[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 23]
[House]
[Pages 31478-31486]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   ORDERLY AND RESPONSIBLE IRAQ REDEPLOYMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 29\1/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 26\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute simply to explain to 
the House that the intention is to have one remaining speaker on each 
side and then proceed to the votes.
  With that, I yield back the remainder of my 1 minute and invite the 
gentleman from Florida to close.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, throughout the evening, we have heard some very, very 
interesting speeches. I listened with great respect to all of them. I 
agreed with some, I disagreed with some, I wasn't sure about some. 
Nevertheless, it was a good debate at a high level. I paid special 
attention to the very distinguished Speaker of the House because in her 
opening comments, she talked about how Monday, Veterans Day, America 
honored our veterans. She spoke about the Veterans appropriations bill 
in great, glowing terms. I agree with that. It is a really good bill. 
It provides a lot of benefits for the veterans. There are 400,000 
veterans claims backed up. That bill provided money to hire additional 
adjudicators to get rid of that backlog and get the veterans what they 
need.
  The problem is that as she spoke about the importance of this bill 
and what a great bill it was and great bill it is, she failed to say 
that the House passed it on June 15, the Senate passed it in September, 
and here we are in November still waiting to get that bill on the House 
floor.
  I say, Madam Speaker, let's vote on the VA appropriations bill.
  I mentioned the fact that there were great speeches. But, Mr. 
Speaker, tonight we will not be voting or be recorded on how those 
speeches went, or what those speeches said, or what those speeches 
included. We are not going to be voting on opinions. We are not going 
to be voting on politics. We are going to be voting on what is in this 
bill. What has been said about this bill is not necessarily what is 
actually written in the bill. But we are going to vote for what is 
written in that bill. We will be held accountable for our vote on what 
that bill says, not on what some speaker said about it.
  One of the things that I mentioned in my opening comments that I was 
really offended by is that this legislation gives constitutional 
protection to terrorists, the same constitutional protection that all 
of our constituents enjoy. I refer to page 3 of the bill itself, 
``Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the rights under 
the

[[Page 31479]]

United States Constitution of any person in the custody or under the 
physical jurisdiction of the United States.''
  Now, that gives terrorists the same protection that your constituents 
have. And that's just not right. By giving them that protection, do we 
give them for example, do we have to read them their Miranda rights if 
we capture them on the battlefield? Do we have to allow them to pay 
bail and get out of jail or get out of detention? What kind of rights 
will we be giving to terrorists with just this one sentence that says 
they shall have rights under the Constitution? These are terrorists, 
Mr. Speaker. These aren't even people who are signatories to the Geneva 
Convention. They don't play by any rules. They do whatever they must 
do, and they have killed thousands and thousands of Americans, and they 
have killed thousands and thousands of the Muslim populations.
  Now, something about this bill, on page 6 of this bill, ``After the 
conclusion of the reduction and transition of United States Armed 
Forces to a limited presence as required by this section, the Secretary 
of Defense may deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq 
only for the following missions.'' Now, pay attention to this because 
this is what you will be allowing. For those of you that think you're 
getting troops out of Iraq, this is what this bill will permit. The 
Armed Forces in Iraq can be there for the following missions: 
``Protecting United States diplomatic facilities, United States Armed 
Forces, and American citizens.'' We do that now. That is one of the 
things that we are doing right now.
  So you think you're getting out of that. This bill keeps you in that. 
The next paragraph, ``Conducting limited training, equipment, and 
providing logistical and intelligence support to the Iraqi Security 
forces.'' We're doing that now. So if you think this bill is going to 
change anything, it doesn't because you are allowing them to stay to do 
the same thing that they are doing now.
  The next paragraph, ``Engaging in targeted counterterrorism 
operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other 
terrorist organizations in Iraq.'' Mr. Speaker, we're doing that now.
  On page 12, we go to the Iraqi Security Forces Fund provided in this 
bill. ``For the `Iraq Security Forces Fund', $500 million, Provided, 
that such funds shall be available to the Secretary of Defense, 
notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the purpose of allowing 
the Commander, Multinational Security Transition Command-Iraq, or the 
Secretary's designee, to provide assistance, with the concurrence of 
the Secretary of State, to the security forces of Iraq.'' Mr. Speaker, 
we are doing that now. So if you think we're making a change here, read 
the bill.
  It goes on to say, ``Including the provision of equipment, supplies, 
services, training, facility and infrastructure repair, renovation, and 
construction, and funding, and to provide training, reintegration, 
education and employment programs for concerned local citizens, former 
militia members and detainees and former detainees.'' Mr. Speaker, 
we're doing all that now.
  So this bill doesn't make very many changes if you think this gets 
you out of Iraq. It doesn't. If you read the bill, you will see that it 
doesn't. Now, these are things that we would be allowed to do under 
this bill. But if this bill were successful, and it will not be because 
I have an idea the President would veto it in its present form, we 
would have to do all of these same things that we are doing today but 
with a smaller force, a smaller force, minus the surge, for example. 
The change in policy that we all demanded early on came about, and it 
was called the ``surge.'' The surge has had many positive effects. When 
you get to the point that The New York Times and the L.A. Times and the 
Washington Post are writing stories about the positive effects of the 
surge, you have to admit there is something real there in the surge. So 
do you want to go back and have to do all of the same things we are 
doing today with a smaller force? I don't think so.
  We will have a motion to recommit. And if that motion to recommit is 
successful, we will have a bill that we can all vote for and that I 
believe the President would be willing to sign. So let's vote based on 
what is in this bill, not what the speeches say about it, not about the 
politics, not about the opinions, but let's actually vote on what is in 
this bill and let's support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and 
anywhere else in the world where they might be deployed. We owe them no 
less. This bill is not a good bill today. Let's vote against it tonight 
and vote for the motion to recommit.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, has the gentleman yielded back his time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has yielded back all of his 
time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 26 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, I rise in strong support of the bill that is 
before us today. First and foremost, I want to point out that every 
Member on this floor, every Member knows that the brave men and women 
of our military have done a fantastic job, and every Member on this 
floor supports the brave men and women serving our country.
  Mr. Speaker, too many of those brave men and women have been doing a 
fantastic job for way too many tours. Multiple tours. The last time I 
was in Iraq, I had lunch with a group of soldiers from California, one 
of whom was a firefighter from the North Bay in California, and he 
said, I used to have a house in your district, but I don't anymore. My 
ex-wife has it now. I said, I am sorry to hear that. He said, well, 
this is my fourth tour. I couldn't expect much else.
  Our men and women have been put under a tremendous strain for far too 
long. Our military equipment has been depleted. Over $100 billion is 
needed to bring our military equipment up to standard. Our combat 
readiness has been depleted. This bill, this bill is about refocusing 
our area; to transition, transition our effort into force protection, 
diplomatic protection, counterterrorism, refocus our effort looking 
into the future for future problems that we may have. It's long past 
time to refocus our efforts; it's long past time to transition.
  This bill does represent a change. We heard from the previous speaker 
that there wasn't much change. Mr. Speaker and Members, if there wasn't 
any change in this bill, we wouldn't be facing the opposition from the 
other side that we are facing tonight. This bill represents major 
change.
  This bill represents a policy change that the American people are 
demanding. They demanded it in the November election; they demand it 
today. It's long past time for this transition to take place. This war 
can't go on forever. We know that on this side of the aisle and we know 
it on the other side of the aisle.
  A lot of comparisons have been made tonight with Vietnam. I want to 
make just one. I served in Vietnam with the 173rd Airborne Brigade. I 
didn't do anything exceptional. I showed up; I did my job. But there 
came a time in past Congresses that it was known that we were going to 
leave Vietnam, and from the time that we knew that our colleagues, our 
past colleagues knew that we were going to leave Vietnam, until we 
actually left Vietnam, 21,000 Americans died.
  They knew, our colleagues in past Congresses knew that we couldn't 
sustain that. We weren't going to be in Vietnam forever. They knew we 
had to leave. From the time they absolutely knew it on this floor until 
we left, 21,000 brave American men died in Vietnam. I was one of the 
lucky ones. I was only wounded. I lost a lot of friends. We lost a lot 
of fellow Americans.
  We cannot make that same mistake. We know that the Iraq war cannot go 
on forever. We know that on both sides

[[Page 31480]]

of the aisle. It's time for a major policy change. This bill represents 
that major policy change. I urge everyone to vote ``aye'' for the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, after my oversight trips to Iraq in July and 
August of 2006, I concluded we needed to encourage the Iraqi 
government, and specifically Prime Minister Maliki, to take stronger 
action to improve the situation in their country, and that the best way 
to do this was to set firm timelines for Iraqi security forces to 
replace our troops who are doing police work.
  I believe a workable timeline will incentivize the Iraqis to make the 
hard choices necessary to ensure stability among the three primary 
sects--Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds. We need to motivate the Iraqis to set 
firm deadlines for provincial elections, reconciliation and amnesty, 
and a final drafting of their constitution.
  During 2005, Iraqis set timelines to establish and ratify a 
constitution and hold national elections. They accomplished each 
benchmark successfully. I do not believe they would have achieved this 
success if we had not pushed Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds to resolve their 
differences and compromise in order to meet the timelines we helped 
set.
  The United States went into Iraq on a bipartisan basis, with two-
thirds of the House and three-quarters of the Senate voting to 
authorize the use of force. I believe we need to draw down the majority 
of our troops on a bipartisan basis, and have sought to achieve 
bipartisan solutions to improve our operations and reduce the violence.
  While H.R. 4156 is by no means a perfect solution, it does propose a 
tight, but arguably reasonable, timeline for drawdown of troops in Iraq 
similar to one I proposed earlier this year. It should help bridge the 
gap between Republicans and Democrats on the most important issue of 
our time. The bill would require our commanders to begin a redeployment 
of our troops in harms way within a month, and set a target date of 
December 15, 2008, to complete the task.
  For me, a better bill would have been to give Iraqis and our troops 
an additional six months to complete the drawdown, but given this bill 
sets a target date, rather than a withdrawal date, it gives needed 
flexibility to our military leadership.
  I do not believe we have the force structure to maintain the number 
of troops in Iraq now, and certainly do not have the capacity to 
increase the force.
  Our troops have performed extraordinarily well, but it is 
unreasonable for us to ask them to return to Iraq for a third or fourth 
tour. I also believe it was a significant mistake to extend their tours 
from 12 to 15 months and would be unconscionable to consider extending 
their tours beyond 15 months. Based on our military's current manpower, 
we will need to begin to draw down our forces by the beginning of 2008, 
and it would be wise to let the Iraqis know now this reduction will 
take place.
  While I support this bill, I am disappointed the majority still has 
not allowed a single amendment on any Iraq-related bill. As I have said 
before, it is pretty arrogant to think we would criticize Iraqis for 
not being able to compromise and find common ground when Republicans 
and Democrats are unable to compromise and find common ground on the 
most important issue facing our Nation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to call for the passage of 
H.R. 4156, the ``Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Act.'' The 
war in Iraq cannot be won through the use of military force or another 
troop surge. The majority of the American people do not support the war 
in Iraq; a recent study stated that nearly 7 in 10 Americans oppose the 
war. Since the war began in 2003, 3,859 brave U.S. troops have died in 
Iraq. In 2007 the death toll has already reached 860 soldiers who have 
lost their lives, making it the worst year yet for the American 
military in Iraq. Currently, 28,400 soldiers have been wounded in Iraq 
since the war began with 12,750 suffering injuries so serious they were 
prevented from returning to duty.
  President Bush's failed Iraq policies offer a war with no end in 
sight. There is no progress on political reconciliation between Shiites 
and Sunnis in the Iraqi government. Just this week, it was reported 
that the U.S. effort to organize nearly 70,000 local Sunni fighters to 
solidify security gains in Iraq is facing severe political and 
logistical challenges as the central government resists in 
incorporating them into the Iraqi police and army. Last month, the 
Shiite political alliance of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called the 
U.S. military to halt the recruitments of Sunnis.
  The bill in the house tonight will require the start of the 
redeployment of U.S. forces within 30 days of enactment, with a goal 
completion of redeployment by December 15, 2008. It will require a 
transition in the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq from primarily combat 
to force protection and diplomatic protection; limited support to Iraqi 
security forces; and targeted counterterrorism operations. H.R. 4156 
will prohibit deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq who are not fully 
trained and fully equipped. The legislation also calls for an extension 
to all U.S. Government agencies and personnel of the current 
prohibitions in the Army Field Manual against torture. The bill will 
also provide to meet the immediate need of our troops, but defers 
consideration of the remainder of the President's nearly $200 billion 
request. At the current rate of expenditure, the additional funds will 
last 4 months.
  Many insist that American troops cannot leave Iraq until we have 
achieved victory; and democracy has been established. History has shown 
us that civil wars and insurgencies are ended only through rigorous 
diplomacy, economic development, and national reconciliation between 
former enemies; not by a troop surge and an endless war. Diplomacy 
works, and now more then ever is the time to implement the 
recommendations of the Baker Hamilton Commission, and call for a 
regional peace summit in the Middle East.
  Let's bring all parties who are involved in the conflict to the peace 
table, so they can begin to resolve their differences. If international 
diplomacy ended the intractable conflicts in Northern Ireland, the 
Balkans, the conflict between Israel and Egypt, and Rwanda; then 
international diplomacy can work in Iraq. Once we begin the strategic 
withdrawal of U.S. troops out of Iraq, and show the Iraqi people we do 
not wish to occupy their country, then and only then can we begin the 
real possibility of having an effective international peace conference.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the issue before the House today is 
straightforward. Do we think the President's Iraq policy is working so 
well that we should give him another $200 billion to continue it, or do 
we need a fundamental change in direction?
  I truly believe we need to change an Iraq policy that is simply not 
working. From the beginning, the Bush administration has been wrong 
about the war in Iraq. If you set aside the administration's rhetoric, 
the reality is that the surge has not worked. The goal of the surge was 
to give the Iraqi Government breathing space to make the political 
decisions necessary to reduce the violence that is tearing Iraq apart. 
But 11 months into the troop surge, progress on political 
reconciliation continues to be all but nonexistent. Meanwhile, 2007 has 
already been the deadliest year for American troops since the start of 
the war in Iraq.
  There is a clear choice before us. If you are satisfied with how the 
Bush administration has been conducting the war for the last 4\1/2\ 
years, you should oppose this bill. If, on the other hand, you believe 
the administration's strategy isn't working and want to require the 
President to change course, you should vote for this legislation.
  Whatever small chance there is of the Iraqi factions coming together, 
it will not happen as long as the U.S. military commitment in Iraq 
remains open-ended. We need to change course.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the majority 
party's Iraq supplemental appropriations bill.
  It is baffling that at the precise moment when the surge in Iraq is 
producing positive results, the majority party would like to pull the 
rug out from underneath our troops.
  Violence is down. Sunnis in al Anbar have allied with U.S. forces 
against al Qaeda. Baghdad is regaining some sense of normalcy.
  By no means can we declare ``victory'' but our troops can rightfully 
claim progress. Despite these positive developments, the majority party 
wants to withdraw our forces--as if the enemy won't follow us home.
  I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: are they prepared 
to take responsibility for the disastrous consequences of an early 
withdrawal?
  Are they prepared to witness the chaos and destruction in Iraq?
  Most importantly, are they willing to pass this responsibility on to 
the next generation of Americans who may be forced to finish the job we 
did not have the courage to complete?
  My colleagues are right: we have made a significant financial and 
personal investment in Iraq. Let us have the courage of our convictions 
to see it through.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and pass a clean 
supplemental bill that provides support to those who are fighting and 
dying. We owe them that much.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Iraq 
Redeployment Act which sets forth a realistic strategy for the 
responsible redeployment of our combat troops in Iraq. The Bush 
Administration has requested

[[Page 31481]]

another $200 billion dollar blank check for the war in Iraq to pursue a 
flawed strategy that has no end in sight and which continually puts our 
brave men and women in the armed services in the middle of Iraq's civil 
war.
  The indefinite presence of American forces in Iraq has allowed the 
different factions there to postpone making the difficult compromises 
necessary to achieve stability and political reconciliation. Our 
intelligence community has publicly concluded that the political 
situation in Iraq is getting worse, not better. We cannot ask our 
troops to remain in Iraq when the different Iraqi factions have refused 
to take the steps necessary to achieve a greater stability.
  We must embark on a new direction in Iraq. That's what this 
legislation will do. It allocates $50 billion for the purpose of 
beginning to responsibly redeploy our combat forces out of Iraq by the 
target date of December 15, 2008. The troops that would remain in Iraq 
beyond that date would focus on the more limited missions of training 
Iraqi security forces, providing logistical and intelligence support 
for the Iraqi security forces, and engaging in targeted counter-
terrorist operations against Al-Qaeda and affiliated groups.
  As the legislation states, ``the primary purpose of funds made 
available by the Act should be to transition the mission of the United 
States Armed Forces in Iraq and undertake their redeployment, and not 
to extend or prolong the war.'' This bill also states that the 
reduction of our armed forces in Iraq ``shall be implemented in 
conjunction with a comprehensive diplomatic, political and economic 
strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and 
the international community for the purpose of working collectively to 
bring stability to Iraq''--a strategy recommended by the bipartisan 
Iraq Study Group that the Administration has failed to pursue with any 
vigor or urgency.
  This legislation also prohibits the deployment of any troops not 
fully equipped or trained, and extends to all U.S. Government agencies 
and personnel the limitations in the U.S. Army Field Manual on 
permissible interrogation techniques. We must send a strong message to 
the world that we do not support or condone torture.
  We are on the wrong path in Iraq. This bill provides a much needed 
change in direction that will strengthen our national security, improve 
our position in the region and bring our men and women safely home.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, one need look no further than the chaos in 
Pakistan or the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan to understand 
that troop levels in Iraq cannot be maintained--and that the surge, 
which I have always opposed, has done nothing to achieve political 
stability.
  Today, with this bridge funding vote, Congress signals to the White 
House yet again that enough is enough, that the combat mission in Iraq 
must end, and that we will force that change.
  No one in this chamber questions the courage or commitment of our 
brave women and men in uniform or their willingness to tackle any 
challenge put before them. But we have sent them on an ill-defined 
mission with no apparent end point, and which consumes staggering 
amounts of our talent and treasure at the expense of countless other 
priorities.
  This bill also redresses a glaring loophole in the Military 
Commissions Act--a bill I strongly opposed. By requiring that all U.S. 
Government agencies and personnel must adhere to interrogation 
techniques contained in the Army Field Manual, we send an unmistakable 
signal to the rest of the world that the United States--the world's 
oldest functioning democracy--does not permit cruel, inhumane and 
degrading practices, or torture, and complies fully with Federal law 
banning torture and our international obligations.
  The Iraq Troop Redeployment Bill is good policy, and long overdue.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4156, 
the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act. This 
bill will begin the long-overdue withdrawal of American troops from 
Iraq.
  Yesterday, the President vetoed the Labor and Heath and Human 
Services-Education appropriations bill, which is the bill that provides 
funding for the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Disease 
Control, Low Income Home Energy Assistance, the Education Department, 
Pell Grants, and educational programs for the disadvantaged. He vetoed 
this bill because it contained a 2 percent increase over his request--
an increase of $10 billion in a Labor HHS bill of roughly $600 billion. 
The President opposes even a 2 percent increase in the funding for 
these programs.
  Meanwhile, the President has requested almost $200 billion more for 
his failed war in Iraq. That would make the total cost of the war in 
Iraq so far to over $600 billion and climbing, with no end in sight. 
President Bush's refusal to change course in Iraq is shocking, his 
failure to allow adequate rest for our soldiers between tours of duty 
is outrageous, and his demand for another $200 billion blank check for 
his war in Iraq while vetoing LIHEAP for the poor, education for 
disadvantaged children, Pell Grants for college students, and research 
into cures for life threatening disease is simply unacceptable to this 
House. What a misplaced set of priorities.
  Instead of the blank check for an endless war, this bill requires 
President Bush to begin withdrawing American troops from Iraq within 30 
days. Instead of unfairly sending inadequately equipped soldiers on 
multiple tours of duty, this bill prohibits the deployment of any 
troops who are not fully equipped and trained. And at the same time, 
this bill provides the necessary funds, in full, to our troops who are 
still in harm's way.
  Our Republican colleagues must make a choice: will they stand with 
President Bush's attempt to throw more money and more young men and 
women into the mess in Iraq, or will they join with Democrats seeking a 
bipartisan agreement on redeploying American troops out of Iraq?
   Mr. Speaker, I would like to specifically note a provision of this 
bill, which I wrote, to bar any funds in this bill from being used for 
the gruesome and indefensible practice of extraordinary rendition. I 
would like to commend and thank Chairman Obey and Chairman Murtha for 
again including this language, as they have in every defense 
appropriations and supplemental appropriations bill this year. Through 
the use of extraordinary rendition, as well as abusive interrogation 
techniques and extrajudicial incarceration of so-called ``enemy 
combatants,'' President Bush has largely forfeited the mantel of human 
rights champion which the United States has carried for so long. We 
must reclaim the international moral high-ground if we are to cure the 
root causes of terrorism around the world, and we can start by banning 
extraordinary rendition.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Obey for this strong and responsible 
bill, and urge all my colleagues to vote aye.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4156, the 
Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act.
  The Iraq war is a failure and it's time for our troops to come home.
  This bill calls for a responsible redeployment and provides for the 
checks and balances Congress is authorized to impose.
  The administration does not have blanket authority and America does 
not have a bottomless checking account.
  The President's policy in Iraq has been a complete failure, and 
Americans are calling for this war to end.
  Our troops are now trapped in the middle of someone else's civil war.
  Our military presence in Iraq is not making our country any safer.
  Instead, this war has taken the lives of over 3,850 soldiers, 
including 13 brave young men from my District alone.
  From Rialto, 37-year-old Staff Sergeant Jorge A. Molina was deployed 
in Iraq and died in hostile fire in the Anbar province.
  From Rialto, 20-year-old, Specialist Luis D. Santos was deployed in 
Iraq and died of injuries sustained when a makeshift bomb exploded near 
his Humvee during combat operations in Buritz.
  From Rialto, 22-year-old, Corporal Victor A. Garcia was deployed in 
Iraq and died by small arms fire in Baghdad.
  From Bloomington, 25-year-old, Corporal Joseph A. Blanco was deployed 
in Iraq and died by small arms fire in Taji after sustaining injuries 
from a makeshift bomb.
  From Fontana, 19-year-old Lance Corporal Fernando S. Tamayo was 
deployed in Iraq and died while conducting combat operations in Anbar 
Province.
  From Fontana, 24-year-old Sergeant Bryan A. Brewster was deployed in 
Afghanistan and died after his helicopter crashed during combat 
operations in Afghanistan.
  From San Bernardino, 22-year-old Corporal Nicanor Alvarez was 
deployed in Iraq and died in the line of fire in the Anbar province.
  From San Bernardino, 19-year-old Petty Officer Alex Oceguera was 
deployed in Afghanistan, and died when a makeshift bomb detonated near 
his vehicle in Wygal Valley, Afghanistan.
  From San Bernardino, 24-year-old Corporal Sean Grilley was deployed 
in Iraq, and died after being fired on by Iraqis during operations in 
Karbala.
  From San Bernardino, 24-year-old Specialist Timothy D. Watkins was 
deployed in Iraq, and died when a makeshift bomb exploded near his 
vehicle during operations in Ar Ramadi.
  From Ontario, 21-year-old Specialist Jose R. Perez was deployed in 
Iraq, and died by enemy small arms fire in Ramadi.
  From Ontario, 31-year-old Sergeant First Class Rudy A. Salcido was 
deployed in Iraq,

[[Page 31482]]

and died when an improvised explosive device detonated near his convey 
vehicle in Baghdad.
  These are the true faces of the war. My deepest prayers go out to 
their families.
  These soldiers are the reason why I am so adamant about bringing our 
troops back home, and why we must support this bill.
  The President's failed policies on the Iraqi war effort must end. We 
are listening to America's concerns and will not stand by and watch 
this continue.
  We need to bring back our loved ones and put our families here at 
home first.
  It's time for America to put her priorities in order.
  This Nation is in debt, but not because of domestic spending.
  President Bush refuses to sign bills to pay for schools, children's 
health care, and to protect our workers.
  However, he comes to us asking for another $200 billion to continue 
funding the Iraq war.
  With just one week's worth of funding for the war, my District would 
never again face a shortage of teachers, of nurses, or of police 
officers.
  As a veteran, I voted against this war in 2002 because no one could 
convince me why we had to be there in the first place.
  The President believes Iraq is making our country safer.
  The truth is, it is has put us at greater risk.
  Our military is stretched so thin that we are at risk of not being 
prepared for any future emergencies.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I have consistently voted against 
funding for this ill-conceived and miserably run war, but I reluctantly 
support this additional funding because it will require the beginning 
of a withdrawal from Iraq. It also contains important provisions to 
prevent torture and ensure that our troops are fully equipped and 
trained.
  Because President Bush has done nothing to earn the trust of Congress 
or the American people, this funding is only for a few months, giving 
Congress the chance to exercise oversight and hold the President 
accountable to ensure that the withdrawal is actually occurring at a 
responsible pace.
  With a veto likely, we must tell the President that Congress will not 
provide this $50 billion, and certainly not the entire $200 billion 
he's asked for, as a blank check. But I am pleased that, in this 
legislation, Congress is saying that we will only fund an end to this 
war, not its continuation. Bringing this nightmare to a quick and 
responsible close is my highest priority.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
4156, the ``Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations 
Act,'' and I want to commend Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic 
leadership for bringing this bill to the Floor today.
  The American people want a new direction in Iraq. By every measure, 
this war has cost Americans far too much--whether it's lives lost, 
dollars spent, or our reputation tarnished around the world.
  H.R. 4156 would provide critical funding for the troops while also 
requiring that troops begin to redeploy from Iraq within 30 days of 
enactment with a goal of completion by December 15, 2008. The 
legislation would ensure that troops are not deployed to Iraq unless 
they have been fully trained and equipped. H.R. 4156 also would extend 
to all U.S. Government agencies and personnel the current prohibitions 
contained in the Army Field Manual against torture.
  Just this week the Joint Economic Committee, of which I am a vice 
chair, released a study to examine the broader impact of the war on the 
American economy. So far the full economic costs of the Iraq war are 
about double the immense Federal budget costs that have been reported 
to the American people.
  The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Federal spending 
on the war could reach $2.4 trillion by 2017. Our JEC report finds that 
when you add in the ``hidden costs'' of the war, the total economic 
costs will rise by over $1 trillion to $3.5 trillion. The report 
reveals how we are all paying for this war one way or another--whether 
it's higher prices at the pump, lost business investment, rising 
interest payments on the debt, or fixing all the broken bodies and our 
stretched military.
  The President has asked Congress for an additional $200 billion for 
Iraq, bringing the total request to $607 billion in direct expenditures 
since the start of the war. This is well over 10 times more than the 
$50 to $60 billion cost estimated by the Administration prior to the 
start of the war, with no end in sight from this President.
  This legislation sends the President an important message: Start 
bringing our troops home, now.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr Speaker, I believe this legislation is the most 
important bill the House takes up this year because it will bring an 
end to the war in Iraq by bringing our troops home safely, honorably, 
and responsibly.
  The bill mandates the start of an ``immediate and orderly'' 
withdrawal of U.S. armed forces in Iraq within 30 days after enactment. 
It also requires that the reduction of forces be done in conjunction 
with comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategies 
involving Iraq's neighbors.
  The bill provides $50 billion for the cost of redeployment, not the 
$196.4 billion the President has requested to keep the war going.
  H.R. 4156 prohibits the use of torture on any person under U.S. 
custody. This is absolutely necessary because the Administration 
continues to defend this technique which is not sanctioned in the U.S. 
Army Field Manual.
  The war in Iraq has taken a severe toll on our military. One and one-
half million military personnel (or 30 percent of our military) have 
been deployed to Iraq more than once. Many of our soldiers are 
redeployed in less than a year. Our troops are exhausted, their 
equipment is shot and yet the President remains firmly committed to a 
Korea-like presence in Iraq for years. Our military readiness is 
severely threatened and our country is less safe today because of the 
President's ill-conceived and botched-up execution of this war.
  The legislation recognizes our military readiness is at its lowest 
point since the Vietnam war and in order to reverse this, it requires 
that the President certify to Congress 15 days prior to deployment that 
our armed forces are ``fully mission capable.''
  This Administration's sole focus on Iraq has left Afghanistan in an 
extraordinary state of vulnerability. We have seen the reemergence of 
the Taliban, soaring drug production, and the increase of attacks on 
U.S. and NATO forces. By all measures, the country is at risk of 
slipping away. This is a terrible and dangerous mistake. Although time 
is short, there is still an opportunity to defeat our enemies in 
Afghanistan once and for all. The President must acknowledge what's at 
stake and immediately take action to prevent the country from returning 
to what it was--a haven for international terrorism.
  The President's justification for the surge was that ``reducing the 
violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.'' By all 
accounts, including the August 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, 
NIE, the Iraqi government's political progress is stalled. The NIE 
stated that the ``Iraqi Government will continue to struggle to achieve 
national-level political reconciliation and improved governance.'' The 
NIE goes on to state that ``broadly accepted political compromises 
required for sustained security . . . are unlikely to emerge unless 
there is a fundamental shift in the factors driving Iraqi political 
developments.'' It is clear from this NIE that the Iraqi government has 
done little if anything to initiate political reconciliation.
  The American people are demanding a new direction in Iraq. They do 
not want the President's 10-year war with no end in sight. In fact 68 
percent of Americans oppose the war in Iraq and 60 percent support a 
withdrawal of our troops.
  I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to do so 
as well. We can begin a new and better chapter for America and the 
world by changing the policy in Iraq.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation before us today 
because I believe it represents a safe and responsible way to bring our 
troops home from Iraq. The President has had more than four years to 
demonstrate leadership in Iraq, but at every turn his decisions have 
dragged us deeper into an ethnic and sectarian crisis that the 
President seems incapable of solving. Eleven months ago, the bipartisan 
Iraq Study Group released its report, which offered a comprehensive 
plan to build up the Iraqi government and create the political and 
security stability needed to bring our troops home. Unfortunately, the 
President rejected this bipartisan approach and instead implemented his 
troop surge. As a result, 2007 was the deadliest year for our troops 
since the beginning of the war, and we are no closer to a political 
solution to the problems in Iraq than we were when the troop surge 
began. Because the President refuses to take responsibility for his 
failed strategy, I believe it is time for Congress to act.
  The legislation before us today provides our troops with the funding 
and equipment they need to safely do their job. This includes funding 
for our continued efforts to provide security and support for the 
government of Afghanistan. However, it is a far cry from the blank 
check that the President requested. It requires the President to begin 
redeploying troops out of Iraq within 30 days of enactment, and sets a 
goal for total redeployment by December 15, 2008. The bill also 
requires the President to

[[Page 31483]]

undertake diplomatic efforts designed to engage other regional and 
international actors in providing for a secure Iraq. It includes 
important provisions that ensure the first troops sent home are the 
ones who have served in Iraq the longest, and that no more troops can 
be sent to Iraq unless they have all of the equipment and training that 
they need.
  I had hoped that this bill would also include funding to address the 
growing refugee crisis in Iraq. While I am disappointed this issue is 
not being addressed today, I have been assured that Congress will act 
soon to assist the millions of Iraqis who have been displaced because 
of sectarian fighting.
  This legislation is not perfect, but I believe that it is worth 
supporting because it will require the President to do something he has 
so far refused to do: explain to the public how he plans to get our 
troops out of Iraq. In fact, this bill would make it clear to the 
President that he will not get one more dime from Congress until his 
redeployment plan has been submitted. I applaud Chairman Obey for 
staying true to his pledge to send the President an Iraq spending bill 
with accountability and timelines built in. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation because it represents an important first step 
towards holding the President accountable and safely bringing our 
troops home from Iraq.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4156, the 
short-term war supplemental appropriations bill. Although I plan to 
oppose this bill, I am also pleased that its authors included several 
provisions meant to improve transparency and ensure U.S. troops are 
adequately trained and mission capable. Hopefully, the inclusion of 
these provisions signifies the beginning of real progress, and I plan 
to work with my colleagues to develop a unified approach to address the 
challenges we face in Iraq.
  Our soldiers in Iraq continue to do tremendous work and it is 
critical that we provide them with the resources they need to improve 
security. Unfortunately, the bill before us today would delay important 
troop-protection and equipment funds requested by the Pentagon. 
According to Department officials, delaying these funds would also 
force the Pentagon to begin borrowing from its regular defense budget, 
which in turn could impact important operating funds for troops and 
military bases.
  Additionally, I am concerned that this legislation would condition 
troop funding on the initiation of an immediate redeployment from Iraq. 
Although I strongly support a responsible strategy for bringing U.S. 
troops home, these decisions should not be mandated by Members of 
Congress without close consultation with our military and foreign 
policy leaders in the field. Furthermore, the U.S. commander in Iraq, 
GEN David Petraeus, has already set forth a plan to bring home a full 
combat brigade this month and at least five brigades by July of next 
year. Congress should perform strong oversight with respect to the 
redeployment process, but placing restrictions on our military 
commanders is not helpful in their efforts to achieve stability and 
bring troops home.
  Still, I support language in the bill that would improve 
accountability and increase transparency by requiring regular reports 
on the status of the military's redeployment plans. In the same way, I 
support sections of the bill that would ensure military units are 
properly trained and prepared for deployments. Embracing a 
comprehensive regional security plan and prohibiting torture are also 
key provisions which I continue to support. In fact, I recently 
cosponsored legislation identical to the anti-torture provisions 
included in H.R. 4156.
  The leaders of the U.S. Senate have already made clear that this 
legislation does not have the votes necessary for passage and therefore 
many of these important provisions will be left on the table. 
Therefore, I call on my colleagues to embrace the substantive areas of 
this bill where we can find agreement, and join me in committing to a 
bipartisan approach for achieving stability.
  Mr. Speaker, the Bipartisan Compact on Iraq Debate, of which I am an 
original author, identifies the areas where Democrats and Republicans 
have found agreement. Let us embrace these points of agreement and move 
forward in supporting our troops serving in combat.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this legislation.
  This bill is the opposite of a blank check for the President. The 
funds it will provide are those that will be needed to move toward an 
``immediate and orderly'' redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq.
  The bill requires redeployment to begin within 30 days of its passage 
and sets a goal of bringing home most our soldiers from Iraq by 
December 15, 2008.
  The bill also requires that our military's mission in Iraq shift from 
combat to force protection, support for Iraqi security forces, and 
targeted counterterrorism operations, and it prohibits the deployment 
of any U.S. troops to Iraq that are not already fully equipped and 
trained. And it extends to all U.S. Government agencies and personnel 
the limitations in the Army Field Manual on permissible interrogation 
techniques, to remove any doubt that loopholes remain for 
``waterboarding'' or similar harsh techniques.
  It's clear that we're seeing progress on the security front in Iraq--
likely the result of more U.S. boots on the ground combined with an 
insurgency that has largely succeeded in ``cleansing'' Iraq's 
neighborhoods, driving Iraq's Sunni and Shia populations out of areas 
where they once lived side by side.
  But when he announced the ``surge'' of additional troops to Iraq, 
President Bush promised us more than progress on the security front in 
Iraq.
  We sent more troops to Iraq to provide ``breathing space'' for the 
Iraqi Government to move toward political reconciliation, and that 
hasn't even begun to happen.
  In my view, there is no sustainable role for large numbers of U.S. 
troops to play in Iraq--whether refereeing a civil war or waiting for 
the Iraqi Government to decide to act within the ``breathing space'' 
our brave troops have provided and our taxpayers are paying for at $9 
billion per month.
  However, while this bill sends the right message--that our troops 
cannot remain in Iraq indefinitely--regrettably, it does not send it in 
the best way, because it will be supported almost exclusively by 
Democrats, and the President has already promised to veto it.
  What we need is consensus here at home on a path forward in Iraq, and 
today's quick consideration of this bill doesn't bring us any closer to 
that goal.
  I believe consensus can be found around the recommendations of the 
Iraq Study Group, which I introduced as legislation earlier this year, 
including supporting a course of escalating escalate economic 
development, empowerment of local government, the provision of basic 
services, a ``surge'' in regional and international diplomatic efforts, 
and lightening the American footprint in Iraq.
  Only Democrats and Republicans working together can find the path out 
of Iraq. I will continue to work with colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle on further steps we can take to change our broader Iraq policy.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my support for H.R. 
4156, the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act, 
which will begin the redeployment of U.S. forces out of Iraq, 
strengthen our military and enhance our national security. By passing 
this measure, the House of Representatives is, yet again, sending a 
clear signal to the President that we need a new course in Iraq.
  Though I opposed the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, 
I later voted for numerous supplemental appropriations bills to ensure 
that we provided sufficient equipment and resources for our troops. 
They have done an amazing job in undertaking a difficult and changing 
mission, and they deserve nothing but the full support of the Nation 
and its leaders. However, nearly 5 years after our initial invasion of 
Iraq, the best way to support our troops is to bring them home. In May 
of this year, I voted against the supplemental appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2007 because it gave the President far too much authority 
to continue a war that had been repeatedly mismanaged by the civilian 
leadership at the Pentagon.
  Unfortunately, 6 months later, very little has changed. The 
underlying causes of violence in Iraq, which are ethnic and sectarian 
in nature, have not been addressed. In September, the Government 
Accountability Office found that the Iraqi Government had met only 3 of 
18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for legislative, economic, and 
security progress. These problems cannot be solved by U.S. military 
force, and we should not expect our troops to be involved in a civil 
war. We need to shift our forces from combat operations and redeploy 
them out of Iraq while we refocus our Nation's efforts on fostering a 
political reconciliation among Iraq's tribal, ethnic, and religious 
groups to end the violence.
  The bill before us today provides a blueprint for ending the war and 
bringing our troops home. It requires the President to begin 
redeployment of troops immediately, with a goal of completing 
redeployment by December 2008. It also shifts our forces away from a 
combat mission to focus on force protection, counterterrorism efforts, 
and the training of Iraqi security forces. Furthermore, it prohibits 
the deployment of U.S. troops that are not deemed fully mission 
capable. This provision is particularly important because our men and 
women in uniform have faced repeated deployments with insufficient rest 
and training time, and we

[[Page 31484]]

must take bold steps now to prevent our military being strained to the 
breaking point. Our readiness levels are already dangerously low 
because of operations in Iraq, which endangers our national security in 
the event of a national disaster, a terrorist attack, or some other 
contingency.
  H.R. 4156 recognizes that we need a new direction in Iraq and does 
not give the President a blank check to maintain the status quo. For 
that reason, President Bush has threatened to veto the measure. I am 
deeply disappointed that he is so out of touch with the American people 
and their priorities. He has requested nearly $200 million to continue 
operations in Iraq with absolutely no strings attached, while he 
ignores pressing needs here at home. On Tuesday, he vetoed the Labor-
Health and Human Services-Education Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 
2008, claiming that it was too expensive. Operations in Iraq have cost 
a total of more than $450 billion, yet the President is unwilling to 
invest $10 billion in priority areas such as medical research, 
elementary and secondary education, Pell grants, health services to 
underserved populations, and heating assistance to low-income 
Americans.
  While it is not a perfect bill, H.R. 4156 is an important step to 
force a fundamental shift in our Iraq policy and to bring our troops 
home. I would have preferred to see an earlier deadline for troop 
redeployment, and I have cosponsored legislation with that goal. 
Nevertheless, a vote for H.R. 4156 is a vote for change, and I thank my 
colleagues for supporting it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 818, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


           Motion to Recommit offered by Mr. Young of Florida

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. In its current form, I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. YOUNG of Florida moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 4156, 
     to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendments:
       (1) In section 101--
       (A) strike paragraph (3);
       (B) in paragraph (1), insert ``and'' after the semicolon; 
     and
       (C) in paragraph (2), strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
       (2) Strike sections 102, 104 and 106.
       (3) In section 105--
       (A) strike subsections (a) through (f); and
       (B) in subsection (g), strike the subsection designation.
       (4) Redesignate sections 103 and 105 as sections 102 and 
     103 respectively.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is a 
simple forthwith motion. That means a vote for this motion will allow 
the House to immediately vote tonight on a bill that can pass the 
Congress and be signed into law. That means that our troops in harm's 
way will get the funding they need before Congress leaves town for a 2-
week Thanksgiving recess.
  The motion would amend the bill to strike the provisions which have 
nothing to do with providing for our troops and are nothing more than 
political gamesmanship. The motion would strip the provisions that give 
our enemies a complete blueprint and timeline for troop withdrawal. The 
motion would strip the provisions in the bill which signal to our 
troops and our enemies that Congress will not provide any more funding 
for our troops, except for withdrawal. The motion would strip the 
provisions in the bill that substitute politicians' judgments on troop 
deployment for the judgment of our military commanders in the field.
  At the same time, we leave intact the $50 billion in critical funding 
included in the bill. We leave intact the prohibition on torture, which 
has been adopted previously by this Congress and Congresses before. But 
we strip the new provisions which could give terrorists killing our 
soldiers and our citizens constitutional protections under our legal 
system.
  We modify provisions to more clearly express Congress's commitment to 
our troops and to bringing them home safely in victory as soon as 
possible. We leave intact a new requirement that the President submit 
to the Congress within the next 3 months a comprehensive, long-term 
strategy to achieve stability in the Middle East over the next 5 years.
  As events of the last few months have shown, the situation on the 
ground has, and we all hope will, continue to improve dramatically. 
Congress has and will continue to debate the proper course of the war, 
as it should. However, we should not and cannot vote to hold troop 
funding hostage to that debate. The only ones hurt by that are our 
troops and their families.
  As we go home to enjoy the holidays with our families, how can any of 
us look our soldiers' families in the eye and explain to them that we 
are withholding their funding so that we can score political points. 
That is just wrong. Our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen and their 
families deserve more from all of us.
  I urge adoption of this motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Who wishes to claim the time in opposition?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I certainly do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that I have a great deal of 
affection for the gentleman from Florida. I think he makes as good an 
argument for a bad case as you can possibly find. Let me simply say 
that this recommittal motion is very easy to understand, which is why 
it ought to be defeated. It simply gives the President all the money in 
this bill, unconditionally. It is simply a down payment on business as 
usual. It simply strips the timeline from this legislation. It renews 
the authority for torture. It eliminates the requirement that 
interrogation activities follow the Army Field Manual. Outside of those 
problems, it's a terrific idea.
  So I would simply urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
  Mr. MURTHA. I want the Members to know I carry in my pocket the names 
of 18 people who have been killed from my district. Two years ago, I 
said this is a failed policy wrapped in illusion. I am absolutely 
convinced that there's more instability in the Middle East today than 
there was then.
  This recommittal motion works against everything we are trying to do. 
We want a plan. We want a plan in Iraq. We want stability in the Middle 
East. We don't have stability. Pakistan, Afghanistan, and of course 
Turkey might even go into the Middle East. So when you talk about 
victory, you're talking about stability, which we don't have. It's 
absolutely essential to put a plan in place that holds the President 
accountable.
  All this time the President has asked for things and we have given 
them to him. For 5 years we have said to the President of the United 
States, You need money, we are going to give to it you. Now we are 
saying we are going to have a new plan, and that plan is going to 
change the direction of this war, and we are going to bring those 
troops who fought so honorably home to their families.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and ask 
for a ``no'' vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced the 
noes appear to have it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 192, 
nays 231, not voting 10, as follows:

[[Page 31485]]



                            [Roll No. 1107]

                               YEAS--192

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

                               NAYS--231

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bono
     Carson
     Cubin
     Doyle
     Hastert
     Jindal
     Mack
     Oberstar
     Sessions
     Weller

                              {time}  2146

  Messrs. MORAN of Kansas and Lampson changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 203, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1108]

                               YEAS--218

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

                               NAYS--203

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof

[[Page 31486]]


     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNulty
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Lewis (GA)
       

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bono
     Carson
     Cubin
     Doyle
     Hastert
     Jindal
     Mack
     Oberstar
     Pearce
     Sessions
     Weller

                              {time}  2201

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

                          ____________________