[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 148 (Tuesday, October 2, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H11116-H11125]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1545
              DEVELOPING A COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY IN IRAQ

  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3087) to require the President, in coordination with the 
Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, and other senior military leaders, to develop and transmit to 
Congress a comprehensive strategy for the redeployment of United States 
Armed Forces in Iraq, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3087

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against 
     Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), enacted into 
     law on October 16, 2002, authorized the President to use the 
     Armed Forces as the President determined necessary and 
     appropriate in order to defend the national security of the 
     United States against the continuing threat posed by the 
     Government of Iraq at that time.
       (2) The Government of Iraq which was in power at the time 
     the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq 
     Resolution of 2002 was enacted into law has been removed from 
     power and its leader indicted, tried, convicted, and executed 
     by the new freely-elected democratic Government of Iraq.
       (3) The current Government of Iraq does not pose a threat 
     to the United States or its interests.
       (4) After more than four years of valiant efforts by 
     members of the Armed Forces and United States civilians, the 
     Government of Iraq must now be responsible for Iraq's future 
     course.

     SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) nothing in this Act shall be construed as a 
     recommendation by Congress that any particular contingency 
     plan be exercised;
       (2) it is necessary and prudent for the Department of 
     Defense to undertake robust and comprehensive contingency 
     planning;
       (3) contingency planning for a redeployment of the Armed 
     Forces from Iraq should address--
       (A) ensuring appropriate protection for the Armed Forces in 
     Iraq;
       (B) providing appropriate protection in Iraq for United 
     States civilians, contractors, third party nationals, and 
     Iraqi nationals who have assisted the United States mission 
     in Iraq;
       (C) maintaining and enhancing the ability of the United 
     States Government to eliminate and disrupt Al Qaeda and 
     affiliated terrorist organizations; and
       (D) preserving military equipment necessary to defend the 
     national security interests of the United States; and
       (4) contingency planning for a redeployment of the Armed 
     Forces from Iraq should--
       (A) describe a range of possible scenarios for such 
     redeployment;
       (B) outline multiple possible timetables for such 
     redeployment; and
       (C) describe the possible missions, and the associated 
     projected number of members, of the Armed Forces which would 
     remain in Iraq, including to--
       (i) conduct United States military operations to protect 
     vital United States national security interests;
       (ii) conduct counterterrorism operations against Al Qaeda 
     in Iraq and affiliated terrorist organizations;
       (iii) protect the Armed Forces, United States diplomatic 
     and military facilities, and United States civilians; and
       (iv) support and equip Iraqi forces to take full 
     responsibility for their own security.

     SEC. 3. REPORTS AND CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFINGS ON THE STATUS OF 
                   PLANNING FOR THE REDEPLOYMENT OF THE ARMED 
                   FORCES FROM IRAQ.

       (a) Reports Required.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days 
     thereafter, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report on the status of 
     planning for the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq. 
     The initial report and each subsequent report required by 
     this subsection shall be submitted in unclassified form, to 
     the maximum extent possible, but may contain a classified 
     annex, if necessary.
       (b) Congressional Briefings Required.--Not later than 14 
     days after the submission of the initial report under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of 
     the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall meet with the congressional 
     defense committees to brief such committees on the matters 
     contained in the report. Not later than 14 days after the 
     submission of each subsequent report under subsection (a), 
     appropriate senior officials of the Department of Defense 
     shall meet with the congressional defense committees to brief 
     such committees on the matters contained in the report.
       (c) Termination of Reporting and Briefing Requirements.--
     The requirement to submit reports under subsection (a) and 
     the requirement to provide congressional briefings under 
     subsection (b) shall terminate on the date on which the 
     Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional defense 
     committees a certification in writing that the Armed Forces 
     are no longer primarily engaged in a combat mission in Iraq.
       (d) Congressional Defense Committees Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``congressional defense committees'' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 101 of title 10, United 
     States Code.

     SEC. 4. ARMED FORCES DEFINED.

       In this Act, the term ``Armed Forces'' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 101 of title 10, United States 
     Code.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 3087, a bill to require the 
Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the status of planning 
for the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq.
  This bill is the rarest of creatures, a bipartisan compromise on one 
of the most significant issues facing our country today, the war in 
Iraq. This bill was marked up in the Armed Services Committee with the 
support of our ranking member, Duncan Hunter of California. The 
committee took the excellent work of Representative Neil Abercrombie 
and Representative John Tanner and built on it.
  The committee adopted a comprehensive amendment developed by Mr. 
Abercrombie and Representative Mike Turner, two of our leaders on our 
committee on the advancement of national defense. The bill, as amended, 
passed our committee 55-2.
  I am proud of the work of our committee. I am glad it has been 
brought to the floor. The bill seeks to accomplish two primary goals. 
First, it affirms the critical need for comprehensive, well-thought-out 
planning for a redeployment of troops from Iraq, the kind of planning 
that, frankly, was not done for the post-war period in Iraq, the so-
called phase 4 of the war before we invaded.
  This will help Congress fulfill its duties to ensure that such a 
mistake is not repeated.
  Second, it requires that the planning the Pentagon is doing for 
deployment from Iraq be shared with Congress, as it should. It lays out 
a clear statement on the need for appropriate, detailed contingency 
planning for our redeployment of troops from that country, including 
consideration of force protection for our military and civilian 
personnel, and the need to continue to protect our vital national 
security interests.
  It requires by statute that the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff provide us with a report and briefing on 
redeployment planning from Iraq within 60 days of enactment, and that 
updated reports and briefings from senior Department of Defense 
officials continue to be provided on a quarterly basis thereafter. It 
will allow the Armed Services Committee to perform the oversight 
function, which is central to our purpose.
  Time is not on our side. In my view, it's time to begin responsible 
redeployment of forces and a change of mission in Iraq. Members are on 
different places on Iraq, but we can agree that we must be engaged in 
serious planning for the redeployment of American forces.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, today Iraq remains the most important 
issue facing our Nation. The American people want congressional action 
in a bipartisan fashion. The rhetoric of the last 6 months has left the 
American people saddened that the work on this

[[Page H11117]]

House floor has been focused upon partisan division. The most important 
action this House of Representatives could take today is to support our 
troops by coming together in a bipartisan effort.
  I want to thank Chairman Skelton, and I also want to thank 
subcommittee Chairman Abercrombie for his leadership on H.R. 3087, 
which gives us an opportunity for a bipartisan step in the Iraq debate.
  I am a cosponsor of this bill, which was reported out of the Armed 
Services Committee by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 55-2.
  H.R. 3087, as amended, supports our troops, our national interests, 
and our counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda in Iraq.
  The bill requires our Department of Defense to undertake robust and 
comprehensive contingency planning for a redeployment of the Armed 
Forces from Iraq. The bill recognizes that the role and mission of our 
Armed Forces in Iraq will change and properly acknowledges that the 
Government of Iraq must be responsible for Iraq's future.
  As America's responsibilities shift, our focus must include planning 
to protect our vital national interests and our troops.
  In a letter I sent to our Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, on August 1, 2007, 
I elaborated saying that, for example, this bill states the contingency 
planning element should include ensuring appropriate protection for the 
Armed Forces in Iraq, providing appropriate protection in Iraq for 
United States civilians, contractors and third-party nationals, and 
Iraqi nationals who have assisted the United States mission in Iraq, 
maintaining and enhancing the ability of the United States Government 
to eliminate and disrupt al Qaeda, and affiliated terrorist 
organizations and preserving military equipment necessary to defend the 
national security interests of the United States.
  I want to thank Chairman Abercrombie for his leadership on this bill 
and for his insistence that this bill come to the House floor for a 
vote. I urge all of my colleagues in the House to support this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield 1 minute to my colleague, my friend, the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
this bill and especially in strong support of our distinguished 
chairman, who has done so much to continue the steady progress, the 
steady march towards the safe, secure redeployment of our troops.
  This body is well served by the legislation introduced by Mr. 
Abercrombie and Mr. Tanner, inasmuch as it provides intelligent and 
meaningful legislation that will lead to the safe, speedy and 
responsible redeployment of our troops and once again returns 
accountability, as this committee has insisted on, to its proper venue 
within the Armed Services Committee to do the kind of oversight that 
will be necessitated by this bill.
  I commend the chairman and all of the staff for their hard work on 
this.
  Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from 
Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding his time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in very strong, strong support of this 
resolution.
  You know, it has been said that no battle plan survives first contact 
with the enemy, and I believe that that is true. That's why our 
military must constantly plan for every eventuality in warfare, because 
failure to do so can cost lives.
  The situation in Iraq is no different. We must prepare for every 
contingency. The day is coming when our brave men and women in uniform 
will leave Iraq, hopefully very, very soon. In fact, General Petraeus 
in his testimony last month spoke of the possibility that some of our 
troops will leave Iraq very soon, perhaps within weeks.
  In order to facilitate a very safe and orderly withdrawal, it is 
important that our military leaders plan appropriately, and they must 
also consult with the Congress so that we can provide the needed 
support to ensure that our troops are safe and that our vital national 
interests are protected.
  Prudent planning leads to success and provides the ability to react 
quickly to events on the ground. I believe that this resolution 
encourages such prudent planning. That's why I supported it when it 
came before the House Armed Services Committee, when it was debated 
then, and why I would urge the entire House to support it today. As was 
just mentioned by the chairman, it was a bipartisan vote and it passed 
55-2.
  The issue of our troop presence in Iraq has caused great debate 
across our country, has polarized this Congress, and I believe that 
this resolution is a demonstration that a bipartisan way forward can be 
achieved, that it can happen. In fact, it must happen for our Nation to 
move forward.
  I certainly want to express my appreciation to the sponsors of this 
bill. I want to express my appreciation and deep regard and respect for 
the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, as 
well as our ranking member, Duncan Hunter, great American patriots, all 
of them.
  Let us hope that the day is coming soon when our troops will come 
home with honor, with honor, our brave men and women who so proudly and 
bravely have protected and exported liberty and freedom, democracy.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, my 
colleague, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), who is the 
chairman of the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services 
Committee and is also an original cosponsor of this legislation along 
with Mr. Tanner from Tennessee.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I would at this point like to thank 
Mr. Mike Turner for working with us and the committee, right from the 
get-go, and also Mr. Phil English as well, to demonstrate what we have 
been saying here that Republicans alone, Democrats alone cannot bring 
this to an end. It requires us all to work together.
  Now, there are some, I am sorry to say, on both ends of the spectrum 
of the parties who want to diminish what the bill is all about and what 
its intent is all about. Someone went so far yesterday as to say, well, 
this bill is like naming post offices.
  Well, yesterday, we named two post offices for marines that were 
killed in Iraq. I don't suppose the author of that kind of commentary 
would like to speak with the family of the marines who have been killed 
about why these post offices were named.
  I think it's pretty important that we concentrate on those who are 
bearing the brunt of the policies that we approve of in this body. 
That's what this is all about. We want to end the party sniping. We 
want to end the commentary about advantages being taken from one party 
or another.
  Cover has been mentioned, about whether it would be given to one 
party or another. The only cover that we are interested in is the cover 
that has to be obtained by our fighting men and women in the field, 
because they are engaged in battle as a result of the policies that we 
either approve or disapprove of.
  It's time for the Congress to take back its responsibility.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a commentary 
from the Government Accountability Office as of the end of July of this 
year.

       Issues that DOD needs to consider in planning and executing 
     the draw down and redeployment of forces from Iraq:


         Draw Down Scope, Costs, Timetable, and Capacity Issues

       What forces will be drawn down, and over what period of 
     time? (i.e. the process for determining the order in which 
     specific forces will draw down, the timetable for the draw 
     down, and planning for the consolidation and relocation of 
     forces and related force protection issues).
       How will DOD estimate, budget, and report costs associated 
     with the draw down? (i.e. the use of baseline budgets versus 
     GWOT-specific funding requests for related costs, and the 
     determination of which cost elements will be directly 
     associated with draw down and redeployment operations).
       What will be DOD's responsibilities for transporting, 
     protecting, housing, and supporting other government civilian 
     personnel and contractors during the draw down and for those 
     forces that will remain behind? (i.e. civilian personnel from 
     the Department of Defense, State Department, USAID, and 
     defense contractors).
       What forces will stay in theater after the draw down, and 
     what will the footprint be for forces remaining in Iraq and 
     Kuwait? (i.e.

[[Page H11118]]

     stabilization forces in Iraq, forces to protect and maintain 
     prepositioned equipment sites in Iraq and Kuwait, and forces 
     to protect the U.S. Embassy in Iraq).
       How much equipment and supplies will be redeployed from 
     Iraq and Kuwait, and over what period of time? (i.e. types of 
     equipment and supplies, numbers and sizes of the pieces of 
     equipment and supplies, tonnage, and amounts and types of 
     shipping vessels that will be needed).
       To what extent does DOD have the capacity in Iraq, Kuwait, 
     and CONUS to support the draw down? (i.e. personnel, 
     facilities, storage, and transportation).
       What equipment will stay in Iraq and Kuwait, and how will 
     this equipment be protected and maintained after the draw 
     down? (i.e. equipment transfers to the ISF and Iraqi forces, 
     prepositioned equipment sites in Iraq and Kuwait, and numbers 
     of maintenance contractors or service members needed to 
     maintain equipment in Iraq and Kuwait).


                            Logistics Issues

       What are the logistics elements that DOD will need to 
     consider in the redeployment of troops and other personnel 
     from Iraq and Kuwait? (i.e. personnel security, housing and 
     food, medical support, and airlift requirements).
       What are the logistics elements that DOD will need in the 
     United States to accept and process troops and personnel re-
     entering the United States? (i.e. determining where the 
     troops and personnel will be sent, demobilization 
     requirements, housing and food, medical and dental support, 
     and veteran affairs issues).
       What are the logistics elements that DOD will need to 
     consider in the redeployment of equipment and supplies from 
     Iraq and Kuwait? (i.e. transportation requirements, security 
     and protection of in-transit assets, storage and handling 
     requirements, port operations and facilities, and 
     requirements for shipping containers and vessels).
       How will DOD maintain accountability and visibility over 
     in-transit assets? (i.e. establishing accountability over 
     assets in theater before redeployment, and maintaining 
     accountability and visibility throughout the redeployment 
     process).
       What are the logistics elements that DOD will need in the 
     United States to accept and process equipment and supplies 
     re-entering the United States? (i.e. port operations and 
     facilities, transportation requirements, storage and handling 
     requirements, maintenance requirements, equipment reset 
     requirements, and depot capability and capacity issues).


Rebuilding Unit Capacity and Maintaining Stability in the Region During 
                        and After the Drawn Down

       How will DOD plan for rebuilding unit capacity and 
     resetting the forces, including establishing goals for 
     readiness levels and investment priorities? (i.e. personnel 
     re-training and re-manning).
       What will be DOD's and other federal agencies' roles and 
     responsibilities regarding Iraqi refugees? (i.e. security, 
     shelter and food, and medical support).
       How will DOD coordinate with coalition forces on the draw 
     down and redeployment processes, and what will be the roles 
     and responsibilities of the coalition forces during and after 
     the draw down? (i.e. coalition forces that will remain in 
     Iraq after the draw down, and force protection issues during 
     the draw down).
       What agreements will DOD need to make with other 
     neighboring countries in the Middle East to facilitate the 
     draw down and redeployment? (i.e. airspace rights, logistics 
     support during redeployment, and roles of other countries in 
     the region in maintaining regional stability).

  What issues will the Department of Defense consider in the planning 
and executing of the draw-down and redeployment of forces from Iraq? It 
includes the draw-down, scope, the costs, the timetable, the capacity 
issues, logistics issues. These are the serious and sober subjects of 
what will be presented to us by these redeployment plans.
  You cannot have a redeployment by wish fulfillment alone. You have to 
have the practical realities in front of you in order to accomplish it. 
That's what we are seeking to do. That's what the Armed Services 
Committee on a bipartisan basis sought to accomplish with this bill. 
This is serious and sober business.
  Section two of the measure states the strategy required ``shall 
include planning to achieve the following.'' That's what we mean by the 
status of the planning. Status of the planning will include the 
transition of combat forces from policing civil strife or sectarian 
violence in Iraq.
  It has to include a projection in the number of members the Armed 
Forces required for the missions described in the redeployment. The 
details of what these redeployment plans will encompass are included in 
the bill, and so the preamble that is there that says the original 
resolution has now been accomplished takes us to this final conclusion 
that we reach today, the redeployment of our troops in a responsible 
way and a bipartisan manner.


            Permission to Reduce Time for Electronic Voting

  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during 
further proceedings today in the House, the Chair be authorized to 
reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
question that otherwise could be subjected to 5-minute voting under 
clause 8, rule XX.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I want to commend the committee chairman, 
Neil Abercrombie, for his leadership in bringing this bill to the 
floor.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. Castle from Delaware.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. CASTLE. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding and for his work on this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3087, legislation 
requiring the administration to work closely with Congress and our 
military leaders in communicating a comprehensive post-surge strategy 
for Iraq.
  Since 2003, over 3,800 American military personnel have been killed 
in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and more than 27,000 have been injured. 
These are very difficult times, and it is our duty to do everything 
possible to support those who have risked so much in service to their 
Nation.
  To this point, however, the U.S. Congress has been consumed by 
partisan infighting, which has resulted in gridlock and has prevented 
debate on substantive proposals like the Iraq Study Group 
Recommendations Implementation Act.
  The American people deserve a straightforward understanding of our 
involvement and long-term objectives in the Middle East. The 
legislation before us today, of which I am a proud cosponsor, takes an 
important step forward by requiring the Secretary of Defense to submit 
regular reports to Congress regarding the status of post-surge 
planning.
  Clearly, the U.S. Congress should not be acting without considering 
the advice of our military commanders in Iraq, and this legislation 
will ensure that Secretary Gates, General Petraeus and other senior 
officials are capable of communicating developments with Members of 
Congress and the administration.
  This information will also provide a greater understanding of 
progress made on General Petraeus' proposal for the redeployment of 
U.S. troops, and it will assist Congress in budgeting for the possible 
missions that may continue in Iraq, such as efforts to disrupt 
terrorist organizations and train Iraqi security forces.
  H.R. 3087 is the first of what I hope will be a substantive, 
bipartisan effort in Congress to work with our military and foreign 
policy leaders to achieve stability in Iraq and bring our soldiers home 
to their families.
  Last week, 14 Democrats and 14 Republicans endorsed such an approach 
by signing the Bipartisan Compact on Iraq Debate. Like Mr. Tanner's 
proposal, the importance of developing a clearly defined and measurable 
mission in Iraq is one of eight central principles agreed to in the 
Bipartisan Compact.
  Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that by finally agreeing to consider H.R. 
3087, Members from both parties will signal a willingness to set aside 
the partisan tactics that have crippled our efforts over the last 
several months.
  The Iraq war provokes intense and genuine feelings from individuals 
at all points of the political spectrum. However, politics as usual in 
Washington, D.C. should not be allowed to consume our efforts in lieu 
of progress.
  Bridging this critical political divide in Washington is our only 
hope for transitioning responsibility to the Iraqi Government and 
bringing about real substantive change in Iraq.
  Let us all join together to support H.R. 3087.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague and my 
friend from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) who is an original sponsor of the 
bill together with Mr. Abercrombie.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to also add my thanks to Mr. 
Abercrombie and Mr. English and Mr. Castle, Ms. Schwartz, and 
particularly to

[[Page H11119]]

you, Mr. Chairman. The point of this is that our soldiers, sailors, 
airmen, guardsmen, marines, are not dying in the name of the Republican 
Conference or the Democratic Caucus. They're dying in the name of the 
United States of America. We owe them a unified Congress to help them. 
This bill is a unifying factor here that starts us on the road to 
behaving as Americans first and political partisans second. Their 
sacrifice demands nothing less than that.
  I have a sense of urgency about this that I'm afraid did not come 
through in the hearing, particularly from Ambassador Crocker. Not that 
I'm criticizing him. I think he's doing a fine job. And I have no 
higher regard for anybody in uniform, past, present or future, than 
General Petraeus. But the sense of urgency I have is to bring us 
together so that we can move in a meaningful, constructive way, as 
Congress, to play a role in the civilian leadership aspects and 
management of this conflict.
  As has been noted previously, it requires the Pentagon to, in some 
way, bring Congress in in a meaningful way really on the strategy of 
the war for the first time.
  As I said earlier today, the strategy of waiting for the Shia and 
Sunni in Iraq to try to work, sit down and work something out in a 
central government in Baghdad is a less than viable option when our men 
and young men and women are patrolling the streets of Baghdad dying 
every day and we're asking the taxpayers of this country to spend $3 
billion a week for people who half the time boycott their sessions. And 
to say that we're going to do this until maybe they can get together is 
not, in my judgment, something that we can endorse.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, the original authorization, which provided 
basically two things, one is to remove the threat posed by the then-
Government of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, who has been captured, tried, 
convicted and executed, and to enforce the U.S. resolutions with 
respect to the weapons of mass destruction having been accomplished, 
it's not the war that we haven't won; it's the peace that we're having 
trouble with. And I want us to get together as a Congress to move 
forward to win the peace. That's what our mission is now.
  And the strategic mission that the administration had been following, 
the civilian leadership is not working out too well; 4\1/2\ years 
later, one can't leave the Green Zone without getting one's head shot 
off. I think we need the Congress to engage in a constructive, 
meaningful way. I think this vehicle will allow that to happen. And 
therefore, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and all of those people 
who had anything whatsoever to do with it. A big bipartisan vote today, 
I think, will begin this unification process we so desperately need in 
this country.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Representative English 
of Pennsylvania, who worked with the original bipartisan legislation 
with Representative Tanner.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 3087, the Tanner-Abercrombie-English Iraq planning 
bill. And I want to thank my two colleagues at the front end of that 
title, particularly, for their extraordinary efforts to move this bill 
forward.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important that Congress speak with a clear voice 
on Iraq. The American people need to know that their representatives 
are trying to seek out the best policy to protect American interests 
overseas and reduce our footprint in that troubled country.
  The Iraqi Government needs to know that the U.S. Congress is not 
prepared for our Nation to carry the burden of defending Iraq's 
security indefinitely and that that must become an Iraqi undertaking.
  Our allies need to know that we remain committed to the war on 
terror, and that although Congress may be deeply divided on the means 
to pursuing our goal, that ultimately, politics ends at the water's 
edge.
  This bill sends important signals. It sends a signal to our troops 
that their deployment is purposeful and that we're prepared to respond 
to changing conditions.
  It sends a strong bipartisan message that Congress is ready to 
respond to changing circumstances on the ground and recognizing the 
coming and necessary transition of our role in Iraq from combat 
operations to strategic support.
  Secretary Gates has already acknowledged that DOD would have little 
difficulty complying with the terms of this bill, so this legislation 
simply calls on the administration to make transparent the planning 
processes that prudent military leaders would undertake normally as a 
matter of course.
  Our legislation is a very simple bill, but it is still significant. 
H.R. 3087 has gained support from a broad spectrum of Members of this 
body, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. It cleared 
the Armed Services Committee with overwhelming bipartisan support.
  I encourage my colleagues to use this important bill as a launching 
pad for a new debate in the House on how we may find a new way forward 
in Iraq, while keeping faith with our troops, with our constituents, 
with our allies, with the Iraq nation and with all who stand for order 
and democracy in the face of the creeping menace of terrorism.
  The message we send today will be heard in our hometowns, on the 
battlefields of Iraq, and all around the world. That message is that we 
in this Chamber are prepared to stand together to do what it takes to 
forge a strong, sustainable and bipartisan U.S. policy in Iraq.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) who, by the way, is a 
member of the House Armed Services Committee.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
support of H.R. 3087, and I thank my colleagues, all of you, for 
getting it here to the floor. I voted for this bill in the Armed 
Services Committee with bipartisan support. It passed 55-2, and I think 
this is the beginning of the way. I'm happy that we're trying to find a 
way to move in Iraq.
  We are here today because after more than 4 years of the President's 
war, it has become painfully clear that the administration didn't 
adequately plan for this war. Plan. Planning. And this is what this 
bill is about. And that the administration really didn't understand the 
substantial investment that it was going to take for American troops 
beyond the initial invasion. In fact, when the President declared 
``Mission Accomplished'' on May 1, 2003, we had only lost 139 of our 
troops in Iraq; however, since then, 3,660 of our troops have been 
lost. So the American people have called for a redeploying of our 
troops from Iraq, and we need to start doing it, and we need a plan to 
do that redeployment.
  So today, with this legislation, Congress is mandating that proper 
planning be done, so that whenever the redeployment begins, our troops 
will be brought home safely to their families.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz) who is a cosponsor of this legislation.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, after all the loss of life, personal 
sacrifice and billions of taxpayer dollars, the President still does 
not have a plan for securing the peace in Iraq and bringing our troops 
home.
  After the continued failure of the Iraqi Government to make progress 
on political, social and economic benchmarks, the President chooses to 
stay the course in Iraq. After nearly 4\1/2\ years, Iraq remains 
politically unstable and tragically violent.
  Instead of changing course and offering a viable plan to conclude 
America's military involvement, the President calls for an open-ended 
commitment to keeping our troops in Iraq for years to come. It is time 
to demand a new direction for Iraq, to focus our military on combating 
and defeating terrorism, to insist on a comprehensive diplomatic 
strategy to move the Iraqi Government toward national reconciliation, 
and to bring our troops home.
  This Congress stands by our troops. They've performed with great 
honor and they've accomplished all that we have asked them to do. It is 
time to bring them home.
  Vote ``yes'' to demand a redeployment plan. Vote ``yes'' to demand 
accountability from this President to bring our troops home from Iraq 
safely and responsibly.

[[Page H11120]]

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Tanner is right. It is not 
the war we haven't won; it is the peace. And I want to encourage my 
friends on the other side of the aisle, join me in a bipartisan stand 
to bring our troops home now.
  I didn't support this bill originally, but I support it now because I 
understand that we make steps one by one. But I don't want to be 
chastised about bipartisanship because I want us all to work in a 
bipartisan way to, one, bring our troops home, and to recognize that it 
is not only the military power but it is the diplomatic power.
  This legislation is the right direction. It commands an intervention 
by the Congress, a 60-day report, how are we going to redeploy, and a 
90-day update.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to our troops coming home as 
heroes, and I'm working every day for them to come home with their 
families, a proclamation of their military success, a welcome home 
party in every single hamlet and village, and all the flowers that they 
can tolerate. That's what I call a declaration of the end of this 
tragedy.
  But this is a good step today because we are in the mix. We're 
fighting to get them home. We are demanding that they come home. We are 
getting a report. We are forcing the Pentagon to think, and that is 
what we need to do.
  But I look forward to my colleagues joining us and having a 
bipartisan vote on a time certain for these troops to come home.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this resolution has rightly earned a place 
on this uncontested Suspension Calendar. So long as it is not 
misinterpreted as suggesting that Congress supports a long-term troop 
presence in Iraq, it merely generates another report that does no harm 
and not any significant good.
  We know that, in addition to the blood of the brave, President Bush 
is hemorrhaging money as fast as he can get it, $3 billion every single 
month, building toward a price tag of $1 to $2 trillion on this 
tragedy.
  The Senate version of Senators Kerry and Clinton has a better 
approach in demanding cost estimates on each alternative redeployment 
and in asking that one of these redeployments occur by the end of next 
year.
  Our problem in Iraq is not a lack of reports, but a lack of the 
collective will in this Congress to initiate the change in course that 
President Bush will never undertake on his own. And I hope we have the 
courage of our troops, the courage to take that action as soon as 
possible.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. Shays from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I consider this an extraordinarily important moment. And, Chairman 
Skelton, I just want to share my tremendous respect for you in 
marshalling out a bipartisan beginning to something that can lead to 
more. That is what I think we all think that this is the beginning. So 
the Tanner-English-Abercrombie bill, congratulations to all three of 
you, becoming the Abercrombie-Turner bill in committee. It is a 
bipartisan, effort that says we can agree on something and build on the 
little and then have it be more significant.
  It makes sense to ask the Secretary of Defense to submit a plan to 
Congress that tells us specifically how they intend to fight this war 
and the factors involved in their anticipation of what can happen in 
the future. It makes sense to let them have 60 days to do this, because 
they already know right now what they intend to do, and it should not 
be all that difficult to describe it and then explain it to Congress.
  It makes sense for every 3 months, every 90 days, for this plan to be 
updated and for individuals in Congress to understand whether we are 
ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
  We went into Iraq on a bipartisan basis, two-thirds of the House, 
including Mr. Skelton and Mr. Lantos, who lead the two most important 
committees dealing with this issue; and the Senate, three-quarters of 
the Senate voted to go into Iraq. We need to leave Iraq on a bipartisan 
basis. It's called ``compromise.'' It's what our Founding Fathers 
practiced when they created the Constitution of the United States. 
Compromise is not a bad thing. Bipartisanship is not a bad thing. Our 
troops are hungry for their leaders in Washington to work together.
  It is my hope that we will have a time line, a time line that is 
sensible, a time line that tells the Iraqis we are not going to stay 
forever and a time line that tells Iraqis we are not going to pull the 
rug out from under them and leave tomorrow. We need a sensible time 
line, it seems to me; and I hope this becomes part of that ultimate 
report.
  So I will just conclude by saying something I have already said. 
Congratulations to Members on both sides of the aisle. Congratulations 
again to Mr. Skelton for beginning on that side of the aisle to preach 
and work for a bipartisan approach. And I thank Mr. Turner for his work 
and Mr. Castle and Mr. Gilchrest and Mr. Israel for what they have 
done.
  This is the beginning, I think, and our troops should be very hopeful 
it will lead to a lot of good for them and for the Iraqi people.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time 2 minutes to my friend 
and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have no more 
than 4 minutes to address the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Capuano). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
  I think all of us know by now that the military occupation in Iraq, 
which is referred to as a war but is really a military occupation, is 
an increasing disaster. We all know that now more than 4,000 military 
personnel have lost their lives, tens of thousands have been injured. 
We ought to be taking decisive action to put an end to that illegal, 
disastrous military occupation.
  This bill is presented as a means of attempting to do so. But it is a 
false presentation. It does nothing to that effect. This bill, if it is 
passed and signed into law, would simply require a plan to be developed 
within 60 days after that signing and then another 90 days an 
additional plan, another 90 days an additional plan. So what we are 
likely to see, unless this Congress is able to take more decisive, more 
progressive, more positive action, is four, five, maybe even six plans 
coming out of this administration and no responsible action taken with 
regard to the disastrous circumstances that occur on the basis of this 
illegal military occupation.
  This legislation does nothing productive to deal with this very 
difficult, dangerous, and disastrous situation. The circumstances for 
the security of this country have worsened as a result of this illegal 
invasion and the subsequent military occupation, and that worsening 
continues.
  One of the other things in this legislation is also, frankly, very 
interesting. Congress finds, it says, the following: that the President 
has the ability to use the Armed Forces as the President determined 
necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of 
the United States against the continuing threat posed by the Government 
of Iraq at that time, at the time that that resolution was passed back 
in October of 2002, which a number of us voted against.
  What this suggests is that that was the proper thing to do at that 
time. It was not the proper thing to do in October of 2002. It would 
have been much more proper if this Congress realized at that time what 
I believe most of us realize now: that the alleged justification for 
the illicit, illegal invasion of Iraq, the idea that there was a 
connection between Iraq and the attack of September 11, that Iraq had 
so-called weapons of mass destruction, that there was an alleged 
nuclear weapons

[[Page H11121]]

development program in Iraq, and that there was some connection between 
Iraq and al Qaeda, all of which was false. Now, many did not realize 
that at that time and subsequently they voted for it. Many of us did 
realize it and voted against it.
  We should not have anything asserting in any legislation that comes 
before this House anything that suggests that what was presented at 
that time to justify that resolution authorizing this administration to 
engage in this illegal invasion and the subsequent disastrous 
occupation of that sovereign country was true when it was all 
falsified, intentionally and purposefully falsified.
  So I could appreciate what some people may think they are doing here, 
and I certainly have a great deal of respect and affection for the 
Members who are the sponsors of this legislation. But I tell you, you 
look at this and you will say to yourself if this legislation passes, 
what it will authorize is a continuing falsified plan, much of which 
can be classified, coming from this administration, plan after plan, 
and the remaining military forces will be in that country until 
sometime after January of 2009.
  This doesn't do what we are supposed to do. We shouldn't be passing 
it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, our leader, 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for yielding. I thank the committee 
for bringing this bill to the floor. I appreciate what my very close 
and dear friend and one of the best Members of this Congress, in my 
opinion, Maurice Hinchey, has just said. Like many Americans, he thinks 
and many Americans think this doesn't go far enough. From the 
perspectives of perhaps everybody in the Chamber, it doesn't go far 
enough towards the position they would like to take. It is not a 
perfect resolution, but then again none are.
  What it does do, however, is try to say that if we are going to make 
decisions in the House of Representatives on an issue so critically 
important to our country and to the welfare of our troops that are in 
harm's way that we have the advice or at least the opinion of the 
administration as to how actions ought to be taken. Therefore, if there 
are those of us who believe, as I know my friend from New York does and 
some others, that we ought to redeploy, change course, redirect our 
efforts, the best advice and counsel that we could get on how to do 
that ought to be from our military leaders.
  And what this resolution simply says is, and I agree with my friend 
from Connecticut that we can say, hopefully, with a somewhat unified 
voice, perhaps not unanimous but somewhat unified voice, if we were to 
take the position that the gentleman and I shared when we voted for 
redeployment within a timeframe, tell us how that would be done. Tell 
us how it would be done consistent with the safety of our troops. Tell 
us how it would be done consistent with trying to leave behind as 
stable a government or community as possible in Iraq. Tell us how it 
could be done to enhance the possibility of political reconciliation in 
Iraq.
  The surge has not accomplished that. If the surge was intended to 
bring political reconciliation, General Petraeus said it had not. 
Ambassador Crocker said it had not.
  So I congratulate and thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Tanner), the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), and others who 
have joined in this effort to try to come to a step that will be a 
positive step. I think this is one of those steps.
  And I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, whatever 
your particular position is, that we ought to have in front of us a 
considered, considerate plan of how we would accomplish an objective if 
this House, hopefully, could summon the votes to seek that objective 
and mandate that objective.
  So I thank Mr. Skelton for bringing this to the floor. I thank him 
for his leadership on this issue, and I would urge all of my 
colleagues, understanding full well the concerns that have been 
expressed so ably by the gentleman from New York, my friend (Mr. 
Hinchey), that this legislation will send a strong message to many, 
including the administration, that we want to have the information that 
we need to make the best decisions that we can make. We may differ on 
what those decisions ought to be.
  But, hopefully, what we will not differ on is that if we can have the 
best information and advice as to how to obtain an objective, then the 
legislation we pass will be better, will provide for the safety of our 
troops and provide, hopefully, for the success of a redeployment within 
a timeframe that many of us believe is absolutely essential.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I too want to thank Mr. Tanner, 
Mr. Abercrombie, and Mr. Skelton and our Republican colleagues for 
coming together.
  Mr. Speaker, this is what I refer to as a soaring golden moment in 
this Congress because this is the beginning. This is a beginning of 
effective planning for bringing conclusion in a very responsible way to 
what the American people truly want.
  And why is this a golden moment? This is a golden moment in this 
House because the only way that we are going to bring this Iraqi 
situation to a positive conclusion is with Democrats working with 
Republicans.

                              {time}  1630

  Democrats cannot do it by ourselves, Republicans cannot do it by 
themselves.
  The other point why this is a golden moment, Mr. Speaker, is because 
this shows, and the process of this legislation and the reporting and 
the involvement of the Congress shows, that we are not going to make 
the same mistake ending our involvement in Iraq that we made in going 
in; and that was poor planning, bad information, and ineffective 
intelligence. That's why I commend this.
  It's very important for the American people to see us finally, as 
Democrats and Republicans, working together in this start to take this 
great step. And let us dare not lose this golden moment of bipartisan 
cooperation.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Abercrombie and Mr. 
Tanner, for bringing this forward. It's important not just for what 
you're doing, but for what this represents, to be able to get the 
debate going here on the floor and to expand it.
  This resolution represents the lowest common denominator, I think, 
but it's important for us to expand it, to deal with budget 
accountability. I personally don't want to have one more dime for 
waging war but, rather, move it forward in terms of securing the peace.
  I want to stop the open-ended commitment, hopefully revisiting the 
terms of the authority, move legislation to deal with the poor souls 
who are trapped in Iraq, refugees who relied on the United States and 
we've turned our back on them. Let's have some added accountability for 
the outsourcing of the war through private contractors, and certainly 
stop the drumbeat of war for Iran. I hope this will be the first of 
many debates on specifics every week, hopefully every day.
  I appreciate, Mr. Skelton, what you have done. There is no one who 
cares more deeply about our troops. There is nobody who has tried to 
sound the alarm about these disastrous policies. I hope we can work 
with you to expand this debate, to increase the accountability so that 
ultimately we achieve peace in Iraq.
  Mr. SKELTON. May I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri has 3 minutes; 
the gentleman from Ohio has 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Some will knock, Mr. Speaker, the importance of this legislation. It 
is a bill to require the Secretary of Defense to submit to us here in 
Congress reports on the status of planning for the redeployment of the 
Armed Forces from Iraq. Further, it requires the Secretary to meet with 
Congress to brief us on the matters contained in those reports.
  Under the Constitution, Mr. Speaker, we are charged here in Congress 
with raising and maintaining the military. It's important for us to be 
able to look

[[Page H11122]]

around the corner to unseen challenges that are out there. The last 30 
years we've had 12 military engagements, most of which were a surprise 
to us. So consequently, it's important for us in Congress to understand 
the progress and the status of planning for the redeployment of our 
Armed Forces from Iraq, because there may be those contingencies out 
there. We hope it doesn't come to pass, but if the future is anything 
like the past, our forces will be necessary.
  So let us understand what this bill does. I think it's a step in the 
right direction. I am absolutely pleased with the bipartisanship we 
have had, both in the Armed Services Committee and here on the floor. 
And special thanks to my friend, my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Turner) 
for his work and his amendment on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Chair again for his 
leadership for this bipartisan legislation, where this body will be 
able to come together for the important statement on the war in Iraq 
and for the important planning that needs to ensue.
  Mr. BOYD of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
3087.
  This bill requires the administration to develop a new, redefined 
mission regarding our involvement and long term interests in Iraq.
  This body has taken many votes this year on the issue of Iraq, but 
this is the first bill to address this issue that has come to the Floor 
with overwhelming bipartisan support.
  A bipartisan approach is critical to put an end to the political 
infighting that has thus far stymied congressional debate on Iraq.
  As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and a 
Vietnam veteran myself, it is my utmost concern to see that our troops 
are receiving the resources that they need, but I will continue to 
assert that our military has done all that we have asked it to do and 
now it is time for the Iraqi Government to take responsibility for the 
country's future.
  Given that, our Commander in Chief owes this Congress and the 
American people a plan for a redefined mission that reflects this 
reality.
  I have always believed that bipartisanship equals progress and in no 
other situation is the need more immediate. In fact, I hope that my 
colleagues know me as a person who puts these words into action. In the 
near future, I will be leading a bipartisan congressional delegation to 
visit our men and women stationed in Iraq.
  It is my sincere hope that our upcoming bipartisan trip and this vote 
today begin a new era where Members continue to join together on areas 
in which we find agreement in order to make progress for the good of 
the American people and our great country.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3087, 
legislation that will require the administration to develop and share 
with Congress a comprehensive strategy for the redeployment of U.S. 
forces from Iraq.
  Our Nation recognizes that we cannot remain in Iraq indefinitely. 
Just last week, General George Casey, the Army Chief of Staff, 
testified before the House Armed Services Committee that ongoing 
operations in Iraq were having a detrimental impact on our military 
readiness, endangering our ability to deal with other contingencies or 
problems. Our troops have done a superb job in a difficult mission, but 
they were not sent to Iraq to referee a civil war, and we need to bring 
them home. The violence in Iraq does not have a U.S. military solution; 
the answer lies in the Iraqi political reconciliation, which we must 
support with different methods.
  The legislation before us today demonstrates Congress's commitment to 
ending our military presence in Iraq by mandating that the Secretary of 
Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, report on the status of planning for redeployment of U.S. forces 
from Iraq and to provide periodic updates about their implementation. 
This information is vital for congressional oversight so that we ensure 
our policies are informed by sound judgment and reflect the complex 
logistical considerations involved with an undertaking of such 
magnitude. The administration's poor planning for the post-invasion 
period led to widespread problems in reconstruction and created the 
environment of instability that reigns to this day. We must avoid 
making that mistake again so that our withdrawal from Iraq does not 
exacerbate existing problems or create new ones.
  I will continue to work with my colleagues to demand a swift and safe 
withdrawal of our U.S. forces from Iraq, and I encourage all of my 
colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks.
  I'd like to thank my colleagues, Congressman Tanner and Congressman 
Abercrombie, for their hard work on this issue and their dedication to 
a new direction forward in Iraq.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3087.
  Mr. Speaker, a change of course in Iraq is long overdue.
  The cost of this war is already too high. America has spent over $455 
billion and lost more than 3,700 lives in Iraq.
  This responsible legislation would require the President and senior 
administration officials to develop and submit a comprehensive 
redeployment strategy to Congress within 60 days, and every 90 days 
thereafter.
  Additionally, this bill recognizes that the U.S. Armed Forces and 
U.S. civilians have worked valiantly, and that it is time for Iraq to 
manage its future.
  The bill also notes that when Congress authorized military force in 
2002, it was concerned about an Iraqi government that has since been 
removed from power.
  The brave men and women of America's armed forces have served their 
country valiantly and will continue to do so.
  But it is time to bring them home from Iraq.
  We must refocus our mission on the global threat of terrorism.
  As a veteran, I voted against this war in 2002 because no one could 
convince me why we needed to be there.
  Now, after five years of the President's failed policies, Congress 
must take action.
  I urge my colleagues to cast a vote for a new direction in Iraq and 
for the future security of America, and support H.R. 3087.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
3087, a bill that I voted for--along with 54 of my colleagues--when the 
Armed Services Committee considered it in July.
  As amended in committee, H.R. 3087 requires the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a comprehensive redeployment strategy for U.S. troops in Iraq 
and requires that the Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff brief the House and Senate Defense Committees on its contents 
within 60 days, and every 90 days thereafter.
  This legislation underscores the importance of contingency planning--
something I called for earlier this year when I introduced H.R. 1183, 
the Iraq Contingency Planning Act. It also underscores the importance 
of requiring the Defense Department to share its planning with 
Congress. The sharing can be done in a classified way, but Congress 
needs to be informed about these plans if we are to be prepared to 
respond to what these plans may call for.
  We remember that in 2003, President Bush launched a war in Iraq 
without a plan for what would come after initial military sucess. We 
all know where that has led us, and so as a member of the Armed 
Services Committee, I want assurances that this administration is 
thinking about and planning for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from 
Iraq--whether it happens tomorrow or next month or next year.
  Madam Speaker, this legislation isn't intended to solve the larger 
problem of Iraq. To do that, we need a policy aimed at escalating 
diplomatic and political efforts and lightening the U.S. footprint in 
Iraq. But although there is widespread support for redeploying our 
troops, there is not yet sufficient support in Congress to override a 
Presidential veto on any major change in our Iraq policy.
  That's another reason this bill is important. So long as we lack a 
sufficient majority to override his veto, we Democrats can't force the 
President to change course without Republican support. Only Democrats 
and Republicans working together can find the path out of Iraq. This 
bill is a small step forward in building that bipartisan support, so I 
will vote for it again today, while I continue to work with colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle on further steps we can take to change our 
broader Iraq policy.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to a resolution that 
does nothing to end the war in Iraq.
  Does H.R. 3087 call for our troops to immediately be brought home? 
No, it does not.
  Does it at least call for redeployment over several months, or even 
years?
  No, it does not.
  Or at the very minimum, does it demand that the Pentagon actually 
develop and outline to a Congress a strategy on how redeployment might 
occur? No, it does not. As introduced, the bill would have done so. But 
in committee, this weak bill became even weaker.
  There's no there there, if there ever was.
  All the bill does is require the Department of Defense to report to 
Congress on the status of planning for redeployment.
  Let's not kid ourselves about what the result of today's resolution 
will be. Every 3 months, President Bush's Secretary of Defense would 
tell Congress that the administration has not and will not develop a 
plan for the withdrawal of all our brave men and women in uniform.
  That much I already know. I don't need a Bush lackey to repeat the 
bad news on a quarterly basis.

[[Page H11123]]

  The only plan President Bush has is to keep our troops in harm's way 
for years if not decades. He wants to continue wasting tens of billions 
of dollars abroad while domestic needs go unmet at home.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote against H.R. 3087 and instead 
support an immediate end to the war in Iraq.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 3087.
  H.R. 3087 requires the Secretary of Defense to report to the Congress 
within 60 days, and every 90 days thereafter, ``on the status of 
planning for the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq.'' This 
bill specifies that the Pentagon is to describe a range of different 
possible scenarios for withdrawal, and create multiple timelines for 
completion of withdrawal. These reports will be valuable to the 
Congress as it carries out its oversight responsibilities and considers 
future legislation regarding Iraq. While it is necessary to require the 
Department of Defense to draft plans for withdrawal for Iraq, it is not 
sufficient. President Bush must finally implement these withdrawal 
plans so that our brave men and women can return home to their families 
having served honorably under extremely difficult conditions.
  It is clear that President Bush is content to allow the next 
President to clean up his mess in Iraq, and that is a travesty. The 
bill that we are considering today will at least make that job slightly 
easier for the next President, as the Pentagon will have already drawn 
up detailed plans for our withdrawal from Iraq. As we know only too 
well today, responsible planning and foresight was one of the earliest 
casualties of President Bush's war in Iraq. If the Congress must force 
such planning to be done, so be it.
  Mr. Speaker, while I support H.R. 3087 and encourage all members to 
vote for its passage today, it is tragic that due to opposition from 
Republican leaders in the Congress and veto threats by the President, 
we have not yet been able to make further progress on withdrawing our 
troops from Iraq. There was no connection between the 9/11 attacks and 
Saddam Hussein and no nuclear weapons in the sands of Iraq, yet the 
President seems to have no intention of bringing this mistaken and ill-
conceived war to an end. It is a war that has made the United States 
less secure, yet the President refuses to even begin thinking about a 
new strategy. It is long past time for the United States to hand over 
security in Iraq to the Iraqis, and I hope that this bill will move us 
closer to that goal.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3087, 
which requires the President, in coordination with the Departments of 
State and Defense, to transmit to the Congress a strategy for the 
redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. The bill also requires the 
Secretary of Defense, not later than 60 days after the enactment of 
this act, and every 90 days thereafter, to submit to congressional 
defense committees a report on the status of this planning. In 
addition, the bill requires the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to brief these same congressional 
committees on the matters contained in the report. Furthermore, the 
legislation contains ``sense of Congress'' language that the 
contingency planning should: address the protection of Iraqi forces, 
Iraqi nationals, third party nationals and U.S. civilians who have 
assisted the U.S. mission, enhance the ability of the United States to 
fight AI-Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations, and preserve 
military equipment necessary to defend the national security interests 
of the United States. Additional provisions in the bill include 
supporting and equipping Iraqi armed forces to take full responsibility 
for their own security.
  This resolution is an important component of Congress's oversight of 
the Iraq war, and compels the administration to engage with Congress on 
the planning for responsible redeployment of our combat troops. The 
President's Iraq policy of putting our brave men and women in the Armed 
Forces in the position of policing the streets of Baghdad and other 
Iraqi cities in the midst of a sectarian war is the wrong strategy and 
one that continually puts them in harms way. I will continue to 
advocate for an immediate start to the responsible redeployment of our 
combat troops from Iraq, but in the meantime, it is important to garner 
as many votes as possible within the Congress to send a strong message 
to the administration that it must begin to plan for a comprehensive 
redeployment of our forces to provide for the best possible protection 
of our brave men and women in uniform.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
3087, which requires the President, in coordination with the Secretary 
of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and 
other senior military leaders, to develop and transmit to Congress a 
comprehensive strategy for the redeployment of the armed forces in 
Iraq. I am in favor of requiring the President to develop a 
comprehensive strategy for the redeployment of American forces out of 
Iraq. A good plan is a good thing. A bad plan is a bad thing. But worst 
of all, is having no plan at all, which has been the sad state of 
affairs in Iraq for the past four years. So H.R. 3087 represents a 
small step in the right direction. However, there is more to be done, 
much more.
  While I am not opposed to this legislation requiring the 
administration to develop and transmit to the Congress a comprehensive 
strategy for redeploying our troops out of Iraq, I believe I speak for 
most Americans when I say that what we really want is to have the 
160,000 brave men and women wearing the uniform in the service of their 
country reunited with their families and friends and contributing to 
their communities back here in America.
  I am working toward the day when our soldiers, marines, sailors, and 
airmen can leave Iraq and return to the United States where they can 
receive the heroes welcome they deserve. I am working toward the day 
when the President of the United States issues a proclamation calling 
upon the people of the United States to observe a national day of 
celebration commemorating military success in Iraq. I can foresee the 
day when our troops who have known heat and hardship and horror in Iraq 
are again returned to their own land where they can be with family and 
friends and enjoy freedom and faith and fun. If H.R. 3087 hastens that 
day by just 24 hours, I can support it. But I will never be satisfied 
until our troops have been delivered out of Iraq and back to their 
loved ones.
  Mr. Speaker, the administration has consistently placed far too great 
an emphasis on military objectives and solutions, and has consequently 
not allowed diplomacy the role it was intended to play in our global 
system. The administration stated, ``In the coming months, the United 
States will continue to operate along four lines of operation--
security, political, economic, and diplomatic--to advance our 
objectives.'' In our war on terror, diplomacy cannot be used as a last 
resort. A war on terrorism is, as the Bush Administration has stated, a 
war for the ``hearts and minds,'' which simply cannot be won through 
military action.
  Mr. Speaker, our troops in Iraq did everything we asked them to do. 
We sent them overseas to fight an army; they are now caught in the 
midst of an insurgent civil war and political upheaval. I have, for 
some time now, argued the importance of the Congress going on record 
acknowledging for all the world to know the success of the America's 
armed forces in Iraq. Our brave troops have completed the task we set 
for them; it is time now to bring them home. Our next steps should not 
be a continuing escalation of military involvement, but instead a 
diplomatic surge.

  As the former chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, 
Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, recently stated, ``Military power 
is essential to our security, but if the only tool is a hammer, pretty 
soon every problem looks like a nail. We must use all the tools of U.S. 
power--including foreign aid, educational assistance and vigorous 
public diplomacy that emphasizes scholarship, libraries and exchange 
programs--to shape a Middle East and a Muslim world that are less 
hostile to our interests and values. America's long-term security 
relies on being viewed not as a threat but as a source of opportunity 
and hope.''
  Despite the multitude of mistakes committed by President Bush and 
former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, our troops have achieved a military 
success in ousting Saddam Hussein and assisting the Iraqis in 
administering a democratic election and electing a democratic 
government. However, only the Iraqi Government can secure a lasting 
peace. Time and time again, the Iraqi Government has demonstrated an 
inability to deliver on the political benchmarks that they themselves 
agreed were essential to achieving national reconciliation. Continuing 
to put the lives of our soldiers and our national treasury in the hands 
of what by most informed accounts, even by members of the Bush 
administration, is an ineffective central Iraqi government is 
irresponsible and contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming majority 
of the American people.
  Last month, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I am a 
member, heard testimony on the Government Accountability Office report 
on Iraqi progress toward the 18 legislative, economic, and security 
benchmarks. The Comptroller General of the GAO informed members that 
only three of these benchmarks have been met by the Maliki government. 
Despite the surge, despite increasing U.S. military involvement, the 
Iraqi government has not made substantial progress toward stabilizing 
their country. The more than 3,750 U.S. casualties and the $3,816 per 
second we are spending in Iraq have not bought peace or security.
  We are not here today to debate whether there has been some decrease 
in violence in Baghdad. The United States military is a skilled and 
highly proficient organization, and where there are large numbers of 
U.S. troops,

[[Page H11124]]

it is unsurprising that we see fewer incidents of violence. However, it 
is our responsibility to take a longer-term view. The United States 
will not and should not permanently prop up the Iraqi government and 
military. U.S. military involvement in Iraq will come to an end, and, 
when U.S. forces leave, the responsibility for securing their nation 
will fall to Iraqis themselves. And so far, we have not seen a 
demonstrated commitment by the Iraqi government.
  Mr. Speaker, President Bush stated in June 2005, ``Our strategy can 
be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.'' 
Instead of concentrating on building local capacity and applying 
pressure to the Maliki government to force them to take responsibility 
for the destiny of their nation, the Administration has chosen to 
pursue policies, namely the Baghdad security plan, that focus on 
continued combat by U.S. forces, rather than transferring 
responsibilities to Iraqis. As a result, Iraqi security forces, ISF 
remain entirely dependent upon U.S. troops; the August 2007 National 
Intelligence Estimate reports that the ISF ``have not improved enough 
to conduct major combat operations independent of the Coalition'' and 
``remain reliant on the Coalition for important aspects of logistics 
and combat support.'' With the New Way Forward strategy, American 
troops continue to shoulder the majority of the war effort.

  How will we know when the American forces are no longer needed? In 
testimony before a Joint Foreign Affairs-Armed Services Committees 
hearing last week, both General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker painted 
an optimistic picture of the situation in Iraq, making frequent 
reference to the progress and success in the Anbar province. However, 
Iraqi Parliament member and leading Shi'a cleric, Jamal Al-Din, said in 
a Congressional Briefing the following day that he did not recognize 
the country they described as the Iraq he represents, an Iraq that 
continues to be riddles with factionalism, extremism, and domestic 
strife. Even the administration's report projects a daunting list of 
challenges that face American troops on Iraq as well as Iraqis. These 
include: communal struggle for power between Shi'a majority and Sunni 
Kurd and other minorities; Al-Qaeda extremists in Iraq acting as 
accelerants for ethno-sectarian violence; Iranian lethal support to 
Shi'a militants; and foreign support to extremists in Iraq. And while 
General Petraeus and the Bush administration have been stressing the 
progress made in the region and the need for more time, they failed to 
note that sizeable increase in ethno-sectarian deaths in July and 
August and the fact that ethno-sectarian violence presents a 
substantial challenge to stability in the region, particularly in rural 
areas where security presence is light.
  And while the situation in Iraq presents an open-ended military 
challenge to our forces abroad, our presence in the region may be 
hindering the security of our Nation. Evidence suggests that not only 
is increased U.S. military presence in Iraq not making that nation more 
secure, it may also be threatening our national security by damaging 
our ability to respond to real threats to our own homeland. The 
recently released video by Osama bin Laden serves to illustrate that 
President Bush has not caught this international outlaw, nor brought 
him to justice. Instead, he has diverted us from the real war on terror 
to the war of his choice in Iraq.
  Recently, the former chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 
commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, published an op-ed in 
the Washington Post examining the question of whether our nation is 
safer today, six years after 9/11. Kean and Hamilton concluded, ``We 
still lack a sense of urgency in the face of grave danger.'' The 
persistence of this threat is attributed to ``a mixed record of reform, 
a lack of focus, and a resilient foe,'' and the authors note that our 
own actions have contributed to a rise of radicalization and rage in 
the Muslim world. Kean and Hamilton write that ``no conflict drains 
more time, attention, blood, treasure, and support from our worldwide 
counterterrorism efforts than the war in Iraq. It has become a powerful 
recruiting and training tool for al-Qaeda.''
  Mr. Speaker, Iraq faces a severe crisis. With a factionalist 
government in which parties are based on religion, a qualification that 
is strictly forbidden within the Iraqi constitution, religious, tribal, 
and ethnic tensions remain high and mere subsistence has become a 
challenge to the average citizen. The UNHCR has recently said that more 
than two million Iraqi's have claimed refugee status abroad since the 
invasion, while an additional 60,000 people flee their homes each 
month. In a recent statement, Ambassador Crocker the admission of 
refugees was ``bogged down by major bottlenecks.''
  The Administration has spent so much time and money on its military 
strategy that it is ill-equipped to handle the human rights atrocities 
that are occurring. And while the United States delays admission of 
refugees based on a myriad of bureaucratic security checks, Ambassador 
Crocker states, ``refugees who have fled Iraq continue to be a 
vulnerable population while living in Jordan and Syria.''

  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the lack of 
adequate oversight of the American war effort. Given the enormous 
amount of resources involved, coupled with the catastrophic costs in 
human lives, we would certainly expect adequate management of U.S. 
funds and military supplies. We would expect clear records of exactly 
where those $10 billion a month is going, and to whom it is being 
given. And yet, the GAO reports that the Pentagon has lost track of 
over 190,000 weapons, given to Iraqis, particularly in 2004 and 2005. 
The report states that the U.S. military does not know what happened to 
30 percent of the weapons the United States distributed to Iraqi forces 
from 2004 through early this year as part of an effort to train and 
equip the troops. These weapons could be used to kill our American 
troops.
  In addition, only yesterday, the Iraqi government stated that it 
would review the status of all private security firms operating in the 
country. This announcement came after a controversial gunfight on 
Sunday, involving the U.S.-based firm Blackwater USA, left eight 
civilians dead. Mr. Speaker, reports indicate that there are currently 
at least 28 private security companies operating in Iraq, employing 
thousands of security guards. This incident suggests the need for 
superior oversight and accountability for contractors in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, the real tragedy of this war has been the deaths of so 
many of our American sons and daughters. At current count, the 
Department of Defense had confirmed a total of 3,808 U.S. casualties. 
In addition, more than 28,009 have been wounded in the Iraq war since 
it began in March 2003. June, July, and August have marked the 
bloodiest months yet in the conflict, and U.S. casualties in Iraq are 
62 percent higher this year than at this time in 2006. This misguided, 
mismanaged, and misrepresented war has claimed too many lives of our 
brave servicemen; its depth, breadth, and scope are without precedent 
in American history.
  Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss briefly an 
important legislative proposal that I will soon introduce. This 
legislation, the ``Military Success in Iraq Commemoration Act of 
2007,'' recognizes the extraordinary performance of the Armed Forces in 
achieving the military objectives of the United States in Iraq, 
encourages the President to issue a proclamation calling upon the 
people of the United States to observe a national day of celebration 
commemorating the military success of American troops in Iraq, and 
provides other affirmative and tangible expressions of appreciation 
from a grateful nation to all veterans of the war in Iraq.
  There are many interesting and important legislative proposals 
relating to the war in Iraq. Most of them, however, are contentious and 
divisive making it difficult for them to attract broad support across 
the aisle. In this respect my legislation is different. That is because 
it involves an issue over which there should be widespread and broad-
based consensus. We should all be able to agree that one good and 
sufficient reason to redeploy U.S. troops out of Iraq is because they 
have achieved their mission objectives. They have been victorious in 
every battle and have won the military victory they were sent to win in 
March 2003. They are victors and heroes who have never been defeated on 
the battlefield.
  Blaming the current chaos in Iraq on our military is like blaming the 
Continental Army for the outbreak of the Civil War. In each case, the 
armed forces did their jobs--they won the war they were sent to fight; 
in each case, it was the civilian leadership that failed to win or 
maintain the peace.

  The Armed Forces of the United States are not to be used to respond 
to 911 calls from governments like Iraq's that have done all they can 
to take responsibility for the security of their country and safety of 
their own people. The United States cannot do for Iraq what Iraqis are 
not willing to do for themselves.
  When our heroic young men and women willingly sacrifice life or limb 
on the battlefield, the nation has a moral obligation to ensure that 
they are treated with respect and dignity. One reason we are the 
greatest nation in the world is because of the brave young men and 
women fighting for us in Iraq and Afghanistan. They deserve honor, they 
deserve dignity, and they deserve to know that a grateful nation cares 
about them.
  Outside of my office there is a poster-board with the names and faces 
of those heroes from Houston, Texas who have lost their lives wearing 
the uniform of our country. I think to myself how lucky I am to live in 
a nation where so many brave young men and women volunteer to the 
ultimate sacrifice so that their countrymen can enjoy the blessings of 
liberty. Now is the time to remind our heroes they have not been 
forgotten. More importantly, America has not forgotten them.
  My legislation, the Military Success in Iraq Commemoration Act of 
2007, pays fitting tribute to the valor, devotion, and heroism of

[[Page H11125]]

those who fought in Iraq in the following ways. First, my bill provides 
an express finding by the Congress that the objectives for which the 
AUMF resolution of 2002 authorized the use of force in Iraq were 
achieved by the Armed Forces of the United States.
  Second, my bill authorizes the President to issue a proclamation 
calling upon the American people to observe a national day of 
celebration commemorating the Armed Forces' military success in Iraq. 
This will help ensure that the Iraq War does not suffer the fate of 
other open-ended engagements like the Korean War, which is often called 
the ``Forgotten War.''
  Third, my bill authorizes funds to be appropriated and awarded by the 
Secretary of Defense to state and local governments to assist in 
defraying the costs of conducting suitable ``Success in Iraq'' 
homecoming and commemoration activities and in creating appropriate 
memorials honoring those who lost their lives in the war. Many of the 
casualties in the Iraq War come from small towns and villages in rural 
or economically depressed areas. The local governments are already 
facing substantial fiscal pressures and need help coming up with the 
necessary funds.
  Finally, my bill creates a program and authorizes funds to be 
appropriated pursuant to which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
award to each veteran of the Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring 
Freedom a grant of $5,000 to facilitate the transition to civilian 
life. We don't want veterans to end up homeless or unemployed or unable 
to take their kids on a vacation or start a business. This $5,000 bonus 
is but a small token of the affection the people of the United States 
have for those who risked their lives so that we may continue to live 
in freedom.
  Mr. Speaker, perhaps no issue will more define this Congress than how 
we conclude this misguided conflict. I am proud to be a part of a 
Congress that is listening to the clearly expressed will of the 
American people, and I remain, as ever, committed to ending this truly 
tragic conflict.
  Mr. TURNER. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 3087.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on suspending the rules and passing H.R. 3087 will be 
followed by 2-minute votes on motions to suspend the rules with regard 
to:
  House Resolution 635,
  House Concurrent Resolution 203,
  H.R. 2828, and
  House Concurrent Resolution 200.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 377, 
nays 46, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 927]

                               YEAS--377

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--46

     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Brady (TX)
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Carter
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     King (IA)
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lewis (GA)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McNerney
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Olver
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pence
     Rothman
     Serrano
     Shimkus
     Stark
     Tancredo
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Carson
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Hastert
     Higgins
     Jindal
     Kilpatrick
     Lee
     Maloney (NY)
     Perlmutter

                              {time}  1701

  Ms. DeGETTE, Ms. WATSON, Ms. VELAZQUEZ and Messrs. ROTHMAN, FRANK of 
Massachusetts, CANNON, BURTON of Indiana, DAVIS of Illinois, CONYERS 
and LAMBORN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. BROUN of Georgia, RADANOVICH and WESTMORELAND changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and 
the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress reports on the status of 
planning for the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq and to 
require the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, and appropriate senior officials of the Department of Defense to 
meet with Congress to brief Congress on the matters contained in the 
reports.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.




                          ____________________