[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12102-12114]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AND DEFENSE 
                         CONTRACTORS FROM IRAQ

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 387, I called up 
the bill (H.R. 2237) to provide for the redeployment of United States 
Armed Forces and defense contractors from Iraq, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2237

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AND 
                   DEFENSE CONTRACTORS FROM IRAQ.

       (a) Commencement of Redeployment.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall commence the redeployment of units and members 
     of the Armed Forces deployed in Iraq as part of Operation 
     Iraqi Freedom and contractors operating in Iraq and funded 
     using amounts appropriated to the Department of Defense.
       (b) Completion of Redeployment.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall complete the redeployment of the Armed Forces and 
     defense contractors from Iraq within 180 days beginning on 
     the date of the commencement of the redeployment required 
     under subsection (a).
       (c) Prohibition on Use of Funds to Increase Armed Forces 
     Serving in Iraq.--Funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available to the Department of Defense under any provision of 
     law may not be obligated or expended to increase the number 
     of members of the Armed Forces serving in Iraq in excess of 
     the number of members serving in Iraq as of January 1, 2007, 
     unless the increase has been specifically authorized in 
     advance by an Act of Congress.
       (d) Authority To Determine Locations Outside of Iraq for 
     Redeployment.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
     restrict the locations outside of Iraq to which units and 
     members of the Armed Forces redeployed from Iraq may be 
     transferred, including redeployment to an adjacent or nearby 
     country at the invitation of the government of the country or 
     redeployment to bolster military forces deployed in 
     Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

[[Page 12103]]

       (e) Authority to Retain Armed Forces in Iraq for Limited 
     Purposes.--The Secretary of Defense may retain in Iraq 
     members of the Armed Forces for the purpose of providing 
     security for the United States Embassy and other United 
     States diplomatic missions in Iraq; protecting American 
     citizens, including members of the Armed Forces; serving in 
     roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions; 
     engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and 
     scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other 
     terrorist organizations with global reach; and training and 
     equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces. At the 
     request of the Government of Iraq, the Secretary of Defense 
     may retain in Iraq members of the Army Corps of Engineers and 
     defense contractors engaged in reconstruction projects in 
     Iraq, to the extent necessary to complete such projects.
       (f) Availability of Funds for Safe and Orderly 
     Redeployment.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds appropriated or otherwise made available in any Act are 
     immediately available for obligation and expenditure to plan 
     and execute a safe and orderly redeployment of the Armed 
     Forces and defense contractors from Iraq, as required by this 
     section.
       (g) Transfer of United States Military Facilities in 
     Iraq.--The President of the United States shall transfer to 
     the Government of Iraq all right, title, and interest held by 
     the United States in any military facility in Iraq that was 
     constructed, repaired, or improved using amounts appropriated 
     to the Department of Defense and occupied by a unit of the 
     Armed Forces.
       (h) Prohibition on Use of Funds to Further Deploy United 
     States Armed Forces to Iraq.--Beginning on the date of the 
     completion of the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq 
     under subsection (b), funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under any provision of law may not be obligated or 
     expended to further deploy units or members of the Armed 
     Forces to Iraq, including through participation in any 
     multinational force in Iraq, except as provided under 
     subsection (e) or unless such deployment of units or members 
     of the Armed Forces is specifically authorized in advance by 
     an Act of Congress.
       (i) Assistance to Iraqi Security Forces and Multinational 
     Forces in Iraq.--Nothing in this section shall be construed 
     to prohibit or otherwise restrict the use of funds available 
     to the Department of Defense for the purpose of providing 
     financial assistance or equipment to the Iraqi Security 
     Forces or multinational forces providing security or training 
     in Iraq at the request of the Government of Iraq.
       (j) Continuation of Diplomatic, Social, and Economic 
     Reconstruction Activities in Iraq.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to prohibit or otherwise restrict the use 
     of funds available to any department or agency of the United 
     States (other than the Department of Defense) to carry out 
     diplomatic, social, and economic reconstruction activities in 
     Iraq at the request of the Government of Iraq.
       (k) Asylum or Other Means of Protection for Iraqi 
     Citizens.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
     prohibit or otherwise restrict the authority of the President 
     to arrange asylum or other means of protection for Iraqi 
     citizens who might be physically endangered by the 
     redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq.
       (l) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Armed Forces'' 
     has the meaning given the term in section 101(a)(4) of title 
     10, United States Code.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 387, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lewis) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.


                             General Leave

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on 
H.R. 2237.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts, the sponsor of the bill (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this war is a terrible tragedy, and it is 
time to bring it to an end. This is a straightforward bill to redeploy 
our military forces from Iraq and to end the war in Iraq, and I want to 
thank the leadership for bringing it to the floor today.
  This bill would allow the administration and joint chiefs 3 months to 
plan a safe and orderly redeployment process, and then an additional 6 
months to carry it out. It provides for the orderly transfer to Iraqi 
authorities the military bases and facilities we have constructed and 
occupied on their national territory, as General Petraeus himself has 
always insisted would happen when we depart from Iraq.
  The bill permits U.S. Armed Forces to remain deployed in Iraq in 
order to protect U.S. embassy and diplomatic personnel. It also allows 
limited special operations to pursue members of al Qaeda and other 
global terrorist organizations, and it continues the training and 
equipping of Iraqi security forces.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill does not walk away from Iraq or the Iraqi 
people. It specifically continues diplomatic, social, economic, and 
reconstruction aid; and it allows the President to provide asylum or 
other means of protection to those Iraqi citizens who might be 
physically endangered by our leaving Iraq because of services they 
provided to our military personnel.
  Finally, this bill leaves all the decisions on the locations outside 
of Iraq to which our troops will be redeployed wholly in the hands of 
our military commanders. They may be deployed to neighboring countries 
or transferred to Afghanistan. Many, I hope, would be sent home by 
commanders, grateful that their service is now completed. And many of 
our proud Guard and Reserve units would, I hope, return to their 
stateside duties to protect our homeland.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no nice, neat, easy way to leave Iraq. Every 
Member in this Chamber understands that. But it is the right thing to 
do. The American people have chosen us to act on this matter, and we 
must act.
  Redeployment of our troops will set a new dynamic into motion in Iraq 
and the region. It will force the Iraqis, their neighbors, and the 
international community to finally confront the tough issues of 
reconciliation. Until we leave, no one has to make the hard choices 
about how Iraqis are going to live together or die together.
  Like all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I stand in awe 
of our uniformed men and women, who have performed fearlessly and 
tirelessly in Iraq. But we should no longer demand that their sweat, 
blood, and lives be sacrificed on the altar of Iraqi sectarian 
violence. They are needed elsewhere, in Afghanistan, in the region, and 
here back home. Their duties, their global mission and purpose 
continue, but Iraq must find its own way.
  Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. For four long deadly years, this 
administration and their allies in Congress have been flat wrong about 
Iraq. The time has come for us to begin redeploying our troops from 
Iraq in a safe and orderly manner.
  Now, every one of us, whether we voted for or against the war, has a 
responsibility for the men and women who have been put in harm's way. 
It is easy to say stay the course; but I would remind my colleagues, 
none of us will wake up tomorrow in the midst of a civil war in Iraq. 
None of us will have to go on patrol in Fallujah or Baghdad. We owe our 
troops better than rhetoric; we owe them honesty and action.
  For me, this is a vote of conscience. For me, this is a way to 
restore the good and decent name of the United States. For me, this is 
a way to best serve our men and women in uniform, by bringing them home 
to their families.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill and vote to end the war.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, if today's actions by the House 
are any indication, it appears that the Out of Iraq Caucus within the 
Democratic majority is now running the legislative agenda of the 
Congress.
  How else can one explain that the rule governing consideration of 
debate of funding of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan provides only 
two legislative options with regard to U.S. troops in Iraq and 
Afghanistan?
  The first, which we are now debating, is an immediate withdrawal of 
troops from Iraq. The second, which we will debate shortly, rations 
funding to our troops over a 60-day period. Both options are short-
sighted, and they are also dangerous.
  My colleagues, where did this bill come from?
  I gather it was hastily written and introduced last night in an 
attempt to

[[Page 12104]]

obtain votes for the Obey Iraq supplemental we will be considering a 
little later.
  Indeed, the consideration of this withdrawal legislation is nothing 
more than an attempt by the Speaker and the majority leader to appease 
members of the Out of Iraq Caucus so they will support the second 
version offered by Chairman Obey.
  Once again, the majority has brought legislation to the House floor 
under a closed rule without an opportunity for amendment or meaningful 
debate. Not only is this an abuse of the legislative process, it is an 
overt violation of the longstanding traditions of the House. The 
majority is making a mockery of the time-honored customs of this body. 
That, in and of itself, is shameful. It is the People's House and the 
people of our country who suffer when open debate is stifled in order 
to preordain a legislative outcome.
  Fortunately, this legislation, which embraces surrender and defeat, 
will not pass today. Most Members of the House, both Republican and 
Democrats, have grave reservations about the manner in which this 
legislation undermines our troops and the authority of the President 
and the commander in chief.
  Members on both sides of the aisle have expressed concern about the 
effects of an ill-conceived military withdrawal. And Members are 
rightfully concerned about any legislation that places military 
decisions in the hands of politicians rather than the military 
commanders in the field.
  The last thing our country or our troops need is to have 535 Members 
of the House and Senators micromanaging the war in Iraq. Recent history 
reminds us that the enemy we face in Iraq, Afghanistan and other 
countries that harbor terrorists, will stop at nothing to attack the 
United States and our allies. They view the consideration of this 
measure and the Obey bill we will consider shortly, as a sign of 
weakness.
  Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are watching us closely, 
hoping this lack of resolve will prevail. We must not let that happen.
  My colleagues, now is not the time for the United States to back down 
from its commitment to the war on terror. Now is not the time for 
America to signal retreat and surrender. Indeed, now is not the time 
for the House of Representatives to throw in the towel, wave the white 
flag or signal retreat and surrender in Iraq.
  How could this Congress walk away from our men and women in uniform? 
How could we walk away from them now? We must, we must support our 
troops. Our failure to learn the lessons of history, our failure to 
lead will result in devastating consequences, including an even greater 
loss of lives in the future.
  It is absolutely essential that America, the last remaining 
superpower on earth, continue to be a voice for peace and a beacon for 
freedom in our shrinking world.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the McGovern/Out of Iraq 
Caucus bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).
  Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, I speak in support of this bill because it 
would change our strategy in Iraq towards the successful outcome, while 
ensuring that America will be more secure. It does so by providing, 
most importantly, a date certain by which we will not be in Iraq, 
approximately 9 months from its enactment, that serves as the sole 
remaining leverage we have to change the structure of incentives in 
that country and in the region toward stability.
  Presently, the Iraqi ministries are personal fiefdoms where the 
leaders pursue their personal ambitions while we provide them political 
and military cover in what is now principally a civil war.
  Political reconciliation. How? When their very top Shia and Kurdish 
leaders recently told Senator Hagel and me that the re-Baathification 
law is only appeasement to the Sunnis. But our U.S. leaders in Iraq say 
it is critical to success and stabilization.
  A date certain finally forces the Iraqis to make the difficult 
political compromises they are presently avoiding; more importantly, it 
changes the incentives and therefore the behavior of Iran and Syria 
from being involved destructively in this war because we are bleeding 
towards working for stability.
  As our top political leader in Iraq said, Iran does not want a failed 
state if we depart.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Kentucky will control the time of the gentleman from California.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I hope the American public sees the irony in 
the votes that we are going to take this afternoon and evening. Before 
us now we are going to take a vote to pull out of Iraq immediately. 
Then, right after that, we are going to take a vote to fund the troops 
so they can stay a while.
  So I guess the only difference between the House Democrats today and 
Senator Kerry a year ago, where he voted for Iraq before he voted 
against Iraq, is that our friends get to do it all in the same day.
  Now, the other irony that I thought was interesting today is that we 
had a visitor, the deputy prime minister of Iraq, that was coming here 
with a message of what is really going on in Iraq. And he met with a 
group of us this morning in HC-9, separated only by a thin wall to the 
caucus that was occurring with our friends from the other side of the 
aisle where they were plotting the strategy of how to get out of Iraq.
  I think it shows one of the differences between the two parties where 
we are meeting with the government officials on how to get them stood 
up, how do we strengthen the government there so they can take over 
their own operations without falling to the al Qaeda; at the same time, 
our friends are plotting on the other side to pull out and abandon 
them.
  I think the day is just full of ironies, and I hope that the general 
public gets to see those today.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and of 
our troops. The tragedy in Iraq has gone on far too long. For 4 years, 
this administration and its supporters have put forth arguments based 
on misinformation and fear. I would urge my colleagues to remember this 
during today's debate.
  This administration and the Republican leadership in Congress have 
presided over perhaps the biggest foreign policy and national security 
blunder in our Nation's history. They have ignored, shouted down and 
attempted to intimidate anyone who has dared to disagree.
  And now, after 4 years, we see the thousands of brave Americans 
killed or seriously injured, untold numbers of Iraqis dead and the 
country in chaos.
  Our troops have done everything, and I mean everything, that has been 
asked of them. But they have been let down by the administration that 
dishonors their tremendous service and sacrifice with its incompetence 
and arrogance.
  Let us, please, finally make a change in Iraq. Let us end the war and 
bring our troops home.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and support our troops.
  I rise in strong support of this bill and of our troops.
  The tragedy in Iraq has gone on far too long.
  This legislation would bring our involvement there to an end.
  I have listened now for more than 4 years as the administration and 
its supporters up here have come forward with one reason after another 
for: why we have to invade, why we have to stay, and what will happen 
if we ``fail.''
  They've never made sense to me. Their arguments have been based 
either on misinformation or fear.
  The Bush administration has stumbled and bumbled, dissembled and 
distorted on Iraq so much that no one--no one--believes a word it says.

[[Page 12105]]

  Last night, NBC News quoted a Republican Congressman telling the 
President that ``word about the war and its progress cannot come from 
the White House or even you, Mr. President. There is no longer any 
credibility.''
  That is the reality.
  So I would urge my colleagues, as they listen to this debate and hear 
from the Republican leadership and White House why the McGovern bill or 
the Supplemental Appropriations bill are so wrong, to remember this 
history.
  Mr. Speaker, this administration and the Republican leadership in 
Congress have presided over perhaps the biggest foreign policy and 
national security blunder in our Nation's history. They've ignored, 
shouted down and attempted to intimidate anyone who has dared disagree.
  After 4 years we are left with thousands of brave Americans killed or 
seriously injured, an untold number of Iraqis dead, and the country in 
chaos. Most tragically, the cost for all these mistakes has been borne 
by the men and women who wear the uniform, and their families.
  Our troops have done everything--everything--that has been asked of 
them. But they have been let down by an administration that dishonors 
their tremendous sacrifice with its incompetence and arrogance.
  Let us please, finally, make a change in Iraq. Let us end the war and 
bring our troops home.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to support our troops.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished ranking member on the Armed Services Subcommittee on 
Appropriations, Mr. Young of Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time. I didn't intend to speak on this until I read the bill, 
and I didn't have much chance to read the bill because it didn't go 
through any committee, and it was only introduced last night.
  But this bill is an illusion. It is not what it is proposed to be. It 
is one of those situations where you giveth on one hand, and you take 
away with the other hand.
  I am looking specifically at subsection (e). After saying that we 
have to remove our troops out of Iraq within so many days, subsection 
(e) says, ``the Secretary of Defense may retain''--in other words, keep 
troops in Iraq--``for the purpose of providing security for the 
embassy, the U.S. embassy''; we do that now. And ``other United States 
diplomatic missions in Iraq''; other diplomatic missions in Iraq; we do 
that now. ``Protecting American citizens''; we do that now. ``Including 
members of the Armed Services serving in roles consistent with 
customary diplomatic positions''; we do that now.
  Listen to this one: ``engaging in targeted special actions limited in 
duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al Qaeda and 
other terrorist organizations''. My goodness, that is what we are doing 
now.
  ``Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces.'' That 
is what we are doing now. ``And may retain in Iraq members of the Army 
Corps of Engineers and Defense contractors engaged in reconstruction 
projects in Iraq.'' We are doing that now.
  Subsection (h) on page 4. ``Prohibition on the use of funds to 
further deploy United States Armed Forces to Iraq.'' The funds may not 
be obligated or expended to further deploy units or members of the 
Armed Forces to Iraq, including through participation in any 
multinational force, except as provided under subsection (e), which is 
the subsection that I just referred to.
  And then it goes to subsection (i), assistance to Iraqi security 
forces. ``Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or 
otherwise restrict the use of funds available to the Department of 
Defense for the purpose of providing financial assistance or equipment 
to the Iraqi Security Forces or multinational forces providing security 
or training in Iraq.'' We do that now.
  You have to get out of Iraq, but you are allowed to stay to do all of 
these things that we are already doing.
  Vote yes if you want to. Vote no if you want to. That is not up to 
me. But I just wanted to point out the fact that, if you think this 
bill gets you out of Iraq, think again. Read subsection (e), because it 
doesn't accomplish what we are told that it does.
  So I say again, this is an illusion. It gives with one hand, but it 
takes away with the other.
  Mr. OBEY. In that case, I assume the administration is going to 
support the bill.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Democrats in the House voted four times to end this 
war in Iraq, yet the President and most of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle refuse to acknowledge the realities on the ground and 
continue to ignore the pleas of the American people.
  Sadly, the President is dealing with an Iraq that exists only in his 
imagination. It is time for the President to understand that this House 
will not endorse a blank check for an endless war. Our resolve remains 
unwavering because we know the American people have our back.
  Under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, we are united in our efforts 
to bring an end to this war. Congressman McGovern's bill moves us 
closer to achieving that goal.
  The phones in my office are ringing off the hook with constituents, 
as I am sure they are across the Capitol, asking me to vote, begging me 
to vote for this bill to put an end to the war in Iraq.
  Listen to the mothers of America on this Mother's Day weekend. They 
are saying, support our children in uniform by bringing them home.
  This bill does that. I urge strong support for it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
commend the gentleman from Massachusetts for offering this important 
piece of legislation.

                              {time}  1615

  I voted against the war in Iraq, but I have since voted to give our 
troops the resources to succeed in their mission. They have done 
exceptional work. But they are now being asked to take sides in a civil 
war. This is not what we sent them to do, and it is time to bring our 
troops home.
  Let us be clear. Removing our troops from the midst of a civil war 
does not mean we are abandoning Iraq. We will continue to train Iraqi 
security forces, support political reconciliation and economic 
reconstruction, and engage the international community to promote a 
lasting peace. Most importantly, we will continue to hunt down al Qaeda 
wherever they may hide. What we will not do is blindly follow the 
President's failed strategy, which has damaged our military without 
improving national security.
  The situation on the ground has changed, and our plan should too. I 
urge my colleagues to support this legislation to demand a new 
direction and end the conflict in Iraq and bring our troops home.
  I thank the gentleman for offering this important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this measure will allow us to begin redeploying our 
combat forces in Iraq and pursuing a new strategy for success. I voted 
against giving the President authority to go to war, but I have since 
voted to give our troops the resources to succeed in their mission. 
They have done exceptional work, but they are now being asked to take 
sides in a civil war--resolving conflicts that stretch back for 
centuries. That is not what we sent them to do, and it is time to bring 
them home.
  Let us be very clear about what this bill does, because there is a 
lot of rhetoric clouding this debate. Removing our troops from the 
middle of a civil war does NOT mean we're abandoning Iraq. We will 
continue to train the Iraqi Security Forces. We will continue to 
support political reconciliation and economic reconstruction. We will 
continue to engage the international community to promote a lasting 
peace. Most importantly, we will continue to hunt down al Qaeda 
wherever in the world they may try to hide. What we will not do is 
blindly follow the President's failed strategy--a strategy that has 
damaged the readiness of our military without improving our national 
security. The situation on the ground has changed, and our plan should 
be adjusted accordingly. Sadly, the President has decided to trust his 
own judgment over that of our military commanders, millions of Iraqis, 
and, most importantly, the American people. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation to demand

[[Page 12106]]

a new direction that strengthens our military and ends the conflict in 
Iraq.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Chairman Obey, first of all, for 
his strong and determined effort and his diligent effort to end this 
war. And, also, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) for offering this bill.
  H.R. 2237 does reflect the goals of what we call the Lee amendment, 
which was sponsored by Congresswomen Waters, Woolsey, Watson, and 
Clarke. But let me tell you the goal of this bill, as the goal of the 
Lee amendment really is an effort to fully fund the safe and timely 
redeployment of our troops from Iraq. It is responsible. It is 
practical. It does not cut the funding. But it designates what the 
supplemental can be used for, and that is to fully fund a safe 
withdrawal and redeployment and help the Iraqis stabilize their country 
with a diplomatic, social, and reconstruction effort.
  Members of Congress now can choose between standing with the 
President or the American people who want an end to this occupation, or 
the President, as I said, who wants an open-ended commitment to this 
failed policy.
  History will record that this war was a deadly mistake. History will 
document the damage that it has already done to our security and the 
security of the world, just as it already records the case for the war 
as fraudulent, something that we all would have known had the House 
approved my amendment in 2002 that would have allowed the United 
Nations inspectors to finish their job.
  One day history will record that this unnecessary occupation ended. 
What remains to be seen is when it will end and at what cost in lives 
and treasure and what cost to our security and the security of the 
world.
  For those Members who recognize that the President's policy is a 
failure but are concerned about voting to end this failed policy and to 
redeploy our troops, I have a question for you: At what point will you 
be comfortable with that vote? When the death toll hits 5,000 or 
10,000?
  Please vote for this. Please vote to end this occupation and bring 
our young men and women home. Please stop the deaths.
  We have already paid close to half a trillion dollars pursuing this 
failed policy.
  Mr. Speaker, you cannot ``win'' an occupation, just as the United 
States cannot ``win'' an Iraqi civil war.
  We know that there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq. 
Our generals have told us that. The fact is that, the presence of our 
troops, who are seen as an occupying force, enflames the very 
insurgency that they are asked to deal with.
  In listening to this desperate rhetoric about ``surrender,'' and 
about ``defeat'' I am confident that history will look upon such 
remarks with the same ridicule that it reserves for the Vietnam war 
supporters discredited ``domino theory'' or the President's ``mission 
accomplished'' speech on the decks of the USS Abraham Lincoln, more 
than 4 years ago.
  Today, members of Congress will decide what side of history they will 
be on. I urge them to stand with the American people and all those who 
recognize that there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq, 
and to vote for H.R. 2237, legislation to fully fund the safe and 
timely withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that I have come 
down to this well to demand that our troops come home and that we end 
the occupation of Iraq. In fact, I have come to the floor over 200 
times. And as the first Member of Congress to call on the President to 
bring our troops home and the author of the first amendment on the 
floor requiring the President to bring a plan to the House on how he 
will end this debacle that he started, you can know that I am very 
pleased that this vote is before us today. Finally, after 4 years here 
we are.
  Many of the provisions in the bill were included in H.R. 508, the 
Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act, a bill that 
I introduced with Representative Lee and Representative Waters. These 
provisions will fully fund bringing the troops home, prohibit permanent 
bases, give the Iraqi people sovereignty and a sense of hope for their 
future.
  My colleagues, I urge you to support H.R. 2237. The American people 
are asking that we stand up for our troops, and we do that by fully 
funding them to bring them home. Bring them home to their families. 
Bring them home so that we can end this misguided occupation. By 
passing H.R. 2237, we will bring our troops and our military 
contractors out of Iraq safely.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am thinking about a teddy 
bear that is in my office, and I think about it because I remember 
going to a funeral when a mother placed a teddy bear and a red fire 
truck in the coffin of her young fallen hero, a member of the United 
States military that lost his life in Iraq.
  No, it is not the Iraq Caucus that is running this very poor and 
devastating agenda of this White House. Rather, I would like to say 
that I am proudly a member of the Iraq Caucus. And I thank Mr. 
McGovern, the Speaker of the House, Mr. Obey, and Mr. Murtha for 
understanding that our children are dying and that we must do something 
that faces the fact that our troops have won the victory. So I hope 
that we will debate H.R. 930 that says there has been a military 
success but this is a devastatingly wrong political mission that we are 
on.
  The President has to listen. This is 90 days plus 180 days, 9 months 
to redeploy. That's fair. We will fund our troops. That's fair. It is 
time now to bring our troops home because we love our children and we 
love America.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2237, the ``Iraq 
Redeployment Act.'' I rise in strong support of this legislation 
because I am listening, and responding to the will of the American 
people. Last November, Americans went to polls by the millions united 
in their resolve to vote for change. They voted for a new direction and 
a change in the Bush administration's disastrous policy in Iraq. The 
new Democratic majority heard them and responded by passing H.R. 1591, 
the Iraq Accountability Act. The President vetoed the bill, demanding 
instead a continuation of the ancient regime under which the 
Republican-led Congress gave him a blank check to mismanage the 
occupation and reconstruction of Iraq.
  Those days are over. No matter how many veto threats the President 
issues, this Congress is not going to give him a blank check to 
escalate and continue the war ad infinitum. It is long past time for 
change in Iraq. It is time for the people and government of Iraq to 
take primary responsibility for their own country. It is time for the 
President to recognize the reality on the ground in Iraq. The time when 
a surge in troops is useful and necessary is past. It is now time to 
redeploy our troops and launch a diplomatic surge for national and 
political reconciliation in Iraq. H.R. 2237 will help achieve this goal 
and that is why I support the measure.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no more important issue facing the Congress, 
the President, and the American people than the war in Iraq. It is a 
subject upon which no one is indifferent, least of all members of 
Congress. The Framers understood that while the military does the 
fighting, a nation goes to war. That is why the Framers lodged the 
power to declare war in the Congress, the branch of government closest 
to the people. They knew that the decision to go to war was too 
important to be left to the whim of a single person, no matter how wise 
or well-informed he or she might be.
  Four years ago, President Bush stood under a banner that proclaimed 
``Mission Accomplished.'' If the mission was to further place our 
troops in harm's way at the hands of insurgents and sectarian violence, 
then it is mission accomplished. After spending more than $400 billion 
dollars sacrificing the lives of 3,381 of America's finest citizen-
soldiers, what have we accomplished and where are we headed?
  I cannot support the President's waging of a war that has no clear 
direction, does not meet the benchmarks that the President set, and has 
no visible target.

[[Page 12107]]

  Four years after launching the invasion, conquest, and occupation of 
Iraq, the evidence is clear and irrefutable: the preemptive invasion of 
Iraq, while a spectacularly executed military operation, was a 
strategic blunder without parallel in the history of American foreign 
policy. This is what can happen when the Congress allows itself to be 
stampeded into authorizing a president to launch a preemptive war of 
choice.
  It is time to change our strategy in Iraq. It is time to engage the 
key stakeholders in the Middle East and make real strides towards 
securing a just and lasting peace in Iraq and for the Iraqi people. And 
most important, bring our troops home so they can be reunited with 
their families, friends, and neighbors.
  That is why, Mr. Speaker, in February of this year I introduced H.R. 
930, the ``Military Success in Iraq and Diplomatic Surge for National 
and Political Reconciliation in Iraq Act of 2007.'' Title I of my 
legislation, the ``Military Success in Iraq Act of 2007'' (M-S-I-A) or 
``Messiah,'' offers an honorable deliverance from Iraq. Let me explain.
  In October 2002, the Congress authorized the President to use 
military force against Iraq to achieve the following objectives:
  1. To disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction that could 
threaten the security of the United States and international peace in 
the Persian Gulf region;
  2. To change the Iraqi regime so that Saddam Hussein and his Baathist 
party no longer posed a threat to the people of Iraq or its neighbors;
  3. To bring to justice any members of al Qaeda known or found to be 
in Iraq bearing responsibility for the attacks on the United States, 
its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on 
September 11, 2001;
  4. To ensure that the regime of Saddam Hussein would not provide 
weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists, including al 
Qaeda; and
  5. To enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council 
resolutions regarding Iraq.
  Every one of these objectives has long been accomplished. Iraq does 
not possess weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein has been 
deposed, captured, and dealt with by the Iraqi people. The American 
military has caught or killed virtually every member of al Qaeda in 
Iraq that was even remotely responsible for the 9/11 attack on our 
country. Last, all relevant U.N. resolutions relating to Iraq have been 
enforced. In other words, every objective for which the use of force in 
Iraq was authorized by the 2002 resolution has been achieved.
  Mr. Speaker, since the objectives which led Congress to pass the 2002 
Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) have been achieved, I 
believe the authorization to use that military force expires 
automatically. My legislation affirms this proposition. Additionally, I 
believe, and my legislation provides, that it is the Congress that is 
the ultimate arbiter as to whether the objectives set forth in a 
congressional AUMF have been achieved.
  Mr. Speaker, where a Congressional authorization to use military 
force has expired, the President must obtain a new authorization to 
continue the use force. My legislation requires the President to do 
that as well. Finally, my bill requires that if the Congress does not 
vote to reauthorize the use of force in Iraq within 90 days after 
determining that the objectives set forth in the 2002 AUMF have been 
achieved, all American armed forces in Iraq must be redeployed out of 
Iraq. Thus, under my legislation, an up-or-down vote must be held by 
the House and Senate to continue waging war in Iraq.
  I am not talking about ``cutting and running,'' or surrendering to 
terrorists. And I certainly am not talking about staying in Iraq 
forever or the foreseeable future. The Armed Forces won the war they 
were sent to fight. Their civilian leadership has not succeeded in 
winning the peace. That is why the United States should surge 
diplomatically and politically.
  Title II of H.R. 930, the ``Diplomatic Surge for Political and 
National Reconciliation in Iraq Act,'' implements 12 of the most 
important recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Significantly, it 
creates a high-level Special Envoy for National and Political 
Reconciliation in Iraq (SENPRI). This Special Envoy would consist of 
individuals like former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Madeleine 
Albright, or James Baker who would undertake the peaceful 
reconciliation of the major stakeholders in a free and democratic Iraq, 
particularly the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds.
  All 6 of Iraq's neighbors--Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, 
and Kuwait--have an interest in a stabilized Iraq because as the Iraq 
Study Group report makes clear, none of these countries wants to live 
with an Iraq that, after our redeployment, becomes a failed state or a 
humanitarian catastrophe that could become a haven for terrorists or 
hemorrhages millions more refugees who will stream into neighboring 
countries.
  Mr. Speaker, every day when I walk into my office I am reminded of 
the courageous young men and women who have given their lives in 
service to our Nation. Outside my office I have displayed a poster-
board that displays the names and faces of those who made the ultimate 
sacrifice. The poster-board is nearly full. I do not want to start 
another board.
  That is why I rise in strong support of H.R. 2237. This legislation 
significantly reduces the U.S. military presence in Iraq over a 9 month 
period. The legislation does not abandon the Iraqi people. On the 
contrary, it recognizes the need to complete our mission by training 
Iraqi military forces and providing Special Forces to continue to 
pursue al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and destroy terrorist networks 
working out of Iraq. The bill also provides the full array of non-
military assistance for Iraq's economic and political reconstruction.
  This legislation recognizes and respects Iraqi sovereignty. This bill 
also respects the decision-making judgment of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
and U.S. military commanders in the field in determining where forces 
leaving Iraq might next be deployed. Finally, this legislation provides 
balance between the security priorities of the United States and Iraq 
to complete key military missions, and the political imperative to 
reduce the presence of U.S. military forces inside Iraq.
  For all of these reasons, I strongly support H.R. 2237 and urge all 
members to do likewise.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia, a member of the committee (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let's just say that the critics of the war, and I don't 
mean the Members of the House, but the critics in the general public 
who often say ``Bush lied'' and put up posters to that effect and they 
bring in Halliburton and Blackwater and bumper stickers that say ``No 
War for Oil,'' let's say all that is true, absolutely true, that 
everything was a trick to get us there, and just say we can agree with 
that, and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry never made the statements that 
Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which, of course, they 
did make those statements.
  But if all that was the case, regardless, we are there and we are 
there now.
  I met with the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq today, and he said, in 
fact, the surge is working. And maybe he has a view that might be 
suspect by some. But I have also spent a lot of time this week looking 
at a report of indexes in Iraq put out by the Brookings Institute, 
which, as you know, is left of center. But they track the number of 
civilian deaths, the number of IED attacks. They track the number of 
newspapers and radios, economic and political progress. They track the 
benchmarks, revenue sharing, oil sharing, and elections and so forth. 
And in that there is a glimmer of hope that is important to know that 
there is some progress that is being made.
  But I think between the Brookings Institute and the Prime Minister's 
report, there is a very bleak picture; but it is a picture nonetheless 
that progress is being made.
  If you pass this legislation today, you wouldn't just erode that 
progress. You would sign a death sentence to people like this Prime 
Minister and his family. Now, I agree that the Republican Party 
probably lost the majority in the House because of the war as much as 
anything else, but for us that is just politics. It is a political 
death. For the people over there that we are helping, this is real 
death. What would happen to this Deputy Prime Minister if we pulled 
out, and what would happen to all the other Iraqis who have been there 
trying to take a step forward as Sunnis, as Shiites, as Kurds, trying 
to work together in a cooperative agreement? Do the proponents of this 
bill believe that Iraq would suddenly say to them, Okay, you all can go 
home; we are going to switch governments? If this passed, there would 
be more chaos and a civil war that we have never seen before in the 
Middle East, and it would spill over to other countries in the Middle 
East.
  One of the things the Prime Minister said that Americans have failed 
to understand is there is a cultural shift

[[Page 12108]]

going on in the Middle East right now, and it is not unique to Iraq, 
and that is that al Qaeda is becoming a mainstream group. Al Qaeda and 
an Islamic radical fundamentalist movement with sights on the West is 
growing.
  If we withdraw from Iraq, it is victory to them. A defeat means it is 
not just going to stay in Iraq, but the momentum probably would go to 
Israel next. It would probably encourage the Iranians to get nuclear. 
Saudi Arabia would follow suit. They would need to have nuclear 
weapons, and Jordan. The good, the bad, and the ugly in the Middle East 
would happen.
  The previous speaker said the troops did win the war. I agree. But we 
have not finished the war. We should vote this down and give Petraeus 
time, which is very much needed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a course 
correction in foreign policy. The bills before us today reflect the 
will of the American people and the reality on the ground.
  We have invested 4 years in a war that was predicated upon the 
fantasy that Iraq would, Iraq could, become a bastion of democracy 
without a massive investment of time, talent, and treasure. This 
President had no plan to win the war he wanted to fight. He had no 
strategy to finish the job he started.
  We must bind the wounds of a Nation that has lost over 3,300 men and 
women in a war precipitated by the arrogance of an administration that 
made decisions based upon the world they wanted instead of the world 
that is. We must extract ourselves from what has become a civil war in 
Iraq. We must stand up to a President that is so insulated that members 
of his own party cannot even persuade him to change course.
  I have stood in this Chamber to mourn the passing of fallen heroes. 
Sadly, but most assuredly, I will stand here again to mourn more.
  But today I stand here asking you to explore your own conscience and 
stand up for our country, our families, and our troops. Let us renew 
our commitment to making the difficult choices we were sent here to 
make, and let us begin today.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control 
the balance of the time of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, I take this opportunity to thank 
the leadership for honoring the work and the request of the 
progressives of this House to place a bill before this body that we 
could feel good about supporting.
  Some of us have been against this war. We have come to the floor. We 
have done interviews. We have worked the floor. We have done everything 
that we possibly can to communicate what we believe are the feelings of 
the American public about this war. The November vote indicated to us, 
and should have to others, that Americans are sick and tired of this 
war. They want to bring our soldiers home. They want to stop the loss 
of lives. They want to stop the money that is being spent, over $400 
billion on Iraq and Afghanistan; 3,200 or more lives that have been 
lost; over 25,000 soldiers who have been seriously injured.

                              {time}  1630

  Some of us are not willing to spend other another dime on this war. 
And this bill that is before us, thanks to Barbara Lee and Mr. McGovern 
and to Lynn Woolsey and I, we have this bill that represents the 
thinking of the progressives of this House that simply says, we will 
give no more money to continue fighting this war, but rather, any money 
that is expended would simply be funds to help wind down this war and 
to bring our soldiers out; no permanent bases left in Iraq; and 
basically that no money would be spent on a surge. This surge that the 
President has initiated is placing our soldiers at great risk. As a 
matter of fact, there is no safety in the Green Zone. As a matter of 
fact, we do not have friends in Iraq. The Sunnis are against us. The 
Shias are against us. The Kurds are against us. And those Iraqi 
soldiers that are embedded are undermining our soldiers. I would ask 
for an ``aye'' vote on this very progressive piece of legislation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to read excerpts from a letter about Iraq. 
It reads as follows:
  ``I am deeply concerned about Iraq. The task you have given me is 
becoming really impossible . . . incompetent Arab officials are 
disturbing some of the provinces in failing to collect revenue. We have 
overpaid almost half a million [dollars] on last year's account, which 
it is almost certain Iraq will not be able to pay this year, thus 
entailing a Supplementary Estimate in regard to a matter never 
sanctioned by [the legislative body]; a further deficit, in spite of 
large economies, is nearly certain this year on the civil expenses 
owing to the drop in revenue. I have had to maintain . . . troops at 
Mosul all through the year in consequence of the Angora quarrel: This 
has upset the programme of reliefs and will certainly lead to further 
expenditures . . . In my own heart, I do not see what we are getting 
out of it.
  ``I think we should now put definitely . . . to the Constituent 
Assembly the position that, unless they beg us to stay and stay on our 
own terms in regard to efficient control, we shall actually evacuate 
before the close of the financial year. I would put this issue in the 
most brutal way, and if they are not prepared to urge us to stay and to 
cooperate in every manner, I would actually clear out.
  ``Surveying all the above, I think I must ask you for definite 
guidance at this stage as to what you wish and what you are prepared to 
do. The victories of the [opposition] will increase our difficulties 
throughout the [region]. At present, we are paying . . . millions a 
year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano out of which 
we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having.''
  That is a letter written by Winston Churchill in 1922 to David Lloyd 
George. I would suggest not very much has changed since then.
  I do not know if the timetable in this bill is exactly the correct 
timetable or not. What I do know is that I intend to vote for every 
responsible action that I can take that will increase pressure on this 
administration and on the government of Iraq and the politicians of 
Iraq so that they both finally understand there must be a change in 
policy; there must be a recognition that our troops do not have the 
capacity to produce the political compromises that are necessary to end 
this carnage. That power is only in the hands of American politicians 
and Iraqi politicians. It is about time we get about the business of 
using it and insisting that the Iraqis use it.
  I would urge support for this proposition.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I ask unanimous consent to control the 
balance of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for months Democratic leaders have tried to 
dictate military strategy by press release with little regard for the 
service men and women putting their lives on the line every day.
  Perhaps my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not realize 
that the privileges of the majority come with an actual responsibility 
to govern. Let me say to them, the time for tantrums is over. At long 
last, we are presented with an opportunity to vote yes or no on 
abandoning our mission in Iraq. But let's not mistake this newfound 
direction for some kind of profile in courage.

[[Page 12109]]

  After months of factual disarray, the Democratic Party has not 
suddenly found its spine; it has simply realized that the liberal 
agents who drive this majority, MoveOn.org, the labor unions, they have 
run out of patience. And it is them that demand a vote on abandoning 
our mission and abandoning it ASAP. Sadly, the Democrats have little 
concern for the demands of our military or for its waning patience for 
the funding that they so desperately need.
  More than 3 months, Mr. Speaker, have passed since the President 
requested emergency funding for our troops. Over the past 94 days, the 
Democrats have succeeded only in putting politics over policy and 
trying to substitute their judgment for that of the combatant 
commanders. For the past 94 days, they have chosen to beat their chest 
at press conferences, and yes, on this floor, rather than finding ways 
to actually get our troops the funding that they need to achieve 
victory.
  But, astoundingly, over the past 94 days, Democrats have never once 
grasped the consequences of resigning ourselves to defeat in Iraq. The 
void created by our departure would be filled by religious extremists 
and terrorists. Iran's path to develop nuclear weapons would be 
cleared. Violence in Iraq would grow exponentially. Shiite death squads 
and al Qaeda terrorists would further destabilize the democratically 
elected government. Another rogue regime could take root, leading to 
genocide. The terrorists, freshly emboldened by our surrender, would 
then be able to export terrorism around the world.
  Today, each of us has a critical decision to make: Do we stand by the 
side of victory or on the side of defeat? Do we stand with our troops 
or with those who would want to abandon them? Do we rise to the 
challenge of fostering freedom, or do we capitulate to the political 
pressure of special interests? The choice, Mr. Speaker, is ours. For 
the sake of our soldiers and our Nation. I implore my colleagues to 
choose wisely.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is one of those debates that you just have to take 
a deep breath and say, is this our finest hour or one of our worst, or 
somewhere in between? With this new Democratic majority, I thought 
there would be a reaching out to both sides of the aisle. I thought, on 
something so important, they would say, we went into Iraq on a 
bipartisan basis, two-thirds of the House, including Mr. Murtha and 
others, and three-quarters of the Senate voted to go into Iraq.
  We did not find weapons of mass destruction. And this administration 
made some terrible mistakes early on in disbanding the army, the police 
and the border patrol and allowing the looting. I understand the 
tremendous discontent. And this war has not turned out the way many had 
hoped. And certainly when we look back we can say a lot of it was 
predictable. But we attacked them; they did not attack us. I want to 
say it again: We attacked them; they did not attack us. We abolished 
their entire security force. I think of New York State. New York State 
had 19 million people. Imagine if a hundred thousand prisoners had been 
let out from Rikers Island and Attica, and then we said, no police in 
New York City, no police in Albany, no police in Syracuse, no police in 
Buffalo, no police in any of the towns in between. But do not worry, we 
are going to have 150,000 Arabic speakers spread out across all of New 
York, and they will keep the peace. Well, we did that to Iraq, but it 
is much larger than New York, and it has 26 million people instead of 
19 million. So a lot of what has happened is predictable.
  But now, when you talk with the Iraqis and you talk with the 
neighbors of Iraq, they say, we did not want you to go in, but we sure 
as heck do not want you to leave until you leave this a better place.
  We could, on a bipartisan basis, work this out. And there will be a 
point where bills like this will not be considered because we will come 
up with a bill that says, well, there are some of you on this side of 
the aisle that do believe in timelines, but timelines that actually 
work, not timelines that guarantee defeat of any chance of success.
  We expect that maybe you would say to us, well, we call you an 
occupying Nation, that is what you say we are. Well, fine. Then let's 
negotiate with the Iraqis like we negotiated with the South Koreans. 
That is a possibility. Why aren't we negotiating with them?
  The Iraqis, if they want, could ask us to leave. They have their own 
government. They have their own leadership. Why not have a plebiscite 
in that Nation? Why not have the Iraqi Council of Representatives vote? 
Why aren't we talking about those things? Why aren't we talking about 
the Iraqi Study Group, which Republicans and Democrats have both agreed 
have merits to it? We could potentially have a resolution that many of 
us could support. Why aren't we having an approach on the other side of 
the aisle that says, we need to find common ground and work it out 
together? I believe this: I believe two-thirds of the Iraqis want us to 
leave, and I believe two-thirds want us to stay. That is what the polls 
say. They do not want us to leave until we leave it a better place.
  I believe the Iraqis are a proud people, and they want to be treated 
with dignity. What this resolution does is simply pull the rug out from 
under our new Secretary of Defense, which all of you said you wanted, 
pulls the rug out from General Petraeus, who received 100 percent 
support in the Senate. Our general has said, give me a chance to show 
that we can win back Baghdad. That is what he has asked.
  What this resolution does is say that one part of the equation, the 
military, disappears. And we all have agreed you cannot win it 
militarily, but you cannot win it without the military. You cannot win 
it just with a change in politics, but you cannot win it without it. 
You cannot win it just with economics, but you cannot win it without 
it. It takes all three. And it is almost like, in a way, you want us to 
lose. It is almost like we are going to tie one hand behind our back 
and then say there is a failure because we have not given them all 
three parts.
  I cannot tell you how objectionable I find this. I find it 
objectionable that we would not allow the Iraqis to stand up on their 
own. They need us to train their military, their police and their 
border patrol. They need our troops embedded in there because they do 
not have any sergeants and corporals. We are embedded in there to help 
identify who among all those privates that we are training can be 
leaders among those troops.
  This is an unwise resolution. It is a partisan resolution. It is a 
bad message for us to send the Iraqi people. They do not know what to 
think about this Congress, but they do know this: We are more divided 
than they are, and we do not even have bombs blowing up.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know why we should be surprised that we are 
divided as a Nation when in fact we have an administration whose 
governing principle has been to govern by dividing.
  I would simply observe that there are some Members of this body 
evidently and some members of the administration who are willing to 
fight to the last drop of somebody else's blood. We are not, and that 
is why we are here with this proposal today.
  I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha).
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, I would not have voted for this 
resolution. Two years ago, I would not have voted for this resolution. 
One year ago, I would have voted for this resolution. But after seeing 
no progress in Iraq, none, zero, having misrepresentation coming from 
even the Pentagon, I am beginning to believe it is time that we have to 
send a very strong message to this administration.

                              {time}  1645

  The total number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq is 3,382. Killed since 
President Bush announced his surge is 366. We have lost more people in 
the last 4 months than we lost in any other

[[Page 12110]]

period of the war, and that doesn't count the number that have been 
wounded, and all of us have been out there and seen the ones that have 
been wounded.
  The foreign minister of Saudi Arabia in The New York Times last week 
said, ``We don't see anything happening in Iraq in implementation. Our 
American friends say there is improvement; improvement in violence, 
improvement in the level of understanding, improvement in disarming the 
militia. We don't see it.''
  Admiral Fallon, he is the new commander in Iraq, the central 
commander. Admiral Fallon said last week in the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, ``Prime Minister Maliki's progress thus far has been 
disappointing. They are not moving, in my opinion, fast enough to 
support what we are trying to do. The number one question in my mind is 
the ability as well as the willingness to do this.''
  Now, I said to the Iraqi National Security Adviser when he was here 
visiting me, I said, Look. I said, Originally we need a diplomatic 
effort, an international diplomatic effort. I urged him to change the 
Constitution. I urged him to pass a bill to spread out the oil 
revenues.
  He said, Well, it's a slow procedure, and he started talking about 
how we needed to stay, and he talked about the war, he didn't call it a 
civil war, the insurgency and the al Qaeda.
  I said, There is 2,000 al Qaeda. You don't think you can take care of 
2,000 al Qaeda when you have in your country 26 million people? I said, 
Let me tell you a story. My great-grandfather's Civil War hat sits on 
that shelf there. And I took it out and I showed him that. We fought 
our own civil war. And then I said, My ancestors fought in the 
Revolutionary War. They were rag-tag. They didn't have shoes. They 
fought in cold weather without cold-weather gear. They fought the 
greatest army in the history at that time, the greatest navy in the 
history at that time, the greatest empire in history at that time, and 
we beat them. We beat them by ourselves, with a little help from the 
French.
  You have to do this yourself, I said to the National Security Adviser 
for Iraq. You have to win this yourself. We can't do it for you. I 
said, Your Parliament takes a 2-month vacation in the middle of a time 
when it is crucial to the history.
  The American people, three-fourths of them, are unhappy with what is 
going on. The Congress more and more. Even some of our Republican 
friends need to help us convince this President that we need to move in 
the right direction, we need to change the direction of this war. I see 
in a news release that the President is now, after all this time, 
considering benchmarks. After all this time, the President of the 
United States is saying I'll consider benchmarks. He finally is 
starting to compromise. He has come off the pedestal and the President 
is starting to begin to realize that something has to be done to change 
the direction of this country.
  All of us want to solve this. All of us want stability in the Middle 
East. All of us want to do the right thing. But it is not working. 
Electricity production, below pre-war level. Oil production, below pre-
war level. It has been that way for the last 4\1/2\ years. Incidents 
are up. If you look at the way the incidents have gone, every month 
they have gone up. They have gone down a little bit, but they have gone 
up the whole time. And more Americans were killed in the last 4 months 
than any other period during this war.
  We need to change direction. We need to send a message. We need to go 
to conference and have some kind of a conversation with the White House 
so that they understand. I am glad to see some Republicans went to the 
White House and spoke the truth to this President and said to him, Mr. 
President, we need a change. You are destroying the Republican Party.
  Well, that is one of those things where I won't go there.
  But let me say this: we need to have a strong vote. We need to vote 
for this resolution, and then we need to pass the other bill and get on 
with our business.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, my 
colleague, the gentleman from California, Duncan Hunter.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from California 
for giving me some time.
  You know, in Iraq it is tough, it is difficult, it is dusty and it is 
dangerous; but we are following the same pattern that we followed for 
the last 60 years in bringing freedom to other parts of the world. It 
is not a smooth road.
  First, you stand up a free government. We have done that. It is an 
inept government. It bumbles along, as most new governments do. But it 
is a free government, and it represents the people.
  The second thing that you do is stand up a military capable of 
protecting that free government.
  Thirdly, the Americans leave, because we don't covet anything that 
another country has.
  We are right now in the second phase of standing up a military 
capable of protecting this government. My good friend who just spoke 
talked about the difficulty of standing up the Iraqi military. I know a 
couple of years ago in the first battle of Fallujah when we rushed 
green Iraqi troops to that battle and we thought they were going to 
help the United States Marines, the next day they were gone. They 
didn't show up for roll call. But this time when you go out there and 
you are in Fallujah and Ramadi, the Iraqi military is standing and 
fighting.
  We sat there about a month ago with the Sunni leaders of the national 
police in Ramadi and Fallujah, and they sat there side-by-side with the 
Shiite leaders of the Iraqi Army and talked about how they are working 
together, this time to push back against al Qaeda, whose rough edge has 
made enemies in the Anbar province.
  Now, we got 129 battalions in the Iraqi Army, and, personally, I 
think that the standup of the Iraqi Army and the reliability of the 
Iraqi Army is the key to America's success in Iraq and our successful 
turnover of the security burden.
  We have got to make sure that every one of those 129 Iraqi battalions 
moves into an operation where they do two or three months in a military 
operation where they have to work out, exercise their logistic chain, 
their chain of command, the commander has got to coordinate with the 
guy on the right and the guy on the left. At that time they can rotate 
into the battlefield and displace American heavy combat forces. That is 
the right way to leave Iraq. Not this way.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me the time, and I thank all of those who participated in this 
debate today.
  Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle apparently 
believe in and want to continue the status quo. That is their right. 
But I believe they are wrong. They have been wrong for 4 long, deadly 
years. So it is time for new leadership, for a new direction, for a new 
policy, a policy based on reality, not spin, not press release, not 
intimidation.
  My friends say that we can't leave Iraq until the Iraqis ask us to 
leave. I saw a story that appeared on the Associated Press wire today 
which states that a majority of Iraqi lawmakers endorsed a draft bill 
calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops and 
demanding a freeze on the number already in the country.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, we just heard from the gentleman from California 
that the Iraqi Government represents the Iraqi people, and apparently 
the Iraqi Government is telling us they want us to have a time certain 
when we leave.

[[Page 12111]]

  Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Our friends on the other side of the 
aisle argue that the best way to support the troops is to ask them to 
participate in a failed policy. Well, I disagree.
  The question before us is simple: Do you want to end this war? If you 
do, then you will vote for the bill before us.
  Mr. Speaker, let me end this debate the way I began it, by reminding 
everyone in this Chamber, Republican and Democrat, reminding everybody, 
whether you supported the war initially or whether you opposed the war, 
that we all have a responsibility. We have a responsibility to those 
men and women who we have put in harm's way, and that responsibility is 
to act responsibly, to make sure that we are giving every consideration 
before we put them in harm's way.
  We are now entering the fifth year of this war. We have a President 
who refuses to admit one error, one misjudgment. The fact of the matter 
is, there are two ways to end this war: one, with the cooperation and 
the help of the President, which we all want. The other way is for 
Congress to do its job, to take its responsibility seriously and to do 
what is necessary to bring this war to an end.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the underlying bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2237, the 
legislation offered by Mr. McGovern that would provide for the 
redeployment of United States Armed Forces and defense contractors from 
Iraq.
  H.R. 2237 would significantly reduce the U.S. military presence in 
Iraq over a 9-month period. It requires that the Department of Defense 
begin redeployment of armed forces and military contractors no later 
than 90 days after the date of enactment, allowing the Department the 
time necessary to plan, prepare and execute the process of drawing down 
troops. The redeployment would be completed within 6 months, at which 
point further funding for an increased presence in Iraq would be 
prohibited.
  H.R. 2237 respects the decision-making powers of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff and U.S. military commanders in the field. It specifically leaves 
decisions about where U.S. troops should be redeployed in the hands of 
the Pentagon. Troops drawn down from Iraq may be redeployed to 
neighboring countries, to Afghanistan, to other U.S. bases abroad, or 
back to the United States in support of homeland security and other 
national needs.
  This legislation also recognizes and respects Iraqi sovereignty by 
ensuring that the present conflict will not provide for the 
establishment of permanent American military bases in Iraq. H.R. 2237 
provides for the orderly transfer of bases and facilities constructed 
or occupied by the U.S. military to Iraqi control. Nothing in this bill 
precludes the United States from negotiating base rights or shared use 
in the future, as is our practice with other sovereign nations.
  H.R. 2237 provides strong support for the Iraqi people by continuing 
assistance for social, political and diplomatic reconstruction. 
Additionally, aid is permitted, at the request of the Iraqi government, 
for assistance or equipment to the Iraqi Security Forces or 
multinational forces providing security or training in Iraq. U.S. 
military forces would be authorized to remain in Iraq to complete the 
training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, pursue foreign 
terrorist networks operating inside Iraq, and provide protection to 
U.S. citizens and embassy and diplomatic personnel.
  Recent news reports indicate that two days ago, a majority of Iraqi 
parliamentarians signed a petition calling on the United States to 
establish a timeline for our military to withdraw from their country. 
Poll after poll indicates that a large majority of Iraqis believe the 
large-scale presence of U.S. military forces inside Iraq is fueling, 
rather than abating, both the Iraqi insurgency and an increasing 
presence of foreign jihadists. Reducing our footprint in Iraq provides 
that country, its neighbors, and the international community with a new 
opportunity and a new environment in which to pursue reconciliation and 
a political solution to the violence currently devastating Iraqi 
society.
  I applaud Speaker Pelosi for allowing this bill to come to the floor, 
and join with members of the Out of Iraq and Progressive Caucuses in 
supporting it.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Democratic 
efforts to end the War in Iraq.
  We are considering two bills today, both of which are significant 
improvements over legislation passed by Rubber Stamp Republican 
Congresses over the last four years. The Iraq Accountability Act 
provides funding for the war, but only until July. After receiving a 
report on the progress in Iraq--or lack thereof--Congress would then 
decide whether or not to extend funding through September. Unlike the 
legislation President Bush demanded, this bill holds him and his 
administration accountable for concrete economic, political and 
security benchmarks in Iraq.
  Though I appreciate the attempt to keep President Bush on a ``short 
leash,'' I cannot vote to continue funding a tragic war that has 
already taken the lives of thousands of American troops and tens of 
thousands of Iraqis. Every time I hear the President lie to the 
American people about the situation in Iraq and about the patriotism of 
those who dare criticize his many foreign policy failings, I can't help 
but think he needs a muzzle, not a leash.
  It's past time for us to get out of this mess and for our troops to 
come home from Iraq.
  That's why I'm excited to join my colleagues in supporting the Iraq 
Redeployment Act. This bill requires the withdrawal of American troops 
to begin in the next three months and be completed in the next nine. It 
also prohibits funding for the ``surge'' and permanent United States 
military bases in Iraq. My constituents have been calling for 
withdrawal for years and I'm proud for vote for it on the House floor 
today.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, like H.R. 2237, this bill has 
serious flaws. However, while I could not vote for H.R. 2237, which 
would have required rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq, I will vote 
for this emergency supplemental appropriations bill.
  I could not support H.R. 2237 for two reasons:
  First, I do not support the idea of rigidly insisting on a date 
certain for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq. I remain 
convinced that we should steer clear of arbitrary public deadlines for 
military actions and focus instead on realistic diplomatic and 
political goals.
  Second, I am very troubled by the provision that would prohibit 
funding for troops described as being part of the ``surge.''
  My concerns do not reflect support for the administration's strategy. 
On the contrary, I still think an open-ended escalation--and that is 
the reality behind the Administration talk about a ``surge''--is no 
substitute for what is really needed, which is a strategy for 
containing civil war and a wider regional war.
  That is why in January, I voted against President Bush's plan to 
increase the number of troops deployed in Iraq--a course he took 
against the best advice of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, military 
leaders, and other policy experts who have warned against extending our 
military commitment in Iraq.
  But now nearly 14,000 additional troops have been deployed, and I 
think it would be irresponsible to vote to cut funding for their 
weapons and equipment and for all they need to keep them alive and 
fighting for our country in the midst of Iraq's civil war.
  In short, while I remain convinced that it was a strategic mistake to 
go to war in Iraq in the way that the Bush administration did, the fact 
is that we are still deeply engaged there--and while our troops are in 
the field, we must provide them what they need.
  On the other hand, I will vote for H.R. 2206, the revised 
Supplemental Appropriations bill, primarily for the same reason that I 
voted for the previous supplemental appropriations bill.
  I believe we must vote to provide America's men and women in uniform 
with the equipment and resources they need and with the best health 
care they may require when they come home. I think it would be grossly 
irresponsible not to provide these resources.
  And we must 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.
  The bill seeks to hold the president accountable by ``fencing'' half 
the funds until the Secretary of Defense reports on meeting the 
benchmarks and Congress votes again to release the remaining funds.
  I am not convinced that is a workable approach. But, I do not think 
its effectiveness will be tested, because I do not think it will become 
law in its present form--partly because the president has said he will 
veto it if it should reach his desk and partly because every indication 
is that the Senate will take a different approach.
  Under these circumstances, I think the most important thing is for 
the House to pass a supplemental appropriations bill today and then to 
proceed to a conference with the Senate without further delay. I hope 
that the result will be

[[Page 12112]]

a bill that will both provide essential funding for our troops and also 
hold the president accountable--but for that hope to be realized, it is 
necessary for the House to act today, and so I will vote for the 
supplemental appropriations bill now before us.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 2237 with certain 
reservations. Very few bills that pass this House are written exactly 
as each of us would like. My own plan for the redeployment of U.S. 
forces would not take this exact form. However, the general thrust of 
this plan is in the right direction. It establishes a timetable to 
extricate U.S. forces from a bloody, sectarian civil war while 
providing the flexibility to carry out other missions both inside and 
outside Iraq for the purpose of going after al Qaeda and other 
terrorist organizations with global reach. It also provides for U.S. 
forces to train and equip the Iraqi Security Forces, and to protect the 
U.S. Embassy and diplomatic missions.
  Mr. Speaker, I preferred the approach taken by the House in the 
Supplemental Appropriations bill we recently passed. Unfortunately, the 
President vetoed that measure. He wants the funds without any 
accountability. We cannot give the President a blank check. While I do 
not agree with every provision in this bill, it sends the right 
message--it is time to end the President's failed policies in Iraq and 
change direction.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this measure 
before us today because it provides a clearly needed change in course 
in Iraq. The President has placed roughly 160,000 of our troops in a 
highly vulnerable position--refereeing a civil war--while the various 
factions in Iraq have not made adequate progress toward reconciliation. 
The needed political reconciliation among these groups will not happen 
until we make it clear to the Iraqis that our occupation is coming to 
an end.
  But our open-ended occupation of Iraq is not only not working; it's 
working against us. It undermines our fight against al-Qaeda and 
provides extremists a rallying point. We have every indication that al-
Qaeda is resurgent in Pakistan, that bin Laden finds himself stronger 
than ever, and that al-Qaeda-linked groups are growing in number and 
audacity. We need to responsibly redeploy our troops from Iraq so we 
can better fight this growing threat.
  I initially had concerns with some of the language in this measure 
regarding funds for troops deployed to Iraq since January of this year. 
But after examining the bill more closely, I do not believe any 
provision in this bill would alter funding in a way that would put 
troops currently in the field at risk. The bottom line is that we must 
send a clear message to the President that we must change direction in 
Iraq and redeploy our troops.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 387, the bill is considered read and the 
previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Saxton

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

       Mr. Saxton moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2237 to the 
     Committee on Armed Services with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AND 
                   DEFENSE CONTRACTORS FROM IRAQ.

       (a) Factors Applicable to Any Redeployment Decision.--A 
     determination to withdraw or redeploy units and members of 
     the Armed Forces deployed in Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom and contractors operating in Iraq and funded using 
     amounts appropriated to the Department of Defense shall be 
     based, among any other relevant factors, on the following 
     factors:
       (1) The protection of members of the Armed Forces deployed 
     in Iraq.
       (2) The protection of members of the Army Corps of 
     Engineers and defense contractors engaged in reconstruction 
     projects in Iraq.
       (3) The protection of American citizens in Iraq and the 
     security of the United States Embassy and other United States 
     diplomatic missions in Iraq.
       (4) The ability to engage in actions to kill or capture 
     members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with 
     global reach.
       (5) The training and equipping of members of the Iraqi 
     Security Forces to achieve stability and security in Iraq.
       (6) The regional security of the Middle East, including the 
     security of the State of Israel.
       (7) The national security of the United States.
       (b) Report to Congress.--The Secretary of Defense, the 
     Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, and the combatant 
     commander of the United States Central Command shall report 
     to Congress periodically, but not later than September 30, 
     2007, and periodically thereafter, on the factors specified 
     in subsection (a).
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Armed Forces'' 
     has the meaning given the term in section 101(a)(4) of title 
     10, United States Code.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my colleagues to resist the 
urge to begin a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq within 90 days as 
this bill requires. Doing so would have a devastating impact on our 
ability to fight terrorism here and abroad and would have severe 
security impacts, not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East and 
the entire region. My motion to recommit will ensure that when we 
withdraw from Iraq, we do so based on the conditions on the ground by 
requiring we take into account our national security assessments and 
the regional security implications, as outlined by the National 
Intelligence Estimate for Iraq.
  We are not in the position to determine when U.S. forces should 
redeploy from Iraq. Only the commanders on the ground have that 
information. Only our commanders and diplomatic representatives on the 
ground can determine effectively when conditions are in place to 
warrant a troop withdrawal. It would be irresponsible for us to assign 
such an arbitrary timeline and impose it upon our leadership in 
theater.
  We have to consider the conditions that we would leave the Iraqi 
Government to deal with going forward if we were to precipitously 
withdraw our personnel.
  In my view, there are two significant threats that would remain 
behind, and the Iraqi Government would not be prepared to effectively 
counter either one. The al Qaeda threat in Iraq is significant. Al 
Qaeda's deputy commented a few days ago that the establishment of an 
Islamic state of Iraq is an important milestone on the way to reviving 
the Islamic caliphate. He noted that the defeat of American forces in 
Iraq is a key to this objective.
  Securing control over Iraq is the strategic objective for al Qaeda 
that will enable it to conduct operations against their targets in the 
Middle East, particularly against Israel, in addition to Europe and 
other U.S. global interests. Al Qaeda is particularly interested in the 
Persian Gulf oil fields, and Iraq would serve as a valuable staging 
area for such attacks.

                              {time}  1700

  Right now the Iraqi forces, security forces working in partnership 
with U.S. forces, are building momentum to erode al Qaeda's influence 
over Sunni insurgent groups in Iraq. A premature withdrawal would 
derail those efforts.
  Al Qaeda in Iraq has been conducting indiscriminate attacks on Iraqi 
civilians. Sunni Arabs reject this tactic, and there is a growing 
backlash among the population. Sunni communities have encouraged 
thousands to join the local police forces and improve security. This is 
real progress.
  A few days ago, al Qaeda's deputy warned Iraqi citizens that have 
supported the U.S. to consider what will happen to them after the 
Americans leave. If we abandon them now, we will be hard-pressed to 
gain their trust any time again in the future.
  Iran also has an interest in seeing us fail and leave Iraq early. We 
know that Iran has been arming militia groups within Iraq. We know that 
Iran has infiltrated various levels of Iraqi government and its 
security forces.
  If we redeployed from Iraq before the Maliki government has the 
capability to contain this threat, we would leave Iraq vulnerable to 
becoming an Iranian surrogate.

[[Page 12113]]

  The porous Iraqi-Syrian border would provide Iran with contiguous, 
unfettered access to the coast of Lebanon. Through its support of Hamas 
and Hezbollah, Iran would then become even more a danger to the 
prospect of security and stability in the Middle East.
  It would be irresponsible for us to even consider withdrawing from 
Iraq before the Maliki government has the capacity to deter these two 
threats. We must be conscious of the dangerous message we are sending 
with an early withdrawal.
  First, we would lose the trust and will of the Iraqi people and the 
democratically elected government we worked so hard to create. The 
extremists associated with al Qaeda will hear a message that will tell 
them that Americans acknowledged defeat, and do not have the stomach 
for this war or any other war with al Qaeda. Our defeat would only 
inspire like-minded jihadists to take up their cause.
  One need only look as far as yesterday to see the headlines of what 
could happen here in this country. A couple of days ago, we were 
reminded how close to home the terror threat is. The Fort Dix, New 
Jersey, individuals are just one example.
  I ask everyone on both sides of the aisle to support this motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this recommittal motion is something that we 
have seen for approximately 5 minutes. I think it is a dubious 
proposition to be voting on something this serious with less than 10 
minutes of consideration.
  But upon a cursory reading of it, it is apparent that the purpose of 
this proposition is simply to prevent people from voting on the 
underlying bill. It is designed to gut the bill by adding two 
additional conditions that would enable our troops to stay in Iraq 
indefinitely. Those conditions make reference to the regional security 
of the Middle East and the national security interest of the United 
States. That language is so broad that virtually any deployment of any 
armed force could be justified under that language.
  It is obvious that would in fact essentially gut the proposal, and so 
I would urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would simply 
say that obviously this is yet another cynical attempt to try to avoid 
dealing with the issue that I think both Democrats and Republicans want 
to deal with, and that is whether or not we should have a timetable for 
withdrawal and redeployment from Iraq.
  This is a procedural motion that, as the gentleman from Wisconsin 
pointed out, is so broad, this could justify keeping us in Iraq forever 
and ever and ever. And for the ``regional security of the Middle 
East,'' what does that mean? This is an open-ended invitation for our 
military involvement and for our permanent occupation of Iraq forever. 
This in and of itself is not particularly well thought out.
  I understand what you are trying to do, and that is to avoid giving 
people the opportunity to vote on this. But essentially what you are 
doing is gutting this legislation.
  I would strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion. We 
are on our fifth year, our fifth year of this war, no accountability 
and no admission that perhaps we need to take a different course; and 
the best you can do is come before us with this motion that would, 
again, if passed, would allow us to stay and occupy Iraq indefinitely.
  I think this is a bad idea. I think it is a cynical idea. I think the 
people on the other side should have the guts to vote ``no'' on the 
timetable if you don't want to withdraw our troops. If you want a 
never-ending war, then have the guts to vote for it, but this is not 
the way to do it. I urge rejection of this motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SAXTON. 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.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair may reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage of 
the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 210, 
nays 218, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 329]

                               YEAS--210

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

                               NAYS--218

     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)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin

[[Page 12114]]


     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     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
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brady (PA)
     Engel
     Fattah
     McMorris Rodgers
     Souder

                              {time}  1731

  Messrs. BISHOP of Georgia, FILNER, PALLONE, LARSON of Connecticut, 
MITCHELL, McNERNEY and WATT changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. LaHOOD, SHADEGG, FERGUSON, KIRK and GOODE changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 255, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 330]

                               AYES--171

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Braley (IA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castor
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     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
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--255

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Gene
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNerney
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Ortiz
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Cantor
     Engel
     Fattah
     McMorris Rodgers
     Souder


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1739

  So the bill was not passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, due to unforeseen 
circumstances I failed to vote on rollcall No. 330, which provided for 
the redeployment of United States Armed Forces and defense contractors 
from Iraq.
  Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________