequate progress has been made in
some areas of Iraq but more work needs to be done in others. What this
really means, of course, is that once again security and political
benchmarks have not been met, that vast areas in Baghdad that were
supposed to be under control by now are not, that a drop in violence in
some areas has been met with increases in violence elsewhere, that
political compromises are not being made with sufficient speed by the
Iraqi leadership, nor is there any available evidence that the
situation is going to change, that the escalation will suddenly become
more effective next week or next month. Instead, all signs indicate
that in September when General Petraeus reports to Congress, he will
deliver the exact same message that we are hearing today: to be
patient.
But patience means nothing when deadlines are constantly moved. In
January a leading Member of the minority said that we would be able to
tell in a few months if the escalation was working. Now we hear it is
still too early to tell. It has been 7 months. Which prediction are we
supposed to believe?
As time has advanced, an absence in progress has not been met by an
absence in tragedy. At the present rates, between now and September,
another 200 Americans will be killed, 200 more families changed
forever. And hundreds, if not thousands, more innocent Iraqis will have
died as well.
We will hear today that to change our course in Iraq will signal
defeat. But this willfully ignores the entire history of the Iraq War.
After more than 4 years of relentless conflict, including recent months
of historically high troop numbers, experts tell us that in Iraq al
Qaeda is stronger than ever. A military official told ABC News
yesterday al Qaeda's ``operational capability appears to be
undiminished.''
The conclusion is clear: The American military is not being given a
chance to bring peace to Iraq or to fight our enemies, not because our
troops are not good enough but because the current mission is
inherently flawed.
It is not weakness to admit a strategy is not working and to change
it. It is the very opposite: a sign of strength. Our leaders corrected
failing courses when they arose during the Civil War and during World
War II. Why should this war be different?
What Democrats are calling for today is not a retreat. It is not a
surrender. It is a statement that Congress will not wait for another
ambiguous so-called progress report and will not give the
administration another chance to move the goalposts. Instead, we will
refuse to needlessly sacrifice our soldiers, weaken our military,
undermine our national security, and bleed our country in ways that
even the worst terrorists could ever dream of. And it is a statement to
the Iraqi people that they will no longer have to live as dual victims:
victims of violence and victims of a flawed military strategy that is
at best failing to bring peace to the country and at worst perpetuating
their suffering.
The bill will refocus our troops on fighting terrorists. By doing so,
the disastrous strain being placed on our Armed Forces will be lifted
without sacrificing security objectives, and their healing can begin.
Second, it will remove a strategy from the playing field that is
certainly not working and throw open the door to new approaches which
may actually succeed. For example, the legislation requires the
President to report by January on how he is engaging U.S. allies and
regional powers in the effort to bring stability to Iraq. Far from
abandoning the Iraqis or lessening American security, we will finally
make the rehabilitation of Iraq the international priority that it must
become. The only thing we will be abandoning, in other words, Mr.
Speaker, is this administration's mistakes.
And to my friends on both sides of the aisle, yesterday I received an
advance copy of a report from the Defense Department's Inspector
General that will be made public today. It detailed the work of some of
the first companies to make armored vehicles and armored kits for our
soldiers in Iraq. They were given sole-source, unbid contracts even
though senior defense officials objected, favoring a competitive
process instead.
I hope people heard what I said. Senior officials at DOD wanted
competitive bidding for these machines, but they were overridden by the
Under Secretary of Defense.
The results were sadly predictable. The companies failed to meet
demand and sent critically important equipment late. Some of the armor
that our soldiers were sent had cracks that had simply been painted
over to try to fool them instead of fixing it. In certain instances two
left doors were sent for the same vehicle. Troops already fighting a
deadly foe had to use their precious time and energy to improvise and
come up with ways to turn useless equipment into something that could
protect them.
Our soldiers have been asked to endure terrible hardships, as well
have their families, some of which, I am ashamed to say, have been the
direct result of the practices of this administration, and they are
enduring them to this day and at this very hour. For Congress to leave
them there, to ask them to continue fighting to survive under the
mounting weight of a flawed mission--that, Mr. Speaker, is the true
definition of abandonment. And after 4 years, Democrats are tired of
this Congress abandoning our troops to a fate they have never deserved.
I would ask everyone in this Chamber how they would justify this
continued carnage to the families of our soldiers. With all we know
now, how can we still say to the children of those killed or to the
young men and women maimed for life, your loss was needed?

[[Page H7664]]

We cannot. What we must say to them is this: You have given enough.
It is time to come home.
The American people know what must be done and the majority of this
Congress knows what must be done. And all that remains is for those of
us here who are still opposed to this bill to decide that they too have
had enough and that they will join their countrymen in voting not with
the President but with the troops, with the people of Iraq, and with
the people of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. It has actually been
several weeks now since we have had a meaningless vote on the issue of
Iraq, and so I suppose we are overdue for another one. This Democratic
leadership, Mr. Speaker, as we all know very well, still bereft of any
real ideas, has been forced once again to resort to demagoguery,
bringing up a bill that they know, they know full well, will not be
enacted into law. And knowing that their proposal cannot withstand any
critical scrutiny, they have once again shut down the process and
brought this to us under a completely closed rule, not allowing any of
the very thoughtful proposed alternatives to be considered whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment
that would have allowed us to have the opportunity to substitute their
policy with the very thoughtful and responsible recommendations that
were included in this bipartisan Iraq Study Group package of
recommendations proposed by Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton, a group of
Democrats and Republicans, very respected, authorized by this Congress.
And they refused to allow us to have any opportunity whatsoever to even
debate, much less vote, on the issue of the Iraq Study Group
recommendations.
Now, just yesterday morning in an interview on National Public Radio,
our former colleague Mr. Hamilton, who, as I said, was the co-Chairman
of the Iraq Study Group, had a very eloquent and thoughtful interview
on the need for us to implement the Iraq Study Group recommendations.
Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership, I guess fearful that
responsible policy would prevail and that this institution might, in
fact, pass the measure calling for implementation of the Iraq Study
Group, prevented us from having the chance to debate or vote on the
Iraq Study Group recommendations.
The last time we went through this charade, they at least had the
luxury of making dire predictions of failure for the new strategy in
Iraq led by General Petraeus, and the distinguished Chair of the
Committee on Rules once again basically talked about failure and said
that we haven't met any benchmarks. Even then, Mr. Speaker, the
strategy was actually showing early signs of success. But this time,
this time, the counterinsurgency offensive is well under way and making
clear and irrefutable progress.
I will say once again, Mr. Speaker, that we are seeing clear and
irrefutable progress taking place. As one major newspaper recently
editorialized, ``Demands for withdrawal are no longer demands to pull
out of a deteriorating situation with little hope. They are now demands
to end a new approach to this conflict that shows every sign of
succeeding.''
Mr. Speaker, U.S. forces, working side by side with Iraqi Army and
police forces, have penetrated enemy strongholds in the belt
surrounding Baghdad and are driving them out. They have cut off al
Qaeda's supply lines and transport routes. They are destroying car bomb
factories. Sectarian deaths have plummeted. Al Qaeda operatives are
finding themselves increasingly isolated, their safe havens destroyed,
and their ability to move freely between neighborhoods severely
diminished.
Mr. Speaker, our efforts have been significantly bolstered by former
Sunni insurgents who have joined the fight against al Qaeda. I am going
to say that again. Former Sunni insurgents have now joined our effort
in the fight against al Qaeda. Nowhere has this process been more
critical than in the al-Anbar province.

{time} 1045

Last year, a leaked Marine intelligence report conceded this province
as completely lost. That was the report that came out. Today, Mr.
Speaker, al-Anbar is our best success story, and a template for U.S.
Forces working together with both Sunni police and Shia army forces to
combat al Qaeda.
General David Petraeus, the man who has received bipartisan praise
and was confirmed unanimously by a vote of 82-0 in the United States
Senate as he began his work, he said to the New York Post, ``We are
beginning to see a revolt of the middle against both extremes.''
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is our commanders on the ground who have
repeatedly pointed out that the tipping point didn't come until the
tribal leaders sought a prolonged offensive by U.S. and Iraqi forces.
Now, let's think back to what life was like in Iraq under Saddam
Hussein. After a quarter-century reign of terror by Saddam Hussein,
Iraqis clearly would not immediately rise up against any force until
that force has been driven into retreat. We had to demonstrate our
strength and our commitment before we earned the trust of the tribal
leaders and their support in the fight against al Qaeda. That is
exactly what we're doing today in Baghdad and the surrounding areas.
The New York Times recently reported on the Anbar success and how we
are currently applying it to the fight to secure Baghdad. According to
a July 8 report, former insurgents in Sunni neighborhoods of Baghdad
are now taking up arms against al Qaeda. Now, that is July 8th, a
report that came out just 4 days ago. Now, it quotes Petraeus as
saying, ``Local security is helped incalculably by local support and
local involvement.''
Now, Mr. Speaker, this success is so critical because it gets to the
heart, it gets to the very heart of our twin goals in Iraq. First, that
Iraqis will be able to provide their own security, that we have an
increased ISF, the Iraqi Security Forces, and that they are trained
adequately; and second, that this security will provide the environment
that makes a political solution possible.
The quicker that Iraqis achieve security and a peaceful, stable
democracy, the quicker our troops will come home. And as we listen to
the speeches that will come following mine about the quest for our
troops to come home, make no bones about it, I share the goal and the
vision that is put forth by our friends, Mr. McGovern and Ms.
Slaughter, and others, who will argue to bring our troops home. We all
want to make sure that that happens.
Our new strategy, Mr. Speaker, has clearly brought us closer to that
goal. And if our fight against extremism was not urgent enough, the
Associated Press report that came out just late yesterday afternoon
that al Qaeda's global network is again on the rise and has regained
much of the strength that it had in September of 2001 is an important
thing for us to recognize.
Mr. Speaker, as the terror network rebuilds and regroups, it seems
absolutely preposterous that we would abandon not only a key front in
the global war on terror, but a place where we have al Qaeda on the
defensive and where we are diminishing their capabilities, especially
in light of that report that came out just last night about their
renewed strength. Yet, the Democratic leadership inexplicably wants to
pull the rug out from under our military commanders. Well, Mr. Speaker,
perhaps not so inexplicable if we consider that their planned
withdrawal would be complete just in time for the 2008 elections.
But let's pretend that there is no election looming on the horizon
here. Regardless of this bill's impact on American electoral politics,
what would be the effects on Iraq? Now, Mr. Speaker, even the New York
Times editorial board, which apparently doesn't often read its own news
reports and is calling for an immediate withdrawal, acknowledges the
inevitable dire consequences of its recommended course of action. In
the very editorial calling for surrender, it outlines the overwhelming
refugee and humanitarian crisis that would immediately ensue, how the
fight would spill out all across the region. And Mr. Speaker, in the
most callous way, it acknowledges the terror that would be inflicted
upon

[[Page H7665]]

those Iraqis who worked with us because they believed our promises. How
cold and cynical. How callous can we be to stand here and debate the
notion of abandoning the Iraqi people, not only to genocide, but to the
targeting of the very individuals who have bravely worked with us.
The Democratic leadership wants to wave a magic wand and make this
war go away. I wouldn't mind a magic wand myself, and certainly the
American people would appreciate a quick and tidy solution. But I'm
afraid that this solution attempts to salvage nothing but party
politics. The Iraqi people, Mr. Speaker, would not be quite so lucky.
Furthermore, NPR recently reported that the quick withdrawal time
frame that the Democratic leadership dreamed up has no basis in
reality. It would take a year or more to safely withdraw all U.S.
troops from Iraq, and it would take significant combat forces to
protect the withdrawal. We would have to fight our way out all the way
to the Kuwaiti border. There simply is no magic wand in this war, Mr.
Speaker.
Perhaps the greatest irony of this bill is that it calls for detailed
reports for a strategy in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, we have a strategy, and
while it was only fully operational less than 1 month ago, it is
already succeeding. The Democratic leadership, in their absurdist
logic, want our military to abandon their strategy, go home and write a
report about what they would have wanted to accomplish if they had
stayed. And if that weren't cruel enough, Mr. Speaker, they would have
to watch terror and genocide unfold as they retreated. Now, I cannot
fathom a more disastrous policy for our security or the Iraqis'.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the
underlying bill itself.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record an
article from the Washington Post this morning entitled, ``White House
Isn't Backing Iraq Study Group Follow-Up,'' and points out that the
House voted 355-69 last month to reestablish the study group, but the
President is blocking it.

[From washingtonpost.com, July 12, 2007]

White House Isn't Backing Iraq Study Group Follow-Up

(By Robin Wright)

Despite an overwhelming House vote last month to revive the
Iraq Study Group, the White House has blocked reconvening the
bipartisan panel to provide a second independent assessment
of the military and political situation in Iraq, said several
sources involved in the panel's December 2006 report.
Co-Chairman Lee H. Hamilton, several panel members and the
U.S. Institute of Peace, which ran the study group, were
willing to participate, according to Hamilton and the
congressionally funded think tank. But the White House did
not give the green light for co-chairman and former secretary
of state James A. Baker III to participate, and Baker is
unwilling to lead a second review without President Bush's
approval, according to members of the original panel and
sources close to Baker.
White House support is critical for any follow-up review.
``It is not likely to happen unless the White House approves
it,'' Hamilton, a Democratic former congressman from Indiana,
said in an interview. ``The group can't go ahead without its
concurrence or acquiescence, as we need travel support and
access to documents.''
The White House does not want independent assessments to
rival the upcoming Sept. 15 reports by Gen. David H. Petraeus
and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, U.S. officials said.
The White House indicated that it sees no need for an
immediate follow-up to the report, noting that it is
implementing a strategy consistent with many of the panel's
recommendations. ``The next report due in September by
General Petraeus must include an assessment of our objectives
as they relate to Baker-Hamilton. September will be the
appropriate time to determine how that strategy is
progressing,'' said National Security Council spokesman
Gordon Johndroe. ``We look forward to remaining in contact
with members of the group.''
The House voted 355 to 69 last month to allocate $1 million
for the U.S. Institute of Peace to reestablish the group of
10 prominent Republicans and Democrats, which included former
Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, former defense
secretary William J. Perry and, until his appointment,
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.
Congressional sponsors called the White House's reluctance
a missed opportunity. ``The ISG provides an opportunity to
bring the country together. . . . If you had a serious
illness, you would want a second opinion. We are at war. You
want to have the best minds looking at a problem,'' said Rep.
Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), who proposed the ISG and co-sponsored
the bill to reconvene it. ``Having another independent,
bipartisan assessment will take out the venom in the
debate.''
Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), another co-sponsor,
warned that the White House's move would cost further support
among Republicans.
``It's really shortsighted,'' he said. ``It's going to
further isolate the president. . . . You can't rely just on
Petraeus and Crocker. They are good people, but they're still
in the thick of battle and you need the view from the
outside. The fact the White House doesn't want it indicates
they are afraid of what the ISG might say.''
The White House did not initially embrace the ISG report.
But it has gradually adopted key recommendations, including
the controversial proposal to pursue diplomatic talks with
Iran and Syria, the countries that have most aided or abetted
Iraq's insurgents and illegal militias. Last month, 23
Democrats and 34 Republicans co-sponsored a House bill to
implement all the ISG recommendations as the way forward in
Iraq.
But other groups are pursuing independent reviews of U.S.
policy and Iraq's performance. The Iraqi Security Forces
Independent Assessment Commission--made up of 14 former
generals and defense officials--is examining Iraqi military
capabilities. The panel, which is mandated by Congress, is
chaired by retired Gen. James L. Jones. The group is
currently in Iraq; its report is due in October.
The Government Accountability Office is doing a separate
congressionally mandated study on the 18 benchmarks set for
the Iraqi government to meet. And the U.S. Institute of Peace
is reconvening many of the experts the ISG originally relied
on to discuss Iraq's future.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the
underlying bill, H.R. 2956, the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this House ought to voice its gratitude to the
distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton,
for bringing before this House a thoughtful, responsible bill that
outlines what we must do next in Iraq.
The bill clearly notes that our uniformed men and women have carried
out and completed their mission for which they were authorized by
Congress. The search for weapons of mass destruction is over. There
were none, not a single one. The regime that put Iraq in an impossible
international position no longer exists. So it's time that we draw down
our troops from Iraq and require this administration to clearly define
what the troop requirements and costs will be for the next phase of
U.S. involvement in Iraq, a far more limited mission to root out al
Qaeda and protect our diplomatic personnel inside Iraq.
The bill also promotes the kind of active diplomacy with Iraq's
neighbors necessary for achieving a more lasting climate of stability
in Iraq and throughout the region. Much, much more, Mr. Speaker, must
be done. I expect to see stronger legislation in September, but this
bill puts us on the right path.
For 5 long, deadly years, this Congress has done nothing but rubber-
stamp a tragically flawed policy. It is shameful. Whatever the cause
the President and many Members of Congress thought they were pursuing
in Iraq, it is lost. Political leaders inside Iraq appear incapable of
putting national interest ahead of sectarian and personal agendas.
Iraqi security forces operate more like sectarian militias. And despite
their best efforts, the additional military forces we have poured into
the Baghdad region have not been able to change the equation.
Over 3,600 of our troops have lost their lives to this battle.
Thousands more have been wounded. It is wrong, Mr. Speaker, simply
wrong to ask them to continue to sacrifice their lives and their limbs
for this failed policy.
The war in Iraq is breaking the back of our military. It is causing
severe damage to the Federal budget to the tune of $10 billion each
month, and causing grave harm to the future fiscal health of our
Nation. It continues to undermine our most important political,
diplomatic, military and strategic alliances. It saps our ability to
focus on global terrorism and to safeguard our own people. And it has
contributed to the chaos inside Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, it is past time for change. And while President Bush
keeps scorning deadlines and promising

[[Page H7666]]

breakthroughs that never come, it is clear that he lacks the vision,
the wisdom or the courage to chart a new course. It is frighteningly
clear that the President plans, instead, to stay the course and dump
this mess on the next President.
It is time for Congress to step up to the plate and change direction
in Iraq. It is time for every Member of this House to work together to
draw down our forces and bring our troops home to their families and
their communities.
For too long Congress has been complicit, and the American people are
frustrated, and they are angry. We don't need more studies or
commissions. We don't need more excuses. We don't need more delay. Too
many lives are being lost. What we need is for Members of Congress to
make a choice, to stand up and be counted. Will you continue to rubber-
stamp the current disastrous policies in Iraq or will you vote for
change?
We must act now, Mr. Speaker. This is simply too important to wait
any longer. Too many lives are on the line.
All of us, no matter how we originally voted on the war, share in the
responsibility in what is happening in Iraq. All of us, by not voting
to change course, are responsible for sending so many of our brave men
and women into a civil war where far too many of them have been killed.
If the President of the United States will not respect the will of
the American people and end this war, then Congress must.

[From the Los Angeles Times, July 11, 2007]

U.S. Troop Buildup in Iraq Falling Short

(By Julian E. Barnes and Ned Parker)

Baghdad.--In the Ubaidi neighborhood in the eastern part of
this city, American soldiers hired a local Iraqi to clean the
Porta-Potties at their combat outpost. Before the man could
start, members of the local Shiite militia threatened to kill
him.
Today, the Porta-Potties are roped off, and the U.S.
soldiers, who could not promise to protect their sewage man,
are forced to burn their waste.
As part of the Bush administration's troop ``surge''
strategy, the U.S. unit here had moved into an abandoned
potato chip factory hoping to push out the militia, protect
existing jobs and provide stability for economic growth.
Instead, militia members stymied development projects, cut
off the water supply and executed two young Iraqi women seen
talking to U.S. soldiers, sending a powerful message about
who really controls Ubaidi's streets.
In the next few days, the Bush administration is scheduled
to release a preliminary assessment of its overall Iraq
strategy. Officials may point to signs of progress scattered
across the country: a reduction in death-squad killings in
Baghdad, agreements with tribal leaders in Al Anbar province,
offensives north and south of the capital.
President Bush defended his strategy Tuesday, demanding
Congress give his administration more time and insisting that
America can ``win this fight in Iraq.'' To underscore his
request, Bush sent top aides to lobby lawmakers on Capitol
Hill.
But as the experience of the troops in Ubaidi indicates,
U.S. forces so far have been unable to establish security,
even for themselves. Iraqis continue to flee their homes,
leaving mixed areas and seeking safety in religiously
segregated neighborhoods. About 32,000 families fled in June
alone, according to figures compiled by the United Nations
and the Iraqi government that are due to be released next
week.
U.S. forces have staged offensives to push insurgents out
of some safe havens. But many of the insurgents have escaped
to new areas of the country, launching attacks where the U.S.
presence is lighter.
And there has been no sign of any of the crucial political
progress the administration had hoped to see in Iraq.
U.S. commanders are painfully aware that they are running
out of time to change those realities. Army Gen. David H.
Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, has made
several efforts to slow the clock in Washington. Each time,
it has sped up.
The full complement of the ``surge'' arrived in Iraq last
month, bringing the total to 28,500 additional troops.
Military officers originally hoped to have until 2008 before
they had to render a verdict on the strategy. Then the
Washington timeframe shrank to September. Now, it is
shrinking further, with Congress demanding answers even
sooner.
Supporters of the troop buildup insist that small steps
could grow into larger and more long-term successes if
lawmakers are patient.
``Right now we are three weeks into this. It's not like
flipping a light switch,'' said a military officer in
Baghdad, expressing the frustration of many commanders.
``Time has to be given for things to work.''
Commanders point to Ramadi, the capital of Al Anbar
province, as a showcase for the kind of results the military
wants from the current strategy. Once a battlefield, the city
is now largely peaceful, calm enough that in March, Iraqi
Prime Minister Nouri Maliki was able to pay his first
official visit.
But military officers stress that it took about nine months
of sustained effort to make Ramadi a relatively pacified
city. And with its volatile mix of Sunni and Shiite Muslims,
Baghdad presents a far more complex challenge than all-Sunni
Ramadi.
The interim progress report that Bush promised to release
this week is likely to emphasize the success the military has
had in killing Sunni militants in the ``Baghdad belts,'' the
cities and towns that dot the major rivers and highways
leading to the capital. In recent weeks, the newly arrived
U.S. forces have been focused on fighting members of Al Qaeda
in Iraq, a militant Sunni group made up of Iraqis and foreign
fighters.
Top generals say the strategy is crucial to securing
Baghdad. Only by controlling the routes into the capital, and
denying militants safe havens, can the U.S. and Iraqi
militaries keep out the car bombs that stoke sectarian
violence inside the capital.
But leading Iraqis are less sure of the strategy.
Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of the Iraqi parliament,
said the U.S. approach may be successful at weakening Al
Qaeda in Iraq. But he said Americans would not be able to
solve Iraq's sectarian conflict or stop clashes between armed
groups in Baghdad neighborhoods.
``The surge has an important effect in fighting Al Qaeda,''
the independent politician said. ``On the Sunni-Shiite
conflict, it hasn't had any effect. . . . Extremist Shiites
and Sunnis are fighting each other. The Americans can't stop
this.''
U.S. officials have made little, if any, progress with
their persistent calls for Iraqi officials to take steps
toward reconciliation between Shiites and Sunnis.
Key administration officials, most prominently Defense
Secretary Robert M. Gates and Vice President Dick Cheney,
have visited Iraq to push for passage of an oil-revenue
sharing law, provincial elections and reform of rules barring
members of the former ruling Baath Party from government
jobs.
But the Iraqi government is bogged down by fighting among
Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish parties. It is unclear whether the
oil law, the one piece of benchmark legislation still given
hopes for passage before September, will reach a vote any
time soon.
The number of death-squad killings in the capital, one sign
of sectarian divisions, is down from earlier this year. But
the number remains roughly at the level seen after the 2006
bombing of Samarra's Golden Mosque, which served as a
catalyst for the extreme sectarian violence.
In Baghdad, the number of bodies found dumped in the
streets dropped to 540 last month from 830 in January. Some
American officers say those numbers could rise again. And
others say that the decline may simply represent the
depressing reality that most Baghdad neighborhoods are now
segregated, meaning there are fewer people left for death
squads to kill.
Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil, Jr., the commander of U.S. forces in
Baghdad, said that American troops at the end of June
controlled about 42% of the city's neighborhoods, up from 19%
in April.
But to many Iraqis, that is little comfort. ``The Americans
do not make me feel safe,'' said Amin Sadiq, a 30-year-old
Shiite worker in the Ghadeer neighborhood of east Baghdad.
``When you hear the speeches of the top U.S. military
leaders, you think that everything is ideal and perfect and
Iraq will be better. But when you see how the U.S. soldiers
behave, I really feel I should not trust the leaders.''
The American military has helped bring a tense truce in
some areas, but has not re-integrated once-mixed
neighborhoods.
The western Baghdad neighborhood of Ghazaliya, once a
prosperous mixed middle-class area, was riven by sectarian
violence in 2006. It is now divided between Shiites in the
northern end and Sunnis in the south, with the U.S. military
stuck in the middle, trying to keep the peace.
``Last year, things were bad. This year is worse than
before,'' said a man in his 50s who identified himself as
Qais Qaisi.
The presence of Iraqi and American security forces means
that Sunnis cannot fight back against the Shiite militias,
which have the tacit support of the Iraqi army unit in the
area, Qaisi said. But he nevertheless voiced concern about a
possible American pullout.
``If the multinational forces withdraw, there will be very
bloody sectarian battles,'' he said.
Military officers routinely say that improving the economy
is a prerequisite to improving security. And U.S. forces, by
putting up barriers and controlling traffic, have been able
to reopen some marketplaces that had been targeted by suicide
bombers. Although that has allowed some neighborhood
commerce, success with other projects has proved more
elusive.
The Pentagon is working to reopen state-owned factories and
has identified several dozen that can be renovated and
restarted. But that work is slow, and many residents say they
see few improvements in their neighborhoods.
Although U.S. forces have been able to overcome militia
threats and start small neighborhood projects such as
installing streetlights, they are not able to initiate larger
undertakings.

[[Page H7667]]

``We aren't doing anything meaningful,'' said one mid-level
noncommissioned officer. ``Where are the real projects? We
aren't offering these people enough safety, or money, or
jobs.''
Amid the political setbacks and continuing violence,
however, there are signs of relative calm in some areas.
Earlier this year, the streets of Baghdad were desolate at
sunset. Now, in places, there are signs of life.
In Yarmouk, a neighborhood in west Baghdad, 18-year-old
Ahmed Shakir used to see bodies on the street every day.
Snipers fired from hidden perches and gunmen clashed with
U.S. and Iraqi soldiers. But last month, after weeks of U.S.
patrols, his neighborhood started to feel safe--safe enough
for Shakir to stay outside on the basketball court until 8:30
p.m.
``It is usually me and three of my friends, we always go
play basketball,'' he said. ``Now we have U.S. and Iraqi
patrols roaming the streets every day. If they continued
doing this, things will remain better. If not, then it will
get worse for sure.
____

Center for American Progress

To: Members of the 110th Congress.
From: John Podesta, Lawrence Korb, and Brian Katulis.
Re: Iraq Study Group's Recommendations Overtaken by Events in
Iraq.
Date: July 11, 2007.

Senators Ken Salazar (D-CO) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) have
introduced legislation that would adopt all of the
recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. There are growing
signs that the White House and Republican legislators, having
previously rejected the ISG report late last year, will now
seek to co-opt the ISG recommendations this summer and fail
to provide a bipartisan veneer to their efforts to pretend
they are shifting course in Iraq.
We acknowledge the important contributions made by the ISG
and its co-chairmen James Baker and Lee Hamilton, but
progressives need to point out that some of the ISG's
recommendations are ambiguous and others have been overtaken
by events. Congress needs to understand that the ISG's three
main recommendations face five key issues that raise
questions about the relevance of the ISG's recommendations
today.
The ISG report had three main recommendations:
1. Place greater emphasis on political benchmarks for the
Iraqi government to ensure disaffected groups (specifically
the Sunnis) are brought into Iraq's political process.
2. Accelerate and increase the training of Iraqi security
forces to allow them to take over from U.S. forces and
transition U.S. forces from combat missions in 2008.
3. Initiate a region-wide diplomatic offensive to contain
and resolve Iraq's conflicts.
The ISG recommendations now face five practical obstacles:
1. Conditioning U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq on the
outdated ``We'll stand down when the Iraqis stand up''
formula.
The main problem with the ISG report is that it conditions
the eventual U.S. troop withdrawal on Iraq's splintered
national leadership. The ISG report spells out a long list of
preconditions for withdrawing U.S. troops, which actually
gets the situation backwards--the United States needs to put
Iraqis and the countries in the region on notice to motivate
them to act more constructively in their own self-interest in
order to contain and resolve Iraq's multiple internal
conflicts.
The fundamental challenge with Iraq's security forces is
not skills building and training. It is instead a problem of
motivation and allegiance. The last six months in Iraq have
reinforced the point that Iraqis will not take responsibility
as long as U.S. forces remain in the country in such large
numbers. Despite the latest escalation, the Iraqi government
has not made any progress toward reconciliation.
The Bush strategy as well as the core ISG recommendations
ignore a fundamental reality--that the situation in Iraq has
little chance to improve until U.S. troops begin redeploying.
2. Placing too much focus on Iraq's central government, a
dysfunctional and divided government that lacks the unified
support of its own leaders.
The ISG recommendations place a strong emphasis on getting
the Iraqi national government to meet several political
benchmarks that are not only unachievable in the short term
but irrelevant today because of changed conditions in Iraq.
In fact, the Iraqi national government is increasingly
trapped in bitter disputes along sectarian lines that have
paralyzed the government.
Iraq's leaders fundamentally disagree on what Iraq is and
should be. The benchmarks passed by Congress in May--the
subject of a forthcoming report from the Bush
administration--ignore the key reality that Iraq may suffer
from unbridgeable divides.
Meeting these political benchmarks will likely have no
effect on the major conflicts in Iraq and may well exacerbate
the Kurd-Arab and intra-Shi'a conflicts emerging in Iraq's
northern and southern regions. As such, these benchmarks
provide false hope for resolving a series of conflicts that
require a much deeper solution than the United States can
provide unilaterally.
3. Paying insufficient attention to the 2005 Iraq
Constitution and the will of the Iraqi people.
The ISG report outlines a course that would lead to the
unraveling of Iraq's constitution. One of the ISG's main
recommendations is that ``the [United States] should support
as much as possible central control by governmental
authorities in Baghdad, particularly on the question of oil
revenue.'' But this cuts against the grain of what Iraqis
supported in their own constitution, passed by popular
referendum in 2005. Iraq's constitution establishes a
framework for a strongly decentralized federal system.
Not surprisingly, many Iraqi leaders objected to the
recommendations of the ISG report. Iraqi President Jalal
Talabani, a Kurd, rejected the ISG report. In addition to
criticisms from Iraq's leaders, the ISG recommendations lack
a broad-base of support among Iraqis, a strong majority of
whom want U.S. forces to leave Iraq within a year.
According to a poll of the Iraqi public conducted in 2006,
71 percent of Iraqis wanted the Iraqi government to ask for
U.S.-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year
or less. Another 61 percent support attacks on U.S.-led
forces. In short, many Iraqis are opposed to the ISG
recommendations, and as a result the United States would
face severe problems attempting to implement them.
4. Supporting the unconditional training of Iraq's security
forces, which is deeply problematic.
The core of the ISG report is the recommendation that the
United States accelerate and increase the training of Iraqi
security forces. It proposes an American advisory effort of
between 10,000 and 20,000, comparable to the U.S. advisory
strength in Vietnam at its height. Increasing the capacity of
the Iraqi security forces, however, won't rectify their three
main problems:
The Iraqi security forces are far from reliable. The
Pentagon estimates that at least one-third of the Iraqi Army
is on leave at any one time; desertion and other problems
bring the total to over half in some units. Of the 11,000
Iraqi soldiers assigned to the recent U.S.-led offensive in
Baquba in June, only 1,500 showed up. Infiltration by
sectarian militias into the Interior Ministry has been
identified as a severe problem. Many Iraqi security forces
have been implicated in sectarian violence, most notably the
National Police and certain elements of the Iraqi Army.
Allegations have emerged during the Baquba offensive that
Sunni and Shiite soldiers cooperated with Sunni insurgents
and Shiite militias, respectively. Some have even tried to
kill American troops. Giving weapons and training to Iraq's
security forces in the absence of a national political
consensus in Iraq risks inflaming Iraq's conflicts. In fact,
the violence has escalated at the same time as the number of
trained Iraqi security forces has increased.
Iraq's government has used Iraqi security forces to promote
their sectarian interests rather than the national interest.
Most troubling is the manner in which the government of Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki has used the Iraqi security forces.
He has focused primarily on going after Sunni insurgents with
Iraqi forces, leaving the impression that he is acting on
behalf of Shi'a sectarian interests. Worse still, officials
in the prime minister's office have often replaced officers
that are perceived as competent and non-sectarian.
Force protection concerns for the United States. The ISG's
training recommendation suffers from two more flaws: force
protection and time. The number of troops dedicated to
protecting American advisors from insurgents would drain
resources needed to perform other missions crucial to U.S.
interests such as counterterrorism. In addition, many experts
observe that it takes years if not decades to train a
professional, competent army. Past experiences of unpopular
foreign military forces facing an insurgency while training
local security forces do not inspire confidence in the
success of future efforts. There is no reason to presume we
will be able to do any better even if we had unlimited time
in Iraq (which we don't).
5. Offering undeveloped ideas on a regional diplomatic
offensive.
The ISG proposed creating a regional contact group to help
solve Iraq's internal and external problems diplomatically.
While it is important for the United States to undertake a
diplomatic offensive as it begins a phased redeployment from
Iraq, the ISG approach is too broad.
Rather than dealing with Iraq's multiple internal conflicts
as discrete problems that require separate attention, the ISG
approach could result in a ``one-size-fits-all'' diplomatic
package. Progressives should recognize that each of Iraq's
neighbors have differing interests in each ofIraq's
conflicts, and then advocate that the United States tailor
its diplomacy to each conflict in an attempt to deal
individually with the myriad problems confronting Iraq.

Conclusion

Progressives should not allow the recommendations of the
ISG report to be accepted without question. Nor should they
allow the White House to legitimate its still-stay-the course
policy by paying lip service to the ISG recommendations.
Rather, progressives should advocate a policy that allows
us to strategically reset our military forces, our diplomatic
personnel, and our intelligence operations by redeploying out
troops in 12 months, partitioning our diplomatic effort to
better deal with Iraq's multiple conflict, rethinking our
approach to Iraq's government and its security

[[Page H7668]]

forces, and redirecting our immense national power toward
destroying those terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. The time
is past for more half-way measures.
The United States needs to move toward a ``Strategic
Reset'' of its policy in Iraq and the Middle East, one that
recognizes the increasingly fragmented situation on the
ground and build a more sustainable approach to advancing
long-term U.S. interests in the region.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I yield to my friend from Pennsylvania,
let me just say, we do have a great chance to work together, that's why
we were, in fact, proposing an alternative, that being a chance for us
to work on the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommendations.
With that, I'm happy to yield 4 minutes to my very good friend from
Erie, Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the strongest possible opposition to
this rule.
In the panoply of public policy issues, there is no more important
question than starting or ending an armed conflict. The decision we
make today will determine whether men and women will live or die, not
only on the battlefields of Iraq but also potentially in the cities of
Europe and America.
The discussion that we conduct today should transcend crass political
partnership and narrow ideology to reflect our deepest concern for the
Nation and, indeed, for the community of nations.
The House of Representatives today should be prepared to engage in a
free and fair debate regarding all of the potential options for the
future conduct of combat operations and diplomatic initiatives in Iraq
and the broader Middle East. We should be discussing the
recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. We should be
examining some of the ideas laid out by Senator Lugar. We should be
considering the suggestion of Congresswoman Heather Wilson and I that
we made to the President recently encouraging him to convene a high-
level summit of Iraqi sectarian leaders. We should exclude no viable
alternative, even that offered by my colleague from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich).
The legislation we will consider later today does have the potential
to serve as a starting point of determining a new course of action in
Iraq, but it is badly flawed, and it needs substantial improvement, and
unfortunately, that will not be possible. The rule the Democrats have
laid before the House today demonstrates their motivations are, at
core, political. And I remember when politics ended at the water's
edge.
They do not offer us an open rule, allowing full and free debate.
They don't even allow us a structured rule, permitting, at the very
least, discussion of some of the major alternatives that I've outlined.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that certain parties want things from this
debate today. They've already recorded their robo calls, purchased
airtime for their attack ads. They've scheduled buses for their rent-a-
mobs. And the last thing they really desire is a free, open and
informed debate that might result in a unified policy regarding our
Nation's future efforts in Iraq. They seek not to unite our Nation but
to divide it.
The people who bring this rule to the floor today do not allow
amendments because they're afraid. They're afraid that some of these
amendments might prevail. They're afraid that, given viable
alternatives, some Members of their own party will choose cooperation
over confrontation.

{time} 1100

Mostly, they are afraid they might lose a major issue for their
campaign to maintain their majority. Their fear may or may not be
justified, but its very existence is a sad commentary on their faith in
the Members of their own party, this body, and the American people.
I remind my colleagues that the only thing we have to fear is fear
itself. Reject this cynical rule. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Let's have a full and fair debate on this, the most critical issue of
our generation.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, give me 3 seconds to say that under the
Republican administration, not a single Iraqi measure was brought up
under an open rule.
And now I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me
time and for her leadership on the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the
underlying bill. Today presents us with another opportunity to change
direction in Iraq, a change that is desperately needed. I have opposed
this war from the beginning. I have long supported ways to bring this
war to a responsible close. I urge my colleagues to seize this
opportunity now before we do further disservice to the brave men and
women in Iraq.
The last time I rose in opposition to Iraq policy, I talked about
George and Dee Heath from my hometown of Sacramento. All three of their
sons served in Iraq. Recently, I learned that one of their sons, David,
was hit in an RPG attack on his convoy. Thank goodness he was not
wounded gravely, and he will be coming home to recover.
Mr. Speaker, today's vote is about our responsibility to the Heath
sons and to the more than 150,000 other men and women in harm's way.
They are doing what is being asked of them heroically and
patriotically. It fills me with sorrow that more than 3,600 soldiers
have paid the ultimate price for their heroism, including 385 from my
home State of California.
Our responsibility to them as their elected leaders should be, it
must be, to ensure that their mission is clear and achievable. Today,
we have the opportunity to fulfill our responsibility as the President
has not. Sadly, the President's disastrous leadership is ignoring his
duty to the troops. We cannot sit idly by.
The Iraqi Government is not meeting any of its political, economic,
or military benchmarks. The President's surge policy has had disastrous
results. In fact, 600 troops have been killed and more than 3,000 have
been wounded since he announced this policy.
Our troops are stranded on the front lines without clear guidance and
without a clear mission. In light of such inept leadership by the
President, the American people have lost their patience. Most Americans
support removing troops by April. They want us to refocus on terrorism.
Yet, still the President refuses to reconsider. It is clear from the
President's blind stubbornness that Congress must show the President
the way.
Our troops are at the breaking point. We are refereeing a civil war.
The solution is a political one, not a military one. But in this late
and crucial hour, you have to do more than talk about change. You have
to vote for it. You have to fight for it. Chairman Skelton's bill keeps
the safety of our troops and our Nation's security at the forefront by
changing course in Iraq. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely laughable to listen to the
distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, after having berated us
for the longest period of time, use us as a model for the procedure
around which we are considering this legislation. This is a bill, not a
resolution, which is what we brought up in the last Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the very distinguished
gentleman, a former member of the Rules Committee, from Marietta,
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my former chairman of the Rules
Committee, the gentleman from California, for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this rule and condemn the
underlying bill, hastily leaving Iraq without any clear exit strategy.
Mr. Speaker, the timing of this legislation should raise some serious
questions for the American people. It comes at a critical point in the
global war on terror, a point at which our efforts should be focused on
defeating terrorism inflicted by Islamic jihadists, not usurping the
power of our military commanders, as this bill clearly does.
Today's debate comes on the heels of an intelligence analysis stating
al Qaeda has regrouped to a level not seen since 9/11 with a greater
ability to strike inside the United States. It comes in the immediate
aftermath of the Muslim extremist attacks in London and Glasgow. In
sum, it comes at a time when our decisions must be based

[[Page H7669]]

on strategic interests and not political grandstanding.
However, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not designed to help us fight
terrorism to secure the United States' interests. In fact, its timing
has nothing to do with national security at all.
Today, the Democratic leaderships want us to vote on a change of
course before we have had the opportunity to fully analyze the
President's interim report on our strategy in Iraq, and well ahead of
the much anticipated September report to be delivered by General
Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.
So why are we debating this now? Curiously, it comes at a time when
this Democratic Congress has an approval rating as low as 14 percent.
That's right, Mr. Speaker, their approval is at an all-time low. Their
base, the extremist left, is very angry. They are angry at the
Democrats' Out of Iraq Caucus because they failed to deliver. Indeed,
Cindy Sheehan, their poster child, has now announced her candidacy
against Speaker Pelosi.
So what do the Democrats do? They take another shot at Old Faithful.
When all else fails, when they can't get anything accomplished, when
all they can deliver to the American public is the most closed Congress
in history, they engage in another round of political theater
engineered to do nothing but grab a few headlines and appease that
liberal base.
Mr. Speaker, let's not waste the time of this body by debating vague
bills with absolutely no chance of becoming law. Let's instead examine
the upcoming September report from our top military commanders and
then, yes, then make informed decisions on the best path forward.
My friend, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, the
gentlewoman from New York, stated in her opening remarks that if we
wait until September, as I suggest, 200 more troops would be lost and
the lives of 200 families would be changed forever.
Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues that within a 20-minute
period of time on September 11, 2001, 3,000 lives were lost, some of
our brightest and best; and, indeed, the lives of 3,000 families were
changed forever.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to urge my colleagues to oppose this rule
and to oppose the irresponsible underlying bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I vigorously opposed the war in
Iraq before it began, and now, well into its fifth year, the need for a
new policy has never been clearer. The toll of this war has been
devastating: more than 3,600 of our most courageous men and women
killed, tens of thousands seriously wounded; the toll on civilians much
higher still. And while we struggle to fund domestic priorities in
Vermont, in all our States across this Nation, health care, a crumbling
infrastructure, transportation, the cost of education, we now spend $12
billion every single month on this war.
From last November's elections, to public opinion polls, to the
comments I hear from Vermonters every single day, the voice of the
American people is loud and it is clear: we must end this war. And
since the President refuses, absolutely refuses, to act, Congress must.
Since the President refuses, Congress must make it clear that the
United States will not maintain permanent military bases in Iraq. Since
the President refuses, Congress must denounce the use of torture. It
must finally close Guantanamo Bay. And since the President refuses,
Congress must bring our troops home and ensure they receive the care
they deserve when they return.
Mr. Speaker, 7 months ago, under the leadership of the previous
Congress, a bill like this never would have been allowed to come to the
floor. Now, 7 months later, today, there is an emerging bipartisan
consensus that the President must be forced to change his course.
By passing this bill today, Congress will demonstrate with the force
of law what the American people well know: it is time to end the war in
Iraq.
I cosponsored and voted in favor of legislation offered by my
colleague Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts that called for redeployment of
our troops from Iraq within 6 months. I voted against additional funds
for the war without a timeline. And I cosponsored legislation that
would close Guantanamo Bay, outlaw torture, defend the right of habeas
corpus, and prohibit the establishment of permanent military bases.
At the end of the day, Americans know that no action in the House of
Representatives is not enough until all of our troops are returned
home. This bill provides a starting point for progress towards
realizing that goal. Until our troops are home, I will not stop, and
Congress must not stop in its efforts to compel the President to end
this war.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me at this time yield 2 minutes to our
friend from Bridgeport, Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has made 17 trips
to Iraq and unfortunately was denied an opportunity to have us consider
and vote on a very thoughtful amendment that he proposed in the Rules
Committee last night.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, as I walked into this Chamber, Congressman McGovern said
we need to work together to bring our troops home. He is right. But the
resolution we will be debating today does not allow us to consider
bipartisan proposals. There were a number of amendments presented to
the Rules Committee, and they rejected all of them.
The gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Slaughter, can say, when
Republicans were in control, they didn't do that, they didn't allow
bipartisan amendments. That is about the most insignificant and
meaningless statement she could make, because Democrats are now in
charge, and they are in charge in part because of the war in Iraq and
because they promised to be different and have open debate and allow us
all to say what we needed to say and from that find consensus.
There are two things I agree on: we need to bring our troops home,
and we need a deadline to do that. But this deadline begins in 120 days
and concludes by April of next year, guaranteeing absolute failure,
laying waste to all the investment we have talked about.
We need to bring our troops home, but not by the deadline that has
been offered. It is the only deadline. So when I vote against what I
think is a foolish deadline, the media is going to say exactly what my
Democratic colleagues want them to say, that we voted against a
deadline and that we are not sincere about bringing our troops home.
Give me a deadline I can support, and I will vote for it. Give me an
opportunity to at least debate a deadline that I could support.
We are going to bring our troops home because we can't maintain this
level of engagement in Iraq without extending troops from 15 months to
18 months. We are not going to allow that to happen. Our troops will be
coming home, but not by April. They will be coming home in a more
thoughtful way.
I urge defeat of this resolution. In particular, it did not allow for
the Wolf amendment, which was the Iraq Study Group proposal. This is
what we need to be voting on. We all say that we agree with it and
support it. Well, why not bring it to the floor? What are we afraid of?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me have about 2 seconds to say that
we have allowed 4 hours of general debate. I think everybody will have
an opportunity to discuss what they think of the deadline.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Castor).

{time} 1115

Ms. CASTOR. I thank the distinguished chair of the Rules Committee
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor of the Responsible Redeployment
from Iraq Act under this rule, and urge my colleagues to pass it today,
because in this summer of 2007, in the fifth year of the Bush-Cheney
war in Iraq, it is imperative that we chart a new direction for our
national security and be more strategic in the defense of America.
As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, it is clear to me
that the reckless White House policy and now the escalation of the war
is undermining our country's readiness and ability to respond to other
global

[[Page H7670]]

threats to our national security. Indeed, in testimony before our
committee, top commanders have testified that America runs a strategic
risk by staying on the same course in Iraq.
The generals confirm that because our personnel and equipment are
tied up in Iraq, our ability to handle future threats and contingencies
is reduced. In my State of Florida, for example, the National Guard
does not have all of the equipment it needs to train and deploy
soldiers. They are only 28 percent equipped. In effect, President
Bush's war in Iraq is impairing our country's ability to prepare for
any other threat to our national security.
Florida also feels the pinch of multiple deployments because, time
and again, our brave men and women are being asked to go back, to leave
their families, leave their jobs, return to the field of battle after
inadequate rest at home. Florida currently has the second highest
number of troops out of the 50 States deployed in Iraq, over 23,000.
And 172 Floridians have been killed and over 1,200 have been wounded
since military operations began there over 4 years ago. Hardly a week
goes by that my office is not contacted and informed of another sad but
heroic death in this cause. In fact, last week, two more Tampa Bay area
brave, heroic soldiers were killed by IEDs.
People ask me, why are our young American men and women refereeing
the ongoing Shiite-Sunni civil war? American troops cannot resolve the
Iraqi sectarian and religious conflict; only Iraqis can find the
political resolution required to stabilize Iraq. America has now spent
over $450 billion in Iraq. When will the Iraqi government take
responsibility for the future of their country?
President Bush's war in Iraq has been very costly. Over $10 billion a
month now, costly not just in terms of degradation of our Nation's
readiness, the waste and fraud due to the lack of oversight, but
President Bush is sacrificing the health care of our children and our
seniors and investments in our towns and neighborhoods while continuing
this war without end.
So after 4 years of war and over 3,500 American lives, and the Bush-
Cheney failure to aggressively pursue a political solution, we demand a
new direction and a comprehensive strategy for our great Nation.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, for 4 long years our country has endured a tragic war, a
treacherous journey down a dark and winding path, with no clear routes,
no clear destination and fatal hazards lurking around every blind
corner.
Today I rise again with Chairman Skelton and my colleagues to act to
clear the road ahead, to bring its end into the light. I rise again to
push, to prod, to urge my colleagues to help us end the President's
failed policy; to help us change the mission to a mission based in
reality; to help us end the ravages that our brave soldiers who have
performed so heroically, remove them from the crossfire in which they
are caught, to remove them from the snipers' bullets and the life-
ending IEDs.
I rise with the hope that those who have stood with the President and
have given his Iraq policy a chance to succeed and another chance to
succeed and another chance to succeed, that they will today choose a
responsible change in direction based in reality that will establish a
comprehensive and clear strategy for our role in Iraq.
Congress has allowed the President to lead our troops down this path
for too long. It is time to demand accountability, to demand an exit
strategy that is clear, and to demand an end to the injury and death
that our brave soldiers face every day as they courageously proceed
down this undefined road on which the President has placed them and
they have dutifully traveled.
The President's ambling course has led our troops through the
deadliest 3 months of the war in April, May and June of this year.
During those three deadly months, 329 American soldiers died in Iraq.
The cost of continuing down this path is too great. We must act to
bring direction and accountability to the United States' mission for
the sake of our troops and the families that love and support them.
It brings me great sadness to report that, since the war began in the
spring of 2003, 163 brave men and women from Ohio have been killed. And
25 of those precious lives have been lost since the surge. The
President's escalation of this war means six more grieving families in
Ohio since when I last spoke in favor of the redeployment bill in May
of this year. How many more times will we come to this floor to demand
responsibility and accountability from our President? How many more
families will be devastated by the loss of a loved one? How many more
times will we hear the administration continue to argue that we are,
quote, ``just about to make progress''?
Last November, the people of the 13th District of Ohio made their
voices heard when they went to the polls. Their voices joined with the
voices of people across this Nation. They voted for a change in
direction, and today we act to give it to them.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes
to one of the most respected Members of this House on intelligence and
defense matters, the gentlewoman from Albuquerque, New Mexico (Mrs.
Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I want to let my colleagues
know that I will be asking for a recorded vote on the previous question
on this rule.
We have a problem, a very serious problem that we must address before
the House adjourns in August, and this resolution which we have done
before does not deal with the real issues that this House must address
because of the threat that we face.
If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that clarifies one very
simple and critical thing, that the United States Government will no
longer be required to get a warrant to listen to terrorists who are not
in the United States.
The Director of National Intelligence has testified to us, as has the
director of the CIA, that their hands are currently tied. They are
being tied up, requiring warrants with probable cause, to listen to
people who are terrorists who are not even in the United States because
of the way the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is written.
We cannot allow ourselves to be deaf and blind because of a law that
is woefully outdated. All of us have heard what the Department of
Homeland Security has said, the chatter is at levels we have not seen
since the summer of 2001. And the Director of National Intelligence has
testified we are missing significant portions of intelligence. We have
to open our ears and open our eyes to keep this Nation safe. That is
the critical issue we should be debating here today. And if we defeat
the previous question, I will immediately offer that for the
consideration of the House.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
would point out to our colleagues that the action just described in my
view is not necessary.
I rise in support of the rule, the underlying bill, and in strong
support for ending our combat mission in Iraq and redirecting our
efforts towards stability in the region, including Iraq, but also in
trouble spots like Iran, Lebanon, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Let me make three points.
First, based on firsthand experience from my fourth visit to Iraq
just weeks ago, Baghdad is not safer. True, we have worked successfully
with tribal leaders against al Qaeda in Anbar Province, but the major
population center, Baghdad, the focus of our military surge, is not
turning around. Progress will not be made by a continuation of our
combat mission.
Second, the Skelton bill mirrors a companion bill in the other body
which has impressive bipartisan support. I urge Republicans to support
this measure, and know that some will do so.
The message our constituents want to hear is that 290 of us, a veto-
proof bipartisan majority, insist on a responsible end to our combat
mission in Iraq beginning now with passage of this bill.
Third, though I feel Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff's use of
the words ``gut feeling'' was unwise, I share

[[Page H7671]]

the view that our country could be attacked at any time. Al Qaeda has
regrouped in Pakistan and expanded its reach throughout North Africa.
Homegrown cells in England and elsewhere are increasing, and our
assumption must be that they are here as well.
Low-tech, low-scale vehicle-borne attacks are, sadly, not hard to
execute. At a minimum, those, and attacks on soft targets like our mass
transit systems, may be in our near future.
DHS, FBI and our exceptionally talented local police departments are
working overtime, though their ranks are depleted and their equipment
and they are surged in Iraq. But 100 percent protection is impossible.
Mr. Speaker, this is where our attention must be, and our resources.
Pass the Skelton bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 4 minutes
to my friend from Holland, Michigan, the former chairman, now the
ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, later on, my colleague from California
will make a motion to defeat the previous question, as the gentlewoman
from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) indicated. That will then enable us to
address a very serious issue, the problem that, right now, we are blind
and deaf to people who may want to attack the United States.
As Secretary Chertoff indicated earlier this week, all of the
indications are that we still remain very, very vulnerable. The
chatter, the signals, indicate more clearly that America is still at
risk. And it is not only the chatter. All you really need to do is take
a look at what al Qaeda says. They are clear on their intent to attack
the United States again.
Take a look at what happened in the U.K. 2 weeks ago. Planned attacks
in the heart of London, a planned attack at an airport indicate that al
Qaeda and radical jihadists want to attack the U.K.; they want to
attack in Europe, and they want to attack us in the United States.
One of the things that needs to be clear is that what has helped keep
us safe is our intelligence community. And as our ability to gain
information has changed and adapted over the last couple of years, it
has become even more clear that FISA needs to be updated, and FISA
needs to be updated now. It needs to be done before we go home in
August because if we expect to stay safe, we need to make sure that our
intelligence community has all of the tools at its disposal to identify
risks, to identify potential terrorists and to identify individuals who
want to do us harm.
FISA should not be used to protect international terrorists. It
should not be used to protect radical jihadists. It should not be used
as a screen to protect members of al Qaeda. Remember, FISA was designed
in the 1970s, designed to handle a Cold War surveillance of countries
like the Soviet Union. Back then and into the 1980s and early 1990s,
our intelligence community only needed to be one step faster than the
former Soviet Union. We didn't have to be that fast. And the risks and
the threats were not as real or as immediate to our homeland as what
they are today.
Today our intelligence community needs to be one, two, three steps
faster than radical jihadists, radical jihadists who use technology and
who use the Internet and who use the communications world of today to
drive their message and to plan their attacks. We need to be able to
penetrate into it and penetrate into it very effectively.

{time} 1130

Now is the time to modernize FISA. Now is the time to make sure that
the intelligence community has the capability to identify the threats
and the individuals who may want to attack the United States and make
sure that they are in a position to identify these threats and get this
information to our law enforcement individuals in the United States in
a seamless way.
We've made progress in a number of areas in intelligence reform.
There's still much work to do, but one of the areas that we have not
done is update FISA.
Defeat the previous question and allow for the modernization of FISA
now.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).
Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, today it was reported that al Qaeda is as strong now as
it was prior to the 9/11 attacks. Meanwhile, our troops who have served
with honor and distinction are mired in the middle of a religious civil
war in Iraq. The men and women of Iowa's National Guard have faced
multiple redeployments at great sacrifice to them and their families.
The American people continue to demand a new way forward in Iraq.
Even Members of the President's own party are demanding change. We must
immediately begin to chart a new course.
I'm a cosponsor of the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act because
it provides for the safe withdrawal of combat troops by April 1, 2008.
We must bring home our troops safely and responsibly. We must also
redirect our efforts against terrorism.
This bill represents a step forward, and I urge its passage and the
rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my very good friend from
Rochester, New York, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules,
how many speakers she has remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I have two.
Mr. DREIER. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and also the underlying bill,
the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act. We can't afford to spend
$10 billion a month on this failed war and continue to see the loss of
lives, 3,600 now. From my district alone, 14 individuals have not come
home to see their families. 27,000 have come home injured from the war.
I want to tell you that in March I had the opportunity to visit some
of our troops in Iraq, many from California representing southern
California's San Gabriel Valley. Many of them told me they did not have
appropriate equipment, that they were there for an insurmountable time,
many on their second, third and fourth tour. One family member from the
City of Azusa told me that he had not even seen his child. It had been
already 14 months.
I would ask Members of Congress to remember who our constituents are.
I have the adjoining district next to Congressman Dreier. In my
district alone, 4-1 in a survey said, Republican and Democrat, we want
the Congress to get us out of the war.
I ask for support of our bill and the rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we were reassured that ``progress'' was
being made in Iraq 500 deaths ago, 1,000 deaths ago, 2,000 deaths ago,
and 3,000 deaths ago.
Like the boy who cried wolf, this President cries ``progress.'' What
progress?
With all this talk about benchmarks, I think it's time to get off the
bench and bring our troops home now, with an immediate, responsible,
and safe redeployment.
President Bush says as we approach five years of being in Iraq, he
says ``listen to the generals.''
Well, we've listened to them, and his top general says if we followed
his course, if we stay his course, we'll be in Iraq fighting for
another five to ten years.
Real progress would begin by adopting today's very modest proposal
and moving forward united so that our troops are not caught up in a
final disastrous position in Iraq, and that we responsibly redeploy to
protect our families, rather than generating one generation after
another of jihadists.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time and ask
if the gentleman has more requests.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to close the debate now, so I
yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, let me just begin by talking about procedure. We
continue

[[Page H7672]]

to hear the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules talk
regularly about an open amendment process, and I will say with absolute
certainty, I had the privilege of chairing the Rules Committee for 8
years, and I will tell you that we have brought more rules to the floor
of this House under a completely closed process during the first 7
months of this year than we did during any 7 months during the 8 years
that I was privileged to serve as chairman of the Rules Committee. So
much for a new and open process.
Now, let's look at what it is we're considering here, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we know full well that this is a bill, unlike resolutions
that may have been brought up under closed rules in the past, this is
actually a bill, a bill that's scheduled to go to the President's desk.
Everyone knows that this bill is not going to become law.
What we've found is gross politicization once again, a commitment
made that every week we're going to have some kind of vote on Iraq.
We all know that the war in Iraq is very unpopular. We know that the
President is a great punching bag on this for virtually everyone, but
the fact of the matter is we are in the midst of a very important
global war on terror, and as the President said in the past, you know,
we all like to be loved, but I'd much rather be right than be loved.
The fact of the matter is, we want to bring this war to an end. The
President stood right here in this chamber in January and said I wish
that this war were over and that we had won, but we need to ensure
victory. And, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we are not given the
opportunity to consider any thoughtful, bipartisan alternative to this
measure which calls for the withdrawal to begin within 120 days. I
mean, how crazy is that when we're looking for a report to come in
September and as we are looking at success that has begun even after
only 1 month, 1 month of this plan having been put into place under the
greatly heralded General David Petraeus?
Now, Mr. Speaker, as my friends from New Mexico and Michigan have
said, I'm going to move to defeat the previous question. I'm going to
move to defeat the previous question so that we can actually ensure
that we have the tools to win this war on terror. We've had a number of
anniversaries marked. We've spent a lot of time talking about them, but
we fail to remember the success that we've had at preempting attacks on
this country.
Just last month, we marked the first anniversary of the discovery of
the proposed attack on the Sears Tower and the FBI headquarters in
Miami.
Just last week, we marked the first anniversary of the proposed
attack on the plan to blow up the Hudson River tunnel between New
Jersey and Manhattan.
Just in May, we had a report of the plan, as you all know, to see
some of these people go in and start killing our people at Fort Dix in
New Jersey.
And then of course, just a few weeks ago, we had the plan to blow up
JFK International Airport.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we've been able to discover those, but we know
full well from those in our intelligence operations and the Department
of Homeland Security that we are, as Mr. Hoekstra said, blind and deaf,
and I believe that we need to make sure we defeat the previous question
so that we'll be in a position to amend this proposal so that we can
ensure that we have the tools necessary to win this war on terror.
So vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Amendment to H. Res. 583 Offered by Mr. Drier of California

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the
following:
That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2956) to
require the Secretary of Defense to commence the reduction of
the number of United States Armed Forces in Iraq to a limited
presence by April 1, 2008, and for other purposes. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived except
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill
shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) four hours of debate, with
three hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed
Services and one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs; (2) the amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in section 3 of this resolution, if
offered by the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Hoekstra, or his
designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any
point of order except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of
rule XXI, shall be considered as read, and shall be
separately debatable for two hours equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 2956 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
Sec. 3. The amendment in the nature of a substitute to be
offered by Mr. Hoekstra of Michigan, or his designee,
referred to in section 1 is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
Subsection (f) of section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801) is amended to read
as follows--
``(f) `Electronic surveillance' means--
``(1) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical,
or other surveillance device for acquiring information by
intentionally directing surveillance at a particular known
person who is reasonably believed to be in the United States
under circumstances in which that person has a reasonable
expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for
law enforcement purposes; or
``(2) the intentional acquisition of the contents of any
communication under circumstances in which a person has a
reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be
required for law enforcement purposes, if both the sender and
all intended recipients are reasonably believed to be located
within the United States.''
____

COMPARISON OF 110TH TO 109TH TYPES OF AMENDMENT PROCESSES FOR BILL CONSIDERED BY THE HOUSE THROUGH JULY 12, 2005
(EXCLUDING MEASURES CONSIDERED BY SUSPENSION OR UC) CURRENT AS OF JULY 12, 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
109th--Through July 12, 2005 110th--To date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open: 12 (including approps)................................. 27.3 6 (including 9.4
approps)
Modified Open: 0............................................. 0 7 10.95
Structured: 21............................................... 47.7 25 39
Closed: 11................................................... 25 26 40.6
--------------------------------------------------
Total: 44.............................................. 100 64 100
==================================================
Open: 12 (including approps)................................. 27.3 6 (including 9.4
approps)
Restrictive: 32.............................................. 72.7 58 90.6
--------------------------------------------------
Total: 44.............................................. 100 64 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Prepared by the Committee on Rules Republican Staff.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, once again, we're always treated to the
inventive memory of the former Chair of the Rules Committee.
Let me just state for the record that this time last when he was
Chair, we had three open rules. At this time, we've had eight open
rules.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and also on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.

[[Page H7673]]

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 533, if ordered; and
approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225,
noes 197, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 620]

AYES--225

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
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

NOES--197

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--9

Berkley
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Jindal
Jordan
Kucinich
Stark
Tancredo
Young (AK)

{time} 1204

Mr. GRAVES changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House floor
during today's rollcall vote on ordering the previous question on the
rule, H. Res. 533, for H.R. 2956.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 196, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 621]

YEAS--221

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NAYS--196

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess

[[Page H7674]]

Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
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
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--14

Berkley
Cole (OK)
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Jindal
Kucinich
Lewis (CA)
Musgrave
Pickering
Saxton
Stark
Tancredo
Wilson (OH)
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 2
minutes remain for this vote.

{time} 1210

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________