[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 195 (Wednesday, December 19, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H16887-H16889]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE AMENDMENT TO 
    SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2764, THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN 
OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 (CONSOLIDATED 
   APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008) AND FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 72, 
          FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2008

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 893 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 893

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the

[[Page H16888]]

     Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2764) making appropriations 
     for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related 
     programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and 
     for other purposes, with the Senate amendment to the House 
     amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in 
     the House, without intervention of any point of order except 
     those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion offered 
     by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or his 
     designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment. The 
     Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. 
     The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Appropriations. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption 
     without intervening motion.
       Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 72) making further continuing appropriations for the 
     fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the joint resolution are waived 
     except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The 
     joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions of the joint resolution are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour 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. 3. During consideration of House Joint Resolution 72 
     or the motion to concur pursuant to this resolution, 
     notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the 
     Chair may postpone further consideration of either measure to 
     such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
       Sec. 4. House Resolution 849 is laid upon the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
H. Res. 893.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, I have no problem with the rule. I 
do have a problem with the underlying bill, which provides the 
President with another blank check in support of his Iraq war policy, 
but I stated I think very clearly my concerns about that.
  Other than a few closing remarks, I am going to reserve my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, this matter was debated previously. It is obviously a 
critically important piece of legislation. I made some points about it 
before. I am not going to repeat my points at this time. I hope we can 
move to other very pressing matters before us today.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, as of today, 3,893 of our bravest men and women have 
lost their lives in Iraq. Tens of thousands more have been wounded. 
They have lost limbs, lost their sight and suffered severe brain 
injuries. We have spent half a trillion tax dollars, none of it paid 
for. When is enough enough? When will this Congress finally reflect the 
will of the American people and begin to bring our men and women in 
Iraq home to their families? I hope it is today. I think it can be 
today.
  As I mentioned earlier, Madam Speaker, in today's Washington Post the 
U.S. military has found that the strongest point of agreement among all 
Iraqis across all sectarian and ethnic groups is the belief that the 
United States' military invasion of their country is the primary root 
of the violent differences among them and that the departure of 
``occupying forces,'' their words, is the key to national 
reconciliation.
  Madam Speaker, I include today's Washington Post article for the 
Record.

                [From washingtonpost.com, Dec. 19, 2007]

     All Iraqi Groups Blame U.S. Invasion for Discord, Study Shows

                           (By Karen DeYoung)

       Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the 
     U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent 
     differences among them, and see the departure of ``occupying 
     forces'' as the key to national reconciliation, according to 
     focus groups conducted for the U.S. military last month.
       That is good news, according to a military analysis of the 
     results. At the very least, analysts optimistically 
     concluded, the findings indicate that Iraqis hold some 
     ``shared beliefs'' that may eventually allow them to surmount 
     the divisions that have led to a civil war.
       Conducting the focus groups, in 19 separate sessions 
     organized by outside contractors in five cities, is among the 
     ways in which Multi-National Force-Iraq assesses conditions 
     in the country beyond counting insurgent attacks, casualties 
     and weapons caches. The command, led by Army Gen. David H. 
     Petraeus, devotes more time and resources than any other 
     government or independent entity to measuring various 
     matters, including electricity, satisfaction with trash 
     collection and what Iraqis think it will take for them to get 
     along.
       The results are analyzed and presented to Petraeus as part 
     of the daily Battle Update Assessment or BUA (pronounced boo-
     ah). Some of the news has been unarguably good, including the 
     sharply reduced number of roadside bombings and attacks on 
     civilians. But bad news is often presented with a bright 
     side, such as the focus-group results and a November poll, 
     which found that 25 percent of Baghdad residents were 
     satisfied with their local government and that 15 percent 
     said they had enough fuel for heating and cooking.
       The good news? Those numbers were higher than the figures 
     of the previous month (18 percent and 9 percent, 
     respectively).
       And Iraqi complaints about matters other than security are 
     seen as progress. Early this year, Maj. Fred Garcia, an MNF-I 
     analyst, said that ``a very large percentage of people would 
     answer questions about security by saying `I don't know.' 
     Now, we get more griping because people feel freer.''
       Iraqi political reconciliation, quality-of-life issues and 
     the economy are largely the responsibility of the State 
     Department. But the military, to the occasional consternation 
     of U.S. diplomats who feel vastly outnumbered, has its own 
     ``mirror agencies'' in many areas. Officers in charge of 
     civil-military operations, said senior Petraeus adviser Army 
     Col. William E. Rapp, ``can tell you how many markets are 
     open in Baghdad, how many shops, how many banks are open . . 
     . We have a lot more people'' on the ground.
       On Iraqi politics, ``we have four to six slides almost 
     every morning on `Where does the Iraqi government stand on 
     de-Baathification legislation?' All these things are embassy 
     things,'' Rapp said. But Petraeus is interested in ``his 
     `feel' for a situation, and he gets that from a bunch of 
     different data points,'' he added.
       Even though members of the military ``understand the 
     limitations'' of polling data, Rapp said, ``subjective 
     measures'' are an important part of the mix. In July, the 
     military signed a contract with Gallup for four public 
     opinion polls a month in Iraq: three nationwide and one in 
     Baghdad. Lincoln Group, which has conducted surveys for the 
     military since shortly after the invasion, received a year-
     long contract in January to conduct focus groups.
       Outside of the military, some of the most widespread 
     polling in Iraq has been done by D3 Systems, a Virginia-based 
     company that maintains offices in each of Iraq's 18 
     provinces. Its most recent publicly released surveys, 
     conducted in September for several news media organizations, 
     showed the same widespread Iraqi belief voiced by the 
     military's focus groups: that a U.S. departure will make 
     things better. A State Department poll in September 2006 
     reported a similar finding.
       Matthew Warshaw, a senior research manager at D3, said that 
     despite security improvements, polling in Iraq remains 
     difficult. ``While violence has gone down, one of the ways it 
     has been achieved is by effectively separating people. That 
     means mobility is limited, with roadblocks by the U.S. and 
     Iraqi military or local militias,'' Warshaw said in an 
     interview.
       Most of the recent survey results he has seen about 
     political reconciliation, Warshaw said, are ``more about 
     [Iraqis] reconciling with the United States within their own 
     particular territory, like in Anbar. . . . But it doesn't say 
     anything about how Sunni groups feel about Shiite groups in 
     Baghdad.''
       Warshaw added: ``In Iraq, I just don't hear statements that 
     come from any of the Sunni, Shiite or Kurdish groups that say 
     `We recognize that we need to share power with the others, 
     that we can't truly dominate.'
       According to a summary report of the focus-group findings 
     obtained by The Washington Post, Iraqis have a number of 
     ``shared beliefs'' about the current situation that cut 
     across sectarian lines. Participants, in separate groups of 
     men and women, were interviewed in Ramadi, Najaf, Irbil, Abu 
     Ghraib and in Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad. The 
     report does not mention how the participants were selected.
       Dated December 2007, the report notes that ``the Iraqi 
     government has still made no significant progress toward its 
     fundamental goal of national reconciliation.'' Asked to

[[Page H16889]]

     describe ``the current situation in Iraq to a foreign 
     visitor,'' some groups focused on positive aspects of the 
     recent security improvements. But ``most would describe the 
     negative elements of life in Iraq beginning with the `U.S. 
     occupation' in March 2003,'' the report says.
       Some participants also blamed Iranian meddling for Iraq's 
     problems. While the United States was said to want to control 
     Iraq's oil, Iran was seen as seeking to extend its political 
     and religious agendas.
       Few mentioned Saddam Hussein as a cause of their problems, 
     which the report described as an important finding implying 
     that ``the current strife in Iraq seems to have totally 
     eclipsed any agonies or grievances many Iraqis would have 
     incurred from the past regime, which lasted for nearly four 
     decades--as opposed to the current conflict, which has lasted 
     for five years.''
       Overall, the report said that ``these findings may be 
     expected to conclude that national reconciliation is neither 
     anticipated nor possible. In reality, this survey provides 
     very strong evidence that the opposite is true.'' A sense of 
     ``optimistic possibility permeated all focus groups . . . and 
     far more commonalities than differences are found among these 
     seemingly diverse groups of Iraqis.''

  Madam Speaker, the Iraqi people themselves firmly believe that 
reconciliation will not happen until we leave. If the Iraqi people want 
us to leave and a majority of the Iraqi Government wants us to leave 
and a majority of the American people want us to leave, then why on 
Earth are we still staying?
  As I have said on a number of occasions today, what is contained in 
the underlying bill is a blank check. There are no restrictions on the 
tens of billions of dollars that we are going to give the President in 
support of his Iraq policy. There is no conditionality. There are no 
timetables for withdrawal. There is nothing. This is a blank check. We 
are into the fifth year of this war, and after all that we have seen, 
after all that we have been told that has turned out not to be true, it 
seems unbelievable to me that this Congress would vote for yet another 
blank check.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this latest blank 
check, which essentially is in support of an endless war in Iraq, and 
vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. I ask for support of the rule.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________