[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 67 (Wednesday, April 25, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H4131-H4158]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
U.S. TROOP READINESS, VETERANS' HEALTH, AND IRAQ ACCOUNTABILITY ACT,
2007
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 332, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1591) making emergency
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2007, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 332, the
conference report is considered as read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
April 24, 2007, at page H3823.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
General Leave
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to
accompany H.R. 1591.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 9 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this bill gives the President the exit strategy from the
Iraqi civil war that up until now he has not had.
Next Tuesday will be the fourth anniversary of the President's
``Mission Accomplished'' landing on that famous aircraft carrier. On
that date, U.S. troops had won the war in Iraq, but since that time the
administration's mismanagement, their misjudgments, and their missed
opportunities have entangled us in a quagmire that has become a
prolonged civil war. That civil war has gutted our influence in the
Middle East and much of the world. In the last 4 years, the
administration has spent over half a trillion dollars. It has stretched
the Army to the limit, brought our Guard and Reserve to the breaking
point, and reduced our military to the lowest state of military
readiness in modern history.
The President has refused to finance this war through the normal
appropriations process. He has chosen to mask the true cost of the war
by paying for it on the installment plan through a series of
supplemental requests. He has
[[Page H4132]]
now requested another supplemental of almost another $100 billion in
military spending, and almost $4 billion in other additional spending.
The bill before us today is our response.
We provide $4 billion more than the President asked for for troops in
the field. The President is objecting on two grounds. First, he does
not like the conditions we have placed on funding for the war. Second,
he objects to the money we have added for other crucial activities. He
calls it ``pork.'' So do some of the charter members of the ``Invent
Your Own Facts Club'' that seems to populate this institution.
We have provided $4 billion more than he has asked for for operation
and maintenance for personnel costs and for procurement.
We have provided $750 million more than he asked for for Afghanistan.
We have provided $2.2 billion more for military health to meet the
medical needs of our returning soldiers. We have added $1.8 billion for
veterans health care above the amount the President asked for.
We have provided $2.2 billion more for aviation security, port
security, and border security.
We have provided $80 million more for nuclear nonproliferation, and
we have added $150 million for the FBI.
We have provided $650 million more than the President asked for for
the pandemic flu emergency, cleaning up an action that last year's
Congress never got around to completing.
We have provided $3.3 billion more for Katrina, again cleaning up
some more business that last year's Congress failed to complete.
We have also provided $3.1 billion more for BRAC which the
administration itself asked for in its budget last year.
We provided $500 million for wild land fires, the same amount put
into the same account by the Republican majority 2 years ago for the
same purposes.
We have added $400 million to low income heating assistance because
the previous Congress cut that by $1 billion. We should have added back
the whole billion dollars, but in the interest of saving money we
confined it to $400 million.
We have added $425 million to continue the rural school payments in
the West that the last Congress never got around to renewing.
Unfortunately, they allowed that program to expire, as they allowed so
many other things to expire last year.
We have also provided $3.5 billion for agriculture disaster, again an
issue which has been hanging around for more than a year. The President
has declared more than 70 percent of the counties in this country to be
agriculture disaster areas. There ought to be some action that flows
from that unless we are taking the President's initial action to be
meaningless.
We have also provided $396 million in SCHIP to make certain that low
income children and low income families don't fall off the State health
care rolls. We have been asked to do that by bipartisan Governors from
14 States.
If the President wants to object to those items and call them pork,
or of members of the flat earth club in this body want to call it pork,
that's fine with me; I think the public will look at those issues
somewhat differently.
The President is attacking these additional items as a smoke screen
to obscure the fact that the key issue on this bill is whether or not
there will be a change in direction with respect to our policy in Iraq.
{time} 1945
This bill supports the troops. It begins to hold Iraq and the
administration accountable, and it points the way to ending our
involvement in a protracted civil war.
As a condition of providing the President with the funds he has asked
for, we require that our American military units meet certain standards
that are known as the Murtha standards. They simply require that any
unit sent into battle be fully combat ready. They would require, as the
Defense Department already has for the most part, they would require
that any unit that has been in Iraq does not have to stay there for
more than a year without relief, and they also require that if they are
sent back, they get to spend at least a year at home before they go
back. And in an era where no one is being asked to sacrifice except
military families, it seems to me those are all minimum goals that we
all ought to be willing to adhere to.
Because the President rejected these requirements, we have given him
the right to waive these requirements, but only if he spells out to the
country why he has departed from them. That is imminently reasonable.
He owes the country that explanation.
We require that Iraq meet certain performance benchmarks, benchmarks
that were first laid out by the President himself, and we tie those
benchmarks to a timeline. If those benchmarks are met, redeployment of
U.S. troops must begin by July 1. If they are not met, they must begin
by October. Those dates are firm. The goal for completing such
redeployment is 6 months after it starts.
Now, the President objects to the fact that we are setting timelines,
but the Secretary of Defense himself was quoted in the Washington Post
as noting that these timelines, in fact, have helped give the Iraqis a
message that we are not going to stay in Iraq forever. We stand by
them. We believe these benchmarks and these timelines are necessary in
order to give General Petraeus the ability to make clear to the Iraqis
that we are not going to stay there forever, while they refuse to make
the political compromises necessary to end the civil war.
Iraqis and the President must understand our troops won the war. They
cannot achieve the political and diplomatic compromises that are needed
to end the civil war, only the Iraqis can do that.
Four years after ``mission accomplished'' is long enough, Mr.
Speaker. If the President were here I would simply say to him, ``Mr.
President, with this bill we have compromised on two fronts. We have
responded to your objection to the Murtha principles by giving you the
ability to waive them; all you have to do is explain why to the
country.'' We have responded to his concerns about those timelines by
adjusting them and making them somewhat more flexible in terms of their
completion.
So I would say to the President if he were here, ``Mr. President, it
is your turn; we need a new direction and we need it now. Please do not
say, as you said last week'' I will talk but I will not compromise.
``Mr. President, after 4 years, you need to change the direction. You
need to sign this bill.''
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following tabular material
reflecting the funding levels in the conference report.
[[Page H4133]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.001
[[Page H4134]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.002
[[Page H4135]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.003
[[Page H4136]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.004
[[Page H4137]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.005
[[Page H4138]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.006
[[Page H4139]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.007
[[Page H4140]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.008
[[Page H4141]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.009
[[Page H4142]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.010
[[Page H4143]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.011
[[Page H4144]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.012
[[Page H4145]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.013
[[Page H4146]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Republican leader of the
House.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, what are we doing? What in the world are we
doing? The President asked for funding for our troops in Afghanistan
and Iraq to meet our commitments to bring freedom to those people and
to protect the American people, and here we are with a bill that has
some $25 billion worth of spending over and above what the President
asked for. And if that is not bad enough, we handcuff our generals and
we handcuff our troops and we go about this backhanded way of trying to
end the war in a backhanded way because the votes are not there to do
it in a straight-up fashion.
Mr. Speaker, we are sent here by the American people. We have grave
responsibilities to them and to our allies around the world, and I
understand that there are deeply held differences over what is going on
in Iraq. But all of us understand what we heard today from General
Petraeus. All of us understand what we have heard over the last few
months coming out of Iraq.
The real battle in Iraq today is not with the Iraqis. The real battle
in Iraq today is with al Qaeda that has made this the central front in
their war with us. And let us remember, we did not start the war with
al Qaeda; they did.
It is al Qaeda that has made Iraq the central front in their war with
us, and if we are not willing to take on al Qaeda in Iraq today, when
will we? When will we stand up to radical Islam that is spreading all
over the world, endangering our allies and endangering our citizens?
When will we stand up and fight? We did not do it like other world
leaders for some 20 years because America, like the rest of the world,
looked up, looked away, and just hoped the problem would go away. It is
not just going to go away.
People who are raised to believe that killing Americans and our
allies and killing freedom and hating freedom is the answer to get to
Allah is not just going to go away. And so we can look up and we can
walk out, we can walk out of Iraq, just like we did in Lebanon, just
like we did in Vietnam, just like we did in Somalia, and we will leave
chaos in our wake.
Now, if dealing with al Qaeda is not enough of a reason to finish the
job that we have in Iraq, what about the issue of the Iranians? The
Iranians are trying to spew their hate all over the Middle East and
elsewhere. You see Iranians who are bringing new devices into Baghdad
to kill Americans and our allies. It is Iranians who are bringing funds
and doing training to stir up sectarian violence in Baghdad. Are we
just going to look the other way again?
I say to my colleagues, and I have said this before, every generation
of Americans has had their obligation. Every generation of Americans
has had their obligation to stand up and to protect our country, not
for just today but for tomorrow and for the next generation.
After looking away for 20 years during the 1980s and 1990s, what was
America to do after 3,000 of our citizens died on 9/11? Just all hope
it goes away, hope they do not care anymore?
I say to my colleagues that we have a solemn obligation to the
American people to finish the job that we started. And while Iraq may
not have started out as the central front in our war with al Qaeda, it
may not have started out with a fight against the Iranians, all of us
in this Chamber today know, all of us know that this is the central
front in our war with al Qaeda, and this is the battleground with Iran.
You all know it. You know it as well as I do.
And the question is, are we going to stand up and fulfill our
obligation to the American people? Are we going to fulfill our
obligation to the Iraqis who are struggling to create a government of
the people, by the people and for the people?
I think they are on clear notice that they have got a job to do on
their own, but if we step out today, we are ensuring that they will
fail. We are ensuring that we will leave chaos in our wake. We will
embolden our enemies, and it is our kids and their kids who will pay a
very, very steep price.
This is not the right thing to do, in my opinion. I respect those who
have opinions that are otherwise, but as I stand here as a Member of
Congress, we need to think seriously about what we are doing, think
seriously about the message that we are sending to our enemies around
the world and ask ourselves, is this what our forefathers would have
done? Is this the message that we want to send to the world? I would
suggest to all of you it is not. We should vote ``no.''
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker
of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I thank the gentleman
for yielding and commend him for his exceptional leadership in bringing
this important legislation to the floor. I also acknowledge the
leadership of Mr. Murtha and Mr. Skelton for all that they are doing to
make our country safer and to support our troops.
Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq is the greatest ethical challenge facing
our Nation. This is so because our troops are being sent into battle
without the training, equipment. And the strategic plan for success
because the administration is not honoring our commitment to our
veterans and because the Iraqi war has strained our military, and
therefore weakened our ability to fight the war on terrorism.
By placing an unacceptable strain on our military, this war is
undermining our ability to protect the American people. Instead of
making the American people safer, the war in Iraq has weakened our
ability to protect our Nation from the threat posed by international
terrorism, I repeat.
As Major General Petraeus said, right now we are not prepared. We are
not prepared for the threat this Nation faces here at home. And,
because in this business you cannot be half ready or half prepared, you
are either ready or you are not.
We have put our citizens at greater risk. We have put their lives at
greater risk, their property, our economy, our way of life, and that is
just unacceptable.
Instead of strengthening our hand, the President's policies in Iraq
have weakened our reputation in the world and diminished our ability to
lead the international effort against terrorism, which again is the
real threat.
With U.S. focus on Iraq, the war in Afghanistan has intensified
because of the resurgence of the Taliban and al Qaeda in the absence of
the fullest effort on our part there.
As Major General John Baptiste said, Here is the bottom line.
Americans must come to grips with the fact that our military alone
cannot establish a democracy. We cannot sustain the current operational
tempo without seriously damaging the Army and the Marine Corps. Our
troops have been asked to carry the burden of an ill-conceived mission.
End of quote, Major General John Baptiste.
Our troops have done everything that they have been asked to do and
excellently. We salute them for their courage, their patriotism, and
the sacrifices they and their families are making. Instead of being
honored as the heroes they are when they come home, our wounded
veterans are being forced to cope with a system that is not equipped to
care for them. Preparation was not made.
Americans have been shocked by the revelations of the appalling care
at Walter Reed. As Senator Max Cleland, a great patriot, a decorated
Army veteran, said, Walter Reed is the ugly face of the Iraq war. It is
a face that the American people need to see because this administration
from the beginning never planned to deal with casualties, never planned
for the consequences of this war.
Last fall, the American people voted for a new direction in Iraq.
They made it clear that our troops must be given all they need to do
their jobs but that our troops must be brought home responsibly, safely
and soon.
The President responded to this clear call for winding down the war
in Iraq with a policy of escalation in Iraq that has been tried three
times previously and failed and, additionally, has burdened our already
strained military.
The problems addressed in this bill are problems of the President's
own making. From the start of the war, the President has failed to
recognize and to request in his budget the funds needed by our troops
serving in Iraq, as has been indicated by the distinguished chairman of
the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey.
[[Page H4147]]
{time} 2000
This is the seventh emergency appropriations bill that Congress has
had to pass to make up for the President's failure, seven emergencies.
What is the surprise? Why aren't they understanding the cost of this
war in lives and health, in reputation, in dollars, and the readiness
of our military?
Furthermore, the President's budgets have failed to provide
adequately for the medical needs of our troops wounded in Iraq and for
other veterans. This bill supports our troops, honors our commitments
to our veterans, rebuilds our military, and holds the Iraqi government
accountable. It winds down the war by providing for the responsible
redeployment of our combat forces based on benchmarks endorsed by the
Iraqi government and by President Bush. They are his own benchmarks.
Oddly, though, even though they are the President's own benchmarks,
holding the administration accountable to benchmarks has been
criticized by the administration. They are criticizing their own
benchmarks. Yet both Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and retired
Major General Paul Eaton, formerly in charge of training of Iraqi
security forces, have noted the value of timelines in persuading Iraqis
to make the political compromises needed to end the violence.
Secretary Gates noted, we are all familiar with this, it bears
repeating, ``The strong feelings expressed in Congress about the
timetables probably has had a positive impact . . . in terms of
communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended
commitment.''
General Eaton said, ``This bill gives General Petraeus great leverage
for moving the Iraqi government down the more disciplined path laid out
by the Iraq Study Group.''
My colleagues, the war in Iraq has lasted longer than World War II
and resulted in the lowest level of American military readiness since
the Vietnam War. It has cost thousands of American lives, tens of
thousands, scores of thousands of Iraqi lives, plus tens of thousands
of our soldiers to suffer grievous injuries, and will cost well over $1
trillion if the war ended today.
The sacrifices borne by our troops and their families demand more
than the blank check the President is asking for, for a war without
end. The sacrifices demand a plan for bringing the war to an end. This
bill contains that plan and provides the President for every dollar he
asked for the troops, and, indeed, thank you, Mr. Murtha, much more.
I urge my colleagues to support it. I urge the President to sign the
bill so that we can focus on winning the war against terrorism, which
is the real threat to the American people. That is our responsibility,
and we fully intend to honor it.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, we know that this conference report before us will be
vetoed by the President because of the Iraqi withdrawal language and
the many unrelated and costly spending items that have absolutely
nothing to do with the global war on terror or recovery efforts in the
gulf coast.
It is no secret that many Members of the House and Senate, both
Republicans and Democrats, have strong reservations about the manner in
which this legislation undermines the authority of the President, our
Commander in Chief. Members are also rightly concerned about how this
legislation places military decisions in the hands of politicians
rather than the military commanders in the field.
As I have said many times before, this legislation ought to focus on
our troops. It ought to focus on providing those in harm's way with the
resources they need to complete their mission successfully. It ought to
respect, not micromanage, our combatant commanders in whom we place the
ultimate responsibility for prosecuting military actions.
My colleagues know that I have great respect for my friend, Mr.
Murtha, but I strongly disagree with his assertion that we ought to
have 535 Members and Senators micromanaging the war in Iraq. With all
due respect, that is not our job.
Let me again remind my colleagues, we are not generals, we are not
the Secretary of State, and we most certainly are not the Commander in
Chief. It is tragically ironic that the House is considering this
conference report the same day that General David Petraeus met with
Members in closed session on the current situation in Iraq.
It was on January 26 of this year, just 3 months ago, that the Senate
voted 81-0 to confirm General Petraeus to be the top military commander
in Iraq. One would have thought that Members and Senators would trust
his judgment following such an extraordinary vote of confidence over 3
months ago. Senator Reid, who supported the General's confirmation, now
says, and I quote, ``I don't believe him.''
Recent history reminds us that the enemy we face in Iraq, in
Afghanistan and other countries that harbor terrorists will stop at
nothing to seek opportunities to attack the United States and our
allies. Have we not learned anything from the original World Trade
Center bombing in 1993, the Khobar Towers bombing, the attack on USS
Cole or 9/11 itself?
Al Qaeda will view this legislation as the first sign of the United
States backing down from its commitment to the war on terror. It will
view the withdrawal provisions contained in this conference report as
America signaling retreat and surrender. Indeed, al Qaeda will view
this as a day that the House of Representatives threw in the towel,
waved the white flag and signaled retreat and surrender in Iraq.
Our failure to learn the lessons of history, our failure to lead
today, will result in devastating consequences, including an even
greater loss of lives, and even more resources needed to fight
tomorrow. Just as we have only one top General in Iraq, one Secretary
of State and one Commander in Chief, we only have one Speaker of the
House at a time.
Speaker Pelosi and I have been friends and have served as colleagues
on the Appropriations Committee for many years. The Speaker played an
important role in supporting the development of unmanned aerial
vehicles, a critical and successful military capability that is a key
element to the war on terror. She and I worked on that in the
Intelligence Committee together years ago. It is puzzling to me that
the Speaker would not only openly question the judgment of General
Petraeus, Secretary Rice, and our Commander in Chief, but that she
would also willingly work to undermine their efforts to secure a
successful outcome in Iraq.
My colleagues, it is absolutely essential that America, the last
remaining superpower on Earth, continue to be the voice for peace and
freedom in our shrinking world. Our success is critical. Walking away
will further signal to Syria, Iran, Afghanistan and others that the
United States is no longer committed to a successful outcome in Iraq.
In closing, I ask Speaker Pelosi and my friends in the majority to
weigh the implications of supporting this conference report. Even as I
hold hope that the Speaker might have a road-to-Damascus conversion, I
ask her to weigh the enormous consequences of putting our troops in
peril. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this emergency supplemental.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the Chair of the Foreign
Operations appropriations subcommittee.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report
on H.R. 1591 and commend Chairman Obey for your efforts to protect our
troops, respect the wishes of the American people, and preserve our
Nation's interest in this bill.
Our troops have served with honor and courage. However, they should
be deployed only when battle ready and with a clear and achievable
mission. Neither is the case today in Iraq. Recent reports indicate the
troop surge is not working. The number of casualties rose again in
March, and this bloody trend continues.
We have heard from this administration that it is not willing to
negotiate on Iraq. Frankly, their unwillingness to compromise has led
us to this point, and the right of the American people to be heard is
nonnegotiable. No amount of American blood or treasure can help Iraq if
the Iraqis don't help themselves.
[[Page H4148]]
The Maliki government must exhibit the political will to confront
extremists, to give all segments of society a stake in Iraq's future,
and to put Iraqi revenues towards the hard task of reconstruction. That
is why this bill asks the President to certify that the Iraqis are
doing their part in meeting critical benchmarks.
In addition, I am pleased the conference report includes nearly $200
million in increased funding for Afghanistan, $80.3 million for Jordan,
$45 million for Liberia, $769 million for Lebanon, much needed
assistance for Sudan and Somalia, increased funding for disaster and
refugee aid to Iraq, increased accountability through funding expanded
mandates for the special Inspector General and the State and USAID IG
operations.
While this bill provides most of the funding requested by the
President, it puts in place safeguards and oversight to stop waste,
fraud and abuse with U.S. taxpayer dollars in Iraq.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
ranking member on Homeland Security, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise, regrettably, today in
opposition to the supplemental conference report before us, the first
time I have risen in opposition to an appropriations conference report
in more than 12 years. The Democratic side of the aisle and many of
their liberal newspaper editors are intent on substituting their
judgment for that of our professional, trained, experienced military
leaders.
I am reminded of a quote that I want to read to you, it's very brief,
that speaks to this subject. I will tell you the author in just a
moment. ``It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command
forces, and our most gifted and brilliant citizens to edit newspapers.
In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor geniuses
plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to
inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I am readily willing to
yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I will, in
turn, do my best for the cause by writing editorials after the fact.''
Signed, Robert E. Lee.
This Congress is made up of 535 lawyers, doctors and teachers, some
with military experience, some without. It is not, however, made up of
535 military commanders who possess the ability to manage a war against
al Qaeda. Yet that is what this conference report does. It enables over
just half of 535 politicians to micromanage the war in Iraq against al
Qaeda.
Sadly, though, this is not the only reason to vote against this
conference report. It's also full of billions of dollars in spending
categorized as an emergency which undermines the true needs of our
troops and gulf coast hurricane recovery efforts. Specifically for
Homeland Security, the supplemental contains two categories of
emergency funding, hurricane recovery and the global war on terrorism.
Speaking to the hurricane recovery portion, this is a true 2007
emergency. FEMA needs these funds now to continue our commitment to the
devastated gulf coast region and to ensure the disaster relief fund
does not run dry in the middle of what experts are predicting will be
an active hurricane season.
I can only hope that in an effort to keep the overall exorbitant
spending of the bill down, the majority has not shortchanged the true
needs of this account.
The global war on terrorism, part of this funding bill, is another
story. While it contains many worthy and important items such as
nuclear and explosive detection systems and additional aircraft for the
northern border, things I have supported in the past and continue to
support, they are in no way a 2007 emergency. In every instance, these
items could and should be addressed in the regular 2008 appropriations
bill. By including them in this 2007 emergency, the majority is simply
trying to look strong on security and buy down requirements to free up
funds in 2008 for additional spending.
{time} 2015
While I support homeland security spending, I support it in a
fiscally responsible way.
Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I have two such compelling reasons
to vote against a bill: taking away authority to manage our war against
al Qaeda from the military commanders, and carelessly adding billions
of dollars in non-emergency spending. These are the very reasons we
will be back here addressing these matters again in a couple of weeks
after the President vetoes the bill.
We should address these issues now, and stop the political
gamesmanship that harms both our troops and the gulf coast recovery
effort. This bill is nothing short of a cut-and-run in the fight
against al Qaeda. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not cut and run. It's think and
succeed. It's a good policy to try.
Mr. Speaker, tonight this House will adopt this reasonable conference
report that fully funds our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and that
responds to the will of the American people, who are demanding,
demanding, that our Nation change course. I urge all of our Members
here, on both sides of the aisle, to support this bill.
After the Senate passes this conference report and it is sent to the
White House, I urge and implore the President to sign this bill, even
though he seems determined to veto this legislation, thereby defying
the will of the American people, 70 percent of whom disapprove of his
handling of the war in Iraq.
I know there is not a Member in this body who does not pray for our
success in Iraq and for the safe return of our brave servicemen and
women who serve us there. However, we cannot ignore the facts. After
the loss of more than 3,300 American soldiers and nearly 25,000
injured, and after the expenditure of more than $400 billion, which
will be after the end of this fiscal year some $600 billion, on a war
now in its fifth year, even President Bush and Secretary of Defense
Gates acknowledge that our efforts are not succeeding.
The Defense Department has concluded that the situation in Iraq is
``properly descriptive of a civil war.'' The Army Chief of Staff has
issued warnings about the effect of the war on America's overall
military readiness. And the Iraq Government has failed to meet
political goals, such as reversing debaathification, drafting a plan
for national reconciliation and disbanding militias, all of which are
essential if we are to reach a political solution, as General Petraeus
says is necessary.
In fact, last week, six ministers loyal to Muqtada al Sadr withdrew
from the Iraqi Government, imperiling the chances of political
resolution, which General Petraeus, as I said, says is imperative
because, quoting again General Petraeus, ``There is no military
solution to a problem like that in Iraq.'' General Petraeus: ``There is
no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq.''
Meanwhile, the violence in Iraq continues. In just the last 2 weeks,
a suicide attack inside the Iraqi Parliament killed eight, and
spectacular car bombs, which occur almost daily, have killed hundreds.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, the question before the Members again today is
this: Will we change direction in Iraq, or will we continue to stay the
course with a failing policy? That is the question before this House
tonight.
The answer, I think, is clear. After 4 years of rubber-stamping this
administration's failed policy, not a service to the American people,
this Congress must insist on accountability and a new direction. As the
Speaker has said, more blank checks from this Congress would constitute
an abdication of our responsibility and of our duty.
In short, this conference report protects our troops, requiring
deployments to adhere to existing Defense Department standards. Mr.
Murtha has not adopted these standards, nor has Mr. Obey, nor have any
of us on this side of the aisle. These are Defense Department standards
for training, acquiring equipment and armor, while allowing the
President to waive those standards that are the Defense Department
standards if, in his judgment, national security requires it. How much
[[Page H4149]]
more responsible a position can we take?
The conference report holds the Iraqi Government accountable. I think
that reflects the sentiments of the American people, who believe that
the Iraqis need to step up and take responsibility. What Secretary
Gates said was if we do not have a consequence of not taking
responsibility, they will not do it.
In fact, even if Mr. Maliki wants to do it, he will not be able to
get the disparate factions in Iraq to do it, unless they feel a
necessity to do it. We've seen that here in this Congress. That's
democracy at work. So this is an assistance to the Iraqi Government to
bring people together, because it says if you don't, there is a
consequence. The American public supports that alternative.
And it includes a responsible strategy for a phased redeployment of
U.S. forces and refocuses, refocuses our efforts on fighting al Qaeda
and the Taliban in Afghanistan. There is nobody in this Congress who
does not want to nor is not committed to confronting and defeating
terrorism. No one should be misled by the false claims of those who
argue that we must follow the same failing stay-the-course strategy.
This bill does not constitute capitulation or micromanaging this war.
This may sound harsh, but had somebody told Custer that you are not
supporting the troops unless you leave them here, they would have been
wrong. As retired General Paul Eaton, who was in charge of training the
Iraqi military in 2003 and 2004 recently stated, ``This bill gives
General Petraeus great leverage for moving the Iraqi Government down
the more disciplined path laid out by the Iraq Study Group. The real
audience for the timeline language is Prime Minister Maliki,'' as I
have said, ``and the elected Government of Iraq.'' So concluded Paul
Eaton, the general in charge of training Iraqis in 2003 and 2004.
Mr. Speaker, the American people want and deserve a Congress that
holds the Iraqis accountable for making progress. The American people
are paying a steep price; our children are paying a steep price for
this war. They haven't been given the bill yet, but they will be. And
our young men and women, and not so young men and women, are paying
with their lives, with their limbs, and with their health.
The American people want and deserve, as I have said, a Congress that
holds the Iraqis accountable, that holds the administration accountable
for implementing a policy designed to succeed. This conference report
gives us that opportunity.
I urge all of my colleagues, on every side of the aisle, from
whatever party, support this conference report. I urge the President,
when we pass this conference report, when the Senate passes it and we
send it to the President, sign this conference report. It fully funds
our troops, it does not micromanage the war, it tells the Iraqis we
expect accountability; because if they take accountability, our troops
will be safer, our country will be better off and Iraq will be on the
path to democracy that we hope for her and pray for her.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
ranking member on Military Construction of Appropriations, the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I served as a conferee on this bill Monday
afternoon, and I was disappointed at what I saw. Everyone in the room
knew then, as they know now, that President Bush will veto this
legislation because it contains dangerous timelines for withdrawal in
Iraq, undercutting our chances for success and making a political
statement at a time when we should be working in a bipartisan manner to
give our troops the resources they need to succeed.
Many of us heard General Petraeus this afternoon. I think most
Members are highly impressed with his command of the situation and his
candor. We ought to be willing to give him and his new strategy a
chance. Instead, the bill before us tonight would guarantee failure.
This is a futile exercise and a waste of valuable time. It ensures
further delay in getting the equipment, supplies and support to the
troops. Because Congress has not provided this funding already, our
military leaders must shuffle existing funds. Spending on new equipment
will be postponed and repair work will be slowed on equipment needed
elsewhere around the world, and the Pentagon will have to curtail
training for National Guard and Reserve units. This will hamper their
capabilities and their readiness.
The veto will come quickly, and, when it does, I hope the majority
will not engage in further attempts to micromanage the war. Let's craft
a responsible, focused supplemental package that funds the military and
demonstrates to our soldiers that we support their efforts to complete
the mission.
Contrary to what some in the Democratic leadership say, the war is
not lost. Let's not legislate as if it is.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank our chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. We are legislators. The President
has a job and we who represent the people have a job. It funds the war,
a war that the other side started, and the speech that they are giving
tonight is the same speech they gave 4 years ago.
It's time to change course. This bill funds veterans who have been
wounded severely, children who need health care, and all the
emergencies that this country needs to address and has not been taking
care of the last decade.
Pass the bill.
Mr. President, sign the bill. It's the best bill. The Senate and
House have agreed, and we don't care that the President has said,
before we even passed it out of the first Chamber, that he would veto
it. We have to pass this bill, bring our troops home, and have a plan
for success.
This is a good conference report. Americans, speak out. If the
President does veto the bill, there is something to be paid. The troops
need our help and our support, and I thank Chairman Obey and Chairman
Murtha for their leadership. Vote for the conference report.
``Few will have the greatness to bend history itself; but each of us
can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all
those acts will be written the history of this generation.'' Sen.
Robert F. Kennedy.
This vote will affect us today, it will affect our children tomorrow,
it will affect our grand children of the next generation. Unlike some
of our colleagues, I refuse to legislate any bill, much less this bill,
merely because the President has issued a veto threat. Our brand of
government has lasted for more than 230 years because of the separation
of powers. The President needs the money, and Congress controls the
power of the purse.
We have the opportunity to change course, confront crises, and
continue the legacy of not only the Democratic Party but of America
with this vote today.
As of April 23, 2007, there have been 3,333 U.S. Military Deaths
Confirmed by the Department of Defense. There have been at least 20,000
women and men who have been wounded, and untold numbers of women and
men who have been affected by traumatic brain injuries that we are just
discovering, and will suffer for decades from post traumatic stress
disorder.
The Democrats have worked to compromise with the Administration.
While I, like many of my colleagues, hoped that we would retain the
House language with regard to the troop deployment provisions, I
understand that honesty and compromise are the hallmarks of this august
body.
Make no mistake about it; this vote is a vote to support our troops
and will bring an end to the war in the near future. The military
options for Iraq are exhausted; we need to pursue diplomatic solutions
so that the Iraqis and other countries in the Middle East can be real
shareholders in the fate of Iraq.
This supplemental enforces the President's own benchmarks that the
Iraqis protect and end their civil war. This bill has the military's
own standards for readiness and deployment. This bill provides more
than the President requested for military procurement, construction,
health care, and readiness.
I am proud that the Committee supported my request for increased
funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, to remove
the matching funds for many of the grants and loans going to the
rebuilding of states affected by Hurricane Katrina, in particular the
city of New Orleans.
$450 million for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)/Counseling:
African American male Vietnam and Iraq theater veterans have higher
rates of PTSD than Whites. Rates of current PTSD are 28% among
Hispanics, 21% among African Americans, and 14 percent
[[Page H4150]]
among Whites. African Americans have greater exposure to war stresses
and had more predisposing factors than Whites, which appeared to
account for their higher rate of PTSD.
$450 million for Traumatic Brain Injury care and research: Traumatic
brain injury (TBI) is caused by a blow or jolt to the head or a
penetrating head injury that disrupts the function of the brain.
$20 million to address the problems at Walter Reed: When the federal
base-closing commission recommended shutting down Walter Reed Army
Medical Center in Washington, it was noted through a number of reports
that most of the patients and communities affected were African-
American.
$100 million to allow the VA to contract with private mental
healthcare providers to offer veterans, including Guard and reserve
members, quality and timely care: African Americans are more likely to
be victims of serious violent crime than are non-Hispanic whites.
Food Assistance (PL 480 Title II): Adds $450 million, which is $100
million above the President's request, to support food aid in Sudan/
Eastern Chad, Southern Africa, and the Horn of Africa.
Agricultural Assistance: Adds $3.7 billion. According to the National
Farmers Union, over 80 percent of U.S. counties were designated as
disaster areas in 2005, and 60 percent were declared in 2006, making
this assistance essential if farmers are to maintain their livelihoods
in the coming year.
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): The Supplemental
adds $400 million to partially restore cuts to the program.
Pandemic Flu Preparedness: Adds $1 billion to purchase vaccines
needed to protect us from a global pandemic.
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP): As amended in
Committee, the proposal adds $750 million for SCHIP to ensure continued
healthcare coverage for children in 14 states that face a budget
shortfall in the program.
Foreign Aid: $40 million in security assistance is added for Liberia.
This provision was added only because of the CBC.
After far too long, the bill will address the outstanding needs of
our working women and men by increasing the minimum wage of Americans.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to address
their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the former chairman of the Defense
Subcommittee and former chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first I want to make the point as
strongly as I can that I want our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan
and anyplace else in the world where they are in harm's way as soon as
we can possibly do it without risking the security of our own Nation
and the security of our own people.
Mr. Murtha and I have been partners in this business for many, many
years, and he and I have both stood by the bedside of too many wounded
troops and have attended too many funerals, and we want this over.
As a matter of fact, the legislation before us, the appropriations
part of this defense bill is a good package. Mr. Murtha and I met prior
to him submitting this to the full Appropriations Committee and we
agreed. Basically I told Mr. Murtha that these are about the same
numbers that I would have recommended if I were still the chairman. But
we did agree to disagree on the issue of the restrictive language on
the conduct of the battlefield.
My memory takes me back, as we discuss this legislation now, to
October of 1983, where terrorists attacked the Marine barracks in
Beirut. The Marines there on a peacekeeping mission and 241 of our
troops were killed. In February of 1993, the World Trade Center was
bombed, as Chairman Lewis noted in his comments. Six lives were lost.
{time} 2030
In June of 1996, Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, where our airmen were
being housed, was bombed. Nineteen American lives were lost. August of
1998, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists
again. Two hundred fifty-nine lives were lost. October of 2000, the USS
Cole off the shore of Yemen was bombed by terrorists. Again, 17
American lives lost, and almost every crewman on the ship injured.
But all this time nothing happened except a lot of rhetoric. Well, we
talked a lot. We were going to hunt them down. And you can run, but you
can't hide.
But finally, after September 11, the people of America were so
incensed by what they saw with the airplanes flying into the two World
Trade Centers, the airplane flying into the ground in Pennsylvania, in
or near Mr. Murtha's district, and the airplane flying into the
Pentagon right across the river, killing some 3,000 innocent people.
The people of America were incensed. They demanded action. The
President of the United States promised action, and the Congress
provided action. And subsequently, our troops are in Afghanistan and
are in Iraq. And it is essential that we provide whatever they need to
carry out their mission and to protect themselves while they are
carrying out the mission.
But now, what about leaving today or tomorrow or March or July, as
some of these restrictions provide?
One of our great successes was Desert Storm. In Desert Storm, we
attacked Saddam Hussein's armies successfully, and we annihilated,
basically, his army. At least they ran away. They ran for cover. They
surrendered. A lot of them lost the battle because the United States
was aggressive and our coalition partners.
But here's where we made a mistake. Once we had Saddam's armies
defeated, we left. We left before there was anything else there to
provide a reasonable, logical government for the people of Iraq.
And what happened? Saddam responded in a vicious attack upon his own
Iraqi citizens to continue the genocide that he began in earlier years.
After we left from Desert Storm, he killed thousands of Shia Iraqis.
What General Petraeus and our American troops are trying to do is to
give the Iraqi government that has been elected by the people,
Constitution approved by the people, a parliament elected under the new
Constitution by the people; General Petraeus said that the Iraqi
security forces were growing in number, were growing in capability.
Even the Sunnis are starting to join up with these security forces in
Iraq to show a Sunni-Shia coming together. Not much, but a little bit.
But to let this government exist so that we didn't have another
situation where we left, we didn't leave anybody in charge, and the bad
guys took over again.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, you know, it's hard for me to even
sit here and hear the other side talk about this, because they are
missing the point. This is about our soldiers. If you care about our
soldiers, you say you care about our soldiers, you will vote for this
supplemental.
This supplemental has over $4 billion more than what the President
asked for in everything. I'll tell you what this supplemental is about.
It's about those soldiers that I visited in Landstuhl, Germany. On
three different occasions, every time we went over to Iraq and over to
Afghanistan we'd make a stop to come back.
You want to know what this supplemental is about? It's about those
sons and daughters, 19 and 20 years old, who will never walk again with
their legs because they have been cut off.
You talk about the President wants to veto this. Let's send it to
him. Let him veto it. If he vetoes this bill that's got the money in it
for the body armor that he sent troops into battlefield without, let
him veto this. If he vetoes this bill, it will be like sending a dagger
right in the heart of our soldiers.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr.
Kingston of Georgia, a member of the committee.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, Winston Churchill said, ``The United
States of America always does the right thing after it has exhausted
all the other alternatives.''
And what we are doing here tonight, through the Democrat Party, is
exhausting all the other alternatives.
This bill is wrong for a number of reasons. First of all, the
Democrat leadership promised to cut out the pork and nondefense
spending and give us a clean bill. But this bill contains minimum wage
legislation, children's health care appropriations, $31 million for
milk subsidies, $460 million for food aid, much of that not even going
to the
[[Page H4151]]
Middle East, $40 million for grain storage, $37 million for new
computers for the FSA in Kansas City, $4 million for the Office of
Women's Health, and $15 million for livestock subsidies.
What does this have to do with Iraq? Not a thing.
And yet some of this stuff may have a lot of merit and get bipartisan
support. But why not bring it up on the proper pieces of legislation,
not on a military aid bill?
It's interesting, one of the Democrat Senators actually justified the
nonmilitary spending saying, ``But the Republicans did it.'' And I
agree with her. She's right. We did it. And that's why we are in the
minority. The American people are tired of these kind of shenanigans.
Let's pull these items out and have a debate on their own merits, not
on the backs of soldiers in Iraq.
Let's talk about Iraq. The Constitution, article I, section 2, says,
and I quote, ``The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army
and Navy of the United States and of the militia of the several States
when called into the actual service of the United States.''
In other words, the President, as Commander in Chief, runs wars, not
535 arm chair generals on Capitol Hill.
But this legislation, or surrender document, usurps the President's
constitutional prerogative. For this reason alone we should reject it.
And finally, let's talk about the gist of this surrender. Putting a
timeline on a war is great if the enemy agrees with it. But for some
reason, they never do. Never in the history of war has a country won by
announcing their surrender date to the world. It's odd, it's reckless,
and it won't work.
We should not micromanage this war. We should do as Winston Churchill
said and do the right thing.
And I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy.
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with
a heavy heart. This week, nine of my fellow paratroopers from the 82nd
Airborne Division were killed in Iraq. Nine more heroes killed, nine
more paratroopers returning home in coffins draped in the American
flag.
Mr. Speaker, Daniel Webster's words that are etched in the marble
above implore each of us in this room, and I quote, ``To see whether we
also, in our day and generation, may not perform something worthy to be
remembered.''
Mr. Speaker, I know the task is daunting, but let this Congress be
remembered for leading our country in a new direction in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, I was deployed to Iraq in 2003 and 2004. Nineteen of my
fellow paratroopers I served with never made it home from the streets
of Baghdad. I carry their names with me every single day to remind
myself of the solemn responsibility we face each time the Speaker bangs
down her gavel.
Nineteen men, including Specialist Chad Keith from Indiana. Nineteen
guys who never made it home to their families. Specialist James Lambert
III, from North Carolina. Nineteen all Americans who paid the ultimate
sacrifice. Private Kyle Gilbert from Vermont. Nineteen men who are
missed. Private First Class Marc Seidan from New Jersey. Nineteen men.
Now we have nine more paratroopers to add to this list.
Mr. Speaker, how many more suicide bombs must kill American soldiers
before this President offers a time line for our troops to come home?
How many more military leaders must declare the war will not be won
militarily before this President demands that the Iraqis stand up and
fight for their country?
How many more terrorists will President Bush's foreign policy breed
before he focuses on developing a new strategy, a real strategy for
fighting and beating al Qaeda?
Mr. Speaker, this bill says enough is enough. No more shortchanging
our troops. No more open ended commitment in Iraq. No more refereeing a
religious civil war.
Mr. Speaker, on the fourth anniversary of the war, I led this body in
a moment of silence. Now my fellow Democrats offer a time line to bring
our troops home.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who
are about to vote ``no'' on this bill, will you stand with us next year
to offer a time line on the war's fifth anniversary?
How about a time line on the sixth? How about a time line on the
10th? Because that's what voting ``no'' does. It says no to the tough
questions. No to accountability and no to providing our troops on the
ground with a clear mission.
Mr. Speaker, I may be hopeful, but I am not naive. I hear Vice
President Cheney taunt patriotic Americans who are concerned with the
direction of our country. I see the President using his veto to hold
our troops hostage to further his failed strategy in Iraq. I read the
Bush Republicans' attacks questioning my patriotism and support for my
fellow soldiers. But, Mr. Speaker, we have all heard these attacks
before.
The American people know that President Bush and his allies are sadly
out of touch. The American people know that supporting the troops means
demanding accountability. The American people know we need a change.
Mr. Speaker, one of my fellow soldiers lost his brother in the World
Trade Center on September 11 of 2001. This soldier is now in Iraq
serving on his second deployment. And last week he sent me a message,
unsolicited. It said, and I quote, ``Never did I think I would disagree
with our foreign policy 5 years after my brother was murdered. Our
latest mission here is to secure the Iraqi people. I signed up to
secure the American people.''
My fellow colleagues, this bill, this vote helps us secure the
American people. For too long the American people have been craving
leadership, craving accountability, and craving a new direction in
Iraq. Let's give this to them today.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
ranking member on the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, when the new majority came into
power, they talked about being fiscally conservative. They talked about
bringing fiscal responsibility back to the people's House. Well, that's
not what we see here today, and that's not what we have seen for the
last 4 months.
Last session, Mr. Speaker, we brought a bill that said if we are
going to do emergency spending bills, let's clean these up. Let's not
put pork barrel, unnecessary spending in emergency spending. We
actually defined what an emergency is.
{time} 2045
And then we set aside a reserve fund, $6.4 billion, to say we are
setting this aside for emergency spending, and if we go over this
amount, we have to scrutinize every dollar to make sure that it is
truly an emergency.
What did the new majority do? To their credit, they carried these
rules over into this session of Congress. Thankfully, they said, you
know what? Let's not pork up emergency spending bills. Let's make sure
that if it's really an emergency, it will get funded as an emergency.
If it's not, it won't.
What happened the first time the pressure hit? They waived the rules.
They waived the rules completely. And now the new budget resolution the
majority is proposing gets rid of these proposals altogether. No more
checks on emergency spending. All it takes is to waive the rules, stamp
it as an emergency, and we can spend as much as we want. It's outside
the budget caps. It gets added onto the deficit. And that's what is
happening right here tonight.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, this bill right here violates the majority's
own PAYGO rules by $5.8 billion. That's right. They are violating their
own PAYGO that they put into place just a few months ago by $5.8
billion. They are adding $21 billion of nonemergency spending that were
unrequested, that have nothing to do with the war on terror. And they
have added $11 billion of congressional add-ons that have nothing to do
with the war on terror, that were not requested.
The majority came out with their first spending bill, adding $6
billion on top of the deficit. Now they are adding $21 billion on top
of the deficit with this unrequested, nonemergency spending. And in
their budget resolution they are bringing to the floor, another $25
billion next year.
[[Page H4152]]
Fiscal responsibility is the last thing you could say to describe
this bill. I urge rejection of this motion.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say in response to the previous speaker,
last session your party couldn't even pass a budget. Last session your
party couldn't complete action on a single domestic appropriation bill.
You may not like the decisions we have made, but at least we have
made them. And we have had to spend the first 30 days of this session
finishing the work that you could never manage to get around to. So I
suggest you look to your own house before you start criticizing
somebody who has at least gotten the work done that you couldn't get
done last year.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California
for yielding.
It has been so interesting to listen to the debate this evening. I am
reminded of my school teacher grandmother and an admonition that she
would regularly give us to us, which was ``Your actions speak louder
than your words.'' And she would remind us of this time and time and
time again.
And, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, quite frankly, I think that what we
are seeing is the actions of a majority who are doing their best to
ensure, to ensure, that our men and women in uniform do not have the
funding that they need.
I represent a lot of these military men and women, and I have heard
from them. I am hearing from a lot of the military men and women and
their families, and they feel like the modified withdrawal dates in
this legislative disaster are nothing more than a vote of no confidence
for our troops. They feel that this legislation will embolden our
enemies and send a message to the rest of the world that they believe
that they are more qualified to prosecute a war than the men and women
we are sending to the frontlines. That is something, Mr. Speaker, that
they do disagree with.
Our military leadership deserves the opportunity to fight this war
with the funding and the support that they need to accomplish their
goals. They deserve the ability and the opportunity to win. Yet the
leadership in this House continues to try their best to micromanage the
war and our troops without the funding that they need.
Despite what the majority leader in the other body and his supporters
in the House believe, this war is not lost. Yet this dead-on-arrival
supplemental bill will only exacerbate the problem and put our troops
in harm's way.
I think that we should show our respect for the men and women in
uniform by respecting the job they do. We should do our job: Send the
funding to the troops.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes
to our Republican whip, Mr. Blunt.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding as this
debate comes to an end.
The legislation we have debated here tonight was at one point
supposed to be an emergency supplemental spending bill for our troops,
dispatched to them with urgency, resolution, and purpose. It was
supposed to provide money and resources for our fighting men and women
on the frontlines so that they had the tools and equipment they needed
to finish the task at hand.
Instead the majority turned this important funding package into an
exercise in political theater, along the way, disregarding the
testimony of our military commanders, the wishes of many in their own
caucus, and basic and numerous dictates of our Constitution and our
history.
The result has been a final conference report, though we know it
really won't be a final conference report. It has been a conference
report that imposes artificial deadlines, ties the hands of our
commanders in the field, and demotes those tasked with managing an
active military engagement to the rank of administrative assistant,
forced to check new boxes before exercising the authority they have
today to execute their mission.
And it would spend billions of dollars on things that should have
been debated at another time. Some of those things have merit. Some of
those things I agree with. Some of them I don't. But they shouldn't
have been debated as part of this bill.
Those who attended today's briefing with General Petraeus benefited
from a clear and sober assessment of our chances for achieving success
in Iraq and the consequences we can expect by declaring defeat. But not
a single person in that room today, with knowledge of our progress on
the ground, believes this war was lost or that our presence there was
without merit. Unfortunately, too many in this Chamber seem convinced
of the inevitability of defeat.
However this vote turns out, I am hopeful that tonight's roll call
will end this effort to undercut our mission by undermining the
authority of our commanders in the field. Republicans are willing, and
have been willing, to work with the majority on this bill. But we will
not waver on our insistence that an emergency troop support bill passed
by Congress actually be focused on supporting the troops. The
legislation before us tonight fails to meet that most basic standard.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill and ask my colleagues to join me
tonight in standing up for the interests of our men and women in harm's
way. And hopefully, very soon, we can join together in crafting a bill
that will be considered quickly, as this one should have been, passed
quickly, with help to the frontlines as soon as possible.
It's time for the political theater to end and the real work to
begin.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I simply want to take this time to thank the staff on both sides of
the aisle. They worked overtime for many days and many nights, and I
appreciate it very much, especially the committee staff director, Rob
Nabors.
I would also simply say that we have heard twice now from the
minority that this bill endorses failure. Not at all. What we have seen
the last 4 years is a failure of intelligence. We have seen a failure
of the administration to listen to career military. We have seen a
failure to plan for the occupation of Iraq. We have seen a failure on
the part of the administration to give the Congress accurate
information. We have seen a failure to focus on al Qaeda and
Afghanistan rather than being diverted to Iraq. We have seen a failure
to understand the nature of the civil war in Iraq. And as a result, we
have seen a tremendous collapse of American influence in the world. It
is tragic.
I urge an ``aye'' vote for the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Murtha.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, apparently a number of people have not read
this bill. I know my friend Bill Young has read it.
We have $1.5 billion to cover the full cost of housing allowances for
the troops. If you vote against this, you are voting against housing
allowances. We have a total of $2.3 billion in this bill to cover the
full cost of fielding an additional 36,000 Army troops and 9,000
Marines. If you've read this bill, you'll realize we added $2 billion
to address the training and equipment shortfalls in the forces not
deployed. One billion dollars is dedicated to purchase Army National
Guard equipment. If you vote against it, you're voting against $1
billion for the National Guard. You're voting against an additional
$750 million for Afghanistan. You're voting against $2.4 billion with a
joint IED task force. In procurement you're voting against the very
thing that the military wants most, and that is the new vehicle with
the V shape which is resistant to IEDs.
Now, let me talk a little bit about IEDs. In the last 4 months, we
have lost more troops than any other period during this war. And I am
sorry to hear from a friend of mine's wife who called me and said there
was a joke on one of the shows last night by a Republican Presidential
candidate who said that he brought an IED back and he put it under this
guy's desk. That individual owes an apology to every troop that serves
in Iraq.
When we go to the hospital, all of us, we see burn victims. We see
victims that are wounded badly. And many of us don't get an opportunity
to see the families.
[[Page H4153]]
I went to Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, and Fort Stewart. These folks are
burned out. The truancy rate is up in the schools. The achievement is
down in the schools where our troops' children go. One soldier said to
me, a first sergeant, a woman, she says, I hate to tell my children I'm
going back to Iraq.
They're going back the third and fourth time.
{time} 2100
A general said to me, ``I can only take 9 months.'' And we're sending
them back to 18; I hear rumors that they are going to extend them to 18
months.
We have an accountability bill, this is called the ``Iraq
accountability bill.'' This war has been so mismanaged that we have the
responsibility to force the White House to be accountable. The policy
is not set by the military, the policy is set by the White House, and
we have to hold the White House accountable for the mistakes that they
have made.
We will have appropriated $1.2 trillion for the Defense Department in
1 year. We are spending nearly $10 billion a month in Afghanistan and
Iraq. We have 126,000 contractors. And it took us 2 months, the
committee that funds every cent that is spent in Iraq and Afghanistan
had to spend 2 months to find out there were 126,000 contractors. And
we told this to the Secretary of Defense. When one of the Members of
Congress said, and one of them is making $300,000 a year, one of the
contractors, he said, ``That's more than I make.'' Imagine, we've got a
contractor making more than the Secretary of Defense makes. We have a
contractor that I saw, when I talked to the Cavalry Division that was
in Iraq, here is a guy pumping gas, this is what a soldier told me, he
gets $25,000 a year, and right beside him was a guy pumping gas for
$80,000 a year. This is what I call accountability.
We have to hold the White House responsible for accountability. Why
do they have 126,000 contractors? Because we don't have enough troops.
Why are they extending the troops to 18 months, possibly?
And finally, they realized they couldn't send them back before they
had a year at home. They had to be trained and they had to be equipped.
That is what we say in this bill, we say you've got to be trained and
equipped.
I had General Pace come up after the last hearing. I said, General,
you've got to tell me you're not sending any troops back there
untrained and ill-equipped. And I don't know that this conversation
made the difference, but a short time later they announced they are
going to extend people, and they are not going to send anybody back
unless they had a year at home. It is absolutely essential.
I talked to some of the wives at Fort Bragg. I got one story from the
hospitals about how the service was there, they were able to get
service anytime they wanted, within a week they were able to get
service. Then I talked to the wives, the officers' wives, I said, after
talking to them for a while, how many of you got service in a week? No
hands went up. How many did it take over a month? Half the hands went
up. We've got to take care of the people at home.
Let me tell you something, I get fatigued in going to the hospitals.
The caregivers that care for them every day, think what they go
through. A nurse called me and said you've got to put some money in the
bill, and we did, to take care of caregivers to give them some relief.
These caregivers see it every day. So we put $6 million in for
Landstuhl program. We put $1 million in for Walter Reed, for Brooke's
and for Bethesda. They are burned out. The troops are burned out. What
we are trying to do in this bill is hold the White House accountable
for the policy mistakes that they made.
We went into Iraq without weapons of mass destruction. I believed it.
When I went there the first time, I saw a line drawn around Baghdad.
They told me they were going to use biological weapons. I believed
that. It took me 6 or 7 months to realize we had made a mistake. We
went to Afghanistan, it was the right place to go.
I am inspired by these troops, I am inspired by their families; but
they are burned out and they are bearing as much as they can bear. When
we sit here, and one of the previous speakers said ``we.'' I hear this
all the time, ``we're fighting,'' ``we're fighting terrorists.'' We are
not fighting terrorism, we are sitting here in an air conditioned place
while they are out there in dust.
And let me tell you about the policy in this latest deployment. I
worried. I didn't say anything in public, but I worried. When you send
37 different elements out by themselves among the Iraqis, when you've
got interpreters who you don't trust, you are going to expect the kind
of disasters you just saw. That's the thing that worries me when you
don't have enough troops. And one general said to me, he said, ``If
you're there more than 9 months, you start making mistakes.'' Imagine
what he's saying? He said, ``I question myself after 9 months.'' A
psychologist told us, who came before the committee, he said 3 months
in heavy combat, 3 months of going out every day and having IEDs,
imagine a Presidential candidate making jokes about IEDs when these
kids are blown apart? It's outrageous.
Let me tell you something, we owe a great deal of gratitude to these
families and these young people who are doing the fighting. It's not
``we'' doing the fighting, it's ``them'' doing the fighting. They
deserve accountability from the Congress of the United States, and we
are going to demand that from this accountability bill.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this Defense
Supplemental conference report.
Earlier, when the House considered the Defense Supplemental bill
itself, I voted for it to ensure that America's soldiers get the
equipment and resources they need and the top-quality health care they
may require when they come home.
And I think the conference report is an improvement on that House
bill.
As I said when the House debated the initial bill and again during
debate on the motion to instruct conferees, I did not believe it was a
good idea for the bill to include a date certain for withdrawing U.S.
combat troops from Iraq. So I'm glad that language has been made more
flexible in the conference report. It includes a goal of March 2008 for
completing the redeployment of U.S. combat troops, and allows
sufficient troops to remain to protect U.S. military and civilians in
Iraq, conduct counterterrorism operations, and train Iraqi Security
Forces. I remain convinced that we should steer clear of arbitrary
public deadlines for military actions and focus instead on realistic
diplomatic and political goals. Our military needs flexibility to be
able to link movements of U.S. troops to the realities of the situation
on the ground, and successful diplomacy requires such flexibility as
well.
My vote for the conference report is not a vote to support the Bush
administration's policy in Iraq. We are 4 years into a war the Bush
administration assured us would be short and decisive. The
administration's misjudgments, lack of planning and poor leadership
have made a bad situation worse--and the tactic of increasing troops
for a temporary ``surge'' is no substitute for what is needed, namely,
a strategy for containing civil war and a wider regional war.
But whatever may be said about the wisdom of invading Iraq 4 years
ago--and I am one who believed it was a mistake to do so--the fact is
that we are still deeply engaged in Iraq. So long as our troops are in
the field, we must provide them what they need. Beyond supplying our
soldiers, however, we must extricate them from what objective defense
experts have characterized as an emerging civil war.
Disengaging from that civil war is the purpose of the provisions in
the conference report designed to hold the president accountable to the
benchmarks set by his own administration and the Iraqi Government--
including enactment of a hydro-carbon law; conducting of provincial and
local elections; reform of current laws governing the de-Baathification
process; amendment of the Constitution of Iraq; and allocation of Iraqi
revenues for reconstruction projects.
I strongly support that approach because I am convinced that holding
the president and the Iraqi Government accountable for achieving these
benchmarks will provide us with the leverage necessary to pressure the
Iraqi Government to forge the political solution we all know is
required. In fact, Defense Secretary Gates has acknowledged that this
provision in the House-passed bill has been helpful by showing the
Iraqis that American patience is limited.
This conference report is an important step toward what I think must
be our goal--a responsible end to the war in Iraq, based on a strategy
of phased withdrawal of troops, accelerated diplomacy and redeployment
that is based on Iraqi stability and not arbitrary deadlines.
The conference report fully funds our troops, providing $4 billion
more for the troops than
[[Page H4154]]
the president requested. It honors our veterans, providing $1.8 billion
more for our veterans' unmet health care needs, including additional
funds for treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic
Brain Injury care and research. It strengthens our military, providing
$2 billion more to create a Strategic Readiness Reserve and address the
serious readiness crisis our military is facing.
It also protects our troops by limiting deployment schedules and
setting minimum readiness standards--based on current Defense
Department standards--for U.S. troops deploying to the region. The
president could waive these requirements but only by certifying in
writing to Congress that waiving them would be in the interest of
national security.
The conference report also provides $52.5 billion for military
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and provides $9.7 billion for the
Afghan and Iraqi Security Forces to help them assume greater
responsibility for their nations' security.
And the conference report includes $3.1 billion to fully fund the
Pentagon's FY07 request for the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure
Commission's recommendations, which is vitally important for Ft. Carson
as it prepares to expand and for other military installations in
Colorado.
On the non-military side, the conference report includes critically
important funding for farmers and ranchers in southeastern Colorado who
were recently hit hard by winter storms. Thousands of cattle were
killed in storms worse than the October 1997 storm that killed
approximately 30,000 cattle and cost farmers and ranchers an estimated
$28 million. The struggles that family agriculture producers and small
counties face are significant and are having a negative impact on the
livelihood of hundreds of farmers and ranchers and their communities.
So I am pleased that the Colorado delegation was successful in
persuading the conferees to include financial assistance for farmers
and ranchers, including for those affected by Colorado's recent
blizzards.
Mr. Speaker, many of us who voted against authorizing the President
to rush to war in Iraq were worried that while it would be easy to
eliminate the Saddam Hussein regime, the aftermath would be neither
easy nor quick. Sadly, our fears have proven to be justified. And now,
as the Pentagon has finally admitted in its most recent quarterly
report, the situation in Iraq is ``properly descriptive of a civil
war.''
Insisting on keeping our troops in the middle of that kind of
internecine war is not a recipe for victory; it is only a prescription
for quagmire. And as a new Foreign Relations Council report notes, we
bear responsibility for developments within Iraq, but are increasingly
without the ability to shape those developments in a positive
direction.
We need to be scaling back our military mission in Iraq. We need to
make the U.S. military footprint lighter--not in order to hasten defeat
or failure in Iraq, but to salvage a critical measure of security and
stability in a region of the world that we can ill afford to abandon.
But as we do so, we must work to avoid a collapse in the region--not
only because we have a moral obligation to the people of Iraq, but also
because our national security has been so badly compromised by the Bush
administration's failures there. The President's decision to take the
nation to war has made our country less safe. We need to change course
and chart a path that enhances our national security and sets the right
priorities for the war on terrorism and struggle against extremists.
This conference report begins to chart this path, and I will support
it. I hope the president will reconsider his stated intention of
vetoing it.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
the conference report to accompany H.R. 1591.
As I have said on previous occasions, Congress has every right to
limit the use of appropriated funds. In this instance, I disagree with
the manner in which my Democratic colleagues have chosen to do so.
The Iraqi government needs to understand our patience is not
unlimited. Indeed, establishing benchmarks could well have a useful
purpose in the effort to have the Iraqis take more decisive steps
towards autonomy. Making these benchmarks public and tying them to a
specific date by which we must begin to withdraw our troops, however,
is a mistake. It sends the wrong message to our troops, and it gives
the enemy invaluable information.
Along with many of my colleagues, I want our troops to leave Iraq as
quickly as possible. Setting a public date by which this must happen,
however, will ultimately create more problems than it solves.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, the way to support the troops is to give them
what they need on the battlefield, and what they need when they return
home from their service to reset--or rest and fix the force for future
missions.
This government must be accountable to our troops and their families,
the only people actually carrying the burden for these wars today . . .
along with our children, for whom we are leaving the cost.
Today's bill provides much needed money for troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan . . . policy that requires accountability from the
Administration . . . and funding to heal the readiness of our troops.
It is not the best bill we could get, but you never have a perfect
bill.
But the predicament we are in now demands we support this bill.
We have so many emergencies on our doorstep now . . . mostly because
the last Congress refused to see the negative impact operations in Iraq
had on our military readiness, leaving us vulnerable as a nation . . .
and leaving important national business undone.
Support for the troops is entirely about giving them what they need
to fight the battles we've committed them to fight . . . and this
legislation does just, with one eye on the future . . . something
previous Congresses failed to do.
I wish the Congress would have put more energy into readiness
oversight over the past 5 years to prevent the current situation . . .
but all we can do today is go forward.
I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting our troops--and this
funding for them.
Today's bill addresses many of these readiness concerns, with
additions above the President's request to support our troops,
including:
$2 billion more to address the current readiness crisis of our
stateside troops, including ensuring that they are better equipped and
trained;
$1.1 billion more for military housing allowances;
$3 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles for
troops in Iraq ($1.2 billion above the President's request);
$1.6 billion for body armor;
$9.7 billion to train and equip Afghan and Iraqi security forces.
It also fully funds the BRAC accounts so communities like the Coastal
Bend of Texas--and others adversely affected by base closure
decisions--can plan appropriately for that eventuality.
So many Americans are coming home alive--yet traumatized in their
minds or bodies--to an extent we have never seen before. The scandalous
treatment of heroes at Walter Reed--and the fact that it took a
newspaper story to change it--is testament to the gigantic challenges
facing military and veterans' health care.
The Supplemental includes funding for new initiatives to enhance
medical services for active duty forces and mobilized personnel, and
their family members (appropriating $2.1 billion more than the
President requested.) These initiatives include:
$900 million for Traumatic Brain Injury care and research and PTSD
treatment and research;
$20 million for facility improvement at Walter Reed.
The bill includes $1.8 billion over the President's request to
address the health care needs of veterans returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan and the backlog in maintaining VA health care facilities,
including:
$30 million for at least one new Level I polytrauma center;
$9.4 million in operations costs for new polytrauma residential
transitional rehab programs;
$10 million for additional transition caseworkers;
$10 million for blind rehab programs;
$100 million for enhancements to mental health services;
$20 million for substance abuse treatment;
$8 million for polytrauma clinic support teams;
$25 million for prosthetics;
$228.9 million in additional funds to treat veterans from both wars.
This bill is an excellent starting point for this new Congress to
begin the long overdue oversight of the defense department. We are far
ahead of the past Congresses in giving our troops the true support they
need--with appropriate funding and acknowledgment of the strain and
burden of Iraq.
While the ideal situation for Congress is for the authorizing
committee to determine policy, that's coming very soon. I am grateful
to Chairman Murtha for the extraordinary lengths we've gone to in this
bill to protect our soldiers by certifying their readiness, protecting
the military readiness of the United States.
While this bill is not perfect, it is an extraordinary first step.
As the Readiness Subcommittee Chair, let me offer the House some
perspective on the current state of our readiness:
In the National Intelligence Estimate declassified on Feb. 2, the
U.S. intelligence services note that--absent a remarkable reversal of
fortunes in Iraq--they find that ``the overall security situation will
continue to deteriorate at rates comparable to the latter part of
2006.'' Further, the NIE determines: ``even if the violence is
diminished . . . Iraqi leaders will be
[[Page H4155]]
hard pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in the time
frame of this estimate''--which is 12-18 months.
The NIE goes on to say that if the U.S. were to leave Iraq, a
greater, wider civil war would erupt, saying: ``the ISF [Iraqi Security
Forces] would be unlikely to survive as a non-sectarian national
institution, and neighboring countries might intervene openly in the
conflict.''
Now, common sense tells me that will be the case whenever we leave .
. . today, manana, this summer, next year . . . or 50 years from now.
Whenever we leave Iraq, the unclassified intelligence estimate guides
us on what we can expect. Our choice is in how long we remain . . . and
how many more brave and patriotic volunteers--who carry the battle for
this Nation--are lost in Iraq.
Today we have a chance to begin that change--in the purest way we can
support the troops . . . men and women, and their families, who are
alone in carrying the burden for the Iraq war.
The readiness of our next deployers--our ability to be prepared for
current and future threats--is diminished due to the war in Iraq. We've
worn out our force and their equipment, and that has huge implications
for our ability to handle the threats to come.
The GAO has looked at this . . . and come away saying the Army itself
``cannot determine the extent to which the existing inventory reflects
what the Army needs'' . . . and GAO notes that: ``until these strategic
and management challenges are addressed, the Army will face uncertain
risks should new conflicts occur.''
GAO also reports that all services ``have drawn heavily from their
prepositioned stocks to support [the ongoing wars]'' . . . and ``these
sustained military operations are taking a toll on the condition and
readiness of military equipment and the Army and Marine Corps face a
number of long-term challenges that will affect the timing and cost of
equipment repair and replacement.''
GAO concludes: ``the Army's decisions today have profound future
implications for the entire department and potentially affect our
ability to respond to a conflict.''
Last year, Congress established a Commission on the National Guard
and Reserves, which has also reported back to us. They tell us point
blank: ``DoD's failure to appropriately consider National Guard needs
and funding requirements has produced a National Guard that is not
fully ready to meet current and emerging missions.''
The Commission says more pointedly: ``The lack of sufficient and
ready equipment is a problem common to active and reserve components.
In particular, the equipment readiness of the Army National Guard is
unacceptable and has reduced the capability of the U.S. to respond to
current and additional major contingencies, foreign and domestic.''
Army Chief of Staff Schoomaker told the Commission: despite the
readiness of troops overseas, ``88 percent of the forces that are back
here in the U.S. are very poorly equipped today in the Army National
Guard.''
The Commission also noted that state governors ``have become
increasingly concerned about whether their National Guard forces would
be available to respond to emergencies here at home.''
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I must again make the difficult decision to
vote ``present'' on the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and
Iraq Accountability Act.
I support the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
I can't in good conscience vote to fund President Bush's War in Iraq.
This senseless conflict has already taken the lives of more than 3300
American and tens of thousands of Iraqis. It has undermined the United
States' prestige in the world, led to the outbreak of a Shiite-Sunni
civil war, and cost us $379 billion. Those funds--and the tens of
billions of dollars for the war in today's legislation--would be better
spent on education, healthcare and other unmet domestic priorities.
Nor can I can vote, however, against a Democratic majority intent on
taking America's Iraq policy in a new direction. I applaud Speaker
Pelosi and the Democratic leadership for working toward the withdrawal
of American troops from Iraq. My Republican colleagues voting against
today's legislation are doing a disservice to both our troops and our
security by supporting an open-ended commitment in Iraq. I cannot join
their opposition to holding President Bush accountable.
My ``present'' vote is therefore an expression of strong opposition
to the war's continuation for even one more day and strong support for
the Democratic Congress' attempt to get an arrogant and stubborn
President to change course in Iraq.
I urge the President to reconsider both his threat to veto this bill
and his insistence on keeping our troops in harm's way. It is long past
time for Bush to end a war he should never have begun.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today
to oppose this Conference Report. Our ultimate goal should be to bring
our troops home in the fastest and safest way possible. Unfortunately,
this Conference Report does not achieve that goal. I will continue to
work with my colleagues to provide for a fully-funded withdrawal and to
bring our troops home for the holidays.
Let me make myself very clear. I will not stop, I will not rest and I
will not back down in my fight until every last American soldier is
home safely with their families.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, by calling for a withdrawal date from
Iraq, today the House is making a compromise that marks another stage
in the unfortunate struggle with the President to end the war. Yet
despite our hard work and the desire of the American people, this bill
faces a veto from a President who is out of touch both with what the
American people and the Iraqi people want: winding down the presence of
American troops who are stuck in the midst of a civil war.
This is not the precise legislation I would have written, but it is a
fair compromise that reflects the mindset of Americans who voted for a
new direction in Iraq. The U.S. spends $8 billion a month on the war,
and Oregon has already lost 54 brave men and women in Iraq. I have
opposed the war from the start, and this bill hastens the day when we
bring the tragedy of the Iraq War to a close. I urge support for it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
rescission of $683 million of highway contract authority that is
included in the Conference Report on H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop
Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, 2007.
The Conference Report provides an additional $683 million for the
Federal Highway Administration's (``FHWA'') Emergency Relief Program.
Section 4952 of the Conference Report designates this appropriation as
an emergency requirement, for which no offset is required.
Despite the fact that no offset is required, the Conference Report
rescinds $683 million in unobligated balances of highway funds that
have been apportioned to the States. This rescission is highly
gratuitous, as it is neither required nor effective as an offset for
the supplemental appropriation to the Emergency Relief Program.
Rather than offsetting the supplemental appropriation for the
Emergency Relief Program, the $683 million rescission of highway
contract authority offsets other spending under the FY 2007
discretionary budget authority cap.
A similar provision was included in the Senate-passed version of the
bill. The Senate amendment provided an emergency supplemental
appropriation of $389 million for the FHWA's Emergency Relief Program,
and rescinded $389 million in highway contract authority.
On April 23, 2007, I wrote to the conferees, strongly objecting to
this unnecessary rescission of highway contract authority, and urged
them to strike the rescission in conference. Instead, the conferees
increased both the appropriation and the rescission to $683 million.
Madam Speaker, the rescission of highway contract authority is the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. This rescission violates clause 2 of Rule XXI of the
Rules of the House.
Programmatically, I am concerned because of the effect these types of
rescissions have on the Federal-aid Highway Program and, specifically,
the ability to ensure that our nation's transportation system provides
modal choices.
In recent years, the Appropriations Committees have increasingly
relied on highway contract authority rescissions to finance non-highway
spending in appropriations acts. In addition, more than a dozen states
have chosen to apply such rescissions disproportionately to cut
contract authority for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement (CMAQ) program, the Bridge program, and transportation
enhancement funds.
I am particularly concerned with the treatment of the CMAQ program
under these types of rescissions. The CMAQ program provides funding for
projects and programs that reduce transportation-related emissions in
areas that do not meet Clean Air Act air quality standards (i.e.,
nonattainment and maintenance areas).
Although CMAQ funds represent only about 4-5 percent of highway
apportionments each year, CMAQ funds have accounted for about 20
percent of total highway funds rescinded in recent years. In FY 2006
states rescinded $881 million in CMAQ funds. Almost one of every four
dollars rescinded by the States in FY 2006 came from the CMAQ program.
Comparing the treatment of CMAQ to other highway programs further
illustrates the disproportionate cuts of these rescissions. In FY 2006,
rescissions as a percentage of the total amount made available for
programs are:
CMAQ--55 percent.
Interstate Maintenance--12 percent.
National Highway System--7 percent.
[[Page H4156]]
The Transportation Enhancements program has also received
disproportionate contract authority cuts under the rescissions. The
Transportation Enhancements program provides funds for bike paths,
pedestrian walkways, historic preservation, and other activities that
expand transportation choices and enhance the transportation
experience.
In FY 2006, states rescinded $602 million in Transportation
Enhancements funds, 15 percent of all rescissions in that year. Texas
alone rescinded $223 million of Transportation Enhancements funding and
the Texas Department of Transportation stated that it would not fund
any transportation enhancement projects in that fiscal year. Texas'
actions, which are facilitated by these contract authority rescissions,
are directly contrary to our federal efforts to develop a balanced,
multimodal surface transportation system.
During consideration of the FY 2004 Transportation-Treasury-HUD
Appropriations bill, the Committee faced a similar effort to cut
transportation enhancements funding. The bill, as reported by the
Appropriations Committee, included a provision that would have
prohibited funds from being used for the ten percent set aside for
transportation enhancements under the Surface Transportation Program.
Subcommittee Chairman Petri and I offered an amendment to strike the
anti-enhancements provision from the bill and the House overwhelmingly
passed the amendment by a recorded vote of 327-90. This vote
illustrates the tremendous support that exists among Members of
Congress for transportation enhancements, the type of program that is
disproportionately harmed by highway contract authority rescissions
such as the one included in the Conference Report before us today.
Therefore, for both policy and procedural reasons, I oppose the
rescission of highway contract authority as a means to offset non-
highway spending elsewhere in the budget.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this House will have an opportunity to
reconsider this decision in a future Supplemental Appropriations bill
and I would like to make clear that, with the urgent climate change
issues that our nation faces, I strongly oppose efforts to allow the
continued raid of CMAQ and Enhancements funding.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I extend my strong support ``The Small
Business and Work Opportunity Act of 2007'' as included in the
Conference Report to H.R. 1591. I am glad that both chambers of
Congress, in passing this Conference Report, have spoken to the fact
that an increase in the Federal minimum wage enjoys broad bipartisan,
bicameral support, as does the approximately $5 billion in small
business tax relief also included in the agreement.
Passage of the Conference Report is an important step in achieving an
important goal--ensuring an increase in the Federal minimum wage for
hardworking American taxpayers. The minimum wage has not increased in
more than nine years--the longest period in the history of the law.
During that time, Members of Congress have received a $31,600 pay
raise. More astounding is the fact that an average CEO earns more
before lunchtime in one day than a minimum wage earner earns all year.
Raising the minimum wage to from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over two
years would benefit 13 million Americans including 7.7 million women,
3.4 million parents, and 4.7 million people of color, and provide an
additional $4,400/year for a family of three, equaling 15 months of
groceries, or over two years of health care. It is wrong to have
millions of Americans working full-time and still living in poverty,
and at $5.15 an hour, a full-time minimum wage worker makes $6,000 less
than the poverty level for a family of three.
Americans overwhelmingly support increasing the Federal minimum wage.
An Associated Press poll conducted in January showed almost 80% of
those polled supported the $2.10 increase. In fact, the House of
Representatives overwhelmingly supports increasing the minimum wage,
and passed H.R. 2 with 315 votes in favor. The President has also been
supportive of the increase. I hope that combining the tax provisions of
this bill with a Federal minimum wage increase will encourage the
President's quick action on signing these provisions into law without
further delay.
The ``Small Business and Work Opportunity Act of 2007'' as included
in the Conference Report to H.R. 1591 expands and extends the Work
Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC), which serves as an incentive to
encourage employers to hire individuals from targeted groups which
typically experience barriers to work. The WOTC provision in the
Conference Report offers additional incentives to hire disabled
veterans. The Conference Report also extends and expands the increased
expensing amounts for small businesses, allowing them to invest in new
technology and equipment. And as a complement to the minimum wage
increase, the tax provisions of the Conference Report allow restaurants
to continue claiming the full tip credit despite any increase in the
Federal minimum wage. Finally, the Conference Report provides a
permanent waiver of the individual and corporate AMT limitations to
ensure that small businesses are fully able to claim the WOTC and the
credit for Social Security taxes paid with respect to cash tips.
The Conference Report contains provisions that continue the Federal
government's commitment to the still-recovering areas hit by Hurricane
Katrina. It would extend the placed-in-service date as applies to
special credits designed to encourage development of low-income
housing. The extension of this deadline helps accelerate the use of the
credits by eliminating the reallocation process that otherwise would be
used. The Conference Report also modifies a tax-exempt bond financing
program to allow funds to be used to refinance existing mortgages on
homes that were damaged by the hurricanes in the area.
Finally, the tax provisions of the ``Small Business and Work
Opportunity Tax Act'' as included in the Conference Report to H.R. 1591
are fiscally responsible and fully offset in a revenue-neutral package.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Baucus and I have asked the
nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public
a technical explanation of the bill. The technical explanation
expresses the Committee's understanding and legislative intent behind
this important legislation. It is available on the Joint Committee's
website at www.house.gov/jct.
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, due to medical reasons, I
will be unable to vote on the conference report on H.R. 1591, the U.S.
Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007. However, if I had been in
Washington, D.C. for the vote, I would have opposed this measure.
I believe that Congress is making a mistake with these attempts to
substitute the judgment of military commanders in theater with the
micromanaging of politicians in Washington.
Furthermore, I do not believe that setting artificial timetables for
withdrawal of our forces from Iraq is in the best interests of our
country or our military. While there have been mistakes made in Iraq, I
believe that enacting this bill into law would have dangerous
consequences for our Nation, Iraq, and the Middle East.
The Iraqi government continues to need our strong support as they
rebuild their country, and this legislation would turn our backs on
that country in its time of need.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference
report on H.R. 1591, the Supporting Our Troops and Veterans' Health
Care Act.
This legislation will support our troops and veterans, hold the Bush
Administration and Iraqi government accountable and begin withdrawing
our troops from Iraq by October 2007 or sooner. It will also provide
emergency funding for critical programs that have suffered from years
of neglect.
This supplemental appropriations bill provides emergency funding for
critical programs that have long been underfunded by the Republicans.
It includes $650 million to correct the funding shortfall in the State
Children's Health Insurance program so that hundreds of thousands of
children will not lose their health care. It provides $6.9 billion for
Gulf Coast hurricane relief and recovery. The bill also adds $400
million to LIHEAP (Low Income Heating Assistance), as well as providing
$1.8 billion to remedy the unconscionable state of our military and
veterans' health care systems. All of these issues are emergencies in
their own right and rise to the level of inclusion in this emergency
supplemental spending bill.
The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability
Act requires the Iraqi government to meet the security, political and
economic benchmarks established by the President in his address of
January 10th, including improvements in the performance of the Iraqi
security forces, a greater commitment by the Iraqi government to
national reconciliation, and reductions in the levels of sectarian
violence in Iraq.
In the bill, the President must determine that substantial progress
is being made on security, political, and reconstruction benchmarks by
July 2007. If the President cannot certify progress, redeployment must
start by July with a goal of being completed within 180 days. If the
President can certify progress by July 2007, redeployment must begin by
October 1, with goal of completion within 180 days.
The bill ensures that our troops have the tools and resources they
need to do the job they have been asked to do. It prohibits the
deployment of troops who are not full trained, equipped and protected
according to current Department of Defense standards. The President can
only deploy unprepared troops if he certifies, in writing, to Congress,
that deploying those troops is in the national interest. He must make
similar certifications to lengthen troop deployments beyond DoD
standards or to send troops back into battle who have not had enough
time between deployments. The bill also provides funding so the
Veterans Administration can meet the obligations of a new
[[Page H4157]]
generation of veterans, particularly by ensuring that they will have
the medical care they need.
I have been an outspoken opponent of military action against Iraq
since the day the administration started beating the war drums. My
preference would have been to vote for a stronger bill with a binding
date certain for ending the war. I would have preferred not to include
waivers to allow the President to send less than fully equipped and
rested troops into battle. I have additional concerns about the section
of the bill that allows an unspecified number of U.S. troops to remain
in Iraq after the March 2008 deadline to train Iraqis and fight
terrorism.
However, I support this legislation in spite of these deficiencies
because I believe it is an affirmative step towards our ultimate goal
of ending the war. This bill is not everything that I would have liked,
but it represents a critical turning point. No longer will this body
uncritically hand over billions of dollars for the President to wage an
endless war. Congress has a Constitutional responsibility to provide
accountability--a responsibility that was shirked for the first 6 years
of the Bush presidency while Republicans controlled Congress. Today, we
have followed through on that critical duty. We will send a bill to the
President that would definitively change our course in Iraq. Mr. Bush
should make the right decision and support our plan for change that is
overwhelmingly endorsed by the American people. If he follows through
on his veto threat, he will be the one who has failed to provide our
troops and our veterans with the resources they need. He will be the
one who has rejected his own benchmarks to measure success in Iraq. He
will be the one responsible for the ongoing loss of American life in
Iraq.
The President and most Congressional Republicans ask that we continue
to fund this war with ``no strings attached.'' But the United States
cannot afford an open-ended commitment to a war without end. It is the
responsibility of this Congress to devise a means to end the U.S.
combat role in Iraq so that we can reclaim our position of leadership
in the world and direct our resources back towards urgent needs here at
home. I believe that this bill moves us towards these goals in an
effective and responsible way.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important
legislation. This supplemental appropriations conference report
contains vitally important funding for critical priorities and unmet
needs. For example, this bill includes $1.7 billion more than the
President requested for military health care, including funds to
correct the scandalous conditions at Walter Reed and other military
hospitals. It includes another $1.7 billion for veterans' health care,
$2.5 billion for improving the readiness of our stateside troops and
$1.4 billion for military housing allowances. A nation at war simply
must provide necessary funds to support our troops.
In addition, this legislation includes $3.1 billion for military
construction to implement the BRAC mandates that impact Fort Bragg in
my Congressional District and military communities all across the
country. It is important to note that the former Republican
Congressional Majority failed to pass the military construction
appropriations and imperiled these priority projects. This legislation
corrects that failure.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will assert some measure of oversight
and accountability to a war policy that has been tragically mismanaged
by this administration for too long. We need a new direction to rebuild
our military and refocus on the true threat to America from al Qaeda
and the Islamist jihadists who attacked us on 9/11. We must deploy our
military might to eliminate Osama bin Laden and the true ``grave and
gathering threat'' to America.
We must pass this legislation to send a wake-up call to the President
that ``Stay The Course'' is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an
acceptable policy. I urge my colleagues to support a new direction and
vote for the conference report.
Should the President veto this bill, as he has indicated, I believe
he should then meet with Congressional Leadership to work together and
forge a consensus on these vitally important matters.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the conference report on
the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act.
For more than 3 years, when the President came to Congress to ask for
funding for Iraq, the Republican leadership's only question was, ``How
much?''
When the President wanted to extend the tours of duty for troops
already deployed and imposed stop-loss orders, the Republican
leadership's only question was, ``How soon?''
And when the President decided to send more troops to Iraq in one of
the failed surges, the Republicans only asked, ``How many?''
Madam Speaker, today we end the era of Congressional fealty to the
President's failed policies in Iraq.
Today we stop writing blank checks for this war.
We vote today for a new direction in Iraq.
My constituents know that we can't win this war militarily. They know
that it's time to start bringing our troops home.
It's time for the President to stop the rhetoric and work with us to
end this war.
Support the troops. Bring them home.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the
conference report on H.R. 1591 will be followed by a 5-minute vote on
H. Res. 320.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 208, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 265]
YEAS--218
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--208
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
[[Page H4158]]
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNulty
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Waters
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2
Emerson
Stark
NOT VOTING--5
Costa
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Lampson
Westmoreland
{time} 2127
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska and Mr. PAUL changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the conference report 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. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 265, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
____________________