[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 10, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H1245-H1249]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1245
    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 248, 
                   AFGHANISTAN WAR POWERS RESOLUTION

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1146 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1146

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
     Res. 248) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) 
     of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States 
     Armed Forces from Afghanistan, if called up by Representative 
     Kucinich of Ohio or his designee. The concurrent resolution 
     shall be considered as read. The concurrent resolution shall 
     be debatable for three hours, with 90 minutes controlled by 
     Representative Kucinich of Ohio or his designee and 90 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     concurrent resolution to final adoption without intervening 
     motion.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes 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. I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all 
Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks on House Resolution 1146.
  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 1146 provides for the 
consideration of H. Con. Res. 248, directing the President, pursuant to 
section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States 
Armed Forces from Afghanistan. The rule provides 3 hours of general 
debate in the House, with 90 minutes controlled by Representative 
Kucinich and 90 minutes controlled by the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
concurrent resolution and provides that the concurrent resolution shall 
be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important day, and an important debate, in 
the House of representatives. Last summer, I had the privilege of 
traveling to Afghanistan and meeting with our brave troops. They are an 
incredible group of people, proud of their accomplishments, thoughtful 
and candid about the challenges that confront them. They deserve to 
know that we are thinking about them and do not take their lives or 
their fate for granted. It has been far too long since Congress had a 
full and open debate on the issue of U.S. policy in Afghanistan.
  In 2001, I voted, along with the vast majority of my colleagues, to 
go after the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th. I believe we 
must have a comprehensive strategy to counter the global threat posed 
by al Qaeda and its affiliates, no matter where they are in the world--
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, North Africa, and elsewhere. But 
I also believe that we have serious challenges right here at home. 
Millions of Americans are out of work. Our economy is just now 
beginning to emerge from the worst recession in decades. Our schools, 
our health care, our tax code, our infrastructure--all must be updated 
for the 21st century if we are to create a better America.
  Mr. Speaker, the war in Afghanistan has cost U.S. taxpayers well over 
$200 billion--none of it paid for. None of it paid for. All of that 
money has been added on to our debt. And those costs will continue to 
rise as we fund increasing troop levels and provide the necessary care 
to our veterans when they return home. Our policy has drastically 
changed in those 8 years. We are no longer just going after the bad 
guys. We are engaged in a massive ``nation-building'' effort in 
Afghanistan.
  Now, I certainly don't believe we should abandon the Afghan people. 
But instead of nation-building in Afghanistan, I'd like to do some more 
nation-building here at home.
  Our allies in Afghanistan, the Karzai government, do not inspire 
confidence.

[[Page H1246]]

The recent election there was characterized by widespread fraud and 
corruption. Just 10 days ago, Mr. Karzai unilaterally rewrote the 
election law to ensure that he can handpick the members of the election 
monitoring commission that oversees voting irregularities. Talk about 
the fox guarding the chicken coop.
  Over 1,000 U.S. servicemen and women have sacrificed their lives in 
Afghanistan. Over 670 more lives have been lost by our NATO military 
allies. Thousands more have been wounded, many severely, in ways that 
will affect the rest of their lives. Suicide and post-traumatic stress 
among our troops and veterans continue to increase at alarming rates.
  Mr. Speaker, last summer I authored an amendment to require the 
administration to develop an exit strategy for our military involvement 
in Afghanistan. While my amendment did not carry the day, I believe it 
demonstrated to the administration that an open-ended commitment was 
not sustainable. As we know, President Obama outlined such a strategy 
in his speech at West Point. And I believe it is essential that we in 
the Congress work to keep the administration to its word. We must 
fulfill our constitutional responsibilities by making sure that 
taxpayer funds are spent wisely and with complete accountability and 
transparency for every dime and every dollar. No more Halliburton and 
Blackwater scandals. No more projects where fat-cat middlemen walk off 
with all the money while the Afghan people go without hospitals, 
schools, roads, or food.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that this is just the first--not the last--debate 
that we have on the House floor this year over our policy in 
Afghanistan. The issue is simply too important. The future at stake is 
too grave. We have sacrificed too much--in the lives and well-being of 
our soldiers, in the cost to our economy--to wait another year or 2 or 
3 for Congress to do its job. We must continue to ask the hard 
questions and demand straight answers.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I'd like to thank the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for the time, and I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, on Sunday the Iraqi people went to the polls to vote in 
their latest national parliamentary elections. Millions of Iraqis voted 
at thousands of voting stations throughout the country. The democratic 
process is succeeding in Iraq. The people there, despite 
extraordinarily difficult challenges, are able to express themselves in 
free elections.
  Sunday was a good day for the future of Iraq. Those elections would 
not have taken place but for the decision of President Bush in 2007 to 
send over 20,000 surge troops to Iraq in order to establish, ``a 
unified democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, 
and sustain itself.'' Those elections would not have been possible but 
for the sacrifices of our troops and their families. Just 4 months ago, 
Mr. Speaker, President Obama announced a surge strategy for 
Afghanistan. He committed 30,000 additional forces to a 
counterinsurgency strategy that I believe will help to strengthen the 
government in Afghanistan's security forces, as the surge did in Iraq.
  Since President Obama's announcement, we've seen considerable 
results. For example, last month, our troops began what is known as the 
Marjah offensive. The joint offensive with the Afghan National Army and 
coalition partners has pushed the Taliban out of Marjah and has allowed 
the Afghan government to take control of significant areas that were 
previously controlled by the Taliban. This offensive is what General 
David Petraeus, the commander of the United States Central Command, has 
described as the ``initial salvo'' in a 12- to 18-month campaign to 
defeat the Taliban.
  Now I have had and I continue to have, Mr. Speaker, disagreements 
with policies of President Obama, but I have said privately, I have 
said publicly, and I reiterate here today, that in the case of 
Afghanistan, President Obama has demonstrated great responsibility and 
a sense of the national security interest of the United States. He 
deserves our support.
  Just as our military is making tangible progress, like the Marjah 
offensive demonstrates, just as this is occurring, many of our 
colleagues in the majority party now feel that it is time to withdraw 
from Afghanistan. The resolution that we are set to debate today would 
require the President to withdraw our troops in 30 days. I believe that 
that would be precipitous. I believe that precipitously withdrawing our 
troops would be reckless. I believe it would allow the Taliban to 
regain control of Afghanistan and thereby provide criminal groups such 
as al Qaeda with carte blanche to run terrorist training camps and plan 
terrorist attacks against the United States and our allies. I would 
remind my colleagues that it was the safe harbor and support that the 
Taliban gave bin Laden which allowed him to plan the September 11, 
2001, attacks from Afghanistan against this country. A reconstituted 
Taliban will undoubtedly do the same and will pose a significant and 
grave risk to the national security of the United States.
  I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we must never allow Afghanistan to once 
again fall into the hands of terrorists whose sole purpose is to 
destroy the United States and to kill innocent civilians. Precipitous 
withdrawal would not only be dangerous, I believe, to our national 
security, but would constitute a mortal blow to the Afghan people, who 
are relying on our support.
  Although they have far to go, Afghanistan has made demonstrable 
progress. But if this resolution were to become U.S. policy, all the 
improvements made by the Afghan people would disappear. Afghans would 
no longer be given the chance to vote in elections. The Taliban would 
rule by the edict of terror. It would mean the return of a nightmarish 
tyranny to Afghanistan. Women would see the rights they have gained 
disappear as the Taliban once again made women noncitizens and banned 
young girls, who for the first time are learning to read, from schools.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that now is not the time to turn our backs on 
the Afghan people. It is not the time to counter the mission of our 
troops, especially when they are engaged in the first major offensive 
of President Obama's reaffirmed counterinsurgency strategy. Let us send 
a message to the terrorists that the United States is committed to our 
mission to prevent the return to power of the Taliban. Let us soundly 
defeat this resolution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciated the gentleman from Florida's comments. He spent a great 
deal of time trying to compare Iraq to Afghanistan. I would remind my 
colleagues that Iraq and Afghanistan are very, very different 
countries, different cultures, different levels of education and a 
different history of centralized government. In Afghanistan, there is 
no tradition, there is no history of a centralized government. 
Comparing Iraq to Afghanistan is not comparing apples to oranges. It's 
like comparing apples to Volkswagens. There is no comparison. And we 
could have a debate about Iraq, but that should be on a separate day, 
and we could talk about whether there were any weapons of mass 
destruction; but today we're here talking about Afghanistan.
  I think this is important, and it's an important discussion because 
this Congress, with the exception of a few amendments that got very 
little time, has not had a debate or a discussion in this Chamber on 
Afghanistan since after September 11, 2001. And our policy has changed 
in a number of different ways over those years, and we still have not 
had a debate or a discussion on Afghanistan.
  So today, hopefully, we will. And my hope is that in this Chamber, 
where lots of Members talk all the time and very few Members listen, 
that this may be a day for Members to listen. It is important that we 
get this right, especially for the men and women who we have deployed 
over there.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), a member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Thank you very much to my good friend from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the time, for his 
excellent opening statement, and for his response to

[[Page H1247]]

our colleague from the Rules Committee as well. And I thank him for 
being here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying 
concurrent resolution. It is a rare occurrence that Members of this 
body have the opportunity to devote 3 hours of debate to such an 
important issue, and it is even more unusual that Members are given a 
chance for a clean up-or-down vote on ending the war in Afghanistan. 
Each time an emergency war supplemental, a Defense appropriations bill 
or a Defense authorization bill has come to the floor, continued 
funding for the war in Afghanistan is hidden behind spending to create 
jobs, to provide humanitarian relief or to increase medical benefits to 
our troops, all of which I support. And privileged resolutions like 
this, which exercise the constitutional right of the United States 
Congress to decide whether or not to continue the use of the military 
force, rarely sees the light of day.
  This country has spent over $250 billion, Mr. Speaker, on the war in 
Afghanistan. The share of my home State of Maine is almost $700 
million. And in the next few months, the administration will likely ask 
this Congress to spend another $30 billion to fund a surge of troops in 
Afghanistan. At a time when we cannot find $30 billion to create jobs, 
continue unemployment benefits or help small businesses, we need to ask 
ourselves, Is the cost of this war worth it? Is it right to spend more 
money and lose more lives on a strategy that isn't working? Can we 
afford to turn our backs on the challenges we face at home and to 
pursue failed policies abroad?
  I am an original cosponsor of this concurrent resolution because I 
firmly believe this war needs to end. We have asked our men and women 
in uniform to return to combat again and again. They have fought with 
bravery and helped the people of Afghanistan with compassion. They have 
risen to meet every challenge and paid every price to defend this 
country. But the cost of this war is too high. The economic situation 
in the country is too dire, and the lives of our brave men and women in 
uniform are too precious for this war to go on and for this issue to be 
muddled and tucked away in large spending bills.
  It is time to end the war in Afghanistan and bring our troops home. 
It is time for this Congress to demand an open debate on Afghanistan 
and a clean vote on any future bills that fund this war. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying 
concurrent resolution.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts.
  Mr. Speaker, this Nation does face a very real and immediate 
terrorist threat. The terrorist threat stems from al Qaeda, which is a 
stateless menace, a menace that is not rooted in any one location or 
has any dominion in any one particular area.
  In fact, the two countries that our Nation continues to occupy, 
namely Iraq and Afghanistan, are not significant bases of operations 
for al Qaeda. It's been recently reported that there are, in fact, only 
around 50 al Qaeda operatives in the entire nation of Afghanistan, and 
there could very well be 10 times that number in nations like Yemen and 
Pakistan.
  Yes, there is a very real threat, but the answer is not to continue 
to indefinitely occupy countries where we only breed more sympathy with 
those who would do us harm. The correct and more important way to 
leverage American military might to combat this menace is to have 
targeted and aggressive intelligence-gathering and targeted special 
operations against the terrorists no matter where they are.
  Some have expressed concerns that if we leave Afghanistan 
precipitously, al Qaeda could reassert itself there. The answer to that 
is to go after al Qaeda in a targeted way in Afghanistan if the need 
arises again. It is not to engage in an indefinite occupation of one or 
two particular countries. How many more countries would we need to 
occupy? If they're in Yemen, do we occupy Yemen? If they're in 
Pakistan, do we occupy Pakistan? If we weren't already in and occupying 
Afghanistan, would we choose to go in there today? I would submit that 
the answer is no.
  We need to continue our effort to battle terrorists wherever they are 
and focus on this stateless menace through intelligence-gathering, 
targeted special operations and a refocused emphasis on homeland 
security, all of which a very costly and expensive effort in 
Afghanistan continues to reduce our ability to do by soaking up our 
national time and resources as well as costing the lives of American 
soldiers.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Today, so very late, represents the first real House 
debate on Afghanistan since President Obama announced that the path to 
peace could only be found through wider war. I have continually 
challenged that policy. But because our security, I believe, will not 
be found in either the false choice of ``more troops in'' or ``all out 
now,'' I cannot support the resolution, as I do not support our current 
strategy in Afghanistan.
  This December escalation announcement by the President was 
counterproductive and somewhat misleading. He tried to have it both 
ways. He pledged to begin withdrawing troops in July 2011, but his plan 
continues sending troops through near the end of this year. Defense 
Secretary Gates was more candid. He says that any withdrawal next year 
will be a ``handful,'' that there is no real Afghanistan exit strategy, 
and that a large military presence is planned there for ``a very long 
time.''
  With our unceasing commitment to American blood and treasure being 
poured into Afghanistan, there is no meaningful pressure on President 
Karzai and his drug dealer and warlord cohorts. They have been much 
less interested in undertaking the steps necessary to secure peace than 
in clinging to power and wealth, such as by stealing one-third of the 
votes in the last election. I believe that the calls for reform have 
been greeted since that time by Mr. Karzai only by taking over the 
independent election commission that questioned that election and by 
the appointment of multiple drug warlord types to the cabinet who are 
part of the problem. In Afghanistan, reform is a slogan, it is not a 
reality.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). The time of the gentleman from 
Texas has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. DOGGETT. We have exercised minimal leverage over Karzai and his 
cronies, who view our continuing presence there as an invitation to 
steal all they can get when they get it. The better exit strategy is 
having fewer troops who need to exit. I agree with General Eikenberry, 
our former commander and now ambassador, who last November questioned 
an escalation that would only ``bring vastly increased costs and an 
indefinite, large-scale U.S. military role.'' He wisely concluded that 
further increases would ``dig us in more deeply.''
  In 2001, I voted for the use of force against the enemies that 
attacked us, and I continue to support that effort. But unless we 
pursue a different approach with a more narrow military footprint and a 
pragmatic exit strategy, we will remain embroiled in a land that has 
entrapped so many foreign powers throughout the centuries Afghanistan 
can consume as many lives and as many dollars as we are willing to 
expend there. As in Iraq, we are on a course for a trillion-dollar war 
waged on borrowed money. That must be changed to save American lives 
and America's future.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the author of the resolution.
  Mr. KUCINICH. We're either in or we're out. Unless this Congress acts 
to claim its constitutional responsibility, we will stay in Afghanistan 
for a very, very long time at great cost to our troops and to our 
national priorities. Or we can set a date, December 31, 2010, by which 
we must leave. And this is exactly what the resolution seeks to do.

[[Page H1248]]

  Congress has to be mindful of our responsibilities under this 
Constitution, article I, section 8, to claim responsibility for the 
true casualties, which are now close to 1,000, to claim responsibility 
for the cost, which is approaching $250 billion and together with the 
Iraq war close to $1 trillion. And this at a great cost to our 
priorities here at home for housing, for job creation, for health care, 
for education; to claim responsibility for the casualties to innocent 
civilians, the human costs of the war.
  Congress must claim responsibility one way or another for challenging 
the corruption that my colleagues have talked about that has engulfed 
the Afghanistan administration. We must claim responsibility and 
understand exactly the role the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India 
pipeline has in all of this. We must claim responsibility for debating 
the wisdom of the counterinsurgency strategies which apparently have 
failed and claim responsibility for the logistics of withdrawal.
  I brought this resolution to the floor of the House with the help of 
the Rules Committee and the support of the leadership, which believes 
the debate is merited, because after 8\1/2\ years it is time that this 
Congress be heard from. It is time that we claim our constitutional 
responsibility under article I, section 8.
  The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted to ensure that Congress 
has a role in the decision to send the United States Armed Forces into 
hostilities or the continued use of such forces and hostilities. And my 
legislation, if enacted, would require the President to bring the Armed 
Forces out of Afghanistan by December 31, 2010.
  As the U.S. Armed Forces and our allies begin the first in a series 
of large military operations in Afghanistan, it is up to us to have our 
voice and our vote felt at this important moment.
  Regardless of your support or opposition to the war, this resolution 
is about ensuring meaningful and open debate. And in the 3 hours ahead, 
I'm confident that this House will have the opportunity to do that so 
that people, no matter what their position is, can finally be heard 
from with respect to our constitutional responsibilities.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his 
courtesy in permitting me to speak on this. I continue to have profound 
reservations about our troop commitments, first in Iraq and more 
recently with President Obama's decision to escalate our presence in 
Afghanistan.
  History suggests we will not be successful in stabilizing Afghanistan 
with military force. No one has. I don't think anyone ever will. 
Afghanistan today is perhaps the most corrupt country in the world, 
ranked next to last out of 180, according to Transparency 
International. If you have a culture of corruption, it's hard to plant 
seeds. It's hard to rent allies and have them remain loyal. Global 
economic development through roads and water are not esoteric, abstract 
issues. These are things that make a difference between people being 
thugs and, in some cases, feeding their families in any way they can, 
having little sympathy for infidels and drug problems.
  The magnitude of spending that we're involved with here needs to be 
put in perspective. Each one of these additional troops that we are 
sending over costs $1 million a year to support. We are going to be 
spending as a Nation $7,000 for each of the 14.5 million Afghanis in 
the workforce.

                              {time}  1315

  Our military spending per Afghan worker is 20 times what that worker 
will earn in an entire year in Afghanistan. At the same time, there is 
a dire need for the most basic of services. In rural Afghanistan, 80 
percent drink polluted water and only 10 percent have adequate 
sanitation.
  I have profound reservations about the course we are on and the 
ability to generate positive long-term, fundamental changes that will 
persist over time. I think it is absolutely essential that we have this 
debate. While I don't agree with the resolution that somehow we are 
going to be able to pull the plug and be able to end this in 30 days or 
30 weeks, I do think it is important for Congress to focus on what is 
here, what is possible.
  What we need to be doing is redirecting our effort. We need to start 
reversing the course that we are on there. We need to narrow our focus. 
We need to make more efforts to involve the Afghans themselves with 
water, with sanitation, with education. And we need to make sure that 
Congress has a voice and is pushing back as the elements come to us.
  I don't agree that we are powerless on some of the defense 
appropriations, for instance. We can in fact push back. We can be 
heard. And we can start reversing what I think is an inappropriate 
course.
  I welcome the debate today. While I am not going to support the 
particular resolution, I appreciate my colleagues bringing it forward. 
I think it is important to engage and for us to imagine how we can do a 
better job in that troubled country and in that troubled region. The 
time to begin the discussion is long overdue. I look forward to 
continued progress.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think this has 
been a good discussion today. And I think it is appropriate to have it. 
I certainly hope that the result is clear, and that this Congress today 
strongly and in a bipartisan way rejects the resolution that is being 
brought forth. It would be a grave mistake for us to allow the Taliban 
to regain power in Afghanistan.
  Sometimes the lessons of history may be a little bit more difficult 
to explain. In this case, when the Taliban was in power they opened the 
country up to training camps for terrorists to attack the United 
States. That was in 2001. It is not ancient history. So I hope we don't 
forget the lessons of history.
  In addition, as I said before, Mr. Speaker, our Armed Forces with our 
coalition allies and the Afghan armed forces are in the midst of the 
first major offensive in President Obama's new strategy. So I think it 
would be a grave mistake if this Congress does not clearly and 
emphatically reject the resolution today.
  Having said that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with demanding our 
troops come home, including forcing that debate by using the privileges 
of the war powers resolution. There is nothing unpatriotic in demanding 
that our troops and their families, their neighbors and their 
communities be told when they are coming home. And Mr. Speaker, there 
is every reason to debate how we go after al Qaeda and how we create a 
flexible, mobile, global strategy able to track, find, counter, and 
strike al Qaeda cells wherever they might be. And there is no reason to 
run away from a debate over whether 100,000 boots on the ground in 
Afghanistan is the best strategy to eliminating al Qaeda once and for 
all.
  I do not doubt that our brave military men and women can and will 
achieve military successes in battle after battle after battle. But are 
Afghanistan's tribal disputes going to be solved on the battlefield or 
at the political negotiating table? And if it is going to take a 
political solution to resolve centuries of grievances, then who is 
willing to stand at the front of this Chamber and declare how many 
American lives that is worth?
  Mr. Speaker, President Obama has said he will begin to bring our 
troops home next July, but he didn't say when the job will be complete. 
Representative Kucinich says let's bring them home by New Year's Eve, 
this year. We must continue to debate this issue, debate it today, 
debate it on the supplemental, debate it on defense bills.
  Let's debate it when we are begging for resources so our kids can go 
to quality schools, when we are trying to find the money so every 
American has a decent job and affordable health care, so we can 
maintain our roads and our bridges and our waterways, so we can guard 
our ports and our borders, so we can keep our cops on the beat and our 
seniors safe in their homes. Let's debate the war in Afghanistan, how 
we will pay for it, how it will end, when it will end, and when our 
sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends and neighbors will be 
able to come home.

[[Page H1249]]

Let us continue to ask the hard questions and demand straight answers 
until we get it right and all our troops are safely home.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous 
question.
  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 question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 1146 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on motions to suspend the rules on House Resolution 1088 
and H.R. 4621.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 195, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 95]

                               YEAS--225

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--195

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Himes
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Barrett (SC)
     Camp
     Conyers
     Davis (AL)
     Deal (GA)
     Hoekstra
     Inslee
     Kennedy
     Wamp
     Young (FL)

                             {time}   1354

  Messrs. CARDOZA, WHITFIELD, KINGSTON, CHILDERS and HALL of Texas and 
Ms. KOSMAS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. LANGEVIN, ORTIZ, MINNICK, TANNER, PERRIELLO, CHANDLER, 
CUELLAR, ELLSWORTH, CAMPBELL, RYAN of Ohio, HILL and MARSHALL and Mrs. 
McCARTHY of New York, Ms. MARKEY of Colorado and Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.

                          ____________________