[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.
____________________