[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 23]
[House]
[Pages 31444-31456]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4156, ORDERLY AND RESPONSIBLE IRAQ 
                 REDEPLOYMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up H. Res. 818 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 818

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     4156) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the 
     Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 
     30, 2008, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions of 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 4156 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

                              {time}  1730

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
  I yield myself 6 minutes.


                             General Leave

  I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative 
days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 
818.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 818 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 4156, the Orderly and Responsible Iraq 
Redeployment Appropriations Act of 2008. The rule provides 2 hours of 
debate and provides for one motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq has gone on for nearly 5 years. 
Thousands of our brave men and women have lost their lives. Many more 
thousands have returned home with injuries so severe that they will 
require a lifetime of medical treatments.
  We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the war, virtually 
none of it paid for, almost all of it on our national credit card. That 
means that the bill will be paid for not by us, but by our kids and our 
grandkids.
  The war has diminished our standing in the world. It has distracted 
us from the war in Afghanistan, the very place where those responsible 
for 9/11 are now regrouping. And it has put incredible strain on the 
readiness of our Armed Forces.
  The President of the United States and many of my Republican friends 
have argued fiercely over the years for a blank check. They want no 
strings, no conditions, no benchmarks, no end dates, no accountability, 
no nothing.
  Today, they will tell us that the President's strategy is working; 
that the recent decrease in deaths and casualties in certain areas of 
Iraq prove it, and, therefore, we should provide yet another blank 
check.
  Mr. Speaker, let me caution my friends about declaring ``mission 
accomplished'' yet again. While all of us pray that the violence 
continues to subside, we should also appreciate history enough to know 
that lulls in intense violence are not always permanent. Let me also 
state that the current levels of violence in Iraq are still 
unacceptably high.
  As Joe Christoff of the Government Accountability Office recently 
testified, this recent reduction in violence should be put into the 
proper context as it coincides with increased sectarian cleansing and a 
massive refugee displacement. Let me quote:
  ``You know, we look at the attack data going down, but it's not 
taking into consideration that there might be fewer attacks because you 
have ethnically cleansed neighborhoods, particularly in the Baghdad 
area. It's produced 2.2 million refugees that have left, and it's 
produced 2 million internally displaced persons within the country as 
well.''
  Mr. Speaker, we must remember that the justification for the surge 
and the justification for the Bush military strategy in Iraq has always 
been to foster Iraqi political reconciliation. And there is precious 
little evidence of any such thing.
  Over 10 months ago, President Bush said, ``A successful strategy for 
Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see 
that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in 
their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi 
Government to the benchmarks it has announced.''
  But, Mr. Speaker, as the GAO reported last month, ``Iraq has not yet 
advanced key legislation on equitably sharing oil revenues and holding 
provincial elections. In addition, sectarian influences within Iraqi 
ministries continue while militia influences divide the loyalties of 
Iraqi security forces.''
  Mr. Speaker, the Maliki government continues to be corrupt, inept and 
without the support of the vast majority of the Iraqi people. When will 
the Bush administration live up to its word and hold the Iraqi 
Government accountable for its actions, or inaction?
  The fundamental crisis facing Iraq remains the same: The inability of 
Sunni, Shiites and Kurds to agree to set aside their sectarian 
divisions and live in peace. As long as we remain there indefinitely, 
Mr. Speaker, there is no incentive for anything to change.
  Mr. Speaker, our soldiers have already given so much to create an 
opportunity for the Iraqi Government, an opportunity that that 
government has squandered. So, today, we are saying we want a different 
course. We reject the President's vision of an endless war that will 
cost more lives and bankrupt our Nation.
  Today, we will vote on a bill that requires the redeployment of U.S. 
troops from Iraq to begin within 30 days of enactment, with a target 
for completion of December 15, 2008. It would prohibit the deployment 
of U.S. troops to Iraq who are not fully trained and equipped. And it 
changes the mission of our forces.
  It also extends to all government agencies and personnel the 
limitations in the Army Field Manual on permissible interrogation 
techniques, which means that torture will be absolutely banned, and 
anyone who engages in such practices will be committing a crime under 
U.S. law, no ands, ifs or buts.
  Mr. Speaker, it is no longer acceptable for Congress to simply write 
yet another blank check. It is not acceptable for the President to 
simply run out the clock and hand this problem off to his successor.
  This is a war that George Bush started, and this is a war that he 
needs to end. For the sake of our troops, for the sake of our country, 
we need to support this legislation. Enough is enough.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise to express my appreciation to my friend from Worcester for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my long-time Rules Committee colleague, 
the gentleman from Worcester, I am reminded of a great speech that was 
delivered last Friday. Last Friday, our very distinguished colleague, 
the Senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, in an address, said 
something that I think encapsulates exactly what we just heard from my 
very good friend.

[[Page 31445]]

  Senator Lieberman, in speaking of the Democratic Party, and he is now 
an independent Democrat, sometimes I see him listed as a Democrat, I 
know he organizes with the Democrats, he is listed as an independent as 
well, he said, ``The Democrats are emotionally invested in a narrative 
of defeat.''
  Mr. Speaker, I have got to say as I listened to the words of my 
colleague from Worcester, I can't help but think that Senator Lieberman 
was right on target when he used that language, ``emotionally invested 
in a narrative of defeat.'' I was so struck with that when I heard it 
that I committed it to memory, and I think, again, it really takes on 
exactly what we have just heard.
  It comes as no surprise that I rise in very, very strong, vigorous 
opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation as well. We have 
had 40 votes on Iraq policy, and today's bill brings us to vote No. 41. 
Not one, Mr. Speaker, not one of the withdrawal bills went through the 
normal legislative process. Not one, not one of these 41 measures is 
the product of a committee markup. Not one got its own hearing. Not one 
has been brought up under an even slightly open process, allowing for 
amendment, and consequently not allowing for any kind of real debate.
  Mr. Speaker, most telling of all, not one has been enacted into law.
  Now, we all know that the Democrats control both the House and the 
Senate, and still they cannot produce a single legislative victory on 
Iraq. Not once, not twice, not 10 times. Forty times. Mr. Speaker, 40 
times we have gone through the motions of their failed, bankrupt 
strategy. I can't recall a more naked display of demagoguery.
  Now we come to vote No. 41. It has all the hallmarks of the 
Democratic majority's work: no deliberation, no gesture towards 
bipartisanship, and no hope of being enacted.
  But there is something different about the vote this time, and that 
is context. We are considering this vote in a much different context 
than we have the 40 previous votes that we have addressed on this. In 
fact, our colleague in the Senate, Johnny Isakson, Senator Isakson, 
said this debate was understandable in May. He said in July, it was 
questionable. He said now it is absolutely ridiculous.
  For many months, the situation in Iraq has been very bleak. While 
there were many promising signs of progress, the turnaround in al Anbar 
province most notably, the overall picture was one of great challenges 
and struggles. I have argued repeatedly that a precipitous withdrawal 
would only create more challenges, and, Mr. Speaker, I have highlighted 
the signs of progress amid the struggles all along.
  But today, the tide is turning in Iraq. We are seeing far more than 
pockets of success, as my friend has said. We are seeing a dramatic 
shift in the landscape. It began in al Anbar, as I have said. The Sunni 
sheiks there turned on al Qaeda, joined with the largely Shiite Iraqi 
army and with coalition forces, and reclaimed the province. Ramadi, its 
capital, the city that we have all heard of described as the most 
dangerous city in the world just a year ago, hasn't had an attack in 3 
months. The city and the province are rebuilding. They are constructing 
small business centers so that the entrepreneurial spirit of Iraqis can 
flourish once again.
  A delegation, including the Anbar governor, the Ramadi mayor, several 
prominent religious leaders and Ahmed Abu Risha, the brother of Sheik 
Sattar Abu Risha, the father of the Sunni Awakening, was just here in 
Washington a couple of weeks ago. They came here, Mr. Speaker, to spend 
several days receiving training in institution building, good 
governance, transparency and the rule of law.
  Mr. Speaker, these are Anbar's political, business and religious 
leaders, not coming here to seek security assistance, not seeking 
military assistance. They have achieved security in al Anbar. Now what 
they want, Mr. Speaker, is help from us in their quest to build a 
democracy. But, most important of all, they are serving as a model for 
the rest of Iraq.
  Prior to their trip, they participated with Shiite leaders in a 
summit in Karbala. Sheiks from Karbala and Najaf, Iraq's two holiest 
cities for Shiite Muslims, reached out to their Sunni brothers in Anbar 
and asked for their help in combating al Qaeda. This comes at a time 
when Sunni and Shiite leaders in Baghdad are reaching out to each other 
to begin the process of reconciliation as well.
  Baghdad's notorious Adhamiya neighborhood that we have heard so much 
about, formerly the site of some of Iraq's worst sectarian violence, is 
now a place where Sunni and Shiite sheiks are meeting regularly to 
discuss how to bring their people together, just the things that my 
friend from Worcester said are so imperative. They are taking place at 
this very moment.
  Now, all of this has been possible, Mr. Speaker, because of the 
dramatic drop in violence brought about by General Petraeus' 
counterinsurgency strategy. This strategy, which included the surge, 
has resulted in months of plummeting IED attacks, plummeting American 
troop deaths, plummeting Iraqi civilian deaths, and plummeting 
sectarian attacks.
  Many of my colleagues have pointed out that this has been the 
deadliest year for American troops yet in Iraq, and, Mr. Speaker, I 
will acknowledge that this has been the deadliest year for American 
troops in Iraq. And it is true over the past year we have tragically 
seen that great number. But that does not reflect what is happening now 
in this post-surge world.

                              {time}  1745

  The past few months have seen the most dramatic decline in the deaths 
of American troops because we have had a new strategy. Mr. Speaker, we 
have had a new strategy, and that strategy is working. And perhaps most 
important for all of us, that strategy has enabled our military 
commanders to begin a drawdown in U.S. troop levels.
  Not because of artificial timetables. Not because of the 
micromanagement of Members of Congress from the comfort of our offices 
thousands of miles away from the front lines. But by empowering our 
commanders on the ground, they have created a stable security situation 
that is allowing for both the beginnings of Iraqi reconciliation and 
the safe withdrawal of our troops.
  Mr. Speaker, the big question for today is this: Will the dramatic 
improvement in Iraq prove to be a true turning point or nothing more 
than a lull in the war? I don't know the answer to that. Neither 
outcome is a foregone conclusion. Whether it is a major turning point 
in the war or just a lull, no one knows for sure. What we do know now 
will profoundly affect the future of Iraq. Will we fund our troops and 
empower our commanders to continue to do what is best for our long-term 
interests? Or will we pull the rug out from under them now at the 
precise moment they have achieved what we have asked of them?
  As one of my friends just said to me, it seems like our friends on 
the other side of the aisle want defeat before we can win.
  For my colleagues who would resort to the latter option out of 
political expediency, Mr. Speaker, let me remind them of another war 
our men and women are fighting. Today our troops are also battling a 
very real enemy in Afghanistan.
  We got a terrible reminder just a few days ago of the viciousness of 
that fight when 6 of our counterparts, members of the Afghan 
Parliament, were brutally targeted in the worst attack in Afghanistan's 
history, and I would like to express my appreciation for the bipartisan 
support that my colleague, David Price, and I offered as leaders of the 
House Democracy Assistance Commission.
  We have been working with those parliamentarians in Afghanistan, and 
we are hoping to work with those in Iraq as soon as possible. And we 
once again express our condolences to the people of Afghanistan who 
have suffered the single worst attack in their nation's history when a 
week ago yesterday 6 parliamentarians and 44 other people were brutally 
murdered.
  Let me also remind my colleagues that this war that we are seeing in 
Afghanistan is not our first war in Afghanistan. Many of us were 
intricately involved in their war against the Soviets in the 1980s, 
many Members who

[[Page 31446]]

are still here today. And what did we do after the Soviets were 
defeated? We withdraw and left the Afghans to fend for themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot forget that democracy is hard work. For over a 
decade, unfortunately, in Afghanistan we indulged in the luxury of 
ignoring what was going on there. And then on a sunny Tuesday 6 
Septembers ago, 3,000 Americans paid a horrible price for that mistake.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot refuse to learn from history or we are doomed 
to repeat it. Our support for our troops in Iraq has earned us a far 
more stable, secure situation. And yet what does the Democratic 
leadership propose to do? Their bill would reward our military 
commanders' success by cutting them off.
  It would provide constitutional protections for terrorists, while 
leaving our veterans, including Iraq veterans, without funding. It 
would force the same disastrous, shortsighted withdrawal that led to 
the terrorist sanctuary in Afghanistan. It would do all of this at a 
time when we are achieving not just pockets of success in Iraq but 
broad-based improvements, and at a time when Republicans have been 
trying every possible means to get an appropriations bill for our 
veterans to the President, which he will certainly sign if we can ever 
get it to him.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democratic majority's priorities, foolhardy 
policies, and constitutional rights for terrorists have never been so 
out of whack. I suppose we can take comfort in the fact that this is 
all a meaningless charade that will never be enacted, because we all 
know this will never be enacted. But that is a hollow comfort when we 
consider our troops in harm's way and our veterans in need.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a very cruel comfort for the families of those who 
have made incredible sacrifices in this war.
  I often think of my good friend, Ed Blecksmith, a former marine and 
the father of JP Blecksmith, also a marine, who died in November 2004 
just 3 years ago in the very famous battle of Fallujah. I have talked 
about the Blecksmith family here on the House floor many, many times. I 
didn't know JP, but from everything that I have read, and I have a 
recent article that has just come out about him, he was a very talented 
young man with a very bright future. He had so many opportunities 
before him, and he chose to be a marine because he wanted to serve as 
his father had done. His family proudly, but soberly, supported him. As 
a former marine, Ed Blecksmith knew in a very real way the cost of war. 
JP Blecksmith would not return to his family, having made the ultimate 
sacrifice.
  And his father said something to me that I will never forget. He 
looked me in the eye and asked me to make sure that we complete his 
son's mission in Iraq. He has said to me on countless occasions, You 
must complete the mission or my son JP will have died in vain.
  Mr. Speaker, it is deeply heartening to see the beginnings of 
victory. And no, I am not saying ``mission accomplished'' or anything 
like that because we know full well that we have difficult days ahead. 
But it is deeply heartening to see the beginnings of victory in Iraq, 
for JP's sake and for the sake of all who have paid a very dear price.
  We have a profound responsibility to allow our commanders to continue 
on this path.
  Mr. Speaker, after 41, 41 wasted efforts, I can only hope that the 
Democratic leadership will finally abandon empty demagoguery for 
substantive legislation, meaningful debate, and a quest at 
bipartisanship so we can work with the President to come to an 
agreement. Until that time, I urge my colleagues to reject this closed 
rule and the terribly wrongheaded policy that it seeks to shield.

                      [From Details, Holiday 2007]

              The Fallen: 2nd Lieutenant JP Blecksmith, 24

                          (By Jeff Gordinier)

       On the night before 2nd Lieutenant JP Blecksmith shipped 
     out to Iraq, after his family took him out for dinner in 
     Newport Beach, California, his older brother, Alex, picked up 
     a pair of clippers and shaved JP's head. When that was done 
     and JP looked ready for combat, Alex gave his brother a hug. 
     Then Alex climbed into JP's green Ford Expedition and drove 
     it north, back to the family's house in San Marino, weeping 
     part of the way. He had a feeling. So did his parents. A 
     premonition. They didn't talk about it much, but two months 
     later, in November 2004, when JP joined a wave of U.S. 
     Marines roaring into the city of Fallujah as part of 
     Operation Phantom Fury, the feeling intensified.
       On the night of November 10, Blecksmith and his closest 
     friend in Iraq, Lieutenant Sven Jensen, slept on a rooftop in 
     Fallujah. It was, miraculously, a quiet night, and chilly. 
     They got a decent night's sleep. They awoke just before 
     sunrise and were amused to find a small pet bird with green 
     wings and a yellow belly perched a couple of feet away from 
     their faces. Jensen took a picture of the bird. There were 
     other ones like it all over Iraq, because when U.S. troops 
     were searching abandoned houses, they often found cages that 
     had been left behind. The soldiers let the birds go free so 
     they wouldn't starve to death.
       Hours before, JP had sent a letter to his girlfriend, 
     addressing it formally, as always, to ``Ms. Emily M. Tait.'' 
     In it he wrote, ``By the time you receive this, you will know 
     we have gone into the city. We've been preparing for it the 
     last few days, and my guys are ready for the fight, and I'm 
     ready to lead them. It'll be hectic, and there will be some 
     things out of my control, but the promise of you waiting at 
     home for me is inspiring and a relief.'' Now he was in the 
     thick of it. Blecksmith and Jensen came down from the roof, 
     ate their MREs for breakfast, and got their orders. Before 
     the invasion the battalion commander, Colonel Patrick Malay, 
     had given his men an analogy: ```Imagine a dirty, filthy 
     windowpane that has not been cleaned in hundreds of years,''' 
     he recalls saying. ``That's how we looked at the city of 
     Fallujah. Our job was to scrub the heck out of that city, and 
     then take a squeegee and wipe it off so that it was clean and 
     pure.'' Most of Fallujah was empty, and anyone left in the 
     city was presumed to be an insurgent.
       Blecksmith and the other members of the India Company of 
     the Third Battalion, Fifth Marines Regiment, moved south 
     through the city, with their blood types scrawled in 
     indelible marker on the sleeves of their uniforms. The 
     streets smelled terrible--a stubborn aroma of rotting food 
     and bodies. Late in the day on November 11, things started to 
     go wrong. A marine in Blecksmith's platoon, Klayton South, 
     was shot in the mouth by an insurgent when he kicked open the 
     door of a house. Blood gushed from his mangled teeth and 
     tongue. The medics cut into South's throat to give him an 
     emergency tracheotomy. (He survived. He's since had more than 
     40 operations to repair the damage.) ``It shook the platoon 
     up,'' Jensen says now, ``and JP was the most in-control 
     person I saw. He had a sector to clear, so he rallied his 
     guys and said, `Okay, we've got to continue clearing.''' 
     Blecksmith's and Jensen's platoons moved off in different 
     directions, and the two friends shot each other a glance. 
     ``I'll never forget looking at his eyes the last time I saw 
     him,'' Jensen says. ``He turned and he gave me almost an 
     apprehensive look, like, Oh, s-it, we've got some s-it going 
     on. I wanted to say `Hey, I'll see you later.' But I didn't 
     say anything to him.''
       Minutes later, Blecksmith led his platoon into a house and 
     climbed a flight of stairs to the roof to survey the 
     surrounding landscape. Shots came from a building across the 
     street. Blecksmith stood up to direct the squads under his 
     command, shouting at them to take aim at the enemy nest. He 
     was tall, and was now visible above the protective wall. ``He 
     was up front a lot, and he made a big target, and we'd talked 
     to him about that,'' Colonel Malay says. ``He exposed himself 
     consistently to enemy fire in the execution of his duties. He 
     displayed a fearlessness to the point that we had to talk to 
     him about the fact that nobody is bulletproof.''
       As Blecksmith stood on the roof, a sniper's 7.62-mm bullet 
     found one of the places on his body where he was vulnerable. 
     It was a spot on his left shoulder, less than an inch above 
     the rim of his protective breastplate. The bullet sliced 
     downward diagonally, coming to rest in his right hip, and 
     along the way it tore through his heart. ``I'm hit,'' 
     Blecksmith said. He fell. He raised his head for a moment, 
     and that was it. A Navy medic got to Blecksmith immediately, 
     but he was already dead, and his men carried his heavy body 
     back down the stairs. He was 24.
       That night in San Marino, Alex Blecksmith came home from 
     work and noticed that the house was dark. He opened the front 
     door and saw his mother, Pam, sitting at the kitchen table 
     with a couple of marines in dress blues and white gloves, and 
     he heard the phrase ``We regret to inform you . . .''
       The funeral was so magnificent, so full of pageantry, that 
     at times it was difficult for Alex to remember that the guy 
     being buried was his brother. The Marines do it right when it 
     comes to honoring the fallen. They do it so right that you 
     can get swept up in the ceremony and feel as though you're 
     watching a parade. The funeral took place at the Church of 
     Our Saviour in San Gabriel--the church where the most 
     celebrated of San Marino's favorite sons, General George S.

[[Page 31447]]

     Patton, had been baptized as a baby. As the flag-draped 
     casket was carried out of the sanctuary and into the 
     California sun, a long, silent line of almost 2,000 people 
     followed. There were marines and midshipmen and local 
     firefighters in uniform. There was a 21-gun salute. Four 
     World War II fighter planes swooped toward the cemetery in 
     the ``missing man'' formation--just as they passed over the 
     funeral, the fourth plane symbolically split from the quartet 
     and veered into the sky. A bagpiper played a Scottish dirge. 
     One of JP's old friends would later observe that the day, in 
     all of its glory and pomp, made him think of Princess Diana's 
     wedding.
       As public support for the war in Iraq wavers, it's easy to 
     forget that people like JP Blecksmith even exist. The 
     American military is so predominantly blue-collar that we 
     tend to assume that the sons and daughters of the rich never 
     voluntarily die in warfare anymore. Blecksmith was born in 
     September 1980, just weeks before his state's own Ronald 
     Reagan was elected president, and he spent most of his youth 
     in the small Los Angeles County town of San Marino during 
     what felt, for many of its wealthy and conservative 
     inhabitants, like something of a ``Leave It to Beaver'' 
     golden age. To look at a photograph of him, blue-eyed and 
     suntanned and grinning, is to understand the enduring 
     magnetism of the word ``California.'' He stood six foot three 
     and weighed 225 pounds. His chest was a keg; his biceps were 
     gourds. His biography reads as though it were scripted by a 
     Hollywood publicist: legendary quarterback on the Flintridge 
     Prep football team, track star, graduate of the United States 
     Naval Academy.
       His father, Ed Blecksmith, who is 64, runs an executive-
     recruiting firm in Los Angeles. He and Pam met in the early 
     seventies, while both were working in the White House. Along 
     a wall leading into their kitchen hang framed Christmas cards 
     from Dick and Pat Nixon. ``Here's a kid,'' Ed says, ``who 
     didn't need to do this.'' It's as though JP were transplanted 
     into our world from the Eisenhower years. Somehow, in an 
     ironic age of Jon Stewart and ``South Park,'' the guy grew up 
     in a kind of pre-Summer of Love bubble in which young men of 
     strength and valor still yearned to distinguish themselves on 
     the battlefield. He was groomed, in a sense, for something 
     that no longer exists, at least not for guys who grow up in 
     the wealthiest zip codes in the country. He believed in 
     ideals of duty and sacrifice that have become, for many men, 
     anachronistic and even unfathomable.
       ``I was in awe,'' says Peter Twist, Blecksmith's closest 
     friend since preschool. Twist played wide receiver to 
     Blecksmith's quarterback on the Flintridge Prep football 
     team; a local newspaper called the duo ``Fire & Ice.'' 
     Blecksmith was known for being fast, composed, smart, and 
     unflappable, and his giant arms could propel the ball a good 
     80 yards down the field. If he had an athletic flaw, it was 
     that he was aware of his own flawlessness. ``He had such 
     personal confidence,'' says Tom Fry, a mentor to Blecksmith 
     in high school and one of the assistant coaches on his team. 
     ``He felt that if all the stars aligned, there was nothing he 
     couldn't do--it was JP's world.'' When they graduated in 
     1999, Twist and a couple other teammates went off to the 
     University of Arizona, where it's safe to say the prospect of 
     partying was on their minds, while Blecksmith opted for the 
     rigors and restrictions of Annapolis. ``I was stoked for the 
     man'' says Twist, 26, who lives in Newport Beach and works in 
     the mortgage business. ``Most of us are still trying to 
     figure it out, but JP always had a goal.''
       November 11, the date on which JP Blecksmith died, was 
     noteworthy for other reasons. It's Twist's birthday. It also 
     happens to be the birthday of General Patton, who grew up in 
     San Marino and holds a prominent place in the town's history. 
     This coincidence has only bolstered the mythology of JP 
     Blecksmith--a feeling that it was his destiny to die in 
     combat. The Blecksmiths have a statue of Patton on a shelf in 
     their home, and it becomes clear in conversation that Ed, a 
     decorated Vietnam veteran himself, sees a kind of mystical 
     link between the fate of his son and the military, triumphs 
     of the legendary general (who was a passionate believer, it 
     just so happens, in reincarnation).
       Indeed, JP Blecksmith fit the ``hero'' mold in such 
     classic, square jawed American style that a kind of cult of 
     JP has begun to develop in San Marino. They give out awards 
     in his name at the local schools. On the Fourth of July, San 
     Marino hosts a JP Blecksmith 5K run. A Marine Corps training 
     center in Pasadena has been christened Blecksmith Hall. On a 
     hot Sunday morning this past August, Alex parked his 
     brother's Expedition in the cemetery and walked across the 
     grass to the pale granite stone that says JAMES PATRICK 
     BLECKSMITH. An elderly man wandered over to the headstone, 
     hand in hand with a grade-school kid who had a blond Mohawk, 
     and told Alex, ``I never met JP, but I go by here and show my 
     grandson his grave''
       THREE YEARS AFTER BLECKSMITH'S death, his bedroom still 
     looks the way it did when he left for Annapolis in 1999. 
     There's a Green Bay Packers poster over the bed, a dense 
     forest of athletic trophies, toy race cars lined up on the 
     dresser. ``This is all his stuff from Iraq that they sent 
     over,'' Alex says, looking down at a cardboard box on the 
     floor. ``We haven't gone through it, really.''
       Ed Blecksmith walks into the bedroom, and within a few 
     seconds his voice is cracking and his blue eyes are growing 
     wet. ``It's still tough,'' he says. ``You see all these 
     pictures and things . . .'' He insists on sitting down in 
     front of the TV downstairs and watching DVD footage of that 
     magnificent funeral, fighting back a sob at the moment when 
     one of the eulogists, a Navy SEAL, describes JP as having 
     been ``the best of the best.'' Ed has some Fox News footage, 
     too. In it, you can see JP speaking to his men hours before 
     the battle in Fallujah, and that's where you get a brief 
     glimpse of the regular guy behind the mythology. Because 
     there stands JP, in fatigues and a floppy Boonie hat, holding 
     a map, telling his marines to ``expect everything you can 
     possibly imagine.'' When he looks at the camera for a moment, 
     he's smiling.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California mischaracterized my 
position and what I am invested in. I am invested in what is best for 
this country, Mr. Dreier. And I am invested in what is best for our 
troops. And I am opposed to this Bush policy of an endless war, and I 
think it would be a mistake for this Congress to give this President 
another blank check.
  This is not a meaningful charade, Mr. Dreier. Those of us who are 
arguing for this legislation want to bring this war to an end.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, today's debate is not about political calculation. It is 
not about public appearance or ready-made slogans. It is not about 
approval ratings or polls.
  Today's debate is about the very future of this country that each one 
of us loves so dearly. It is a fork in the road. It is a rare 
opportunity for each of us to chart the course of the Nation we serve 
by casting a single vote.
  Today we can vote for the status quo in Iraq or we can vote for 
change. For me, this choice is simple. I will vote for change.
  The war in Iraq has divided our country for nearly 5 years, longer 
than our participation in World War II. Its monetary cost has already 
reached dizzying heights. Measured in casualties lost, lives forever 
altered, the toll of this war is truly staggering.
  That is why we must transcend politics and party loyalty when we vote 
today. An issue of this magnitude requires each one of us as Members of 
Congress to vote based on our conscience and obligation to represent 
our constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, on this issue my conscience and my constituents speak 
loud and clear. They say, We must end this war. Bring our troops home 
and work to restore our international reputation.
  I stand here today in support of this rule and the underlying 
legislation because it accomplishes each of these three goals:
  Within 30 days of enactment, it requires an immediate and orderly 
redeployment of our military from Iraq. No more delays, Mr. Speaker.
  With today's bill, Congress stands with the American people in 
demanding a swift and responsible conclusion to military engagement in 
Iraq.
  I also support this legislation because of what it does in the long 
term. It recognizes that we have a moral and strategic obligation to 
help rebuild Iraq, to avoid leaving a country in shambles.
  The legislation before us today requires a comprehensive, diplomatic, 
political, and economic strategy for Iraq. We must work with our 
international partners to bring stability to Iraq, and this legislation 
does so. A renewed commitment to diplomacy is not only the right thing 
to do to fulfill our commitment to the Iraqi people, it also begins 
restoring our Nation's standing in the world.
  I urge all of my colleagues to stand with the American people by 
voting for the bill before us today. This legislation takes a strong 
step forward in ending this long and costly war. In doing

[[Page 31448]]

so, it is worthy of this House, worthy of the constituents we all 
serve, and worthy of the sacrifices of our soldiers and their families.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to yield 4 minutes to my 
distinguished friend from Redlands, I would simply say that my friend 
from Worcester never mentioned the word ``victory'' in his analysis.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of 
the Appropriations Committee.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). The Chair advises all Members 
that prefatory remarks before yielding time will be deducted from their 
time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the Speaker's help in this 
matter, but in the meantime, I appreciate my colleague yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the wheels have finally come off the appropriations 
process. One need only to look at the sorry state of affairs in which 
we find ourselves as we address these appropriations bills.
  Earlier today, the House passed a Transportation-HUD appropriations 
conference report that is $3 billion over the budget request. The 
President has said he will veto this legislation.
  Tomorrow the House will vote to sustain the President's veto on a 
bloated Labor-HHS bill that is $10 billion over the budget request. 
That will essentially send the bill back to the drawing board.
  And if that is not enough, consider this. It is now 3 days after 
Veterans Day and there is still no sign of the majority moving to 
considered the MilCon-VA bill, a freestanding bill identical to the 
MilCon-VA conference report that was removed from the Labor-HHS 
conference report by a point of order in the Senate, by the way, in the 
other body.
  That bill was introduced by Congressman Wicker this week. This 
legislation, which the President said he would sign, could be brought 
to the House floor today. It now appears that a Democrat majority has 
no intent of bringing this legislation to the floor before 
Thanksgiving.
  The appropriations process this year has been reduced to what 
Shakespeare might refer to as ``a tale full of sound and fury, 
signifying nothing.''
  For all of the time and energy put into these bills this year by 
Members and our overworked, highly professional staff, the end result 
thus far is all sound and fury and very little to show for it.
  That leads us to the legislation we are now considering, the so-
called bridge fund. Frankly, that legislation is so ill-conceived and 
damaging to our troops, I hardly know where to begin.
  First, let me say that we learned that this bill would be considered 
by the Rules Committee while we were waiting for the Rules Committee 
hearing on the THUD conference report to begin last night. I was given 
no notice whatsoever, nor was I provided any opportunity to testify. It 
is a sad state of affairs when the ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee isn't even given the courtesy of paper notice to testify on 
legislation as important as this. I can't imagine the wails and 
screaming I would have heard last year if the ranking member had been 
put in that position.
  The House is being asked to consider a funding bill that reflects the 
priorities of Speaker Pelosi and a deeply divided, extremely left-
leaning Democratic Caucus. It attempts to bridge these widening 
divisions over the war in Iraq through providing funding only on the 
condition that troops are withdrawn beginning 30 days after the bill's 
enactment.

                              {time}  1800

  Our troops are badly in need of funding to continue their mission, 
but this legislation ties the hands of our Commander in Chief during a 
time of war, places military decisions in the hands of the politicians, 
and micromanages our combatant commanders in whom we place the ultimate 
responsibility for prosecuting military actions.
  If the majority's goal is to end the war or withdraw our troops, then 
that should be addressed in separate legislation. The majority cannot 
have it both ways, pretending on the one hand to support our troops 
while on the other hand undercutting our ability to prosecute their 
mission.
  Men and women of good conscience can disagree about the war in Iraq, 
but on one thing we must all agree: Our men and women in uniform must 
continue to receive our unqualified support and the resources they need 
to complete their mission successfully.
  By appeasing the wishes of the Out of Iraq Caucus, the Democrat 
majority has chosen to place partisan politics above the lives and 
well-being of our troops in harm's way. This action is reckless and 
irresponsible. There is absolutely no reason why a clean bridge fund 
could not have been included within the DOD conference report which the 
President signed yesterday. Again, the Democrat majority chose to place 
politics ahead of our troops.
  My colleagues, consider carefully the consequences of our actions 
here today. Passage of the bridge fund legislation in its present form 
will signal to the insurgents and terrorists that the United States 
doesn't have the political will to continue supporting the fledgling 
Iraqi democracy. Al Qaeda and other enemies of freedom will simply lay 
in wait until our troops are withdrawn. And with the collapse of this 
fragile democracy, our efforts, and the sacrifices of our troops, will 
have been for nothing.
  There is no question that the President will veto this bill. In the 
meantime, our troops will face the uncertainty resulting from the 
majority's mixed signals and lack of a clear commitment.
  I urge my colleagues to support our troops and oppose this 
legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
(Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the last person in the world I will take 
lectures from on the appropriations process is the gentleman from 
California. The fact is that when he was the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee last year, they never bothered to send any 
veterans health care legislation to the President at all. They simply, 
after the election, shut down the Congress and went home without 
sending one dime to veterans.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Would my colleague yield?
  Mr. OBEY. No, I will not. You've had your time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate not being interrupted. It's a 
technique which they use on that side of the aisle time after time. I 
hope it comes out of their time, not mine.
  The fact is that they never bothered to send a dime to the needy 
veterans of the country. And so it was only after the Democrats took 
control of the House that we added $3.4 billion to the veterans health 
care budget and sent it to the President, and then later in the year in 
the regular bill, we have added $3.6 billion more. So I will be happy 
to compare the record of this party with his party any time on the 
issue of veterans health care.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is 
remaining on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 9 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 19\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the bill 
because I believe it does two critical and important things.
  First, it provides $50 billion to finance military withdrawal from 
Iraq, to be completed by the end of next year. I voted against the 
beginning of the war, and I have consistently tried to end America's 
involvement in the war. Saddam Hussein is gone, there were no weapons 
of mass destruction, and there was no Iraqi involvement with al Qaeda 
or with 9/11. Al Qaeda in Iraq is now in shatters and subject to attack 
by both Shiites and Sunnis and

[[Page 31449]]

poses no ongoing threat to the United States. We have no stake in the 
Iraqi civil war, and it is time to end our occupation.
  I signed a letter to the President back in July with over 60 of my 
colleagues vowing not to support any more money for the war in Iraq 
unless it was for the protection and redeployment of our troops. I 
believe this bill is consistent with that commitment. The time has come 
to end the war, and the money we provide should be used only for that 
purpose.
  The second critical thing this bill does is to end torture by the 
United States Government. By including in this bill the American Anti-
Torture Act, which was introduced by Representative Delahunt and 
myself, we are saying, once and for all, no more torture. The law now 
requires the Department of Defense to follow the Army Field Manual, 
which bars torture or cruel and inhuman procedures such as 
waterboarding. This bill extends these limits to every U.S. government 
agency, including the CIA, and ensures a single, uniform, baseline 
standard for all interrogations of people under U.S. control. In short, 
that means no more waterboarding, no more clever wordplay, no more 
evasive answers, and no more uncertainty with regard to what is allowed 
and what is not allowed. It is time to restore the honor of the United 
States and to force the administration to act in a manner consistent 
with the Constitution.
  When this bill is passed, the President could have two options: He 
could sign this bill and help bring the war in Iraq to a speedy end. Or 
he could veto the bill, in which case he will have to explain why he is 
denying funds for the troops. But we will not vote for further funding 
without a requirement to withdraw the troops as in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, let's end this war and let's end torture. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my very 
good friend from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence), a hardworking member of 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the rule and the bill.
  The tide is turning in Iraq, Mr. Speaker, but nothing changes on 
Capitol Hill. Here we go again. Another Democrat plan for redeployment 
from Iraq, tying some $50 billion in necessary combat funds to a 
Democrat plan for withdrawal.
  With unambiguous evidence of progress on the ground in Iraq, the 
Democrats in Congress seem to have added denial to their agenda of 
retreat and defeat. And the evidence of our progress is unambiguous.
  I have seen many different Iraqs in my five trips, some hopeful, some 
not hopeful. But the news coming out of Iraq just in recent days from 
independent and official sources is encouraging.
  U.S. military fatalities are down sharply: 101 Americans lost their 
lives in uniform in June; 39 in October. Iraqi civilian deaths are down 
sharply: 1,791 casualties in August; 750 in October. Mortar rocket 
attacks by insurgents in October were the lowest since February 2006. 
Iraqi officials say they plan to reduce checkpoints, ease curfews, and 
open some roads around Baghdad because of the improving security 
situation. And this weekend, the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-
Maliki said that sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni in the 
neighborhoods of Baghdad has declined by more than 75 percent in the 
last 12 months. And yet here we are again, another plan for retreat and 
defeat in Iraq.
  And it is not just the official sources that say we have made 
progress. The Associated Press just reported, ``Twilight brings traffic 
jams to the main shopping district of this once affluent corner of 
Baghdad, and hundreds of people stroll past well-stocked vegetable 
stands, bakeries, and butcher shops.''
  The Washington Post recently wrote, ``The number of attacks against 
U.S. soldiers has fallen to levels not seen since before the February 
2006 bombing of a Shia shrine in Samarra that touched off waves of 
sectarian killing.''
  And the New York Times noted just last week, ```American forces have 
routed al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network from every 
neighborhood in Baghdad,' a top general reported today, `allowing 
American troops involved in the surge to depart as planned.'''
  I urge my colleagues to reject again this Democrat plan for 
withdrawal as a part of the supplemental appropriations bill, but I 
urge my countrymen to give our soldiers a chance. Freedom and stability 
are beginning to take hold in Iraq. We cannot lose faith in ourselves 
or in our fighting men and women.
  It would be Winston Churchill who exhorted his own people as follows: 
``Nothing can save England if she will not save herself. If we lose 
faith in ourselves, in our capacity to guide and govern, if we lose our 
will to live, then indeed our story is told. If, while on all sides 
foreign nations are every day asserting a more aggressive and militant 
nationalism by arms and trade, we remain paralyzed by our own 
theoretical doctrines or plunged into the stupor of after-war 
exhaustion, then indeed all the croakers predict will come true and our 
ruin will be swift and final.'' So said the man who saved western 
civilization.
  To my countrymen and to my colleagues, I say again: Reject this 
legislation, give our soldiers in a widening and undeniable success in 
Iraq a chance, and we will all, Republicans and Democrats, celebrate 
some day a free and democratic Iraq that will be a legacy for our 
children and our grandchildren for generations to come.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  The gentleman says give the Iraqi Government a chance. We are on our 
fifth year, Mr. Speaker. Three American soldiers lost their lives in 
Iraq yesterday, bringing the total to 3,858 deaths. I think we have 
given them more than a chance.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  All of us in this Chamber and in this Nation support our troops. They 
have fought bravely, with love of this great country uppermost in their 
hearts. They have done all that we have asked them to do. They have 
done their job well. And now in this Congress, Mr. Speaker, we must do 
ours.
  The President has indicated that he thinks this war will continue for 
another decade. But, Mr. Speaker, we must not concede to a 10-year war. 
Over 3,850 brave American lives have been lost; 163 Ohio soldiers have 
been killed; more than 28,000 of our Nation's finest have been wounded. 
The year 2007 has been the deadliest year for U.S. troops since this 
war began 4\1/2\ years ago.
  Our troops have been stretched woefully thin, exposing this Nation to 
greater risk, not less. We have already spent over $450 billion on the 
war in Iraq. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated 
that the President's war policies could cost $2.4 trillion in the next 
decade. And the President insists in getting that money that it come 
with no strings, no oversight, no accountability, no questions asked. 
And, in return, he offers to the American people and to our brave 
troops no end in sight. It is time for a new direction. We must not 
proceed further down the road to a 10-year war.
  This bill requires a transition in the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq 
from combat to force and diplomatic protection. It provides for 
targeted counterterrorism operations. And this bill prohibits 
deployment to Iraq of troops who are not fully equipped and fully 
trained. It prohibits the use of torture, as described in the Army 
Field Manual. And it changes direction from the 10-year war plan being 
offered by the President toward a responsible plan redeploying our 
troops, while providing our troops with the resources they need.
  When I visited Iraq, I saw some of the hardships and the obstacles 
our troops face, and I also saw the commitment and dedication in each 
of those men and women. They truly took my breath

[[Page 31450]]

away. They deserve a policy that is worthy of their commitment and 
their sacrifice.
  The bill before us today gives our troops the support, the equipment, 
the training they need to responsibly redeploy. It repairs the 
readiness of our military and refocuses our efforts on fighting 
terrorism around the world.
  Last November, people across the Nation cast their ballots seeking a 
change in direction. After more than 4 years and countless taxpayer 
dollars, this Congress has a responsibility to tell this President that 
the status quo is not acceptable. It's time to bring a responsible end 
to the war in Iraq and to focus on fighting terrorism and protecting 
the Nation.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I will say to my colleagues that it's very interesting to listen to 
this debate, because as we've proceeded, I have yet to hear the word 
``victory'' come from the other side of the aisle at all. I have yet to 
hear anyone interested in trying to build a democracy.
  Now, we saw three elections take place in Iraq, as we all know, with 
a 70 percent voter turnout.
  We know that there are problems there. My friend from Worcester 
correctly said that we have problems with corruption in government in 
Iraq. We've had corruption problems in this country as well. But the 
fact of the matter is we have seen dramatic improvement. There is no 
doubt about the fact that we've seen improvement.
  And I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, that we continue to hear this term 
``redeployment.'' That means one thing. It doesn't mean victory. It 
doesn't mean build a democracy. It means withdraw and lose. And I will 
tell you, Mr. Speaker, we are determined to ensure that that doesn't 
happen.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, some refer to this as a bridge fund 
connecting monies from one year to the next to finance this Iraq war.
  A bridge is built to overcome an obstacle, and the obstacle here is 
George Bush. Granting this President 50 billion more dollars without 
reasonable restrictions to end this war is just building another bridge 
to nowhere.
  Today, instead, we use this funding to build a bridge that brings our 
troops home by beginning a safe, orderly, phased redeployment from 
Iraq.
  The President can no longer defy our Constitution as the sole 
``decider.'' America has decided that he's wrong, dead wrong, too many 
deaths wrong, and it's elected representatives in this Congress are now 
declaring ``no more blank checks.''
  Despite the sacrifices of our troops in this deadliest year of the 
war, this surge has failed completely to achieve its purpose of 
political progress. ``Retreat,'' you say; you've had a 5-year retreat 
from political reality. Progress, you say; not in Iraq, not in 
political reconciliation; progress, perhaps only in your self-defeating 
propaganda as you repeatedly waved your ``mission accomplished'' 
banner.
  The continued cost of this war in hemorrhaged blood and $3 billion of 
taxpayer money every week is not acceptable or sustainable.
  Mr. President, no more ``cut-and-run''. We will not cut these 
reasonable restrictions from this legislation, and we will not run from 
your veto threat.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). All Members are advised to 
address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds, and I do so to 
say I still have yet to hear the term ``victory'' come from the other 
side of the aisle. I still have yet to hear anyone talk about the 
notion of building a democracy in Iraq so that self-determination and 
the rule of law and the building of democratic institutions can, in 
fact, have a chance to succeed. And there is no recognition of the fact 
that we have seen a tremendous number of reduction in IED attacks, and 
the number of overall attacks has dropped dramatically.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to change 
the mission of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq and undertake 
their redeployment. It is time to set a real plan to end this war, 
fought courageously by our troops on the ground, but recklessly 
mismanaged by our administration at home.
  2007 has been the deadliest year for American troops since the start 
of the war in Iraq; 860 U.S. casualties since January. And almost 1 
year after the President announced a so-called surge, the Iraqi 
Government has made no progress toward political reconciliation and is 
nowhere near taking responsibility for security in all of its 
provinces.
  Without any progress or end in sight, the cost of the war continues 
to rise. The recent Joint Economic Committee report estimates the cost 
of the war at $1.3 trillion from 2002 to 2008; yet just this week the 
President vetoed critical funds for education, job training and health 
care, and, yes, he vetoed the children's health care bill.
  With its latest $200 billion request for wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, the administration has asked for a total of $800 billion, 
all paid for with the government's credit card.
  Mr. Speaker, with this bill we put forth a plan and a clear path 
toward change. We require the start of the redeployment of U.S. forces 
within 30 days of enactment, with a goal for completion of redeployment 
by December 15, 2008.
  It prohibits the deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq who are not fully 
trained and fully equipped, and changes the mission of U.S. forces in 
Iraq to diplomatic and force protection, targeted counterterrorism 
operations, and limited support to Iraqi security forces. And notably, 
the bill prohibits torture once and for all.
  We provide $50 billion to meet the immediate needs of the troops in 
Iraq and Afghanistan and defer consideration of the remainder of the 
President's request.
  The President and his stubborn Republican allies in the Congress have 
acted recklessly in Iraq and with our Nation's standing in the world. 
And the American people pay the price. Our young men and women are 
paying the price.
  The Bush administration rushed to war and never had an exit strategy. 
If we, in the Congress, do not provide one, who will?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I've still not heard the term ``victory'' or 
``building democracy.''
  I would inquire of the Chair, how much time is remaining on each 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 3\3/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 10\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. I think at this juncture I might reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I and everybody in this Chamber, hopefully, wants to see 
democracy flourish in Iraq. But the fact of the matter is that the 
status quo isn't producing that. And maybe, just maybe, the corrupt and 
inept Maliki government will get its act together if it finally 
realizes that we won't be there forever, that this will not be an 
endless war.
  Our troops have sacrificed enough. They have sacrificed enough.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the American people get it. 
Over 50 percent of the American people believe that we should now begin 
a reduction of our troops.
  As I listened here on the floor of the house, and I listened to my 
good friends on the other side of the aisle claiming the me-me's and 
the I-I's, I hear no one talking about victory.
  Victory in what sense? So that we can pound our chests and brag about 
what this Congress and this President has done?
  We're talking about lives here. We're talking about lives. And I am 
sick and

[[Page 31451]]

tired of listening to people bragging about who can claim a victory.
  Well, my belief is that the soldiers on the battlefield, the most 
deadliest year that we've ever had, 2006, we buried more than we could 
ever imagine. Those soldiers have already claimed victory. They took 
Fallujah. They took Baghdad.
  And my concern is why have we not championed the victory of those 
soldiers? Why haven't we welcomed them home, given them accolades 
because they have been victorious?
  Someone on the other side has not read this bill. This bill allows 
for a redeployment in an orderly manner, and it demands that the 
President use these dollars to redeploy.
  I am not going to trample on the graves of dead soldiers and continue 
a war that has no end. That government has the ability in Iraq to 
diplomatically deal with democracy. We have died so they can deal with 
democracy.
  It is time to end this war now and to bring our soldiers home with 
the dignity and victory they deserve.
  Right now, in the Nation's hospitals, we are seeing the results of 
his victory. We are seeing soldiers with brain injury, soldiers with no 
limbs. And we have a broken health care system that can't even address 
the question of those soldiers with posttraumatic stress brain injury 
and otherwise.
  My voice is gone, but I am tired of this question of victory because 
I believe, and I have a bill, and I ask my good friend from California 
to join it, the Military Success Act of 2007 that chronicles the 
victories of our soldiers.
  We can bring them home with dignity. I am not going to tolerate one 
more dead body. And it is time to end this war and end it now.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4156, introduced by my 
colleague, Mr. Obey. I would like to thank him for his ongoing 
leadership as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and on this 
important issue in particular.
  The legislation we are considering today provides our troops with the 
resources they need, but it does not give the President the blank check 
he has asked for to fund an endless combat operation in Iraq. Instead 
of his additional $200 billion, we are considering a $50 billion 
package, which institutes a redeployment timeline, as well as other 
critical directives designed to transition our role in Iraq and bring 
our troops home.
  Madam Speaker, the funds provided by this legislation are, crucially, 
tied to a requirement for the immediate start of the redeployment of 
U.S. forces. It sets December 15, 2008, as the target date for the 
completion of the redeployment, and requires redeployment to begin 
within 30 days of enactment.
  As lawmakers continue to debate U.S. policy in Iraq, our heroic young 
men and women continue to willingly sacrifice life and limb on the 
battlefield. Our troops in Iraq did everything we asked them to do. We 
sent them overseas to fight an army; they are now caught in the midst 
of an insurgent civil war and continuing political upheaval. The United 
States will not and should not permanently prop up the Iraqi Government 
and military. U.S. military involvement in Iraq will come to an end, 
and, when U.S. forces leave, the responsibility for securing their 
nation will fall to Iraqis themselves. However, whether or not my 
colleagues agree that the time has come to withdraw our American forces 
from Iraq, I believe that all of us in Congress should be of one accord 
that our troops deserve our sincere thanks and congratulations.
  For this reason, I extremely please to have worked with the 
Democratic leadership to include language recognizing the extraordinary 
achievements of our men and women in uniform. Paragraph 2 of Title I 
reads, ``the performance of United States military personnel in Iraq 
and Afghanistan should be commended, their courage and sacrifice have 
been exceptional, and when they come home, their service should be 
recognized appropriately.'' I believe that the inclusion of this 
language makes it clear that we are proud of the accomplishments of our 
troops, and we look forward to commending them as they return safely 
home.
  I also worked with the Leadership to include the language in 
Paragraph 3 of Title 1. This paragraph reads, ``the primary purpose of 
funds made available by this Act should be to transition the mission of 
United States Armed Forces in Iraq and undertake their redeployment, 
and not to extend or prolong the war.'' This language makes explicit 
that this legislation is providing funding for the safe and responsible 
redeployment of our troops, not for the continuation of combat 
operations.
  This legislation protects our troops, by providing them with the 
funding they need to safely and successfully redeploy from Iraq. It 
also prohibits the deployment of forces to Iraq who are not fully 
trained and fully equipped. In addition, this legislation includes an 
extension to all U.S. Government agencies and personnel of the current 
prohibition in the Army Field Manual against the use of certain 
interrogation techniques.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill contains important language that changes the 
mission of U.S. forces in Iraq to diplomatic and force protection, 
targeted counterterrorism operations, and limited support to Iraqi 
security forces. I firmly believe that we must make diplomacy and 
statecraft tools of the first, rather than the last, resort. We must 
seek constructive engagement with Iraq, its neighbors, and the rest of 
the international community, as we work to bring resolution to this 
calamitous conflict that has already gone on far too long.
  Because of my deeply held belief that we must commend our military 
for their exemplary performance and success in Iraq, I have introduced 
legislation, H.R. 4020, with the support of a number of my colleagues, 
entitled the ``Military Success in Iraq Commemoration Act of 2007.'' 
This legislation recognizes the extraordinary performance of the Armed 
Forces in achieving the military objectives of the United States in 
Iraq, encourages the President to issue a proclamation calling upon the 
people of the United States to observe a national day of celebration 
commemorating the military success of American troops in Iraq, and 
provides other affirmative and tangible expressions of appreciation 
from a grateful Nation to all veterans of the war in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, we have already expended 3,500 American lives and $400 
billion in taxpayer dollars in Iraq. We have occupied the country for 
over 4 years. And our President continues to push a strategy devoid of 
clear direction and visible targets, while rejecting congressional 
calls to solidify an exit strategy.
  Last November, the American people clearly stated that they did not 
want to see an endless conflict in Iraq; they went to the polls and 
elected a new, Democratic Congress to lead our Nation out of Iraq. I am 
proud to be a member of the Congressional class that listens and 
adheres to the will of the American people, as we did when both houses 
of Congress approved Iraq Supplemental bills that instituted a 
timetable for U.S. withdrawal. We need a new direction, because we owe 
our brave, fighting men and women so much more. Washington made a 
mistake in going to war. It is time for politicians to admit that 
mistake and fix it before any more lives are lost.
  This Congress will not, as the previous, Republican, Congress did, 
continue to rubber stamp what we believe to be an ill-conceived war. As 
we continue to receive reports on the situation in Iraq, it is 
important that we continue to look forward, to the future of Iraq 
beyond a U.S. military occupation.
  Despite the multitude of mistakes perpetrated by President Bush and 
former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, our troops have achieved a military 
success in ousting Saddam Hussein and assisting the Iraqis in 
administering a democratic election and electing a democratic 
government. However, only the Iraqi government can secure a lasting 
peace. Time and time again, the Iraqi government has demonstrated an 
inability to deliver on the political benchmarks that they themselves 
agreed were essential to achieving national reconciliation. Continuing 
to put the lives of our soldiers and our national treasury in the hands 
of what by most informed accounts, even by members of the Bush 
Administration, is an ineffective central Iraqi government is 
irresponsible and contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming majority 
of the American people.
  Our Nation has already paid a heavy price in Iraq. Over 3,810 
American soldiers have died. In addition, more than 27,660 have been 
wounded in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003. June, July, and 
August have marked the bloodiest months yet in the conflict, and U.S. 
casualties in Iraq are 62 percent higher this year than at this time in 
2006. This misguided, mismanaged, and misrepresented war has claimed 
too many lives of our brave servicemen; its depth, breadth, and scope 
are without precedent in American history. In addition, the United 
States is spending an estimated $10 billion per month in Iraq. This $10 
billion a month translates into $329,670,330 per day, $13,736,264 per 
hour, $228,938 per minute, and $3,816 per second.
  For this huge sum of money, we could have repaired the more than 
70,000 bridges across America rated structurally deficient, $188 
billion, potentially averting the tragedy that occurred August 1 in 
Minneapolis, Minnesota. We could have rebuilt the levees in New 
Orleans, $50 billion, protecting that city from future

[[Page 31452]]

hurricanes that could bring Katrina-like destruction upon the city. We 
could have provided all U.S. public safety officials with interoperable 
communication equipment, $10 billion, allowing them to effectively 
communicate in the event of an emergency, and we could have paid for 
screening all air cargo on passenger planes for the next 10 years, $3.6 
billion. And, we could have enrolled 1.4 million additional children in 
Head Start programs, $10 billion. Instead of funding increased death 
and destruction in Iraq, we could have spent hard-earned taxpayer 
dollars on important progress here at home.
  The Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I am proud to be a member, 
has recently heard a string of reports from military and civilian 
officials about the political, military, social, and economic situation 
in Iraq. Two weeks ago, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, 
informed the Congress that the Iraqi government has met only 3 of the 
18 legislative, economic, and security benchmarks. Despite the surge, 
despite increasing U.S. military involvement, the Iraqi Government has 
not made substantial progress toward stabilizing their country.
  President Bush rationalized his surge, over opposition by myself and 
other House Democrats, by arguing it would give the Iraqi government 
``the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical 
areas,'' bringing about reconciliation between warring factions, Sunni 
and Shia. However, non-partisan assessments, such as last week's GAO 
report, have illustrated that escalating U.S. military involvement in 
Iraq is instead hindering that nation's ability to move beyond the 
devastation of war and death, to build a successful new government, and 
to create a stable and secure environment. In the 7 months since the 
surge began, increased American military presence has not been able to 
end the relentless cycles of sectarian violence that continue to plague 
Iraq. Nor have larger numbers of U.S. troops been successful in 
unifying and strengthening the Iraqi Government.
  Instead, the security situation continues to deteriorate. Sectarian 
violence remains high, and even the Bush administration has noted the 
unsatisfactory progress toward political reconciliation. The Sunni-led 
insurgency continues, with insurgents conducting increasingly complex 
and well-coordinated attacks. The August 2007 National Intelligence 
Estimate cited ongoing violence, stating, ``the level of overall 
violence, including attacks on and casualties among civilians, remain 
high; Iraq's sectarian groups remain unreconciled.'' The report went on 
to note that al-Qaeda in Iraq, AQI, ``retains the ability to conduct 
high-profile attacks,'' and ``Iraqi political leaders remain unable to 
govern effectively.''
  The ever-increasing sectarian violence is causing immense daily 
challenges for Iraqis. Millions have been displaced, and an Iraqi Red 
Crescent Organization has reported an increase of nearly 630,000 
internally displaced persons from February 2007 to July 2007. The same 
organization predicts an additional 80,000 to 100,000 persons are 
displaced each month. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has 
estimated that 1.8 million Iraqis are now refugees, with an additional 
40,000 to 50,000 fleeing to neighboring countries each month. Iraq has 
become a humanitarian disaster, and one that continues to get worse 
every day.
  The United States military is a skilled and highly proficient 
organization, and where there are large numbers of U.S. troops, it is 
unsurprising that we see fewer incidents of violence. However, it is 
our responsibility to take a longer-term view. The United States will 
not and should not permanently prop up the Iraqi Government and 
military. U.S. military involvement in Iraq will come to an end, and, 
when U.S. forces leave, the responsibility for securing their nation 
will fall to Iraqis themselves. And so far, we have not seen a 
demonstrated commitment by the Iraqi Government.
  In addition, evidence suggests that not only is increased U.S. 
military presence in Iraq not making that nation more secure, it may 
also be threatening our national security by damaging our ability to 
respond to real threats to our own homeland. The recently released 
video by Osama bin Laden serves to illustrate that President Bush has 
not caught this international outlaw, nor brought him to justice. 
Instead, he has diverted us from the real war on terror to the war of 
his choice in Iraq.
  The former Chairman and Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas 
H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, share this view. In a recent op-ed, Kean 
and Hamilton note that our own actions have contributed to a rise of 
radicalization and rage in the Muslim world. Kean and Hamilton write 
that ``no conflict drains more time, attention, blood, treasure, and 
support from our worldwide counterterrorism efforts than the war in 
Iraq. It has become a powerful recruiting and training tool for al-
Qaeda.''
  Our troops in Iraq did everything we asked them to do. We sent them 
overseas to fight an army; they are now caught in the midst of an 
insurgent civil war and political upheaval. I have, for some time now, 
advocated for congressional legislation declaring a military victory in 
Iraq, and recognizing the success of our military. Our brave troops 
have completed the task we set for them; it is time now to bring them 
home. Our next steps should not be a continuing escalation of military 
involvement, but instead a diplomatic surge.
  Democrats in Congress will not continue to rubber stamp the 
President's ill-conceived war effort. Last November, the American 
people spoke loudly and clearly, demanding a new direction to U.S. 
foreign policy, and we here in Congress are committed to seeing that 
change be brought about. We are working to see the extensive funds 
currently being spent to sustain the war in Iraq go to important 
domestic programs and to securing our homeland against real and 
imminent threats.
  President Bush and Vice President Cheney have been given numerous 
chances and ample time by the American people and the Congress to 
straighten out the mess in Iraq. They have failed. It is pure fantasy 
to imagine that President Bush's military surge has created the 
necessary safety and security to meet economic, legislative, and 
security benchmarks. It is time for a new strategy, a new plan that 
will encourage Iraqis to take charge of their own destiny, seek 
constructive and sustained regional engagement, and substitute the ill-
advised military surge for a thoughtful diplomatic one. It is time to 
be realistic and pragmatic, to recognize that our troops achieved what 
they were initially sent in for and that continued U.S. military 
engagement is not bringing about the desired results.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides our brave soldiers in Iraq 
with the resources they need, while requiring that the President begin 
to redeploy our troops. It keeps our soldiers safe, and it keeps our 
Nation safe. By bringing an end to this conflict, this Democratic 
Congress is making significant strides forward toward protecting and 
securing America.
  I strongly urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting today's 
legislation, and in giving the troops the resources they need to safely 
redeploy from Iraq.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I'm very sorry that my friend wouldn't yield so that we could engage 
in debate. And I will say, victory means ensuring that our children 
don't face the threat of another terrorist attack like what we saw on 
September 11. We know that Iraq is the central point for al Qaeda, and 
I am absolutely determined to ensure that we achieve victory.
  There have been tremendous achievements when it comes to democracy 
building. We can't ignore that. But we want to bring our troops home as 
soon as possible.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. And I also 
want to associate myself with the words of the lady from Texas who just 
spoke.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the bill. To 
date, President Bush has asked us for a total of $804 billion for 
fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yesterday, the Joint 
Economic Committee, the committee on which I sit, concluded in a report 
that the real economic cost of these wars is $1.6 trillion. However, 
there are numerous hidden costs that could potentially bring the grand 
total to $3.5 trillion.
  In response to the President's failing new strategy in Iraq and 
wasteful spending, Congress has chosen instead to ensure strict 
accountability. We have heard the American people and have chosen to 
exercise fiscal responsibility by considering this vitally important 
legislation.
  Namely, the bill limits funding in the amount of $50 billion, in 
comparison to the President's original supplemental request of $196.4 
billion, to continue our military operations in Iraq, while ensuring 
that the responsible and strategic redeployment of our forces begins no 
later than 30 days from the date of enactment.
  It also provides troops with the resources needed for continued 
protection from improvised explosive devices.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to exercise their 
responsibility to the American people, to over

[[Page 31453]]

3,800 brave soldiers, 71 from Maryland who have died and who have paid 
the ultimate price, and to more than 2.3 million Iraqis who have fled 
their homes, by supporting the rule and voting in favor of this 
legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is about whether or not we 
continue to fund the worst foreign policy fiasco in American history.
  This is not about al Qaeda. In fact, if we had gone after al Qaeda 
when we had the opportunity, they wouldn't have been able to strengthen 
themselves in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But we've been diverted over to 
Iraq, where al Qaeda didn't even exist until our invasion gave them a 
recruitment tool and rallying cry.
  And sure there's less violence in Baghdad, but the reason is because 
the Shiia have ethnically cleansed much of Baghdad. When we started, 60 
percent of Baghdad was Sunni. Now, almost 80 percent of Baghdad is 
Shiia.
  And the reason there's less violence in al-Anbar province is because 
the Sunni warlords have taken it upon themselves to drive out the al 
Qaeda insurgents.
  Our military generals have told us this war does not lend itself to a 
military victory. The most we can do is to step up our diplomatic 
efforts.
  But the fact is that we are supporting a government that doesn't 
deserve our support. It is not representative of the people of Iraq. It 
is endemically corrupt. And the reality is that when we look back and 
ask ourselves what have we accomplished, we are going to look at a 
government which is far more loyal to Iran than it is to the United 
States. That's what we've done, to empower our enemies.
  We've created chaos throughout the Middle East. And isn't it time now 
to have a plan to start withdrawing our troops, to tell our military 
families that they have sacrificed as much as we could possibly expect 
of them?
  But the reality is that this policy has never been worthy of the 
sacrifice of our soldiers and their military families.

                              {time}  1830

  And if you really believed in what you're doing in this war, you 
would support Mr. Obey's attempt to pay for it. Not one dime of this 
war has been paid for. It's all been borrowed, borrowed from our 
children and our grandchildren. They deserve better and this bill is 
the best thing we can do for them right now.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me just first say this has been an interesting debate and I do 
think that victory, a dramatic reduction in the number of attacks, the 
fact that reconciliation is, in fact, taking place in Baghdad is 
something that cannot be ignored.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier today, before the House voted for the 12th time 
to allow the House to go to conference with the Senate on the Veterans 
Affairs funding bill, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and 
I had a brief colloquy after which a Member on the other side of the 
aisle claimed that we had misrepresented the facts about this 
Congress's track record on getting the Veterans Affairs appropriations 
measure signed into law.
  Well, I take this as akin to being accused of lying. Here is what we 
said, and, Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: The House passed the 
Veterans and Military Construction funding bill on June 15, 2007, by a 
vote of 409-2, with the Senate following suit and naming conferees on 
September 6. Unfortunately, the majority leadership of the House has 
refused to move the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 
appropriations act to conference and has refused to name conferees.
  So whether the majority likes it or not, that is a fact. Now, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and the gentleman from New York said 
that we were misrepresenting the facts. How is this so? For 68 days, 
Mr. Speaker, the message from the Senate requesting a conference has 
languished at the Speaker's desk without action. How is this fact 
disputable? Just look at the calendar and count the days between 
September 7 and today, and you'll come up with 68. Every day the 
Democrats choose not to act to move this bill forward, our Nation's 
veterans lose $18.5 million.
  Those are the facts surrounding this bill in this Congress. The 
gentleman from Texas went on earlier to malign Republicans for what we 
did or didn't do concerning veterans funding over the last 12 years, 
which begs the question, what does the last 12 years have to do with 
this year? Are Democrats trying to use past Congresses' shortcomings as 
excuses for their own failed policy? Otherwise, how is this even 
relevant?
  I am sure that the gentleman from Worcester would stand up and 
attempt to deflect this plea by criticizing Republicans, just as his 
colleagues before him, and touting the increases in funding for our 
veterans provided by this Congress which all but two Members of this 
body voted for. The sad fact is that this Congress hasn't provided the 
funding that the gentleman has espoused. Why is that? That's because 
not one dime will flow from the Treasury to the Department of Veterans 
Affairs until the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 
appropriations bill is signed into law, and in order to do so, this 
House has to go to conference with the Senate and send a bill down to 
the President to sign. So let's finally get that process started.
  Mr. Speaker, anyone who is concerned about funding for our veterans 
must join us in voting against the previous question so that I can 
amend the rule and we can go to conference with the Senate on this 
much-needed and far-delayed funding measure.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and 
extraneous material appear in the Congressional Record just prior to 
the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me go back to the subject that we are 
debating here today, and that is the war in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, we have 
been fighting this war for nearly 5 years. That's longer than we fought 
World War II. My friends on the other side of the aisle have said over 
and over and over, just give the Iraqi Government a chance. Well, Mr. 
Speaker, after 5 years, I say, give me a break.
  It is not us, not any of us in this Chamber who are in harm's way. 
But we have sent thousands and thousands and thousands of our fellow 
citizens to battle in Iraq. They are in harm's way. They wake up 
tomorrow in a situation where they are refereeing a civil war, and 
that, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, is wrong.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle talk about al Qaeda. Well, 
we're all worried about al Qaeda, too. That's why we wish we were doing 
the job in Afghanistan better. That's why we wish we weren't so 
diverted from that mission in Iraq that we could actually have better 
results in Afghanistan than we're having right now. We are worried, Mr. 
Speaker, about the fact that al Qaeda is regrouping in Afghanistan, is 
regrouping in Pakistan. That should be a worry to every single Member 
in this Chamber. And yet we are stretched so thin, we are so 
preoccupied in Iraq that we have lost sight of what our central mission 
needs to be.
  Mr. Speaker, victory is what is in the best interest of the American 
people. And this war in Iraq has not only diminished our standing in 
the world, it has spread our troops so thin that we can't complete 
missions like the one that we need to be completing in Afghanistan.
  Mr. Speaker, too often in this place we talk about numbers instead of 
the people behind those numbers. Yesterday, as I mentioned earlier, 
another three American soldiers lost their lives

[[Page 31454]]

in Iraq, bringing the total to 3,858. Also yesterday, Mr. Speaker, CBS 
News reported that there is an epidemic of suicide among our soldiers 
and our veterans. Thousands and thousands of these men and women have 
taken their own lives. For too many, the war does not end when they 
return home. And behind each one of those numbers is a devastated 
family, a heartbroken father, a new widow, a child without a father. 
Mr. Speaker, we will be paying for this war for a very long, long time.
  Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle say we all want the 
war to end, we all want our troops to come home. Well, I say to my 
friends, here is your chance. You have a voice. Use it. You have a 
vote. Use it. You have the opportunity to change the direction of this 
policy. You have the opportunity to force the Iraqi Government to live 
up to its promises. You have the opportunity to finally, finally, honor 
the will of the American people and to safely redeploy our troops. I 
ask my friends to seize that opportunity and to support this bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier is as follows:

      Amendment to H. Res. 818 Offered By Mr. Dreier of California

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the 
     bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and 
     for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by 
     the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees 
     immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of 
     rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader 
     prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees 
     otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees 
     instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the 
     Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional 
     legislative days after adoption of this resolution.
       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 818, if ordered; and 
the motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 4120.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 209, 
nays 185, not voting 38, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1103]

                               YEAS--209

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Edwards
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--185

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin

[[Page 31455]]


     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--38

     Bono
     Boozman
     Burgess
     Carney
     Carson
     Cleaver
     Costa
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Davis (AL)
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Feeney
     Gordon
     Holden
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     King (IA)
     Knollenberg
     Levin
     Lowey
     Mack
     McHugh
     Meeks (NY)
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Ruppersberger
     Schakowsky
     Sessions
     Tancredo
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wolf


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Solis) (during the vote). Members are 
advised there are 5 minutes remaining in this vote.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
is 1 minute remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1856

  Mrs. DRAKE, Mrs. BLACKBURN and Mr. KINGSTON changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. CLARKE changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1103, I was unable to 
vote for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1103, 
had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, 
nays 190, not voting 23, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1104]

                               YEAS--219

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--190

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Bachus
     Bilirakis
     Bono
     Carson
     Cubin
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Doyle
     Gingrey
     Hastert
     Jindal
     Jones (OH)
     Levin
     Mack
     McCrery
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Ruppersberger
     Sessions
     Weller
     Wolf


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1902

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page 31456]]

  Stated for:
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1104, I was unable to 
vote for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1104, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________