[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9479-9487]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 1591, U.S. TROOP READINESS, VETERANS' 
                HEALTH AND IRAQ ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2007

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by 
direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1591) making emergency supplemental 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for 
other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


         Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Lewis of California

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct 
conferees.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Lewis of California moves that the managers on the part 
     of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of 
     the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 
     1591, be instructed to insist on subsections (c), (d), (e) 
     and (f) of section 1904 of the House bill, relating to the 
     redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq and restrictions 
     on the Secretary of Defense's use of the Armed Forces in Iraq 
     after such redeployment.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  In doing so, I rise to offer a very simple, straightforward motion to 
instruct conferees on the fiscal year 2007 emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill.

[[Page 9480]]

  The motion to instruct simply insists that House conferees support 
the previously adopted House position with regard to a timetable for 
the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. This motion, which I will oppose, 
puts Members on record as either fully supporting our troops or 
agreeing to a surrender date in Iraq. It is that simple.
  It is no secret that many Members of the House, both Republicans and 
Democrats, have strong reservations about the manner in which this 
legislation undermines the authority of the President, our commander in 
chief. Members are also rightly concerned about how this legislation 
places military decisions in the hands of politicians rather than the 
military commanders in the field.
  This legislation ought to focus on our troops. It ought to focus on 
providing those in harm's way with the resources they need to complete 
their mission successfully. It ought to respect, not micromanage, our 
combatant commanders in whom we place the ultimate responsibility for 
prosecuting military actions.
  Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress are many things. We are elected to 
represent the interests of our constituents from our congressional 
districts. However, as presently written, this legislation makes the 
dangerous assumption that Congress also has an on-the-ground role in 
prosecuting the war in Iraq.
  In closing, let me remind my colleagues of this: We are not generals. 
We are not the Secretary of State. And we are most certainly not the 
commander in chief.
  The vote on this motion to instruct will signal whether Members of 
the House are willing to provide our men and women in uniform with our 
unqualified support or whether Members will fully embrace a timetable 
for withdrawal and surrender.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you, some days it is very 
interesting to watch what happens in a place like this. This is the 
most serious issue that this Congress will confront this year, and this 
motion is addressing that issue in the most unserious manner possible. 
This motion is presented by the distinguished ranking minority member 
of the committee, and then he says he is going to vote against his own 
motion. I would like for a moment to remind the body of what this House 
is supposed to be.
  The core purpose of this Congress, the main reason for its existence 
is to deal with issues like this. Today, the United States Congress is 
supposedly regarded as the greatest deliberative body in the world. We 
exist today, if we remember our history, we exist today because almost 
800 years ago our British forefathers placed the first limitation on 
the absolute use of executive power in the history of the English 
speaking world when they forced the English monarch to sign the Magna 
Carta.
  Over 500 years later, that evolved into the United States 
Constitution, which created three branches of government, with checks 
and balances designed to prevent arbitrary and unilateral exercise of 
unchecked executive power in order to protect liberty.
  Because of that Constitution, and under the procedures defined by 
that Constitution, we are here in the fifth year of a war which this 
country was led into under false premises. And we are debating how the 
Congress should respond to the President's escalation and 
intensification of our involvement in an Iraqi civil war. We are also 
debating his request for another hundred billion dollars to continue 
that war.
  He is also asking for billions of dollars in additional spending for 
other domestic and international activities, including flood control, 
nutrition programs, education and cultural exchanges, disease control 
in Southeast Asia, and salaries for U.S. marshals. The majority of both 
Houses have voted to try to bring about a change in direction in that 
war. We believe, at least those of us who supported the bill two weeks 
ago, we believe that our soldiers won the war that they were asked to 
wage, but that it is unrealistic to expect them to do something that 
they have no power to do, which is to force Iraqi politicians to make 
political compromises necessary to end the carnage in that country.
  By this bill, we are attempting to put enough pressure on those Iraqi 
politicians and those Iraqi factions to make the compromises necessary 
to allow our troops to end their involvement in that civil war. And to 
do that, we have in the legislation now before us conditioned our 
continued presence in Iraq on Iraq's meeting certain performance 
benchmarks, which were first laid out by the President himself.
  This motion, which has now been offered by the gentleman, is an 
example, I think, of people falling off both sides of the same horse at 
the same time because we have people who say they don't want us to put 
limits on the President's conduct of the war, now insisting that in 
fact we adhere to the very proposals that we passed just 2 weeks ago.
  I want to say that this is, I think, despite the fact that it is an 
unserious motion, I intend to accept it because it is simply, in 
essence, a re-vote of what the House committed itself to 2 weeks ago.
  The reason we have timelines in this bill is because we want to give 
General Petraeus the ability to use Congress as sort of a bad cop/good 
cop routine in order to convey to the Iraqi politicians that they must 
resolve their differences if they expect us to remain there for any 
significant length of time at all. There is no way that we can create 
that kind of pressure on Iraqi politicians unless we maintain the 
proposals that we made in this House bill.
  The President wants none of these limitations to pass. I find it 
interesting that people who say that we should proceed to compromise 
are now offering a motion which in essence tells us not to compromise. 
In the end, we know that both sides are going to have to compromise; 
but in the interest of getting us to conference so that we can begin 
that long arduous process, which I fear will take many months, I am 
going to accept the motion of the gentleman, even though I regard it as 
a very quaint way to move to a position of compromise between the 
President and the Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes 
to a member of the committee, the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Granger).
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of our 
troops fighting in Iraq and the plan put forth by General Petraeus to 
win this war.
  Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he believes the war 
is lost and the surge is failing. What a terrible message for our 
troops fighting this very minute. Instead of a road map to success, we 
are being asked to support a plan for defeat. We are being asked to 
announce to our enemies a date for surrender. Do we think the 
terrorists will lay down their weapons and go their merry way if we 
leave? History reminds us otherwise. When the Soviet Union left 
Afghanistan in the 1980s, the radical Islamists did not lay down their 
weapons; in fact, they demolished the Afghani Government and took 
power.
  So what can we expect when we announce today that we are closing, 
that we are losing, and announce tomorrow that we will leave? Al Qaeda 
leaders have publicly declared their mission is to expel the Americans 
from Iraq and establish an Islamic emirate in Iraq. So we have taken 
them at their word with this surge and showed a new determination to 
win. In the seven weeks since the surge began, the number of weapon 
stockpiles we have found has doubled. More tips are coming in from 
Iraqis who want peace and stability to take hold of their country. 
Sunni leaders are turning against al Qaeda and Iraqi troops are 
standing up. Just yesterday, the Iraqi troops took charge of security 
in the southern province of My Soon, the fourth province to come under 
full Iraqi security patrol.
  General Petraeus is coming next week to brief the Congress on our

[[Page 9481]]

progress. How are we going to greet this brave general, good morning, 
General Petraeus, we've decided to run the war? What we need to do as 
responsible Members of Congress is to exercise our oversight, fund and 
support our troops, ensure that we give them what they need as they 
fight for our freedom, what they and their families need as they 
return, and give this plan a chance, paying close attention to its 
progress.
  There is too much at stake in Iraq for responsible leaders to 
advocate allowing the region to spiral into chaos, and we can't ignore 
the threat of failure for our country and our citizens.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize for 3 
minutes the gentleman from California, the former chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, Duncan Hunter.
  Mr. HUNTER. I want to thank my friend, Mr. Lewis, for giving me a 
chance to talk about this supplemental bill, this very bad bill, once 
again.
  Mr. Speaker, I have carefully reviewed the language on page 72 of 
this bill with our counsel as to the exact legal effect of this bill. 
This bill says that an American unit cannot be introduced into Iraq 
until a 15-day waiting period has expired. Now, what does that mean? 
That means if you have hostages being held in a place in Iraq and you 
want to move a Delta force team across the line, you can't do that for 
15 days under the law, should this become law. It says if you have a 
fleeting target, like the Zarqawi strike that we made a couple of 
months ago, and time is of the essence and you want to take an F-16 out 
of Incirlik, Turkey and make a strike, you can't do it without waiting 
for 15 days after notifying the House Armed Services Committee, the 
Senate Armed Services Committee, and presumably the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, if we have an extreme situation in Iraq where Americans 
have to be rescued or reinforced, I don't want them to come back and 
notify me or notify the committee. I want them to do what they have to 
do and carry out their mission.
  This is a very defective bill, and this 15-day waiting requirement in 
this war against terror where time is of the essence, where American 
military teams move across country boundaries every day without 
certifying anything to anybody, this is a real disservice to the forces 
that work not only in Iraq, but should this be applied to other parts 
of the world in a future time would be a real disservice to everybody 
who fights in the war against terror.
  I strongly support the motion of the gentleman from California.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee, Mr. Murtha.
  Mr. MURTHA. This Appropriation Committee will have appropriated $1.2 
trillion for this war and for the Defense Department in one year. When 
I came to Congress, we had appropriated $100 billion for defense for 
the whole year.
  We keep talking about progress; that's what the military leaders in 
Iraq talk about. I wish we saw progress.
  I voted for this war because I believed that our Nation was 
threatened. Two or three weeks later, I realized that we weren't under 
any threat; we were misled. There was no threat to our national 
security. We went in with inadequate forces. I'm the one that found the 
lack of body armor, 44,000 troops without body armor, without armored 
Humvees; and now 4 years later, we're arguing about timelines where the 
Iraqis ought to take over the war themselves. We're arguing about 
allowing the Iraqis to do what the President agreed to. And we want to 
set a timetable so that they are forced to agree to it. There is no 
question in my mind every time the Iraqis stumble, the United States 
steps in and puts our American troops in between the civil war.
  I just visited Fort Hood, Fort Stewart and Fort Bragg. The troops are 
somber. The troops are going to do their job. They're valiant. I am 
inspired by the troops. But let me tell you, they're burned out. In the 
schools in Fort Bragg they say they need counseling. In the schools of 
Fort Bragg they say there's higher truancy. They say the students' 
achievement has dropped. You know who's suffering? We talk about 
fighting this war. We're not fighting this war. A very small segment of 
this population is fighting this war, and they're burned out. I've had 
troop commanders who were there three times say, we can only spend 10 
months in combat and we start making bad decisions; and I believe that.
  They say there's progress, and I've just seen over 200 killed in 2 
days. We've lost more Americans in the last 4 months than any other 
period during this war. That's not progress. The electricity production 
is below prewar level. Production of oil is below prewar level. How do 
you measure? Rhetoric doesn't measure progress.
  In my estimation, this war has been so mishandled. Congress has an 
obligation to set a standard, to have accountability. And this bill is 
called the Iraqi Accountability bill, and that's what we're trying to 
do. We're trying to hold this administration accountable for the 
mistakes that they have made.
  Does anybody know we have 125,000 contractors in Iraq? 125,000. And 
when we pointed this out to the Secretary of Defense, do you know what 
he said? He said, ``They're making more money than I make.''

                              {time}  1930

  The Secretary of Defense said these contractors are making more money 
than he makes, 125,000 of them. They couldn't tell the committee for 2 
months how many contractors they had.
  They have got a fellow fueling a truck on one side, and he's making 
$25,000, and right beside him is a guy making $80,000 fueling a truck. 
Why is that? Are we meeting our recruiting standards when we need 
125,000 people that are contractors in Iraq riding around shooting 
people, as I saw in the Washington Post the other day, shooting 
inadvertently at people? They want to kill somebody, this one guy said? 
That's the face of America? We've lost credibility because of some of 
these contractors and the actions of these contractors.
  I say we need to set timelines. We need to set a benchmark. We need 
to say to the Iraqis, it's time for you to take over and decide your 
own fate, like we did in our own revolution.
  I ask Members to vote for this benchmark set by the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, as I go about recognizing 
another of my colleagues, let me just take a moment to say that if 
indeed we had had a traditional open rule on this process, we would not 
have had the problem that the gentleman has just alluded to. An up-or-
down vote on whether we withdraw our troops or not would have been 
available. We would have satisfied many of the questions.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the former chairman of the Intelligence 
Committee.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today our Nation is engaged in a struggle with a brutal 
and cold-blooded enemy, cold-blooded killers. These are the kinds of 
folks who will kill people on an airplane and fly it into buildings. 
They will drive a car through a checkpoint, step out of the car, leave 
the kids in the back seat, and blow it up. They will attack civilians 
rather than military targets.
  It is utter folly to believe that by establishing timelines and 
saying we are going to pull out today or at some specified date in the 
future, to believe that by doing that they will evaporate and they will 
leave us alone.
  Maybe it is another good cop-bad cop type of ploy being employed by 
individuals on the other side of the aisle when the majority leader in 
the other body today declares the war is lost, conceding that al Qaeda 
has won. Is the other side willing to concede that al Qaeda has won in 
Iraq, that they have won in Algeria, that they have won in Morocco, 
that they have won in Afghanistan and that they have won in Pakistan?
  When do they believe is the most appropriate time to confront the 
enemy that we face today, if we are not willing to confront them in 
Iraq, if we are

[[Page 9482]]

not willing to confront them in northern Africa and the other parts of 
the Middle East or Asia? Are we going to once again wait until they 
come to the United States?
  This is hard and it is tough, but these are cold-blooded, ruthless 
killers. It is probably inappropriate to call this a war, because the 
people that we're fighting don't deserve the term of ``soldier'' or 
``warriors.'' They are outlaws, they are criminals, and we cannot 
concede this to them, like the majority leader in the other body did 
today. Today, he sent a powerful signal to the rest of the world and to 
our allies that al Qaeda has won and we have lost. How will our allies 
respond to that message?
  This motion to recommit is at least a little bit better in that it 
says we haven't lost, but we're willing to soon surrender and give up 
this fight. It is a fight that we can't afford to lose. It is a fight 
that we need to win.
  Take a look at what they said. This is in their playbook. Defeat this 
motion to recommit.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
  Mr. MURTHA. It's interesting to hear the gentleman say ``we.'' ``We 
fight.'' ``We aren't going to give up.'' ``We aren't going to 
surrender.''
  Let me tell you something. We are not fighting this war. It's the 
troops overseas. And when I talk to the families, when I go to the 
hospital, I see the results of this war.
  Don't tell me we're fighting this war. It's the troops in the field, 
a very small segment of the American population that are fighting this 
war. If the President thinks we should continue the war, he ought to 
call for a draft and spread it out and let everybody serve in this war, 
not this small segment making such a sacrifice.
  Don't tell me we're fighting in this air-conditioned office. We're 
not fighting this war. They're fighting it. And I'm proud of every one 
of them. But don't stand here in this air-conditioned facility and say 
we are fighting this war.
  I am proud of these troops and what they have done. They have won the 
war. The mission was accomplished. We cannot win it militarily. It can 
only be won diplomatically.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 4 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman from California for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, whether or not some choose to acknowledge it, we are at 
war with militant Islamists who seek our destruction. Yet some on the 
other side of the aisle today announced that the war is lost in Iraq. 
This comment shows little understanding of the ability and the 
determination of our men and women in the Armed Forces.
  Naysayers and those who doubt our Nation's ability to prevail over 
evil have existed throughout the centuries, and it appears that there 
are those who doubt the ability of this century's greatest generation 
to defeat these Islamist militant extremists operating in Iraq.
  Our mission is just. The soldier cannot be separated from his 
mission. All I have to do is look to the inspiration of the Parsons 
brothers from my congressional district, who are serving in Iraq. They 
know that we must and indeed we can succeed.
  Huber Parsons was with the 101st Airborne for two long Iraq 
deployments. He is currently on his third deployment with the Army 
Stryker Brigade. His twin brother, Bill, has served two tours in 
Afghanistan and two tours in Iraq. And their little brother, Charlie, 
is on his first deployment in Iraq. All three brothers are deployed in 
Iraq right now.
  I ask for the Parsons brothers and for all of our brave men and women 
serving our Nation in Iraq that we not put them at increased risk with 
these arbitrary, artificial deadlines.
  My stepson, Douglas, and my daughter-in-law, Lindsay, both served in 
Iraq as Marine fighter pilots, and tomorrow Lindsay will be deploying 
to Afghanistan to continue her military service.
  Arbitrary deadlines and the consequences of retreating and failure 
are personal issues for me. Establishing arbitrary deadlines for 
withdrawal of our forces before Iraq is stable and secure gives the 
insurgents, as well as the Islamic extremist terrorists, a roadmap, a 
how-to guide, on how to defeat the United States, our Iraqi partners 
and other coalition forces in Iraq. Our troops understand this. Our 
enemies understand this. Our allies understand it; we must as well.
  We met with Egyptian leader Mubarak just 2 weeks ago in a bipartisan 
congressional delegation, and this is what he told us: ``Withdrawing 
from Iraq without creating stability will mean that the U.S. will 
suffer and all of us in the region will suffer. I know how these 
terrorists think,'' Mubarak said to us, ``and they will come after you 
and then come after us.''
  He continued by saying, ``The way to control Iran is for the U.S. to 
succeed in stabilizing Iraq. Withdrawal of your forces in Iraq without 
making Iraq stable will strengthen Iran and will cause you harm and 
will cause all of us harm.''
  Mr. Speaker, we either stand now against the Islamic militant 
jihadists operating in Iraq or have these militants continue to 
threaten our men and women fighting the forces that seek our 
destruction. We cannot leave our troops serving in Iraq or anywhere 
else vulnerable to the whims of armchair generals in Congress.
  Support our troops. Reject this motion.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, when you listen to the debate, you can understand that 
we could be in Iraq for many, many years to come and could expand the 
war beyond Iraq unless we take a new approach which places diplomacy as 
the path to peace.
  Mr. Speaker, our soldiers didn't lose the war. I maintain the war was 
lost the minute the White House fabricated a cause for war. The Bible 
says that which is crooked cannot be made straight, and our adventure 
in Iraq will prove the Bible was right.
  On the one hand, some of my friends do not believe in any timetable 
to withdraw from Iraq, which means we could stay in Iraq indefinitely; 
on the other hand, some of my friends believe in timetables, even 
nonbinding timetables, which means we could stay in Iraq indefinitely.
  I believe we are being presented with an insufficient choice. 
Congress is under no obligation to appropriate any more money for this 
war, yet we give the President $100 billion. We are under no obligation 
to give him any money to continue the war. We can best support the 
troops by using money that is in the pipeline to bring the troops home. 
I believe that is what the American people want.
  Congress recently approved $97 billion in the supplemental. That 
could keep the war going well into next summer. Congress approved a 
budget a week later that would keep the war going into 2009.
  Nearly 200 people died in the carnage in Baghdad yesterday. We 
understand that the occupation is fueling the insurgency. Our troop 
casualties are mounting towards 3,300. Last night, I spoke to the 
sister of one of those casualties who was a young Marine from my 
district. She raised the plea, what can we do to end this war?
  Innocent civilian casualties are rising. The conservative estimate in 
June 2006 of the Lancet Report set at 650,000 the number of innocent 
civilian casualties. It is quite possible that at this time those 
casualties could be approaching 1 million. The cost of the war is 
upwards of $800 billion into 2008. We are borrowing money from China to 
wage a war in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, Mr. Murtha's account of the disaster to our military 
does not need to be added to. But what should be said right now is that 
we are facing limited choices, and that is why, Mr. Speaker, I have 
proposed H.R. 1234, a plan to end the war, which begins with Congress 
not funding the war, pulling the plug on funding and moving forward 
with a plan that reaches out to

[[Page 9483]]

the international community to get out of Iraq.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), a distinguished 
member of the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. SAXTON. I would like to thank Mr. Lewis for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, this vote to me is about Jacqueline, Kate and Allie. 
Most of you don't know Jacqueline, Kate and Allie. You see, they are my 
granddaughters, the next generation, the generation that will perhaps 
be most affected by this policy.

                              {time}  1945

  To many in this Chamber, I am afraid this vote is not about the next 
generation; it is about setting a date for surrender. I believe it is 
time that this House go on record and vote on whether emergency funding 
bills should have a troop withdrawal timeline.
  I want to reiterate to my colleagues the message that we are sending 
if we include such a timeline in this bill. Make no mistake, it is 
nothing less than a date certain for surrender.
  Some in this Congress believe that the withdrawal timeline will send 
a message to the Iraqi Government to get serious about taking the lead 
and stabilizing Iraq. This is a flawed argument. It is flawed because 
it fails to address the collateral effects, the other effects and 
damage this message will do to the Iraqi people, the United States, to 
our allies, and to future American generations.
  A surrender timeline for our troops will send a very clear message to 
al Qaeda, to the Sunni insurgent groups, and to the Shiite militias in 
Iraq. It will tell them that Americans no longer have the stomach to 
see this through.
  The Iranians, who are continuing down the road of development of 
nuclear weapon capability despite sanctions and international pressure, 
will also take note of our timeline. Ahmadinejad already believes that 
Americans are incapable of resistance. He has said so. Our partner 
nations in the Middle East are watching to see the level of American 
commitment to Iraq before they increase their level of assistance. If 
we tell them we are going to pull up stakes and go home in 2008, can we 
expect much support from Saudi Arabia, from Egypt, from Qatar, from the 
UAE, from Jordan? I don't think so.
  A surrender timeline will cause us to lose credibility with our 
allies, our other allies in the war on terror. Al Qaeda's front man, 
al-Zawahiri, warned our Iraqi counterparts already that America is 
about to depart and abandon them, just as we abandoned our allies in 
Vietnam. A surrender timeline will certainly degrade the level of trust 
and confidence that Iraqi soldiers have toward our forces. The negative 
effect of this surrender timeline on our troops will be significant as 
well.
  Some in Congress say the war is already lost. We have heard that 
already. In my opinion, it is not. We are on the right track with a 
renewed strategy toward Iraqi security.
  Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute recently commented: 
``The conflict in Iraq is central to our foreign policy and our future, 
indeed, our well-being. Surely we must keep fighting to win,'' he said, 
``as long as victory remains possible. And it is possible although not 
certain,'' he said, ``that we will win in Iraq. Right now, the signs 
are more hopeful than they have been in many months. It would be a 
tragedy for America and for Iraq to abandon the fight just as the 
possibility of success begins to emerge.''
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that we need to understand what this war has 
really done. This war has gutted our influence in the Middle East, it's 
gutted our influence in the world, it's divided our own country, and 
it's united our enemies. Outside of that, it's been a terrific idea.
  Our troops won the war clearly, cleanly, and quickly. But now they 
are stuck in a civil war. And as the gentleman from Pennsylvania points 
out, the only solution to that civil war is a political and diplomatic 
compromise, and there are no American soldiers who can get that done.
  Although it certainly isn't intended to do it, this motion in fact 
carries out the comments made by Secretary of Defense Gates, who 
testified before our committee, before Mr. Murtha's subcommittee, that 
the war was militarily unwinnable, that it could only be won on the 
political and diplomatic front. In fact, The Washington Post carried 
this paragraph this morning. It said: ``Secretary Robert Gates told 
reporters traveling with him in the Middle East that congressional 
demands for withdrawal had been constructive. `The strong feelings 
expressed in Congress about the timetable probably had a positive 
impact, in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an 
open ended commitment,' Gates said.''
  When the bill was before us the first time, our Republican friends 
did not bother to offer a recommital motion. Why? Because they were 
divided about how to proceed. They could reach no agreement. They had 
no policy. Now they are offering a motion which they say they are going 
to vote against. Is that the best they can do? We have heard talk about 
a surrender date.
  The only surrender that is involved here today is the surrender of 
the obligation of this Congress to oversee Presidential and executive 
branch policy. The only surrender is the total surrender of our 
obligation and our authority to a White House that has demonstrated 
from day one that it had not a clue of what it was getting into, and it 
today has not a clue about how to get out.
  We have to provide better leadership than that, and that is what this 
bill before us tries to do. I would urge support for the gentleman's 
motion.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Connecticut, Chris Shays.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  There is not a Member of Congress who isn't tormented by the war in 
Iraq. There is not a Member of Congress that has not attended a funeral 
of a brave man or woman who has lost their life and seen the family's 
torment. So I just want to say for the record, all of us wrestle with 
this, Mr. Murtha, as you wrestle with this issue. We come to a 
different conclusion than you do, but it is as sincere and heartfelt as 
yours is.
  I have been to Iraq 16 times. I try to go every 3 to 4 months. I 
think we made huge mistakes in 2003. I don't think we turned things 
around and started to move forward until June of 2004, when we 
transferred power to the Iraqis. I saw the rest of 2004 and all of 2005 
as pretty stunning.
  And then in 2006 we had this new government. It took them 4 months to 
become a government. And as you are going upstream and you are not 
making progress, you fall behind. The Samarra bombing was a 
catastrophe. For most of 2006 this government did not take decisive 
action. But on my last trip, the one we took just a few weeks ago, I 
started to see something that gives me hope, and it runs in the face of 
the resolution in the supplemental. I am seeing Anbar province turning 
around because the Iraqi Sunnis have come to us and said, we want to 
confront the insurgents in our province.
  I spoke to 40 Iraqi soldiers in the Red Zone, not in the marketplace, 
and asked them, do you feel safe when you go home? Only about three or 
four told me they didn't feel safe. And, remember, they work 20 days, 
then they go home for 10. I saw their feeling of safety encouraging.
  The Baiji oil refinery, which we took back with five batallions from 
the Iraqi Security Force is no longer a source of income for the 
insurgents. We have gotten at the corruption at the refinery; and now, 
instead of 20 trucks a day, we are having 200 trucks a day, and we feel 
fairly certain the oil is going to the right places and the insurgents 
aren't getting these dollars.
  I am not against timelines; I am just against timelines in the 
supplemental. January 1, 2008 is one of them; April 1,

[[Page 9484]]

2008 is another; and, if the best happens, September 1, 2008. I am not 
against a timeline; I am against those timelines.
  We need to give the Iraqis timelines that give them the time to 
resolve their differences. We attacked them; they did not attack us. We 
abolished all their security forces. How could we possibly leave before 
we give them the chance to have their Army stand up, their police stand 
up, their border patrol stand up? We attacked them. It is a moral 
obligation to give them the opportunity to defend themselves.
  If we want to talk about timelines, let's work it out together. Let's 
establish timelines that give Iraqis time to do what they need to do.
  I am voting against this resolution. It is harmful to Iraqis and 
harmful to Americans.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority 
leader, Mr. Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Let me first of all say at the outset that I agree with Mr. Murtha. 
We're not fighting this war. There's nobody in the Congress of the 
United States that's paying more taxes to pay for this war. There's 
nobody who's saving on metal to fight this war. There's nobody who's 
saving on rubber to fight this war. There's nobody whose gasoline is 
being rationed to fight this war. Our troops are fighting this war, 
their families are fighting this war, but this Nation is not at war.
  There is nobody in this Congress, not one of the 435 Members of this 
Congress, who wants to lose this war. There is nobody in this House who 
does not want to defeat al Qaeda. Nobody. Everybody wants to protect 
this country. Nobody wants to lose another American. Everybody 
understands that the fight against terrorism will require risks. But, 
Mr. Speaker, this House deserves more than this game playing of 
offering motions that we are then going to vote against. In effect, 
this is a motion to reconsider the vote by which the previous bill was 
adopted. It couldn't be made now, but that is effectively what it is. 
And those who voted against that bill will vote against this motion. 
The public needs to understand that a serious motion could have been 
made here to change the policy, but that is not what was done. This is 
an attempt to try to politically get people in a vote that is going to 
be characterized as surrender.
  Let me call my colleagues' attention to June 24, 1997. Our troops 
were deployed in Bosnia stopping genocide, seeing a dictator arrested 
and sent to The Hague and tried for genocide. He died before the trial 
was over. But let me call your attention to that vote, because that 
vote was about setting timelines. It was offered by Mr. Buyer, who is 
now the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Mr. Buyer 
offered that motion and we debated it. I was opposed to it. We hadn't 
lost a single troop in Bosnia, not one. We had spent a pittance 
compared to what we have spent here. We have lost 10 percent of the 
troops we have lost in the last 120 days.
  Bob Gates said this policy was failing. He's our Secretary of 
Defense. Or let me put it this way: he didn't say that; he said we were 
not winning. That's a different way of saying it more accurately. I'm 
sorry.
  But on June 24, 1997, that came to a vote about setting timelines on 
an effort that was extraordinarily successful, brought peace to the 
Balkans, or at least a lack of genocide, a lack of ethnic cleansing. 
But Mr. Buyer said we need to come home. We weren't losing troops, it 
wasn't costing us that much money, and we certainly were not losing.
  On that timeline, Mr. Boehner voted ``yes,'' after 18 months in 
Bosnia. Not 4 years, 4 years and 1 month. After 18 months, you wanted 
to set a timeline. Mr. Boehner, your leader, voted ``yes.''

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. Blunt, your whip, voted ``yes.'' Mr. Hastert, your former 
Speaker, voted ``yes.'' Mr. Hunter, the ranking member of the Armed 
Services Committee, setting timelines, voted ``yes.'' Mr. Hyde, who was 
then chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, voted ``yes.'' Mr. 
Hoekstra, who spoke earlier tonight, voted ``yes'' on setting 
timelines.
  And yes, let me remind Mr. Lewis, you voted ``yes.'' You voted 
``yes'' on a timeline where we had lost no troops, where we had stopped 
genocide in its tracks, where we were not threatened with loss of life. 
All we were threatened with was coming home and not keeping the peace, 
keeping the stability, trying to make sure that we were successful.
  I urge every one of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this Republican 
motion. They don't mean it, but to reiterate to the American public 
that we were serious, that we want to make sure, as Bob Gates has said 
and been quoted by Mr. Obey and others, this was a useful effort for us 
to make.
  Why? Because what we want to do is make sure the Iraqis at least are 
fighting this war, making sure that the Iraqis meet the criteria and 
benchmarks set by whom? By President Bush, not by us. President George 
Bush, the Commander in Chief, said they need to meet these benchmarks. 
But if the message we send them is, we're there forever, why meet the 
benchmarks? Why put their people at risk? If we're all prepared to 
simply have our men and women at risk in lieu of Iraqi soldiers and 
police at risk? Why indeed?
  We need to expect accountability and participation by those whose 
country it is. We deposed their dictator and declared some few months 
later that our mission was accomplished. Unfortunately, because of the 
flawed policies that were pursued, we have not yet succeeded.
  I voted to give the President authority and I disagreed with the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania when he said in November of 2005, let's get 
out, not immediately, but consistent with the safety of our troops. But 
I agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Obey and the 
overwhelming majority of the American public, some 70 percent, who say 
it is time to let the Iraqis know that it is their fight, that we have 
supported them, we will train them, we will protect our troops on the 
ground, we will protect our diplomatic missions, and we will give them 
assistance in arms, but this is their fight now. We are there to help 
them, but it is their fight.
  That's what this says, and it says 15 months from now, not tomorrow. 
To characterize this as any kind of a surrender is not honest debate, I 
suggest to you. Because if it is, then your June 24, 1997, which almost 
all of you voted for, was a cry for surrender. I didn't believe it 
then, don't believe it now. You had a difference of view as to what 
would best resolve the situation in Bosnia. Now the issue is Iraq.
  My colleagues on my side of the aisle, we took a position with which 
the overwhelming majority of the American public agree. They are ahead 
of us on this. Let us once again sustain that position. Nobody on this 
side of the aisle was not being serious. Nobody on this side of the 
aisle did not give this very serious, thoughtful, prayerful 
consideration. And when you voted, you voted for America. When you 
voted, you voted for our troops. When you voted, you voted for success 
in our foreign policy and in our fight against terrorism.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle have offered a motion 
which they are not for. They could have offered, I suggest, some 
serious alternatives. They did not.
  I urge my colleagues, vote ``yes,'' reaffirm the policy statement 
that we need a new direction in Iraq. Staying the course has not 
worked. Let's make a change. Vote ``yes.''
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take 
much time at this moment, but the gentleman who just spoke is my long-
term colleague on the Committee on Appropriations. We have worked 
together for years. He knows full well how strongly I feel about having 
primary consideration of almost nonpartisanship in defense matters.
  At the same time, some time ago, I discussed with the gentleman the 
importance of our working together in the tradition of the committee. 
One of the traditions is that our committee does not operate under 
closed rules.

[[Page 9485]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, you know, I have listened to the 
debate with great interest. I listened to Mr. Murtha, for whom I have 
great respect, when he talked about the price being paid by our troops 
and what he has seen at Walter Reed and Bethesda. I would just remind 
him that he is not the only one that has been out there. Many of us 
have talked to our troops who have been wounded. War is hell, there is 
no question about it, but sometimes you have to fight like the dickens 
in order to preserve your way of life.
  I would like to remind you just a little bit about history. You 
mentioned a revolution; that brought some things to my mind. In 1776, 
in the winter, four of George Washington subordinate generals went to 
Congress and asked them to remove him, and Mr. Lee of Virginia led the 
fight in Congress to have George Washington removed because he was 
ineffective, he could not win.
  One of my ancestors was at Valley Forge with George Washington when 
he was 14 years old, and what I want to remind you is George Washington 
was not removed. They didn't listen to the Congress of the United 
States. They didn't let Congress change things. They left him as 
Commander in Chief, and as a result, he won the Revolutionary War. And 
we are free today, and he is the father of our country.
  Now, the reason I bring this up is it wasn't right then for Congress 
to meddle and try to micromanage the war, and it is not right now for 
Congress to micromanage this war. General Petraeus is the one that 
ought to be making the decisions, not we in this body. Let the chief 
executive, the Commander in Chief, run the war, not 435 or 535 Members 
of Congress.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my good friend from 
California, that in the Revolutionary War they fought for 7 years 
against the greatest army in the history of the world at that time, 
ragged, with no shoes, no ammunition, and they outworked them and 
outfought them because they were on their homeland.
  That is what I am saying the Iraqis should do. It is the Iraqis' 
country. The Americans should not be dying for Iraqis, caught in this 
civil war.
  We have appropriated $1.2 trillion. We have appropriated over $140 
billion more than the White House asked for, $140 billion more for the 
troops, to support the troops. We have given everything they asked for. 
In this Iraq accountability bill, we give them $4 billion more than the 
President asked for. We put a strategic reserve in, and we also take 
care of the health care, the post-traumatic stress. We take care of 
brain damage. We take care of the troops. We want to make sure the 
troops have what they need.
  And to go back to the Revolutionary War, my great-grandfather's 
grandfather fought in the Revolutionary War on the right side and he 
prevailed. We don't have any letters from him, but we have letters from 
my great-grandfather who served in the Civil War on the right side, and 
he talks about how tough it was in the Civil War. But we fought our own 
Civil War, and my great-grandmother lived to be 96; I was 6 years old, 
and she said, you are put on this Earth to make a difference.
  We need to make a difference in this Congress, to change the 
direction of a mishandled war. We need to have oversight and 
accountability for the $1.2 trillion that we have spent on the Defense 
Department in 1 year.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, could you give me an idea of 
what amount of time is left on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) 
has 7 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a distinguished member of 
our committee.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we have heard over and over again once 
again in this debate about all the lies that got us into this war. 
Let's go back to the lies that got us in this war. And I was really 
gratified to hear my friend across the aisle, from Ohio, a moment ago 
refer to a quote from the Bible. In that same book, it constantly talks 
about forgiveness.
  Yes, we heard the administration talk about weapons of mass 
destruction over and over again, the Secretary of State, but it is high 
time we moved on. It is time to forgive President Clinton for all those 
lies. It is time to forgive Madeline Albright for all those lies. It is 
time to forgive President Bush for being so dadgum gullible that he 
believed all the stuff that was passed on to him. So let's forgive them 
and move on.
  Now to fulfill, Mr. Speaker, a commitment that I had at the funeral 
of Travis Buford from Douglas in my district: He died February 22 in 
Iraq, an IED, and among the tears, as we stood there, it was an open 
casket, and I asked his mother if there was anything I could do. She 
said, just tell the Congress to shut up and let the military finish 
their job. I've done what I said I would.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Wisconsin 
has no additional speakers, I am ready to close.
  Mr. OBEY. Then let me yield myself 2 minutes before the gentleman 
closes.
  Mr. Speaker, 2 nights ago I was watching the Public Television series 
on the Iraq War, and I saw one of the gentlemen who is generally 
regarded as being one of the intellectual architects of that war, 
Richard Perle, say the following: ``We do not leave the battlefield 
with the first casualty.''
  I would simply note that an awful lot of people who have never seen a 
battlefield or been anywhere near one seem to be awfully anxious to 
make that kind of a statement.
  When I heard that comment, I was reminded of a comment of my old 
friend, the philosopher, Archie the Cockroach, who said once that there 
is always a comforting thought in time of trouble when it's somebody 
else's trouble.
  But as the gentleman from Pennsylvania has pointed out, there has 
been no sense of shared sacrifice in this country over this war. The 
only sacrifice most Americans are being asked to undergo is to take a 
tax cut.
  Well, it seems to me that we ought to start asking whether it is 
right and indeed whether it is moral to allow a tiny band of American 
citizenry, military families, to bear the entire burden of this war 
that so many noncombatants seem to be so enthusiastic about. It seems 
to me we need to bring about a different policy that will indeed have 
equal sacrifice.
  There are a lot of people who are apparently willing to fight to the 
last drop of somebody else's blood. I think it is time for that to 
stop.
  We, on this side of the aisle, choose to take seriously the 
gentleman's motion, even though he himself indicates he does not intend 
to take his own motion seriously because he intends to vote against it.
  I would urge that every Member on this side of the aisle, and I hope 
on the other side, would take this motion with the deadly seriousness 
that it deserves. Because lives are at stake. They are the lives of 
innocent Iraqis and they are the lives of innocent American troops who 
are simply being asked to carry out a policy which is increasingly 
futile.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on the gentleman's motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of my 
colleague dealing with this time and circumstance. I do not intend to 
take a lot of time.
  But it is important for all those listening, and who were concerned 
about this issue, to know that we take this matter very, very 
seriously, and our motion is a serious one. It is my view that a 
``yes'' vote for this bill is a bill that will undermine the potential 
effectiveness of our troops for the remainder of the time that they 
remain

[[Page 9486]]

in Iraq, and that a ``no'' vote is the only way, the only way to 
express support for our troops' efforts and guarantee, in many ways, 
the opportunity for success. This legislation ought to focus on those 
troops.
  As I said earlier, it ought to focus on providing those in harm's way 
with the resources they need to complete their mission successfully. 
Further, it ought to respect, not micromanage, our combatant commanders 
who have the responsibility for carrying forward this war successfully.
  It's no secret that many Members of the House, both Republicans and 
Democrats, have strong reservations about the manner in which this 
legislation undermines the authority of the President and the Commander 
in Chief. It is not acceptable that we find ourselves suddenly 
presuming that we can afford to have 435 Commanders in Chief by way of 
this House.
  It breaks, in my judgment, some of the fundamental traditions of the 
Appropriations Committee, which calls for an open process whereby we 
can deal with each other in as close as a nonpartisan way as possible. 
Indeed, a ``no'' vote on this legislation expresses strongly our 
concern for allowing our troops to do their work, to do it effectively, 
and to get home as soon as possible as we continue to be the voice, the 
significant voice for freedom remaining in this world.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I could not support this motion 
to instruct House conferees on the Defense Supplemental appropriations 
bill, for two reasons: First, I do not support the idea of rigidly 
insisting on the parts of the House-passed bill that the motion says 
the conferees should not change. Second, I believe the funding of our 
troops and the future of our involvement in Iraq are too important and 
too serious to be used for cheap partisan tricks.
  My vote was based on my appraisal of the merits of the motion, 
without regard to how others may have decided to vote. In other words, 
unlike the gentleman from California who offered it, I took the motion 
seriously--and, like its author, I opposed it.
  Earlier, when the House considered the Defense Supplemental bill 
itself, I voted for the bill to ensure that America's soldiers get the 
equipment and resources they need and the top-quality health care they 
may require when they come home.
  My vote for the bill was not a vote to support the Bush 
Administration's policy in Iraq. We are 4 years into a war the Bush 
Administration assured us would be short and decisive. The 
Administration's misjudgments, lack of planning and poor leadership 
have made a bad situation worse--and the tactic of increasing troops 
for a temporary ``surge'' is no substitute for what is needed, namely, 
a strategy for containing civil war and a wider regional war.
  While I am convinced that it was a strategic mistake to go to war in 
Iraq in the way that the Bush Administration did, we are still deeply 
engaged there--and while our troops are in the field, we must provide 
them what they need. Beyond supplying our soldiers, however, we must 
extricate them from what objective defense experts have characterized 
as an emerging civil war.
  Disengaging from that civil war is the purpose of the provisions in 
the House-passed bill designed to hold the president accountable to the 
benchmarks set by his own administration and the Iraqi government--
including enactment of a hydro-carbon law; conducting of provincial and 
local elections; reform of current laws governing the de-Baathification 
process; amendment of the Constitution of Iraq; and allocation of Iraqi 
revenues for reconstruction projects.
  I strongly support that approach because I am convinced that holding 
the president and the Iraqi government accountable for achieving these 
benchmarks will provide us with the leverage necessary to pressure the 
Iraqi government to forge the political solution we all know is 
required. In fact, Defense Secretary Gates has acknowledged that the 
House-passed a bill has been helpful in this approach by showing the 
Iraqis that American patience is limited.
  As I said when the House debated the bill, however, I do not believe 
it was a good idea to include a date certain for withdrawing U.S. 
combat troops from Iraq. As I said then, I do not consider this 
provision to be wise and if it had been up to me, it would not have 
been included in the bill. I remain convinced that we should steer 
clear of arbitrary public deadlines for military actions and focus 
instead on realistic diplomatic and political goals. Our military needs 
flexibility to be able to link movements of U.S. troops to the 
realities of the situation on the ground, and successful diplomacy 
requires such flexibility as well.
  I voted for the bill despite my reservations about the withdrawal 
language because the deadline--August of 2008--is far enough away that 
it can be revisited, and while I did not like its inclusion, I do not 
believe in letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
  But since it would have been better if it had not been included in 
the first place, I could not vote to instruct the conferees to insist 
on including it in the conference report.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215, 
nays 199, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 235]

                               YEAS--215

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     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
     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
     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 (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--199

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David

[[Page 9487]]


     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Kucinich
       

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Cannon
     Cantor
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Lincoln
     Donnelly
     Fattah
     Higgins
     Israel
     Jones (NC)
     Lampson
     Millender-McDonald
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Rohrabacher
     Shadegg
     Walsh (NY)
     Wicker

                              {time}  2040

  Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. KNOLLENBERG and Mr. McHUGH changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. WATT and Mr. CHANDLER changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 235, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Mr. Obey, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Visclosky, 
Mrs. Lowey, Messrs. Price of North Carolina, Dicks, Edwards, Mollohan, 
Olver, Serrano, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Messrs. Clyburn, Lewis of 
California, Young of Florida, Rogers of Kentucky, Wolf, Walsh, Hobson, 
Knollenberg, Kingston, Frelinghuysen, and Wicker.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________