Congressional actions on the Iraq War following the 2003 U.S. invasion

From OpenCongress Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

This page is part of Congresspedia’s coverage of Congress and the Iraq War
Iraq vote charts:
Main page:
Subpages:


Summary (how summaries work)

On March 20, 2003, the U.S., along with a coalition of other nations, invaded Iraq. Initially, the effort was centered on overthrowing the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Once this was accomplished, the U.S. focused on stabilizing the country and instituting a democratic system of government. In the several years which followed, Congress voted on numerous measures concerning the war, many of which dealt with funding the effort. As violence in the country escalated, measures to begin removing or redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq were introduced as early as 2005. On this page, Congresspedia has detailed all congressional votes regarding Iraq taken after the initial U.S. invasion in 2003.



Contents

108th Congress (2003-2004)

House

FY2003 Defense Appropriation: To allow consideration of a bill to fund the initial stages of the Iraq War and limit congressional power in determining the specific uses of those funds

In order to bring a FY2003 supplemental war appropriation measure to the floor, a vote to consider it (H.RES.172) was first introduced. The spending measure which would be considered called for $25.4 billion for President Bush to spend on the Iraq War at his discretion. Democrats felt as though Congress should have a greater say in how funds were spent on the war, and therefore unanimously opposed the measure to consider the appropriation.[1]

April 3, 2003
Passed, 221-200, view details
Dem: 0-199 opposed, GOP: 221-0 in favor, Ind: 1 opposed

FY2004 Defense Authorization: Amendment to castigate France for its anti-war stance on Iraq

As the FY2004 Defense Authorization was debated, Rep. Jim Saxton (R-N.J.) offered an amendment (H.AMDT.146) which would suspend the requirement that U.S. military officers serving as diplomats to France in defense-related areas are either brigadier generals or rear admirals---two of the highest military ranks one can achieve. Saxton argued that the motion was an appropriate way to castigate France for opposing the Iraq War. While the amendment was heavily supported, many Democrats argued it would place further strains on the already tense diplomatic relationship between the U.S. and France.[2]

May 22, 2003
Passed, 302-123, view details
Dem: 83-120 opposed, GOP: 219-2 in favor, Ind: 1 opposed

FY2004 Intelligence Authorization (IA): Amendment to investigate whether the Bush Administration failed to provide intelligence to U.N. weapons inspectors

As the FY2004 Intelligence Authorization was being debated in June 2003, no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. In response, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) introduced an amendment (H.AMDT.195) calling for a study into how much intelligence was shared between the Pentagon and U.N. inspectors in the months leading up to the war. Supporters argued that an investigation was necessary to see whether intelligence was withheld or falsified in order to improve the Bush administration's case for war against Iraq. Many Republicans, such as House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss (R-Fla.), who later headed the CIA, opposed Lee's idea as "unnecessary."[3][4]

June 26, 2003
Failed, 185-239, view details
Dem: 183-16 in favor, GOP: 1-223 opposed, Ind: 1 in favor

FY2004 IA: Amendment to investigate whether the Bush Administration disclosed erroneous information to justify the war against Iraq

As the FY2004 Intelligence Authorization was debated, no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. In response, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) offered an amendment (H.AMDT.194) which would have audited all telephone and electronic communications between the CIA and the office of Vice President Cheney on the subject of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Kucinich argued that this would help determine what evidence there was for the initial invasion of Iraq.[5]

June 26, 2003
Failed, 76-347, view details
Dem: 74-124 opposed, GOP: 1-223 opposed, Ind: 1 in favor

Vote to allow consideration of the rules governing debate on a resolution reaffirming that the U.S. and the World are safer with Saddam Hussein out of power

Before a vote affirming the U.S. was safer without Saddam Hussein in power took place, the House voted on whether to consider rules for the debate (which are necessary in order to consider the resolution). The vote was largely along partisan lines, with many Democrats arguing that the measure was not necessary, Hussein was not an imminent threat when the U.S. went to war, and the war was poorly planned and executed.[6]

  • ProgressivePunch vote description: "War in Iraq and U.S. Troops/Vote to Allow Consideration of the Rules Governing Debate on a Resolution Which Would Reaffirm that the United States and the World are Safer with the Removal of Saddam Hussein and His Regime from Power in Iraq."
  • CRS Summary
House record vote:
Vote on the rules

March 17, 2004
Passed, 217-197, view details
Dem: 0-196 opposed, GOP: 217-0 in favor, Ind: 1 opposed

Vote on the rules governing debate on a resolution reaffirming that the U.S. and the World are safer with Saddam Hussein out of power

Before a vote affirming the U.S. was safer without Saddam Hussein in power took place, the House voted on the rules. The vote was largely along partisan lines, with many Democrats arguing that the measure was not necessary, Hussein was not an imminent threat when the U.S. went to war, and the war was poorly planned and executed.[7]

  • ProgressivePunch vote description: "War in Iraq and U.S. Troops/Vote on the Rules Governing Debate on a Resolution Which Would Reaffirm that the United States and the World are Safer with the Removal of Saddam Hussein and His Regime from Power in Iraq."
  • CRS Summary
House record vote:
Vote on the rules

March 17, 2004
Passed, 228-195, view details
Dem: 2-194 opposed, GOP: 226-0 in favor, Ind: 1 opposed

Resolution reaffirming that the U.S. and the World are safer with Saddam Hussein out of power in Iraq

The House voted on a resolution affirming that the U.S. was safer without Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq. Supporters, such as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), argued that removing Hussein was necessary, for the U.S. learned on September 11, 2001 that it must deal with its enemies before they attack. Opponents noted that Hussein in fact had no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, and was not connected to those who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001. In addition, some argued that the U.S. went to war too quickly and without enough international support, thereby threatening the safety of the country rather than enhancing it.[8]

  • ProgressivePunch vote description: "War in Iraq and U.S. Troops/Vote on Final Passage of a Resolution Which Would Reaffirm that the United States and the World are Safer with the Removal of Saddam Hussein and His Regime from Power in Iraq."
  • CRS Summary

March 17, 2004
Passed, 327-93, view details
Dem: 105-90 in favor, GOP: 222-2 in favor, Ind: 1 opposed

Resolution to cut off debate on resolution condemning harsh treatment of Iraqi prisoners

As the resolution condemning the abuse of prisoners by U.S. military personnel was being debated, many Democrats asked that it include a call for an independent investigation. Many Republicans, however, felt as though the resolution (H Res 627) was strong enough. This resolution was proposed to effectively end the debate over the resolution and send it to the floor as it stood (with no call for an independent investigation).[9][10]

  • ProgressivePunch vote description: "A vote by the full House on a Republican motion to "order the previous question" (cut off debate) on this resolution (H Res 628) condemning the harsh treatment of Iraqi prisoners, but which Democrats say fails to call for accountability, including an independent congressional inquiry into the prison abuses."
  • CRS Summary
  • Washington Times story on the bill

May 6, 2004
Passed, 218-201, view details
Dem: 0-200 opposed, GOP: 218-0 in favor, Ind: 1 opposed

Resolution deploring the abuse of persons in U.S. custody in Iraq

This resolution followed the release of photographs showing U.S. military personnel abusing Iraqi prisoners. The resolution officially condemned the abuse and asked that any member of the Armed Forces who violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) be punished. Many Democrats, however, felt as though the resolution did not go far enough. One particular objection some had was that it failed to order a full, independent congressional investigation.[11][12]

May 6, 2004
Passed, 365-50, view details
Dem: 151-49 in favor, GOP: 213-1 in favor, Ind: 1 in favor

Senate

FY2003 War Supplemental Appropriation (WSA): To provide food assistance to Iraqi citizens

During the debate over a FY2003 supplemental appropriation for the war in Iraq, Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) offered an amendment (S.AMDT.455) providing $600 million for food assistance to Iraqi citizens. Supporters, which included all Democrats and nearly half of Senate Republicans, argued that the humanitarian assistance was necessary as a result of attacks on Iraq's infrastructure and the social chaos which followed the U.S. invasion.[13]

April 3, 2003
Passed, 67-26, view details
Dem: 44-0 in favor, GOP: 22-26 opposed, Ind: 1 in favor

FY2003 WSA: To defeat an amendment to provide equipment to the National Guard and reserves on par with equipment afforded to full-time soldiers

April 2, 2003
Passed, 52-47, view details
Dem: 1-46 opposed, GOP: 51-0 opposed, Ind: 1 opposed

FY2004 DA: To defeat an amendment designed to prevent part-time military personnel from being stationed in Iraq for extended periods of time

During the debate over the FY2004 Defense Appropriation, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) introduced an amendment (S.AMDT.1244) prohibiting federal funding for National Guardsmen who had been stationed in Iraq for over 180 days or had been called into active duty more than once over the course of a 360-day period (effectively preventing it from happening). With the unanimous support of all Senate Republicans, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) effectively motioned to table (kill) the amendment.[14]

July 15, 2003
Passed, 64-31, view details
Dem: 14-30 opposed, GOP: 50-0 in favor, Ind: 1 opposed

FY2004 DA: To defeat an amendment to create an independent commission to investigate U.S. intelligence officials

During the debate over the FY2004 Defense Appropriation, Sen. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.) proposed an amendment (S.AMDT.1275) to create an independent, twelve person committee to investigate the Bush administration's intelligence-gathering operation before the Iraq War. Supporters, all Democrats, believed the measure would necessarily force the president to be accountable for the intelligence used to justify war. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who called a similar Democratic amendment for an investigation "nitpicking," motioned to table (kill) this amendment, and was supported by every Senate Republican.[15]

July 16, 2003
Passed, 51-45, view details
Dem: 0-44 opposed, GOP: 51-0 in favor, Ind: 1 opposed

FY2004 DA: To defeat an amendment requiring the president to submit to Congress a plan for Iraqi reconstruction efforts

During the debate over the FY2004 Defense Appropriation, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) introduced an amendment (S.AMDT.1273) to require President Bush to report to Congress his strategy for reconstruction efforts in Iraq, humanitarian aid assistance to Iraqi citizens, and encouraging international support for the rebuilding efforts. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who referred to other Democratic calls for presidential accountability in regards to Iraq "nitpicking," effectively motioned to table (kill) the amendment.

July 16, 2003
Passed, 52-43, view details
Dem: 2-42 opposed, GOP: 50-0 in favor, Ind: 1 opposed

FY2004 DA: To defeat an amendment requiring the Defense Department to submit to Congress a cost estimate of military operations in Iraq

During the debate over the FY2004 Defense Appropriation, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) proposed an amendment (S.AMDT.1271) requiring the Defense Secretary to submit a report to Congress every thirty days detailing the costs of military action, the number of troops deployed in the region, and any contributions received from foreign governments. Supporters argued that the Bush administration was using deceitful tactics to circumvent Congress's right to appropriate funds for the war. Republican opposition was unanimous, and Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) effectively motioned to table (kill) the amendment.[16]

July 16, 2003
Passed, 50-45, view details
Dem: 0-44 opposed, GOP: 50-0 in favor, Ind: 1 opposed

FY2004 DA: To defeat an amendment requiring the president to submit to Congress a cost estimate of military operations in Iraq

During the debate over the FY2004 Defense Appropriation, Sen. Byron Dorgan (R-N.D.) introduced an amendment (S.AMDT.1264) requiring President Bush to submit to Congress a cost estimate of military operations in Iraq. As he did with similar Democratic amendments noted above, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) effectively motioned to table (kill) the amendment.[17]

July 16, 2003
Passed, 53-41, view details
Dem: 3-40 opposed, GOP: 50-0 in favor, Ind: 1 opposed

FY2004 Defense Appropriation (DA): To defeat an amendment to withhold intelligence funding until the president explains his role in using false intelligence

During the debate over the FY2004 Defense Appropriation, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) introduced an amendment (S.AMDT.1277) to withhold $50 million in intelligence funding until President Bush submitted a report explaining how his administration handled the intelligence leading up to the Iraq War. Supporters argued that the measure would force the administration to be accountable for intelligence used to justify the war. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) joined every other Senate Republican in opposing the amendment. He called it "nitpicking" by the Democrats and argued that "History shows clearly that Iraq has tried to acquire and did acquire nuclear capability in the past."[18]

  • ProgressivePunch vote description: "Fiscal 2004 Defense Appropriations/Procedural Vote to Defeat an Amendment to Withhold Intelligence Funding Until the President Submits to Congress a Report Detailing the Role Played by White House Policy-Makers in Developing and Using Erroneous Intelligence About Iraq's Weapons Program to Justify U.S. Military Action."
  • CRS Summary
  • Associated Press story on the bill

July 17, 2003
Passed, 62-34, view details
Dem: 11-33 opposed, GOP: 51-0 in favor, Ind: 1 opposed

Emergency Supplemental FY2004 Appropriations for military and foreign affairs operations in Iraq and Afghanistan

October 17, 2003
Passed, 87-12, view details
Dem: 37-11 in favor, GOP: 50-0 in favor, Ind: 1 opposed

FY2005 Defense Authorization Act (DAA): Amendment requiring the president to submit a public report to Congress on the strategy of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq regarding stabilization and rebuilding

During the debate on the FY2005 Defense Authorization Act, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) introduced an amendment (S.AMDT.3377) requiring that no later than 30 days after the bill's enactment, the president submit a public report to Congress on the strategy of the United States regarding stabilization and rebuilding in Iraq, an estimate on the number of U.S. troops that will be serving in Iraq as of December 31, 2005, and the percentage of these forces that will be members of the National Guard and Army Reserves. Supporters argued that the bill would require accountability on the part of President Bush. Opponents, however, felt as though the measure was both too burdensome and unrealistic, for it would be impossible to predict troop levels far into the future.[19]

  • ProgressivePunch vote description: "A vote on passage of a Democratic amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Defense Authorization Act (S. 2400) requiring that the president submit an unclassified report to Congress on the strategy of the United States regarding stabilization and rebuilding in Iraq, an estimate on the number of U.S. troops that will be serving in Iraq as of Dec. 31, 2005, within 30 days of the bill's enactment."
  • CRS Summary
  • Washington Post story on the bill

June 23, 2004
Failed, 48-50, view details
Dem: 45-2 in favor, GOP: 2-48 opposed, Ind: 1 in favor

FY2005 DAA: Amendment requiring that the president submit an unclassified report to Congress on the stabilization and rebuilding of Iraq

An alternative amendment (S.AMDT.3472) to that proposed by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) to the FY2005 Defense Authorization Act was offered by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). This required the president to submit a public report to Congress on the strategy of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq regarding stabilization and rebuilding no later than 120 days after the bill passed. Opponents, mostly Democrats, argued the measure was not strong enough, for unlike that proposed by Kennedy, it did not require President Bush to provide an estimate regarding future troop levels in Iraq.[20]

  • ProgressivePunch vote description: "A vote on a Republican amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Defense Authorization Act (S. 2400) that would require the president to submit a public report to Congress on the strategy of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq regarding stabilization and rebuilding - no later than 120 days after the Defense authorization bill's enactment."
  • CRS Summary
  • Washington Post story on the bill

June 23, 2004
Passed, 71-27, view details
Dem: 21-26 opposed, GOP: 50-0 in favor, Ind: 1 opposed

109th Congress (2005-2006)

House

FY2006 DDA: Amendment to express sense of Congress that the president ought to develop a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq

This amendment (H.AMDT.214) to the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Department Appropriations bill was offered by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.). It requests that President Bush develop a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, and submit it to the congressional defense committees. While it set no specific timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the amendment was defeated by a large margin on the floor. Critics, consisting predominately of congressional Republicans, argued that it would strengthen the ongoing insurgency and send a message that the U.S. was not willing to fight to defend the new democracy in Iraq. Also, some claimed it would weaken the resolve of the Americans forces fighting in Iraq.[21][22]

May 25, 2005
Failed, 128-300, view details
Dem: 122-79 in favor, GOP: 5-221 opposed, Ind: 1 in favor

FY2006 Defense Department Appropriation (DDA) for military activities

The bill, sponsored by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), appropriated $441 billion for defense-related activities for Fiscal Year 2006 (beginning October 1, 2005). Of the total figure, $49 billion was allocated for supplemental war funding, bringing the total amount appropriated for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to $350 billion. In addition, it recommended increases of 10,000 Army and 1,000 Marine active duty personnel to sustain the missions. The biggest spending increase in the bill from the previous year centered on Navy vessels. The bill approved adding $2.5 billion for two additional destroyers built by General Dynamics Corp.'s Bath Iron Works unit and $384 million for one additional dry cargo vessel also built by General Dynamics. Neither vessel was requested by the Navy. Opponents of the bill expressed concern that much of money was being spent on weapons systems that did not work properly or failed to address the threats faced by U.S. military personnel.[23]

May 25, 2005
Passed, 390-39, view details
Dem: 164-37 in favor, GOP: 225-2 in favor, Ind: 1 in favor

Senate

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriation: To express the sense of the Senate that the Bush Administration should draft budgets for overseas military operations

This amendment (S.AMDT.464), proposed by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va), would express the sense of the Senate that any funds for ongoing military operations overseas, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan, should be included in the president's annual budget request. In addition, it urged the president to detail cost estimates for ongoing overseas military operations. Supporters felt as though the Bush Administration should need to tell American citizens what the wars would cost, rather than introducing emergency-supplemental legislation throughout the year. While thirty-one senators (all Republicans) opposed the amendment, no major reasons were provided during floor debate.[24]

  • ProgressivePunch vote description: "Fiscal 2005 Supplemental Appropriations/ Vote to Express the Sense of the Senate that the Bush Administration Should Draft Budgets for Overseas Military Operations and Provide Cost Estimates to Congress Rather Than Rely on the Truncated Emergency Supplemental Spending Process."
  • CRS Summary

April 18, 2005
Passed, 61-31, view details
Dem: 39-0 in favor, GOP: 21-31 opposed, Ind: 1 in favor

FY2007 National Defense Authorization Act: Amendment to state the sense of Congress that the U.S. ought to begin pulling troops out of Iraq in 2006

This amendment (S.AMDT.4320) to the FY2007 National Defense Authorization Act was sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.). It expressed the “sense of the Senate” that the U.S. should begin a phased redeployment of troops from Iraq on December 31, 2006, without specifying an end date. Supporters, such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), argued that a new course was needed in Iraq. In addition, they noted that Congress should not simply abide by the president's wishes in matters of war. Opponents, which included every Senate Republican with the exception of Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), argued that the U.S. could not leave Iraq until victory was achieved.[25]

June 22, 2006
Failed, 39-60, view details
Dem: 37-6 in favor, GOP: 1-54 opposed, Ind: 1 in favor

Articles and resources

See also

References

  1. H.R. 1559. Fiscal 2003 War Supplemental/Vote to Allow Consideration of a Bill to Fund the Initial Stages of the Iraqi War and Limit Congressional Power in Determining the Specific Uses of Those Funds, Progressive Punch, April 3, 2003.
  2. H.R. 1588. Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization/Vote to Castigate France For Its Anti-War Stance on Iraq, Progressive Punch, May 22, 2003.
  3. H.R. 2417. Fiscal 2004 Intelligence Authorization/Vote to Investigate Whether the Bush Administration Failed to Provide Intelligence to U.N. Weapons Inspectors on the Whereabouts of Weapons of Mass Destruction In Order to Justify Military Action Against Iraq, Progressive Punch, June 26, 2003.
  4. Edward Epstein, "House refuses to expand Iraq intelligence probes," San Francisco Chronicle, June 27, 2003.
  5. H.R. 2417. Fiscal 2004 Intelligence Authorization/Vote to Investigate Whether the Bush Administration Disclosed Erroneous Information to the Public to Justify War Against Iraq, Progressive Punch, June 26, 2003.
  6. H. Res. 557. War in Iraq and U.S. Troops/Vote to Allow Consideration of the Rules Governing Debate on a Resolution Which Would Reaffirm that the United States and the World are Safer with the Removal of Saddam Hussein and His Regime from Power in Iraq, Progressive Punch, March 17, 2004.
  7. H. Res. 557. War in Iraq and U.S. Troops/Vote on the Rules Governing Debate on a Resolution Which Would Reaffirm that the United States and the World are Safer with the Removal of Saddam Hussein and His Regime from Power in Iraq, Progressive Punch, March 17, 2004.
  8. H. Res. 557. War in Iraq and U.S. Troops/Vote on Final Passage of a Resolution Which Would Reaffirm that the United States and the World are Safer with the Removal of Saddam Hussein and His Regime from Power in Iraq, Progressive Punch, March 17, 2004.
  9. A vote by the full House on a Republican motion to "order the previous question" (cut off debate) on this resolution (H Res 628) condemning the harsh treatment of Iraqi prisoners, but which Democrats say fails to call for accountability, including an independent congressional inquiry into the prison abuses, Progressive Punch, March 6, 2004.
  10. Joseph Curl and Stephen Dinan, "Bush Stand Behind Rumsfeld," Washington Times, May 7, 2004.
  11. A vote on passage of a Republican-drafted resolution (H Res 627) entitled "Deploring the Abuse of Persons in United States Custody in Iraq," which Democrats say does not go far enough in terms of holding anyone accountable for such abuses, Progressive Punch, May 6, 2004.
  12. Joseph Curl and Stephen Dinan, "Bush Stand Behind Rumsfeld," Washington Times, May 7, 2004.
  13. S 762. Fiscal 2003 War Supplemental/Vote to Provide Food Assistance to Iraqi Citizens, Progressive Punch, April 3, 2006.
  14. H.R. 2658. Fiscal 2004 Defense Appropriations/Procedural Vote to Defeat an Amendment Designed to Prevent Part-Time Military Personnel From Being Stationed in Iraq for Extended Periods of Time, Progressive Punch, July 15, 2003.
  15. H.R. 2658. Fiscal 2004 Defense Appropriations/Procedural Vote to Defeat an Amendment to Create an Independent Commission to Investigate the Role Played by U.S. Intelligence Officials in Developing and Using Erroneous Intelligence About Iraq's Weapons Program to Justify U.S. Military Action, Progressive Punch, July 16, 2003.
  16. H.R. 2658. Fiscal 2004 Defense Appropriations/Procedural Vote to Defeat an Amendment to Require the Defense Secretary to Submit to Congress a Cost Estimate of Military Operations in Iraq, Progressive Punch, July 16, 2003.
  17. H.R. 2658. Fiscal 2004 Defense Appropriations/Procedural Vote to Defeat an Amendment to Require the President to Submit to Congress a Cost Estimate of Military Operations in Iraq, Progressive Punch, July 16, 2003.
  18. Ken Guggenheim, "Senate approves $368 billion defense bill," Associated Press (via Lawrence Journal-World), July 18, 2003.
  19. A vote on passage of a Democratic amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Defense Authorization Act (S. 2400) requiring that the president submit an unclassified report to Congress on the strategy of the United States regarding stabilization and rebuilding in Iraq, an estimate on the number of U.S. troops that will be serving in Iraq as of Dec. 31, 2005, within 30 days of the bill's enactment, Progressive Punch, June 23, 2004.
  20. A vote on a Republican amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Defense Authorization Act (S. 2400) that would require the president to submit a public report to Congress on the strategy of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq regarding stabilization and rebuilding - no later than 120 days after the Defense authorization bill's enactment, Progressive Punch, June 23, 2004.
  21. Tony Capaccio, "House Passes $441 Bln Defense Budget That Cuts Boeing Systems," Bloomberg, May 26, 2005.
  22. H.R. 1815. Defense/Vote on Amendment to Express Sense of Congress that the President Ought to Develop a Plan to Withdraw U.S. Troops from Iraq, Progressive Punch, May 25, 2005.
  23. Tony Capaccio, "House Passes $441 Bln Defense Budget That Cuts Boeing Systems," Bloomberg, May 26, 2005.
  24. HR 1268. Fiscal 2005 Supplemental Appropriations/ Vote to Express the Sense of the Senate that the Bush Administration Should Draft Budgets for Overseas Military Operations and Provide Cost Estimates to Congress Rather Than Rely on the Truncated Emergency Supplemental Spending Process, Progressive Punch, April 18, 2005.
  25. "Senate Rejects Kerry's Iraq Troop Pullout Bill," Associated Press (via NewsMax.com), June 22, 2006.

External resources

External resources

Toolbox