[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 176 (Wednesday, November 14, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H13904-H13916]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4156, ORDERLY AND RESPONSIBLE IRAQ
REDEPLOYMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up H. Res. 818 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 818
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
4156) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2008, and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions of
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion
to recommit.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 4156 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
{time} 1730
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). The gentleman from
Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
[[Page H13905]]
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
I yield myself 6 minutes.
General Leave
I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative
days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution
818.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 818 provides for
consideration of H.R. 4156, the Orderly and Responsible Iraq
Redeployment Appropriations Act of 2008. The rule provides 2 hours of
debate and provides for one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq has gone on for nearly 5 years.
Thousands of our brave men and women have lost their lives. Many more
thousands have returned home with injuries so severe that they will
require a lifetime of medical treatments.
We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the war, virtually
none of it paid for, almost all of it on our national credit card. That
means that the bill will be paid for not by us, but by our kids and our
grandkids.
The war has diminished our standing in the world. It has distracted
us from the war in Afghanistan, the very place where those responsible
for 9/11 are now regrouping. And it has put incredible strain on the
readiness of our Armed Forces.
The President of the United States and many of my Republican friends
have argued fiercely over the years for a blank check. They want no
strings, no conditions, no benchmarks, no end dates, no accountability,
no nothing.
Today, they will tell us that the President's strategy is working;
that the recent decrease in deaths and casualties in certain areas of
Iraq prove it, and, therefore, we should provide yet another blank
check.
Mr. Speaker, let me caution my friends about declaring ``mission
accomplished'' yet again. While all of us pray that the violence
continues to subside, we should also appreciate history enough to know
that lulls in intense violence are not always permanent. Let me also
state that the current levels of violence in Iraq are still
unacceptably high.
As Joe Christoff of the Government Accountability Office recently
testified, this recent reduction in violence should be put into the
proper context as it coincides with increased sectarian cleansing and a
massive refugee displacement. Let me quote:
``You know, we look at the attack data going down, but it's not
taking into consideration that there might be fewer attacks because you
have ethnically cleansed neighborhoods, particularly in the Baghdad
area. It's produced 2.2 million refugees that have left, and it's
produced 2 million internally displaced persons within the country as
well.''
Mr. Speaker, we must remember that the justification for the surge
and the justification for the Bush military strategy in Iraq has always
been to foster Iraqi political reconciliation. And there is precious
little evidence of any such thing.
Over 10 months ago, President Bush said, ``A successful strategy for
Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see
that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in
their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi
Government to the benchmarks it has announced.''
But, Mr. Speaker, as the GAO reported last month, ``Iraq has not yet
advanced key legislation on equitably sharing oil revenues and holding
provincial elections. In addition, sectarian influences within Iraqi
ministries continue while militia influences divide the loyalties of
Iraqi security forces.''
Mr. Speaker, the Maliki government continues to be corrupt, inept and
without the support of the vast majority of the Iraqi people. When will
the Bush administration live up to its word and hold the Iraqi
Government accountable for its actions, or inaction?
The fundamental crisis facing Iraq remains the same: the inability of
Sunni, Shiites and Kurds to agree to set aside their sectarian
divisions and live in peace. As long as we remain there indefinitely,
Mr. Speaker, there is no incentive for anything to change.
Mr. Speaker, our soldiers have already given so much to create an
opportunity for the Iraqi Government, an opportunity that that
government has squandered. So, today, we are saying we want a different
course. We reject the President's vision of an endless war that will
cost more lives and bankrupt our Nation.
Today, we will vote on a bill that requires the redeployment of U.S.
troops from Iraq to begin within 30 days of enactment, with a target
for completion of December 15, 2008. It would prohibit the deployment
of U.S. troops to Iraq who are not fully trained and equipped. And it
changes the mission of our forces.
It also extends to all government agencies and personnel the
limitations in the Army Field Manual on permissible interrogation
techniques, which means that torture will be absolutely banned, and
anyone who engages in such practices will be committing a crime under
U.S. law, no ands, ifs or buts.
Mr. Speaker, it is no longer acceptable for Congress to simply write
yet another blank check. It is not acceptable for the President to
simply run out the clock and hand this problem off to his successor.
This is a war that George Bush started, and this is a war that he
needs to end. For the sake of our troops, for the sake of our country,
we need to support this legislation. Enough is enough.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise to express my appreciation to my friend from Worcester for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my long-time Rules Committee colleague,
the gentleman from Worcester, I am reminded of a great speech that was
delivered last Friday. Last Friday, our very distinguished colleague,
the Senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, in an address, said
something that I think encapsulates exactly what we just heard from my
very good friend.
Senator Lieberman, in speaking of the Democratic Party, and he is now
an independent Democrat, sometimes I see him listed as a Democrat, I
know he organizes with the Democrats, he is listed as an independent as
well, he said, ``The Democrats are emotionally invested in a narrative
of defeat.''
Mr. Speaker, I have got to say as I listened to the words of my
colleague from Worcester, I can't help but think that Senator Lieberman
was right on target when he used that language, ``emotionally invested
in a narrative of defeat.'' I was so struck with that when I heard it
that I committed it to memory, and I think, again, it really takes on
exactly what we have just heard.
It comes as no surprise that I rise in very, very strong, vigorous
opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation as well. We have
had 40 votes on Iraq policy, and today's bill brings us to vote No. 41.
Not one, Mr. Speaker, not one of the withdrawal bills went through the
normal legislative process. Not one, not one of these 41 measures is
the product of a committee markup. Not one got its own hearing. Not one
has been brought up under an even slightly open process, allowing for
amendment, and consequently not allowing for any kind of real debate.
Mr. Speaker, most telling of all, not one has been enacted into law.
Now, we all know that the Democrats control both the House and the
Senate, and still they cannot produce a single legislative victory on
Iraq. Not once, not twice, not 10 times. Forty times. Mr. Speaker, 40
times we have gone through the motions of their failed, bankrupt
strategy. I can't recall a more naked display of demagoguery.
Now we come to vote No. 41. It has all the hallmarks of the
Democratic majority's work: no deliberation, no gesture towards
bipartisanship, and no hope of being enacted.
But there is something different about the vote this time, and that
is context. We are considering this vote in a much different context
than we have the 40 previous votes that we have addressed on this. In
fact, our colleague in the Senate, Johnny Isakson, Senator Isakson,
said this debate was understandable in May. He said in July, it was
questionable. He said now it is absolutely ridiculous.
[[Page H13906]]
For many months, the situation in Iraq has been very bleak. While
there were many promising signs of progress, the turnaround in al Anbar
province most notably, the overall picture was one of great challenges
and struggles. I have argued repeatedly that a precipitous withdrawal
would only create more challenges, and, Mr. Speaker, I have highlighted
the signs of progress amid the struggles all along.
But today, the tide is turning in Iraq. We are seeing far more than
pockets of success, as my friend has said. We are seeing a dramatic
shift in the landscape. It began in al Anbar, as I have said. The Sunni
sheiks there turned on al Qaeda, joined with the largely Shiite Iraqi
army and with coalition forces, and reclaimed the province. Ramadi, its
capital, the city that we have all heard of described as the most
dangerous city in the world just a year ago, hasn't had an attack in 3
months. The city and the province are rebuilding. They are constructing
small business centers so that the entrepreneurial spirit of Iraqis can
flourish once again.
A delegation, including the Anbar governor, the Ramadi mayor, several
prominent religious leaders and Ahmed Abu Risha, the brother of Sheik
Sattar Abu Risha, the father of the Sunni Awakening, was just here in
Washington a couple of weeks ago. They came here, Mr. Speaker, to spend
several days receiving training in institution building, good
governance, transparency and the rule of law.
Mr. Speaker, these are Anbar's political, business and religious
leaders, not coming here to seek security assistance, not seeking
military assistance. They have achieved security in al Anbar. Now what
they want, Mr. Speaker, is help from us in their quest to build a
democracy. But, most important of all, they are serving as a model for
the rest of Iraq.
Prior to their trip, they participated with Shiite leaders in a
summit in Karbala. Sheiks from Karbala and Najaf, Iraq's two holiest
cities for Shiite Muslims, reached out to their Sunni brothers in Anbar
and asked for their help in combating al Qaeda. This comes at a time
when Sunni and Shiite leaders in Baghdad are reaching out to each other
to begin the process of reconciliation as well.
Baghdad's notorious Adhamiya neighborhood that we have heard so much
about, formerly the site of some of Iraq's worst sectarian violence, is
now a place where Sunni and Shiite sheiks are meeting regularly to
discuss how to bring their people together, just the things that my
friend from Worcester said are so imperative. They are taking place at
this very moment.
Now, all of this has been possible, Mr. Speaker, because of the
dramatic drop in violence brought about by General Petraeus'
counterinsurgency strategy. This strategy, which included the surge,
has resulted in months of plummeting IED attacks, plummeting American
troop deaths, plummeting Iraqi civilian deaths, and plummeting
sectarian attacks.
Many of my colleagues have pointed out that this has been the
deadliest year for American troops yet in Iraq, and, Mr. Speaker, I
will acknowledge that this has been the deadliest year for American
troops in Iraq. And it is true over the past year we have tragically
seen that great number. But that does not reflect what is happening now
in this post-surge world.
{time} 1745
The past few months have seen the most dramatic decline in the deaths
of American troops because we have had a new strategy. Mr. Speaker, we
have had a new strategy, and that strategy is working. And perhaps most
important for all of us, that strategy has enabled our military
commanders to begin a drawdown in U.S. troop levels.
Not because of artificial timetables. Not because of the
micromanagement of Members of Congress from the comfort of our offices
thousands of miles away from the front lines. But by empowering our
commanders on the ground, they have created a stable security situation
that is allowing for both the beginnings of Iraqi reconciliation and
the safe withdrawal of our troops.
Mr. Speaker, the big question for today is this: Will the dramatic
improvement in Iraq prove to be a true turning point or nothing more
than a lull in the war? I don't know the answer to that. Neither
outcome is a foregone conclusion. Whether it is a major turning point
in the war or just a lull, no one knows for sure. What we do know now
will profoundly affect the future of Iraq. Will we fund our troops and
empower our commanders to continue to do what is best for our long-term
interests? Or will we pull the rug out from under them now at the
precise moment they have achieved what we have asked of them?
As one of my friends just said to me, it seems like our friends on
the other side of the aisle want defeat before we can win.
For my colleagues who would resort to the latter option out of
political expediency, Mr. Speaker, let me remind them of another war
our men and women are fighting. Today our troops are also battling a
very real enemy in Afghanistan.
We got a terrible reminder just a few days ago of the viciousness of
that fight when six of our counterparts, members of the Afghan
Parliament, were brutally targeted in the worst attack in Afghanistan's
history, and I would like to express my appreciation for the bipartisan
support that my colleague, David Price, and I offered as leaders of the
House Democracy Assistance Commission.
We have been working with those parliamentarians in Afghanistan, and
we are hoping to work with those in Iraq as soon as possible. And we
once again express our condolences to the people of Afghanistan who
have suffered the single worst attack in their nation's history when a
week ago yesterday six parliamentarians and 44 other people were
brutally murdered.
Let me also remind my colleagues that this war that we are seeing in
Afghanistan is not our first war in Afghanistan. Many of us were
intricately involved in their war against the Soviets in the 1980s,
many Members who are still here today. And what did we do after the
Soviets were defeated? We withdraw and left the Afghans to fend for
themselves.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot forget that democracy is hard work. For over a
decade, unfortunately, in Afghanistan we indulged in the luxury of
ignoring what was going on there. And then on a sunny Tuesday six
Septembers ago, 3,000 Americans paid a horrible price for that mistake.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot refuse to learn from history or we are doomed
to repeat it. Our support for our troops in Iraq has earned us a far
more stable, secure situation. And yet what does the Democratic
leadership propose to do? Their bill would reward our military
commanders' success by cutting them off.
It would provide constitutional protections for terrorists, while
leaving our veterans, including Iraq veterans, without funding. It
would force the same disastrous, shortsighted withdrawal that led to
the terrorist sanctuary in Afghanistan. It would do all of this at a
time when we are achieving not just pockets of success in Iraq but
broad-based improvements, and at a time when Republicans have been
trying every possible means to get an appropriations bill for our
veterans to the President, which he will certainly sign if we can ever
get it to him.
Mr. Speaker, the Democratic majority's priorities, foolhardy
policies, and constitutional rights for terrorists have never been so
out of whack. I suppose we can take comfort in the fact that this is
all a meaningless charade that will never be enacted, because we all
know this will never be enacted. But that is a hollow comfort when we
consider our troops in harm's way and our veterans in need.
Mr. Speaker, it is a very cruel comfort for the families of those who
have made incredible sacrifices in this war.
I often think of my good friend, Ed Blecksmith, a former marine and
the father of JP Blecksmith, also a marine, who died in November 2004
just 3 years ago in the very famous battle of Fallujah. I have talked
about the Blecksmith family here on the House floor many, many times. I
didn't know JP, but from everything that I have read, and I have a
recent article that has just come out about him, he was a very talented
young man with a very bright future. He had so many opportunities
before him, and he chose to be a marine because he wanted to serve as
his father had done. His family proudly, but soberly, supported him. As
a
[[Page H13907]]
former marine, Ed Blecksmith knew in a very real way the cost of war.
JP Blecksmith would not return to his family, having made the ultimate
sacrifice.
And his father said something to me that I will never forget. He
looked me in the eye and asked me to make sure that we complete his
son's mission in Iraq. He has said to me on countless occasions, You
must complete the mission or my son JP will have died in vain.
Mr. Speaker, it is deeply heartening to see the beginnings of
victory. And no, I am not saying ``mission accomplished'' or anything
like that because we know full well that we have difficult days ahead.
But it is deeply heartening to see the beginnings of victory in Iraq,
for JP's sake and for the sake of all who have paid a very dear price.
We have a profound responsibility to allow our commanders to continue
on this path.
Mr. Speaker, after 41, 41 wasted efforts, I can only hope that the
Democratic leadership will finally abandon empty demagoguery for
substantive legislation, meaningful debate, and a quest at
bipartisanship so we can work with the President to come to an
agreement. Until that time, I urge my colleagues to reject this closed
rule and the terribly wrongheaded policy that it seeks to shield.
[From Details, Holiday 2007]
The Fallen: 2nd Lieutenant JP Blecksmith, 24
(By Jeff Gordinier)
On the night before 2nd Lieutenant JP Blecksmith shipped
out to Iraq, after his family took him out for dinner in
Newport Beach, California, his older brother, Alex, picked up
a pair of clippers and shaved JP's head. When that was done
and JP looked ready for combat, Alex gave his brother a hug.
Then Alex climbed into JP's green Ford Expedition and drove
it north, back to the family's house in San Marino, weeping
part of the way. He had a feeling. So did his parents. A
premonition. They didn't talk about it much, but two months
later, in November 2004, when JP joined a wave of U.S.
Marines roaring into the city of Fallujah as part of
Operation Phantom Fury, the feeling intensified.
On the night of November 10, Blecksmith and his closest
friend in Iraq, Lieutenant Sven Jensen, slept on a rooftop in
Fallujah. It was, miraculously, a quiet night, and chilly.
They got a decent night's sleep. They awoke just before
sunrise and were amused to find a small pet bird with green
wings and a yellow belly perched a couple of feet away from
their faces. Jensen took a picture of the bird. There were
other ones like it all over Iraq, because when U.S. troops
were searching abandoned houses, they often found cages that
had been left behind. The soldiers let the birds go free so
they wouldn't starve to death.
Hours before, JP had sent a letter to his girlfriend,
addressing it formally, as always, to ``Ms. Emily M. Tait.''
In it he wrote, ``By the time you receive this, you will know
we have gone into the city. We've been preparing for it the
last few days, and my guys are ready for the fight, and I'm
ready to lead them. It'll be hectic, and there will be some
things out of my control, but the promise of you waiting at
home for me is inspiring and a relief.'' Now he was in the
thick of it. Blecksmith and Jensen came down from the
roof, ate their MREs for breakfast, and got their orders.
Before the invasion the battalion commander, Colonel
Patrick Malay, had given his men an analogy: `` `Imagine a
dirty, filthy windowpane that has not been cleaned in
hundreds of years,' '' he recalls saying. ``That's how we
looked at the city of Fallujah. Our job was to scrub the
heck out of that city, and then take a squeegee and wipe
it off so that it was clean and pure.'' Most of Fallujah
was empty, and anyone left in the city was presumed to be
an insurgent.
Blecksmith and the other members of the India Company of
the Third Battalion, Fifth Marines Regiment, moved south
through the city, with their blood types scrawled in
indelible marker on the sleeves of their uniforms. The
streets smelled terrible--a stubborn aroma of rotting food
and bodies. Late in the day on November 11, things started to
go wrong. A marine in Blecksmith's platoon, Klayton South,
was shot in the mouth by an insurgent when he kicked open the
door of a house. Blood gushed from his mangled teeth and
tongue. The medics cut into South's throat to give him an
emergency tracheotomy. (He survived. He's since had more than
40 operations to repair the damage.) ``It shook the platoon
up,'' Jensen says now, ``and JP was the most in-control
person I saw. He had a sector to clear, so he rallied his
guys and said, `Okay, we've got to continue clearing.' ''
Blecksmith's and Jensen's platoons moved off in different
directions, and the two friends shot each other a glance.
``I'll never forget looking at his eyes the last time I saw
him,'' Jensen says. ``He turned and he gave me almost an
apprehensive look, like, Oh, s-it, we've got some s-it going
on. I wanted to say `Hey, I'll see you later.' But I didn't
say anything to him.''
Minutes later, Blecksmith led his platoon into a house and
climbed a flight of stairs to the roof to survey the
surrounding landscape. Shots came from a building across the
street. Blecksmith stood up to direct the squads under his
command, shouting at them to take aim at the enemy nest. He
was tall, and was now visible above the protective wall. ``He
was up front a lot, and he made a big target, and we'd talked
to him about that,'' Colonel Malay says. ``He exposed himself
consistently to enemy fire in the execution of his duties. He
displayed a fearlessness to the point that we had to talk to
him about the fact that nobody is bulletproof.''
As Blecksmith stood on the roof, a sniper's 7.62-mm bullet
found one of the places on his body where he was vulnerable.
It was a spot on his left shoulder, less than an inch above
the rim of his protective breastplate. The bullet sliced
downward diagonally, coming to rest in his right hip, and
along the way it tore through his heart. ``I'm hit,''
Blecksmith said. He fell. He raised his head for a moment,
and that was it. A Navy medic got to Blecksmith immediately,
but he was already dead, and his men carried his heavy body
back down the stairs. He was 24.
That night in San Marino, Alex Blecksmith came home from
work and noticed that the house was dark. He opened the front
door and saw his mother, Pam, sitting at the kitchen table
with a couple of marines in dress blues and white gloves, and
he heard the phrase ``We regret to inform you . . .''
The funeral was so magnificent, so full of pageantry, that
at times it was difficult for Alex to remember that the guy
being buried was his brother. The Marines do it right when it
comes to honoring the fallen. They do it so right that you
can get swept up in the ceremony and feel as though you're
watching a parade. The funeral took place at the Church of
Our Saviour in San Gabriel--the church where the most
celebrated of San Marino's favorite sons, General George S.
Patton, had been baptized as a baby. As the flag-draped
casket was carried out of the sanctuary and into the
California sun, a long, silent line of almost 2,000 people
followed. There were marines and midshipmen and local
firefighters in uniform. There was a 21-gun salute. Four
World War II fighter planes swooped toward the cemetery in
the ``missing man'' formation--just as they passed over the
funeral, the fourth plane symbolically split from the quartet
and veered into the sky. A bagpiper played a Scottish dirge.
One of JP's old friends would later observe that the day, in
all of its glory and pomp, made him think of Princess Diana's
wedding.
As public support for the war in Iraq wavers, it's easy to
forget that people like JP Blecksmith even exist. The
American military is so predominantly blue-collar that we
tend to assume that the sons and daughters of the rich never
voluntarily die in warfare anymore. Blecksmith was born in
September 1980, just weeks before his state's own Ronald
Reagan was elected president, and he spent most of his youth
in the small Los Angeles County town of San Marino during
what felt, for many of its wealthy and conservative
inhabitants, like something of a ``Leave It to Beaver''
golden age. To look at a photograph of him, blue-eyed and
suntanned and grinning, is to understand the enduring
magnetism of the word ``California.'' He stood six foot three
and weighed 225 pounds. His chest was a keg; his biceps were
gourds. His biography reads as though it were scripted by a
Hollywood publicist: legendary quarterback on the Flintridge
Prep football team, track star, graduate of the United States
Naval Academy.
His father, Ed Blecksmith, who is 64, runs an executive-
recruiting firm in Los Angeles. He and Pam met in the early
seventies, while both were working in the White House. Along
a wall leading into their kitchen hang framed Christmas cards
from Dick and Pat Nixon. ``Here's a kid,'' Ed says, ``who
didn't need to do this.'' It's as though JP were transplanted
into our world from the Eisenhower years. Somehow, in an
ironic age of Jon Stewart and ``South Park,'' the guy grew up
in a kind of pre-Summer of Love bubble in which young men of
strength and valor still yearned to distinguish themselves on
the battlefield. He was groomed, in a sense, for something
that no longer exists, at least not for guys who grow up in
the wealthiest zip codes in the country. He believed in
ideals of duty and sacrifice that have become, for many men,
anachronistic and even unfathomable.
``I was in awe,'' says Peter Twist, Blecksmith's closest
friend since preschool. Twist played wide receiver to
Blecksmith's quarterback on the Flintridge Prep football
team; a local newspaper called the duo ``Fire & Ice.''
Blecksmith was known for being fast, composed, smart, and
unflappable, and his giant arms could propel the ball a good
80 yards down the field. If he had an athletic flaw, it was
that he was aware of his own flawlessness. ``He had such
personal confidence,'' says Tom Fry, a mentor to Blecksmith
in high school and one of the assistant coaches on his team.
``He felt that if all the stars aligned, there was nothing he
couldn't do--it was JP's world.'' When they graduated in
1999, Twist and a couple other teammates went off to the
University of Arizona, where it's safe to say the prospect of
partying was on their minds, while Blecksmith opted for the
rigors and restrictions of Annapolis. ``I was stoked for the
man'' says Twist, 26, who lives in Newport Beach and works in
the mortgage business. ``Most of us are still trying to
figure it out, but JP always had a goal.''
[[Page H13908]]
November 11, the date on which JP Blecksmith died, was
noteworthy for other reasons. It's Twist's birthday. It also
happens to be the birthday of General Patton, who grew up in
San Marino and holds a prominent place in the town's history.
This coincidence has only bolstered the mythology of JP
Blecksmith--a feeling that it was his destiny to die in
combat. The Blecksmiths have a statue of Patton on a shelf in
their home, and it becomes clear in conversation that Ed, a
decorated Vietnam veteran himself, sees a kind of mystical
link between the fate of his son and the military, triumphs
of the legendary general (who was a passionate believer, it
just so happens, in reincarnation).
Indeed, JP Blecksmith fit the ``hero'' mold in such
classic, square jawed American style that a kind of cult of
JP has begun to develop in San Marino. They give out awards
in his name at the local schools. On the Fourth of July, San
Marino hosts a JP Blecksmith 5K run. A Marine Corps training
center in Pasadena has been christened Blecksmith Hall. On a
hot Sunday morning this past August, Alex parked his
brother's Expedition in the cemetery and walked across the
grass to the pale granite stone that says JAMES PATRICK
BLECKSMITH. An elderly man wandered over to the headstone,
hand in hand with a grade-school kid who had a blond Mohawk,
and told Alex, ``I never met JP, but I go by here and show my
grandson his grave''
THREE YEARS AFTER BLECKSMITH'S death, his bedroom still
looks the way it did when he left for Annapolis in 1999.
There's a Green Bay Packers poster over the bed, a dense
forest of athletic trophies, toy race cars lined up on the
dresser. ``This is all his stuff from Iraq that they sent
over,'' Alex says, looking down at a cardboard box on the
floor. ``We haven't gone through it, really.''
Ed Blecksmith walks into the bedroom, and within a few
seconds his voice is cracking and his blue eyes are growing
wet. ``It's still tough,'' he says. ``You see all these
pictures and things . . .'' He insists on sitting down in
front of the TV downstairs and watching DVD footage of that
magnificent funeral, fighting back a sob at the moment when
one of the eulogists, a Navy SEAL, describes JP as having
been ``the best of the best.'' Ed has some Fox News footage,
too. In it, you can see JP speaking to his men hours before
the battle in Fallujah, and that's where you get a brief
glimpse of the regular guy behind the mythology. Because
there stands JP, in fatigues and a floppy Boonie hat, holding
a map, telling his marines to ``expect everything you can
possibly imagine.'' When he looks at the camera for a moment,
he's smiling.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California mischaracterized my
position and what I am invested in. I am invested in what is best for
this country, Mr. Dreier. And I am invested in what is best for our
troops. And I am opposed to this Bush policy of an endless war, and I
think it would be a mistake for this Congress to give this President
another blank check.
This is not a meaningful charade, Mr. Dreier. Those of us who are
arguing for this legislation want to bring this war to an end.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, today's debate is not about political calculation. It is
not about public appearance or ready-made slogans. It is not about
approval ratings or polls.
Today's debate is about the very future of this country that each one
of us loves so dearly. It is a fork in the road. It is a rare
opportunity for each of us to chart the course of the Nation we serve
by casting a single vote.
Today we can vote for the status quo in Iraq or we can vote for
change. For me, this choice is simple. I will vote for change.
The war in Iraq has divided our country for nearly 5 years, longer
than our participation in World War II. Its monetary cost has already
reached dizzying heights. Measured in casualties lost, lives forever
altered, the toll of this war is truly staggering.
That is why we must transcend politics and party loyalty when we vote
today. An issue of this magnitude requires each one of us as Members of
Congress to vote based on our conscience and obligation to represent
our constituents.
Mr. Speaker, on this issue my conscience and my constituents speak
loud and clear. They say, We must end this war. Bring our troops home
and work to restore our international reputation.
I stand here today in support of this rule and the underlying
legislation because it accomplishes each of these three goals:
Within 30 days of enactment, it requires an immediate and orderly
redeployment of our military from Iraq. No more delays, Mr. Speaker.
With today's bill, Congress stands with the American people in
demanding a swift and responsible conclusion to military engagement in
Iraq.
I also support this legislation because of what it does in the long
term. It recognizes that we have a moral and strategic obligation to
help rebuild Iraq, to avoid leaving a country in shambles.
The legislation before us today requires a comprehensive, diplomatic,
political, and economic strategy for Iraq. We must work with our
international partners to bring stability to Iraq, and this legislation
does so. A renewed commitment to diplomacy is not only the right thing
to do to fulfill our commitment to the Iraqi people, it also begins
restoring our Nation's standing in the world.
I urge all of my colleagues to stand with the American people by
voting for the bill before us today. This legislation takes a strong
step forward in ending this long and costly war. In doing so, it is
worthy of this House, worthy of the constituents we all serve, and
worthy of the sacrifices of our soldiers and their families.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to yield 4 minutes to my
distinguished friend from Redlands, I would simply say that my friend
from Worcester never mentioned the word ``victory'' in his analysis.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of
the Appropriations Committee.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). The Chair advises all Members
that prefatory remarks before yielding time will be deducted from their
time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the Speaker's help in this
matter, but in the meantime, I appreciate my colleague yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the wheels have finally come off the appropriations
process. One need only to look at the sorry state of affairs in which
we find ourselves as we address these appropriations bills.
Earlier today, the House passed a Transportation-HUD appropriations
conference report that is $3 billion over the budget request. The
President has said he will veto this legislation.
Tomorrow the House will vote to sustain the President's veto on a
bloated Labor-HHS bill that is $10 billion over the budget request.
That will essentially send the bill back to the drawing board.
And if that is not enough, consider this. It is now 3 days after
Veterans Day and there is still no sign of the majority moving to
considered the MilCon-VA bill, a freestanding bill identical to the
MilCon-VA conference report that was removed from the Labor-HHS
conference report by a point of order in the Senate, by the way, in the
other body.
That bill was introduced by Congressman Wicker this week. This
legislation, which the President said he would sign, could be brought
to the House floor today. It now appears that a Democrat majority has
no intent of bringing this legislation to the floor before
Thanksgiving.
The appropriations process this year has been reduced to what
Shakespeare might refer to as ``a tale full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing.''
For all of the time and energy put into these bills this year by
Members and our overworked, highly professional staff, the end result
thus far is all sound and fury and very little to show for it.
That leads us to the legislation we are now considering, the so-
called bridge fund. Frankly, that legislation is so ill-conceived and
damaging to our troops, I hardly know where to begin.
First, let me say that we learned that this bill would be considered
by the Rules Committee while we were waiting for the Rules Committee
hearing on the THUD conference report to begin last night. I was given
no notice whatsoever, nor was I provided any opportunity to testify. It
is a sad state of affairs when the ranking member of the Appropriations
Committee isn't even given the courtesy of paper notice
[[Page H13909]]
to testify on legislation as important as this. I can't imagine the
wails and screaming I would have heard last year if the ranking member
had been put in that position.
The House is being asked to consider a funding bill that reflects the
priorities of Speaker Pelosi and a deeply divided, extremely left-
leaning Democratic Caucus. It attempts to bridge these widening
divisions over the war in Iraq through providing funding only on the
condition that troops are withdrawn beginning 30 days after the bill's
enactment.
{time} 1800
Our troops are badly in need of funding to continue their mission,
but this legislation ties the hands of our Commander in Chief during a
time of war, places military decisions in the hands of the politicians,
and micromanages our combatant commanders in whom we place the ultimate
responsibility for prosecuting military actions.
If the majority's goal is to end the war or withdraw our troops, then
that should be addressed in separate legislation. The majority cannot
have it both ways, pretending on the one hand to support our troops
while on the other hand undercutting our ability to prosecute their
mission.
Men and women of good conscience can disagree about the war in Iraq,
but on one thing we must all agree: Our men and women in uniform must
continue to receive our unqualified support and the resources they need
to complete their mission successfully.
By appeasing the wishes of the Out of Iraq Caucus, the Democrat
majority has chosen to place partisan politics above the lives and
well-being of our troops in harm's way. This action is reckless and
irresponsible. There is absolutely no reason why a clean bridge fund
could not have been included within the DOD conference report which the
President signed yesterday. Again, the Democrat majority chose to place
politics ahead of our troops.
My colleagues, consider carefully the consequences of our actions
here today. Passage of the bridge fund legislation in its present form
will signal to the insurgents and terrorists that the United States
doesn't have the political will to continue supporting the fledgling
Iraqi democracy. Al Qaeda and other enemies of freedom will simply lay
in wait until our troops are withdrawn. And with the collapse of this
fragile democracy, our efforts, and the sacrifices of our troops, will
have been for nothing.
There is no question that the President will veto this bill. In the
meantime, our troops will face the uncertainty resulting from the
majority's mixed signals and lack of a clear commitment.
I urge my colleagues to support our troops and oppose this
legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee
(Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the last person in the world I will take
lectures from on the appropriations process is the gentleman from
California. The fact is that when he was the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee last year, they never bothered to send any
veterans health care legislation to the President at all. They simply,
after the election, shut down the Congress and went home without
sending one dime to veterans.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Would my colleague yield?
Mr. OBEY. No, I will not. You've had your time.
Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate not being interrupted. It's a
technique which they use on that side of the aisle time after time. I
hope it comes out of their time, not mine.
The fact is that they never bothered to send a dime to the needy
veterans of the country. And so it was only after the Democrats took
control of the House that we added $3.4 billion to the veterans health
care budget and sent it to the President, and then later in the year in
the regular bill, we have added $3.6 billion more. So I will be happy
to compare the record of this party with his party any time on the
issue of veterans health care.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is
remaining on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 9 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 19\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the bill
because I believe it does two critical and important things.
First, it provides $50 billion to finance military withdrawal from
Iraq, to be completed by the end of next year. I voted against the
beginning of the war, and I have consistently tried to end America's
involvement in the war. Saddam Hussein is gone, there were no weapons
of mass destruction, and there was no Iraqi involvement with al Qaeda
or with 9/11. Al Qaeda in Iraq is now in shatters and subject to attack
by both Shiites and Sunnis and poses no ongoing threat to the United
States. We have no stake in the Iraqi civil war, and it is time to end
our occupation.
I signed a letter to the President back in July with over 60 of my
colleagues vowing not to support any more money for the war in Iraq
unless it was for the protection and redeployment of our troops. I
believe this bill is consistent with that commitment. The time has come
to end the war, and the money we provide should be used only for that
purpose.
The second critical thing this bill does is to end torture by the
United States Government. By including in this bill the American Anti-
Torture Act, which was introduced by Representative Delahunt and
myself, we are saying, once and for all, no more torture. The law now
requires the Department of Defense to follow the Army Field Manual,
which bars torture or cruel and inhuman procedures such as
waterboarding. This bill extends these limits to every U.S. government
agency, including the CIA, and ensures a single, uniform, baseline
standard for all interrogations of people under U.S. control. In short,
that means no more waterboarding, no more clever wordplay, no more
evasive answers, and no more uncertainty with regard to what is allowed
and what is not allowed. It is time to restore the honor of the United
States and to force the administration to act in a manner consistent
with the Constitution.
When this bill is passed, the President could have two options: He
could sign this bill and help bring the war in Iraq to a speedy end. Or
he could veto the bill, in which case he will have to explain why he is
denying funds for the troops. But we will not vote for further funding
without a requirement to withdraw the troops as in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, let's end this war and let's end torture. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my very
good friend from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence), a hardworking member of
the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in opposition to the rule and the bill.
The tide is turning in Iraq, Mr. Speaker, but nothing changes on
Capitol Hill. Here we go again. Another Democrat plan for redeployment
from Iraq, tying some $50 billion in necessary combat funds to a
Democrat plan for withdrawal.
With unambiguous evidence of progress on the ground in Iraq, the
Democrats in Congress seem to have added denial to their agenda of
retreat and defeat. And the evidence of our progress is unambiguous.
I have seen many different Iraqs in my five trips, some hopeful, some
not hopeful. But the news coming out of Iraq just in recent days from
independent and official sources is encouraging.
U.S. military fatalities are down sharply: 101 Americans lost their
lives in uniform in June; 39 in October. Iraqi civilian deaths are down
sharply: 1,791 casualties in August; 750 in October. Mortar rocket
attacks by insurgents in October were the lowest since February 2006.
Iraqi officials say they plan to reduce checkpoints, ease curfews, and
[[Page H13910]]
open some roads around Baghdad because of the improving security
situation. And this weekend, the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-
Maliki said that sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni in the
neighborhoods of Baghdad has declined by more than 75 percent in the
last 12 months. And yet here we are again, another plan for retreat and
defeat in Iraq.
And it is not just the official sources that say we have made
progress. The Associated Press just reported, ``Twilight brings traffic
jams to the main shopping district of this once affluent corner of
Baghdad, and hundreds of people stroll past well-stocked vegetable
stands, bakeries, and butcher shops.''
The Washington Post recently wrote, ``The number of attacks against
U.S. soldiers has fallen to levels not seen since before the February
2006 bombing of a Shia shrine in Samarra that touched off waves of
sectarian killing.''
And the New York Times noted just last week, `` `American forces have
routed al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network from every
neighborhood in Baghdad,' a top general reported today, `allowing
American troops involved in the surge to depart as planned.' ''
I urge my colleagues to reject again this Democrat plan for
withdrawal as a part of the supplemental appropriations bill, but I
urge my countrymen to give our soldiers a chance. Freedom and stability
are beginning to take hold in Iraq. We cannot lose faith in ourselves
or in our fighting men and women.
It would be Winston Churchill who exhorted his own people as follows:
``Nothing can save England if she will not save herself. If we lose
faith in ourselves, in our capacity to guide and govern, if we lose our
will to live, then indeed our story is told. If, while on all sides
foreign nations are every day asserting a more aggressive and militant
nationalism by arms and trade, we remain paralyzed by our own
theoretical doctrines or plunged into the stupor of after-war
exhaustion, then indeed all the croakers predict will come true and our
ruin will be swift and final.'' So said the man who saved western
civilization.
To my countrymen and to my colleagues, I say again: Reject this
legislation, give our soldiers in a widening and undeniable success in
Iraq a chance, and we will all, Republicans and Democrats, celebrate
some day a free and democratic Iraq that will be a legacy for our
children and our grandchildren for generations to come.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
The gentleman says give the Iraqi Government a chance. We are on our
fifth year, Mr. Speaker. Three American soldiers lost their lives in
Iraq yesterday, bringing the total to 3,858 deaths. I think we have
given them more than a chance.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman for the time.
All of us in this Chamber and in this Nation support our troops. They
have fought bravely, with love of this great country uppermost in their
hearts. They have done all that we have asked them to do. They have
done their job well. And now in this Congress, Mr. Speaker, we must do
ours.
The President has indicated that he thinks this war will continue for
another decade. But, Mr. Speaker, we must not concede to a 10-year war.
Over 3,850 brave American lives have been lost; 163 Ohio soldiers have
been killed; more than 28,000 of our Nation's finest have been wounded.
The year 2007 has been the deadliest year for U.S. troops since this
war began 4\1/2\ years ago.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On Page H13910, November 14, 2007, the following appeared: The
year 2007 has been the deadliest year since U.S. troops began this
war 4\1/2\ years ago.
The online version should be corrected to read: The year 2007
has been the deadliest year for U.S. troops since this war began
4\1/2\ years ago.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Our troops have been stretched woefully thin, exposing this Nation to
greater risk, not less. We have already spent over $450 billion on the
war in Iraq. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated
that the President's war policies could cost $2.4 trillion in the next
decade. And the President insists in getting that money that it come
with no strings, no oversight, no accountability, no questions asked.
And, in return, he offers to the American people and to our brave
troops no end in sight. It is time for a new direction. We must not
proceed further down the road to a 10-year war.
This bill requires a transition in the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq
from combat to force and diplomatic protection. It provides for
targeted counterterrorism operations. And this bill prohibits
deployment to Iraq of troops who are not fully equipped and fully
trained. It prohibits the use of torture, as described in the Army
Field Manual. And it changes direction from the 10-year war plan being
offered by the President toward a responsible plan redeploying our
troops, while providing our troops with the resources they need.
When I visited Iraq, I saw some of the hardships and the obstacles
our troops face, and I also saw the commitment and dedication in each
of those men and women. They truly took my breath away. They deserve a
policy that is worthy of their commitment and their sacrifice.
The bill before us today gives our troops the support, the equipment,
the training they need to responsibly redeploy. It repairs the
readiness of our military and refocuses our efforts on fighting
terrorism around the world.
Last November, people across the Nation cast their ballots seeking a
change in direction. After more than 4 years and countless taxpayer
dollars, this Congress has a responsibility to tell this President that
the status quo is not acceptable. It's time to bring a responsible end
to the war in Iraq and to focus on fighting terrorism and protecting
the Nation.
{time} 1815
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
I will say to my colleagues that it's very interesting to listen to
this debate, because as we've proceeded, I have yet to hear the word
``victory'' come from the other side of the aisle at all. I have yet to
hear anyone interested in trying to build a democracy.
Now, we saw three elections take place in Iraq, as we all know, with
a 70 percent voter turnout.
We know that there are problems there. My friend from Worcester
correctly said that we have problems with corruption in government in
Iraq. We've had corruption problems in this country as well. But the
fact of the matter is we have seen dramatic improvement. There is no
doubt about the fact that we've seen improvement.
And I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, that we continue to hear this term
``redeployment.'' That means one thing. It doesn't mean victory. It
doesn't mean build a democracy. It means withdraw and lose. And I will
tell you, Mr. Speaker, we are determined to ensure that that doesn't
happen.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, some refer to this as a bridge fund
connecting monies from one year to the next to finance this Iraq war.
A bridge is built to overcome an obstacle, and the obstacle here is
George Bush. Granting this President 50 billion more dollars without
reasonable restrictions to end this war is just building another bridge
to nowhere.
Today, instead, we use this funding to build a bridge that brings our
troops home by beginning a safe, orderly, phased redeployment from
Iraq.
The President can no longer defy our Constitution as the sole
``decider.'' America has decided that he's wrong, dead wrong, too many
deaths wrong, and it's elected representatives in this Congress are now
declaring ``no more blank checks.''
Despite the sacrifices of our troops in this deadliest year of the
war, this surge has failed completely to achieve its purpose of
political progress. ``Retreat,'' you say; you've had a 5-year retreat
from political reality. Progress, you say; not in Iraq, not in
political reconciliation; progress, perhaps only in your self-defeating
propaganda as you repeatedly waved your ``mission accomplished''
banner.
The continued cost of this war in hemorrhaged blood and $3 billion of
taxpayer money every week is not acceptable or sustainable.
Mr. President, no more ``cut-and-run''. We will not cut these
reasonable restrictions from this legislation, and we will not run from
your veto threat.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). All Members are advised to
address their remarks to the Chair.
[[Page H13911]]
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds, and I do so to
say I still have yet to hear the term ``victory'' come from the other
side of the aisle. I still have yet to hear anyone talk about the
notion of building a democracy in Iraq so that self-determination and
the rule of law and the building of democratic institutions can, in
fact, have a chance to succeed. And there is no recognition of the fact
that we have seen a tremendous number of reduction in IED attacks, and
the number of overall attacks has dropped dramatically.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to change
the mission of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq and undertake
their redeployment. It is time to set a real plan to end this war,
fought courageously by our troops on the ground, but recklessly
mismanaged by our administration at home.
2007 has been the deadliest year for American troops since the start
of the war in Iraq; 860 U.S. casualties since January. And almost 1
year after the President announced a so-called surge, the Iraqi
Government has made no progress toward political reconciliation and is
nowhere near taking responsibility for security in all of its
provinces.
Without any progress or end in sight, the cost of the war continues
to rise. The recent Joint Economic Committee report estimates the cost
of the war at $1.3 trillion from 2002 to 2008; yet just this week the
President vetoed critical funds for education, job training and health
care, and, yes, he vetoed the children's health care bill.
With its latest $200 billion request for wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the administration has asked for a total of $800 billion,
all paid for with the government's credit card.
Mr. Speaker, with this bill we put forth a plan and a clear path
toward change. We require the start of the redeployment of U.S. forces
within 30 days of enactment, with a goal for completion of redeployment
by December 15, 2008.
It prohibits the deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq who are not fully
trained and fully equipped, and changes the mission of U.S. forces in
Iraq to diplomatic and force protection, targeted counterterrorism
operations, and limited support to Iraqi security forces. And notably,
the bill prohibits torture once and for all.
We provide $50 billion to meet the immediate needs of the troops in
Iraq and Afghanistan and defer consideration of the remainder of the
President's request.
The President and his stubborn Republican allies in the Congress have
acted recklessly in Iraq and with our Nation's standing in the world.
And the American people pay the price. Our young men and women are
paying the price.
The Bush administration rushed to war and never had an exit strategy.
If we, in the Congress, do not provide one, who will?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I've still not heard the term ``victory'' or
``building democracy.''
I would inquire of the Chair, how much time is remaining on each
side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 3\3/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 10\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. DREIER. I think at this juncture I might reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I and everybody in this Chamber, hopefully, wants to see
democracy flourish in Iraq. But the fact of the matter is that the
status quo isn't producing that. And maybe, just maybe, the corrupt and
inept Maliki government will get its act together if it finally
realizes that we won't be there forever, that this will not be an
endless war.
Our troops have sacrificed enough. They have sacrificed enough.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the American people get it.
Over 50 percent of the American people believe that we should now begin
a reduction of our troops.
As I listened here on the floor of the house, and I listened to my
good friends on the other side of the aisle claiming the me-me's and
the I-I's, I hear no one talking about victory.
Victory in what sense? So that we can pound our chests and brag about
what this Congress and this President has done?
We're talking about lives here. We're talking about lives. And I am
sick and tired of listening to people bragging about who can claim a
victory.
Well, my belief is that the soldiers on the battlefield, the most
deadliest year that we've ever had, 2006, we buried more than we could
ever imagine. Those soldiers have already claimed victory. They took
Fallujah. They took Baghdad.
And my concern is why have we not championed the victory of those
soldiers? Why haven't we welcomed them home, given them accolades
because they have been victorious?
Someone on the other side has not read this bill. This bill allows
for a redeployment in an orderly manner, and it demands that the
President use these dollars to redeploy.
I am not going to trample on the graves of dead soldiers and continue
a war that has no end. That government has the ability in Iraq to
diplomatically deal with democracy. We have died so they can deal with
democracy.
It is time to end this war now and to bring our soldiers home with
the dignity and victory they deserve.
Right now, in the Nation's hospitals, we are seeing the results of
his victory. We are seeing soldiers with brain injury, soldiers with no
limbs. And we have a broken health care system that can't even address
the question of those soldiers with posttraumatic stress brain injury
and otherwise.
My voice is gone, but I am tired of this question of victory because
I believe, and I have a bill, and I ask my good friend from California
to join it, the Military Success Act of 2007 that chronicles the
victories of our soldiers.
We can bring them home with dignity. I am not going to tolerate one
more dead body. And it is time to end this war and end it now.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4156, introduced by my
colleague, Mr. Obey. I would like to thank him for his ongoing
leadership as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and on this
important issue in particular.
The legislation we are considering today provides our troops with the
resources they need, but it does not give the President the blank check
he has asked for to fund an endless combat operation in Iraq. Instead
of his additional $200 billion, we are considering a $50 billion
package, which institutes a redeployment timeline, as well as other
critical directives designed to transition our role in Iraq and bring
our troops home.
Madam Speaker, the funds provided by this legislation are, crucially,
tied to a requirement for the immediate start of the redeployment of
U.S. forces. It sets December 15, 2008, as the target date for the
completion of the redeployment, and requires redeployment to begin
within 30 days of enactment.
As lawmakers continue to debate U.S. policy in Iraq, our heroic young
men and women continue to willingly sacrifice life and limb on the
battlefield. 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 continuing political upheaval. 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. However, whether or not my
colleagues agree that the time has come to withdraw our American forces
from Iraq, I believe that all of us in Congress should be of one accord
that our troops deserve our sincere thanks and congratulations.
For this reason, I extremely please to have worked with the
Democratic leadership to include language recognizing the extraordinary
achievements of our men and women in uniform. Paragraph 2 of Title I
reads, ``the performance of United States military personnel in Iraq
and Afghanistan should be commended, their courage and sacrifice have
been exceptional, and when they come home, their service should be
recognized appropriately.'' I believe that the inclusion of this
language makes it clear that we are proud of the accomplishments of our
troops, and we look forward to commending them as they return safely
home.
[[Page H13912]]
I also worked with the Leadership to include the language in
Paragraph 3 of Title 1. This paragraph reads, ``the primary purpose of
funds made available by this Act should be to transition the mission of
United States Armed Forces in Iraq and undertake their redeployment,
and not to extend or prolong the war.'' This language makes explicit
that this legislation is providing funding for the safe and responsible
redeployment of our troops, not for the continuation of combat
operations.
This legislation protects our troops, by providing them with the
funding they need to safely and successfully redeploy from Iraq. It
also prohibits the deployment of forces to Iraq who are not fully
trained and fully equipped. In addition, this legislation includes an
extension to all U.S. Government agencies and personnel of the current
prohibition in the Army Field Manual against the use of certain
interrogation techniques.
Mr. Speaker, this bill contains important language that changes the
mission of U.S. forces in Iraq to diplomatic and force protection,
targeted counterterrorism operations, and limited support to Iraqi
security forces. I firmly believe that we must make diplomacy and
statecraft tools of the first, rather than the last, resort. We must
seek constructive engagement with Iraq, its neighbors, and the rest of
the international community, as we work to bring resolution to this
calamitous conflict that has already gone on far too long.
Because of my deeply held belief that we must commend our military
for their exemplary performance and success in Iraq, I have introduced
legislation, H.R. 4020, with the support of a number of my colleagues,
entitled the ``Military Success in Iraq Commemoration Act of 2007.''
This legislation 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.
Mr. Speaker, we have already expended 3,500 American lives and $400
billion in taxpayer dollars in Iraq. We have occupied the country for
over 4 years. And our President continues to push a strategy devoid of
clear direction and visible targets, while rejecting congressional
calls to solidify an exit strategy.
Last November, the American people clearly stated that they did not
want to see an endless conflict in Iraq; they went to the polls and
elected a new, Democratic Congress to lead our Nation out of Iraq. I am
proud to be a member of the Congressional class that listens and
adheres to the will of the American people, as we did when both houses
of Congress approved Iraq Supplemental bills that instituted a
timetable for U.S. withdrawal. We need a new direction, because we owe
our brave, fighting men and women so much more. Washington made a
mistake in going to war. It is time for politicians to admit that
mistake and fix it before any more lives are lost.
This Congress will not, as the previous, Republican, Congress did,
continue to rubber stamp what we believe to be an ill-conceived war. As
we continue to receive reports on the situation in Iraq, it is
important that we continue to look forward, to the future of Iraq
beyond a U.S. military occupation.
Despite the multitude of mistakes perpetrated 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.
Our Nation has already paid a heavy price in Iraq. Over 3,810
American soldiers have died. In addition, more than 27,660 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. In addition, the United
States is spending an estimated $10 billion per month in Iraq. This $10
billion a month translates into $329,670,330 per day, $13,736,264 per
hour, $228,938 per minute, and $3,816 per second.
For this huge sum of money, we could have repaired the more than
70,000 bridges across America rated structurally deficient, $188
billion, potentially averting the tragedy that occurred August 1 in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. We could have rebuilt the levees in New
Orleans, $50 billion, protecting that city from future hurricanes that
could bring Katrina-like destruction upon the city. We could have
provided all U.S. public safety officials with interoperable
communication equipment, $10 billion, allowing them to effectively
communicate in the event of an emergency, and we could have paid for
screening all air cargo on passenger planes for the next 10 years, $3.6
billion. And, we could have enrolled 1.4 million additional children in
Head Start programs, $10 billion. Instead of funding increased death
and destruction in Iraq, we could have spent hard-earned taxpayer
dollars on important progress here at home.
The Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I am proud to be a member,
has recently heard a string of reports from military and civilian
officials about the political, military, social, and economic situation
in Iraq. Two weeks ago, the Government Accountability Office, GAO,
informed the Congress that the Iraqi government has met only 3 of the
18 legislative, economic, and security benchmarks. Despite the surge,
despite increasing U.S. military involvement, the Iraqi Government has
not made substantial progress toward stabilizing their country.
President Bush rationalized his surge, over opposition by myself and
other House Democrats, by arguing it would give the Iraqi government
``the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical
areas,'' bringing about reconciliation between warring factions, Sunni
and Shia. However, non-partisan assessments, such as last week's GAO
report, have illustrated that escalating U.S. military involvement in
Iraq is instead hindering that nation's ability to move beyond the
devastation of war and death, to build a successful new government, and
to create a stable and secure environment. In the 7 months since the
surge began, increased American military presence has not been able to
end the relentless cycles of sectarian violence that continue to plague
Iraq. Nor have larger numbers of U.S. troops been successful in
unifying and strengthening the Iraqi Government.
Instead, the security situation continues to deteriorate. Sectarian
violence remains high, and even the Bush administration has noted the
unsatisfactory progress toward political reconciliation. The Sunni-led
insurgency continues, with insurgents conducting increasingly complex
and well-coordinated attacks. The August 2007 National Intelligence
Estimate cited ongoing violence, stating, ``the level of overall
violence, including attacks on and casualties among civilians, remain
high; Iraq's sectarian groups remain unreconciled.'' The report went on
to note that al-Qaeda in Iraq, AQI, ``retains the ability to conduct
high-profile attacks,'' and ``Iraqi political leaders remain unable to
govern effectively.''
The ever-increasing sectarian violence is causing immense daily
challenges for Iraqis. Millions have been displaced, and an Iraqi Red
Crescent Organization has reported an increase of nearly 630,000
internally displaced persons from February 2007 to July 2007. The same
organization predicts an additional 80,000 to 100,000 persons are
displaced each month. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has
estimated that 1.8 million Iraqis are now refugees, with an additional
40,000 to 50,000 fleeing to neighboring countries each month. Iraq has
become a humanitarian disaster, and one that continues to get worse
every day.
The United States military is a skilled and highly proficient
organization, and where there are large numbers of U.S. troops, 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.
In addition, 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.
The former Chairman and Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas
H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, share this view. In a recent op-ed, Kean
and Hamilton 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
[[Page H13913]]
has become a powerful recruiting and training tool for al-Qaeda.''
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,
advocated for congressional legislation declaring a military victory in
Iraq, and recognizing the success of our military. 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.
Democrats in Congress will not continue to rubber stamp the
President's ill-conceived war effort. Last November, the American
people spoke loudly and clearly, demanding a new direction to U.S.
foreign policy, and we here in Congress are committed to seeing that
change be brought about. We are working to see the extensive funds
currently being spent to sustain the war in Iraq go to important
domestic programs and to securing our homeland against real and
imminent threats.
President Bush and Vice President Cheney have been given numerous
chances and ample time by the American people and the Congress to
straighten out the mess in Iraq. They have failed. It is pure fantasy
to imagine that President Bush's military surge has created the
necessary safety and security to meet economic, legislative, and
security benchmarks. It is time for a new strategy, a new plan that
will encourage Iraqis to take charge of their own destiny, seek
constructive and sustained regional engagement, and substitute the ill-
advised military surge for a thoughtful diplomatic one. It is time to
be realistic and pragmatic, to recognize that our troops achieved what
they were initially sent in for and that continued U.S. military
engagement is not bringing about the desired results.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides our brave soldiers in Iraq
with the resources they need, while requiring that the President begin
to redeploy our troops. It keeps our soldiers safe, and it keeps our
Nation safe. By bringing an end to this conflict, this Democratic
Congress is making significant strides forward toward protecting and
securing America.
I strongly urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting today's
legislation, and in giving the troops the resources they need to safely
redeploy from Iraq.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I'm very sorry that my friend wouldn't yield so that we could engage
in debate. And I will say, victory means ensuring that our children
don't face the threat of another terrorist attack like what we saw on
September 11. We know that Iraq is the central point for al Qaeda, and
I am absolutely determined to ensure that we achieve victory.
There have been tremendous achievements when it comes to democracy
building. We can't ignore that. But we want to bring our troops home as
soon as possible.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. And I also
want to associate myself with the words of the lady from Texas who just
spoke.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the bill. To
date, President Bush has asked us for a total of $804 billion for
fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yesterday, the Joint
Economic Committee, the committee on which I sit, concluded in a report
that the real economic cost of these wars is $1.6 trillion. However,
there are numerous hidden costs that could potentially bring the grand
total to $3.5 trillion.
In response to the President's failing new strategy in Iraq and
wasteful spending, Congress has chosen instead to ensure strict
accountability. We have heard the American people and have chosen to
exercise fiscal responsibility by considering this vitally important
legislation.
Namely, the bill limits funding in the amount of $50 billion, in
comparison to the President's original supplemental request of $196.4
billion, to continue our military operations in Iraq, while ensuring
that the responsible and strategic redeployment of our forces begins no
later than 30 days from the date of enactment.
It also provides troops with the resources needed for continued
protection from improvised explosive devices.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to exercise their
responsibility to the American people, to over 3,800 brave soldiers, 71
from Maryland who have died and who have paid the ultimate price, and
to more than 2.3 million Iraqis who have fled their homes, by
supporting the rule and voting in favor of this legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is about whether or not we
continue to fund the worst foreign policy fiasco in American history.
This is not about al Qaeda. In fact, if we had gone after al Qaeda
when we had the opportunity, they wouldn't have been able to strengthen
themselves in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But we've been diverted over to
Iraq, where al Qaeda didn't even exist until our invasion gave them a
recruitment tool and rallying cry.
And sure there's less violence in Baghdad, but the reason is because
the Shiia have ethnically cleansed much of Baghdad. When we started, 60
percent of Baghdad was Sunni. Now, almost 80 percent of Baghdad is
Shiia.
And the reason there's less violence in al-Anbar province is because
the Sunni warlords have taken it upon themselves to drive out the al
Qaeda insurgents.
Our military generals have told us this war does not lend itself to a
military victory. The most we can do is to step up our diplomatic
efforts.
But the fact is that we are supporting a government that doesn't
deserve our support. It is not representative of the people of Iraq. It
is endemically corrupt. And the reality is that when we look back and
ask ourselves what have we accomplished, we are going to look at a
government which is far more loyal to Iran than it is to the United
States. That's what we've done, to empower our enemies.
We've created chaos throughout the Middle East. And isn't it time now
to have a plan to start withdrawing our troops, to tell our military
families that they have sacrificed as much as we could possibly expect
of them?
But the reality is that this policy has never been worthy of the
sacrifice of our soldiers and their military families.
{time} 1830
And if you really believed in what you're doing in this war, you
would support Mr. Obey's attempt to pay for it. Not one dime of this
war has been paid for. It's all been borrowed, borrowed from our
children and our grandchildren. They deserve better and this bill is
the best thing we can do for them right now.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me just first say this has been an interesting debate and I do
think that victory, a dramatic reduction in the number of attacks, the
fact that reconciliation is, in fact, taking place in Baghdad is
something that cannot be ignored.
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, before the House voted for the 12th time
to allow the House to go to conference with the Senate on the Veterans
Affairs funding bill, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and
I had a brief colloquy after which a Member on the other side of the
aisle claimed that we had misrepresented the facts about this
Congress's track record on getting the Veterans Affairs appropriations
measure signed into law.
Well, I take this as akin to being accused of lying. Here is what we
said, and, Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: The House passed the
Veterans and Military Construction funding bill on June 15, 2007, by a
vote of 409-2, with the Senate following suit and naming conferees on
September 6. Unfortunately, the majority leadership of the House has
refused to move the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
appropriations act to conference and has refused to name conferees.
So whether the majority likes it or not, that is a fact. Now, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and the gentleman from New York said
that we were misrepresenting the facts. How is this so? For 68 days,
Mr. Speaker, the message from the Senate requesting a conference has
languished at the Speaker's desk without action. How is this fact
disputable? Just look at the
[[Page H13914]]
calendar and count the days between September 7 and today, and you'll
come up with 68. Every day the Democrats choose not to act to move this
bill forward, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million.
Those are the facts surrounding this bill in this Congress. The
gentleman from Texas went on earlier to malign Republicans for what we
did or didn't do concerning veterans funding over the last 12 years,
which begs the question, what does the last 12 years have to do with
this year? Are Democrats trying to use past Congresses' shortcomings as
excuses for their own failed policy? Otherwise, how is this even
relevant?
I am sure that the gentleman from Worcester would stand up and
attempt to deflect this plea by criticizing Republicans, just as his
colleagues before him, and touting the increases in funding for our
veterans provided by this Congress which all but two Members of this
body voted for. The sad fact is that this Congress hasn't provided the
funding that the gentleman has espoused. Why is that? That's because
not one dime will flow from the Treasury to the Department of Veterans
Affairs until the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
appropriations bill is signed into law, and in order to do so, this
House has to go to conference with the Senate and send a bill down to
the President to sign. So let's finally get that process started.
Mr. Speaker, anyone who is concerned about funding for our veterans
must join us in voting against the previous question so that I can
amend the rule and we can go to conference with the Senate on this
much-needed and far-delayed funding measure.
I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and
extraneous material appear in the Congressional Record just prior to
the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me go back to the subject that we are
debating here today, and that is the war in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, we have
been fighting this war for nearly 5 years. That's longer than we fought
World War II. My friends on the other side of the aisle have said over
and over and over, just give the Iraqi Government a chance. Well, Mr.
Speaker, after 5 years, I say, give me a break.
It is not us, not any of us in this Chamber who are in harm's way.
But we have sent thousands and thousands and thousands of our fellow
citizens to battle in Iraq. They are in harm's way. They wake up
tomorrow in a situation where they are refereeing a civil war, and
that, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, is wrong.
My friends on the other side of the aisle talk about al Qaeda. Well,
we're all worried about al Qaeda, too. That's why we wish we were doing
the job in Afghanistan better. That's why we wish we weren't so
diverted from that mission in Iraq that we could actually have better
results in Afghanistan than we're having right now. We are worried, Mr.
Speaker, about the fact that al Qaeda is regrouping in Afghanistan, is
regrouping in Pakistan. That should be a worry to every single Member
in this Chamber. And yet we are stretched so thin, we are so
preoccupied in Iraq that we have lost sight of what our central mission
needs to be.
Mr. Speaker, victory is what is in the best interest of the American
people. And this war in Iraq has not only diminished our standing in
the world, it has spread our troops so thin that we can't complete
missions like the one that we need to be completing in Afghanistan.
Mr. Speaker, too often in this place we talk about numbers instead of
the people behind those numbers. Yesterday, as I mentioned earlier,
another three American soldiers lost their lives in Iraq, bringing the
total to 3,858. Also yesterday, Mr. Speaker, CBS News reported that
there is an epidemic of suicide among our soldiers and our veterans.
Thousands and thousands of these men and women have taken their own
lives. For too many, the war does not end when they return home. And
behind each one of those numbers is a devastated family, a heartbroken
father, a new widow, a child without a father. Mr. Speaker, we will be
paying for this war for a very long, long time.
Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle say we all want the
war to end, we all want our troops to come home. Well, I say to my
friends, here is your chance. You have a voice. Use it. You have a
vote. Use it. You have the opportunity to change the direction of this
policy. You have the opportunity to force the Iraqi Government to live
up to its promises. You have the opportunity to finally, finally, honor
the will of the American people and to safely redeploy our troops. I
ask my friends to seize that opportunity and to support this bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 818 Offered By Mr. Dreier of California
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the
bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and
for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by
the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees
immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of
rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader
prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees
otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees
instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the
Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional
legislative days after adoption of this resolution.
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
[[Page H13915]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 818, if ordered; and
the motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 4120.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 209,
nays 185, not voting 38, as follows:
[Roll No. 1103]
YEAS--209
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Edwards
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--185
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--38
Bono
Boozman
Burgess
Carney
Carson
Cleaver
Costa
Cubin
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Doyle
Ellison
Feeney
Gordon
Holden
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
King (IA)
Knollenberg
Levin
Lowey
Mack
McHugh
Meeks (NY)
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Oberstar
Paul
Ruppersberger
Schakowsky
Sessions
Tancredo
Tiberi
Towns
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wolf
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Solis) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 5 minutes remaining in this vote.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
is 1 minute remaining in this vote.
{time} 1856
Mrs. DRAKE, Mrs. BLACKBURN and Mr. KINGSTON changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. CLARKE changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1103, I was unable to
vote for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1103,
had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 190, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 1104]
YEAS--219
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
[[Page H13916]]
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--190
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Tom
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--23
Abercrombie
Allen
Bachus
Bilirakis
Bono
Carson
Cubin
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Doyle
Gingrey
Hastert
Jindal
Jones (OH)
Levin
Mack
McCrery
Oberstar
Paul
Ruppersberger
Sessions
Weller
Wolf
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1902
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1104, I was unable to
vote for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1104, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________