[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7316-7326]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1591, U.S. TROOP READINESS, 
          VETERANS' HEALTH, AND IRAQ ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2007

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 261 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 261

       Resolved,  That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 
     be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1591) 
     making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2007, 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 
     amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 
     The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) four 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 
     with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 1591 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to a time designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). The gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter) is recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1430

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all 
Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks on House Resolution 261.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 261 provides for the 
consideration of the emergency supplemental, the U.S. Troops Readiness, 
Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act. The rule provides 4 hours 
of general debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the 
amendment printed in the Rules Committee report shall be considered as 
adopted. The rule waives all points of order against the bill as 
amended and provides that the bill, as amended, shall be considered as 
read. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, with a deep appreciation for how critical this bill is, 
the Rules Committee reported out a rule that allows for 4 hours of what 
will be a full debate. It allows for the consideration of clear and 
concise legislation that everyone in the Congress is familiar with. It 
is a responsible rule, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
  But we are here today to debate much more than procedure, Mr. 
Speaker. We meet today on the fourth day of the fifth year of the war 
in Iraq, a conflict that has gone on longer than the Korean War, even 
longer than the Second World War, that war being fought against the 
greatest threat to world security.
  The scenarios painted by politicians here about the war in Iraq don't 
affect the men and women fighting it or living it. They actually know 
what the world for them really is. And what is that reality? This is a 
war being fought by soldiers who often do not have the equipment they 
need or the care they are owed. And it is not improving security for 
the Iraqi people. It is depleting our military and endangering the 
security of this Nation; and that is to this day based on a flawed 
strategy that desperately needs to be changed.
  Under such circumstances, for this Congress to support an open-ended 
commitment to this conflict, passing yet another blank check as past 
Congresses have done, would be a dereliction of duty. By contrast, 
passing a bill that has a chance of changing a stagnant situation in 
Iraq is not micromanaging; it is living up to what we owe our soldiers 
and the Iraqi people, to give them a fighting chance for success.
  The supplemental makes America's continued involvement in Iraq 
conditional on the situation there improving. America's soldiers will 
no longer be asked to fight in an open-ended war whose goal line keeps 
moving. The bill would require Iraqi leaders to make the political 
compromises necessary to produce a working government, or risk losing 
the American military support. It will require the President's own 
security benchmarks to be met if American soldiers are to continue 
sacrificing their safety for that goal. And it will be the first step 
toward ending the war.
  Ending this flawed conflict is crucial not just for Iraq, but also 
for the future of our own military and, hence, to our own national 
security.
  This Congress was aghast when it learned of the conditions of Walter 
Reed. But every day, the men and women of our military are suffering 
beyond reason. Let me briefly share one story with you that I recently 
heard, the story of a young lieutenant awaiting his second deployment 
to Iraq.
  His first tour saw him bravely patrolling dangerous streets north of 
Baghdad. He returned last December, expecting a year on base during 
which to rest and train a new platoon. Instead, with the escalation in 
place, he will be heading back months sooner. The soldiers under his 
command are not getting the time they need to train properly for their 
mission. The vehicles and equipment they use to train for war are 
failing and often break. They are physically weary, many still 
suffering from the lingering effects of leg and back injuries. Others 
are in counseling for post-traumatic stress disorder. Most of the 
soldiers who were married before the war are now divorced. Their lives 
outside the conflict are coming apart.
  This lieutenant and his soldiers personify sacrifice. They never 
complain. When those in the military are given a mission, he told me, 
they find a way to complete it. That creed is why our Armed Forces are 
so strong.
  But what this officer did tell me is that our Armed Forces cannot go 
on

[[Page 7317]]

like this. He said that we are in danger of destroying our system of 
national defense. We see soldiers being sent back tour after tour, some 
too injured to wear the body armor. Our services are desperately trying 
to find a way to meet new troop requirements, sending back the wounded.
  Mr. Speaker, this war is a dramatic misuse of our military. In the 
name of our national security, it is undermining the only true 
guarantor of national security that we have, our Armed Forces. And for 
years this Congress has let it happen, but not anymore.
  Today the House will finally recognize that our military is at the 
breaking point, not because of any inherent weakness, but because it is 
being asked to complete a flawed mission. And so that mission itself 
must change.
  Let me add as well that while our soldiers may stoically bear the 
burdens of short leaves and shoddy equipment, that in no way means that 
we in Congress should allow it to happen.
  This bill respects our men and women in uniform enough to put their 
needs at the forefront of national priorities. From now on, if they are 
asked to go into battle without being fully armored, fully rested, and 
fully trained, then the President himself will have to stand before 
them, look them in the eye, and explain why he thinks our national 
safety is worth that level of sacrifice.
  The legislation will also provide desperately needed funds for 
veterans' health care. Our country is seeing more wounded soldiers 
returning from abroad than at any point in 40 years, and yet our health 
care system has failed thousands of them. It is unconscionable, and it 
is long past time that that state of affairs is radically changed.
  And, finally, this bill both increases funding for the ongoing 
conflict in Afghanistan and for a variety of other critically important 
national security objectives. Taken together, it represents the 
beginning of what will be a responsible and ethical shift in our 
national security priorities away from a war in Iraq that we can't end 
and back towards where it ought to be.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is the first real chance that Democrats 
have had since 2003 to change the course of the war in Iraq, and we 
intend to do it. We will do it not because we are conceding anything to 
those who would do our Nation harm, not because we lack the will to 
fight for security, and not because, as some would have you believe, we 
are giving up. With this first step, we will change the course of this 
war because the future of the people of America depends on it, because 
a basic level of respect for our soldiers demands it, and because the 
long-term security of our Nation requires it.
  This is an important and historic bill, and I am proud to support it. 
I urge all of my colleagues to do the same thing.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York, the 
distinguished Chair on the Committee of Rules for yielding me the time, 
and I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in the strongest possible opposition to this rule 
and the underlying legislation. I could start this debate by quoting my 
Democratic colleagues on the Rules Committee when they decried 
Republican tactics over the last few years, how they railed against 
closed rules and chided me personally. I am a big guy, I can handle it. 
But they attacked me personally constantly for denying amendments that 
were offered by both Democrats and Republicans. I could quote every 
instance that they promised to do better, to have the most open and 
fair Congress in the history of this country, and to not have late-
night meetings. But today, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to do that. I am 
going to recognize that that would simply distract from this very, very 
important issue. Instead, I am going to simply provide the House, Mr. 
Speaker, and you witnessed much of this last night, with a factual 
account of what took place in the wee hours of this morning.
  Shortly before 1 a.m., the Rules Committee on party-line votes 
reported out two self-executing closed rules, and denied the 
consideration of some 70 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee 
from both Republicans and Democrats as well. That is what happened. 
There is no denying it. You, Mr. Speaker, witnessed it yourself when 
you were upstairs in the Rules Committee.
  So regardless of the process, this supplemental appropriations bill 
is a constitutionally dubious attempt at micromanaging the Iraq war 
into what I believe would be inevitable defeat if it succeeds. It 
enjoys such limited support on the other side of the aisle that it had 
to be ladened with unrelated pork in order to win enough votes to have 
any hope of passing. It is a cynical ploy that will leave dire 
consequences for the region, and for our own security, in its wake.
  The Constitution lays out a very clear system of checks and balances 
derived from the ideas of the Framers of our Constitution. By giving 
the three branches of government distinct roles, we guard ourselves 
against tyranny; we guard ourselves as individuals against tyranny in 
each branch.
  The President cannot wage war without authorization or funding from 
Congress. But if authorization and funding are granted, the President 
serves as the Commander in Chief with the authority to execute the war.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill ignores the intentions of those Framers, and 
it attempts to turn the Constitution on its head. James Madison, Father 
of the Constitution, the author of the Constitution in Federalist No. 
51, wrote, and I quote, ``In framing a government that is to be 
administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You 
must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the 
next place oblige it to control itself.''
  Mr. Speaker, Madison recognized the inherent challenges in designing 
a government that is both effective and limited. He knew that, without 
checks and balances, tyranny would, in fact, ensue.
  This bill attempts to diminish these checks and balances. It tries to 
turn Congress into a collection of 535 Commanders in Chief. This 
legislation of micromanagement is based on a disastrous strategy. Its 
authors fund the war, and then mandate its failure. They seek to tie 
the hands of our military commanders, and then force them to retreat 
when they are unable to meet impossible timetables. They mandate the 
withdrawal with no regard for the situation on the ground, and then 
they sweeten the deal with $15 billion in money that is unrelated 
spending that has got a little something in there for practically 
everyone: $283 million for the milk income lost contract program; $74 
million for peanut storage costs; $1.3 billion for the Army Corps of 
Engineers. Billions and billions of dollars for these projects, some 
worthy, some not.

                              {time}  1445

  But none of them related to the troops, and what this is, this is a 
war funding supplemental. None of these are emergency items.
  Their only connection to emergency supplemental appropriations for 
the war, Mr. Speaker, in Iraq, is that they are necessary to build 
support for this bill, a bill that trades victory for electoral gains. 
Make no mistake, this legislation is a political solution for 
Democrats, not a strategy for winning in Iraq.
  And what would the consequences of defeat be? The National 
Intelligence Estimate, the 9/11 Commission, and our people on the 
ground have all made it very clear that a precipitous withdrawal would 
have catastrophic consequences. The carnage of the battle of Baghdad 
that we are witnessing today will be just the beginning. Violence will 
spill out across the country and spread to the entire region.
  In our absence, Iran and Syria will be utterly unfettered in their 
ability to incite a regional war that threatens global security, with 
enormous casualties suffered by the people of the region.
  Proponents of a policy of defeat often point to our diminished 
standing in the international community. But what about our standing 
with the Iraqi people? Terrorist attacks on our own soil

[[Page 7318]]

have demonstrated that our security and their security are directly 
linked.
  And, Mr. Speaker, Operation Iraqi Freedom has bound us even more 
closely. We have a commitment to help the Iraqi people establish 
lasting security through democracy. We have a commitment not to abandon 
them to be slaughtered by terrorists.
  And if we retreat, we not only abandon the Iraqi people, we draw 
terrorism back to our own doorstep. Have we so soon forgotten the 
tragedy of attacks on our homeland?
  We took the war on terror to the terrorists and have suffered not one 
attack since September 11 of 2001.
  With this bill, we would bring the war on terror back home. Only this 
time we will have strengthened the terrorists ourselves with a road map 
for success. We will have demonstrated precisely what it takes to 
defeat the United States of America. We will have clearly signaled to 
them that they must simply bide their time until the mandated retreat, 
at which time they will be able to terrorize with impunity.
  I, like many Americans, Mr. Speaker, have been discouraged by this 
war. We all feel the toll that it has taken. And we are keenly aware of 
the price that we are paying, especially in a human sense. Every one of 
my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, has, as I have, looked in the faces of 
constituents whose family and friends have made the ultimate sacrifice 
in this war. Their pain is very real, and their loss is profound.
  I regularly talk to a man called Ed Blecksmith whose son J.P. was 
tragically killed 2 years ago this past November in the very famous 
battle of Fallujah. And he has, time and time again, said to me, if we 
don't complete this mission, my son J.P. will have died in vain.
  But we do not honor those who have sacrificed by abandoning their 
mission. We do not honor those in the field who are fighting, as we 
speak, by tying their hands and depriving them of the means to succeed. 
We will honor them by winning the war in Iraq so that our men and women 
come home having completed their mission.
  We know that their mission will not be complete in the immediate 
future. As President Bush and General David Petraeus have both 
acknowledged, success will take months, not days or weeks. But there 
are signs of hope that the President's new plans, under General 
Petraeus, are working.
  As Brian Williams of NBC reported from the field in Iraq, he said, 
``This change in policy, getting out, decentralizing, going into the 
neighborhoods, grabbing a toehold, telling the enemy we are here, 
talking to the locals, that is having an obvious and palpable effect. 
There are hopeful signs.'' That was said by the NBC news anchor, Brian 
Williams.
  Mr. Speaker, to abandon our mission now would be disastrous. I urge 
my colleagues to reject the policy of defeat, reject the return of 
terrorism to our homeland, and reject this unconstitutional power grab 
whose sole purpose is to cede victory to our enemies.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that this is a 
difficult day for me.
  I voted against this war from the very beginning when this vote was 
not politically popular. I was an original member of the Out of Iraq 
Caucus.
  As far back as 2005 I introduced legislation to end funding for the 
war, which I believe has been one of the worst political, military, 
diplomatic and moral blunders in our Nation's history.
  My bill calls for the immediate, safe and orderly withdrawal of all 
of our troops from Iraq, and I urge my colleagues to join me in that 
legislation.
  I want this war to come to an end today. Unfortunately, and to my 
deep disappointment, not enough of my colleagues, Democrat or 
Republican, believe as I do.
  I have come to the conclusion that defeating the supplemental bill 
before us today would send a message to George Bush and Dick Cheney 
that they will continue to have a free pass from this Congress to do 
whatever the hell they want to do.
  The Bush administration, with their ``Mission Accomplished'' banners 
and their shifting rationales, must be held to account. We simply 
cannot trust them any longer. I lost my trust in this administration a 
long, long time ago.
  I fear that defeating this bill would result in more of the same, 
more deceit and empty promises, more ignored benchmarks and missed 
deadlines, more American casualties, more debt passed on to our 
children and our grandchildren, more harm to our reputation around the 
world, and more war.
  I cannot do that. I will not do that. So I will vote ``yes.''
  This is not the bill that I want. This is not the bill that I would 
have written. But it is the bill that the Appropriations Committee has 
presented to us today, and it is a bill that reflects the hard reality 
that this is the toughest measure that we can get passed and get 218 
votes for.
  For the first time, we can mandate real and meaningful deadlines that 
clearly reflect the disgust so many of us have with how this war has 
been conducted.
  This bill also provides $1.7 billion to address the health care needs 
of our veterans, particularly those suffering from traumatic brain 
injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. Too many of our veterans 
can't even get diagnosed, let alone treated. That is wrong, and this 
bill begins to fix it.
  Quite frankly, I have concluded that this bill is the best that we 
can do, for now. I say that very deliberately, ``for now,'' because 
those of us who oppose this war will continue our efforts to end it. I 
want all of our troops out of Iraq and back home with their families 
where they belong.
  I will propose much stronger language and, indeed, continue to press 
for the immediate withdrawal of all of our troops in the defense bills 
that are coming in the weeks ahead.
  My old boss, Joe Moakley, stares at me from his portrait every day in 
the Rules Committee. He used to say that if the Democratic Party were 
in Europe, we would be 16 different parties.
  So I want to just take a moment to commend the leadership of Dave 
Obey and Jack Murtha and Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn and Rahm Emanuel for 
all of their hard work these past few weeks. They have anguished over 
this issue, as all of us have.
  And I especially want to commend our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. She has 
been a forceful and effective opponent of this war from the very 
beginning, and I know she will continue to do all that she can to bring 
all of us, Republicans and Democrats, together to finally bring this 
terrible war to an end.
  I am grateful to my colleagues in the Out of Iraq Caucus for their 
continued and forceful leadership. And I also want to thank all of the 
national and grass-roots activists and organizations who have done so 
much to oppose this war. I truly believe that the American people are 
way ahead of the politicians in Washington on this issue, and it is my 
hope that some day soon Congress and the White House will catch up.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to a very hardworking member of the Committee on Rules, the 
gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
opposition to this closed rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, since the war on terror began, the Rules Committee has 
granted an open rule for every wartime supplemental spending bill 
brought to the floor, thus giving every Member an opportunity to offer 
an amendment and have their say on those supplemental bills.
  In the Rules Committee last night, we heard passionate testimony from 
several Members on both sides of the aisle. Some Members spoke about 
the need to continuing funding our troops to complete our mission, 
while others offered hard deadlines for withdrawal, regardless of 
consequence.
  In the end, over 50 amendments were offered to the Rules Committee to 
be made in order for consideration on the

[[Page 7319]]

House floor today. Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, not one single amendment, 
let me repeat that, not one of the 50 amendments will be allowed to be 
considered by the full House. And, Mr. Speaker, I am truly disappointed 
with that.
  The bill we have before us today contains restrictions on funding and 
conditions on what our troops are able to do that are simply, to me, 
unacceptable. We have military leaders for a reason. Making 435 Members 
of Congress commanders in the field is a formula for failure, which I 
am deeply concerned will have a long-term consequence on our security 
here at home.
  By placing restrictions on funds, hamstringing our military and 
calling for an arbitrary withdrawal, this bill will jeopardize the 
ability of our troops to do their jobs to defend America.
  A wartime spending bill, Mr. Speaker, should have, above all else, to 
provide the support that our men and women in uniform need to 
accomplish their mission. By placing conditions on funding, this bill 
fails to do that. Conditions on funding make it impossible for our 
military leaders and our troops on the ground to respond to ever-
changing conditions on the battlefield.
  And finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill has more than just military 
funding. And I am disappointed now that it is only now, in an effort to 
attract votes for a bad bill that we know will never be signed into 
law, the Democrat leadership has decided to include in this bill an 
extension of rural county payments.
  I tried earlier this year to attach an extension to another bill. 
That bill became law. I also tried to have a long-term extension 
brought up on a vote, but the Democrat leadership said no, time and 
time again. Allowing the extension to come to the floor only on a bill 
that we know will be vetoed amounts to nothing more than false 
promises.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you very much, Ms. Slaughter, and 
thank you very much for your leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I have appended to this podium the faces of 90 people 
who never should have lost their lives in this war.
  Mr. Speaker, when I voted against using troops in Iraq more than 4 
years ago, I believed then, and still believe today, that this was not 
a war of necessity, but rather for the Bush administration a war of 
choice and convenience. As we have learned since that vote, the concern 
that I and others had was, indeed, justified.
  Today's vote is not a vote on supporting our troops. After all, there 
is no choice when it comes to supporting our military. We all stand by 
them, Republicans and Democrats alike, especially when they are in 
harm's way.
  But should we send our troops into battle without proper body armor? 
For over 4 years the Bush administration has said ``yes.'' Democrats 
have said ``no.''
  Should we force our troops into second and third and fourth tours of 
duties with shortened times in between those tours? The Bush 
administration continues to say ``yes.'' Democrats say ``no.''
  Should we welcome home our troops with inhumane conditions at our VA 
hospitals around this Nation, not just at Walter Reed, and a 
shortchanged veterans health care system? The Bush administration says 
``yes.'' Democrats say ``no.''
  Should we stay the course of rhetorical arguments filled with fear 
and deception, like I have heard here today? Or should we finally start 
holding this administration and the Iraqi Government accountable? For 
over 4 years the Bush administration has said ``stay the course.'' 
Democrats and the American people demand accountability and a plan to 
bring our men and women home.
  Choices arise only when we start asking ourselves the real questions 
about how we can best support and protect our troops. On these issues, 
there are very clear choices between the Bush administration's ``stay 
the course'' stubbornness and the Democratic plan for accountability.

                              {time}  1500

  This bill is not the end-all-be-all when it comes to getting us out 
of Iraq. It is not the long-term solution which so many of us crave. 
But it is the first step, a very necessary step, on the road to holding 
the administration and the Iraqi Government accountable and bringing 
our troops home.
  Many Democrats did not vote for this war, but make no mistake about 
it, one way or another we will end it. Incidentally, whatever happened 
to exit strategy? Most importantly, we will do so in a manner that 
enhances our security here at home and contributes to the restoration 
of order and stability in the Middle East region and throughout the 
world.
  This is an excellent rule, Madam Chairman, and the bill that has been 
fashioned by the Speaker and the leadership of this House is a correct 
start to adhere to the wishes of the American people.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes 
to another hardworking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman 
from Miami (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend 
from California for the time.
  I rise to strongly oppose this rule and the underlying legislation 
that is being brought to the floor. For obviously substantive grounds, 
I oppose the legislation being brought to the floor.
  I think that we are at a decisive time, more even than a critical 
time, a decisive time in the conflict in Iraq. And I think that now to 
be substantively, as this legislation does, tying the hands of our 
military personnel and, in effect, saying, well, if things don't go 
totally appropriately, totally correctly, if they don't go right, then 
you must withdraw.
  And I think about other wars in the past and what would have happened 
if we would have had those kinds of requisites. If we had tied the 
hands of the military leaders in the past, there would have been 
disaster then. There would be disaster now if this legislation passes.
  And for procedural reasons also, Mr. Speaker, I am strongly against 
this legislation. As strongly as I oppose some of the amendments that 
were brought forth to the Rules Committee, I supported the right of 
Members to bring forth those ideas and have them considered, but the 
majority in the Rules Committee rejected them.
  During the time that we were in the majority, we never brought a 
wartime supplemental bill to this floor with a closed rule. It is 
unfortunate that the majority is doing so today.
  For the substantive reasons that I have mentioned and many others, 
Mr. Speaker, as well as the significant procedural reasons that I have 
touched upon, that this House is being closed down with regard to the 
ability to present amendments today, I urge rejection of this rule as 
well as of the legislation being brought forth today.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding me time and her leadership on the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress is on the cusp of an historic step, a 
first step to changing Iraq policy, enacting a fixed timetable to bring 
our troops home. The bill made in order under this rule is not perfect, 
but it deserves our strong support because it offers us our best chance 
at forcing a change of direction in Iraq after 4 long years of 
mismanagement.
  Mr. Speaker, I opposed this war from the beginning, and I believe we 
must bring our troops home soon and in a responsible way. The 
President's reckless insistence on sticking to a failed policy in Iraq 
underlines the need for Congress to show leadership. This legislation 
gives us the chance for the first time to take a concrete step towards 
bringing the war to a close.
  This bill does not go as far as I would like. I support a more rapid 
redeployment of our troops from Iraq. I also

[[Page 7320]]

strongly believe the President should not be allowed to waive the 
legislation's troop readiness requirements. But it has become clear in 
recent weeks that this is the most aggressive approach that can obtain 
the necessary votes to pass this House. That is the reality here. This 
is, after all, the legislative branch. That means we can't change the 
policy if we can't pass the bill.
  Enacting a fixed timetable to bring our troops home is a very 
significant leap forward in our Iraq policy. It provides a foundation 
for further action and increases pressure on the President. That is why 
the President opposes it so strongly. Defeating this bill would 
ultimately play into the President's hands, resulting in the eventual 
passage of a blank-check bill that places fewer restraints on the 
President.
  Ultimately Congress faces a choice: Do we set a timetable to bring 
the troops home while providing for the troops in harm's way, or do we 
give the administration a blank check for a war without end?
  I choose to begin steps to end the war. For that reason I urge all 
Members to support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from New York, the distinguished 
chairman of our committee, Ms. Slaughter for the time and for her 
leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, in the next twenty-four hours, this Congress will 
undertake a historic first step to changing our Iraq policy.
  The bill made in order under this rule is not a perfect bill. But it 
deserves our strong support because it will bring a critical change of 
direction in Iraq after four long years of mismanagement.
  Mr. Speaker, I opposed this war from the beginning. And I believe we 
must bring our troops home soon and in a responsible way. Our men and 
women in uniform have done everything we have asked of them.
  They have endured multiple deployments and extended separation from 
their loved ones. They have followed orders into combat often without 
the proper body armor or equipment.
  These are signs of an inexcusable lack of leadership from the 
President. Rather than change direction, the President has chosen to 
send tens of thousands of additional troops to Iraq.
  This goes against the advice of his generals . . . against the advice 
of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group . . . and against the expressed 
wishes of the voters.
  The President's reckless insistence on sticking to a failed policy in 
Iraq underlines the need for Congress to show leadership.
  I support Congress taking firm steps to change our Nation's direction 
in Iraq. And I have cosponsored legislation to establish a timetable 
for redeployment of our troops.
  As I said at the beginning, Congress has a historic opportunity to 
demonstrate its responsible leadership with this bill. And that's the 
prism through which I evaluate my vote this week.
  The decision comes down to this--do we want to enact a bill that has 
flaws but does contain a fixed timetable to bring our troops home? Or 
do we want to vote down the fixed timetable and endorse President 
Bush's ability to continue to wage this war without any limits?
  This bill does not go as far as I would like. I support a more rapid 
redeployment of our troops from Iraq. I also strongly believe the 
President should not be allowed to waive the legislation's troop 
readiness requirements.
  Because of his gross mismanagement of the conflict, I believe the 
President has abdicated any right to deference on that front.
  Having said that, it has become clear in recent weeks that this is 
the most aggressive approach that can obtain the necessary votes to 
pass the House of Representatives.
  That is disappointing to me, but that is the reality here. This is, 
after all, the legislative branch. That means we can't change the 
policy if we can't pass the bill.
  Enacting a fixed timetable to bring our troops home is a very 
significant leap forward in our Iraq policy. It provides a foundation 
for further action and increases pressure on the President. That is why 
the President opposes it so strongly.
  To defeat this bill would result in the eventual passage of a blank 
check bill that places even fewer responsibilities on the President.
  I believe it is simply unacceptable to give the President permission 
to mismanage the war as he chooses.
  Ultimately, Congress faces a choice: Do we set a timetable to bring 
the troops home while providing for our troops in the field at every 
moment?
  Or do we give the Administration a blank check for a war without end? 
I believe Congress must choose the former.
  This legislation, whatever its flaws may be, enacts a timetable to 
bring our troops home while giving them the resources they need for 
protection while they are still in harm's way. For that reason, I am 
voting yes on the supplemental appropriations bill.
  I urge all Members to support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes 
to another hardworking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman 
from Dallas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to inquire if the gentleman has 
notified the Blue Dog Caucus that it is time for them to rush out front 
of their offices and put an extra $25 billion on the national debt. 
Have we given that notice yet for their offices to begin doing that?
  We will find out whether they are going to vote for this 25 extra 
billion dollars that I think is way too much in the emergency 
supplemental.
  Mr. Speaker, once again the Democrats are refusing to operate under 
the rules they campaigned on to open up the political process and use 
PAYGO rules to fully fund and offset any new mandatory spending.
  Today is a particularly egregious example of their irresponsible 
leadership as they threaten to leave our troops in the lurch by 
micromanaging the war against the United States by terrorists, while 
also leaving American taxpayers holding the bag by declaring hundreds 
of millions of dollars in new mandatory spending as an ``emergency.''
  SCHIP is an important program where States are given a fixed annual 
allotment to assist them in providing health care coverage to near-
poverty children and pregnant women. However, a few States want to use 
their SCHIP program to provide health care services to expanded 
populations that go well beyond the scope of the original program, even 
though they signed an agreement stating that they promised to pay for 
any additional costs with their own State funds or to offset those 
within the Medicaid program.
  Despite this agreement, Mr. Speaker, a number of States have told 
Congress that overspending their Federal allotment was their intention 
all along. Once again they come to Uncle Sam to get a bailout.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not an emergency. This is a loophole being 
exploited by the Democratic leadership. So today the Democrat 
leadership is telling these States, You don't have to keep your 
promises to the Federal Government, and you don't have to worry. We 
don't mind exploiting a loophole in the rules and calling this an 
``emergency'' even though we have known for years that this would 
happen.
  Mr. Speaker, I am voting against this.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cardoza).
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and 
the underlying bill.
  It is the responsibility of this Congress, ladies and gentlemen, to 
demand accountability from this President and insist on concrete 
results from the Iraqi Government. Ladies and gentlemen, our troops are 
laying their lives on the line every single day. The least we can do is 
demand and require Iraqi accountability. This bill embraces that 
responsibility and sets the stage for handing over control of security 
of Iraq to the Iraqis.
  It is also the responsibility of this Congress to provide our troops 
with the resources they need to do their jobs. And let there be no 
confusion. This bill provides full funding for our men and women in 
uniform, who continue to serve the country with great courage and 
dedication.
  This bill also provides $1.7 billion in new funding for veterans' 
health care, something that is direly needed. The state of veterans' 
health care in America is in crisis, and our troops deserve better.
  In addition, this bill will help us refocus our efforts on those who 
attacked us on September 11 by increasing funding for the war against 
al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

[[Page 7321]]

  It is deeply troubling to me that this war in Iraq has undermined our 
efforts to address the urgent threats in the war on terror. After 
failing to kill Osama bin Laden when we had the chance at Tora Bora, 
the administration turned its attention to Iraq, allowing the Taliban 
to regain lost ground in Afghanistan.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, our goals in Iraq must reflect reality. For far 
too long Congress served as nothing more than a rubber stamp for this 
President's disastrous policy in Iraq. Those days, Mr. Speaker, are 
over. Iraq has descended into a bloody civil war that cannot be 
resolved by the American military. Even our military commander in Iraq, 
General Petraeus, has said there is no military solution to this 
conflict.
  The Sunni-Shia divide goes back 1,400 years. America alone cannot 
reverse 14 centuries of division and hate.
  I support the rule, and I support the underlying bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my good friend, member of the Appropriations Committee, the 
gentleman from Goddard, Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this supplemental funding is one of the most important 
bills that Congress will be considering this year, and I am very 
disappointed that the Democrat leadership has mandated that this bill 
come to the floor under a closed rule.
  I have heard the Democrats say that this is not a perfect rule. It is 
perfectly wrong; that is what it is.
  What does a closed rule mean? It means voices will not be heard. It 
means ideas will be silenced. A closed rule means that no amendments 
will be allowed to the bill, that no alternative plan to fully fund the 
troops will be allowed.
  I only have 2 minutes to discuss this, not enough time to explain to 
the American people how this puts our troops at risk or question why 
the Speaker believes she has the right to micromanage the war in Iraq.
  We spent a whole week debating the nonbinding resolution on Iraq, and 
now we have only 4 hours of how to best fund and support our troops. It 
is not enough time to explain title IX, where the language of the bill 
prevents our troops from receiving reinforcements or replacements. It 
is not enough time to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 
supplemental will fulfill the goals of al Qaeda's leader al-Zawahiri. 
It is not enough time to show the American people how this supplemental 
replaces the Iraqi National Congress by imposing on their government 
demands, demands to change their Constitution, demands to change their 
laws.
  This is an unfair rule that represents broken promises for a more 
open Congress made by the Speaker. This is a rule that should be 
defeated.
  I am going to vote ``no'' on this, and I encourage my colleagues to 
also vote ``no'' on this rule. It is an unfair bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, the President's Iraq policy has 
been a complete catastrophe. It must be challenged. It must be changed. 
We must end this war.
  The question we face is clear: Will Congress rubber-stamp a fifth 
year of a failed policy, or will Congress finally, after 4 straight 
years of lock-step compliance with an incompetent administration, 
compel a new direction that ends the war?
  The President has arrogantly asserted that he will veto any measure 
with a timetable. Mr. Speaker, I will not support any bill without a 
timetable. If I had a chance to write this bill, like my colleague from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), I would bring our troops home yesterday. 
But I did not write this bill, so I must measure it based on three 
criteria: Does it impose accountability on the President and Iraqis? 
Does it revoke the President's blank check? Does it establish a date 
certain with the force of law that will end this war?

                              {time}  1515

  This bill meets each of these objectives. Regrettably if this bill 
fails, the war will continue, unchecked and unabated.
  It is time for the Iraqis to accept responsibility for shaping their 
own future. Even President Bush has acknowledged the importance of 
imposing measurable benchmarks of success on the Iraqi Government. This 
legislation replaces Presidential lip service with congressional force 
of law.
  There is a reason the President threatens to veto this bill: It is 
because Congress is finally revoking his blank check.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no easy way to clean up the mess in Iraq or to 
avert further suffering. Our obligation remains to decide, at this time 
and place, whether to stay the President's course or to end this war as 
soon as possible.
  I will support this bill because it finally puts us on the path to 
end the unconscionable war.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). All Members are reminded not 
to make improper references regarding the President's character.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I want to say I thank you for admonishing 
the prior speaker. The words that he used could have been taken down. 
We don't need people out here on the floor calling the President names.
  I appreciate what the Speaker said to him, and I hope other Members 
will listen.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not posed a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a former member 
of the Committee on Rules, who works hard on the Armed Services 
Committee now.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today not only in strong opposition 
to this ``our way or the highway'' rule, but also to the underlying 
bill, which I believe encroaches on the constitutional principle of 
separation of power, particularly the President's authority as 
Commander in Chief.
  Regretfully, this rule prevents every single Member of this body, 
both Democrats and Republicans, from offering an amendment to an 
emergency wartime supplemental appropriations act, a highly 
unprecedented attack on the democratic process.
  Mr. Speaker, I recognize the majority is insistent on a force pullout 
from Iraq, but the language in this supplemental puts this war and the 
soldiers' lives on autopilot. This legislation makes a flash-point 
decision about the war, about our men and women on the ground, with 
little regard to the actual facts 6 months, a year, and indeed 17 
months from now. It looks like ``Magic 8-Ball'' foreign policy.
  Last night, Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment to the Rules 
Committee. Unfortunately, it was not made in order, but it would have 
required this Congress to reevaluate the situation in Iraq at each of 
these timelines in the so-called Murtha language. So whatever the 
benchmarks, then we would have to come back and vote again, clean up or 
down vote, whether or not we want to bring the troops home.
  Mr. Speaker, that is especially important at the drop-dead date of 
August of 2008, when this bill basically says no matter what, the 
troops come home, even if we have got the bad guys on the run. I think 
every Member of this body would want to support an amendment like this, 
so that we would once again be able to vote and reconsider, considering 
the situation on the ground.
  So this legislation sets a dangerous precedent, and I respectfully 
ask my colleagues, oppose the rule, oppose the underlying bill. Let's 
work, both Republican and Democrat alike, let's produce a supplemental 
that will actually pass this House, pass the Senate and be signed by 
the President. Do right by our American soldiers, and our people and 
the people in Iraq.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

[[Page 7322]]


  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Rules Committee 
Chair.
  Mr. Speaker, the Iraq Accountability Act under this rule is the most 
responsible way to chart a new direction to the Bush-Cheney stay-the-
course policy in Iraq, to bring our troops home and to protect our 
national security.
  The American people are way beyond the politicians at both ends of 
Pennsylvania Avenue. Nevertheless, our government is at a crossroads. 
On the one hand, some want to continue to endorse the Bush-Cheney war 
without end, a war that the administration sought because they were 
blinded by the prospects of oil profits. They want to continue a blank-
check, rubber-stamp, diplomatically impotent position.
  On the other hand, I urge my colleagues to patriotically stand up for 
a greater Nation, be strategically smarter and support our brave men 
and women in uniform. That is the responsible course of action.
  Ensuring that our troops in the field have all of the resources they 
require is the responsible thing to do. Focusing again in a meaningful 
way on al Qaeda and the Taliban is the responsible thing to do. 
Improving health care for injured soldiers and veterans is the 
responsible thing to do. And oversight of the misspending and waste by 
the executive branch is the responsible thing to do.
  Requiring the Iraqi Government to provide for its own defense is the 
right and responsible thing to do, so that we can take our brave men 
and women in uniform out of the middle of the Iraqi civil war and bring 
our troops home.
  As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I am particularly 
concerned that the reckless Bush escalation will continue to undermine 
our country's readiness and ability to address other threats to our 
national security. Indeed, in recent testimony before our committee, 
the Army Chief of Staff testified that America will run a strategic 
risk by implementing the escalation and staying on the same course in 
Iraq.
  The American people are demanding a new direction from the White 
House. This includes one of my neighbors in Tampa, Armando B. Arias.
  Mr. Arias would meet anyone's definition of ``patriot.'' He loves his 
country and has served in two separate wars--World War II and Korea. 
When I asked him a few months back when I knocked on his door in West 
Tampa what he most wanted his new Congresswoman to work on, he replied 
immediately, ``get out of the war and ring our kids home.''
  I am proud to be here today to keep that commitment to Armando Arias 
and Americans everywhere who are demanding fundamental change.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and the Iraq Accountability Act.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the ranking 
Republican on the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from 
Janesville, Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill takes the cake. Let me tell you why this bill 
takes the cake. For all the talk about fiscal discipline we have 
received from the new majority, this bill represents an egregious 
violation of the budget rules that the Democrat majority set for itself 
just recently.
  Last year in the 109th Congress, we decided to put in place a new 
tool of fiscal discipline, one that said if it is really an emergency, 
then it should be an emergency, but don't put pork and unrelated 
programs into emergency spending bills. So we set up a procedure, a 
procedure that set aside $6.45 billion to be reserved for domestic 
emergencies. If we had more money needed above that, the Budget 
Committee would meet, the Budget Committee would determine whether or 
not a particular program met the definition of a legitimate emergency, 
and then it would raise the corresponding amount, which then the 
Appropriations Committee could use.
  Last night we met in the Budget Committee. We could have easily added 
a discussion or a vote on whether or not this extra $22 billion fit the 
definition of a legitimate emergency and raised the amount, but what 
did this new majority do, after putting in place these rules that we 
had from the 109th Congress to this 110th Congress? They waived them. 
They are gone. All of this talk about fiscal discipline, all this talk 
of PAYGO, of paying for things, what happened? Gone. Waived.
  We added an amendment last night in the Budget Committee during the 
resolution markup to continue these rules next year so that we can't 
pork up emergency spending bills. Both parties have been guilty of 
this. Please note that I say that. What happened? They voted it down. 
So not only are we not living by the rules put in place just in 
January, we canceled the rules for next year.
  So what happens? This bill puts $22 billion in unrelated, unrequested 
spending, having nothing to do with the war, in here. And the idea that 
we police emergencies, that we make sure that when you do an emergency 
spending bill with no offsets, that it really is an emergency, and that 
we police it and we look at it in the Budget Committee, gone.
  The days of fiscal discipline have left. Last night in this budget, 
the Democrat majority passed the largest tax increase in American 
history. The reason they passed the largest tax increase in American 
history is because that is the only way they can balance the budget to 
also accommodate all the new spending they called for, because this 
budget had zero savings, no controls on spending, nothing but tax 
increases. And now they are waiving the rules so that they can bring 
any emergency spending bill they want without checking as to whether or 
not it truly is a legitimate emergency.
  Mr. Speaker, for this, and many, many, many other reasons, fiscal 
discipline, using the rules and obeying the rules and not handcuffing 
our generals, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this rule and a ``no'' vote on 
the underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Arcuri).
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairwoman of the 
Rules Committee and fellow New Yorker for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, for months I have said that our country needs a plan to 
ensure the timely redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. The previous 
Congress failed in their duty to provide oversight and refused to ask 
the tough questions regarding the management of this poorly planned and 
ill-conceived war. To say, as some of my Republican colleagues have, 
that passage of this legislation would somehow embolden our enemies or 
send the wrong message to our allies is just a blatant distortion of 
the truth.
  The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability 
Act lays out for the first time a responsible and realistic strategy 
for completing our mission in Iraq and bringing our brave troops home 
as soon as possible. This is a responsible and deliberate plan to 
change the direction in Iraq without jeopardizing the safety and well-
being of our soldiers. The legislation sets a responsible timeline for 
the phased redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq with a date certain by 
August 2008 at the latest.
  The war in Iraq increasingly strains our military, creating a crisis 
in the U.S. troop readiness and decreasing our ability to respond to 
new threats. With more than 3,200 troops dead, more than 24,000 troops 
wounded, and more than $400 billion of taxpayer dollars spent, we have 
paid too high a price.
  We have a choice: We can continue the administration's open-ended 
commitment to a civil war in Iraq, or we can finish the job and begin a 
responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.
  The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability 
Act goes beyond a new direction for Iraq. It begins a new direction for 
our country, one in which veterans are taken care of, families provided 
for, and brave men and women in harm's way have the resources they need 
to get the job done.
  The legislation provides $1 billion to fight the global war on terror 
by putting the focus back where it should have been all along, 
Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden. The legislation

[[Page 7323]]

would also provide $2.5 billion in additional funding to ensure our 
troops are properly equipped.
  I would recommend a ``yes'' vote.
  The legislation would also provide $2.5 billion in additional funding 
to ensure that our troops are properly equipped and trained; $2.8 
billion for Defense Health Care; and $1.7 Billion for veterans' health 
care--including millions to address the maintenance backlog at VA 
health care facilities like Walter Reed--ensuring our veterans and 
troops get the care they need and deserve.
  I am proud to associate myself with this legislation because it will 
change our direction in Iraq, and provides the new direction for our 
country that the American people demanded last November.
  My constituents did not send me to Washington to serve as a rubber 
stamp for the Administration. I was sent to Washington to stand up 
against the mismanagement of this war and misplaced priorities of the 
Administration.
  True victory will be achieved when we bring all of our brave troops 
home--alive and uninjured. I would ask that if my children were serving 
in Iraq, and we as a nation should ask nothing less for our brave 
troops.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Bridgeport, Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the former 
chairman of the National Security Subcommittee, who has made 15 trips 
to Iraq.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, this closed rule allows only an up-or-down vote on the 
Democrats' proposal regarding needed military spending, but it contains 
an unrealistic timeline for the withdrawal of troops, and it includes 
bloated spending for nonmilitary expenditures.
  We all want to do the right thing for our troops in Iraq and the 
Iraqi people. This bill does not give us the opportunity to do either.
  I offered three amendments to the Rules Committee, and none were made 
in order because it made no amendment in order. One was to increase 
funding for our community action programs in Iraq, like Mercy Corps, 
who hire Iraqis in their organizations, and then the Iraqis are hired 
to do the work.
  A second amendment would have required the President to come in with 
a timeline and to then require the Iraqis to meet it, and needing a 60 
percent vote of support of this timeline or we leave even sooner.
  The third was to encourage this Congress to debate the Iraqi Study 
Group recommendations, which both Democrats and Republicans agree with.
  We could have done something on a bipartisan basis. We expect Iraqis 
to work out their differences and are critical when the Sunnis and 
Shias are unable to find common ground. Yet we in this Congress, 
Republicans and Democrats, are unable to work out our differences, and 
we don't even have to fear a bomb being blown off or an assassination 
attempt.
  We went into Iraq on a bipartisan basis. Two-thirds of the House and 
three-quarters of the Senate voted to go in. It is absolutely 
imperative we get out of Iraq on a bipartisan basis.
  I encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to allow us 
to have a bipartisan approach.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Lafayette, Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I rise in 
opposition to the rule and to this underlying bill, and I will tell you 
that it gives me no satisfaction to vote against a bill that has so 
many things that are important to my State in terms of gulf coast 
recovery and the relief effort after the hurricanes.
  But I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that is going to do 
unspeakable harm to our troops in the field and to our national 
security. I want to point out the fiscal fantasy also in this bill. I 
want to point out one item. There is $15 million in this bill for rice 
farmers in my district for salt water mitigation. That is twice the 
number of dollars that we needed months ago for this. So if we have 
that kind of bloating in the bill on one small item, I can't imagine 
what this $28 billion extra in the bill is all about.
  This bill is fiscal fantasy, and it does unspeakable harm to our 
national security. For those reasons, I oppose it vehemently.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair and my good friend for 
yielding.
  This bill will end the war in Iraq. This is the first enforceable 
challenge to the President's plan to escalate and continue a stay-the-
course, open-ended commitment to a war, a war that was launched with 
massive deception, and an unnecessary war.
  One gentleman questioned Congress' power. Congress' power under 
Article I, section 8 is very broad. We have the ability to modify the 
original authorization for war, and that is essentially what we are 
doing here by saying there will be an end to this war.
  A year ago, just 1 year ago this March, the President said it will be 
up to ``future Presidents,'' plural, not just the next one, plural, 
``and future governments of Iraq'' to determine when our troops might 
come home. That is not acceptable.
  Our troops are mired in the midst of a civil war. Oh, they have 
dragged out the old, If we don't fight them there, we'll fight them 
here. Well, unfortunately, the Republicans are contradicted by the 
Bush-appointed National Intelligence Director who says al Qaeda is not 
looking to have a base in Iraq and al Qaeda would be extraordinarily 
unlikely to attempt, and has no capability to attack the United States 
from Iraq; but they are looking to move back into Afghanistan, 
Afghanistan where we should have stayed focused, a legitimate war 
against the Taliban, al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden. Remember him? Dead 
or alive; dead or alive. He is still planning attacks against the 
United States of American, and Bush wants to mire us down day after day 
in a civil war.
  The Iraqis have to want to end this war. This bill will give them a 
motivation to begin to lay aside their ages' old grudges and begin to 
meaningfully cooperate and coordinate and share their oil wealth. That 
is the only way this is going to end. It is a civil war. They have been 
fighting it for 1,400 years. We need this bill. We need to motivate the 
Iraqis to bring an end to this war, and we need to refocus on the real 
threats to America.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
former attorney general of California, my friend from Folsom, a 
hardworking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Lungren.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, once again on this 
floor we have heard an argument stated much like was stated in the 
argument on the bill immediately preceding. Here we are dealing with a 
rule on a spending bill, and we are told by a number of speakers on the 
other side of the aisle that they would prefer that we do the 
constitutional thing, that is, that we exercise the power of the purse 
in the way we are allowed to; that is, to cut off funding for our 
troops to immediately get them home.
  But we have heard the reason why they don't bring that to the floor: 
they don't have the votes. And they use that as a reason why they 
bring, therefore, unconstitutional restrictions on the power of the 
President as Commander in Chief. Much like we heard on the bill before 
this, because it is the right thing to do with respect to the District 
of Columbia, we should ignore the words of the Constitution.
  The problem is, once again, we are being told by those on the other 
side of the aisle that the Constitution, the Constitution, is an 
inconvenient truth.
  The fact of the matter is the Founding Fathers tried to create a 
delicate balance between the war powers in the House and the war powers 
in the executive branch. And they said the President is Commander in 
Chief and once we go to war, he makes those decisions. We have the 
power of the purse. We have the power of the purse. If you

[[Page 7324]]

truly believe that we are in the wrong position in Iraq, have the 
courage to present to this floor that question which we are given the 
power to consider under the Constitution. But don't come to the floor 
and use as your excuse for bringing something which is unconstitutional 
that you don't have the votes to do the right thing.
  This goes beyond this question of the war, as important as it is. It 
is whether or not we as Members of the Congress who swear an oath to 
uphold the Constitution can on a daily basis ignore that Constitution.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, this conversation is 4 years too late. 
If we had this conversation 4 years ago, we would have known that we 
had the wrong intelligence, the wrong country and the wrong war. This 
administration is now borrowing $10 billion a month with the help of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. If they are truly concerned 
about fiscal responsibility, $10 billion should catch their attention. 
We borrow the money.
  Let's talk about our troops and supporting our troops. If we were to 
support our troops, first of all we would take them out of a civil war. 
Secondly, we would care for them while they are here. Third, while they 
were there, we would make sure that they have the equipment they need. 
We know this administration has failed on all levels.
  Our President says we need to listen to the generals. All of the 
generals are saying that we have weakened our military.
  Let's support our country and let's support our defense. Make our 
military strong again so we can practice self-defense.
  This administration and its allies have hurt us abroad, hurt our 
reputation, and will spend us into financial disaster if we allow them 
to. Fortunately, Congress has the power of the purse, and we will 
exercise it. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Indianapolis, Mr. Burton.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, people who are watching this 
debate across the country are getting confused with all of the rhetoric 
that is going on. It boils down to two things: the Democrats, who 
promised fiscal responsibility, in this bill are spending $31.5 billion 
more than the President requested. They are busting the budget already 
when they promised America fiscal responsibility. So America, remember 
that. Remember that. They said they are going to balance the budget and 
they are not going to raise your taxes. They are already trying to 
raise your taxes. So raising your taxes and spending $31.5 billion more 
than they said they would on this bill.
  Finally, the second issue is capitulation. If we do what they want, 
if we redeploy, as they call it, it is a withdrawal, and the vacuum 
that is going to be filled in Iraq will be filled by the radicals, the 
radical terrorists, al Qaeda and their fellow travelers. It is 
capitulation and budget busting. That is what they are all about today.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy at this time to yield 1 minute to 
my friend from Cherryville, North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  This an Iraq war and an Afghanistan war supplemental bill to fund the 
troops in harm's way.
  Now let me get this straight. The majority has put together a bill 
that will help defeat Islamic extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan by 
funding $283 million worth of pork barrel spending for a milk program, 
a domestic milk program in the United States.
  They believe the key to victory in Iraq is setting aside $74 million 
for peanut storehouses in Iraq. No, I'm sorry, not Iraq, Georgia.
  They believe they can defeat Islamic extremists by $25 million worth 
of spinach subsidies for United States farmers.
  Beyond that, they think that we can fund the war by spending $25 
million for United States livestock. Now, Mr. Speaker, the American 
people know what this is about. This $25 million of livestock is 
literally pork for pork. It is the most ironic thing in this bill.
  I would say that the failure of the majority is they don't understand 
``emergency'' and ``war spending.''
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for 
H.R. 1591. In fact, Madam Chair, you have set the rule, and we need 
rules of the road. That is why we need to pass H.R. 1591.
  This is not the average spending bill taken up by the Congress. This 
legislation represents a very personal decision that needs to be made 
by each and every Member of this body about the future of our Nation. 
The fact is, and I address, if I may through the Chair, my respected 
brothers and sisters in the opposition.
  The fact is that this bill was not necessitated by the acts of 
Congress. No, no. This supplemental is necessary because our Nation 
faces an emergency due to the multitude of failures from this 
administration. Why are you carrying their water?
  Funding will be provided to make certain that the disgrace of Walter 
Reed will not be repeated. This supplemental makes certain that our 
troops are not redeployed in and out of Iraq without proper rest, 
without proper preparation. We all support that, don't we? And our 
support in Iraq will be brought to an end responsibly.
  We recently observed the 4-year anniversary of the war in Iraq. And 
yet during those 4 years, Congress stood on the sidelines providing 
endless funding without questioning. No more; no more.
  Today, Congress finally fulfills its constitutionally mandated 
responsibility, provides real oversight for the funding of this war, 
and holds this administration accountable for its actions. That is what 
this rule, that is what this legislation is all about.
  We have the opportunity here, all of us, to undo some of the severe 
damage caused by the unnecessary war. I ask Members to vote for the 
rule and for the bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentlewoman 
if there are any further speakers on her side.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I have no further speakers, and I will close.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 1 minute.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in 1859 that great philosopher and religious 
leader John Stuart Mill wrote: ``War is an ugly thing, but not the 
ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and 
patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much 
worse.''
  We have yet to hear from the other side of the aisle about how we are 
going to win the global war on terror. We haven't heard, as my friend, 
Mr. Lungren, just said to me, the ``V'' word. How are we going to be 
victorious in this war?
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. This is the largest 
supplemental spending bill in the history of this planet; and it is 
being brought up under a closed rule.
  Our colleagues in the other body will have an opportunity to amend 
and discuss and debate this. Only a few Members of the Democratic 
leadership fashioned this measure, Mr. Speaker. It is unfair. It sends 
the wrong message to our troops. We must be victorious in this war.
  With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and if they pass this 
rule, a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the resolution.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule 
governing the debate of H.R. 1591, ``U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' 
Health, and Iraq Accountability Act.'' There is no more important issue 
facing the Congress, the President, and the American people than the 
war in Iraq. It is a subject upon which no one is indifferent, least of 
all members of Congress. Beginning with the distinguished gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, Mr.

[[Page 7325]]

Murtha, many good ideas have been advanced by members of Congress to 
bring to a successful conclusion the American military engagement in 
Iraq.
  It is in that spirit that I commend the leadership and the Chairwoman 
of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for their patient and careful 
crafting of the Iraq Emergency Supplemental that will come before us 
later today. I support this rule and I support the supplemental because 
I support our magnificent servicemen and women in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, nearly every decision reached by a legislative body is a 
product of compromise. The rule and bill before us are no different. If 
it was left solely to us, any of us could no doubt add or subtract 
provisions which we think would improve the bill. For example, I 
offered four amendments to H.R. 1591. Let me describe them.


                            Amendment No. 1

  Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1 terminates the authority granted by 
Congress to the President in the 2002 Authorization for the Use of 
Military Force in Iraq. The resolution is terminated because the 
objectives for which the authorization was granted have all been 
achieved. Let me explain.
  Congress authorized the President to use military force against Iraq 
to achieve the following objectives:
  1. To disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction that could 
threaten the security of the United States and international peace in 
the Persian Gulf region;
  2. To change the Iraqi regime so that Saddam Hussein and his Baathist 
party no longer posed a threat to the people of Iraq or its neighbors;
  3. To bring to justice any members of al Qaeda known or found to be 
in Iraq bearing responsibility for the attacks on the United States, 
its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on 
September 11, 2001;
  4. To ensure that the regime of Saddam Hussein would not provide 
weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists, including al 
Qaeda; and
  5. To enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council 
resolutions regarding Iraq.
  Thanks to the skill and valor of the Armed Forces of the United 
States we now know for certain that Iraq does not possess weapons of 
mass destruction. Thanks to the tenacity and heroism of American 
troops, Saddam Hussein was deposed, captured, and dealt with by the 
Iraqi people in such a way that neither he nor his Baathist Party will 
ever again pose a threat to the people of Iraq or its neighbors in the 
region. Nor will the regime ever acquire and provide weapons of mass 
destruction to international terrorists.
  Third, the American military has caught or killed virtually every 
member of al Qaeda in Iraq remotely responsible for the 9-11 attack on 
our country. Last, all relevant U.N. resolutions relating to Iraq have 
been enforced.
  In other words, every objective for which the use of force in Iraq 
was authorized by the 2002 resolution has been achieved, most with 
spectacular success thanks to the professionalism and superior skill of 
our service men and women. The point of my amendment was to recognize, 
acknowledge, and honor this fact.


                            Amendment No. 2

  The Armed Forces of the United States have performed magnificently. 
They won the war they were sent to fight. Their civilian leadership has 
not succeeded in winning the peace. Rather than undertaking a misguided 
and futile surge in troops, the United States should surge 
diplomatically and politically.
  That is why Jackson Lee Amendment No. 2 called for the creation and 
appointment of a high-level Special Envoy for National and Political 
Reconciliation in Iraq (SENPRI) to launch a new offensive on the 
diplomatic front. This Special Envoy--who would be an individual of the 
stature of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, 
or James Baker--would be commissioned to undertake the peaceful 
reconciliation of the major stakeholders in a free and democratic Iraq, 
particularly the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds.
  The SENPRI shall meet with any and all such persons, organizations, 
and entities, and make such recommendations as he deems necessary and 
expedient for bringing about national and political reconciliation in 
Iraq, including recommending the assistance of a bona fide 
international peacekeeping force where necessary.
  A real diplomatic surge requires a full-court press designed to 
engage all six of Iraq's neighbors--Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi 
Arabia, and Kuwait--more constructively in stabilizing Iraq. These 
countries are already involved in a bilateral, self-interested but 
disorganized way.
  As the Iraq Study Group report makes clear, none of these countries 
wants to live with an Iraq that, after our redeployment, becomes a 
failed state or a humanitarian catastrophe that could become a haven 
for terrorists or a hemorrhage of millions more refugees streaming into 
their countries. To avoid this catastrophe, there needs to be national 
reconciliation between the contending factions in Iraq. A Special Envoy 
dedicated to achieving this goal would help a great deal in bringing 
about this reconciliation.


                            Amendment No. 3

  Mr. Speaker, as I have stated, the Armed Forces of the United States 
have performed magnificently in Operation Iraqi Freedom. This fact is 
deserving of effusive praise and explicit acknowledgment in H.R. 1591. 
My third amendment did this.
  The brave servicemen and women of the United States toppled the 
repressive Baathist regime, deposed one of history's greatest tyrants 
and gave the Iraqi people the chance to draft their own constitution, 
hold their own free elections, establish their own government, and 
build a future of peace and prosperity for themselves and their 
posterity.
  But the cost of America's magnificent gift to the people of Iraq has 
been high. It has been paid for with the lives of more than 3,000 
service members and the limbs of countless thousands of other. It has 
been paid for with the hard-earned tax dollars of the families of 
America.
  The cost to the United States has also been high regarding the new 
and neglected needs of the American people. Operation Iraqi Freedom has 
exacerbated the backlog in Veterans Administration health care facility 
maintenance; placed an undue strain on the delivery of medical 
treatment and rehabilitative services for current and new veterans; and 
exacted a heavy toll on the equipment, training and readiness 
requirements, and the families of the men and women of the United 
States Armed Forces. My amendment acknowledged the sacrifices made by, 
and the debt of gratitude, we and the Iraqi people owe to Armed Forces 
of the United States.


                            Amendment No. 4

  Last, Jackson-Lee Amendment No. 4, changed the troop reference date 
for redeployment set forth in section 1904 from March 1, 2008, to 
December 31, 2007. What this means, Mr. Speaker, is that the Government 
of Iraq will have had more than three years since the United States 
turned over sovereignty to establish a sustainable government with 
secure borders that can protect its people. If the allied forces could 
win WorId War II in less than four years, certainly that is enough time 
for the Government of Iraq to provide for the security of its people, 
with the substantial assistance of the United States.
  But Mr. Speaker, we ought not let the perfect become the enemy of the 
good. The emergency supplemental may not be perfect but it is better--
far better--than any legislation relating to the war in Iraq that has 
ever been brought to the floor for a vote.
  For the first time, Mr. Speaker, the Congress can go on record 
against an open-ended war whose goal line is always moving. The vote 
today will put the House on record as squarely against the Bush 
Administration's policy of looking the other way while the Iraqi 
government fails to govern a country worthy of a free people and with 
as much commitment and dedication to the security and happiness of its 
citizens and has been shown by the heroic American servicemen and women 
who risked their lives and, in the case of over 3,000 fallen heroes, 
lost their lives to win for the Iraqi people the chance to draft their 
own constitution, hold their own free elections, establish their own 
government, and build a future of peace and prosperity for themselves 
and their posterity.
  But the cost of America's magnificent gift to the people of Iraq has 
been high. It has been paid for with the lives of more than 3,000 
service members and the limbs of countless thousands of others. It has 
been paid for with the hard-earned tax dollars of the families of 
America.
  The cost to the United States has also been high regarding the new 
and neglected needs of the American people. Operation Iraqi Freedom has 
exacerbated the backlog in Veterans Administration health care facility 
maintenance; placed an undue strain on the delivery of medical 
treatment and rehabilitative services for current and new veterans; and 
exacted a heavy toll on the equipment, training and readiness 
requirements, and the families of the men and women of the United 
States Armed Forces.
  The emergency supplemental acknowledges the sacrifices made by, and 
the debt of gratitude, we and the Iraqi people owe to Armed Forces of 
the United States. More than that, it makes a substantial down payment 
on that debt by providing substantial increases in funding for our 
troops. For example, the supplemental provides $2.8 billion for defense

[[Page 7326]]

health care, which is $1.7 billion above the President's request. 
Additionally, another $1.7 billion is provided to address the 
maintenance backlog at VA health care facilities. We provide $2.5 
billion to ensure that our troops are properly equipped and trained.
  Because after all, when American troops are sent into harm's way, 
America has an obligation to do all it can to minimize the risk of harm 
to the troops. That is why I am pleased the bill directs the President 
to adhere to current military guidelines for unit readiness, time 
between deployments, and meeting benchmarks and ending our involvement 
in Iraq's civil war.
  Although the bill may not be the best I might have hoped for, I have 
concluded that it is the best that can be achieved at this time, this 
moment in history. I support the rule and the bill because I believe it 
represents a change of course and a new direction in our policy on 
Iraq. This bill will place us on the road that will reunite our troops 
with their families and bring them home with honor and success. I urge 
all members to support the rule and the bill.
  Mr. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adopting House Resolution 261 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on suspending the rules and passing H.R. 545, and agreeing 
to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 201, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 182]

                               YEAS--225

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     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
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     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
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     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
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--201

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     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
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     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
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     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.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     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
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Lincoln
     Deal (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Radanovich
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1609

  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California and Mr. CARNEY changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________