[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 86 (Thursday, May 24, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H5730-H5738]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2206, U.S. 
      TROOP READINESS, VETERANS' CARE, KATRINA RECOVERY, AND IRAQ 
                ACCOUNTABILITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 438 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 438

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     2206) making emergency supplemental appropriations and 
     additional supplemental appropriations for agricultural and 
     other emergency assistance for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, with the Senate 
     amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without 
     intervention of any point of order, a motion offered by the 
     chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee 
     that the House concur in the Senate amendment with the House 
     amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. The Senate amendment and the 
     motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except that the 
     Chair shall divide the question of adoption of the motion 
     between the two House amendments.
       Sec. 2. If both portions of the divided question specified 
     in the first section of this resolution are adopted, the 
     action of the House shall be engrossed as a single amendment 
     to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2206.
       Sec. 3. During consideration of the motion to concur 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of such motion to such time as may be 
     designated by the Speaker.
       Sec. 4. (a) During consideration in the Committee of the 
     Whole of a bill making supplemental appropriations for 
     military operations in Iraq or Afghanistan for fiscal year 
     2008, before consideration of any other amendment, it shall 
     be in order to consider an amendment only proposing to add to 
     the bill the text of H.R. 2451. Such amendment shall be 
     considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question 
     in the House or the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendment are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 of rule XXI.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a bill making regular 
     appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2008.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume and ask unanimous consent 
that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and 
extend their remarks on House Resolution 438.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 438 provides for 
consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2206, making emergency 
supplemental appropriations and additional supplemental appropriations 
for agricultural and other emergency assistance for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.
  Mr. Speaker, when my fellow Members of Congress and I speak and 
debate and cast our votes on this floor, we seek to reconcile our 
ideals with what is possible to achieve. We seek to do what is right in 
principle and necessary at any particular point in time, and pray that 
the two are one and the same.

[[Page H5731]]

  That struggle has formed the foundation of the fight Democrats have 
waged since January, and it is the basis of what we are doing today.
  This war was not challenged by the last Congress. It was supported by 
the last Congress. It was defended by the last Congress. Year after 
year, the Republican-led House kept this war alive.

                              {time}  1030

  But the public rightly lost faith in the war and those who would 
support it unquestionably. We all know what the result was.
  The first opportunity the new majority had to change course in Iraq 
came with the first version of this bill. That legislation conditioned 
any future support for the conflict upon proof that our efforts were 
bearing some fruit. What is more, it would have ended the war by August 
2008 at the very latest. Democrats, and some Republicans, united, and 
that bill was passed by the House.
  Democrats in the Senate agreed, and the conference report that was 
sent to the President was even stronger. The same benchmarks were in 
place, but the war was to end 6 months sooner, by March of next year.
  Our position was clear and unequivocal. For the first time since 
2003, a majority of the United States Congress supported a new 
direction in Iraq, and it was a direction which would lead to an end to 
the war. The President vetoed that bill.
  Our Constitution requires two-thirds of the Congress to overcome a 
veto. Two-thirds of the public stood squarely with the Democrats in 
this Chamber, and a handful of Republicans, who voted to overcome it. 
But what we needed was significant support from the other side of the 
aisle, and we did not get it.
  Since then the President's made it clear that he will veto any 
legislation which even mentions the word ``timeline,'' and so he left 
my fellow Democrats and me with a choice. Some would have us ignore his 
words and simply send him a new copy of our original bill. I certainly 
relate to those feelings.
  But as appealing as this may seem, I do not believe that it would be 
right. The President and his allies in Congress have put our soldiers 
in harm's way, and Mr. Bush is willing to keep them there no matter how 
much they suffer.
  If this Congress delayed funding by continuing to back a bill we 
cannot pass at this time, we would not force the President to end the 
war. All indications are that he would leave our soldiers in Iraq, and 
without adequate funding, they would have to do even more with even 
less.
  The Democratic Party is the party that supports our soldiers. We're 
the party that fights for them to have proper equipment, training and 
rest. We're the party that demands that they be given a sensible 
strategy for victory before going into battle. We're the party that 
demands that they receive proper medical care once they return.
  We understand the mistaken judgment and obstinacy of the White House, 
and so we will not prevent any funding from coming forth from this 
Congress, an outcome which would permit the President to further add to 
the struggles that our troops endure every day.
  Ultimately, of course, supporting the troops means ending the war 
entirely, and the legislation we bring to the floor today goes as far 
as is possible at this moment to achieving that goal.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask everyone listening to look at the victories that 
have been won here. The President previously said he would block any 
bill which contained benchmarks for the war, but now the only 
legislation the House will deliver to him contains no fewer than 18 
benchmarks linking economic aid to improvements in the Iraqi situation.
  Furthermore, the President and members of the Republican minority 
derided what they called ``unrelated spending'' during our first debate 
on this bill. They did so even though Democrats were seeking only to 
fill the gaps left by last year's failure to give us a budget.
  But today we will pass a minimum wage increase. We will increase 
funding for military health care and for veterans' health care, and 
critically needed funding for agriculture disaster aid, children's 
health care, and recovery from Hurricane Katrina.
  What is critical for all of our citizens to understand is that what 
is missing from this bill, a timeline to end the war, has been neither 
forgotten nor conceded by the Democrats in the Congress.
  To the contrary, our path forward is clear. We will fight every day 
until the world's greatest deliberative body lives up to its billing 
and actually represents the will of the people its serves.
  As I said before, at least two-thirds of the American people oppose 
the President's approach to Iraq and want this war brought to a close. 
It's time that two-thirds of this Congress wants the same. And we all 
know where the remaining votes have to come from.
  Some days in Iraq are worse than others, but all days there are 
bloody. Four American soldiers died on Monday. Six more died on 
Tuesday. Three lost their lives yesterday. Three hundred twenty-one 
civilians have been anonymously murdered in Baghdad just this month, an 
average of 13 a day.
  We must not be afraid to speak what is a simple truth. Every day that 
the Republican minority in this Congress stands by and empowers the 
President to perpetuate this war, they are saying the day's deaths in 
Iraq are acceptable. They're saying that those lives lost are part of a 
price they're willing to let others pay, other mothers, other fathers, 
other sisters, other brothers and other children, not theirs.
  But they are alone. Official Pentagon assessments now speak of Iraq's 
``civil war,'' meaning the Pentagon itself has broken now from the 
White House. The generals on the ground are admitting that our whole 
approach to Iraq must change. That dialogue, even with insurgent groups 
the President swore he would never talk to, must replace the open-ended 
warfare, which means the surge has failed.
  And, of course, the overwhelming majority of the American people are 
not willing to accept the sacrifices asked of our soldiers and Iraqi 
civilians not because of a lack of will, but because of an abundance of 
reason. They correctly see the war as it is being fought today has 
never and will never yield the intended results, that our soldiers have 
been given a mission that has failed them and the people of Iraq time 
and time again.
  The Democrats in both Chambers of this Congress stand with them. A 
handful of principled Republicans stand with us as well, but not yet 
enough.
  The American people will continue to demand that their voices be 
heard. They will continue to demand their Representatives no longer 
willfully ignore their wishes, and my fellow Democrats and I will 
continue to demand the same.
  Together we will struggle until our collective ideals becomes one 
with what is possible to achieve and until this representative Congress 
actually represents its constituents and forces the President to do the 
same.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, and I express 
my appreciation to my very good friend, the distinguished Chair of the 
Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from Rochester, for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to begin by saying how greatly saddened I am by 
the opening statement that was just delivered by the Chair of the 
Committee on Rules. Using the word ``failure'' to describe what has 
taken place in Iraq is, to me, as we head into this Memorial Day 
weekend, an extraordinarily sad message for our courageous men and 
women who are on the frontline in this struggle against global 
terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that we just got the news this 
morning of the death of Joseph Anzack who was one of the three troops 
in Iraq who was kidnapped, and as we think about this Memorial Day 
weekend, to say to those men and women who are there on the frontline 
that this is a failure, I believe, is a horrible, horrible message, and 
I'm greatly troubled that those words would emanate from the floor of 
the House of Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, it has taken the Democratic leadership four tries, and 
as my very good friend from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) said in 
his 1-

[[Page H5732]]

minute speech, more than 100 days since the President's request that 
they have finally agreed to vote on an emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill that gives our troops the funding they need without 
tying their hands and ensuring their defeat.
  Mr. Speaker, no matter how many times my friend from Rochester, the 
distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, is saying that they have 
lost, saying that they have failed and saying that defeat is imminent, 
the passage of this funding bill will help very much to ensure that 
that is not the case.
  I'm extremely proud that we have been able to hold the line on the 
disastrous proposal and this notion that somehow we have lost and we 
have failed in the struggle against terrorism. Unfortunately, though, 
at this point in the debate, we can't be totally certain about what it 
is exactly that we're agreeing upon, particularly in the case, Mr. 
Speaker, of the additional spending.

                              {time}  1040

  Now, let me explain why. For several years, there has been concern 
from both sides of the aisle about the lack of availability of the text 
of bills and conference reports. That concern has been raised by both 
Democrats and Republicans on a regular basis.
  I would like to briefly, for our colleagues, outline a timeline for 
how this rule we are debating at this moment was produced. Last night, 
the Committee on Rules adjourned at roughly 8:45 p.m. after reporting 
the rule on lobbying reform, which we will be considering in a little 
while.
  Then members of the Rules Committee patiently waited until 11 p.m., 
when we were notified the text of the supplemental agreement wouldn't 
be ready until the early morning hours and that the Rules Committee 
would hold an emergency meeting at 7 a.m.
  The text of the Obey amendments were then circulated to the Rules 
Committee members at 5:39 this morning, just a few hours ago; 5:39 this 
morning, less than 1\1/2\ hours before we convened the Rules Committee. 
The text of the amendments were not posted publicly on the committee's 
Web site until around the time we actually met.
  Now we are here considering the rule, which makes in order language 
which spends $119.99999 billion, less than 4 hours after it was 
actually submitted.
  I remember my very good friend from Rochester (Ms. Slaughter) 
regularly saying that we needed to be provided with 24 hours notice. 
This clearly is a far cry from what was promised at the beginning of 
this Congress.
  This language may very well represent the agreement between the 
House, the Senate and the administration. However, there is no way for 
us to know this, because there has been no time to thoroughly read the 
language and verify.
  Unfortunately, as most Members must at this point, I shall have to 
proceed under an assumption. I must say that I am very concerned about 
the negative impact the ongoing surrender debate has had in Iraq, both 
in terms of the morale of our troops and our credibility with the Iraqi 
people. I am concerned about the impact that this delay in funding has 
had on our military as well.
  But, ultimately, we have succeeded in ensuring that this body has the 
opportunity to fund our troops without simultaneously handing the 
terrorists a date certain for our surrender. While this process, this 
political process has played out, I talked a great deal about what the 
consequences would be if we were to abandon the Iraqis to the 
terrorists. And, of course, al Qaeda has taken responsibility for the 
murder of Mr. Anzack, whom I mentioned, Joseph Anzack.
  They clearly are in the midst of their drive. We also are hoping very 
much that we can see this fledgling democracy take hold. That is why 
what we are going to be doing here, providing that necessary support, 
helps us in that quest, but there is no need to take my word in this 
matter. We are hearing repeatedly, repeatedly from our people on the 
ground, from the Iraqi leadership and from the Iraqi people, that 
withdrawing before our mission is complete would have terrible 
consequences.
  Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations, Feisal Amin al-Istrabadi, 
has implored us not to leave. I would like to quote Iraq's ambassador 
to the United Nations. ``We are at war together,'' he recently said. 
``We are allied at war together against a common enemy. We have one way 
forward: together.''
  In a recent interview with the New York Post, he talked about the 
troop surge and pointed to the progress that is being made because of 
it. At this critical juncture, Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations 
believes we should be redoubling our efforts and pressing forward, not 
debating a withdrawal at the precise moment that progress is being 
made.
  Every Member of this body knew at the beginning of this process that 
the President would never sign a withdrawal bill. The President said 
it, and the President says what he means, and he means what he says.
  Unfortunately, as Mr. Lungren pointed out in his 1-minute speech 
earlier, the weeks and weeks of pointless debate on our surrender date 
have clearly taken their toll in Iraq. As Ambassador al-Istrabadi 
points out, and I quote, ``It's been very painful to watch the 
political process in Washington, because it seems to have very little 
to do with Iraq.'' He says that al Qaeda has been following this debate 
closely. The ambassador says, ``There are real enemies who are watching 
the debate, who understand what's happening here and who think they can 
affect the outcome of the debate.''
  He is baffled, as I am baffled, that the Democratic leadership could 
even consider playing right into the terrorists' hands. How on earth 
could we even contemplate giving them what they want and turning the 
country and the region over to them?
  I understand many Americans just want this war to be over. I want 
this war to be over, too. I would like nothing more. I would like 
nothing more than to be able to tell the people whom I am honored to 
represent here that their husbands and wives and sons and daughters and 
brothers and sisters are going to be coming home tomorrow.
  The problem is that, even if we were to withdraw from Iraq, the war 
would not magically be over. We can pick up and go home. We can turn 
off our TV sets and ignore what is taking place over there. But the war 
will still go on. The terrorists will continue their battle for Iraq 
and for the region; only, this time, we would not be there to stop 
them.
  We would not be there to train and strengthen the Iraqi Army and 
police forces or to help strengthen those democratic institutions.
  I have to say that I am particularly proud of the work that our House 
Democracy Assistance Commission is doing. David Price of North Carolina 
has chaired this effort, and we are hoping to be able to include Iraq's 
parliament as we work in consultation to help them build this fledgling 
democracy.
  Before long, I have no doubt whatsoever that the war would make its 
way to our doorstep once again. We ignored a growing terrorist haven 
once before, and we suffered the worst attack on our soil because of 
it.
  I was very proud during the decade of the 1980s to work with a number 
of our colleagues in providing the assistance to the Mujahedin who were 
fighting to liberate their country of Afghanistan from the Soviet 
Union. When that was over, we left and did virtually nothing to help 
build a democracy.
  Did Afghanistan teach us anything? Did September 11 teach us nothing? 
Burying our heads in the sand is not an effective defense. The 
consequences of abandoning our mission in Iraq would be even graver 
than the consequences of ignoring the growing terrorist threat that 
took place during the decade of the 1990s in Afghanistan. This time, 
not only would the terrorists establish another safe haven from which 
to operate their global terror network, they would, and I quote, 
``erect a triumphant monument on the ruins of American power,'' as the 
American Enterprise Institute scholar Frederick Kagan said.
  We simply cannot and will not strengthen the hands of terrorists who 
have made the destruction of America their number one priority. We 
cannot and will not abandon the Iraqis to be butchered by these 
terrorists in their midst. We cannot and will not abandon our mission 
just as real progress is starting to be made.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H5733]]

                              {time}  1050

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) as much time as he may consume.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me first address the gentleman's comments 
about process and time.
  We have been negotiating with the Senate and with the White House 
since last Friday. At approximately 12:30 last night, the majority 
staff on the Appropriations Committee finally wrapped up our work in 
putting this package together. At about 1:00, we communicated what that 
package was to the minority staff on the Appropriations Committee. It 
couldn't have been communicated any earlier because it wasn't done 
until 12:30. One of the reasons it wasn't done is because as late as 
10:00 last night, the White House was still squawking about individual 
provisions in the bill. And the last time I looked, the White House was 
in Republican hands.
  Now, we have negotiated in good faith. I hate this agreement. I am 
going to vote against the major portion of this agreement even though I 
negotiated it, because I think that the White House is in a cloud 
somewhere in terms of understanding the realities in Iraq. But let's 
not get our nose out of joint about the way this package was put 
together.
  We have tried in good faith to find a way to put the administration's 
request and their opponent's position on the floor on an equal footing 
to give everybody an opportunity to vote however they wanted on it.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members are reminded to direct their 
remarks to the Chair.
  The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. OBEY. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, we don't relish bringing a 
package to the floor that we don't like and that we are not going to 
vote for. But what I especially don't relish is the fact that, in the 
process of doing so, we are criticized by people on the minority side 
of the aisle who, when they were in charge, couldn't run a two-car 
funeral in terms of the budget.
  The gentleman claims that it has taken us too long to get here. The 
fact is, the gentleman's party was in control last year, and it took 
them 110 days to produce a supplemental that the administration 
requested. That is 10 days longer than it took us. And we had to spend 
the first 30 days of this session passing last year's budget because 
the gentleman's party couldn't get a single domestic appropriations 
bill through the House because of an internal Republican Party squabble 
between Republicans in the Senate and Republicans in the House. So that 
ate up the first 30 days. And the rest of the time we have spent trying 
to convince the President to change his mind on the policy in Iraq.
  And so we haven't exactly been doing nothing these last 110 days. We 
sent a proposition to the President to try to force change in American 
policy in Iraq. He vetoed it. So if somebody is going to bellyache 
about the fact that the money isn't getting to the troops, we passed 
that. It was the President who vetoed it. It is the President's action 
that has delayed getting anything to anywhere.
  We then sent a second package over, and the Senate couldn't pass 
that. And so that is when we faced the inevitability that we simply did 
not have the votes to force the President to change policy, and so we 
are now trying to produce a responsible alternative.
  Let me also say, with respect to the argument that we are somehow 
playing into the hands of al Qaeda. Who played into the hands of al 
Qaeda? A fellow by the name of Bush. He lives in that big White House 
at the other end of the avenue. He is the guy who walked this country 
into a war he didn't have a clue about how to end, he didn't have a 
clue about the political realities in the region, he didn't have a clue 
about what was necessary militarily to pacify the country. He didn't 
have a clue about what this was going to do to our influence in the 
world. If anybody in this country has weakened our influence 
drastically and tragically in the Middle East third of the world, it is 
the occupant, the present occupant, of the White House and his 
Republican allies who continue to support this misguided policy on this 
misbegotten war.
  So, I get a little tired of people who produced one mess after 
another. I get a little tired of people who have been wrong from the 
start on this war. They went after the wrong country. They didn't go 
after al Qaeda, they went after Iraq. Iraq didn't have anything to do 
with 9/11. The gentleman knows that, unless he has a faulty memory. 
Only Dick Cheney is still trying to invent that connection, and his aim 
is about as bad as it is when he's got a shotgun in his hand.
  So with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, we have tried to produce 
change. We have been blocked in obtaining that change by the President. 
We are now trying to move ahead, on the only option we have available. 
And the gentleman's nose is out of joint because the action was 
completed last night too late to provide good notice. You know what? I 
didn't know about a third of this stuff in this package until I got it 
in the morning, because we made a number of changes in response to 
White House requests as late as 10:00 last night. I don't apologize for 
that. That is what negotiating is supposed to be.
  You can't have it both ways. You can't squawk at us for being too 
late in bringing the bill to the floor, and then squawk at us for not 
giving you enough notice.
  So, with all due respect, I will take a look at the record of the 
minority party last year when they were running the show and couldn't 
pass anything, and I will compare theirs to our record any day of the 
week.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members to refrain from 
engaging in personalties toward the President or the Vice President.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and then I'm going to be yielding to one of my colleagues.
  Let me say that at 7 o'clock this morning I praised the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Obey. He knows that I 
have the utmost respect for him and his work. He is very, very 
diligent, and a very, very thoughtful Member. And I have been 
privileged to serve with him for the last more than a quarter of a 
century, as we were counting upstairs some of our former colleagues who 
are long departed, Mr. Dabo, Mr. Conte, and others.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that, with all due respect to my friend, I am 
not bellyaching about the process itself. I am not bellyaching about 
what it is that got us here. I am simply pointing to a promise that was 
made to this institution; and that promise, Mr. Speaker, was that there 
would be 24 hours to review legislation before it is brought to the 
floor. And I will acknowledge that when we were in the majority, we did 
not always provide that 24 hours. But, Mr. Speaker, I would say to my 
friend from Wisconsin, it is not about what we did, it is about what 
this new majority promised they were going to do. And that commitment 
was that after this laborious late-night negotiating process that 
included Members of the other body, the White House, and Members of 
this body into the night, that there would be a 24-hour opportunity for 
Members to look at a $119.99 billion spending measure.
  So I have to say that the process that led up to the creation of this 
is historically the process that does bring about bipartisan 
agreements. The gentleman is absolutely right, not everyone is happy 
with all the measures included in this bill. But the fact of the matter 
is we are where we are; we have gotten here under challenging 
circumstances. As I said, the Rules Committee adjourned at 8:45 last 
night. At 11 o'clock we were informed that we would have an emergency 
meeting at 7 o'clock this morning, and at 5:39 this morning it was made 
available to us.

                              {time}  1100

  And here we are just a few hours later considering it on the House 
floor. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm hoping to go back to Los Angeles tomorrow 
morning, and I'd like to be able to do that. But I'm more than willing 
to help this majority comply with the promise that they made that on 
all major legislation, they would in fact provide the minority and, 
frankly, the majority Members with 24 hours to review the legislation.
  And, finally, I just have to say that when we hear arguments that 
somehow

[[Page H5734]]

President Bush is playing into the hands of the terrorists and 
responsible for where we are, Mr. Speaker, September 11 of 2001 changed 
not only the United States but the world. The largest most important 
Nation in the history of mankind suffered an attack the likes of which 
we had never seen in our Nation's history. And so, taking on a multi-
pronged approach, dealing with, as we have in both Afghanistan and in 
Iraq, and we all know that Iraq is the central front for al Qaeda, has 
been very important. You can raise issues like weapons of mass 
destruction and other items like that, but the fact of the matter is, 
we are where we are today. And I believe that it would be a horrendous 
mistake for us to take a retrograde step, which is exactly what those 
terrorists want.
  And with that, I'm happy to yield 4 minutes to my very good friend 
from Sacramento, Mr. Lungren.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I believe it's my time to yield time 
following your speech.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I was recognized, and I announced at the 
beginning----
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Nonetheless, I think we do alternate.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, was I out of order by yielding to my 
colleague?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Who seeks time?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I seek time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I was in control of the time. I yielded 
myself such time as I may consume, and as I did that, I asked that I 
yield to my colleague from California.
  But if, in fact, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules 
wishes to supersede that, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, some might see this Iraq supplemental as a 
victory for President Bush in his never-ending quest to secure open-
ended, unaccountable funding for his disastrous policy in Iraq. If so, 
it is a hollow victory.
  We can debate why and when our Iraq policy turned into the disaster 
that plays out every day in Baghdad and Dyala. But that debate really 
doesn't matter anymore, because the President's policy is a failure. 
And no amount of funding, with or without conditions, can fix it. The 
only thing that matters now is when and how we end this disaster, and 
when we bring our uniformed men and women safely home to their families 
and communities.
  Our troops did their job. They achieved their mission. They ended the 
brutal reign of Saddam Hussein, and confirmed for the world that there 
never were any weapons of mass destruction.
  They weren't sent to Iraq to take a bullet on behalf of the sectarian 
religious factions hellbent on civil war.
  Mr. Speaker, this supplemental only postpones the inevitable. After 
hundreds of billions of dollars; after more than 3,400 soldiers, 
marines, sailors and airmen have lost their lives; after nearly 1,000 
U.S. defense contractors have been killed; after more than 25,000 
uniformed men and women have been wounded or maimed; after tens of 
thousands of American veterans returning from Iraq will be suffering 
from the trauma they experienced in combat for the rest of their lives; 
after hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children have been 
killed and millions more have been traumatized by the violence and 
horror that now marks Iraqi daily life; after the destruction of towns, 
villages, communities, neighborhoods and infrastructure, we still come 
back to the same place, the same stark question.
  Mr. Speaker, how and when is this war and our military occupation of 
Iraq going to end?
  The Middle East is going up in flames. Al Qaeda and other terrorist 
networks remain strong and intact. Their recruitment is growing. 
Meanwhile, America's standing in the world has never been lower.
  I ask each of my colleagues, when and how are we going to get out of 
Iraq? When will each of us be able to tell the families in our 
districts that their sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, husbands 
and wives, brothers and sisters, will finally be coming home?
  Mr. Speaker, unbelievably, the President doesn't even want his own 
policy priorities tied to a time line for removing our troops in Iraq. 
He wants no accountability on the readiness of our troops, or whether 
they are adequately trained and equipped. Just show me the money. 
That's all he wants.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply can't support it. And I will vote against this 
blank check of a supplemental.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude with a few words about the rule. 
This is not a satisfactory conclusion to the weeks-long debate over 
funding the war. But the sad reality is that the Senate is too timid 
and the President too irrational. There was no one with whom the House 
could forge a genuine compromise to hold the President accountable for 
the lives he is willing to sacrifice and the money he seeks and move us 
closer to bringing our troops home. And we do not have the votes in 
this House, sadly, to override a veto.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey for 
their persistence and their courage in trying to end this tragic war.
  The rule before us ensures that we do not walk away from this debate 
or the decision to remove our troops from Iraq. Under this rule, the 
House must vote on removing our troops from Iraq before any further 
supplemental funding can be approved for the war.
  So let's be clear. Those of us who oppose this war will be back again 
and again and again and again until this war is ended.
  Mr. Speaker, from the White House to our military field commanders, 
everyone, including the Republican leader of this House, has said that 
September is the tipping point. Well, we will vote, and we will vote in 
September. And we will decide, and I pray that we will then bring our 
troops home.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is 
remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 14 minutes 
remaining, and the gentlelady from New York has 10\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with that, I'm happy to yield 5\1/2\ minutes 
to my very good friend from California (Mr. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, as we sit here and 
listen to this debate, both on this rule and on the 1-minutes that went 
before us, one thing is passing strange. I heard my friends on the 
other side of the aisle complain or lament that the problem with this 
bill is that it does not hold the President in check. We're dealing 
with a wartime supplemental. I thought the purpose of that is to hold 
the enemy in check, not hold the President of the United States in 
check.
  I heard another Member of the other side of the aisle say, 
Republicans now, you understand, you own this war. Are we trying to 
make a political statement, or are we trying to help our troops? Are we 
trying to do some political dance, or are we trying to stand behind our 
troops?
  I heard from the other side of the aisle, you Republicans are 
continuing this war. The enemy is continuing this war. Have we lost 
sight on what it is we're supposed to be talking about here? Have we 
lost sight on what it is that our troops are thinking about? Is this 
something where we define somebody other than the enemy on the field as 
the enemy?
  We now have heard from the distinguished lady from New York that the 
surge has failed. She has joined others, including those in the other 
body from that side of the aisle, who have made the determination, not 
that this policy will fail, not that it cannot succeed, but they have 
now declared, as she has said, that the surge has failed. Perhaps she 
should talk to General Petraeus. Perhaps she should talk to our 
military leaders in the field. I don't question her sincerity, but I 
would suggest that perhaps General Petraeus has a better idea about 
what the circumstances on the ground are. Has he declared victory? No. 
Has he said he believes that victory is achievable? Yes. Has he told 
that to our troops time and time again? Yes. Has he quoted the 
gentlelady from New York to say to our troops, as I send you out on 
this mission, understand that the surge has already failed? No, he has 
not. No, he has not.
  We hear repeated on this floor, we need a change in mission. We need 
a

[[Page H5735]]

change in policy. We need a change in leadership.

                              {time}  1110

  You have a new Secretary of Defense. You have a new military 
commander. You have a new mission on the field. And yet as it begins to 
unfold, what do you say? What do we hear said on this floor by those 
who ask for those things? Not, let's see if it works, the President has 
listened to us, we have the best of the best, the best warrior leader 
we have in our country who has come up with this plan, who has put his 
imprimatur on this plan, who tells us and tells the troops this plan is 
a plan for victory.
  But no. What do we hear? ``The surge has failed,'' we hear uttered on 
this floor. ``The surge has failed.'' If you believe it has failed, 
then why have we been fooling around with all of these other things? 
Why don't you just have an up-or-down vote, get us off this funding 
completely, tell the troops the only thing to do is to take them home?
  But what have we heard from the other side? They say, we don't have 
the votes to do that, so we are going to have death by a thousand cuts. 
That is why it has taken us 110 days plus, because of the strategy to 
somehow do by indirection what the Constitution won't allow you to do 
by direction.
  We have heard it again and again and again from the other side of the 
aisle. Their dictionary begins with ``F'' and the word ``fail,'' and it 
ends with the word ``lost.'' You will not find in their lexicon the 
words ``victory'' and ``win.'' You will find only ``failure'' and 
``loss.'' And not that we will fail, but we have heard the 
pronouncement from the majority on this floor today we have already 
lost. That is the message they are sending by their vote today, and 
they have told us what it is with an exclamation point.
  Troops in the field, we sent you on a mission that is a mission to 
fail, and it has already failed. What a terrible message to send to our 
troops. We should reject that notion. We should support our troops. We 
should support this funding. And we should stop trying to play the 
``gotcha'' game here on the floor of this House.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Perhaps my good friend from California has not heard the news. The 
Pentagon has now said that we are indeed enmeshed in a civil war and we 
now have a plan B. What we are going to do now is deal with insurgents 
so that we can try to pacify them and get pockets of peace somewhere, 
here and there in Iraq, never mind the Iraqi Government we have been 
holding up all this time.
  This may be news to him, but as far as I am concerned, the Pentagon 
has really called it straight, and I consider it a break with what the 
White House has been telling us.
  We know the President said time and again he would never negotiate 
with any insurgents. Well, that was yesterday.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 3 
minutes to my colleague from Hood River, Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  (Mr. WALDEN of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, it saddens me that once again I 
have to remind my colleagues of the current emergency occurring in my 
district and throughout many counties in the rural West all because the 
Federal Government has violated its promise to America's forested 
communities.
  Here I have the front page of the May 17 edition of the Grants Pass 
Daily Courier in Josephine County. Notice the photo. It is a banner 
that says ``Sheriff Out of Service.'' ``Service jobs slash 42 sheriff's 
deputies, 28 juvenile correctional officers among those laid off. 
Medical rescue help may be delayed.''
  The last 3 years Congressman DeFazio and I have been warning the 
Congress that these are the things that are going to happen out in our 
part of the world if we don't fix for the long term the county payments 
issue. In Jackson County, the most populated area of my district, all 
15 public libraries have closed.
  Now, the underlying bill has a 1-year fix for this. It is an 
emergency bridge, and for that we are indeed thankful and appreciative. 
But the problem continues. The 1 year does not give enough assurance to 
the financially strapped rural communities to restore the hundreds of 
jobs and countless public safety services that have already been 
compromised by Congress's failure to have a long-term solution. As the 
Medford Mail Tribune editorialized today, ``Josephine County has laid 
off 42 sheriff's deputies, ended patrols, and virtually shut down its 
jail. Curry County,'' in Congressman DeFazio's district, ``which has 
lost 68 percent of its general fund, also has no sheriff's patrols and 
has asked the National Guard to provide security for coastal residents. 
Jackson County closed its libraries and plans to lay off nine sheriff's 
deputies, road workers, and other employees for a total of 172 
positions.
  ``There are those in Washington, D.C.,'' the paper writes, ``who will 
paint the 1-year extension as a great day for rural counties. 
Meanwhile, back here in Mudville, there is little joy.''
  So I sent to the Rules Committee this morning two amendments that 
would have extended the emergency funding for years, not months. The 
first amendment was identical to that passed by a 75-22 vote in the 
Senate with complete offsets for a 5-year extension. The second 
amendment I submitted would have extended the emergency funding in the 
emergency supplemental bill for 2 years, not 1, without increasing the 
overall cost of the bill or changing the funding distribution formula. 
Unfortunately, both of those amendments were denied along party lines.
  The work to secure a long-term extension and reauthorization of these 
funds must continue. I will not give up. I will not quit. I will not 
rest. The Congress will be forced to address this issue over and over 
and over again until we reach agreement on a long-term solution for the 
forested counties and keep the government's commitment.
  My good friend and colleague Congressman DeFazio and I sent a letter, 
which I would like to put in the Record, on May 17 to the emergency 
supplemental conferees, which was signed by more than 90 Members of our 
Congress, 74 of which were the Democrat Party, asking that a 5-year 
solution be included in the emergency supplemental. Many conversations 
with Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner have made them aware of this 
emergency, as has a recent Presidential meeting that I had with Senator 
Wyden. We appreciate all the support for seeking a long-term solution 
and will be relying on all of us to get this done.
  My colleagues, though, we cannot wait any longer. More to the point, 
the people of America's forested communities cannot wait any longer. We 
need to act for a long-term solution.
                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 17, 2007.
     Hon. David Obey,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jerry Lewis,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Obey, Chairman Byrd, Congressman Lewis and 
     Senator Cochran: As you conference on the Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations bill for FY 2007 (Supplemental) 
     to fund vital government programs, we urge you to support the 
     Senate passed language to reauthorize and fully fund the 
     Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 
     2000 (P.L. 106-393) and the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program 
     (PILT). The Senate language was passed by an overwhelming 
     vote, and identifies offsets.
       P.L. 106-393 expired at the end of September 2006 
     endangering the loss of payments to over 600 counties and 
     4400 school districts in 39 states. In addition to 
     reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools program, the Senate 
     passed language would further benefit these rural communities 
     by fully funding, for the first time, the Payment in Lieu of 
     Taxes program, which provides general funds to 49 states. 
     Rural communities have relied on these programs to provide 
     stable funding for rural schools. health care, law 
     enforcement and other critical programs.
       The elimination of the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
     Self Determination Act would default on the 100 year old 
     federal

[[Page H5736]]

     commitment to our rural communities that depend on these 
     payments to keep their communities strong and stable. Fully 
     funding PILT, for the first time ever, would provide much 
     needed economic stability for the rural communities that 
     support our public lands.
       Please support the Senate passed reauthorization language 
     of P.L. 106-393 and full funding for PILT.
           Sincerely,
         Peter DeFazio, Don Young, Chris Van Hollen, Charles 
           Wilson, Leonard Boswell, G.K. Butterfield, Pete Stark, 
           Earl Pomeroy, Jon Porter, Timothy J. Walz;
         Eddie Bernice Johnson, Neil Abercrombie, Collin Peterson, 
           Peter Welch, Carol Shea-Porter, Rick Boucher, Shelley 
           Moore Capito, Lois Capps, John Conyers, Henry Cuellar;
         Lincoln Davis, John Doolittle, Gabrielle Giffords, Raul 
           Grijalva, Baron Hill, Steve Kagen, Ron Kind, Dan 
           Lungren, Jim Matheson, Jim Marshall;
         Michael Michaud, Brad Miller, Grace Napolitano, Devin 
           Nunes, Solomon Ortiz, Ted Poe, Vic Snyder, John Spratt, 
           Gene Taylor, Bennie G. Thompson;
         Buck McKeon, James L. Oberstar, Ed Perlmutter, Nick 
           Rahall, David G. Reichert, John T. Salazar, Cathy 
           McMorris Rogers, Steve Pearce, George P. Radanovich, 
           Rick Renzi;
         Mike Ross, Bill Sali, Bob Filner, Louie Gohmert, Doc 
           Hastings, Wally Herger, Jay Inslee, Rick Larson, Doris 
           O. Matsui, Barney Frank;
         Phil Hare, Alcee L. Hastings, Darlene Hooley, Sheila 
           Jackson Lee, David Loebsack, Jim McDermott, Michael 
           Arcuri, Brian Baird, Shelley Berkley, Bruce L. Braley;
         Dennis Cardoza, Lincoln Davis, Jo Ann Emerson, Joe Baca, 
           Joe Barton, Earl Blumenauer, Corrine Brown, Donna M. 
           Christian-Christensen, Diana DeGette, Bob Etheridge;
         Linda Sanchez, Mike Simpson, Betty Sutton, Mike Thompson, 
           Greg Walden David Wu, Heath Shuler, Bart Stupak, Ellen 
           Tauscher, Mark Udall, Maxine Waters, Members of 
           Congress.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply say, in response to the comments 
from the gentleman, that given what he prefers to see in this bill on 
this subject, we are very lucky to have the 1-year fix at all because 
the White House opposed not only the long-term fix, but the short-term 
fix as well.
  I would also point out that it was last year's Congress that allowed 
the program to expire in the first place and never managed to get 
around to finding the offsets that would have enabled the committee to 
provide this package long term.
  So I recognize the legitimacy of the gentleman's concern, but I want 
to point out that I think that given the resistance of the White House 
to anything except money for the Iraqi operation and a tiny portion of 
our obligation for Katrina, with those two exceptions, the White House 
resisted every single effort made by us to deal with any problem, 
whether it was Western schools, whether it was kids getting knocked off 
health-care rolls, or whether it was the need to provide more veterans' 
health care. They fought it all.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's work 
on this issue, and I realize that the last Congress did not get it 
done. I complained about that at the time and tried everything I could 
to get it reauthorized.
  It passed out of the Resources Committee, as you know, and then did 
not make any progress in either Chamber.
  It has been a very difficult, uphill battle across the board to 
educate all of our Members about how we have got to solve this problem. 
If you remember the Kim family, who were tragically lost in Josephine 
County last year and Mr. Kim was later found dead, it is that county 
that just eliminated all sheriff's patrols.
  So I am not here to point blame at anybody. You have been terrific in 
helping us in this 1-year extension. I am just saying thank you, but 
the big job remains because this problem does not go away.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman. I just wish the 
administration would give us as much help in solving American problems 
as they have given us heat for not supporting their multibillion-dollar 
on-the-installment-plan request for Iraq.

                              {time}  1120

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my very good friend from 
Rochester how many speakers she has remaining and then how much time is 
remaining on each side.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have one other besides myself.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 8 minutes 
and the gentleman from California has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. I will reserve the balance of my time, then.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, we cannot, we should not, and we must not 
give President George Bush a blank check to squander the lives of our 
children and the dollars of our constituents in Iraq. We should not 
give him a blank check today, we should not give him a blank check next 
week, and we should not give him a blank check ever. The days of giving 
him a blank check to make repeated incompetent decisions in Iraq must 
be stopped and they should be stopped today by voting ``no'' on this 
supplemental.
  And the inspiration for doing that should come from our proud men who 
are serving in Iraq. I heard a story a few weeks ago about a fellow who 
had his buddy shot by a sniper, he was being shot up by automatic 
weapons fire, and his buddy ran out into the field of fire to rescue 
his friend. We should look at our duty today as rescuing our children, 
brothers, sisters, husbands and wives in Iraq. And if we take hostile 
political fire in doing so, so be it. That tiny act of standing up to 
George Bush does not end up in the same league of courage of those who 
are serving in Iraq who take real hostile fire, that need to be rescued 
from the incompetence of the executive branch of the United States 
Government. And it is solely the power of the U.S. Congress to do that.
  The people who established this institution had a very wise 
knowledge. They knew someday there could be a President who might make 
bad decisions on occasion, who might make bad decisions in the course 
of a war, and that is why in article I, section 8, they vested in the 
U.S. Congress the power of the purse to be used in exactly these 
circumstances, to rein in a rogue President who cannot seem to 
understand the reality on the ground in Iraq and has a hallucinatory 
policy that is exposing our children to harm. This power in section 8, 
the power of the purse, is one that is designed by the framers of 
democracy for exactly these circumstances. And the reason the framers 
put the power of the purse to rein in a rogue President is because they 
understood that this is the institution closer to the American people. 
This is the People's House.
  And I know there's a lot of problems that none of us are geniuses on 
in Iraq, but there is one thing we know: In difficult times in America, 
there is one will, one sense of absolute genius that all of us should 
follow, and that is the will of the American people, the joint, 
commonsense consensus. From the cornfields of the Midwest to the 
coastlines, there is a common consensus that we need a change in policy 
in Iraq, and the only way we will get it, the only way that common 
sense of the American people will be followed is to vote ``no'' on this 
today. We can be united in understanding that. And when we do so, we 
will follow the Congresses of the past who on at least five occasions 
have used the constitutional power of the purse to insist on a change.
  And I will say this. In the Constitution, this organization here is 
given the power to declare war. And we also have the power to end a 
war. Presidents do not have the authority to fight wars in perpetuity. 
There is no way that Congress would ever give that authority. And today 
using the power of the purse, a constitutional tool, we should stand up 
for the will of the American people and fulfill our rescue mission for 
our sons and daughters in Iraq and vote ``no'' on this supplemental 
bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that my friend from 
Rochester is just going to close the debate on her side.

[[Page H5737]]

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am.
  Mr. DREIER. Then I will yield myself the balance of the time on our 
side. How much time is that, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Six minutes, sir.
  Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
  Let me begin by saying that I do have the utmost respect for the 
distinguished Chair of the Committee on Appropriations and, of course, 
for my Chair, the gentlewoman from Rochester (Ms. Slaughter). And I 
understand that there is great sincerity on their part in this quest 
here and I understand there is a desire to ensure that we have a 
process that works. I will just make a couple of comments on process 
here and some concerns that I have and then I have some other remarks 
on the overall issue of the war.
  We have gone through, as we know, four incarnations of this attempt 
and now 110 days that has really prevented us from making sure that we 
have had an opportunity to get the funding necessary for our troops. 
Through that process, Democrats and Republicans alike have regularly 
said they don't want to do anything to prevent funding from getting to 
our troops. And I respect that. Again, Members on both sides of the 
aisle have pointed that out, Mr. Speaker. But we all know that from the 
outset, the President made it clear that he was going to veto anything 
that established an artificial timeline which he, and I agree with him, 
concluded would be a prescription for admitting defeat. And so he was 
very strong on that and unwavering.
  So we've gotten to the point where we are at this moment, and that 
point is we have a 213-page package that is before us. My good friend 
from Wisconsin said that I was bellyaching about the process, and I 
will say again to my colleagues, I'm not complaining about what took 
place in the hours leading up to the consideration of this package. 
This is my 27th year here and I understand that negotiations among the 
Senate, the House and the White House are challenging and can often go 
into the night. The only point that I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that 
as we look at this process of having this 213-page measure before us, 
we were promised by the new majority that we would be given 24 hours 
before consideration of major legislation here on the House floor. And, 
as I said, and I am really somewhat confused on this because, I would 
say to my friend from Wisconsin, I look at the time stamp on this. The 
time stamp on the measure that we are voting on is 9:38 p.m. last 
night. Yet he said that he was negotiating into the night, 1 o'clock in 
the morning. I mean, I didn't follow all of the incarnations of this, 
but I do know that we received this at 5:39 this morning, and that was 
less than an hour and a half before the Rules Committee was scheduled 
to convene at its 7 a.m. meeting this morning. And then we had it made 
public at about the time our group convened, the Rules Committee 
convened. And so that does concern me.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, I am going to be urging my colleagues to vote 
against the previous question so that I may amend the rule to allow 
Members to offer motions to strike earmarks which are undoubtedly going 
to come to the attention of Members the longer that this agreement is 
available.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my amendment 
and extraneous material be printed in the Congressional Record just 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, finally, we are going into 
this Memorial Day weekend. I have the honor of participating in seven 
Memorial Day events on Monday in southern California, and I will be 
meeting with family members.
  Just yesterday, I met with the mother of a young man, Mr. Colnot, who 
lost his life over a year ago in Iraq. She said to me just yesterday 
afternoon, ``It is absolutely essential that we complete our mission.''
  I have regularly pointed to another one of my constituents whose son 
paid the ultimate price. A man called Ed Blecksmith's son, J.P., died 
over 2 years ago, 2\1/2\ years ago, on the famous November battle of 
Fallujah.

                              {time}  1130

  And repeatedly Mr. Blacksmith has said to me, ``You must complete 
this mission or my son, J.P., will have died in vain.''
  So, Mr. Speaker, as we go into this Memorial Day weekend, I thank God 
that we are going to pass this measure that will be providing the 
essential support for our troops, so that General David Petraeus and 
the new leadership, with a new strategy to deal with uncertainty, will 
have the hope of victory. There is no guaranteed success, but there is 
a hope for victory because this is a struggle which is going to 
continue on and on and on as long as there are people out there who are 
going to try to do us in, to kill us, and to change our way of life.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so 
that I can offer my amendment. And if by chance we are not successful 
on that, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule because of the 
unfair process that we have. But if in fact the rule does proceed, I 
urge everyone, in a bipartisan way, to support the very important 
measure that will allow us to support our troops and allow them to 
complete their mission.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Chair of the 
committee (Mr. Obey) to respond.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interfere with the gentlelady's 
time, but I just wanted to bring something to the attention of the 
gentleman from California.
  He mentioned that the time stamp on the proposition he received was 
6:31 p.m. last night. That was one of only two packages. That time 
stamp refers to the time at which the legislative counsel got this copy 
to the staff. The staff still had to read it, to check it out, to make 
certain it did what it was supposed to do. And that was on the easiest 
package, that was on the President's package. And everybody knows what 
the President's request was and what the Warner amendment is.
  The time stamp on the other package is 9:30 p.m. last night. What 
that means is that you have over 200 pages, which we got from 
legislative counsel, and the staff had to read every page of that to 
make certain, again, that it did what it was intended to do, and to 
make sure that, among other things, it reflected the changes that had 
been demanded by the White House at the same time.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, that if in fact we were going to see 
compliance with this 24-hour request, the 9:38 time stamp that is on 
this measure, the 6:30 time stamp that is on the other, the domestic 
spending measure would have in fact allowed us to consider this measure 
on the floor on Friday, which is really what should have happened as we 
proceeded with that.
  Mr. OBEY. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I will yield 30 seconds to Mr. Obey to respond.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the gentleman has 
criticized us for taking too much time to bring this to the floor, and 
he is now suggesting that we delay it. That is like falling off both 
sides of the same horse at the same time.
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentlewoman will yield.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I will yield 30 seconds.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, all I'm saying is that we were promised a 24-hour 
opportunity for Members of both the Democratic and the Republican 
Parties to have a chance to review this measure. And I believe that 
having gone 110 days, that allowing for a review with potential 
earmarks and other items in here is the responsible thing to do because 
that is the promise that was made to this institution at the beginning 
of the 110th Congress.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized 
to close.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the 
previous question and on the rule.

[[Page H5738]]

  The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier is as follows:

     Amendment to H. Res. 438 Offered by Rep. Dreier of California

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 5. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, after conclusion of the period of debate on the 
     motion to concur in the Senate amendment, it shall be in 
     order for any Member to offer a motion to strike any 
     provision of the amendment numbered one in the Rules 
     Committee report accompanying the resolution, which is 
     asserted that would specifically benefit an entity, State, 
     locality, or Congressional district. Any such motion shall be 
     separately debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
                                  ____

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

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________