[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10351-10362]
[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 332 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 332

       Resolved,  That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 
     be in order to consider the conference report to accompany 
     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 the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) is recognized for 1 hour.
  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.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks on House Resolution 332.
  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. 332 provides for consideration of 
the conference report for H.R. 1591, making emergency supplemental 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for 
other purposes. The rule waives all points of order against the 
conference report and against its consideration. It also provides that 
the conference report shall be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, after 4 years of the administration's relentless 
mismanagement of the Iraq war, mismanagement that has needlessly 
endangered our soldiers and lost countless Iraqi lives, this new 
Democratic Congress is determined to exercise our constitutional duty 
and to change the Nation's course in Iraq. We are hardly alone in our 
estimation of what must be done there.
  A growing chorus of opinion has coalesced around the need for a new 
direction. Virtually all of our generals agree that this fight cannot 
be won militarily, and General David Petraeus has said that the 
American mission in Iraq is 20 percent military and 80 percent 
political, economic and diplomatic.
  He is joined by the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, who applauded 
this debate, saying it will demonstrate to the Iraqi leadership that 
America will no longer tolerate an open-ended commitment without any 
benchmarks for success.
  James A. Baker and Lee Hamilton of the President's own Iraq Study 
Group have called for the American military to focus on training Iraqi 
security forces instead of conducting endless security sweeps.
  Retired generals have joined in as well. Retired Lieutenant General 
William E. Odom, to name just one, has said that the proposed change in 
course will, and I quote, ``re-orient U.S. strategy to achieve regional 
stability, and

[[Page 10352]]

win help from many other countries--the only way peace will eventually 
be achieved.''
  What of the people of the United States of America? It is their sons 
and daughters, their husbands and wives, their friends and family who 
have fought, have been injured and died in this war by the tens of 
thousands.
  They, more than anyone else, have demanded that America's mission in 
Iraq be changed. This bill is a statement that Congress will no longer 
fund the war as it exists today.
  With it, Democrats are demanding accountability and requiring that 
future support be based on tangible progress being made. We are 
refusing to ask our soldiers to continue fighting an open-ended battle 
to achieve goals that are constantly being altered. Such a request is 
not worthy of their sacrifice.
  Let me say also that while the President said that this bill is 
nothing more than a political statement, the opposite is the case. Our 
bill reconciles hard realities with our most fundamental principles. It 
both protects our soldiers and seeks to give them the best chance to 
help to produce a secure Iraq. It could not be more sincere, and it 
will soon be on the President's desk. If he rejects it, that will be 
his political statement and not ours.
  Finally, I must add briefly that this legislation also contains $18 
billion to be spent on critically needed health care for the veterans 
injured in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly for the traumatic brain 
injury victims, for Katrina recovery operations, for the avian flu 
vaccines, wildfire prevention, and for health insurance for children, 
among many other things. Those things are what supplemental bills have 
always been for, not to fund wars.
  The President and his allies have chosen to dismiss this spending as 
unjustifiable pork. They have asked Congress to deliver a clean bill, 
in their words, but I can't think of programs much cleaner and more 
worthy of our support than those I just mentioned.
  The definition of a great nation is one that has the power to define 
its own destiny and that uses its strength wisely to help others in 
need. Insurgents who seek to destroy what is left of the Iraq society 
are abominable, but they can do far less damage to our country than we 
do to ourselves by pursuing flawed policies that deplete our Armed 
Forces, undermine our alliances, and lessen our influence and moral 
authority around the world.

                              {time}  1815

  Why should we do what they cannot?
  At the same time, the Iraqi people deserve so much more than the life 
of fear they now lead. But America can be true to itself; we must have 
the humility and the vision to recognize what is working and what is 
not, and to correct our failures when reality demands it.
  I believe that we are, indeed, a great Nation, Mr. Speaker. We have 
the ability to choose our own way forward. Starting today, starting 
here, we can choose to reject a path that is failing our soldiers, our 
citizens, and the people of Iraq. And we can set a new course that 
offers a real chance for a better future instead of endless, 
unfulfilled promises.
  This bill is the first step on that new course, and I urge everybody 
in this body and in the White House to see it for what it truly is. It 
is not an admission of defeat, but it is proof that our country has the 
courage and the foresight needed to truly act like the great Nation 
that we truly are.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Rochester, 
the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strongest opposition to both this rule and the 
underlying conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report implements a policy of failure. 
It is nothing more than a cheap attempt to score political points at a 
time when the American people have understandably become very weary of 
war. Rather than offering the American people a policy that allows us 
to complete our mission in Iraq and bring our troops home, which we all 
want to do, this bill simply offers them a charade.
  The President, Mr. Speaker, has made it very clear that he will veto 
this policy of failure, which does not have enough support to override 
his veto. We will be right back here in a matter of days voting on 
another supplemental. And while this political charade plays out, Mr. 
Speaker, our troops will be left waiting for the funding that they need 
to do their jobs, and our country trapped in a political quagmire 
created by the Democratic leadership in this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, this very dangerous game of ``chicken'' could have been 
avoided entirely. The Democratic leadership may be bereft of ideas, but 
I know for a fact that this entire body is not. Had we considered the 
original bill under an open process, which, as we all know, is the 
tradition for wartime supplementals in this House, we could have had a 
real debate. We could have considered the worthy ideas of Members in 
this body.
  Instead, Mr. Speaker, all but a very few were shut out of this 
process entirely. Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives 
alike, were denied the opportunity to participate in this process. We 
didn't get any of their ideas, their expertise, their suggestions in 
bringing this measure to the floor. And what did that very small group 
in the Democratic leadership come up with? A constitutionally dubious 
attempt at micromanaging the Iraq war into inevitable defeat; a cynical 
political ploy that will leave dire consequences for the region and our 
own security in its wake.
  Mr. Speaker, the Constitution lays out a very clear system of checks 
and balances derived from the ideas of the very brilliant and inspired 
Framers of our Constitution. James Madison I am thinking of, as I look 
to my friend from Virginia, Mr. Moran, obviously a native of Virginia. 
And I will tell you that that Madisonian spirit of giving the three 
branches of government distinct roles, allows us to guard ourselves 
against tyranny from any one branch.
  The President must seek the support of Congress in order to wage war; 
it is Congress that has the power to authorize; and, as we all know 
very well, it must be this institution that funds a war. But, Mr. 
Speaker, once funding and authorization are granted, the President of 
the United States serves as the Commander in Chief, with the authority 
to execute the war.
  This conference report ignores the intentions of our Founding Fathers 
and attempts to turn the Constitution on its head.
  I mentioned, looking to my friend Mr. Moran, the father, the author 
of the Constitution, James Madison. Well, Mr. Speaker, in Federalist 
No. 51, Madison wrote ``that 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 ensue.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report, like the bill before it, 
attempts to diminish these checks and balances. It tries to turn 
Congress into 535 Commanders in Chief.
  This legislation of micromanagement is based, Mr. Speaker, 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. We heard in a briefing today from General Petraeus, from 
Secretary England, from Secretary Negroponte and others that the notion 
of timetables in fact clearly will undermine the potential for success.
  Mr. Speaker, that leadership also knew it fell hopelessly short of 
the necessary support within their own party for passage. But rather 
than opening up the process so that real ideas and solutions could be 
considered, they just loaded it up with billions of dollars in

[[Page 10353]]

unrelated spending. This conference report trades victory for potential 
electoral gains.
  Mr. Speaker, what would the consequences of defeat be? The National 
Intelligence Estimate, the 9/11 Commission, our people on the ground 
and those who briefed us today, have all made it very clear that a 
precipitous withdrawal would have disastrous consequences. Violence 
will spill out across the country and spread to the entire region.
  We heard about Iran and Syria today and the challenges that exist 
there. 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 in the region.
  Mr. Speaker, as I have said, and I know this very well, and I join 
Americans who have been very discouraged by this war; it has been ugly, 
it has been difficult, it has been very painful. We all, Mr. Speaker, 
feel the toll it has taken and are keenly aware of the price that we 
are paying, especially in a human sense.
  I know as I look to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that 
every single one of us has had the challenge and the difficulty of 
looking into the eyes of constituents whose family and friends have 
made the ultimate sacrifice in this war. Their pain is very real, and 
we all know that their loss is profound.
  But, Mr. Speaker, we do not honor those who have sacrificed by 
abandoning their mission. I have regularly quoted my very good friend, 
a man who has become a friend of mine, a former marine called Ed 
Blecksmith, whose son J.P. was killed in the battle of Fallujah 2 years 
ago this past November. He said that if we were to withdraw, his son 
will have died in vain.
  Mr. Speaker, 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. That was pointed out today by General Petraeus and others. As 
President Bush and General Petraeus have both acknowledged, success 
will take months, not days or weeks. But to abandon our mission would 
be disastrous.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the policy of defeat and 
the potential return of terrorism to our homeland. I urge my colleagues 
to reject this political charade that leaves our troops in limbo, and 
let us instead have a real debate with real ideas for a real solution 
in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following article from the Sunday Times 
for the Record.

                [From the Sunday Times, April 22, 2007]

                 Al-Qaeda `Planning Big British Attack'

                           (By Dipesh Gadher)

       Al-Qaeda leaders in Iraq are planning the first ``large-
     scale'' terrorist attacks on Britain and other western 
     targets with the help of supporters in Iran, according to a 
     leaked intelligence report.
       Spy chiefs warn that one operative had said he was planning 
     an attack on ``a par with Hiroshima and Nagasaki'' in an 
     attempt to ``shake the Roman throne'', a reference to the 
     West.
       Another plot could be timed to coincide with Tony Blair 
     stepping down as prime minister, an event described by Al-
     Qaeda planners as a ``change in the head of the company''.
       The report, produced earlier this month and seen by The 
     Sunday Times, appears to provide evidence that Al-Qaeda is 
     active in Iran and has ambitions far beyond the improvised 
     attacks it has been waging against British and American 
     soldiers in Iraq.
       There is no evidence of a formal relationship between Al-
     Qaeda, a Sunni group, and the Shi'ite regime of President 
     Mah-moud Ahmadinejad, but experts suggest that Iran's leaders 
     may be turning a blind eye to the terrorist organisation's 
     activities.
       The intelligence report also makes it clear that senior Al-
     Qaeda figures in the region have been in recent contact with 
     operatives in Britain.
       It follows revelations last year that up to 150 Britons had 
     travelled to Iraq to fight as part of Al-Qaeda's ``foreign 
     legion''. A number are thought to have returned to the UK, 
     after receiving terrorist training, to form sleeper cells.
       The report was compiled by the Joint Terrorism Analysis 
     Centre (JTAC)--based at MI5's London headquarters--and 
     provides a quarterly review of the international terror 
     threat to Britain. It draws a distinction between Osama Bin 
     Laden and Al-Qaeda's core leadership, who are thought to be 
     hiding on the Afghan-Pakistan border, and affiliated 
     organisations elsewhere.
       The document states: ``While networks linked to AQ [Al-
     Qaeda] Core pose the greatest threat to the UK, the 
     intelligence during this quarter has highlighted the 
     potential threat from other areas, particularly AQI [Al-Qaeda 
     in Iraq].''
       The report continues: ``Recent reporting has described 
     AQI's Kurdish network in Iran planning what we believe may be 
     a large-scale attack against a western target.
       ``A member of this network is reportedly involved in an 
     operation which he believes requires AQ Core authorisation. 
     He claims the operation will be on `a par with Hiroshima and 
     Naga-saki' and will `shake the Roman throne'. We assess that 
     this operation is most likely to be a large-scale, mass 
     casualty attack against the West.''
       The report says there is ``no indication'' this attack 
     would specifically target Britain, ``although we are aware 
     that AQI . . . networks are active in the UK''.
       Analysts believe the reference to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 
     where more than 200,000 people died in nuclear attacks on 
     Japan at the end of the second world war, is unlikely to be a 
     literal boast.
       ``It could be just a reference to a huge explosion,'' sald 
     a counter-terrorist source. ``They [Al-Qaeda] have got to do 
     something soon that is radical, otherwise they start losing 
     credibility.''
       Despite aspiring to a nuclear capability, Al-Qaeda is not 
     thought to have acquired weapons grade material. However, 
     several plots involving ``dirty bombs''--conventional 
     explosive devices surrounded by radioactive material--have 
     been foiled.
       Last year Al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq called on nuclear 
     scientists to apply their knowledge of biological and 
     radiological weapons to ``the field of jihad''.
       Details of a separate plot to attack Britain, ``ideally'' 
     before Blair steps down this summer, were contained in a 
     letter written by Abdul al-Hadi al-Iraqi, an Iraqi Kurd and 
     senior Al-Qaeda commander.
       According to the JTAC document, Hadi ``stressed the need to 
     take care to ensure that the attack was successful and on a 
     large scale''. The plan was to be relayed to an Iran-based 
     Al-Qaeda facilitator.
       The Home Office declined to comment.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Chair of the 
Rules Committee for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want this war to come to an end now. I had 
reservations when I voted in support of the supplemental a few weeks 
ago, and I have misgivings about the conference report that is before 
us today. I believe very deeply that this war represents one of the 
biggest blunders in our history and that we must change course and 
bring it to an end.
  But, Mr. Speaker, to defeat this conference report tonight would 
provide President Bush with a victory that he does not deserve and that 
he has not earned, and it would affirm a disastrous policy in Iraq. A 
vote against this conference report is a vote to support the status 
quo, which is essentially a vote to support a failed policy.
  Since the President decided to escalate the war in Iraq, the violence 
has gotten worse. This administration has demonstrated a contempt for 
the American people, who have demanded a change in our Iraq policy.
  Mr. Speaker, this President is presiding over a policy and a war in 
Iraq that is making the United States more vulnerable, not more secure. 
He refuses to listen. He refuses to acknowledge the facts. He refuses 
to compromise.
  Now he has threatened to veto this conference report. And if he does 
so, then this President will make perfectly clear to the American 
people that the only way this war is going to end, the only way our 
troops will ever come home to their families and loved ones, the only 
way the Iraqis will ever be held accountable for governing their own 
country and ending their sectarian violence, will be if Congress finds 
a way to end it.
  Every day it becomes more and more clear that the President has 
decided to kick the ball down the field to make this war somebody 
else's problem. Two years ago, President Bush announced his exit 
strategy for Iraq. He said,

[[Page 10354]]

``That's a problem for the next President.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is unacceptable and it is false. It is a problem 
for all of us. None of us in this Chamber wake up each morning in 
harm's way. None of us stare death in the eye or see our comrades fall 
to bullets and bombs. Not even the Green Zone provides a sense of 
security any longer.
  Instead of demanding reconciliation, we are building walls to keep 
Shiites away from Sunnis. Every day, thousands of Iraqis are fleeing 
the horror that has become their country. The best and the brightest 
are leaving. The average shopkeeper, the next-door neighbor, all are 
packing their bags and trying to find a way out of town, out of the 
country, away from the violence, the death and destruction.
  Mr. Speaker, the reality is that whenever we finally leave Iraq, it 
will not be pretty. This failed policy has left Iraq with few options. 
But until we begin to leave, no one has to make the hard choices about 
how Iraqis are going to live together or die together.
  Mr. Speaker, this terrible chapter in our history must come to an 
end, and I urge all my colleagues to join with me in saying to the 
President of the United States, enough is enough.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs, our good friend from Miami (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
for the time.
  At this difficult moment and in previous difficult moments in our 
Nation's history, there have always been those ready to declare that 
all was lost. Now we hear the voices of those proclaiming that the war 
against Islamic extremists in Iraq is lost. They say they support the 
troops, but the soldier cannot be separated from his mission.
  When I consider the Parsons brothers from my congressional district, 
I know that our country has immense resources of courage and 
determination on which to draw. Huber Parsons was with the 101st 
Airborne for two long deployments in Iraq, and is currently on his 
third in Iraq with the Army Stryker Brigade. His twin, Bill, has served 
two tours in Afghanistan and two tours in Iraq. Their little brother, 
Charlie Parsons, is on his first deployment to Iraq. All three are 
serving in Baghdad right now, all three proud graduates of West Point.
  Given the sacrifices and bravery of the Parsons brothers and all of 
the men and women serving our Nation in Iraq, we must not put them at 
risk by mandating artificial deadlines for withdrawal and surrender.
  The consequences for our troops is a personal one for me. My stepson 
Doug and my daughter-in-law Lindsay both served in Iraq as marine 
fighter pilots, and Lindsay is currently deployed in Afghanistan.

                              {time}  1830

  Last time I spoke on the floor, I said Lindsay was about to be 
deployed. Well, she is there now, we are proud of her service. We are 
proud of all of the men and women serving our Nation wearing our 
Nation's uniform.
  Imposing an artificial, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal of our 
forces before Iraq is stable and secure will give the insurgents and 
the Islamic terrorists a road map, a how-to guide on how to defeat the 
U.S., our Iraqi partners and other coalition forces in Iraq.
  Let's help the Parsons brothers. Let's help all of our troops. Vote 
against the rule and against the conference report.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri and the Chair of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton.
  Mr. SKELTON. I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee. Mr. 
Speaker, I am blessed to be a Member of the House of Representatives.
  Under the Constitution of our country, this is a co-equal branch of 
government. We are charged here in Congress to raise and maintain the 
military of the United States. The President is charged with being the 
Commander in Chief. Our job is clear. We must prepare and maintain our 
military to the highest standard possible.
  1950, the North Koreans invaded South Korea. We had a small force 
there. General MacArthur, supreme commander in that part of the world, 
sent a unit that was untrained, underequipped and undersized, called 
Task Force Smith to stem the tide of the North Korean armies. They 
fought valiantly and found themselves in the southeast corner of South 
Korea in what is now known as the Pusan perimeter, and they were in 
serious trouble. General MacArthur's brilliant Inchon landing on the 
western coast of Korea changed the nature of the Korean War at that 
moment.
  But the lesson of all of this is the lack of readiness of the United 
States Army as it was in 1950. Our job is to see that that does not 
ever happen again.
  This rule, this bill, this resolution is the right one for our time. 
It will help the readiness of the United States military, in particular 
our Army. I am very concerned about the stretching and the straining of 
the Army in Iraq, so much so we just have to fund them, and this is a 
major step in that direction.
  Now, some object for some Iraqi language, which frankly leaves a lot 
to the discretion of the White House. But what we are overlooking is 
the fact that this bill, this resolution does lead to supporting the 
troops and keeping the readiness at a higher level. A large percentage 
of the equipment of the active duty of the National Guard and of the 
Reserve is not here in America, is overseas in Iraq or Afghanistan. 
Readiness capability of the future is what this is all about.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indianapolis who has been a 
hardworking fighter on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Burton.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on 9/11, 2001, two planes flew 
into the World Trade Center and killed over 3,000 Americans, the worst 
attack on America in the history of this country, worse than Pearl 
Harbor. The people who are behind it were al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden 
said numerous times he wanted to destroy America. They are the mortal 
enemy of the United States of America.
  General Petraeus today, when he talked to the Members of Congress, 
said numerous times that they were fighting al Qaeda, al Qaeda, al 
Qaeda in Iraq, the mortal enemy of the United States of America.
  Now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to pull us out 
of there. And if they do succeed, then I believe that that will become 
a gathering point for all of the al Qaeda operatives and other fellow 
travelers in the world, and they will try to attack the United States 
in numerous ways, probably on our home soil again. They attacked the 
USS Cole, our embassies in Africa, they attacked housing in Saudi 
Arabia.
  I just want to say to my colleagues, remember what you are doing. If 
you force us out of Iraq now, you are helping al Qaeda. You are helping 
al Qaeda set up a base of operation, and they will be able to attack 
the United States of America again.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I will be happy to yield to my colleague.
  Mr. DREIER. I will yield to my friend some additional time.
  I just entered into the Record, and I didn't mention this in my 
opening remarks, an article that was in the Sunday Times of London 
last, this past Sunday, ``Is al Qaeda Planning a Big British Attack?,'' 
and this is a report on intelligence that has just come forward of a 
massive, large scale terrorist attack on Britain and other Western 
targets with the help of supporters in Iran. According to a leaked 
intelligence report that came forward, they talk about this attack 
being on a par with Hiroshima and Nagasaki in an attempt to shake the 
Roman Empire. And I have entered this article in the Record that was in 
the Sunday Times, and I think it is very important that this be related 
to the remarks the gentleman has made. And I thank him for yielding. 
And I would yield whatever the balance of my time is on this side to 
him.

[[Page 10355]]


  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me just say that appeasement and weakness 
led to World War II, and 62 million people died. We are now in the 
nuclear age, and we have an enemy that will tie a nuclear weapon or 
plastic explosives around themselves and blow themselves up. If they 
come to America with a nuclear device, a suitcase nuclear device, they 
could destroy this place and kill all of us three blocks away from here 
by detonating that kind of a device.
  Remember, they are our mortal enemy. Osama bin Laden said it. They 
are in Iraq. We have got to stand firm.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). All Members are reminded to 
address their comments to the Chair and not to other Members in the 
second person.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota, the Chair of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report, but not 
the rescission of highway contract authority which this bill uses to 
offset non-highway spending elsewhere in the conference report.
  The report provides an additional $683 million for the Federal 
Highway Administration's Emergency Relief Program. No offset is needed 
for that emergency relief.
  Nonetheless, the conference report rescinds $683 million in 
unobligated balances of highway funds that have been apportioned to the 
States. Now, the rescission does protect highway safety programs, but 
it leaves transportation environmental programs vulnerable.
  The rescission of highway contract authority is the exclusive 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and 
this provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House.
  These types of rescissions adversely affect the Federal aid highway 
program, specifically the ability to ensure that the Nation's 
transportation system has modal choices.
  More than a dozen States have applied these rescissions 
disproportionately to cut contract authority for critical 
transportation and environmental programs, Congestion Mitigation and 
Air Quality Improvement and the Transportation Enhancement Program.
  CMAQ funds are only 4 or 5 percent of highway apportionment every 
year, but they have accounted for 20 percent of the funds rescinded in 
recent years, and particularly in the State of Texas.
  In fiscal year 2006 States rescinded $888 million in CMAQ funds. One 
out of every $4 rescinded by States in 2006 came from CMAQ programs. In 
2006 also the States rescinded 602 million of enhancements funds in 
which Texas cut $223 million of enhancement funding and completely 
suspended its program.
  The House, I think, will have an opportunity to reconsider the 
rescission issue in a future supplemental. And we, with all the 
environment problems that we have and the climate change problems, this 
is one area that we should not allow to be cut.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 
minutes to a hardworking member of the Appropriations Committee, the 
gentleman from Morristown, New Jersey, Mr. Frelinghuysen.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
rule and to this conference report.
  Fundamentally, this bill is about providing funding for our troops, 
making sure that men and women who are on the front lines as we speak, 
have the resources they need to stay safe and do their military and 
humanitarian missions in Iraq.
  It is clear that our troops have the support of this House and the 
American people. Surely, no one wants to see our soldiers defeated in 
Iraq. We all want their mission in Iraq to be as short as possible. We 
want the war to end. We want our young soldiers, all volunteers, to 
return home.
  But this conference report before us today prejudges the 
effectiveness of our young warfighters as they seek to secure Baghdad 
under a new plan, under new military leadership.
  This proposal starts withdrawal of our forces from Iraq on October 1, 
irrespective of the judgment of our military commanders on the ground.
  My colleagues, the reinforcement of the Army in Baghdad and the 
Marines in Anbar, designed and executed by General David Petraeus, is 
underway. It won't be complete for weeks.
  And yet, there are some signs of progress. The plan must be given 
time to work. Make no mistake about it. There will be wide and 
dangerous consequences if we abandon the Iraqi people and their 
government, now just 1 year old, before it is capable of governing and 
protecting its own people. First, for our own soldiers there are 
consequences. And secondly, we could have an explosion of sectarian 
violence, killing and bloodshed on a larger, more barbaric scale than 
we have now.
  Mr. Speaker, we are a Nation at war and the stakes are extremely high 
for America. Our troops need this money now. They deserved it 
yesterday.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join together to honor the 
service of our young men and women and to work with the President, our 
Commander in Chief, to have some measure of success in Iraq. I urge a 
``no'' vote on the rule and the conference report.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, last week the 2,100th American 
child had to be informed that they will never see their daddy or mommy 
again because their parent was killed in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, our military families deserve a policy worthy of their 
sacrifice. They deserve better. This war is going to turn out to be one 
of the worst military, political, economic and moral blunders in 
American history.
  I heard my colleague refer to 9/11. We now know that we were brought 
into this war through deliberate deception and the politics of fear. 
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, wouldn't allow al Qaeda 
into his country. In fact, he wasn't trying to get nuclear weapons. He 
had no weapons of mass destruction. All those mobile labs didn't 
manufacture chemical weapons. Nor is this war being paid for with Iraqi 
oil.
  And yet, you want us, 4 years later, to believe the very same people 
that brought us into this fiasco. When do you start to lose your 
credibility? After we have had 58,000 soldiers killed as in Vietnam? We 
are up to 3,300 now. About 25,000 seriously wounded. And how can you 
stand before them and tell them that this fiasco was worthy of their 
sacrifice?
  The government that we are supporting doesn't go outside the Green 
Zone in Baghdad. They don't serve their people. In fact, many of its 
ministers are corrupt. That is the reality of our policy in Iraq.

                              {time}  1845

  And the fact too is that if the government we are supporting had the 
opportunity, they would turn Iraq into a Shi'a theocracy. Is that 
really worth our military families' sacrifice? The answer is no.
  Support this rule and vote for this supplemental.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 3 minutes 
to the former member of the Rules Committee, now working hard on the 
Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, firmly and resolutely opposed 
to both this rule and the underlying conference report.
  I regret to say that the Democratic leaders have once again 
demonstrated that it is either their way or the highway, except this 
time it is our fighting men and women who are left stranded in the 
middle of the road.
  Mr. Speaker, I am truly saddened and, in truth, even angered by the 
majority's insistence on putting this war, our generals, and our war 
fighters on auto pilot with a forced retreat and an inflexible 
timetable.
  The consequences of this decision, should it become law, will echo 
long beyond this date, this year, this decade. Defeat should not be an 
option,

[[Page 10356]]

and yet it seems that this majority believes it is the only option.
  We are at a critical juncture in history when the defenders of 
liberty and freedom have to stand firm against tyrants and terrorists.
  And I will remind the gentleman from Virginia that just spoke, 
indeed, the famous quote says, ``There are times in our history when 
the tree of liberty must be nourished by the blood of patriots.''
  Sure, without question, this war has been hard fought every step of 
the way, and it will continue to be. But few things worthwhile in life 
are ever easy.
  Regrettably, this majority was bought and paid for by MoveOn.org and 
liberal extremists, and now they have come to collect, unfortunately, 
at the expense of our military and our security, today, tomorrow, and 
for decades to come.
  When the Speaker of the House pushes to rewrite our foreign policy 
and yet refuses to meet with General Petraeus, our commander on the 
ground in Iraq, it becomes abundantly clear this majority would rather 
push left-wing politics over sound policy.
  This political theater would be funny if its consequences weren't a 
matter of life and death, of victory and defeat. Every day that we 
delay a legitimate war-funding bill, the resources of our military and 
our soldiers' quality of life are diminished. In fact, this delay has 
forced the Pentagon to move $800 million from the Air Force's personnel 
accounts, money to pay our servicemembers, to make up for the gaps in 
the war funding.
  I implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, oppose this rule, 
oppose this conference report. Let us end this political game and truly 
give victory a chance.
  We can do better, Mr. Speaker. We have an obligation to do better for 
the sake of the men and women who put their lives on the line in Iraq 
and Afghanistan to protect ours.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, take a moment to travel 
through the Nation's hospitals and speak to those in this final injury 
ward, see the young women bending over their soldier husbands who now 
have lost the use of all of their limbs, 25,000-plus injured and 3,000-
plus dead.
  It is not the policies of this Democratic majority that is causing 
this absolute disaster. It is the misdirected policies of those in the 
administration who are causing harm to our soldiers.
  Let me thank our soldiers for their leadership, for their service, 
and their patriotism. But as I stand here today and look at my Members, 
the Speaker of the House who went into the Mideast, Mr. Giuliani, there 
is no white flag on this side of the aisle, and I reject your insult 
and insensitivity.
  This legislation will not give the administration a blank check. It 
will give a new direction to Iraq. It will begin to redeploy soldiers 
if the President cannot certify the readiness in July and then in 
October of 2007. It provides funding for veterans hospitals, for the 
injured with spinal injuries, with brain injury. And, yes, there are 
those on this side of the aisle who understand the shedding of blood of 
our soldiers.
  That is why this legislation will allow us to go and fight the 
terrorists, to find Osama bin Laden, and to do the job that we have not 
done since the tragedy and the terrorism of 9/11.
  This is a sad day in this body. I want us to support the rule and the 
underlying bill because there is no white flag. We have the solution, 
and that solution is a policy that responds to the needs of the 
American people and our soldiers on the battlefield. No more nine 
soldiers of the 82nd Airborne. We thank them for their service. We 
declare a military success. And we bring our soldiers home.
  And maybe it will be good if some of those who did not serve would 
understand what it means to serve.
  Mr. Speaker, as a proud member of the Progressive and the Out of Iraq 
Caucuses, I rise to speak in support of the Conference Report on H.R. 
1591, the ``U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq 
Accountability Act.'' I support the Conference Report because this 
compromise offers us the first real chance to end the misguided 
invasion, war, and occupation of Iraq. It puts us on the glide path to 
the day when our troops come home in honor and triumph and where we can 
``care for him who has borne the battle, and for his widow and 
orphan.'' This legislation helps to repair the damage to America's 
international reputation and prestige. It brings long overdue 
oversight, accountability, and transparency to defense and 
reconstruction contracting and procurement. Finally, it places the 
responsibility for bringing peace and security where it clearly belongs 
and that is squarely on the shoulders of the Iraqi government.
  Mr. Speaker, the House and Senate conferees have approved legislation 
providing $124.2 billion primarily for the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. As part of the legislation, conferees approved a sensible 
plan to redeploy U.S. forces in Iraq paired with progress made by the 
Iraqi government in meeting diplomatic and security benchmarks. These 
legislative provisions, which are subject to a Presidential waiver, 
will ensure adequate rest between tours of duty of both active duty and 
Guard and Reserve forces, while also requiring that their service in 
Iraq not be extended beyond a year for any tour of duty.
  President Bush would be required to certify that the Iraqi government 
is meeting the diplomatic and security benchmarks. If he makes that 
certification, deployment shall begin no later than October 1, 2007, 
with the goal of completing the redeployment within 180 days. After 
that period, a limited number of U.S. forces could remain in Iraq for 
force protection, training and equipping Iraqi troops, and targeted 
counterterrorism options. The legislation makes it possible for the 
U.S. military to focus its resources on Osama bin Laden, whose 
organization attacked the nation on 9/11, and destroying his base of 
operations in Afghanistan.
  Additionally, the U.S. commander in Iraq would provide regular 
progress reports to Congress on both the progress of the Iraqi 
government to take control of that country as well as the status of the 
redeployment efforts.
  Finally, the conferees are also to be commended for providing needed 
funding to improve health care for returning soldiers and veterans, for 
continued Hurricane Katrina recovery for the Gulf Coast, to fill major 
gaps in homeland security, and to provide emergency drought relief for 
farmers.
  Overall, the conference agreement provides more than $100 billion for 
the Department of Defense, primarily for continued military operations 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. The legislation includes a $1 billion increase 
for the National Guard and Reserve equipment and $1.1 billion for 
military housing. The legislation also provides $3 billion ($1.2 
billion more than the President's request) for the purchase of Mine 
Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAP)--vehicles designed to 
withstand roadside bombs and more than $5 billion to ensure that 
returning troops and veterans receive the health care that they have 
earned with their service.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not point out that the tragic 
loss of life last week at Virginia Tech still weighs heavily on our 
hearts and minds. Neither the mind nor the heart can contemplate a 
cause that could lead a human being to resort to such senseless 
violence to injure and destroy fellow human beings. The thoughts and 
prayers of people of goodwill everywhere go out to the victims and 
their families. In the face of such overwhelming grief, I hope they can 
take comfort in the certain knowledge that unearned suffering is 
redemptive.
  The war in Iraq has also caused a lot of unearned suffering in Iraq 
and here at home. This is the same war, Mr. Speaker, whose proponents 
misrepresented to the nation would last no more than six months and 
likely less than six weeks. This same war in Iraq, we were led to 
believe by the Administration, would cost less than $50 billion and 
would be paid out of the ample revenues from Iraq's oil fields. The war 
in Iraq, the American people were promised, should have ended years ago 
with Americans troops greeted as liberators by jubilant Iraqis throwing 
rose petals at their feet.
  The President has threatened to veto the legislation now before us if 
it passes. According to the President and the Vice-President, H.R. 1591 
``would undermine our troops and threaten the safety of the American 
people here at home.'' Coming from an Administration that has been 
wrong on every important question relating to the decision to launch 
the Iraq War as well the conduct of it, this claim is laughable. Little 
wonder that nearly 70 percent of Americans disapprove of the way the 
President is handling the war. But more important, the President's 
claim is simply not true.
  Mr. Speaker, many of the nation's most highly respected generals have 
endorsed H.R. 1591; all of them oppose the President's plan

[[Page 10357]]

to escalate the war in Iraq. Take, for example, Maj. Gen. John Batiste, 
U.S. Army, Ret.
  ``This important legislation sets a new direction for Iraq. It 
acknowledges that America went to war without mobilizing the nation, 
that our strategy in Iraq has been tragically flawed since the invasion 
in March 2003, that our Army and Marine Corps are at the breaking point 
with little to show for it, and that our military alone will never 
establish representative government in Iraq. The administration got it 
terribly wrong and I applaud our Congress for stepping up to their 
constitutional responsibilities.''
  Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, USA, Ret. Supports this legislation because it 
``gives General Petraeus great leverage for moving the Iraqi government 
down the more disciplined path laid out by the Iraq Study Group.'' 
According to Major Eaton, the real audience for the timeline language 
is Prime Minister al-Maliki and the elected government of Iraq:
  The argument that this bill aides the enemy is simply not mature--
nobody on the earth underestimates the United States' capacity for 
unpredictability. It may further create some sense of urgency in the 
rest of our government, beginning with the State Department.
  Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), President Reagan's 
Director of the National Security Agency, supports the bill because it 
``gives the president a chance to pull back from a disastrous course, 
re-orient U.S. strategy to achieve regional stability, and win help 
from many other countries--the only way peace will eventually be 
achieved.''
  Mr. Speaker, to date, the war in Iraq has lasted longer than 
America's involvement in World War II, the greatest conflict in all of 
human history. But there is a difference. The Second World War ended in 
complete and total victory for the United States and its allies. But 
then again, in that conflict America was led by FDR, a great Commander-
in-Chief, who had a plan to win the war and secure the peace, listened 
to his generals, and sent troops in sufficient numbers and sufficiently 
trained and equipped to do the job.
  As a result of the colossal miscalculation in deciding to invade 
Iraq, the loss of public trust resulting from the misrepresentation of 
the reasons for launching that invasion, and the breath taking 
incompetence in mismanaging the occupation of Iraq, the Armed Forces 
and the people of the United States have suffered incalculable damage.
  The war in Iraq has claimed the lives of 3,316 brave servicemen and 
women (64 in the first 16 days of this month). More than 24,912 
Americans have been wounded, many suffering the most horrific injuries. 
American taxpayers have paid nearly $400 billion to sustain this 
misadventure.
  The depth, breadth, and scope of the President's misguided, 
mismanaged, and misrepresented war in Iraq is utterly without precedent 
in American history. It is a tragedy in a league all its own. But it 
was not unforeseeable or unavoidable.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health 
and Iraq Accountability Act the House passed last month provides real 
benchmarks and consequences if the Iraqi Government fails to live up to 
its commitments. First, it requires the President to certify and report 
to Congress on July 1, 2007 that substantial progress has been made on 
security, political and reconstruction benchmarks by the Iraqi 
government.
  If the President cannot certify that the Iraqi government has made 
substantial progress, redeployment of U.S. combat troops must begin, 
with a goal of being completed within 180 days (by December 31, 2007). 
If the July certification is made, redeployment of U.S. combat troops 
must begin by October 1, 2007, with a goal of being completed within 
180 days (by March 31, 2008).
  The measure changes the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq after 
redeployment from combat to training and equipping Iraqi troops, 
targeted counterterrorism operations, and force protection.
  I have to say, Mr. Speaker, the Iraqi Government is not off to a good 
start. The Green Zone surrounding Baghdad remains insecure. Two weeks 
ago, a suicide bomber managed to penetrate the security perimeter of 
the Iraqi Parliament and detonated a bomb that killed at least three 
members of the Iraqi parliament and wounded scores of others. 
Additionally, the market represented by Senator McCain as an example of 
the improved security situation in Iraq was turned into a killing field 
within days after Senator McCain's visit. And just last week, we saw 
the bloodiest and deadliest day in Baghdad since the so-called 
``surge'' began when 198 Iraqi civilians were massacred by insurgents.
  Mr. Speaker, radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has 
reasserted his political power by yanking his loyalists from the 
Cabinet, a move aimed at showing his supporters he retains his 
credentials as an opposition leader and which increases the pressure on 
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to loosen his embrace of the U.S. 
occupation, which many Iraqis blame for violence in the country.
  These developments, Madam Speaker, illustrate the wisdom of requiring 
benchmarks the Iraqi Government must meet to justify continued American 
blood and treasure in Iraq. Moreover, because those benchmarks are 
established pursuant to President Bush's policies, it is passing 
strange indeed that he would threaten to veto the bill since it 
necessarily means he would be vetoing his own benchmarks for the 
performance of the Iraqi government. He would be vetoing his own 
readiness standards for U.S. troops. The President demands this 
Congress send him an Iraq war bill with ``no strings.'' But the only 
``strings'' attached, Madam Speaker, are the benchmarks and standards 
imposed by the President himself.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to the enormous financial cost, the human 
cost to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces has also 
been high but they have willingly paid it. Operation Iraqi Freedom has 
exacerbated the Veterans Administration health care facility 
maintenance backlog; 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. But more than that, it makes a substantial down 
payment on that debt by providing substantial increases in funding for 
our troops.
  The supplemental includes a total appropriation of $2.8 billion for 
Defense Health Care, which is $1.7 billion above the President's 
request. The additional funding supports new initiatives to enhance 
medical services for active duty forces and mobilized personnel, and 
their family members. Included in this new funding is $450 million for 
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder/Counseling; $450 million for Traumatic 
Brain Injury care and research; $730 million to prevent health care fee 
increases for our troops; $20 million to address the problems at Walter 
Reed; and $14.8 million for burn care.
  Unlike the Republican leadership of the 109th Congress and the Bush 
Administration, the new Democratic majority is committed to America's 
veterans. What's more, we back up that commitment by investing in their 
well-being. For example, the supplemental includes $1.7 billion above 
the President's request for initiatives to address the health care 
needs of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and the backlog in maintaining 
VA health care facilities, including $550 million to address the 
backlog in maintaining VA health care facilities so as to prevent the 
VA from experiencing a situation similar to that found at Walter Reed 
Medical Center.
  We provide an additional $250 million for medical administration to 
ensure there are sufficient personnel to support the growing number of 
Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and to maintain a high level of services 
for all veterans; $229 million for treating the growing number of Iraq 
and Afghanistan veterans; $100 million for contract mental health care, 
which will allow the VA to contract with private mental health care 
providers to ensure that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are seen in the 
most timely and least disruptive fashion, including members of the 
Guard and Reserve; and $62 million to speed up the processing of claims 
of veterans returning from Iraq and Aghanistan.
  Madam Speaker, 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 it was so important that we included additional 
funding above the President's request to support our troops. We provide 
$2.5 billion more to address the current readiness crisis of our 
stateside troops, including ensuring that they are better equipped and 
trained. We include $1.4 billion more for military housing allowances 
and $311 million more for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) 
vehicles for troops in Iraq. And there is included in the supplemental 
$222 million more for infrared countermeasures for Air Force aircraft 
to address the growing threat against U.S. air operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan
  Equally important, Mr. Speaker, the supplemental contains language 
directing the President to adhere to current military guidelines for 
unit readiness, deployments, and time between deployments.
  The supplemental requires the Defense Department to abide by its 
current Unit Readiness policy, requiring the chief of the military

[[Page 10358]]

department concerned to determine that a unit is ``fully mission 
capable'' before it is deployed to Iraq. The President may waive this 
provision by submitting a report to Congress detailing why the unit's 
deployment is in the interests of national security despite the 
assessment that the unit is not fully mission capable.
  The Defense Department is also required to abide by its current 
policy and avoid extending the deployment of units in Iraq in excess of 
365 days for the Army and 210 days for the Marines. The provision may 
be waived by the President only by submitting a report to Congress 
detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit's extended 
deployment is in the interests of national security.
  Mr. Speaker, to reduce the incidence of combat fatigue and enhance 
readiness, it is important that our troops have sufficient ``time out 
of the combat zone and training between deployments. That is why we 
require the Defense Department to abide by its current policy and avoid 
sending units back into Iraq before troops get the required time away 
from the war theater. The President may waive this provision by 
submitting a report to Congress detailing why the unit's early 
redeployment to Iraq is in the interests of national security.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people spoke loudly and clearly last 
November when they tossed out the Rubber-Stamp Republican Congress. 
They voted for a New Direction in Iraq and for change in America. They 
voted to disentangle American troops from the carnage, chaos, and civil 
war in Iraq. They voted for accountability and oversight, which we 
Democrats have begun to deliver on; already the new majority has held 
more than 100 congressional hearings related to the Iraq War, 
investigating everything from the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse of 
Iraq reconstruction funding to troop readiness to the Iraq Study Group 
Report to the shameful mistreatment of wounded soldiers recuperating at 
Walter Reed Medical Center.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the President should sign this measure, in order 
to get these needed resources to our troops and to our veterans and to 
hold the Iraqis accountable. By signing this legislation the President 
can help deliver the message to the Iraqi people that they must take 
responsibility for their own future. By signing this measure the 
President can show some leadership in the transitioning of the mission 
of U.S. troops from combat to training Iraqi troops and 
counterterrorism. Last, this legislation will help restore and 
strengthen our military, with a new Strategic Reserve Readiness Fund 
among other measures.
  Last November the American people signaled clearly their loss of 
confidence in the President's leadership and their desire for a new 
direction in Iraq. In less than 120 days, the new Democratic majority 
has begun to deliver. And we will not rest, Madam Speaker, until we are 
clearly on a glide path to the day when our troops come home.
  And even then our work will not be done. We must still be about the 
business of repairing the damage to America's international reputation 
and prestige. But this Democratic majority, led by the Progressive 
Caucus and the Out of Iraq Caucus, has ushered in a new era of 
oversight, accountability, and transparency to defense and 
reconstruction contracting and procurement.
  I urge all members to join me in supporting the Conference Report to 
H.R. 1591. This is the best way to ensure accountability to our 
soldiers who have been sent into battle without proper training or 
equipment or a clear mission. It is the best way to keep faith with our 
veterans who are not getting the best medical care when they come home. 
Passing this supplemental appropriations bill is essential to restoring 
our military that is being stretched to the limits by the Bush policy. 
Last, it is absolutely necessary to regain the confidence of the 
American people who demand a new direction in Iraq.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members of the House are once again 
reminded that they should direct their comments to the Chair.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 3 
minutes to one of our hardest-working fighters, the gentleman from 
Dallas, Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in great opposition to this rule and to this 
conference report.
  We are here, yet again, discussing a Democrat plan for a statutory 
date certain for America's defeat in Iraq. We are here, yet again, 
discussing the Democrats' ``slow bleed'' strategy for our brave men and 
women in uniform in Iraq, designed to gradually deny them the critical 
equipment, support, and reinforcements they need to do the job. We are 
here, yet again, discussing just how much pork and unrelated spending 
can be shoved into this conference report to encourage or persuade 
reluctant Members to support this legislation.
  And, Mr. Speaker, according to today's L.A. Times and other major 
media outlets, we are likely to have this vote again and again and 
again because the majority party's leadership somehow believes it is in 
their political interests to do so.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know about the recent announcement of the 
Democratic leader in the Senate. He has announced to our troops, he has 
announced to al Qaeda, he has announced to the world that the war in 
Iraq is lost.
  Mr. Speaker, Corporal Tyler Rock of the 1st Battalion, 6th Marines 
seems to disagree. I would quote him directly, but I believe the House 
rules would not permit it; so allow me to paraphrase that he has a 
quote for the Senate majority leader. Let me go on to say that he has 
said, ``We could leave this place and say we are sorry to the 
terrorists, and then we could wait for 3,000 more American civilians to 
die before we say, `Hey, that's not nice again.'''
  Mr. Speaker, I suspect that Corporal Rock speaks for most of our 
troops. Let's not cut their support. There will be no greater event to 
empower radical Islam than our defeat and retreat from Iraq.
  The terrorists that we fight there believe they have the moral 
authority to kill 2 million, 2 million of our children, two of them 
being my own.
  They are the ones that say the battlefield is in Iraq. Why can't we 
understand that in the Halls of Congress?
  There is no doubt that fighting this war is costly. There is no more 
difficult duty I have, or any of us have, than to meet with the mothers 
of those who have lost loved ones on the field of battle. But as 
difficult as that duty is, I never, never, never want to meet with the 
mothers who lose children in the next 9/11 because we turned our back 
on our duty.
  The cost of fighting this war is great. The cost of losing it is 
greater.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, according to our military leaders, the 
status quo is not working in Iraq. Major General Batiste said, ``The 
administration got it terribly wrong and I applaud Congress for 
stepping up.'' Lieutenant General Odom said our bill ``gives the 
President a chance to pull back from a disastrous course, reorient U.S. 
strategy to achieve regional stability, and win help from many other 
countries, the only way peace will eventually be achieved.''
  Our military has done everything the President and the Congress and 
American people have asked it. The President asked our men and women in 
uniform to invade a country, and they did. The President asked them to 
go to war against a nation's army, and they did. The President asked 
them to seize a capital, and they did. The President asked the men and 
women in uniform to depose a dictator, and they did. The President 
asked the men and women in uniform to capture that dictator, and they 
did.
  Given all these military achievements by our Armed Forces, why do we 
have today the worst national security crisis in over a generation? 
There is not now, nor has there ever been, a political plan that 
matches the military leadership that we have seen from our Armed 
Forces. But this administration has offered no real plan for success, 
and our troops have been asked to back the Iraqi Government that has 
yet to stand up for itself. The entire plan over the last 4 years 
offered by the President and the Republican Congress has been more 
troops, more time, more money, and more of the same, even though we 
know that the challenges we face today require more than the status 
quo. The President's policy has come down to the status quo plus.
  Secretary of Defense Gates had it right: ``Any solution in Iraq is 
not purely military but also political.''
  Our plan holds the Iraqi people accountable for their own nation. It 
requires the Iraqi people to meet the

[[Page 10359]]

benchmarks for success, the same benchmarks that the President outlined 
on January 10 before he turned against his own benchmarks. We will give 
our troops and commanders the resources and freedom to do their job. 
But we will do the one thing that a Republican Congress has refused to 
do over the years: demand accountability from the Iraqis.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the President says send him the money. Let's be clear. 
This bill provides every penny the President asked for to fund the 
troops in Iraq. It also provides for something the President did not 
ask for: funds to help improve the treatment of our wounded soldiers at 
Walter Reed and other places around this country.
  It also provides something that the American people have now insisted 
on but the White House doesn't ask for, and that is accountability with 
respect to the war in Iraq. That is why the President doesn't like the 
bill before us. We know the White House has become an accountability-
free zone. The White House got used to a Congress, the old Republican 
Congress, that gave the President a blank check, money without 
accountability. And this provides funding with accountability. That is 
why they don't like it.
  Let us be very clear. If the President vetoes this bill, he will be 
saying ``no'' to ensuring that our troops have the training and 
equipment that they need. If he vetoes this bill, he will saying ``no'' 
to ensuring that we hold the Iraqi Government accountable to the 
benchmarks which the Bush administration and the Iraqi Government have 
said are absolutely necessary to achieve political stability in Iraq. 
If he vetoes this bill, he will be saying ``no'' to those additional 
funds for our wounded soldiers at Walter Reed and for our veterans 
health care system.
  He will also be saying ``no'' to the additional funds that we put in 
this bill to the fight against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Here we are so 
many years after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Al Qaeda remains a 
vibrant organization and Osama bin Laden remains at large; we provide 
funds to go after Osama bin Laden, additional funds; the President will 
be saying ``no'' to that.
  And the President, if he vetoes this bill, will be saying ``no'' to 
the overwhelming sentiment of the American people who understand the 
failed policy and say we need to change direction.
  Let's change direction. Let's say ``yes'' to this conference 
committee report.

                              {time}  1900

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, we here highly resolve that starting today 
we will no longer allow President Bush to make an infinite number of 
mistakes with an infinite number of our sons and daughters.
  We know one thing, the President believes he has done a heck of a job 
in Iraq; the American people disagree. The people who are now doing our 
bidding in Iraq proudly are standing up for democracy, and we want some 
democracy here. We know that there is a difficult road to hoe in Iraq, 
but we know there should be an infinite wisdom in one source in 
America, and that is the American people.
  There is no sovereignty, there is no king, there is no person who 
always does a heck of a job. When push comes to shove, we have got to 
listen to the American people, and the American people have spoken to 
us loudly. They have said it is time for the Iraqi leadership to quit 
fiddling around and form a government. And they know, as we do, as the 
retired generals who have come out full force and said that the 
American people are right, we cannot expect our service personnel to 
solve the political problem in Iraq. And now, 13 months have gone by 
since supposedly they formed this constitution and they were going to 
solve this problem of what to do with their oil, and they still haven't 
got an agreement. They are still fiddling around while our sons and 
daughters die.
  Now, the troops and the generals understand that there is a message 
being sent by this resolution, and the message is to Maliki and the 
rest of the Iraqi leadership: You have got to stop fiddling around and 
form a government, and you have got to reach an agreement about oil. 
And until you do, there is going to be civil strife, civil war and 
Americans driving in the middle of that. This is a message to them: 
Solve this problem.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, we have a moral obligation to support our 
troops while they are in combat and when they come home; that is why in 
this bill we fully fund our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. So a ``no'' 
vote against this bill is a vote against $3.1 billion to build better 
barracks, housing and training facilities here at home for troops 
returning from war.
  We believe that supporting our veterans is a real cost of war, just 
as real as guns, tanks and bullets. A ``no'' vote on this bill is a 
vote against $1.8 billion and funding high priority health care 
programs for our veterans, with a special focus on taking care of those 
who need it the most, those suffering from traumatic brain injury, 
PTSD, or a loss of arms and legs. Our veterans' sacrifices don't end 
after they come home, and neither should our commitment to them.
  A ``no'' vote on this bill is a vote against a $100 million for 
contracting out health care services so that members of the Guard and 
Reserves in rural areas can receive the timely health care that they 
need and deserve. For some, that timely care can mean the difference 
between good health and depression, for others the difference between 
life and death.
  To prevent a Walter Reed Annex 18 tragedy from occurring in VA 
hospitals, we fund $550 million to address serious maintenance and 
repair needs at our VA facilities. A ``no'' vote on this bill is a vote 
against that funding for veterans. The needs addressed in this bill are 
real, the dollar amounts are fiscally sound, and our troops and our 
veterans deserve no less.
  A vote for this bill is a vote for better health care and housing for 
America's heroes. By voting for this bill, we can honor and respect our 
troops, our veterans and their families, not just with our words, but 
with our deeds.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and a ``yes'' vote for our troops 
on this conference report.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation 
because where continuity is merited, we have continuity, and where 
change is demanded, we have change.
  The continuity comes from the fact of a bipartisan consensus to 
provide every dollar that our troops in the field need, and this bill 
does that. That will not change. What must change, though, is the 
abrogation of constitutional responsibility by the erstwhile majority.
  For over 3\1/2\ years, the erstwhile majority, Mr. Speaker, 
vacillated between apology and inaction. Yes, the President is the 
Commander in Chief, but no President should be the sole source of law 
and judgment. And for nearly 4 years, the erstwhile majority sat 
silently by as the quagmire deepened. That is changing under this 
legislation.
  What also must change is the policy itself. We have been asked what 
our plan was. Here it is. We say to the Iraqis, you promised to pass an 
oil law. Pass it. You promised to have local elections. Have those 
elections. You promised to stand up your own security and police 
forces. Put them into the fight. If you succeed, we will then stay for 
an 18-month period of time to facilitate your success, but if you fail, 
the days of the blank check and the endless commitment are over.
  The erstwhile majority, Mr. Speaker, has a hard time recognizing this 
plan because they have no plan. Their only

[[Page 10360]]

approach is to ratify the failure of the status quo. The troops in the 
field and the American people deserve much, much better, and that is 
what this legislation provides.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on 
both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 8 minutes 
remaining; the gentlewoman from New York has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago we lost a very dear 
friend of mine, one of our Nation's great former leaders, a woman who 
was a lifelong Democrat, and in 1984 she became a Republican when she 
addressed the Republican National Convention. Her name was Jeane 
Kirkpatrick; she served as Ronald Reagan's ambassador to the United 
Nations.
  I will never forget the speech that she delivered at our party 
convention in 1984. She quoted the contemporary French writer, Jean-
Francois Revel, who said, ``Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty 
for everything that it is and does will lack the energy and conviction 
to defend itself.''
  Mr. Speaker, I was struck with that because that was at a time when 
there were many people who were maligning the United States of America; 
they said that we had gone to hell in a handbag. They were attacking 
all of the policies of Ronald Reagan, tax cuts which were ruining the 
country. And I have to say that on a regular basis, Mr. Speaker, I 
continue to hear the same kind of criticism, and yet we have what is 
obviously the greatest Nation the world has ever known.
  Today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average crashed through 13,000. We 
saw last month 185,000 new jobs created, an unemployment rate of 4.4 
percent. It is amazing that during this very difficult time in which we 
are trying to successfully prosecute the war on terror, we are enjoying 
such success because of the greatness of the United States of America 
and because of our people.
  I am very proud of the record that we have put forward, and I am 
saddened regularly when I hear people malign us. And now we have this 
debate, we have this debate, which led, as was said by my friend from 
Marietta and by the gentleman from Dallas, the statement by the 
majority leader of the United States Senate that this war has been 
lost. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the American people 
are convinced that we can be successful.
  I know that there are many who today are critical of the fact that we 
have gone to war. People are very upset about the fact that we have 
gone into Iraq. I happen to still at this moment believe that we did 
the right thing, but I know there are many people who have said that it 
was the wrong thing. And I've had constituents who have come up to me. 
In fact, just over this most recent district work period, I was at 
numerous meetings in California and a number of people came to me and 
they said, you know, I didn't support our going into Iraq, I think it 
was a mistake, but the fact of the matter is we are where we are. We 
have our men and women in uniform who are in Iraq.
  We have seen elections take place in Iraq. We know the threat that 
continues to exist from Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda, you 
can go right down the line. And people have said we want to figure out 
a way for victory. I've had people who said we shouldn't have gone into 
Iraq say to me, we need to figure out a way that we can be victorious. 
And the word ``victory'' is one that unfortunately we really haven't 
heard from the other side of the aisle. In fact, one of the questions 
asked today at the briefing with General Petraeus is, how do we define 
what victory is? Well, it is really twofold. It still is. It is, Mr. 
Speaker, an Iraq that can defend itself. And General Petraeus said to 
us today that there are members of the Iraqi Security Forces who are 
fighting and dying for their country, those are the exact words that he 
used, and an Iraq that can govern itself, Mr. Speaker.
  We understand the fragility of this government, with the Shia, Sunni 
and Kurdish populations and the challenges that Prime Minister Maliki 
faces, but we do believe that we can be successful because we have to 
be successful.
  Now we have gone through this process and we have heard people say on 
both sides of the aisle that we want to make sure that we get funding 
to our troops. Mr. Speaker, the best way for us to get funding to our 
troops is to defeat this rule and defeat the conference report. Why? 
Everyone has acknowledged that the President of the United States will 
veto a bill that guarantees failure, which is what this bill would do 
by establishing these arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal. So we have 
all acknowledged that the President is going to veto the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, why don't we make sure that our troops have the support 
that everyone has said that they need by not going through the 
challenge of the Presidential veto, the time-consuming process of the 
Presidential veto, having this bill go to the other body to be 
considered tomorrow. Let's defeat it right now, defeat the rule. And if 
we don't defeat the rule, at least defeat the conference report itself 
so that we can immediately get down to work. When we do that, Mr. 
Speaker, I hope very much that we won't have a small cadre of 
individuals within the Democratic leadership preventing Democrats and 
Republicans from participating in this very important process to make 
sure that we have everything that is necessary so that the American 
people, who want victory, can in fact see victory achieved.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely hard pressed to see how 
some people define ``success.''
  I read in the New York Times front page that 80 percent of the 
marines who died of upper body wounds would have lived if only they had 
the proper equipment. I know that soldiers who serve in the National 
Guard and Reserve are losing their homes and their jobs, but never mind 
about that because the stock market is great. Aren't we doing well? It 
hasn't hurt us a bit. We haven't called for any sacrifice at all from 
the American people in this.
  My heart is broken. I am ashamed and chagrined that this business 
about the booming economy could be brought into this debate about life 
and death. My worry is about the young people who go over there and 
don't get the proper care that they need.
  I couldn't believe the testimony of Tillman's brother yesterday and 
Jessica Lynch who said the military lied about them. What are we doing 
in this country? The country that fought the Second World War to save 
this world, we've been reduced to this, that we decide as long as the 
stock market is good, the world is good, and let them go over there and 
die because we are going to give them some kind of government we don't 
even know they want? For heaven sakes, to every man and woman in 
country there comes a moment to decide, Mr. Speaker. This is one of 
those moments.

                              {time}  1915

  We either vote for this rule and this bill, and we tell the President 
of the United States if he vetoes this, he is absolutely continuing on 
a road to absolute failure and that we are not going to be a party to 
it. We want to take care of the soldiers. And if he vetoes the money, 
it is on his head, not ours. But we will continue until we can get 
those soldiers and marines out of that morass.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you in opposition to this 
resolution. Once again, it champions a dismally irresponsible and 
dangerous course of action. Setting a date certain for withdrawal of 
our troops from Iraq would envelope Iraq in a cloud of chaos and self 
destruction and expose us to a heightened threat of terrorism at home. 
It ignores the President's plan for success in totality. It makes no 
consideration for the effort to make progress on diplomatic and 
economic fronts--essential components for that success to occur. They 
offer no solutions in this bill, only criticism.
  Mr. Hoyer's failed attempt on April 19th to correlate my involvement 
regarding the U.S. efforts in Bosnia in the 1990s to that of the 
situation in Iraq today stretches into the realm of absurdity. However, 
what was clear from that debate was that Mr. Hoyer at the time, as

[[Page 10361]]

well as Mr. Murtha, agreed that we should not tie the hands of our 
President in military operations, even in operations that the Congress 
did not approve.
  Mr. Speaker, let me refresh everyone's memories of that debate which 
took place in this Chamber, a debate in which I was the lead sponsor of 
three significant resolutions or amendments that set the course of this 
Congress--all three which passed by significant margins with support 
from both sides of the aisle.
  But before I begin let me remind the Nation that there are 
significant differences and some similarities between the debate of 
Bosnia and today in Iraq. First, Congress did not authorize the 
President to use force in Bosnia. Congress did authorize the President 
to use military force in Iraq. Second, we did not begin the conflict in 
Bosnia, but we did in Iraq. Third, the Republican majority in Congress 
did in fact try to work with President Clinton to find a solution. 
Former Senator Bob Dole and I with others traveled with President 
Clinton to Bosnia and worked with him to set benchmarks for the civil 
implementation of the Dayton Accords. I did not assign a date certain 
to define success for each benchmark, this would have been folly. At 
the time the leaders of the peace were once leaders during the war and 
they focused more on these differences than that which brought them 
together as a nation. President Clinton did a very good job focusing 
the Bosnian leaders to accomplish the benchmarks and move to resolve 
their differences and build their new nation.
  Last week on the House Floor my colleague, Steny Hoyer attempted to 
re-write the history of my involvement, claiming that I supported a 
date certain for withdrawal of our troops from Bosnia and therefore I 
should do the same with our forces in Iraq. The two contexts are 
dissimilar. Let me set the record straight.
  On October 30, 1995, the House agreed to House Resolution 247, a bill 
that I sponsored with my Democrat colleague, Paul McHale of 
Pennsylvania, by a vote of 315 to 103. Representatives Hoyer, Murtha, 
and Pelosi voted ``no,'' Mr. Skelton voted ``yes.'' The bill stated 
that there should not be a presumption that the United States Armed 
Forces would be deployed to enforce a peace agreement that resulted 
from the negotiations regarding the conflict in the Republic of Bosnia 
and Herzegovina.
  In early December 1995, the Dayton Accords concluded, laying a basis 
for the path to peace in Bosnia.
  On December 13, 1995, I sponsored House Resolution 302 with Ike 
Skelton, a bipartisan bill that passed the House by a vote of 287 to 
141. Representatives Hoyer, Murtha, and Pelosi voted ``no.'' That bill 
reiterated the serious concerns and opposition to the President's 
policy that would result in the deployment of 20,000 members of the 
U.S. Armed Forces on the ground in the territory of the Republic of 
Bosnia and Herzegovina.
  Despite the expressed will of the House, President Clinton chose to 
proceed with the deployment of those members of the Armed Forces to 
enforce the Dayton peace agreement in Bosnia. H.R. 302 declared the 
policy of the House was that the President should rely on the judgment 
of the commanders of U.S. forces on the ground on all matters affecting 
safety, support, and well being of U.S. forces. Congress also declared 
to furnish the resources to support the needs of President and the 
Secretary of Defense.
  Also on December 13, 1995, the President expressed to Congress that 
the military mission in Bosnia would be accomplished in 1 year, and our 
troops would be pulled out no later than December 1996. No one believed 
that the goal could be accomplished within 1 year. A date certain does 
not define success, the mission does.
  However, despite that assertion, in November 1996, without the 
consent of Congress, President Clinton announced that the timeline was 
slipping and that our troops would not be withdrawn until June 1998.
  By that point, the United States Armed Forces had acted quickly to 
achieve their military objectives in Bosnia. In short order, the 
courage, dedication, and professionalism of those personnel resulted in 
a significant mitigation of the violence and suffering in that region.
  However, the implementation of the civil infrastructure--the 
humanitarian support, the establishment of a judicial system and a 
validated police force--all of the fundamental parts that help make a 
society function had stalled and there was no definitive plan to remedy 
the situation.
  In response, on June 24, 1997, I offered an amendment to the National 
Defense Authorization Act of 1998 that passed the House by a vote of 
278 to 148. Representatives Hoyer, Murtha, and Pelosi voted ``no'', 
Skelton voted ``yes.'' That amendment would have cut funding to U.S. 
military operations in Bosnia after June 30, 1998--a date set by the 
President. I did not set the date Mr. Hoyer, this was President 
Clinton's date. This amendment was later incorporated into the 
conference report that included provisions that would allow U.S. forces 
to remain if the President made certain certifications and accomplished 
certain benchmarks. While I used the date certain given to us by the 
President, I made it clear that I supported benchmarks that set the 
conditions for a withdrawal of U.S. forces after the mission had been 
successfully completed.
  President Clinton had set an arbitrary date without articulating a 
comprehensive plan--he did not identify the conditions to be met into 
order to trigger a troop withdrawal from Bosnia. He simply set a date, 
and then revised that date. We in Congress took that date, and required 
certain benchmarks to be met, while at the same time allowing the 
President the flexibility to allow troops to remain if he thought it 
was in the interests of U.S. national security.
  In Bosnia, we worked in a bipartisan manner with the President to set 
the conditions for success in Bosnia and gave the President maximum 
flexibility. Today, this President gets no such deference or 
flexibility from the Democrat majority. Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Murtha want 
to enforce a date certain for this President. They do not want to work 
with this President to set the conditions for success. They simply want 
to trigger a date for withdrawal, before the mission is done.
  It is ironic that Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Murtha voted against that 
amendment--they did not want to set a date certain for withdrawal and 
tie the hands of their President. They wanted to give him the latitude 
that he needed to insure that the mission in Bosnia met with success; 
to re-establish civility, an effective government, a validated police 
force and civil infrastructure. Today, their position is the opposite. 
President Bush is not setting a date certain as President Clinton had 
done.
  Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer and Mr. Murtha all are seeking 
to tie the hands of this President. They want to cut off funds to our 
forces who are only doing what this Congress has asked them to do.
  Congress should not tie the hands of the President with a date 
certain for withdrawal from Iraq. Unlike President Clinton with Bosnia, 
President Bush had the approval of Congress to go into Iraq. He has 
given us a plan, conditions that must be met before we start to bring 
our troops home. Yet, Mr. Hoyer and his party want to set an arbitrary 
date, a date certain for withdrawal that does not correspond to those 
conditions whatsoever--cut off funding for our troops who seek only to 
succeed in their mission. This is defeatist strategy.
  We need to help establish a stable Iraq before we withdrawal our 
forces--the provisions in this bill do not allow us that flexibility 
and the price that we will pay is chaos in Iraq and further exposure to 
terror here at home.
  The majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid talks about polling 
data from Senator Schumer that indicate ``political'' gains by their 
party on Iraq. It is unfortunate that the Democrat majority think of 
Iraq in terms of political points, not national security. If we do not 
resolve this issue with immediacy, the readiness of our troops will be 
compromised. They are struggling to determine how they will 
redistribute funds to pay for their operations while we are here 
politicking. We must stop the defeatist strategy of the majority now--
the one by which they hope to gain political capital from to the 
detriment of our troops in the field.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and 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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226, 
noes 195, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 264]

                               AYES--226

     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

[[Page 10362]]


     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     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 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
     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
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     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
     Waters
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--195

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     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
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     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
     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
     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
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Blunt
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Gilchrest
     Goode
     Lampson
     Radanovich
     Reynolds
     Watson
     Waxman
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1937

  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  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.

                          ____________________