Replies

FLORIDA ACTION REQUIRED NOW!
We must thank Florida Congressman John Mica for offering this amendment! The fact that such an amendment was EVEN NECESSARY just shows you what our troops are going through under this supposed Commander in Chief!

The amendment passed the House, but among the 160 House members who voted NO are the following House members from Florida.

The Florida Democrats In US House Who Voted NO: (The 6 we MUST vote out in 2012!)

Corrine Brown - (D) -District 3
http://www.house.gov/corrinebrown/

Castor, Kathy - (D) - District 11
http://castor.house.gov/

Deutch, Ted - (D) - District 19
http://deutch.house.gov/

Hastings, Alcee L. - (D) - District 23
http://alceehastings.house.gov/

Wasserman-Schultz,Debbie - (D) - District 20
http://wassermanschultz.house.gov/

Wilson, Frederica - (D) - District 17
http://wilson.house.gov/

The Florida Republican US House Members Who Voted NO - (WE MUST ASK THEM WHY!)

Ander Crenshaw - (R) - District 4
http://crenshaw.house.gov/

Dan Webster - (R )- District 8
http://webster.house.gov/

Of course, we expect the leader of the Marxist Democrat Party, Dizzie Debbie, to vote NO, and not surprising that the other 5 Marxist DEMS in Florida would follow Debbie!

Seeing a NO vote from Congressman Crenshaw and Congressman Webster has made me VERY UPSET! They will be hearing from me today, tomorrow, the next day and the next day until I find out WHY they voted against our troops!

Here's the discussion against it:

Mr. ANDREWS of New Jersey:

I thank my friend for yielding.

My objection, respectfully, to this amendment is it supplants the decision of the commander in the field with the judgment of the Congress. I frankly agree that there are very, very few circumstances I could imagine where we would not want our troops in the field to be fully armed to their complete comfort and satisfaction level. And so it's hard for me to imagine a circumstance where that's not the case.

But it's easy for me to understand a circumstance where the person in the field who is charged with the responsibility of achieving the mission and achieving maximum protection of his or her troops should have the authority to make that decision.

So my objection to this is not the intent. I think we share it. My objection is the fact that the amendment supplants the judgment of that commander in the field and replaces it with the judgment we are making here thousands of miles away based on facts that we could not possibly foresee.

So although I share the gentleman's intent, for that reason I would respectfully encourage the Members to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Washington:

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition for a very simple reason. As the gentleman said in his opening remarks in favor of the amendment, he does not wish to micromanage what goes on in the field. I think there can be no more blatant micromanaging than this. Having Congress insert itself into the debate about what the rules of engagement should be in the field of operations for the military is micromanaging in the absolute worst way. We should trust our commanders in the field to make those decisions, and those decisions are and always will be controversial, both ways, in terms of what the rules of engagement should be.

I will simply make the very clear statement that I want our trained commanders in the field to make the decision on what the rules of engagement should be in any given environment, not the United States Congress. This is not a debate that we should insert ourselves into, and I believe that we should defeat this amendment and leave the authority with the commanders, where it belongs.

I yield back the balance of my time.