[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.
____________________