[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 28, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E658-E659]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 U.S. TROOP READINESS, VETERANS' HEALTH, AND IRAQ ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 
                                  2007

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. BRIAN P. BILBRAY

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, March 27, 2007

  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, as we enter the fourth year of the conflict 
in Iraq, we have before us today a supplemental appropriations bill 
that should serve one purpose and one purpose only--to provide funding 
for the safety, security and well-being of our troops. Time and time 
again, both Democrats and Republicans have pledged to provide our brave 
Armed Forces with the resources they need to do the job they have been 
sent to do. Today represents a moment in time when that rhetoric can be 
supported with bold and definitive action.
  That is why it is all the more disappointing that at a time when we 
should be voting on legislation to provide the necessary supplies, 
armor, and technology needed to be successful, the Democrats have 
decided to politicize

[[Page E659]]

this process. Led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the majority party has taken 
this opportunity to add non-military provisions such as $74 million for 
peanut storage costs, $5 million for tropical fish and billions of 
dollars worth of special-interest pork projects. I have to ask, why 
would this extraneous non-emergency material be included in a war 
spending bill when it has nothing to do with war spending?
  At what point are we going to stop playing politics with the safety 
and well being of our troops? I don't think there is anyone in this 
Chamber who doesn't believe we need to do all we can to support our 
brave men and women in uniform. However, I find it sad that the bill 
before us today is being used to satisfy the whims of lawmakers with an 
appetite for special interest pork projects. Such an effort amounts to 
nothing more than institutionalizing bribery.
  In addition to the more than $21 billion in pork spending, H.R. 1591 
plays politics in a completely different way by setting a timetable for 
the redeployment of our troops from Iraq.
  I believe that the President made a good decision by appointing 
General Petraeus to command all U.S. Forces in Iraq. The fact that 
every Democrat in the United States Senate voted to confirm the general 
reinforces the belief that his new plan and vision for the war on 
terror is the right one. Implementing a ``slow-bleed'' strategy will 
deny the general the opportunity to implement his plan and change the 
tide in Iraq.
  Overseeing the greatest military on Earth while trying to initiate 
great tactical change is a monumental task, but I feel we owe it to 
General Petraeus to give him the necessary tools to defeat the 
terrorists and bring our troops home. In no way can General Petraeus, 
or any of our military leaders for that matter, be successful in Iraq 
if a timeline for redeployment becomes law.
  The same restrictions should not be placed on our President. My 
colleagues and I were elected under Article I of the United States 
Constitution, an article that does not give us the authority to be 
Commander in Chief. Article II clearly cedes that authority to the 
President of the United States, whoever he or she is, and from whatever 
party he or she belongs to. Now, it's no secret that almost every 
member of the Senate harbors ambitions to one day be President, but 
until now, I didn't realize that everyone in the House felt the same 
way. This ``slow-bleed'' scheme represents an unconstitutional 
infringement upon the authority of the President as Commander in Chief.
  The point is that politicians in Washington should stop trying to 
micromanage this war and allow the President and his generals to have 
the troops, equipment, and supplies to complete the goals that have 
been set. Our troops are not a bargaining chip to be used by 
congressional Democrats to leverage more excessive and unnecessary pork 
spending.
  Rather than support a bill that provides $25 million for spinach 
replenishment, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1591, so that we can 
get back to work and pass a clean bill free of any extraneous spending 
and disastrous military timelines.

                          ____________________