[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 176 (Wednesday, November 14, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H13938-H13943]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ORDERLY AND RESPONSIBLE IRAQ REDEPLOYMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 29\1/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 26\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute simply to explain to
the House that the intention is to have one remaining speaker on each
side and then proceed to the votes.
With that, I yield back the remainder of my 1 minute and invite the
gentleman from Florida to close.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
Mr. Speaker, throughout the evening, we have heard some very, very
interesting speeches. I listened with great respect to all of them. I
agreed with some, I disagreed with some, I wasn't sure about some.
Nevertheless, it was a good debate at a high level. I paid special
attention to the very distinguished Speaker of the House because in her
opening comments, she talked about how Monday, Veterans Day, America
honored our veterans. She spoke about the Veterans appropriations bill
in great, glowing terms. I agree with that. It is a really good bill.
It provides a lot of benefits for the veterans. There are 400,000
veterans claims backed up. That bill provided money to hire additional
adjudicators to get rid of that backlog and get the veterans what they
need.
The problem is that as she spoke about the importance of this bill
and what a great bill it was and great bill it is, she failed to say
that the House passed it on June 15, the Senate passed it in September,
and here we are in November still waiting to get that bill on the House
floor.
I say, Madam Speaker, let's vote on the VA appropriations bill.
I mentioned the fact that there were great speeches. But, Mr.
Speaker, tonight we will not be voting or be recorded on how those
speeches went, or what those speeches said, or what those speeches
included. We are not going to be voting on opinions. We are not going
to be voting on politics. We are going to be voting on what is in this
bill. What has been said about this bill is not necessarily what is
actually written in the bill. But we are going to vote for what is
written in that bill. We will be held accountable for our vote on what
that bill says, not on what some speaker said about it.
One of the things that I mentioned in my opening comments that I was
really offended by is that this legislation gives constitutional
protection to terrorists, the same constitutional protection that all
of our constituents enjoy. I refer to page 3 of the bill itself,
``Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the rights under
the United States Constitution of any person in the custody or under
the physical jurisdiction of the United States.''
Now, that gives terrorists the same protection that your constituents
have. And that's just not right. By giving them that protection, do we
give them for example, do we have to read them their Miranda rights if
we capture them on the battlefield? Do we have to allow them to pay
bail and get out of jail or get out of detention? What kind of rights
will we be giving to terrorists with just this one sentence that says
they shall have rights under the Constitution? These are terrorists,
Mr. Speaker. These aren't even people who are signatories to the Geneva
Convention. They don't play by any rules. They do whatever they must
do, and they have killed thousands and thousands of Americans, and they
have killed thousands and thousands of the Muslim populations.
Now, something about this bill, on page 6 of this bill, ``After the
conclusion of the reduction and transition of United States Armed
Forces to a limited presence as required by this section, the Secretary
of Defense may deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq
only for the following missions.'' Now, pay attention to this because
this is what you will be allowing. For those of you that think you're
getting troops out of Iraq, this is what this bill will permit. The
Armed Forces in Iraq can be there for the following missions:
``Protecting United States diplomatic facilities, United States Armed
Forces, and American citizens.'' We do that now. That is one of the
things that we are doing right now.
So you think you're getting out of that. This bill keeps you in that.
The next paragraph, ``Conducting limited training, equipment, and
providing logistical and intelligence support to the Iraqi Security
forces.'' We're doing that now. So if you think this bill is going to
change anything, it doesn't because you are allowing them to stay
[[Page H13939]]
to do the same thing that they are doing now.
The next paragraph, ``Engaging in targeted counterterrorism
operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other
terrorist organizations in Iraq.'' Mr. Speaker, we're doing that now.
On page 12, we go to the Iraqi Security Forces Fund provided in this
bill. ``For the `Iraq Security Forces Fund', $500 million, Provided,
that such funds shall be available to the Secretary of Defense,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the purpose of allowing
the Commander, Multinational Security Transition Command-Iraq, or the
Secretary's designee, to provide assistance, with the concurrence of
the Secretary of State, to the security forces of Iraq.'' Mr. Speaker,
we are doing that now. So if you think we're making a change here, read
the bill.
It goes on to say, ``Including the provision of equipment, supplies,
services, training, facility and infrastructure repair, renovation, and
construction, and funding, and to provide training, reintegration,
education and employment programs for concerned local citizens, former
militia members and detainees and former detainees.'' Mr. Speaker,
we're doing all that now.
So this bill doesn't make very many changes if you think this gets
you out of Iraq. It doesn't. If you read the bill, you will see that it
doesn't. Now, these are things that we would be allowed to do under
this bill. But if this bill were successful, and it will not be because
I have an idea the President would veto it in its present form, we
would have to do all of these same things that we are doing today but
with a smaller force, a smaller force, minus the surge, for example.
The change in policy that we all demanded early on came about, and it
was called the ``surge.'' The surge has had many positive effects. When
you get to the point that The New York Times and the L.A. Times and the
Washington Post are writing stories about the positive effects of the
surge, you have to admit there is something real there in the surge. So
do you want to go back and have to do all of the same things we are
doing today with a smaller force? I don't think so.
We will have a motion to recommit. And if that motion to recommit is
successful, we will have a bill that we can all vote for and that I
believe the President would be willing to sign. So let's vote based on
what is in this bill, not what the speeches say about it, not about the
politics, not about the opinions, but let's actually vote on what is in
this bill and let's support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and
anywhere else in the world where they might be deployed. We owe them no
less. This bill is not a good bill today. Let's vote against it tonight
and vote for the motion to recommit.
{time} 2115
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, has the gentleman yielded back his time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has yielded back all of his
time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 26 minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker and Members, I rise in strong support of the bill that is
before us today. First and foremost, I want to point out that every
Member on this floor, every Member knows that the brave men and women
of our military have done a fantastic job, and every Member on this
floor supports the brave men and women serving our country.
Mr. Speaker, too many of those brave men and women have been doing a
fantastic job for way too many tours. Multiple tours. The last time I
was in Iraq, I had lunch with a group of soldiers from California, one
of whom was a firefighter from the North Bay in California, and he
said, I used to have a house in your district, but I don't anymore. My
ex-wife has it now. I said, I am sorry to hear that. He said, well,
this is my fourth tour. I couldn't expect much else.
Our men and women have been put under a tremendous strain for far too
long. Our military equipment has been depleted. Over $100 billion is
needed to bring our military equipment up to standard. Our combat
readiness has been depleted. This bill, this bill is about refocusing
our area; to transition, transition our effort into force protection,
diplomatic protection, counterterrorism, refocus our effort looking
into the future for future problems that we may have. It's long past
time to refocus our efforts; it's long past time to transition.
This bill does represent a change. We heard from the previous speaker
that there wasn't much change. Mr. Speaker and Members, if there wasn't
any change in this bill, we wouldn't be facing the opposition from the
other side that we are facing tonight. This bill represents major
change.
This bill represents a policy change that the American people are
demanding. They demanded it in the November election; they demand it
today. It's long past time for this transition to take place. This war
can't go on forever. We know that on this side of the aisle and we know
it on the other side of the aisle.
A lot of comparisons have been made tonight with Vietnam. I want to
make just one. I served in Vietnam with the 173rd Airborne Brigade. I
didn't do anything exceptional. I showed up; I did my job. But there
came a time in past Congresses that it was known that we were going to
leave Vietnam, and from the time that we knew that our colleagues, our
past colleagues knew that we were going to leave Vietnam, until we
actually left Vietnam, 21,000 Americans died.
They knew, our colleagues in past Congresses knew that we couldn't
sustain that. We weren't going to be in Vietnam forever. They knew we
had to leave. From the time they absolutely knew it on this floor until
we left, 21,000 brave American men died in Vietnam. I was one of the
lucky ones. I was only wounded. I lost a lot of friends. We lost a lot
of fellow Americans.
We cannot make that same mistake. We know that the Iraq war cannot go
on forever. We know that on both sides of the aisle. It's time for a
major policy change. This bill represents that major policy change. I
urge everyone to vote ``aye'' for the underlying bill.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, after my oversight trips to Iraq in July and
August of 2006, I concluded we needed to encourage the Iraqi
government, and specifically Prime Minister Maliki, to take stronger
action to improve the situation in their country, and that the best way
to do this was to set firm timelines for Iraqi security forces to
replace our troops who are doing police work.
I believe a workable timeline will incentivize the Iraqis to make the
hard choices necessary to ensure stability among the three primary
sects--Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds. We need to motivate the Iraqis to set
firm deadlines for provincial elections, reconciliation and amnesty,
and a final drafting of their constitution.
During 2005, Iraqis set timelines to establish and ratify a
constitution and hold national elections. They accomplished each
benchmark successfully. I do not believe they would have achieved this
success if we had not pushed Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds to resolve their
differences and compromise in order to meet the timelines we helped
set.
The United States went into Iraq on a bipartisan basis, with two-
thirds of the House and three-quarters of the Senate voting to
authorize the use of force. I believe we need to draw down the majority
of our troops on a bipartisan basis, and have sought to achieve
bipartisan solutions to improve our operations and reduce the violence.
While H.R. 4156 is by no means a perfect solution, it does propose a
tight, but arguably reasonable, timeline for drawdown of troops in Iraq
similar to one I proposed earlier this year. It should help bridge the
gap between Republicans and Democrats on the most important issue of
our time. The bill would require our commanders to begin a redeployment
of our troops in harms way within a month, and set a target date of
December 15, 2008, to complete the task.
For me, a better bill would have been to give Iraqis and our troops
an additional six months to complete the drawdown, but given this bill
sets a target date, rather than a withdrawal date, it gives needed
flexibility to our military leadership.
I do not believe we have the force structure to maintain the number
of troops in Iraq now, and certainly do not have the capacity to
increase the force.
Our troops have performed extraordinarily well, but it is
unreasonable for us to ask them to return to Iraq for a third or fourth
tour. I also believe it was a significant mistake to extend
[[Page H13940]]
their tours from 12 to 15 months and would be unconscionable to
consider extending their tours beyond 15 months. Based on our
military's current manpower, we will need to begin to draw down our
forces by the beginning of 2008, and it would be wise to let the Iraqis
know now this reduction will take place.
While I support this bill, I am disappointed the majority still has
not allowed a single amendment on any Iraq-related bill. As I have said
before, it is pretty arrogant to think we would criticize Iraqis for
not being able to compromise and find common ground when Republicans
and Democrats are unable to compromise and find common ground on the
most important issue facing our Nation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to call for the passage of
H.R. 4156, the ``Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Act.'' The
war in Iraq cannot be won through the use of military force or another
troop surge. The majority of the American people do not support the war
in Iraq; a recent study stated that nearly 7 in 10 Americans oppose the
war. Since the war began in 2003, 3,859 brave U.S. troops have died in
Iraq. In 2007 the death toll has already reached 860 soldiers who have
lost their lives, making it the worst year yet for the American
military in Iraq. Currently, 28,400 soldiers have been wounded in Iraq
since the war began with 12,750 suffering injuries so serious they were
prevented from returning to duty.
President Bush's failed Iraq policies offer a war with no end in
sight. There is no progress on political reconciliation between Shiites
and Sunnis in the Iraqi government. Just this week, it was reported
that the U.S. effort to organize nearly 70,000 local Sunni fighters to
solidify security gains in Iraq is facing severe political and
logistical challenges as the central government resists in
incorporating them into the Iraqi police and army. Last month, the
Shiite political alliance of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called the
U.S. military to halt the recruitments of Sunnis.
The bill in the house tonight will require the start of the
redeployment of U.S. forces within 30 days of enactment, with a goal
completion of redeployment by December 15, 2008. It will require a
transition in the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq from primarily combat
to force protection and diplomatic protection; limited support to Iraqi
security forces; and targeted counterterrorism operations. H.R. 4156
will prohibit deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq who are not fully
trained and fully equipped. The legislation also calls for an extension
to all U.S. Government agencies and personnel of the current
prohibitions in the Army Field Manual against torture. The bill will
also provide to meet the immediate need of our troops, but defers
consideration of the remainder of the President's nearly $200 billion
request. At the current rate of expenditure, the additional funds will
last 4 months.
Many insist that American troops cannot leave Iraq until we have
achieved victory; and democracy has been established. History has shown
us that civil wars and insurgencies are ended only through rigorous
diplomacy, economic development, and national reconciliation between
former enemies; not by a troop surge and an endless war. Diplomacy
works, and now more then ever is the time to implement the
recommendations of the Baker Hamilton Commission, and call for a
regional peace summit in the Middle East.
Let's bring all parties who are involved in the conflict to the peace
table, so they can begin to resolve their differences. If international
diplomacy ended the intractable conflicts in Northern Ireland, the
Balkans, the conflict between Israel and Egypt, and Rwanda; then
international diplomacy can work in Iraq. Once we begin the strategic
withdrawal of U.S. troops out of Iraq, and show the Iraqi people we do
not wish to occupy their country, then and only then can we begin the
real possibility of having an effective international peace conference.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the issue before the House today is
straightforward. Do we think the President's Iraq policy is working so
well that we should give him another $200 billion to continue it, or do
we need a fundamental change in direction?
I truly believe we need to change an Iraq policy that is simply not
working. From the beginning, the Bush administration has been wrong
about the war in Iraq. If you set aside the administration's rhetoric,
the reality is that the surge has not worked. The goal of the surge was
to give the Iraqi Government breathing space to make the political
decisions necessary to reduce the violence that is tearing Iraq apart.
But 11 months into the troop surge, progress on political
reconciliation continues to be all but nonexistent. Meanwhile, 2007 has
already been the deadliest year for American troops since the start of
the war in Iraq.
There is a clear choice before us. If you are satisfied with how the
Bush administration has been conducting the war for the last 4\1/2\
years, you should oppose this bill. If, on the other hand, you believe
the administration's strategy isn't working and want to require the
President to change course, you should vote for this legislation.
Whatever small chance there is of the Iraqi factions coming together,
it will not happen as long as the U.S. military commitment in Iraq
remains open-ended. We need to change course.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the majority
party's Iraq supplemental appropriations bill.
It is baffling that at the precise moment when the surge in Iraq is
producing positive results, the majority party would like to pull the
rug out from underneath our troops.
Violence is down. Sunnis in al Anbar have allied with U.S. forces
against al Qaeda. Baghdad is regaining some sense of normalcy.
By no means can we declare ``victory'' but our troops can rightfully
claim progress. Despite these positive developments, the majority party
wants to withdraw our forces--as if the enemy won't follow us home.
I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: are they prepared
to take responsibility for the disastrous consequences of an early
withdrawal?
Are they prepared to witness the chaos and destruction in Iraq?
Most importantly, are they willing to pass this responsibility on to
the next generation of Americans who may be forced to finish the job we
did not have the courage to complete?
My colleagues are right: we have made a significant financial and
personal investment in Iraq. Let us have the courage of our convictions
to see it through.
I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and pass a clean
supplemental bill that provides support to those who are fighting and
dying. We owe them that much.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Iraq
Redeployment Act which sets forth a realistic strategy for the
responsible redeployment of our combat troops in Iraq. The Bush
Administration has requested another $200 billion dollar blank check
for the war in Iraq to pursue a flawed strategy that has no end in
sight and which continually puts our brave men and women in the armed
services in the middle of Iraq's civil war.
The indefinite presence of American forces in Iraq has allowed the
different factions there to postpone making the difficult compromises
necessary to achieve stability and political reconciliation. Our
intelligence community has publicly concluded that the political
situation in Iraq is getting worse, not better. We cannot ask our
troops to remain in Iraq when the different Iraqi factions have refused
to take the steps necessary to achieve a greater stability.
We must embark on a new direction in Iraq. That's what this
legislation will do. It allocates $50 billion for the purpose of
beginning to responsibly redeploy our combat forces out of Iraq by the
target date of December 15, 2008. The troops that would remain in Iraq
beyond that date would focus on the more limited missions of training
Iraqi security forces, providing logistical and intelligence support
for the Iraqi security forces, and engaging in targeted counter-
terrorist operations against Al-Qaeda and affiliated groups.
As the legislation states, ``the primary purpose of funds made
available by the Act should be to transition the mission of the United
States Armed Forces in Iraq and undertake their redeployment, and not
to extend or prolong the war.'' This bill also states that the
reduction of our armed forces in Iraq ``shall be implemented in
conjunction with a comprehensive diplomatic, political and economic
strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and
the international community for the purpose of working collectively to
bring stability to Iraq''--a strategy recommended by the bipartisan
Iraq Study Group that the Administration has failed to pursue with any
vigor or urgency.
This legislation also prohibits the deployment of any troops not
fully equipped or trained, and extends to all U.S. Government agencies
and personnel the limitations in the U.S. Army Field Manual on
permissible interrogation techniques. We must send a strong message to
the world that we do not support or condone torture.
We are on the wrong path in Iraq. This bill provides a much needed
change in direction that will strengthen our national security, improve
our position in the region and bring our men and women safely home.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, one need look no further than the chaos in
Pakistan or the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan to understand
that troop levels in Iraq cannot be maintained--and that the surge,
which I have always opposed, has done nothing to achieve political
stability.
Today, with this bridge funding vote, Congress signals to the White
House yet again that enough is enough, that the combat mission in Iraq
must end, and that we will force that change.
No one in this chamber questions the courage or commitment of our
brave women and men in uniform or their willingness to tackle
[[Page H13941]]
any challenge put before them. But we have sent them on an ill-defined
mission with no apparent end point, and which consumes staggering
amounts of our talent and treasure at the expense of countless other
priorities.
This bill also redresses a glaring loophole in the Military
Commissions Act--a bill I strongly opposed. By requiring that all U.S.
Government agencies and personnel must adhere to interrogation
techniques contained in the Army Field Manual, we send an unmistakable
signal to the rest of the world that the United States--the world's
oldest functioning democracy--does not permit cruel, inhumane and
degrading practices, or torture, and complies fully with Federal law
banning torture and our international obligations.
The Iraq Troop Redeployment Bill is good policy, and long overdue.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4156,
the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act. This
bill will begin the long-overdue withdrawal of American troops from
Iraq.
Yesterday, the President vetoed the Labor and Heath and Human
Services-Education appropriations bill, which is the bill that provides
funding for the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Disease
Control, Low Income Home Energy Assistance, the Education Department,
Pell Grants, and educational programs for the disadvantaged. He vetoed
this bill because it contained a 2 percent increase over his request--
an increase of $10 billion in a Labor HHS bill of roughly $600 billion.
The President opposes even a 2 percent increase in the funding for
these programs.
Meanwhile, the President has requested almost $200 billion more for
his failed war in Iraq. That would make the total cost of the war in
Iraq so far to over $600 billion and climbing, with no end in sight.
President Bush's refusal to change course in Iraq is shocking, his
failure to allow adequate rest for our soldiers between tours of duty
is outrageous, and his demand for another $200 billion blank check for
his war in Iraq while vetoing LIHEAP for the poor, education for
disadvantaged children, Pell Grants for college students, and research
into cures for life threatening disease is simply unacceptable to this
House. What a misplaced set of priorities.
Instead of the blank check for an endless war, this bill requires
President Bush to begin withdrawing American troops from Iraq within 30
days. Instead of unfairly sending inadequately equipped soldiers on
multiple tours of duty, this bill prohibits the deployment of any
troops who are not fully equipped and trained. And at the same time,
this bill provides the necessary funds, in full, to our troops who are
still in harm's way.
Our Republican colleagues must make a choice: will they stand with
President Bush's attempt to throw more money and more young men and
women into the mess in Iraq, or will they join with Democrats seeking a
bipartisan agreement on redeploying American troops out of Iraq?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to specifically note a provision of this
bill, which I wrote, to bar any funds in this bill from being used for
the gruesome and indefensible practice of extraordinary rendition. I
would like to commend and thank Chairman Obey and Chairman Murtha for
again including this language, as they have in every defense
appropriations and supplemental appropriations bill this year. Through
the use of extraordinary rendition, as well as abusive interrogation
techniques and extrajudicial incarceration of so-called ``enemy
combatants,'' President Bush has largely forfeited the mantel of human
rights champion which the United States has carried for so long. We
must reclaim the international moral high-ground if we are to cure the
root causes of terrorism around the world, and we can start by banning
extraordinary rendition.
Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Obey for this strong and responsible
bill, and urge all my colleagues to vote aye.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4156, the
Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act.
The Iraq war is a failure and it's time for our troops to come home.
This bill calls for a responsible redeployment and provides for the
checks and balances Congress is authorized to impose.
The administration does not have blanket authority and America does
not have a bottomless checking account.
The President's policy in Iraq has been a complete failure, and
Americans are calling for this war to end.
Our troops are now trapped in the middle of someone else's civil war.
Our military presence in Iraq is not making our country any safer.
Instead, this war has taken the lives of over 3,850 soldiers,
including 13 brave young men from my District alone.
From Rialto, 37-year-old Staff Sergeant Jorge A. Molina was deployed
in Iraq and died in hostile fire in the Anbar province.
From Rialto, 20-year-old, Specialist Luis D. Santos was deployed in
Iraq and died of injuries sustained when a makeshift bomb exploded near
his Humvee during combat operations in Buritz.
From Rialto, 22-year-old, Corporal Victor A. Garcia was deployed in
Iraq and died by small arms fire in Baghdad.
From Bloomington, 25-year-old, Corporal Joseph A. Blanco was deployed
in Iraq and died by small arms fire in Taji after sustaining injuries
from a makeshift bomb.
From Fontana, 19-year-old Lance Corporal Fernando S. Tamayo was
deployed in Iraq and died while conducting combat operations in Anbar
Province.
From Fontana, 24-year-old Sergeant Bryan A. Brewster was deployed in
Afghanistan and died after his helicopter crashed during combat
operations in Afghanistan.
From San Bernardino, 22-year-old Corporal Nicanor Alvarez was
deployed in Iraq and died in the line of fire in the Anbar province.
From San Bernardino, 19-year-old Petty Officer Alex Oceguera was
deployed in Afghanistan, and died when a makeshift bomb detonated near
his vehicle in Wygal Valley, Afghanistan.
From San Bernardino, 24-year-old Corporal Sean Grilley was deployed
in Iraq, and died after being fired on by Iraqis during operations in
Karbala.
From San Bernardino, 24-year-old Specialist Timothy D. Watkins was
deployed in Iraq, and died when a makeshift bomb exploded near his
vehicle during operations in Ar Ramadi.
From Ontario, 21-year-old Specialist Jose R. Perez was deployed in
Iraq, and died by enemy small arms fire in Ramadi.
From Ontario, 31-year-old Sergeant First Class Rudy A. Salcido was
deployed in Iraq, and died when an improvised explosive device
detonated near his convey vehicle in Baghdad.
These are the true faces of the war. My deepest prayers go out to
their families.
These soldiers are the reason why I am so adamant about bringing our
troops back home, and why we must support this bill.
The President's failed policies on the Iraqi war effort must end. We
are listening to America's concerns and will not stand by and watch
this continue.
We need to bring back our loved ones and put our families here at
home first.
It's time for America to put her priorities in order.
This Nation is in debt, but not because of domestic spending.
President Bush refuses to sign bills to pay for schools, children's
health care, and to protect our workers.
However, he comes to us asking for another $200 billion to continue
funding the Iraq war.
With just one week's worth of funding for the war, my District would
never again face a shortage of teachers, of nurses, or of police
officers.
As a veteran, I voted against this war in 2002 because no one could
convince me why we had to be there in the first place.
The President believes Iraq is making our country safer.
The truth is, it is has put us at greater risk.
Our military is stretched so thin that we are at risk of not being
prepared for any future emergencies.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 818, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit offered by Mr. Young of Florida
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. In its current form, I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. YOUNG of Florida moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 4156,
to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendments:
(1) In section 101--
(A) strike paragraph (3);
(B) in paragraph (1), insert ``and'' after the semicolon;
and
(C) in paragraph (2), strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
(2) Strike sections 102, 104 and 106.
(3) In section 105--
(A) strike subsections (a) through (f); and
(B) in subsection (g), strike the subsection designation.
(4) Redesignate sections 103 and 105 as sections 102 and
103 respectively.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Florida is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
[[Page H13942]]
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is a
simple forthwith motion. That means a vote for this motion will allow
the House to immediately vote tonight on a bill that can pass the
Congress and be signed into law. That means that our troops in harm's
way will get the funding they need before Congress leaves town for a 2-
week Thanksgiving recess.
The motion would amend the bill to strike the provisions which have
nothing to do with providing for our troops and are nothing more than
political gamesmanship. The motion would strip the provisions that give
our enemies a complete blueprint and timeline for troop withdrawal. The
motion would strip the provisions in the bill which signal to our
troops and our enemies that Congress will not provide any more funding
for our troops, except for withdrawal. The motion would strip the
provisions in the bill that substitute politicians' judgments on troop
deployment for the judgment of our military commanders in the field.
At the same time, we leave intact the $50 billion in critical funding
included in the bill. We leave intact the prohibition on torture, which
has been adopted previously by this Congress and Congresses before. But
we strip the new provisions which could give terrorists killing our
soldiers and our citizens constitutional protections under our legal
system.
We modify provisions to more clearly express Congress's commitment to
our troops and to bringing them home safely in victory as soon as
possible. We leave intact a new requirement that the President submit
to the Congress within the next 3 months a comprehensive, long-term
strategy to achieve stability in the Middle East over the next 5 years.
As events of the last few months have shown, the situation on the
ground has, and we all hope will, continue to improve dramatically.
Congress has and will continue to debate the proper course of the war,
as it should. However, we should not and cannot vote to hold troop
funding hostage to that debate. The only ones hurt by that are our
troops and their families.
As we go home to enjoy the holidays with our families, how can any of
us look our soldiers' families in the eye and explain to them that we
are withholding their funding so that we can score political points.
That is just wrong. Our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen and their
families deserve more from all of us.
I urge adoption of this motion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Who wishes to claim the time in opposition?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I certainly do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that I have a great deal of
affection for the gentleman from Florida. I think he makes as good an
argument for a bad case as you can possibly find. Let me simply say
that this recommittal motion is very easy to understand, which is why
it ought to be defeated. It simply gives the President all the money in
this bill, unconditionally. It is simply a down payment on business as
usual. It simply strips the timeline from this legislation. It renews
the authority for torture. It eliminates the requirement that
interrogation activities follow the Army Field Manual. Outside of those
problems, it's a terrific idea.
So I would simply urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
Mr. MURTHA. I want the Members to know I carry in my pocket the names
of 18 people who have been killed from my district. Two years ago, I
said this is a failed policy wrapped in illusion. I am absolutely
convinced that there's more instability in the Middle East today than
there was then.
This recommittal motion works against everything we are trying to do.
We want a plan. We want a plan in Iraq. We want stability in the Middle
East. We don't have stability. Pakistan, Afghanistan, and of course
Turkey might even go into the Middle East. So when you talk about
victory, you're talking about stability, which we don't have. It's
absolutely essential to put a plan in place that holds the President
accountable.
All this time the President has asked for things and we have given
them to him. For 5 years we have said to the President of the United
States, You need money, we are going to give to it you. Now we are
saying we are going to have a new plan, and that plan is going to
change the direction of this war, and we are going to bring those
troops who fought so honorably home to their families.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and ask
for a ``no'' vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced the
noes appear to have it.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 192,
nays 231, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 1107]
YEAS--192
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
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
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Ehlers
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
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
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--231
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
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
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Duncan
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
[[Page H13943]]
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
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
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--10
Bono
Carson
Cubin
Doyle
Hastert
Jindal
Mack
Oberstar
Sessions
Weller
{time} 2146
Messrs. MORAN of Kansas and Lampson changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 203, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 1108]
YEAS--218
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
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
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
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
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
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--203
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
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
Cooper
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNulty
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
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
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Lewis (GA)
NOT VOTING--11
Bono
Carson
Cubin
Doyle
Hastert
Jindal
Mack
Oberstar
Pearce
Sessions
Weller
{time} 2201
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________