[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12079-12086]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2237, PROVIDING FOR REDEPLOYMENT OF 
UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AND DEFENSE CONTRACTORS FROM IRAQ; PROVIDING 
 FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2206, U.S. TROOP READINESS, VETERANS' CARE, 
KATRINA RECOVERY, AND IRAQ ACCOUNTABILITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007; AND 
    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2207, AGRICULTURAL DISASTER 
      ASSISTANCE AND WESTERN STATES EMERGENCY UNFINISHED BUSINESS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 387 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 387

       Resolved,  That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 
     be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2237) to 
     provide for the redeployment of United States Armed Forces 
     and defense contractors from Iraq. All points of order 
     against the bill and against its consideration are waived. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2206) making 
     emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment 
     printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 
     The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 3. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2207) making 
     supplemental appropriations for agricultural and other 
     emergency assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2007, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment printed in 
     part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 4. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 2206, the Clerk 
     shall--
       (1) await the disposition of H.R. 2237 and H.R. 2207;
       (2) add the respective texts of H.R. 2237 and H.R. 2207, as 
     passed by the House, as new matter at the end of H.R. 2206;
       (3) conform the title of H.R. 2206 to reflect the addition 
     of H.R. 2237 and H.R. 2207, as passed by the House, to the 
     engrossment;
       (4) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (5) conform cross-references and provisions for short 
     titles within the engrossment.
       (b) Upon the addition of H.R. 2237 and H.R. 2207, as passed 
     by the House, to the engrossment of H.R. 2206, H.R. 2237 and 
     H.R. 2207 shall be laid on the table.
       Sec. 5. During consideration of H.R. 2237, H.R. 2206, or 
     H.R. 2207 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the 
     operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone 
     further consideration of any such bill to such time as may be 
     designated by the Speaker.

  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.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume and ask unanimous consent 
that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and 
extend their remarks on House Resolution 387.
  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. 387 provides for consideration of 
three bills, including the supplemental appropriations for the Iraq 
war.
  It is striking to realize that for 4 years the war in Iraq has been 
funded by supplemental appropriations measures. From the beginning the 
White House has refused to plan ahead. Instead it has counted on 
Congress to accept its demands and pass one supplemental bill and then 
another time and time again, with no end in sight and no accountability 
required in return.
  The American people have rejected a House that blindly accepts the 
administration's predictions about Iraq, all the while ceding its role 
in deciding matters of war and peace, the most solemn responsibility 
given to the Congress.
  My fellow Democrats and I promised a new way forward. And so the 
first funding bill that we delivered to the President reconciled our 
party's conscience with the brutal realities the war presented to us, 
realities that we, unlike some in the administration, are willing to 
acknowledge.
  We sought then, as we do now, to end this war but to do so 
responsibly, without adding to the suffering the Iraqi people and our 
soldiers have already experienced.
  Our first bill provided the President with all of the funding he 
requested but attached conditions to it. We asked for the President to 
stand before the Nation and justify the war. We asked him to show how 
it was meeting the objectives that he himself had set out: the 
promotion of political progress in the country and the increase of 
internal security in Iraq, all of which is his responsibility. And we 
said the war would not go on forever, that it must have an end, not an 
irresponsible end but an end.
  The President rejected our offer out of hand. He told us that while 
he would never compromise, we had to.
  Mr. Speaker, stubbornness is not the same as strength. Being 
obstinate is not equivalent to having conviction. This President 
famously told the world that he would refuse to alter his policy in 
Iraq even if, as he put it, nobody stood by him except his wife and his 
dog.
  But he is not making decisions that impact only himself. The weight 
of his decisions are being borne by the American people and the people 
of Iraq. His decisions are costing American lives and they are costing 
Iraqi lives. They are overstretching our military. They are undermining 
the national security of this Nation. And they are not improving the 
wretched conditions of the Iraqis the war is theoretically helping.
  The President must not be allowed to ignore everyone: the majority of 
the generals, the majority of the House, the majority of the Senate, 
the majority of the Nation, and the overwhelming majority of the world. 
He must not be allowed to ignore everyone when it is they who are 
bearing the burden of his war and suffering the consequences of his 
administration's mistakes. He must understand that his opinion, as 
sincere as it may be, is not the only one that matters. He must yield.
  The bill we are considering today will, once again, give him the 
chance to acknowledge the demands of the citizens of this country. They 
are demanding a change of direction in Iraq, and this bill delivers it.
  This legislation will fund military operations in Iraq between now 
and July. By then the President's surge plan will be in full effect, 
and its impact, either positive or negative, will be obvious. The 
President will report to Congress on the state of political and 
military progress in Iraq, and then we will vote on whether or not to 
provide the remaining funds that have been requested. Our degree of 
financial support at that point will be based not on endless promises 
or rosy scenarios, but on concrete reality on the ground in Iraq. 
Accountability is being introduced into the conduct of this war.

[[Page 12080]]

  Mr. Speaker, let me also add that during the last debate on this 
supplemental, the President and his supporters told us the measure was 
``unclean,'' that it contained spending unrelated to the war effort.
  That spending, Mr. Speaker, was for critical projects the last 
Congress failed to fund by not passing any budget at all for the year 
2007, which included funding for veterans care, recovery from Hurricane 
Katrina, health insurance for children, home heating oil for low-income 
families, and much more. In other words, there is nothing dirty about 
it. My fellow Democrats and I refuse to abandon it. We are going to 
fund these vital and important projects because people are counting on 
them. What is more, we campaigned on increasing the minimum wage, and 
this supplemental spending legislation will do that as well. And I hope 
we don't hear anything more about so-called ``unrelated spending.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is long past time for this body to abandon the 
destructive rhetoric that has labeled this plan a form of 
``surrender.'' It is time to stop branding the Democrats, and a growing 
number of Republicans, who seek to end this brutal conflict as 
``defeatists.''
  We want our country to be secure. We want our military to be sound. 
We want the Iraqi people to be able to live with dignity. But we see 
that this war fought in this way is undermining all of those goals. And 
we are not alone. We speak for a clear and vocal majority of the 
American people, and we represent their wishes. For the sake of our 
citizens, for our soldiers, and the people of Iraq, we will be heard.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise to express my appreciation to my very good friend from 
Rochester, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules (Ms. 
Slaughter), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  I have to say that this is somewhat unusual for me. Mr. Speaker, I 
rise in strong opposition to the rule, but I rise in even stronger 
opposition to the underlying legislation.
  Here we go again, Mr. Speaker. These bills bring us to round three, 
round three of the Democratic leadership's Iraq charade.
  First they brought up a bill that they knew the President would veto. 
Then they called for a veto override that they knew would fail. And 
today we are once again considering the same defeatist policy that 
failed in the first two rounds plus, plus, Mr. Speaker, a call for 
redeployment, basically withdrawal, within 90 days, to begin withdrawal 
within 90 days.
  Mr. Speaker, they may think that they made progress, but in truth we 
have, in fact, gone backwards. Kicking the pullout vote a few months 
down the road is not a solution.
  Mr. Speaker, the closing remarks that were just offered by the 
distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, I think were 
right on target in describing the exact goal that we have here. We want 
to make sure that the American people are secure. We want to make sure 
that our troops can be successful. We want to make sure that our troops 
come home. And we want to make sure that the Iraqi people can live with 
dignity. The one thing that I will add with that statement that Ms. 
Slaughter just made, Mr. Speaker, is that not only simply live with 
dignity but with the kind of self-determination that led to a 70 
percent voter turnout in Iraq. So obviously we share the exact same 
goal that Ms. Slaughter just outlined.
  But I am very, very troubled with the plans that we have before us. 
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, withdrawal that would begin in 90 days would 
undermine every single one of those goals to which Ms. Slaughter just 
referred. And this time, Mr. Speaker, it is not just the President's 
opposition that stands in their way of what it is that they are trying 
to do. Their own colleagues in the Senate have said that the House 
Democratic leadership's approach won't work on their side of the 
Capitol.

                              {time}  1230

  Senate Majority Leader Reid has criticized their punting strategy and 
acknowledged he has serious doubts that the House plan could actually 
get through the Senate.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, this policy of defeat couldn't prevail in April. It 
won't prevail in May. So it would appear the idea is to wait and hope 
for the best in July.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq is not a game. Funding our troops 
who are in harm's way is not a game. These votes may make my friends on 
the other side of the aisle feel good, but they aren't doing anything 
to get our troops what they need to protect themselves and to fight 
effectively against terrorists around the world. Mr. Speaker, that's 
what matters here.
  Again, going back to the words of the very distinguished Chair of the 
Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, we want to make sure that we are 
secure at home. The way to do that is to ensure that the troops have 
what they need.
  Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation to have a serious, substantive 
debate to supply our troops with the funds they need to do their job 
and to demonstrate to the American people that we are doing what is 
necessary to win in Iraq and to bring our troops home. But rather than 
fulfilling our duties as responsible legislators, Democratic leadership 
has simply scheduled one more empty political vote under yet another 
totally closed process. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats go so far 
as to have three closed rules, two of them on appropriations bills. 
Now, we will consider four appropriations bills this year, and all of 
them, Mr. Speaker, will have been under a completely closed process. 
And we all know, under both Democrats and Republicans, the tradition is 
that when it comes to wartime supplementals, they be considered under 
an open amendment process, but that's been thrown out the door.
  This is a far cry, Mr. Speaker, from the open and fair Congress that 
was promised to the American people. Worse yet, buried in the 
appropriations bill is yet another totally closed rule, completely and 
prospectively shutting out Republicans 2 months from now. And they even 
go so far as to totally deny us a motion to recommit, something that we 
never did in the 12 years that we were in the majority. And those were 
tame restrictions when compared to what they tried to do to the Senate.
  It has been said by my very good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) for whom I have the highest regard. I served with him for 
many years on the Rules Committee. I had the privilege for the past 8 
years of chairing the Rules Committee, and during that period of time, 
Mr. McGovern would regularly say that the Rules Committee is the place 
where democracy goes to die. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is only 
fitting that it is the rule which provides for this bill, for his bill, 
that we will use to pronounce the time of death. And while this tactic 
fails to achieve a legislative success here at home, it is already 
producing disastrous results in Iraq.
  Ryan Crocker, the very highly regarded new ambassador to Iraq, I've 
heard a number of leading Democrats, a number of leading outspoken foes 
of what it is that we are doing in Iraq speak very highly of Ryan 
Crocker. Ambassador Crocker said last week in an interview with Morton 
Kondracke of The Roll Call, that the Iraqis are watching the Democratic 
leadership's political games play out in Congress. They hear the calls 
to abandon our mission, and it is taking away any will to negotiate 
among political factions and achieve an effective government capable of 
bringing about a political solution to the crisis.
  Mr. Speaker, as Kondracke puts it in his piece, and I quote, ``What 
is going on in Congress is hurting Crocker's ability to get the sides 
in Iraq to make agreements with one another.'' He goes on to say, Mr. 
Speaker, ``It hardens the sectarian divisions. They think we are going 
to leave, and instead of reaching across lines and making agreements 
with the adversary, they are getting ready to go to the mat.''
  Now, that is what Mr. Kondracke writes following his discussion with 
Ambassador Crocker, and it's very troubling.

[[Page 12081]]

  What we do here and say here, Mr. Speaker, has consequences. And the 
report back from the new Ambassador to Iraq is that those consequences 
are not good. Those who would declare this war lost before the new 
strategy of, again, the very highly regarded General David Petraeus, 
who enjoyed unanimous support of the United States Senate, that means 
Democrats and Republicans on a recorded vote provided unanimous support 
confirming General David Petraeus. We are now basically, with what we 
are trying to do here with this effort, not even giving his new 
strategy a chance to succeed, and I believe that it is a huge mistake.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, like everyone in this institution and people around 
this country, I read the newspapers, and I watch the news. I watch the 
pictures on television. And I know that the terrible images of violence 
that are broadcast every day permeate. And as we see those horrible 
pictures, I don't blame the American people for becoming extremely 
discouraged by what is being reported out of Iraq. And I will say that 
I am horrified by the pictures and the things that we see coming out of 
Iraq. But there is real and significant progress that is being achieved 
by our military.
  Mr. Speaker, the Chicago Tribune editorialized just yesterday on one 
of the great success stories, that success story being the al Anbar 
province, which is the large province just to the west of Baghdad. Its 
capital city, Ramadi, was once described by the New York Times as the 
most dangerous city in Iraq and potentially the most dangerous city on 
the face of the earth. Today, Mr. Speaker, this former outpost for the 
insurgency is not only a secure city, it is a model for Sunni, Shia and 
American cooperation in the fight against the organization that was 
responsible for what happened on September 11, 2001, that being al 
Qaeda.
  Mr. Speaker, the Chicago Tribune editorial said, ``al Qaeda's 
terrorists in Iraq now face a new enemy, Sunni tribesmen in the al 
Anbar province.'' Their editorial goes on, and I quote, ``These tribal 
leaders in the heart of the insurgency are now backing coalition and 
Iraqi forces against the terrorists.'' ``You want good news from 
Iraq,'' the Chicago Tribune editorial goes on to say, ``there it is, 
flashing in neon.''
  Now, Mr. Speaker, this editorial goes on to quote the New York Times 
report saying, ``The progress has inspired an optimism in the American 
command that among some officials borders on giddiness.'' ``There are 
some people who would say we have won the war out here,'' one Marine 
officer said. I am simply quoting, I would say to my friend, the chair 
of the Rules Committee, not something that a Republican said, but the 
editorial that appeared just yesterday. I would encourage all of our 
Members to look at that editorial in the Chicago Tribune.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, through the Joint Services stations that have been 
established, local Sunni police, Shia Army officers and U.S. military 
have worked hand in hand to take back the city and the province and 
drive al Qaeda out. With the full support and cooperation of the local 
Sunni leaders, the Shia Army has earned the confidence of the local 
population. Through their alliance, they are achieving our objective 
for the entire country, peace sustained by the Iraqis themselves 
through national unity.
  Mr. Speaker, General Petraeus came here, as we all know, just 2 weeks 
ago to provide Members of the House of Representatives with a 
classified briefing on Iraq. Unfortunately, the Speaker of the House, 
Ms. Pelosi, was unable to attend that briefing, but for those of us who 
were there, we were given a realistic picture from General Petraeus of 
what was taking place. He did not, and I don't know all of the Members 
who were there, Mr. Speaker, but I will say, General Petraeus did not 
sugarcoat the tremendous challenges that lie ahead in this war in Iraq. 
But, Mr. Speaker, he also described tremendous successes, such as this 
great success that I just reported on in Ramadi, what was one of the 
most dangerous cities on the face of the Earth and has now been 
stabilized in the al Anbar province.
  General Petraeus described the Sunni Arabs who have turned against al 
Qaeda and have joined the Iraqi Security Forces. Our American and Iraqi 
forces have succeeded in detaining a number of key network leaders, 
getting critical intelligence on how various elements of al Qaeda 
operate in Iraq, taking apart a car bomb network that killed 650 
citizens in Baghdad and destroying several significant car bomb 
factories. These are the kinds of joint efforts that are taking place 
at this very moment in Iraq, Mr. Speaker.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, General Petraeus has spoken publically about these 
successes, about the reduction in sectarian murders in Baghdad by two-
thirds so far this year, about the tripling of seizures of weapons 
cashes this year, about the revival of markets and the return of 
displaced families to neighborhoods and cities that were previously 
totally uninhabitable because of violence. Mr. Speaker, these success 
stories are not meant to paint a rosy picture of Iraq. And I will say 
that again, Mr. Speaker. I'm not attempting to sugarcoat the situation 
in Iraq. I'm not attempting to paint a rosy picture of what is taking 
place in Iraq. I know how horrendous and what a difficult situation 
this is.
  We all know the enormous challenges that our military still faces 
there and will continue to face for some time to come, not just to be 
solved by September; it will extend longer than that, we all know that. 
The other night I was with Ambassador John Negroponte who reminded me 
of the public statement that he made just as he left his ambassadorial 
post in Baghdad; he said it would be at least 5 years. So we all know 
that this battle and this struggle is going to continue.
  But what these successes do demonstrate very, very clearly is that we 
have not lost this war. They demonstrate that our men and women, when 
they have the necessary resources, can achieve victory. We must give 
General Petraeus adequate time and adequate resources to build upon 
these successes and make his new strategy work. Setting a day for 
defeat, whether it is today, next week or at the end of July or 
September is simply not an acceptable policy. Rationing funding for our 
troops is not an acceptable policy.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I offered two amendments yesterday in the Rules 
Committee that would have stricken two of the most egregious elements 
of this legislation. First, I proposed to remove the July cutoff date 
for the troops' funding. Our generals in the field have said that this 
limitation ties their hands and keeps them from doing even their near-
term planning, which is absolutely essential if the successes that we 
have seen are going to continue. Wars aren't won in 2-month increments, 
and military victories aren't achieved by congressional decree.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, my second amendment would eliminate the requirement 
that the President make his reports to Congress on the Internet. Even 
in its unclassified form, this highly sensitive information would 
provide information to our enemies and the enemies of the Iraqi people. 
It would provide them with their blueprint for victory. The notion of 
providing this report from the President to the Congress, not in any 
kind of confidential way but on the Internet, is absolutely outrageous. 
There is no justifiable reason for us to give the people who are 
wanting to kill us and are responsible for the violence in Iraq this 
kind of information.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, neither of the amendments that I 
offered was made in order. They would have provided an opportunity to 
consider a troop funding bill that would actually be enacted and would 
actually fund the troops rather than simply staging one more 
meaningless vote allowing Members to posture.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand very well, having been in the majority 
for a while, I understand that the Democratic leadership is in a very 
tough spot. They want to be able to say that they are funding the 
troops. At the same time, they have to accommodate their Members who 
want to get out yesterday. They want to get out immediately, regardless 
of the consequences. So their political situation is to schedule vote 
after meaningless vote. They

[[Page 12082]]

get their weekly opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to say, ``I support the 
troops,'' out of one side of their mouth, and ``Let's retreat'' and get 
out immediately out of the other side of their mouth.

                              {time}  1245

  But, Mr. Speaker, our troops and the American people deserve more 
than political gimmicks. We must stop playing dangerous games with the 
lives of the American people, our men and women in uniform, and the 
Iraqi people who have been struggling for freedom. We must get our 
troops the funding that they need and give our military commanders the 
means to win and to do what we all want, Mr. Speaker, to bring our 
troops home.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Arcuri), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just respond to my colleague 
from California saying that we can't win the war on 2-month funding 
intervals. I would submit we have now been at this Iraq war longer than 
it took us to win World War II when we were fighting both Japan and 
Germany, and still we are no closer, and, I would submit, further from 
what they define as ``victory.''
  I, like so many Americans, have tried to be patient with this 
administration in extricating us from the difficulties we find 
ourselves in in Iraq. They first told us there were weapons of mass 
destruction. None were found, yet we were still patient. Then they told 
us we were there to remove a tyrant. We removed Saddam Hussein, yet we 
are still there, and we continue to be patient. They told us we were 
there to fight terrorism, and we have been fighting terrorism, and we 
still remain patient.
  Now they tell us that we are there to make our families safer. Well, 
I don't feel that my family is any safer as a result of our being in 
Iraq. And like the American people, I am losing patience with the 
hollow promises that this administration has made about getting us out 
of Iraq.
  I rise today in support of this rule because I think that it is time 
that we change the course, we change the direction. How many strategies 
is this administration going to adopt before they arrive at success?
  Last night in the Rules Committee I got to thinking as we were 
discussing this rule about my own children, about my family, and I 
thought about how would my children look at me later in life, how would 
my grandchildren look at me later on, in terms of how we tried to stop 
this conflict in Iraq. Then I thought about a situation that I talked 
about a lot during my campaign.
  During my campaign, when I was trying to decide whether or not I 
would run, my son and my daughter, who are both teenagers, were not 
supportive of that. One day my son said to me, Dad, what is it that a 
Congressman does? I started telling my son what a Congressman does.
  He said, Dad, are you saying that if you get to Congress, you will be 
able to stop the war in Iraq?
  I said, Not alone, but certainly with the other Members of Congress.
  He said then, I really think that you should run for Congress, 
because the war in Iraq is a bad thing and too many people are dying.
  My son, then 15 years old, got it. He understood what it was about. 
He understood that we are in Iraq for the wrong reason. He understood 
that it was time to change the course and change the direction.
  That is why I rise today. I rise because I support the rule that will 
get us out of Iraq, but, more importantly, because my children know 
that it is the right thing to do.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), a member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the honorable chairwoman for the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, our troops are brave and capable. They have fought 
heroically. But, Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to tell our 
President that he can no longer ignore the American people, this 
Congress or the reality of the situation we face in Iraq.
  We have the responsibility to provide oversight, to ensure that our 
brave and honorable troops are provided a mission based on a realistic 
assessment and an achievable goal before we ask them to risk life and 
limb to implement it. We must end the strain that we have put on our 
brave military men and women and their families, and we must act today.
  Mr. Speaker, we know we must get our troops out of the crossfire and 
the violence of the raging civil war in Iraq. We know what must be done 
for our soldiers in Iraq to ensure the protection of them and our 
families here at home. Our military and our National Guard are 
stretched thin. We must rebuild and re-equip both. Our National Guard 
in Ohio is training and working on gear that is obsolete. So not only 
are our military men and women at risk in Iraq; we have our homeland 
exposed to national emergencies and other threats that we may face. But 
our President has refused to acknowledge the reality of the situation 
that we face as a Nation, and I and many other Members of this Congress 
will not allow the status quo to continue.
  For this reason, I cosponsored and will cast a powerful ``yes'' vote 
in support of H.R. 2237. This bill, authored by Mr. McGovern, whom I 
respect tremendously for his courage and leadership, is responsible and 
will ensure the safe redeployment of our troops from Iraq. Our bill 
calls for the redeployment of our troops and allows Congress to take 
back from the President the reckless decisionmaking that we have seen.
  Our bill also very importantly ensures a number of things: it 
protects the ability of our military to go after al Qaeda and other 
terrorist organizations in Iraq; it provides for the protection of 
diplomatic and other related U.S. personnel in Iraq; and, finally, it 
will truly shift our role in Iraq to training and equipping the Iraqi 
security forces.
  Mr. Speaker, the time has come to end this war; and, unfortunately, 
the failed policies of this administration and lack of oversight from 
past Congresses have left us with few options. 3,372 of our troops, 
including 157 brave military men and women from Ohio, have died in this 
war. It is time we did the responsible thing for our heroic soldiers, 
for their families and for our Nation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, we must end this war. On November 
7, when the American people spoke in the last election, from Washington 
State to Florida, from Vermont to California, they made a very clear 
decision that they want to bring our troops home. Their challenge to us 
is to implement that policy.
  Americans want a new direction in Iraq. The citizens of America know 
that the time has come to change direction, to bring our troops home 
with their heads held high in honor of a job well done.
  Mr. Speaker, many of our finest, most highly decorated members of the 
military, now retired, can say publicly what in the past they could 
only say privately. It is this: Iraq is engaged in a civil war. It is 
not the proper job of our men and women in uniform to referee an Iraqi 
civil war.
  The citizens of our country also recognize the obvious: if the Iraqi 
leadership is unwilling to help itself, how can we expect the American 
people and the American military to do that job for them? Iraqi leaders 
will not spend $10 billion in funds available to improve electricity 
and water, yet expect Americans to spend our taxpayer dollars to do 
that.
  Commonsense citizens in our country are asking an obvious question: 
If the Iraqi Parliament has work to do, why is it taking a 2-month 
vacation this summer, a vacation, when they haven't reached agreement 
on oil sharing, when they haven't allowed former

[[Page 12083]]

Baathists, low level with no blood on their hands, to resume a place in 
that society, when they won't crack down on sectarian violence, and, 
Mr. Speaker, when they interfere with the efforts of the American 
military when they attempt to do so?
  Mr. Speaker, there is a very clear recognition on the part of the 
American people, and it is this: our men and women in uniform have done 
their job. They toppled Saddam, they reported back that there were no 
weapons of mass destruction, and they did provide stability in Iraq so 
that they could have three elections.
  What we face now is a White House that has dug its heels in and a 
President who refuses to change and adjust and provide leadership to 
the facts as they exist. Those facts: Iraq is engaged in a civil war, 
something the White House denies. Those facts: it is the job of the 
Iraqi political leadership and the people of Iraq to create a civil 
society. It is not the job of the military to do nation-building.
  The legislation we have is going to allow us to change the direction 
of our policy from escalating militarily, as the President stubbornly 
pursues that policy, to a strategy of Iraqi self-control and stability 
in the region. I support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my very good friend from Vermont, my 
Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Welch, for whom I have the highest 
regard, he talked about the fact that the President was sticking his 
heels into the ground and was not willing to make any modifications 
whatsoever.
  Well, I will acknowledge that the President has in fact, I would say 
to my friend from Vermont, Mr. Welch, stuck his heels in the ground 
when it has come to his quest for victory, to ensure that we keep the 
battle against al Qaeda and those forces that would want to do us in in 
Iraq. What he has done in recognizing that mistakes have been made, in 
recognizing that there have been challenges, as has historically been 
the case in war, we have seen a dramatic change.
  I don't know if my friends have noticed, but there is a new Secretary 
of Defense, his name is Robert Gates; and there have in fact been a 
number of changes made. I don't know if people have noticed, there is 
in fact a new commanding general on the ground in Iraq. His name is 
David Petraeus. As I said in my opening remarks, he has enjoyed strong 
bipartisan support.
  Obviously, these military leaders, the Secretary of Defense and other 
military leaders, are insistent upon giving a very sober assessment of 
what is taking place and not providing an unrealistic, rosy picture of 
what is happening in Iraq. And they have reported, they have reported 
that we have in fact seen success, especially, as I said in my remarks, 
in Ramadi, what was determined to be one of the most dangerous cities 
on the face of the Earth; and we have now seen stability there, and 
this alliance which exists, Sunni, Shia and American forces working 
together to bring about this kind of peace and stability.
  So while I am not saying there aren't difficult days, weeks, months, 
and, Mr. Speaker, I hope not, but possibly difficult years ahead in 
Iraq, the fact of the matter is this President has made it very clear 
that he is willing to make modifications so that we can in fact ensure 
victory over those who want to do us in.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. INSLEE. Who are the real experts on the question of whether the 
lack of a timeline actually fuels the insurgency, the lack of a 
timeline actually making the violence worse?
  One of them is named Muhammad al-Dini. He is an elected member of the 
Iraqi parliament. He was here yesterday, and I met with him. He told me 
that a majority, 144 members, of the elected Iraqi parliament 2 days 
ago signed a petition that basically said that the lack of a timeline 
is fueling attacks against our troops. The lack of a timeline is 
fueling this insurgency. The lack of a timeline is playing into the 
hands of al Qaeda. And the reason he told us this is that it allows 
them to go out and recruit and say, Look, America is going to be here 
forever. And they recruit people that go out and attack us.
  The other thing he told us is that the Maliki government is using our 
taxpayer dollars to run sectarian militias that go out and attack 
Americans. He urged us to adopt a timeline. An elected official in the 
parliament of the state of Iraq; now there is an expert.
  It amazes me that people who have been wrong on Iraq for 4 years come 
down and lecture us, lecture us about whether a timeline is going to 
work or not. I think it might be handy in Congress to have a penalty 
box. If you have been wrong for 4 years on the right strategy in Iraq, 
maybe you should to go into the penalty box for a while and allow the 
people who were against this war from the beginning to have a say on 
what we do in Iraq.
  What we are saying is, a lack of a timeline hurts. We need to bleed 
the insurgency of the fuel they use, and the fuel they use is the lack 
of a timeline.
  One more thing, I read this headline: ``Bush Told War is Harming the 
GOP.'' I don't care about the GOP or the parties. The GOP members went 
and told the President this is hurting the GOP. It doesn't matter who 
is getting hurt politically here. I will tell you what matters: Our 
sons and daughters are being killed in Iraq.
  I hope some of my GOP colleagues, the next time they go to the White 
House, I hope they say, we don't care about the GOP or the DEM; we care 
about the Army and the Navy and the soldiers who are being killed in 
Iraq, and let's get a timetable and get us out of there.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for allowing me the 
opportunity to speak this afternoon.
  I strongly support the rule. I strongly support our men and women in 
uniform who are courageously fighting to defend our freedoms. In my own 
district, we lost 14 soldiers. My recent trip to Iraq confirmed that to 
support our troops is to support their redeployment. Our troops told me 
they were overextended and underequipped. Many are on their second, 
third and fourth tour. They face increased risk without proper 
equipment and longer stays. In fact, not enough equipment was available 
for those new incoming soldiers that were just deployed by this 
President. That is what I heard from our troops when I visited there 
about a month ago.
  Extending the tours of all active-duty personnel is unacceptable, a 
price our families shouldn't have to pay, nor our troops. As Members of 
Congress, we have the responsibility to protect and provide for the 
best interests of all of our troops. That includes the redeployment out 
of Iraq and a safe return home.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and vote for these bills to 
support our troops.
  One last comment. I want to thank the Speaker of this House for 
having the courage to allow us to vote on these very important pieces 
of legislation this day. It is indeed a historic day.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes 
to my very good friend from Dallas, the distinguished chair of the 
Republican Study Committee, Mr. Hensarling.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
rule. What happened to the most open and transparent and fair process 
that was supposed to occur in the history of Congress? We have a closed 
rule on top of a closed rule on top of a closed rule.
  And now what we see is, yet again, the Democrats bringing a bill to 
the floor that our Secretary of Defense says is even worse than the 
last one they brought to the floor as far as tying the hands of our 
troops as they attempt to protect our freedom.
  Once again we have a slow-bleed strategy for our troops in Iraq. Once

[[Page 12084]]

again we still have a pork-laden supplemental.
  Let's talk for a second about the ag bill. Now there is legitimate 
debate, and there may be legitimate reasons, and I agree that drought 
assistance may be necessary in certain parts of the country. But this 
is supposedly the PAYGO Congress? I have looked at this. Number one, 
where is the emergency? The drought took place last year. That is when 
the emergency was. Why isn't this going in regular order? Where is the 
offset?
  Had there been an open rule, I would have been happy to offer an 
offset amendment. Once again, I don't know how anyone on this side of 
the aisle, Mr. Speaker, can call this the PAYGO Congress. There are so 
many holes in this PAYGO it looks beyond Swiss cheese. This is one of 
the worse rules that I have seen brought to the floor, and every Member 
should rise in opposition and defeat this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, year five of blunders, that is a true slow-
bleed policy in Iraq.
  Defeatism? Well, that is an Administration that lacks the courage to 
admit its failures and which pays for those failures with the blood of 
the brave, the blood of someone else, and with $10 billion of your tax 
money every single month.
  Gimmicks? Gimmicks are what got us into Iraq in the first place. It 
certainly wasn't the ``war on terrorism.''
  You can make all of the excuses that you want for continuing to embed 
our troops in a civil war, but a vote today for the Iraq Redeployment 
Act is a vote to end endless war. It is a vote for a fully funded, 
safe, and orderly redeployment that allows us to refocus on the war on 
terrorism, which is a threat to our families, rather than the civil war 
in Iraq, which is not.
  It is not the enemy that has us pinned down in Iraq today; it is this 
Administration's unwillingness to admit its mistakes and its lies.
  The intervention in Iraq was this country's largest foreign policy 
blunder. Now it is time for Congress to intervene. With this war in its 
fifth year, for Congress not to act now is for Congress to become an 
enabler and an accomplice to the Administration's errors.
  Vice President Cheney rightly complains about the Iraqis proposing to 
take a two-month vacation. But what is really at fault here is Mr. 
Cheney and this Administration's four-year vacation from reality.
  ``Victory'' is improving our families' security. Pursuing policies 
contrary to that objective, committing the same error over and over 
again, that is defeatist.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who will explain why we didn't 
deal with agricultural disasters last year.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply say in response to the previous 
speaker on that side of the aisle, he claims that efforts on our part 
to withdraw our troops or redeploy our troops out of a combat situation 
represents a slow-bleed policy. I would suggest that the existing 
policy is a bleed-forever policy, and it needs to be changed.
  The second question the gentleman asked referred to agriculture. He 
said, ``Gee, these agriculture disasters occurred last year; why 
weren't they handled then?'' That is a very good question. We weren't 
in charge last year. The other side was.
  In fact, we have had agriculture disaster legislation pending for 2 
years. The President declared 70 percent of the counties in this 
country to be disaster areas, and yet the last Congress couldn't put 
together a two-car funeral when it came to addressing that problem. So 
we are simply cleaning up in a separate bill; mind you, we are cleaning 
up last year's agriculture disaster problem. It is just another one of 
the leftover items from the previous Congress that we are now charged 
with the responsibility to finish.
  Now let me get to what the real issue is in this bill.
  The Washington Post carries a story this morning describing the 
efforts of the administration to use Iraqi government officials to try 
to get the Democratic lawmakers to ease the pressure on the White House 
to have a timetable for the withdrawal of troops. Mr. al-Rubaie is 
quoted as saying the following: ``Now, nobody is talking about sliding 
into a civil war, as we've been able to avoid it.''
  He added, ``Portraying the scene there as Shiite killing Sunni and 
Sunnis killing Shiites is totally untrue.''
  What are they smoking? What do we see on television every day, 
despite the effort of the administration to shut down as much access on 
the part of the public to the carnage as is possible?
  I strongly support this rule today for one simple reason: The 
President has asked the Congress to give him $100 billion in additional 
funding to fight this war, no strings attached. The Congress passed a 
proposal and put it on the President's desk suggesting that there ought 
to be certain limitations on the President's conduct in return for 
getting the money. He vetoed that. He believes he is ``the decider.''
  Well, under the Constitution, we are all supposed to be deciders. So 
now we have before us, in response to the President's action, a 
proposal to do three things: First of all, it would provide an 
opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on the issue of whether or not 
troops ought to be redeployed over the next year. I think that is what 
a democratic institution is supposed to do, to make choices like that.
  Secondly, what we are proposing under this rule today will allow the 
Congress to require the President to report to the Congress on three 
things: First of all, since the President has said that, as Iraqi 
military units stand up, we should stand down, we have a sense of the 
Congress provision in this legislation which says that, as the 
President certifies that battalions have achieved full combat 
capability, that a certain number of corresponding U.S. units ought to 
stand down. It is not mandatory. It is a sense of the Congress that 
that ought to happen.
  Secondly, we ask the President to report to the Congress on the 
progress that Iraq is making on the benchmarks that the President 
himself set out last fall as being the criteria by which we should 
judge Iraqi progress.
  And then thirdly, so that it isn't a softball report, we are also 
asking that the President report to the Congress spelling out which of 
those benchmarks have actually been achieved. Has the Iraqi parliament 
actually passed an adequate oil revenue-sharing law which shares that 
oil equitably with Sunni, Shiites and Kurds alike, because if they 
don't do that, the Sunnis will never stop fighting?
  And then, lastly, what we do is to set up a separate bill that deals 
with some of the domestic emergencies that we face that the President 
described as ``pork.'' Among those is the agriculture disaster bill. 
And so we are considering that as a separate bill to demonstrate to the 
White House and to demonstrate to our critics that they are wrong when 
they say that we are afraid to let these programs stand on their own. 
So we are going to vote on them alone, and I happen to think they are 
in a stronger position when we vote on them alone.
  It is going to be very interesting to see how many of our Republican 
friends from agricultural districts are actually going to support us in 
trying to provide that assistance.

                              {time}  1315

  After all, we did not declare those counties disaster areas. A fellow 
by the name of Bush did, and he's the guy that lives in that big white 
house, and when he makes a declaration like that, there ought to be 
certain consequences that flow from it, and we're simply meeting those 
obligations. So that's basically what we are trying to do.
  As the gentleman from Washington said earlier, we simply happen to 
believe, those of us who are going to be supporting this proposition, 
we simply happen to believe that it would be nice if we were fighting 
the right war in the right place rather than the wrong war in the wrong 
place, and the right place to be taking al Qaeda on is in Afghanistan.

[[Page 12085]]

  Now, we also provide in our proposition, we say that 60 days after or 
60 days from now roughly, by July 13, by the time this bill is passed, 
by July 13, we guarantee the administration that the Congress will have 
an up-or-down vote on its own request for all the money. I don't know 
what more we can do.
  What we are simply doing is we are letting the President report, 
letting him give his judgments to us. We then give the Congress about 
10 days to absorb what the President has said, and then we vote, up or 
down, on two issues: number one, whether the President should get all 
the remaining money; and, number two, there's another amendment that 
would simply have us instead use that money to redeploy our troops out 
of combat.
  It's a fair, square deal. The administration gets a straight shot at 
what it wants and war critics get a straight shot at what they want. 
That, to me, is eminently fair.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I had one Member who was hoping to come 
over, and I do not see him here. So I'm going to yield myself the 
balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know how painful the war in Iraq has been. As I 
said in my opening remarks and throughout this debate, no one is trying 
to paint a rosy picture of the situation there.
  My very good friend from Wisconsin, distinguished Chair of the 
Appropriations Committee, has just told us that we should be fighting 
the war in the right place. Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that 
we have found tragically over the past several years is that al Qaeda 
can be found almost anyplace on the face of the Earth.
  It was just a few months ago that we saw a successful effort by the 
Ethiopians going into Mogadishu, Somalia, to liberate that capital from 
the forces of al Qaeda. We know very well that on September 11, 2001, 
al Qaeda attacked us here in the United States, and we regularly go 
through the litany of the actions of al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah: the 
bombing of the two embassies, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, 
Kenya; the USS Cole; the Khobar Towers; the World Trade Center in 1993.
  We can go on and on and on about al Qaeda and other terrorist 
organizations. And guess what, Mr. Speaker, virtually everyone has 
acknowledged that the front line in the battle against al Qaeda is 
where they are mostly, and that is in Iraq.
  Now, I just reported the great statement that came from our new 
ambassador, Ryan Crocker, in Iraq who has talked along with General 
Petraeus about the success that we have seen in the al Anbar province, 
in Ramadi in particular, one of the most dangerous spots on the face of 
the Earth until we saw this alliance develop among Sunni, Shia and 
American forces standing up against al Qaeda because, Mr. Speaker, al 
Qaeda is there in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that fighting al Qaeda in Iraq plays a 
big role in preventing them from attacking us right here in the United 
States of America, which is obviously their goal. They have done it 
before, and they would love to do it again.
  This process around which we are considering this measure is very 
unusual to say the least. In fact, my good friend from Rochester, 
distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, described this rule as one 
of the most complicated that we have ever seen.
  Now, my good friend again, the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, just talked about the fact that we are going to give the 
President his chance to see this. Well, here is what we are going to 
give the President. We are going to give the President a bill that 
potentially calls for cut-and-run and immediate withdrawal within 90 
days, beginning a pullout of our troops in Iraq; number two, a 
supplemental appropriations bill that has all of this redeployment that 
creates fits and starts, beginning and reduction, just incrementally 
putting it out, which has been harshly criticized by the Secretary of 
Defense, Mr. Gates; General Petraeus; Ambassador Crocker and others. So 
that is included in this measure, and then the agricultural 
appropriations provision.
  Now, my friend from Wisconsin just asked how many Members will stand 
up and be supportive of the effort that I laud in dealing with 
something that we were not able to deal with in the last Congress as we 
struggled with the appropriations process, that, among others, being 
this agricultural appropriations issue, with the disasters that we have 
faced. And of course, there will be Members on our sides of the aisle 
who will support that.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I think we need to recognize that this is the most 
convoluted process because we are not allowing it to stand on its own. 
What we are doing with this rule is we are taking all three of these 
very separate items, linking them up, and sending them to our 
colleagues on the other side of the Capitol in the United States 
Senate, where the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, the one who's 
already announced that we've lost the war in Iraq, he said there's very 
little chance of success there.
  That's why I have always considered myself, I like to have that 
Jeffersonian spirit of a healthy skepticism, as opposed to a corrosive 
cynicism, which sometimes we have seen more than a few people slip to 
around here. But I can't help but be skeptical. I'm not going to be 
cynical, Mr. Speaker, but I can't help but be a little skeptical as we 
look at the one, two, three punch of vote after vote after vote when we 
know full well it will most likely die in the Senate; and if it by 
chance, as this last bill did, ends up getting to the President, it's 
going to be vetoed by the President.
  So as I said earlier, it allows our colleagues to stand up, as so 
many have, during this debate saying they support the troops, but at 
the same time they want to get out immediately and not provide the 
troops with the kind of consistency and support that they need for us 
to be victorious.
  Again, one of the interesting things that we hear, as we juxtapose 
the debate that emanates from our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle and ours, is that we regularly talk about victory. We regularly 
talk about being victorious in this battle against Islamic extremism, 
the battle which we all united to fight on September 11, 2001. It is 
tragic that we have gotten to the point where we are not united on 
this.
  And I will acknowledge that there were some who tried to exude the 
image that Iraq was involved on September 11, and I never said that and 
most people I know never claimed that Saddam Hussein was involved in 
command and control of what happened on September 11, 2001; but, Mr. 
Speaker, I will say this: Saddam Hussein had the exact same goal for 
the future of the United States as al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and 
that's why we need to be prepared to fight them at any spot whatsoever.
  I am going to offer when, I say ``when'' because I am going to be an 
eternal optimist, when we defeat the previous question, I am going to 
offer the amendment that I was speaking about earlier.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that just before the vote on the 
previous question that the text of my amendment that I am going to be 
submitting when we defeat the previous question be made in order, and I 
ask unanimous consent that that be included in the Record, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lynch). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. And let me just briefly say that that amendment says that 
when the President of the United States reports to the Congress that on 
the success in training or lack of success in training the Iraqi 
security forces, that that report not be made available to the 
leadership of al Qaeda by way of the Internet.
  The amendment that I am going to offer when we defeat the previous 
question, Mr. Speaker, is an amendment that will allow us to say that 
we will strike the provision that says that the report from the 
President to the Congress is provided on the Internet for the world to 
see. We should not be feeding our enemies, those who want to kill us, 
with this kind of information.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge defeat of the previous 
question,

[[Page 12086]]

and when we defeat that, I urge support of my quest to make the 
amendment in order that will allow us to prevent the President's report 
from getting on to the Internet for our enemy to see, and if by chance 
I am not successful, I urge defeat of the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not want to contradict my colleague from 
California, but we do not know the pain of this war. Members of 
Congress know it a little better than most people because we try to 
comfort the bereaved and visit the ones who are maimed, but we don't 
really know the pain of this war. We can't know about the 35,000 or 
more young people with life-altering wounds, people 18 and 19 years old 
who will live with them for the very rest of their lives.
  We don't know the loss other people have sustained because nothing 
much is required of us except to pay the bill of $10 billion a month, 
mostly borrowed from China, so we can finance this war.
  There is no compelling reason why we should go on forever with this. 
Nothing that we are asking the President to put on the Internet is 
anything but classified and who is going to believe it anyway.
  If the President is running out of money for the troops, it is simply 
because he vetoed the money that he asked us for that we sent to him. 
The fault, the blame lies exclusively with him.
  And with that I ask all of my colleagues to vote for this rule on 
both sides of the House. Obviously, numbers of them didn't want to come 
down and talk today. Please vote for this rule. Cleanse your 
conscience. Let's do a good thing today for those people who count on 
us in Iraq.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier is as follows:

      Amendment to H. Res. 387 Offered by Mr. Dreier of California

       (1) Amend section 2 to read as follows:
       Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2206) making 
     emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment 
     printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 
     The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority the Committee member of Appropriations; (2) 
     the amendment printed in section 6, if offered by 
     Representative Dreier of California or his designee, which 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, 
     shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.
       (2) At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 6. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:
       Strike section 1326(f) (relating to the public availability 
     of information regarding the combat proficiency of Iraqi 
     security forces).

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________