[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12547-12561]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2346, SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2009

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 434 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 434

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     2346) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For purposes of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier). All time yielded is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 434.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 434 provides for consideration of H.R. 
2346, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009. No Member of 
Congress takes today's vote lightly. In my two terms in Congress, I've 
had many late nights thinking about our troops who protect all us 
around the globe--ones who I have met, ones from my district, and 
others--thinking about how to bring them home safely and responsibly.
  Today, we vote to fund them and their efforts in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. It

[[Page 12548]]

is not a perfect bill, and it is not the silver bullet which will end 
the wars within the next year. But it is a responsible plan to support 
our servicemen and -women and assist them as much as possible.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot fully understand the next steps in Iraq and 
Afghanistan without looking at the steps our Nation has taken to get 
here.
  In 2001, following the September 11 attacks, Congress authorized 
President Bush to take action against Afghanistan for harboring and 
enabling al Qaeda to attack us. We were greeted as liberators for the 
most part and even had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of 
Tora Bora.
  But in 2002 and 2003, President Bush and others changed the country's 
focus from the biggest threat to American security to a country which 
actually posed little threat--that being Iraq.
  Ever since that moment, we have been playing catchup in both 
countries, trying to defeat insurgencies while promoting democracy and 
economic development, which are precarious at best. Even experts 
concede achieving these missions simultaneously is difficult.
  Last November, Barack Obama and John McCain outlined two very 
different visions of our future involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 
Iraq, President Obama's plan involved expeditiously transitioning 
authority to the Iraqi Security Forces, promoting economic development, 
and removing combat troops within a year. This vision is very close to 
the plan I described to my voters when I was elected to my first term.
  In Afghanistan, the plan involved broadening the international 
coalition, eradicating al Qaeda and the Taliban, empowering women, and 
providing an increase in troops, is what is provided for in this 
particular bill.
  Knowing full well Barack Obama's military and diplomatic goals in 
Iraq and Afghanistan, more Americans voted for President Obama and the 
plans he outlined than they did for Senator McCain or his plans.
  Over the course of the past few months, President Obama has put the 
pieces in place to keep his promise, putting a national security team 
in place--a bipartisan team at that--of Robert Gates, James Jones, and 
Hillary Rodham Clinton.
  Today's bill is a plan laid out by the President and his bipartisan 
national security team that finally understands that victory will not 
be achieved by military might alone.
  Many in the House today, on both sides of the aisle, have stated 
their opposition to this bill before the new President with his new 
ideas has even had a chance to implement his plan.
  President Obama inherited an international mess. American voters 
chose President Obama and his plan, and it is time that Congress gave 
our troops the resources they need to complete their assignments.
  In my opinion, there are three components to this bill. First: in 
Iraq, we provide funding for military operations, including $4.8 
billion for lightweight mine-resistant vehicles, or MRAPs, and $1.3 
billion for IED threat mitigation. The bill also provides $1 billion 
for economic development in Iraq.
  These provisions are essential to President Obama in order to meet 
his intended date of August 31, 2010, to remove all combat troops from 
Iraq.
  In Afghanistan, we require the President to objectively report to 
Congress on five critical areas in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Among 
these are questions of anticorruption efforts, independent security 
forces, and political consensus. We also provide $1.52 billion in 
international aid for development of that war-torn country.
  Lastly, the bill focuses on our troops and domestic emergencies. We 
provide funding for H1N1 influenza. We also provide $470 million to 
address Mexican border violence and drug cartels. We also provide to 
our troops stop-loss payments in recognition of their additional 
participation in the wars in the Middle East. These troops who signed 
up to serve fell victim as part of a backdoor draft--and this bill 
justly repays them.
  Mr. Speaker, today we will have an emotional debate about how our 
Nation moves forward in Iraq and Afghanistan. The way forward in Iraq 
and Afghanistan is to vote ``yes'' today. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on the rule and the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, let me express my appreciation to my very good friend from 
Golden, a hardworking and thoughtful member of the Rules Committee, for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that today we will be considering 
legislation that represents a true bipartisan effort on a critically 
important issue. The underlying bill, an emergency supplemental funding 
bill for our troops, was largely developed through bipartisan 
consensus, and we as Republicans are very happy to have had the 
opportunity to work with President Obama on this issue.
  The President has repeatedly said that he would like to work with 
Republicans to develop real solutions for the challenges that we face 
as a country. So far, unfortunately, the Democratic leadership has done 
a less than perfect job in dealing with the request for bipartisanship, 
shutting out Republicans and injecting a greater and greater amount of 
partisanship into the legislative process.
  But today we have before us our first real opportunity to come 
together and work in a bipartisan way. This occasion is all the more 
significant because the issue at hand is the funding of our troops.
  I'm very proud that we're able to demonstrate to the men and women 
who voluntarily, voluntarily put their lives on the line for our 
country, that the support for them in Congress is unified and 
unequivocal. We owe a great debt to them and to their families, and it 
is very fitting that we should be joining together in this show of 
support just before Memorial Day.
  Our troops in Afghanistan are facing rapidly increasing threats. Our 
troops in Iraq are working to fully turn responsibility for security 
over to the Iraqis. Thousands of others are deployed in dangerous 
places, as we all know, around the world.
  We must ensure that they have the resources, protection, and support 
they need to do their jobs effectively and, as my friend from Golden 
said in his statement, to come home safely. The underlying 
appropriations bill will help to ensure just that.
  But this is not, by any means, Mr. Speaker, a perfect bill. There are 
some key improvements that I believe need to be made. Unfortunately, 
the rule that we are considering today prevents any amendments from 
being considered. Even amidst this great bipartisan effort, the 
Democratic leadership has chosen to tarnish the outcome by refusing to 
allow debate on a number of key issues. Allowing amendments to be 
debated and considered would enable us to take this important bill and 
make it even more effective.
  One such amendment which my friend and colleague Mr. Rogers, the 
gentleman from Kentucky, has offered, would have redirected some 
funding to very important border security efforts. This is a critical 
national security issue. Violent drug wars have been escalating, as we 
all know, on our border for months, and we need to ensure that we have 
adequate homeland security resources. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this 
rule does not allow us to ensure the needed additional funding to deal 
with border security.
  Another key issue that must be addressed, as we all know because it 
has been the center of a great deal of controversy, is the question of 
how the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay will be shut down.
  The President has made it clear that he intends to close this 
facility, and his administration has already begun to move forward on 
this. Yet Congress has been presented with no clear plan as to how the 
facility will be closed and, most important, what will be done with the 
detainees. Will they be moved to American soil? Tried in jail or--God 
forbid--released here in the United States?
  The Guantanamo detainees include Khalid Sheik Muhammad, mastermind

[[Page 12549]]

of the 9/11 attacks; Hambali, al Qaeda's operation chief for Southeast 
Asia who planned the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 200 people; Ahmed 
Khalfan Ghailani, one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists, who helped 
plan the 1998 bombings of our embassies at Dar es Salaam and Nairobi.

                              {time}  1230

  These are Guantanamo detainees, and we have received no plan for 
where they will be moved if the facility is shut down. We have received 
no commitment, no commitment at all, for congressional oversight. This 
bill should explicitly require planning and consultation with Congress 
so we can ensure that unacceptable security risks will not be borne by 
our communities and our constituents.
  Republicans have repeatedly raised this issue, Mr. Speaker. 
Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership, apparently feeling the 
pressure to address this issue, would like to self-execute an amendment 
in this rule to the bill that will place restrictions on the process 
for closing the detention facility at Guantanamo.
  But there are two key problems with their approach here, Mr. Speaker. 
First, the substance of their amendment does not adequately address the 
risks that we must guard against. It does not guarantee that governors 
and State legislators will have the final say on whether terrorists can 
be housed in their States.
  Under the Democratic plan, States can be forced to allow the world's 
most dangerous terrorists to be held in their communities.
  Second, by self-executing this flawed and inadequate amendment, they 
are circumventing the debate and scrutiny that an issue of this 
magnitude demands. The issue of bringing committed terrorists onto 
American soil--not people who perpetrated crimes who are American 
citizens, but foreign-born terrorists--on American soil should not be 
dealt with haphazardly, nor cloaked in secrecy. It must be considered 
extremely carefully, thoroughly, and openly. This rule denies us that 
opportunity and fails to ensure the protection of Americans.
  There are other issues that should be dealt with, Mr. Speaker. The 
large increase of foreign assistance funding, while important to long-
term efforts to combat the roots of terrorism, should not be considered 
emergency funding. This funding should be included in the regular 
budget subject to regular budgetary considerations. Designating them as 
emergency funds just skirts the tough choices that responsible 
budgeting demands.
  All of these issues should be addressed in an open debate with an 
amendment process, which is standard operating procedure for 
appropriations. As I said in the Rules Committee yesterday, 
appropriations bills are considered privileged resolutions. They come 
straight to the floor. We don't even need to go to the Rules Committee 
for consideration of appropriations bills. It is done traditionally to 
simply protect the bill and the work product of the Appropriations 
Committee, and then allow for an open amendment process.
  Fixing these problems, Mr. Speaker, would make a good and important 
bill all that much more effective. It would allow the legislative 
process for this bill, which has developed in such a bipartisan way, to 
finish in the same cooperative spirit in which it began.
  During my tenure as chairman of the Rules Committee for 8 years, 
every single wartime supplemental was considered under an open rule. 
Not even one has been open over the last 3 years since the new 
Democratic majority has been in charge. It is very unfortunate that the 
Democratic leadership once again is trying to thwart the best efforts 
of President Obama and congressional Republicans to work together and 
build consensus.
  But despite their disdain for bipartisanship and open debate, we as 
Republicans will join with the President in support of this troop 
funding bill, and we welcome this opportunity to work with him on this 
issue.
  We sincerely hope that we can continue to come together on other very 
pressing issues that we will want to address effectively and 
responsibly in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question, and I will be explaining throughout this debate time 
what it is that we hope to do if we are able to defeat the previous 
question as it relates to Guantanamo. If by chance we are not 
successful in defeating the previous question, I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on the underlying rule so we can, in fact, continue with 
the spirit of bipartisanship to make this important bill even better.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my friend 
from California. I just would like to respond on a couple of matters.
  First of all, we hope and expect that this will be the last 
supplemental that we will have to do in this fashion so that these 
budgets for our military, whether it is in Iraq or Afghanistan, or 
elsewhere around the world, are treated within the whole budget.
  So I appreciate your comments about that, but this has been a system 
that we intend to stop. This is the last one. As it was laid out, we 
left it halfway finished last year.
  Second, to my friend from California, I would say that in the spirit 
of bipartisanship, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has 
come up with the rule concerning Guantanamo, or the amendment 
concerning Guantanamo. Some of the Members of my caucus are going to 
take real issue with that amendment. They think that it goes too far in 
terms of giving the President time to develop a plan for releasing or 
transferring the prisoners who are held at Guantanamo. I know that 
Members on your side of the aisle think it doesn't go far enough. So in 
an effort of bipartisanship, the chairman has tried to craft this 
amendment.
  My last point is with respect to the border. There were hundreds of 
millions of dollars appropriated in the stimulus bill for border 
protection and border enforcement, and there is even more so in this 
particular bill.
  So three of your points I would like to take issue with. I do 
appreciate the extension of the hand in bipartisanship.
  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr PERLMUTTER. For about 15 seconds. I have a lot of speakers.
  Mr. DREIER. On border security, it continues to be a high priority, 
and the situation has gotten worse since we provided that level of 
appropriations.
  On the issue of Guantanamo, Mr. Wolf, a member of the committee, has 
come forward with a very thoughtful amendment. We are going to seek to 
make that in order if we are able to defeat the previous question. I 
know that the chairman of the committee has said that he doesn't 
believe that State legislators and governors should be able to preempt 
Federal law. We know, as Mr. Wolf said in his testimony, that there are 
a number of States that have already indicated an interest in having an 
opportunity to receive these detainees.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Reclaiming my time, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in 2001 I voted in favor of the resolution 
to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan to hold to account al 
Qaeda and the Taliban for their unconscionable and unforgivable acts 
against our fellow citizens. I would do it again if faced with the same 
decision.
  But after 8 long years, our mission has been vastly expanded and the 
policy is unclear. It has been a very hard decision to make because I 
appreciate the good work of Chairman Obey and many of the items in this 
bill; but I cannot support the supplemental appropriations bill.
  I believe not just the United States but the international community 
made a promise to the people of Afghanistan, not to the Karzai 
government, not to the regional powers, but to the people of 
Afghanistan. We promised that we would stand by them as they rebuilt 
their country after ousting al Qaeda and the Taliban government that 
provided these terrorists safe haven.

[[Page 12550]]

  Everyone I know, including President Obama, keeps telling me that 
there is no military solution in Afghanistan, only a political 
solution. And I believe this, too. So I am very concerned when we put 
billions of dollars into building up the U.S. military presence in 
Afghanistan without a clear mission and without an exit strategy.
  Just as I insisted that the previous administration provide Congress 
with clear benchmarks and an exit strategy for Iraq, then we should do 
the same with this administration in Afghanistan. I am not advocating 
for an immediate withdrawal of our military forces from Afghanistan. 
All I am asking for is a plan. If there is no military solution for 
Afghanistan, then please, just tell me how we will know when our 
military contribution to the political solution has concluded.
  I appreciate and I support the required reports on Afghanistan and 
Pakistan that Chairman Obey has included in this supplemental. But 
these reports don't tell us anything about the mission of our service 
men and women in Afghanistan and how we will know when it is time to 
bring them home.
  I hope, at the very least, at some point in the near future we will 
have a full and thorough debate about our strategy in Afghanistan. 
Sadly, that will not happen today.
  In preparation for that debate, I have introduced this morning a bill 
with 73 bipartisan cosponsors that requires the Secretary of Defense to 
outline for Congress by the end of the year the exit strategy for our 
military forces in Afghanistan. My bill doesn't withdraw our forces; it 
doesn't set a definite timetable. It simply asks the Secretary of 
Defense to outline what our strategy is.
  I don't think that it is too much to ask that over the next 7 months 
the Defense Department tell us what is the plan for completing our 
military mission in Afghanistan.
  Mr. Speaker, when I first ran for Congress, I promised my 
constituents that I would never vote to send our servicemen and -women 
into war without a clearly defined mission, and I am sticking to that 
promise. I am sick and tired of wars that have no exits, deadlines or 
an end. We owe our troops and their families much better, and I am 
deeply concerned about how long we will be able to sustain and pay for 
an expanded military presence in Afghanistan.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply want to know: What is the exit strategy that 
brings our servicemen and -women home? Until someone gives me a 
credible answer, I will be voting ``no.''
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the distinguished ranking 
member of the Appropriations Committee, I would say to my friend from 
Worcester that it is very important that he realizes that he should be 
voting ``no'' on this rule so we can have the kind of debate to which 
he aspires.
  With that, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis) for 3 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate my colleague from California 
yielding me this time.
  I frankly had hoped that we would be bringing this bill to the floor 
today, the supplemental, following the traditional pattern of 
appropriations processes with an open rule so that we could come 
together and discuss some of these very key issues together in a 
positive way. And as the ranking member of the Rules Committee said, 
make what is a very good and bipartisan effort significantly better by 
addressing a few key issues that indeed are of great concern to the 
American people.
  I would specifically like to mention that the gentleman from Colorado 
suggested that this is the last supplemental. I am sure that you have 
watched the House for all of the years you have been here, and I know 
that you are absolutely convinced that this will be the last 
supplemental, but I wouldn't want to suggest that others would perhaps 
consider that to be a bit naive.
  But in the meantime, I was most intrigued by another discussion I had 
with the gentleman in the Rules Committee when we were talking about 
Guantanamo. Indeed, Guantanamo is an issue that will become of greater 
and greater concern to the American public as we go forward from here.
  The rule does self-enact a proposal by the chairman of the full 
committee that addresses Guantanamo. There are a number of things it 
does not, however, address in its language form. And, indeed, an open 
rule would have allowed us to have discussion of the very thoughtful 
work done by our Members in the full committee. Those Members' products 
were rejected on a partisan vote in the appropriations process, 
unfortunately, and we should have a chance to address them here on the 
floor.
  I would like to share a few things that the chairman's amendment that 
is in the rule does not do. The rule includes language from Mr. Obey 
that, among other things, does not require the administration to 
conduct a risk assessment of the dangers of releasing Guantanamo 
detainees into American communities.
  It does not require any notification, including the Congress, 
Governors, State legislators, or local communities, as to when and 
where detainees will be released outright to the general public after 
October 1, 2009, and on and on I could go from there.
  I was very fascinated by the gentleman from Colorado's reaction. He 
said that is what our prison system is about. After all, we in Colorado 
have some serious people in prison; for example, the Unabomber. Well, I 
would suggest to the gentleman from Colorado, those criminals who are 
housed in Colorado and other States who are domestics who violated our 
law in a variety of ways--the Unabomber being a nut case, for example--
do not reflect the intensity and commitment of al Qaeda-trained 
terrorists who absolutely have dedicated their lives to trying to 
destroy our way of life. Those people in the hundreds potentially being 
released without any notification to the American public or to our 
governors and local legislators--it is unacceptable, unacceptable that 
we follow that path. And because of that, I am going to urge a ``no'' 
vote on the PQ and a ``no'' vote also on the rule.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I have to agree with my friend, Mr. Lewis from 
California. You're right, there will be other supplementals. The 
purpose is that these supplementals are not going to become a regular 
course of business as they have been as it applies to Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  With respect to your points about the housing of these prisoners, 
nobody wants these particular prisoners in their State or in their 
prison system; but on the other hand, we have very unsavory characters 
from time to time in various prisons across the country. Fort 
Leavenworth might be an appropriate place. But the amendment, as Mr. 
Obey has projected it, is no money within this appropriation will be 
used for release or transfer. And so the amendment is an attempt to 
strike a compromise between your concerns and the concerns of our 
caucus, and that's what this whole process is about.
  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield? I would be happy to yield 30 
seconds to my friend from our time if the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I want to yield to my friend from California (Ms. 
Harman) for 2 minutes.
  Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and tell him we miss 
him on the Homeland Security Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I am keenly aware of the economic hardship faced by 
people in my district and all over the country and the heartfelt 
questions being raised about the costs and policies involved in this 
bill. After careful review, however, I believe the bill is needed, and 
the policies it funds reflect a change in direction from failed Bush 
administration strategies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the West 
Bank, all locations I have visited on several trips this past year.
  We are ending the combat mission in Iraq, a policy I strongly 
support. We are also embracing a strategy for Afghanistan, which makes 
governance, and not projection of military force, the top priority. 
Mission success there will only come from efforts to eliminate 
corruption and help the central

[[Page 12551]]

and local governments provide essential services to the Afghan people; 
otherwise, that country will revert to a failed state and a safe haven 
for terrorists intent on attacking the United States and our allies.
  Pakistan is even more dangerous because of its huge population, a 
military larger than ours, and its nuclear arsenal. This bill funds 
nonmilitary aid and counterinsurgency training to enable Pakistani 
forces to defeat the growing Taliban threat inside their borders.
  A promising security program in the West Bank is also supported, a 
key building block to a viable and independent Palestinian state. The 
bill makes explicit that no Palestinian funding will go to Hamas, which 
continues to rearm and threaten Israel.
  For the future, as has been discussed, funding for our troops in 
harm's way in missions like these will be on budget and fully debated 
through the regular process in Congress. This is yet another good 
course correction by the Obama administration, and one I have long 
advocated.
  This is a sound bill and a sound rule. Vote ``aye'' on both.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, 
the author of the very important border security amendment to which I 
referred earlier, the gentleman from Somerset, Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank my distinguished colleague for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the border war, if you want to call it that--the war on 
the border with Mexico--now is more than trying to stop illegal aliens 
from coming across. It is trying to prevent the flood of drugs coming 
across and, more importantly, to keep trying to prevent the spillover 
of the violence between the drug cartels in Mexico competing and 
fighting for the control of that trade into the U.S. from these drugs 
and violence from spilling over into the U.S.
  Ninety percent of the cocaine coming into this country comes through 
Mexico, comes across that border. And no wonder the drug cartels in 
Mexico are warring with each other and the government in Mexico to 
control that trade, because there are billions and billions of dollars 
involved. But already, those drug cartels have infiltrated most of the 
American cities. Most of the large cities in this country have cells or 
pieces of that drug cartel organization now in their communities. You 
read about killings and murders and hostage-taking in places like 
Birmingham and Atlanta and Chicago and New York--and of course 
Phoenix--and all of the cities of the West. They're here now.
  This bill doesn't contain one penny for the FBI, the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms organization. All of 
the law enforcement groups in this country are shut out in this bill, 
and this rule seals it so we can't get into it. And we are ignoring, 
with our heads in the Cancun sand, the cartels in Mexico that are 
supplying our young people with their deadly poison.
  And so I urge that we defeat the previous question so that we can be 
allowed to bring these matters to this bill. And then, failing that, I 
would hope that we would defeat this rule that shuts these matters out.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, I rise in opposition to this 
supplemental appropriation. This bill simply continues and amplifies 
the failed policies that have caused us to be caught up in a continued 
occupation of Iraq and an increasingly large presence in Afghanistan.
  Instead of playing the Taliban shell game and so-called chasing Osama 
bin Laden, we should devise a smart strategy to win the hearts and 
minds of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. They will help us to 
locate Osama bin Laden. Air strikes that kill innocent civilians will 
only harden the civilians against us.
  The Taliban are leading us into Pakistan, where we are on the verge 
of a new footprint, after giving the former President Musharraf 
billions of dollars while he was playing footsie with the Taliban and 
allowing them to control the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. 
Now President Zardari has proven to be weak and ineffective, yet we're 
rewarding him with more of our tax dollars.
  There are two good amendments that should have been made in order: 
the McGovern amendment, which would require a simple exit strategy, and 
the Tierney amendment, which would have placed conditions on any 
additional dollars given to Pakistan.
  We should be taking over the madrassas, rebuilding infrastructures, 
and building democratic institutions that will support long-term 
sustainability in these countries.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the 
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any 
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings or other 
audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the House.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 1 minute 
to the distinguished Republican leader, our friend from West Chester, 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I told the President that when he does 
what we agree with, in terms of what is right for the American people, 
we would be there to support him. The President has made very 
responsible decisions with regard to this mission in Iraq and a gradual 
withdrawal of our troops, and I believe that his decisions with regard 
to his plans in Afghanistan are sound. It is clear that the President 
listened to the commanders on the ground and our diplomats and is 
engaged in an effort to win our battle against the terrorists who 
threaten the United States and our citizens.
  One of those decisions that he also made was a decision to send up to 
the House a clean bill asking for funding for our troops. I believe 
this bill provides those resources and, just as importantly, does not 
include politically motivated restrictions that would hamstring our 
commanders in the field.
  Republicans support the underlying bill, and I think it deserves 
support from Members on both sides of the aisle. But let's be very 
clear; we will be watching very closely in the weeks to come as some 
may try to load this bill up with unrelated spending or language that 
would undermine our troops. That includes potential money for the 
International Monetary Fund. That should be debated on its own merits, 
and not as part of a troop funding bill for our men and women who are 
in harm's way.
  I am also pleased that the $80 million in funding to transfer 
Guantanamo prisoners from the United States was removed from this bill. 
It deserved to be removed. And I will once again ask a very important 
question: What is the administration's plan for those prisoners who are 
being held at our detention facility? Will they release or transfer 
them and allow them to come to American soil? I don't know of any 
community or neighborhood in America that would want them.
  The language inserted by Chairman Obey in this bill on this issue, I 
think, is inadequate. It will do nothing more than to provide cover, 
pure and simple. And the fact is, there is nothing in this legislation 
that will keep Guantanamo terrorists out of America, nothing. And I 
think that we can and should do better.
  Our solution is the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act. Our plan, I 
think, does what the American people overwhelmingly want. It ensures 
that those terrorists are not transferred or released into our 
communities, and Members on both sides of the aisle have spoken out 
against the release of those prisoners in our country.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) offered similar language in 
the Appropriations Committee where it was defeated. I believe, as we 
get into the previous question on this rule, that we also defeat the 
previous question and allow the gentleman from Virginia

[[Page 12552]]

(Mr. Wolf) to offer his language on this bill.
  So I would encourage Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. 
Let's have a fair and open debate on this issue and allow Members the 
opportunity to allow the House to work its will, but I understand that 
the underlying bill does, in fact, deserve our support.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to my friend from 
Nevada, Congresswoman Berkley.
  Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying 
bill, but deeply concerned with the funding to the Palestinian 
Authority and to rebuild Gaza. By giving this money, I believe we are 
sending precisely the wrong message that Hamas can partner with Iran, 
attack Israel with impunity, and refuse to recognize Israel's right to 
exist, all the while the United States will provide aid no matter what. 
Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.
  At the very least, we should use our aid to help modify the behavior 
of Hamas. Before we send more money to the Gaza, more money to the 
Palestinian Authority, all Palestinian factions should recognize 
Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, renounce terrorism, respect 
past agreements, and release Gilad Shalit, the young Israeli soldier 
who was kidnapped by Hamas and who has been held captive in the Gaza 
for almost 3 years. Without these conditions, we are simply writing the 
Palestinians another blank check to continue their self-destructive and 
violent behavior.
  So while I support the rule and the bill, I have serious reservations 
about funding this and urge my colleagues that we not continue this 
pattern of rewarding unacceptable behavior in the future.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 2 minutes 
to another hardworking member of the Committee on Appropriations who 
had an amendment dealing with Guantanamo Bay, but unfortunately, with 
the structure we've got, it won't be made in order, the gentleman from 
Goddard, Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from California for his tremendous 
leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, when approaching national security issues, Congress has 
always acted in a prudent bipartisan manner to protect the American 
people. Last week, however, in a straight party-line vote in the 
Appropriations Committee, Democrats rejected both Republican 
alternatives to prevent terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay from getting 
a plane ride to the United States. Then yesterday, the Democrats on the 
Rules Committee rejected my amendment to prohibit terrorist detainees 
from being transferred or released in the United States. Speaker Pelosi 
and her leadership team are refusing an up-or-down vote. Do we allow 
hardened terrorists to be transported to the United States knowing that 
eventually some will be released to the streets of America?
  Democrats have instead offered a fig leaf. Their provision simply 
delays; it does not prevent. It delays the Obama administration's plan 
to release terrorists onto our streets.

                              {time}  1300

  The administration has already authorized the release of 30 
detainees. This is not conjecture. This is not speculation. This is 
happening. And unfortunately my colleagues are simply delaying the real 
problem. Seventy-five percent of the population do not want terrorists 
released in the United States, and 20 percent don't even realize it's a 
possibility.
  Congress should not abdicate its responsibility to provide for the 
common defense of this Nation. We should be able to speak on this 
issue. Americans deserve an up or down vote on the question, do we 
welcome terrorists on the streets of America or not? This will simply 
sweep the question under the rug, hoping the problem will go away.
  The gentleman from Colorado mentioned that we could send them to Fort 
Leavenworth. I have been to Fort Leavenworth. I am from Kansas. We do 
not want terrorists in Fort Leavenworth or in Kansas, and I don't want 
them on any street in America.
  So I think it's only fair that we reject this rule and give us an up 
or down vote on whether we want a plane ticket for terrorists to get 
from Guantanamo to America.
  I would encourage my friends to vote ``no'' on the previous question 
to allow Mr. Wolf an opportunity to present his language and vote 
``no'' on the rule so we can have a chance for an up or down vote on 
whether we bring terrorists into our Nation.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Kansas, I know, knows 
full well that it says in the amendment, ``None of the funds made 
available in this or any prior act may be used to release an individual 
who is detained, as of April 30, 2009, at Naval Station, Guantanamo 
Bay, into the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or the 
District of Columbia.''
  That's what the amendment says. That's what is part of this bill.
  I would now like to yield 1 minute to my friend from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. America went to war against Iraq based on a lie. We 
were told in 2002 Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The previous 
administration even pursued torture to try to extract false confessions 
to try to justify the war.
  It's time to tell the truth. The truth is, we should not have 
prosecuted the war against the Iraqi people. The truth is, the 
Democratic Senate could have stopped the Iraq war in 2002. The truth 
is, we Democrats were given control of Congress in 2006 to end the war. 
The truth is, this bill continues a disastrous war which has cost the 
lives of thousands of our soldiers. The truth is, the occupation has 
fueled the insurgency. The truth is, the Iraq war will cost the 
American and the Iraqi people trillions of dollars.
  As many as 1 million innocent Iraqis have lost their lives as a 
result of this war. Don't tell the American people you're ending the 
war by continuing to fund the war. Don't tell the American people that 
the war will end when their plans leave 50,000 troops in Iraq. Don't 
tell the American people that the way out of Afghanistan is to escalate 
and more counterinsurgency.
  Get out of Iraq. Get out of Afghanistan. Come home, America. Come 
home.
  I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2346, War Supplemental 
Appropriations for FY 2009. This bill devotes an additional $84.5 
billion to military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for fiscal year 
2009. I believe that the U.S. has a moral obligation to fulfill in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. We must remain dedicated to reconstruction, stability 
and prosperity in these countries and in the region.
  The U.S. cannot be in and out of Iraq at the same time. The U.S. has 
agreed to withdraw all combat troops from Iraqi cities by July of this 
year. However, recent news reports indicate that some combat troops 
will remain beyond this date. Our continued funding of war operations 
in Iraq only ensures our continued presence and undermines our stated 
goals for withdrawal by 2011. Funds for Iraq should be dedicated to 
bringing all of our troops and contractors home. We must meet our moral 
obligation to rebuild Iraq and support viable solutions to the refugee 
and internally displaced populations. We must hold ourselves 
responsible for the death of over 1 million innocent civilians in Iraq.
  Funding of expanded combat operations in Afghanistan will not meet 
the security objectives of the U.S. Sending additional brave American 
service members to Afghanistan does not increase security and it is not 
an act of diplomacy. Sending additional troops sends one message: The 
U.S. is ramping up combat operations. This message only encourages the 
Taliban and other insurgent groups to do likewise. We have ensured that 
the months and perhaps years ahead will be bloody. And we have failed 
to present an exit strategy.
  Bombing raids and drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan have 
inflamed the civilian populations in these countries. Innocent 
civilians are killed in these massive and unpredictable attacks. This 
includes innocent children, mothers, fathers, grandparents, sisters and 
brothers. Communities, homes and infrastructure are destroyed. The 
number of refugees and the internally displaced continue to rise from 
the destruction.
  The brutalities of war produce more than news reports of so-called 
``collateral damage.'' Taliban and insurgent recruitment profits from

[[Page 12553]]

these failed policies. The drone attacks are propagating extremism in 
the targeted areas. Former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell maintains 
that drone attacks are not an effective counterinsurgency technique. If 
the Administration will not stop the drone attacks, Congress must use 
the power of the purse to ensure their cessation.
  Ninty percent of the resources devoted to Afghanistan over the last 
eight years have gone to support military resources. This is contrary 
to the counter-insurgency strategy put forth by General Petraeus that 
calls for an 80-20 split, that devotes 80 percent of resources to 
political solutions and only 20 percent of resources to military 
operations. General Eaton, who trained Iraq Security Forces in 2004, 
has echoed this strategy. This bill fails to correct the imbalance and 
continues the failed status quo.
  We need to provide for the traditional sense of security by first 
ensuring economic security, health security, and job security for all. 
The roots of terrorism begin not in hatred, but in desperation. All 
people seek the basic necessities such as food, clothes, shelter, good 
health, and the ability to earn a decent living. If we can level this 
playing field, there is no desperation that may potentially evolve into 
hatred. We have failed to meet these objectives in Afghanistan.
  Stability in Afghanistan requires that aid dollars reach local 
Afghans, Afghan institutions and organizations. The current instability 
of Afghan institutions must be replaced with strong education and 
health care systems, judiciary and law enforcement systems, workforce 
development and transportation systems. These institutions must be 
built and run by Afghans. The current practice by which foreigners fill 
high-skill and high-level positions will leave Afghanistan without the 
skills and leaders to ensure sustainable, long-term stability in the 
country.
  The U.S. must partner with Afghans to empower women and girls. 
Currently, one in six women die in childbirth in Afghanistan; 80% of 
women are illiterate; and development assistance has not reached Afghan 
women. We can encourage and foster reform by investing in Afghan 
institutions that create educational, economic, social and political 
opportunity for women.
  National security will not be achieved through military might but 
rather through our dedication to supporting Afghans as they build a 
foundation of human security, social security and economic security.
  Security cannot blossom from the ravages of war. Terrorism will not 
be stopped by acts of terror.

                    [From the Nation, May 12, 2009]

                       The Politics of Escalation

                   (By Tom Hayden and Joseph Gerson)

       Congressional leaders are cooperating with the Obama 
     administration in quashing any serious criticism of growing 
     military escalation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
       Indications are that there will be no benchmarks or 
     conditions set on the $96 billion supplemental appropriation 
     before Congress beginning this week. The administration, 
     which once promised no more rushed supplemental 
     appropriation, is rolling funds for war and swine flu into 
     one package, while not yet disclosing how much is earmarked 
     specifically for Afghanistan. Rep. David Obey says he wants 
     to give the Obama administration a one-year deadline for 
     results, which likely means making it more difficult to 
     withdraw from a deepening quagmire.
       The only current Congressional vehicle for dissent is a 
     proposed amendment by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass) that 
     requires the secretary of defense to report on an exit 
     strategy from Afghanistan by this December, six months after 
     Congress has appropriated funds for escalating the war. Even 
     that modest measure, with fifty co-sponsors at present, has 
     met with administration resistance to an exit strategy with 
     benchmarks.
       House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, under fire for what she knew 
     about Guantanamo waterboarding and when she knew it, is going 
     along with the administration by preventing the McGovern 
     amendment from being voted on. Congressional leaders believe 
     that war opponents are not sufficiently powerful to either 
     require a vote on the McGovern measure to achieve more than 
     two hours of debate on the supplemental, which could also 
     include soliloquies on the swine flu.
       The Congressional Progressive Caucus has met with President 
     Obama and, according to sources attending, will not be 
     opposed at this point to his Afghanistan-Pakistan policies. 
     Instead, the caucus is sponsoring a series of informational 
     hearings on public policies for the region.
       The Senate, with the possible exception of Sen. Russ 
     Feingold, is not expected to question the Obama policies, 
     either.
       Insiders say the dominant message behind closed doors is a 
     political one, not to embarrass the president. On policy, one 
     knowledgeable expert reports, doubt is widespread in Congress 
     and ``no one has any idea where it will all end.''
       The desire to protect the resident may shy Democrats away 
     from demands that were routinely made of the Bush 
     administration: requiring regular reports on an exit 
     strategy, transparency in the budgets for war, clear 
     definitions of casualty levels on all sides, application of 
     human rights standards in detention centers, and others.
       It is understandable that the economic crisis and high 
     expectations for the new president have deflected 
     Congressional Democrats away from their oversight role. As 
     the quagmire deepens, however, antiwar questioning will rise 
     again. The danger is that by then the Obama administration 
     will be engulfed in the politics of escalation, as happened 
     to earlier Democratic presidents.
                                  ____


                              Afghanistan

                           (By Chris Hedges)

       The bodies of dozens, perhaps well over a hundred, women, 
     children and men, their corpses blown into bits of human 
     flesh by iron fragmentation bombs dropped by U.S. warplanes 
     in a village in the western province of Farah, illustrates 
     the futility of the Afghan war. We are not delivering 
     democracy or liberation or development. We are delivering 
     massive, sophisticated forms of industrial slaughter. And 
     because we have employed the blunt and horrible instrument of 
     war in a land we know little about and are incapable of 
     reading, we embody the barbarism we claim to be seeking to 
     defeat.
       We are morally no different from the psychopaths within the 
     Taliban, who Afghans remember we empowered, funded and armed 
     during the 10-year war with the Soviet Union. Acid thrown 
     into a girl's face or beheadings? Death delivered from the 
     air or fields of shiny cluster bombs? This is the language of 
     war. It is what we speak. It is what those we fight speak.
       Afghan survivors carted some two dozen corpses from their 
     villages to the provincial capital in trucks this week to 
     publicly denounce the carnage. Some 2,000 angry Afghans in 
     the streets of the capital chanted ``Death to America!'' But 
     the grief, fear and finally rage of the bereaved do not touch 
     those who use high-minded virtues to justify slaughter. The 
     death of innocents, they assure us, is the tragic cost of 
     war. It is regrettable, but it happens. It is the price that 
     must be paid. And so, guided by a president who once again 
     has no experience of war and defers to the bull-necked 
     generals and militarists whose careers, power and profits 
     depend on expanded war, we are transformed into monsters.
       There will soon be 21,000 additional U.S. soldiers and 
     Marines in Afghanistan in time for the expected surge in 
     summer fighting. There will be more clashes, more airstrikes, 
     more deaths and more despair and anger from those forced to 
     bury their parents, sisters, brothers and children. The grim 
     report of the killings in the airstrike, issued by the 
     International Committee of the Red Cross, which stated that 
     bombs hit civilian houses and noted that an ICRC counterpart 
     in the Red Crescent was among the dead, will become familiar 
     reading in the weeks and months ahead.
       We are the best recruiting weapon the Taliban possesses. We 
     have enabled it to rise from the ashes seven years ago to 
     openly control over half the country and carry out daylight 
     attacks in the capital Kabul. And the war we wage is being 
     exported like a virus to Pakistan in the form of drones that 
     bomb Pakistani villages and increased clashes between the 
     inept Pakistani military and a restive internal insurgency.
       I spoke in New York City a few days ago with Dr. Juliette 
     Fournot, who lived with her parents in Afghanistan as a 
     teenager, speaks Dari and led teams of French doctors and 
     nurses from Mdecins Sans Frontires, or Doctors Without 
     Borders, into Afghanistan during the war with the Soviets. 
     She participated in the opening of clandestine cross-border 
     medical operations missions during 1980 and 1982 and became 
     head of the French humanitarian mission in Afghanistan in 
     1983. Dr. Fournot established logistical bases in Peshawar 
     and Quetta and organized the dozen cross-border and 
     clandestine permanent missions in the resistance-held areas 
     of Herat, Mazar-i-Sharif, Badakhshan, Paktia, Ghazni and 
     Hazaradjat, through which more than 500 international aid 
     workers rotated.
       She is one of the featured characters in a remarkable book 
     called ``The Photographer,'' produced by photojournalist 
     Didier Lefvre and graphic novelist Emmanuel Guibert. The book 
     tells the story of a three-month mission in 1986 into 
     Afghanistan led by Dr. Fournot. It is an unflinching look at 
     the cost of war, what bombs, shells and bullets do to human 
     souls and bodies. It exposes, in a way the rhetoric of our 
     politicians and generals do not, the blind destructive fury 
     of war. The French humanitarian group withdrew from 
     Afghanistan in July 2004 after five of its aid workers were 
     assassinated in a clearly marked vehicle.
       ``The American ground troops are midterm in a history that 
     started roughly in 1984 and 1985 when the State Department 
     decided to assist the Mujahedeen, the resistance fighters, 
     through various programs and military aid. USAID, the 
     humanitarian arm serving political and military purposes, was 
     the seed for having a different kind of interaction with the 
     Afghans,'' she told me. ``The Afghans were very grateful to 
     received arms

[[Page 12554]]

     and military equipment from the Americans.''
       ``But the way USAID distributed its humanitarian assistance 
     was very debatable,'' she went on. ``It still puzzles me. 
     They gave most of it to the Islamic groups such as the Hezb-e 
     Islami of [Gulbuddin] Hekmatyar. And I think it is possibly 
     because they were more interested in the future stability of 
     Pakistan rather than saving Afghanistan. Afghanistan was 
     probably a good ground to hit and drain the blood from the 
     Soviet Union. I did not see a plan to rebuild or bring peace 
     to Afghanistan. It seemed that Afghanistan was a tool to 
     weaken the Soviet Union. It was mostly left to the Pakistani 
     intelligence services to decide what would be best and how to 
     do it and how by doing so they could strengthen themselves.''
       The Pakistanis, Dr. Fournot said, developed a close 
     relationship with Saudi Arabia. The Saudis, like the 
     Americans, flooded the country with money and also exported 
     conservative and often radical Wahhabi clerics. The 
     Americans, aware of the relationship with the Saudis as well 
     as Pakistan's secret program to build nuclear weapons, looked 
     the other way. Washington sowed, unwittingly, the seeds of 
     destruction in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It trained, armed 
     and empowered the militants who now kill them.
       The relationship, she said, bewildered most Afghans, who 
     did not look favorably upon this radical form of Islam. Most 
     Afghans, she said, wondered why American aid went almost 
     exclusively to the Islamic radicals and not to more moderate 
     and secular resistance movements.
       ``The population wondered why they did not have more 
     credibility with the Americans,'' she said. ``They could not 
     understand why the aid was stopped in Pakistan and 
     distributed to political parties that had limited reach in 
     Afghanistan. These parties stockpiled arms and started 
     fighting each other. What the people got in the provinces was 
     miniscule and irrelevant. And how did the people see all 
     this? They had great hopes in the beginning and gradually 
     became disappointed, bitter and then felt betrayed. This laid 
     the groundwork for the current suspicion, distrust and 
     disappointment with the U.S. and NATO.''
       Dr. Fournot sees the American project in Afghanistan as 
     mirroring that of the doomed Soviet occupation that began in 
     December 1979. A beleaguered Afghan population, brutalized by 
     chaos and violence, desperately hoped for stability and 
     peace. The Soviets, like the Americans, spoke of equality, 
     economic prosperity, development, education, women's rights 
     and political freedom. But within two years, the ugly face of 
     Soviet domination had unmasked the flowery rhetoric. The 
     Afghans launched their insurgency to drive the Soviets out of 
     the country.
       Dr. Fournot fears that years of war have shattered the 
     concept of nationhood. ``There is so much personal and mental 
     destruction,'' she said. ``Over 70 percent of the population 
     has never known anything else but war. Kids do not go to 
     school. War is normality. It gives that adrenaline rush that 
     provides a momentary sense of high, and that is what they 
     live on. And how can you build a nation on that?''
       The Pashtuns, she noted, have built an alliance with the 
     Taliban to restore Pashtun power that was lost in the 2001 
     invasion. The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is, to 
     the Pashtuns, a meaningless demarcation that was drawn by 
     imperial powers through the middle of their tribal lands. 
     There are 13 million Pashtuns in Afghanistan and another 28 
     million in Pakistan. The Pashtuns are fighting forces in 
     Islamabad and kabul they see as seeking to wrest from them 
     their honor and autonomy. they see little difference between 
     the Pakistani military, American troops and the Afghan army.
       Islamabad, while it may battle Taliban forces in Swat or 
     the provinces, does not regard the Taliban as a mortal enemy. 
     The enemy is and has always been in India. The balance of 
     power with India requires the Pakistani authorities to ensure 
     that any Afghan government is allied with it. This means it 
     cannot push the Pashtuns in the Northwest Frontier Province 
     or in Afghanistan too far. It must keep its channels open. 
     The cat-and-mouse game between the Pakistani authorities and 
     the Pashtuns, which drives Washington to fury, will never 
     end. Islamabad needs the Pashtuns in Pakistan and Afghanistan 
     more than the Pashtuns need them.
       The U.S. fuels the bonfires of war. The more troops we send 
     to Afghanistan, the more drones we send on bombing runs over 
     Pakistan, the more airstrikes we carry out, the worse the 
     unraveling will become. We have killed twice as many 
     civilians as the Taliban this year and that number is sure to 
     rise in the coming months.
       ``I find this term `collateral damage' dehumanizing,'' Dr. 
     Fournot said, ``as if it is a necessity. People are 
     sacrificed on the altar of an idea. Air power is blind. I 
     know this from having been caught in numerous bombings.''
       We are faced with two stark choices. We can withdraw and 
     open negotiations with the Taliban or continue to expand the 
     war until we are driven out. The corrupt and unpopular 
     regimes of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and Asif Ali Zardari 
     are impotent allies. The longer they remain tethered to the 
     United States, the weaker the become. And the weaker they 
     become, the louder become the calls for intervention in 
     Pakistan. During the war in Vietnam, we invaded Cambodia to 
     bring stability to the region and cut off rebel sanctuaries 
     and supply routes. This tactic only empowered the Khmer 
     Rouge. We seem poised, in much the same way, to do the same 
     for radical Islamists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
       ``If the Americans step up the war in Afghanistan, they 
     will be sucked into Pakistan,'' Dr. Fournot warned. 
     ``Pakistan is a time bomb waiting to explode. You have a huge 
     population, 170 million people. There is nuclear power. 
     Pakistan is much more dangerous than Afghanistan. War always 
     has its own logic. Once you set foot in war, you do not 
     control it. It sucks you in.''

  Mr. DREIER. Well, I guess for a different reason my friend from Ohio 
is going to be joining us in opposition to this rule, and I very much 
appreciate that.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. Of course I am happy to yield.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Well, of course I will be voting against the rule. I 
want the war to end.
  Mr. DREIER. I understand. I appreciate the gentleman joining us, as I 
say, for a somewhat different reason than ours. We all want this war to 
end, there's no doubt about that, but we also want to ensure success.
  With that, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from 
Hinsdale, Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule. I 
offered an amendment yesterday to address an injustice against the 
members of our armed services that were shut out by this proposed rule.
  Briefly, my amendment would have increased the across-the-board 
military personnel pay for 2009 from 3.9 percent to 4.4 percent. This 
pay raise would have been effective retroactively from January 1, 2009.
  According to estimates by the Congressional Research Service, the pay 
gap between military personnel and civilians in comparable positions is 
3 percent. Particularly during a recession, it is unacceptable that our 
men and women in uniform receive less than their civilian counterparts.
  I was just in Afghanistan over the weekend and had the opportunity to 
meet and work with the wonderful committed and professional group of 
men and women in the military. They've been serving us to keep us safe 
and to establish the stability in the Middle East. But given this 
shortfall in pay, I thought it was appropriate to provide for our 
troops some supplemental income in this supplemental appropriations 
bill. Unfortunately this rule would not even allow an up or down vote 
on my amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this continued abuse of process. I urge 
my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  I would like to say, the gentlewoman has offered an extraordinarily 
thoughtful amendment which reaffirms our dedication to our men and 
women in uniform. Especially as Memorial Day approaches, it seems to me 
that we should have an open amendment process that would allow us to 
fully debate the Biggert amendment. And it saddens me that this 
structure around which we are considering this issue is so restricted.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank you.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, how much time does each side have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 13\1/2\ 
minutes remaining and the gentleman from California has 10\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I have so many concerns about this 
supplemental, I don't know where to start. But I'm going to start at 
one point. And I believe the most important point is, this supplemental 
keeps us involved in Iraq, and it sets up an unending occupation of 
Afghanistan.

[[Page 12555]]

  The cost of the supplemental is just too great without a defined 
stated mission, without redeployment plans. We're going to look at an 
endless military presence in Afghanistan. That will just serve to fuel 
anti-Americanism throughout the region, and it will continue to promote 
the instability.
  Sadly, the rule does not provide Members a chance to remedy the 
situation. Proposals providing accountability and transparency from my 
colleague Barbara Lee, from Jim McGovern, from John Tierney actually 
haven't had a chance for an up or down vote. It could have made a 
difference when we voted on the floor today.
  The American people deserve much better than that. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this funding and promote a foreign policy based on 
SMART security, humanitarian assistance, development and diplomacy.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 
minutes to a hardworking new Member with a very, very distinguished 
career in public service, the gentleman from Aurora, Colorado (Mr. 
Coffman).
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier) who has said, and I agree with him, that we can make this bill 
a better bill if we open up the amendment process. I certainly agree 
with my colleague from the great State of Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) who 
says that this is not a perfect bill.
  One provision of this bill gives U.S. taxpayer dollars to the Gaza 
Strip in the aftermath of the fighting between Israel and Hamas for 
reconstruction aid. It does this by giving $119 million to the United 
Nations. In 2004 Peter Hansen, then commissioner-general of the United 
Nations Relief and Works Agency remarked that, ``I am sure that there 
are Hamas members on our payroll, and I don't see that as a crime. 
Hamas as a political organization does not mean that every member is a 
militant. And we do not do political vetting and exclude people from 
one persuasion against another.''
  Hamas is a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization. The United 
Nations might not consider having Hamas members on their payroll a 
problem, but it certainly is a problem for the United States and 
Israel.
  The supplemental before us provides up to $119 million to the United 
Nations Relief and Works Agency to spend in Hamas-controlled Gaza, 
which means that Hamas members on the U.N. payroll will effectively be 
on the U.S. payroll.
  I intend to vote against this rule because it does not allow the 
chance to amend this provision. I filed an amendment that would have 
instead provided $119 million for humanitarian relief to go to USAID. 
The rule before us would bar this amendment from being offered.
  I appreciate the attempt at additional oversight placed on the U.N. 
in this supplemental, but it is simply too little too late.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Thank you.
  I wrote Secretary Clinton in March, along with 21 of my colleagues, 
noting there is no way to spend money in Gaza without inappropriately 
benefiting Hamas. Unfortunately out of the several ways to save money 
that might inappropriately benefit Hamas, we are choosing one of the 
worst.
  Mr. Speaker I would urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a 
``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, to my friend from Colorado, it's good to 
see you here.
  I would just say on page 55 of the bill, there is a provision that 
says that no funding, no assistance is to be provided to or through any 
individual, or private or government entity, that advocates, plans, 
sponsors, engages in, or has engaged in, terrorist activity.
  With that, I would like to yield 1 minute to my friend from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Also let 
me thank Chairman Obey and Chairman Murtha for their hard work on this 
bill and for including provisions that I offered, prohibiting the 
establishment of permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I opposed the 2001 resolution authorizing the use of force because it 
gave President Bush and any future President an open-ended blank check 
to wage war anywhere on the globe, starting in Afghanistan.
  Nearly 8 years later, I continue to oppose the supplemental 
appropriations bills for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq because it 
continues us down the wrong path and can lead to war without end. 
Unfortunately this will continue to happen if we don't repeal that 2001 
authorization.
  I oppose this $94 billion supplemental because it favors military 
activities over diplomatic, development and reconstruction efforts by a 
ratio of 9-1. Afghanistan will not be stabilized through military 
action.
  As noted by the Carnegie Endowment, the presence of foreign troops is 
the most important element driving the resurgence of the Taliban. This 
is counter to our national security interests. This does not include an 
exit plan for Afghanistan. It does not fully fund the redeployment of 
troops out of Afghanistan.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield my friend 30 
additional seconds.
  Ms. LEE of California. Thank you very much for yielding.
  This does not prohibit the drone attacks. It does not include a 
strong regional approach, which the situation demands, including a 
strong nuclear nonproliferation effort in Pakistan.
  The supplemental appropriations bill does not reflect a new 
direction. Therefore, I cannot support it.
  Let me just mention that our friend and colleague Congressman Pete 
Stark is unable to be here today for this important debate. So I wish 
to conclude by reading one sentence from his statement. He said, 
``President Obama is moving America's foreign policy in a better 
direction, and he has shown superior judgment to President Bush on when 
we should send our troops into harm's way. However, I cannot support 
any more funding for these wars.''
  Mr. DREIER. May I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 8 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Colorado has 10\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. May I inquire of my colleague how many speakers he has 
remaining on his side of the aisle?
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I have at least three.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in light of that, I would ask my friend to 
proceed, and I would like to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to my 
friend Mr. Perriello from Virginia.
  Mr. PERRIELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as someone who was very 
critical from the beginning of the Iraq war but nonetheless am 
supportive of the supplemental before us.
  I believe we stand at a promising moment, a promising moment in terms 
of the trends in Iraq and a promising moment in terms of having a 
leader in the White House who understands the challenges before us to 
get Afghanistan right.
  Having been on the ground there in previous years, I can assure you 
that the questions that were not being asked before are being asked 
now. It's not going to be an easy struggle there. But I say to my more 
progressive colleagues who are very critical of this that we should 
give ourselves a little credit. The era of arbitrary power in the Bush 
doctrine really ended with the '06 election. A new period of smart 
power, led with General Petraeus and Secretary Gates, has moved us in a 
direction of real national security, not Hollywood security. This is an 
important move, and it's a move that continues today.
  That change was only solidified by the 2008 election. We have people 
who

[[Page 12556]]

are deadly serious about getting national security right in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, who understand the military's job is to back up a 
political solution and are looking for that, who understand that we 
cannot solve the situation in Afghanistan without dealing with 
corruption internally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I would like to extend my friend 30 additional 
seconds.
  Mr. PERRIELLO. We will not solve Afghanistan without dealing with 
corruption internally and with Pakistan externally. And finally, we 
have a President who's negotiating from a position of strength, not 
weakness, unlike the last two administrations.
  So I rise today with a grave seriousness about the supplemental 
before us but also a sense that we're on the right track with this new 
national security strategy. I believe that it is the right thing to do 
to support it.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. DREIER. I reserve my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I would like now to yield 1 minute to my friend from 
Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
the underlying supplemental appropriations bill. Frankly, I am 
undecided on the rule.
  I returned from Afghanistan just a couple of days ago, and I could 
see firsthand the passion and commitment of our servicemen and -women, 
our diplomats and other civilians. But I want them to know that this 
debate that we are having here today is not about them. It is about the 
direction that we need to proceed. I saw the commitment and courage of 
Afghan women to build a future for their country. But this supplemental 
appropriations bill will not get us there. Let me quote, ``Given its 
terrain, poverty, neighborhood and tragic history, Afghanistan in many 
ways poses an even more complex and difficult long-term challenge than 
Iraq, one that, despite a large international effort, will require a 
significant U.S. military and economic commitment for some time.'' 
Those are the words of Secretary Robert Gates, and not my own.
  And yet here we are today prepared to commit our servicemen and -
women to a war without end, placing them in harm's way without a plan 
for being there and a strategy for leaving Afghanistan. I understand 
that we want to give our President an opportunity to work out a mess 
that he inherited but did not create. Unfortunately, this Congress and 
this President have to be honest with the American people----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. We have to be honest with the American 
people that this is not an in-and-out military operation. Winning 
requires a long-term, sustained commitment to turn 90 percent 
illiteracy to literacy, grow food products instead of producing heroin 
and opium, build a civil society and rule of law. We need a plan while 
we are there and a strategy for leaving. We don't have it. And I will 
be voting against the supplemental.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to again inquire of my 
friend, does he have two speakers remaining?
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I have three speakers remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. I will reserve.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Both sides have 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend from 
Ohio, Congresswoman Sutton.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time and for his leadership. Today we consider the last war 
supplemental providing funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
However, I am deeply concerned that this bill does not have an exit 
strategy for military operations in Afghanistan. Out of fairness to our 
brave soldiers, we cannot have an open-ended strategy. And I support 
the bill introduced by Representative Jim McGovern to require one.
  This bill does have some provisions in it that I support. Since 
October of 2001, approximately 160,000 soldiers have been subject to 
stop-loss orders, serving on involuntary extended tours of duty.
  Last June, I introduced the Stop-Loss Compensation Act to ensure that 
all our soldiers affected by the policy would be properly compensated. 
And last fall we took the first step toward fulfilling our duty to 
these brave soldiers by including stop-loss compensation for fiscal 
year 2009 in the continuing resolution. But today I am proud that we 
will extend the $500-a-month payments to all 160,000 soldiers that have 
been affected by stop-loss since 2001.
  And, Mr. Speaker, on the home front, our firefighters who answer the 
call of duty in communities throughout this country are often the first 
on the scene and the last to leave. Because of the current recession, a 
lot of communities, including the community of Elyria in my district, 
are being forced to lay off firefighters, resulting in staffing levels 
that are too low.
  I am proud to say that we have worked on language to include in this 
bill that will allow SAFER grants to be used to rehire and retain much-
needed firefighters. The Elyria Fire Department has already informed me 
that with this change, they plan to apply for a SAFER grant to 
reinstate the 10 firefighters who were laid off last month.
  This bill will help us ensure that stop-loss payments for those who 
protect us overseas will be properly given and to ensure the adequate 
staffing for those who protect us at home.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I will inquire again of my friend.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I have two more. I have two 1-minute speakers.
  Mr. DREIER. Then you will close. I will reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I would yield 1 minute to my friend from California 
(Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, ``mission accomplished.'' If this were so, 
then continuous funding for combat is not needed. However, resources 
for our military withdrawal is. The supplement as a means of financial 
support for continuing conflict is a very deceptive technique. Funding 
should be in the budget since it appears that there is no end to the 
conflict in Iraq. Combining food assistance, AIDS, farm loan programs, 
refugee assistance in this bill will give the bill the votes needed for 
passage. But humanitarian issues should be in separate legislation. 
They are too important to be dumped in this bill.
  To make my point, I will not vote for any war funding that deprives 
my constituents of the domestic funding needed to improve their lives. 
The rule is the passageway for this injustice.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me, at this time, yield 4 minutes to the 
extraordinarily patient author of the amendment about which we have 
been speaking dealing with the issue of Guantanamo, my good friend and 
classmate from Vienna, Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. I want to thank Mr. Dreier for the time.
  I rise in opposition to the rule. I had an amendment which dealt with 
the Guantanamo Bay issue. And let me sort of lay it out. There are 
several issues really involved. One, there are Uyghur detainees at 
Guantanamo Bay that Eric Holder was prepared to release into the United 
States. This is not a Khalid Sheik Mohammed that we are transferring to 
release in the neighborhoods in the United States.
  Who are the Uyghur detainees? They are members of a group called the 
Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement. Many of them have been trained in 
al Qaeda training camps in Tora Bora. Now, that is something that the 
American people should know. Also, their leader is a man named Abdul 
Haq. Haq is on the terrorist list of the U.N. The Obama administration 
also put him on their terrorist list last month. And yet Eric Holder is 
saying, and some people believe he was ready to do it 2 weeks ago 
Friday, to release them, to release them with Federal pay, if you will, 
so they can live on the environment, go to the shopping malls, do 
whatever, release them in the United States, without even telling the 
Congress anything.

[[Page 12557]]

  Now, Congress cannot be like Pontius Pilate and sort of wash our 
hands and say, you know, we don't want to be involved in this. We don't 
want to know. If something happens, it is your responsibility. The 
Congress, the United States Congress and the American people want us to 
be involved. That is why they sent us here. So that is the Uyghurs, 
Eastern Turkistan Islamic group, terrorists, Tora Bora, Abdul Haq.
  The other one is they want to move some of these terrorists like 
Khalid Sheik Mohammed that Mr. Dreier mentioned to the United States. 
Now, he is the one, he is the one who beheaded--beheaded Daniel Pearl. 
He was the mastermind of 9/11 which killed 30 people from my district. 
Now, is it okay for Eric Holder to say, well, we are not going to give 
you a report? And it just so happens that no Member of Congress--Eric 
Holder has refused to allow the FBI career people to come up and brief 
the Congress. Now if Attorney General Ashcroft had prohibited the FBI 
from coming up to brief Senator Leahy, this place would be up in arms. 
But Holder is prohibiting the FBI up until maybe next week to come up 
and brief on this issue.
  Now, everyone said, well, we can hold him without any trouble. Okay. 
Great. But don't forget, Officer Pepe was stabbed in the eye by one of 
these guys at the World Trade Center--in the eye up in Attica. And 
don't also forgot the sheik, the blind sheik, Rahman, was proceeding 
sending information out with regard to his lawyer.
  And lastly many people forget but the terrorists who were in American 
prisons were in communication to the Madrid bombers, with the Madrid 
bombing. But Eric Holder said, we are not going to give you a report. 
And do you know what? The Congress said, we don't want a report. We 
don't really want to be involved. We really don't want to know. So you 
go ahead and do whatever you want to do.
  And lastly this: everyone in Guantanamo is medium to high security. 
The others have been released. Of the others that have been released, 
61 have come back on the terrorist field, terrorist attacks against us 
and against our men and women in uniform. That is the low level guys.
  These are the medium and high. So what we wanted to do is say that 
Congress ought to be involved. We didn't get into whether or not you 
close Guantanamo Bay or not. We were not stopping that. We were just 
saying, let's give us a report. Let's let the American people know. If 
the Congress doesn't want to know, let the American people know about 
whoever may be released in their neighborhood. They will at least know.
  And lastly the Governors and the State legislators ought to 
participate. For that reason, this amendment should have been made in 
order whereby we could debate it to say, do you want these people to be 
released or do you want them to be retransferred? And should the 
Congress be involved?
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from New 
Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I always supported the efforts in Afghanistan. But 
last weekend I went to Afghanistan. And as much as I want to support 
the country and I want to support this bill, I cannot. The problems 
there are overwhelming. Ninety percent of the women are illiterate and 
a huge majority of the men. Twenty-five percent of the children die 
before age 5. Thirty years of war has devastated any possibility of 
leadership in that country. Women are abused and beaten. Drug addiction 
is rampant. There is corruption in the government and corruption in the 
military.
  In Afghanistan we were told it would take 10 to 15 years to turn this 
country around--10 to 15 years. So we either go full throttle or we 
just say, okay, because we can't just string it along like we did in 
Vietnam. Their needs are far more than one country can give. If other 
nations would stand up and do what we have done and give the same 
commitment of their people and their talent, Afghanistan could turn 
this around. And we could help them. But the world won't adopt 
Afghanistan. And we cannot be a single parent there.
  Our focus now has to be Pakistan, the greater risk.
  And so I will not be able to support this bill.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker, Mr. Kind from 
Wisconsin, for 1 minute.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and for the 
supplemental. In Wisconsin we have had the largest call-up, the largest 
redeployment of our guard units since the Second World War. Many of our 
companies in western Wisconsin have had deployment ceremonies, 
tremendous sacrifices that our troops are making as well as their 
families to serve our country. This supplemental ensures that they get 
the tools and the resources and the equipment that they need to do 
their job as safely and as effectively as possible. It is the least we 
can do given what they are doing for us.
  I also want to commend the dean of the Wisconsin delegation, the 
Chair of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, because he recognized 
the huge shortfall when it came to Farm Service Administration loans 
for our family farmers. The demand was exceeding the authority that we 
gave them to give out these ISA loans which is important for them to 
have so they can buy the seed so they can plant it in the ground and 
stay in business. And 47 of the 50 States were reaching shortfalls in 
this manner. It was brought to Mr. Obey's and others' attention, and 
they took immediate action in order to rectify it before we had a 
wholesale reduction in family farming throughout the country. So I 
commend the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the supplemental.
  Mr. DREIER. The gentleman will be closing for his side?
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Yes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I know that I speak for my Republican 
colleagues when I say that when President Obama said that he wanted to 
work in a bipartisan way, we would agree when it was the right thing to 
work with him in a bipartisan way.
  Clearly, supporting our men and women who are daily stepping forward 
and volunteering to help us in the effort to prosecute this ongoing 
struggling against radical extremism deserves bipartisan support. So we 
are pleased that President Obama has made this request. We all hope, as 
Memorial Day approaches 1 week from Monday, we all hope very much that 
we are able to see this war come to an end. And we all want to see our 
men and women come home just as soon as we possibly can.
  It is unfortunate that while President Obama has agreed to work with 
Republicans in our quest to ensure that we have adequate funding and 
support for our troops, that the Democratic leadership has chosen to 
use a procedure that is, unfortunately, one that we never once used 
when we were in the majority in dealing with a wartime supplemental. 
This is a closed rule that denies us a chance to offer the very, very 
thoughtful amendment that Mr. Wolf has come forward with.

                              {time}  1330

  It's clear, for those who heard our colleague from Vienna speak from 
this well about the deliberation that he took in crafting this 
amendment, that it's one that should be considered by this full House. 
But, unfortunately, the rule that is before us denies that.
  Our colleague from Hinsdale, Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) had a very, very 
needed amendment that would increase the compensation level for our men 
and women in uniform. Unfortunately, this rule denies a chance for that 
to be considered.
  The distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Somerset, 
Kentucky, of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security (Mr. Rogers), had 
his amendment that would have allowed for a transfer to deal with the 
pressing

[[Page 12558]]

need that exists on our southern border, to secure it so that the drug 
cartels that are moving throughout Mexico killing literally thousands 
and thousands of people, so that we're able to protect ourselves from 
that. We are not even allowed to debate that amendment that Mr. Rogers, 
a hardworking member of the Appropriations Committee, brought forward.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that what we should do is defeat the 
previous question. And if Members who are committed to allowing for 
congressional involvement to deal with this difficult issue of 
Guantanamo, if they share that concern, Democrats and Republicans, we 
should join to defeat the previous question.
  If I'm successful in my quest to defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule to substitute Mr. Obey's inadequate 
language on the Guantanamo detainees with Mr. Wolf's far more robust 
solution to the detainee problem.
  And, again, to be very specific, Mr. Speaker, the Wolf amendment 
would require real risk assessments on the dangers of releasing 
Guantanamo detainees into our local communities. It would require the 
consent of governors and State legislatures before the Guantanamo 
detainees are sent here, and it would require a certification that 
bringing detainees on U.S. soil won't create legal repercussions that 
could result in terrorists roaming freely on our streets.
  Mr. Speaker, most importantly, the application of the Wolf amendment 
has the effect of extending beyond the end of this fiscal year by 
requiring a detailed report in advance of any releases or transfers, 
while Mr. Obey's language would allow terrorists to be released into 
the wild of our local communities without a second thought anytime 
after October 1.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the full language of 
the amendment in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question if they're committed to dealing responsibly with the 
Guantanamo issue and, if we're not successful with that, to vote ``no'' 
on the rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I think I will begin where my friend 
from California just left off, and that's with the Guantanamo issue, 
which I think has been blown way out of proportion because in the 
amendment that is proposed as part of this rule, none of the funds made 
available in this or any prior act may be used to release an individual 
who is detained as of April 30, 2009, at the Naval Station, Guantanamo 
Bay, Cuba, into the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or the 
District of Columbia. It goes on to say that the President shall submit 
to the Congress in writing a comprehensive plan regarding the proposed 
disposition of each individual who is detained as of April 30, 2009, at 
Guantanamo Bay.
  So this amendment provides precisely what they're concerned about. So 
their complaint is one that completely baffles me, and all the rhetoric 
and the histrionics attached to it as the potential for terrorists 
running amok in the streets simply is not accurate under this amendment 
or this supplement.
  But the real purpose of the supplemental appropriation deals with 
several other things. Let's begin with wildfire suppression, making 
sure that firefighters can receive different kinds of grants for 
rehiring and personnel purposes; border enforcement, there's additional 
funding so that the border enforcement along the Mexican border is 
beefed up, as it was within the stimulus bill. There's additional 
funding for narcotics trafficking. We deal with the influenza as part 
of this supplemental, farming.
  But then the most important and the real key to this supplemental 
deals with our troops. And it begins with allowing additional funds for 
stop-loss so that those people who have had to stay in the military 
beyond their original tours of duty get an additional $500 a month. 
There is a potential pay increase, and there is funding for warriors in 
transition. We had the terrible incident a few days ago of one of our 
troops killing a number of others because of the stress that comes from 
these war zones. So there's additional funding for that. Then, of 
course, the additional funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
We require reports as to how things are proceeding towards the 
President's withdrawal date of August 31, 2010, from Iraq as well as 
requiring reports as to reconciliation and political consensus in 
Afghanistan.
  I urge that my friends and my colleagues here in the Congress vote 
``yes'' on the previous question and vote ``yes'' on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier is as follows:

      Amendment to H. Res. 434 Offered by Mr. Dreier of California

       Strike ``printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution'' and insert ``printed in the 
     Congressional Record on May 12, 2009 and numbered 2''.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution * * * [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2). Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the 
rule for H.R. 2346, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009. 
Clearly, this is an important bill and must be only amended with items 
that are essential to move clear the way for the assistance this 
country so greatly needs. I am saddened by the decision to make the 
rule a closed rule. Nevertheless, I support the rule and the underlying 
bill.

[[Page 12559]]

  On May 4, Chairman Obey released a summary of his initial mark of 
this legislation, reflecting the subcommittee's proposals. His mark 
provides a total of $94.2 billion, about $9.3 billion above the amended 
Administration request ($83.4 billion in the initial April 9 request, 
plus $1.5 billion for influenza preparedness requested on April 30, for 
a total of $84.9 billion).
  It adds $3.2 billion for military construction, $3.1 billion for C-17 
and C-130 cargo aircraft, and $3.2 billion for international affairs, 
with some offsetting reductions from the request elsewhere. This mark 
also provides $2.0 billion for influenza preparedness, $500 million 
more than requested.


                               AMENDMENT

  Although it was a closed rule. I would have offered the following 
amendments.
  While I am pleased to see more money going to support efforts by the 
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, our military, and our 
institutions managing foreign affairs; I want to ensure that funding 
that was already allocated is utilized.
  In 2008, I worked with Congressman Murtha and the Subcommittee on 
Defense to appropriate federal dollars for military personnel to 
receive assistance with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Having 
worked with Riverside General Hospital in my district, and learned of 
the many men and women suffering from PTSD; I formally requested and 
received FY08 funding for Riverside General Hospital to provide PTSD 
services to not only military personnel in Houston, TX but in the 
surrounding communities as well.
  Due to unforeseen issues with the Department of Defense (DoD), the 
appropriated funding was never released from the Agency to the 
Hospital; and therefore services have yet to be rendered.
  Therefore, to ensure legal authority for disbursement by DoD, I would 
like to have the funds allocated through Defense Health Operations & 
Maintenance in which case, the appropriate language should state:
  ``Of the funds provided for operations and maintenance for the 
Defense Health Program, the Secretary of Defense shall make a grant in 
the amount of $1,000,000.00 to Riverside General Hospital of Houston, 
Texas for services to treat Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders for active 
duty personnel, active duty dependents, National Guards, Reservist and 
military retirees with 20+ years of service discharged and/or on leave 
of duty.''
  I believe this small technical amendment would right a wrong and 
clear the way for previously allocated funding to be disbursed. This 
language would fall within the statutory authorities available to DoD 
and will allow Riverside General Hospital to make improvements to the 
hospital in order to provide post traumatic stress disorder treatment 
to our military personnel. Without this amendment, or another 
appropriate legislative vehicle the funding will expire effective 
September 30, 2009, and the Agency could not release any funding to the 
hospital nor could the hospital push forward with much needed care.


                                  PTSD

  Last year the rate of suicide in the military exceeded that of the 
general population, with at least 128 Army soldiers ending their own 
lives last year. The suicide count, which includes soldiers in the Army 
Reserve and the National Guard, is sadly growing, 15 deaths are still 
being investigated, and the vast majority of them are expected to be 
ruled suicides according to Army officials.
  The new suicide figure compares with 115 in 2007 and 102 in 2006 and 
is the highest since current record-keeping began in 1980. These 
alarming statistics are partially due to never-before-seen stress with 
two wars and repeated, long tours of duty according to Army statistics.
  The Army operates one of the largest and most diverse military posts 
worldwide in Texas at Fort Hood. There are more than 52,000 Soldiers 
currently assigned and 70,000-plus family members. In fact, one out of 
every 10 active duty Soldiers in the Army is assigned to Fort Hood and 
it is the largest single local location employer in the State of 
Texas--with more than 12,000 civilian employees; and this figure does 
not account for the additional number of Coast Guard, Navy, Marines, 
and Air Force personnel in the area.
  My district and the surrounding area badly need the mental healthcare 
that Riverside General Hospital can provide to the countless military 
personnel in central and southern Texas. Therefore, I wanted this 
language to be attached to H.R. 2346.


                                pakistan

  I would also like to increase the amount of funding for Pakistan from 
$400 million to $600 million. This funding can be used for 
opportunities other than just war funding opportunities. For example, 
this increase in funding can be used to capacity and nation-building. 
This is important for the reconstruction of Pakistan.
  Again, although these amendments were not included in the bill. I 
urge my colleagues to support the rule and the bill.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to note that the rule and the 
process leading to its presentation are flawed and consequently, the 
underlying bill does not adequately serve our military forces or the 
taxpayers of this country.
  Since 2002, billions of dollars have been given to the Pakistan 
military and much of that amount has not been accounted for.
  Pakistani military commanders continue to consider certain extremists 
as their ``strategic assets'' in their seemingly never-ending security 
concerns involving fears about India; and the Pakistani military 
continues to fail to give proper attention to Pakistan's existential 
threat--the very extremists who associate with and harbor Al Qaeda and 
are also a threat to Afghanistan, our forces in Afghanistan, and others 
throughout the world.
  I proposed, with a number of colleagues, and believe the bill must be 
improved by, an amendment establishing enforceable benchmarks on U.S. 
military assistance to Pakistan that would lead to the articulation of 
reasonable expectations.
  Functionally, the amendment requires that the President make 
reasonable determinations about the state of mutual security objectives 
of Pakistan and the United States before any remainder of the military 
assistance for Pakistan can be obligated.
  It does not seek to condition any civilian assistance to Pakistan. 
The American people and its government are the friends of Pakistan and 
its people, and we fully understand the crisis nature of the economy 
and civil governance status. The assistance in any measure should 
certainly be accounted for, and should be put to effect in such a way 
as to ensure it maximizes benefit to the Pakistani people. America is 
making a long term commitment to Pakistan, its democracy and its future 
prosperity.
  Nevertheless, with respect to military funding, specifically, the 
amendment requires determinations on Pakistan--through its military--to 
make concerted progress toward:
  (1) Ceasing of all support to groups presenting cross-border 
terrorist threats,
  (2) Dismantling training facilities for such groups across Pakistan,
  (3) Preventing and disrupting cross-border attacks,
  (4) Strengthening and increasing counterterrorism prosecutions and 
extraditions,
  (5) Degrading such groups' radio broadcast infrastructure, and
  (6) Extending Pakistan's legitimate governmental writ across its 
territory and the protection of all its citizens' civil and human 
rights without discrimination.
  As an oversight forcing function, the amendment requires written 
justification of the President's determinations and also tasks the U.S. 
Government Accountability Office with providing an independent analysis 
of the categories requiring Presidential determination.
  Additionally, the amendment includes language allowing the President 
to waive the requirement if such action is certified to be vital to the 
national security interests of the United States. Finally, there is in 
the amendment a process for Congress to disprove of such certification 
if in its judgment such action is appropriate.
  We must stop just handing out cash slush funds only to witness 
conduct not conducive to both nations' national security.
  We have a right to expect that dangerous suspected terrorists will 
not just be set free as has reportedly happened with the Pakistani 
military's complicity; and a right to expect accountability for the 
hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars that should be targeted to 
effective security for our troops in Afghanistan and people here at 
home.
  We must ensure resources are focused on Pakistan's and America's 
common security interests and the only really verifiable way to have 
that occur is to condition any funds sent to the Pakistani military in 
the way set forth in the proposed amendment.
  For too long our military, and our government, have dealt directly 
with the Pakistani military and ignored the civilian government 
empowering their military to circumvent democratic accountability and 
hindering our ability to account for our investment. The way to resolve 
matters in Afghanistan relies heavily on circumstances in Pakistan. The 
situation in Pakistan cries out for accountability if we are to 
successfully protect our security.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.

[[Page 12560]]

  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, and 
suspending the rules and adopting House Resolution 377.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240, 
nays 188, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 261]

                               YEAS--240

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--188

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Filner
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Boucher
     Johnson (GA)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Stark
     Tanner

                              {time}  1402

  Messrs. ROGERS of Michigan, McHENRY, and MITCHELL changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. TIERNEY changed his vote from ``nay to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 247, 
noes 178, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 262]

                               AYES--247

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns

[[Page 12561]]


     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--178

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Filner
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Buchanan
     Camp
     Delahunt
     Honda
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Stark
     Tanner
     Wittman


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1411

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 262, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 262 I was unavailably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________