[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 19817-19826]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 5631, 
             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1037 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1037

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 5631) making appropriations for the Department of 
     Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and 
     for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and insert 
tabular and extraneous material into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Rules Committee met 
and reported a rule for consideration of the conference report for H.R. 
5631, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 
2007.
  Mr. Speaker, when the Rules Committee met on Monday night, it 
reported a rule that waives all points of order against the conference 
report and against its consideration. Additionally, it provides that 
the conference report be considered as read.
  Today, I rise to support the rule for H.R. 5631 and the underlying 
legislation. This piece of legislation is a hard-fought compromise 
between the House and the Senate. The required give and take in this 
case is a tremendous example of the dedication that Members of both 
bodies of Congress and both political parties have when it comes to 
supporting our troops in the field.
  Mr. Speaker, many said we could not be at this point today. Many 
expected compromise could not be reached. I am pleased to say this has 
not been the case.
  Furthermore, the underlying legislation also provides the continuing 
resolution for the government to remain in operation until November 17. 
This represents a great compromise and maintains the lower funding 
levels from either the House or Senate from the previous year or the 
fiscal year 2006 current rates. H.R. 5631, in short, represents good, 
bipartisan, bicameral work.
  Mr. Speaker, the primary purpose of the underlying legislation is to 
secure and improve the defense of our country. To that end, the 
underlying legislation provides for several critical needs for our 
forces. First, its overall level of funding provides $377.6 billion 
plus $70 billion in the fiscal year 2007 bridge for operations in Iraq 
and Afghanistan.
  Additionally, a full $17.1 billion is provided for the Army for the 
purpose of resetting and refurbishing the force. This is particularly 
critical at a time when the Army clearly requires and deserves 
additional funds to fulfill the many complex and dangerous missions it 
has been called upon to undertake.
  Other critical expenditures in this legislation includes significant 
dollars for the Army's future combat systems, the Navy's shipbuilding 
program, and aircraft research and development and procurement by the 
Air Force.
  Rather than focusing on the specific numbers, however, I want to 
address the fundamental reasons for the underlying legislation and the 
challenges that it attempts to address.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are at war in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and 
are embarked upon the greatest military rebuilding effort in a 
generation. While our forces are stretched, they are doing a 
magnificent job. There is no doubt of their dedication, 
professionalism, and commitment to the missions we have asked them to 
fulfill. Frankly, we ask more of them than anyone should have to give; 
yet when we do, they always exceed our expectations.
  Mr. Speaker, our combatant commanders and the administration have 
been very open during the multiple oversight hearings about the 
challenges they foresee in what they refer to as the long war. It is 
not a war that can be fought and won by force alone. It is one that 
requires military action, but also reconstruction, stabilization, and 
the fostering of democratic concepts and structures of government in 
areas and among peoples who have been subjected to dictators and 
totalitarian regimes for decades.
  This task is neither simple nor easy. However, it is necessary for 
the security of our country. When the American people are asked to 
support our troops in the field, they always respond with the 
generosity and commitment required of them. Historically, however, 
Congress and the President have not always funded the military in 
peacetime at levels necessary to adequately protect us from future 
threats. I believe that many of the challenges we face today come from 
underfunding our military during the 1990s.
  Mr. Speaker, today we may hear that the force is stressed. We may 
hear that we don't have enough troops. We may hear about excessive 
deployment rates. We may hear about increasing levels of stress on 
military personnel and their families. In large measure, I accept these 
assertions as true, but they are issues that have grown out of an 
historical reluctance to see the world for what it is, a very dangerous 
place.
  At the end of the first Bush administration in 1992, we were left 
with a military that was much larger and could have sustained 
operations in the current environment for a much longer period of time. 
During the 1990s, many of the forces we wish we had today were RIF'ed, 
disassembled, retired and transferred in pursuit of the so-called 
``peace dividend.''
  If there is one thing we should learn from this experience, it is 
that the military is like life insurance: it is expensive, and no one 
wants to pay for it, but it is there for a specific purpose and to be 
used when the situation requires.
  We have clearly seen what the misguided decision to reduce our forces 
from 15 divisions and then down to 10 divisions has meant for the Army. 
It has resulted in a force that is burdened, strained and stretched by 
our historically naive decisions.
  Mr. Speaker, the road out of this situation is not easily traveled. 
It is one that will require the sustained commitment and support of the 
administration and both Houses and both parties in Congress. This bill 
is a step in that direction. It is a step toward achieving our 
objective in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is a step toward building a 
future for

[[Page 19818]]

us that can meet America's changing security needs. This is an ongoing 
process.
  However, Mr. Speaker, some today may try to make the underlying 
legislation out to be more comprehensive than any bill can possibly be. 
They will argue it should be the final answer, a cure for all problems. 
This is not, and, indeed, this can never be.
  The defense of our country requires a constant vigilance born of 
necessity. And the funding, sizing and transformation of our military 
forces is by necessity an evolutionary process. One appropriations bill 
will not meet all of the challenges or solve all of the security needs 
of our country. However, this bill is a real substantive and 
incremental step in securing our future.
  Mr. Speaker, the appropriators have forwarded us a bill that is 
substantial, sound, and needed.

                              {time}  1545

  It is a robust vote of confidence in our servicemen and prioritizes 
the funding on ongoing operations. It is one that I believe we should 
support. And after all is said and done here today, I am convinced that 
this bill will indeed receive an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 
support in this House.
  To that end, Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for 
yielding me time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule before us makes in order a conference report 
for the fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill. It will be the 
first conference agreement to pass both Chambers, and it would do so on 
time. That should be commended.
  However, the majority leadership has yet to come to an agreement on 
much else. As a result, the conferees were forced to include a 
continuing resolution that will keep the Federal Government open for 
business through November 17.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement itself is a responsible effort 
to support our troops in the field. Thanks to the effort of 
Subcommittee Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha, we will continue 
to invest in modernizing our military. But, just as important, we will 
fund the training and equipment our troops need to complete their 
mission, wherever they are stationed.
  No one disagrees that the war in Iraq has placed a significant strain 
on our Armed Forces. An article in yesterday's New York Times describes 
the situation starkly:
  ``Other than the 17 brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan, only two or 
three combat brigades in the entire army, perhaps 7,000 to 10,000 
troops, are fully trained and sufficiently equipped to respond quickly 
to crises, said a senior army general.''

               [From the New York Times, Sept. 25, 2006]

               Unit Makes Do as Army Strives To Plug Gaps

                          (By David S. Cloud)

       Fort Stewart, GA.--The pressures that the conflict in Iraq 
     is putting on the Army are apparent amid the towering pine 
     trees of southeast Georgia, where the Third Infantry Division 
     is preparing for the likelihood that it will go back to Iraq 
     for a third tour.
       Col. Tom James, who commands the division's Second Brigade, 
     acknowledged that his unit's equipment levels had fallen so 
     low that it now had no tanks or other armored vehicles to use 
     in training and that his soldiers were rated as largely 
     untrained in attack and defense.
       The rest of the division, which helped lead the invasion of 
     Iraq in 2003 and conducted the first probes into Baghdad, is 
     moving back to full strength after many months of being a 
     shell of its former self.
       But at a time when Pentagon officials are saying the Army 
     is stretched so thin that it may be forced to go back on its 
     pledge to limit National Guard deployment overseas, the 
     division's situation is symptomatic of how the shortages are 
     playing out on the ground.
       The enormous strains on equipment and personnel, because of 
     longer-than-expected deployments, have left active Army units 
     with little combat power in reserve. The Second Brigade, for 
     example, has only half of the roughly 3,500 soldiers it is 
     supposed to have. The unit trains on computer simulators, 
     meant to recreate the experience of firing a tank's main gun 
     or driving in a convoy under attack.
       ``It's a good tool before you get the equipment you need,'' 
     Colonel James said. But a few years ago, he said, having a 
     combat brigade in a mechanized infantry division at such a 
     low state of readiness would have been ``unheard of.''
       Other than the 17 brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan, only 
     two or three combat brigades in the entire Army--perhaps 
     7,000 to 10,000 troops--are fully trained and sufficiently 
     equipped to respond quickly to crises, said a senior Army 
     general.
       Most other units of the active-duty Army, which is growing 
     to 42 brigades, are resting or being refitted at their home 
     bases. But even that cycle, which is supposed to take two 
     years, is being compressed to a year or less because of the 
     need to prepare units quickly to return to Iraq.
       After coming from Iraq in 2003, the Third Infantry Division 
     was sent back in 2005. Then, within weeks of returning home 
     last January, it was told by the Army that one of its four 
     brigades had to be ready to go back again, this time in only 
     11 months. The three other brigades would have to be ready by 
     mid-2007, Army planners said.
       Yet almost all of the division's equipment had been left in 
     Iraq for their replacements, and thousands of its soldiers 
     left the Army or were reassigned shortly after coming home, 
     leaving the division largely hollow. Most senior officers 
     were replaced in June.
       In addition to preparing for Iraq, the Army assigned the 
     division other missions it had to be ready to execute, 
     including responding to hurricanes and other natural 
     disasters and deploying to Korea if conflict broke out there.
       Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, who took command in June, says 
     officials at Army headquarters ask him every month how ready 
     his division is to handle a crisis in Korea. The answer, 
     General Lynch says, is that he is getting there.
       Since this summer, 1,000 soldiers a month have been 
     arriving at Fort Stewart, 400 of them just out of basic 
     training. As a result, the First and Third Brigades are now 
     at or near their authorized troop strength, but many of the 
     soldiers are raw.
       The two brigades started receiving tanks and other 
     equipment to begin training in the field only in the last 
     month, leaving the division only partly able to respond 
     immediately if called to Korea, General Lynch said.
       ``I'm confident two of the four brigade combat teams would 
     say, `O.K., let's go,''' General Lynch said in an interview. 
     ``The Second and Fourth Brigades would say, `O.K., boss, but 
     we've got no equipment. What are we going to use?' So we'd 
     have to figure out where we're going to draw their 
     equipment.''
       Meanwhile, the division is also preparing for deployment to 
     Iraq on an abbreviated timeline.
       The brief time at home does not sit well with some 
     soldiers. Specialist George Patterson, who reenlisted after 
     returning from Iraq in January, said last week that he was 
     surprised to learn he could end up being home with his wife 
     and daughter for only a year.
       ``I knew I would be going back,'' Specialist Patterson 
     said. ``Did I think I would leave and go back in the same 
     year? No. It kind of stinks.''
       Instead of allowing more than a year to prepare to deploy, 
     the First Brigade training schedule has been squeezed into 
     only a few months, so the brigade can be ready to deploy as 
     ordered by early December. Though the unit has not yet been 
     formally designated for Iraq, most soldiers say there is 
     little doubt they are headed there early next year.
       Some combat-skills training not likely to be used in Iraq 
     has been shortened substantially, said Col. John Charlton, 
     the brigade commander. ``It's about taking all the 
     requirements and compressing them, which is a challenge,'' he 
     said.
       The timetable also leaves officers and their soldiers less 
     time to form close relationships that can be vital, several 
     officers said.
       And soldiers have less time to learn their weapons systems. 
     Many of the major weapons systems, like artillery and even 
     tanks, are unlikely to be used frequently in a 
     counterinsurgency fight like Iraq.
       The division has only a few dozen fully armored Humvees for 
     training because most of the vehicles are in use in Iraq. Nor 
     does it have all the tanks and trucks it is supposed to have 
     when at full strength.
       ``There is enough equipment, and I would almost say just 
     enough equipment,'' said Lt. Col. Sean Morrissey, the 
     division's logistics officer. ``We're accustomed to, `I need 
     100 trucks. Where's my hundred trucks?' Well, we're nowhere 
     near that.''
       Last week, in training areas deep in the Fort Stewart 
     woods, First Brigade soldiers were still learning to use 
     other systems important in Iraq, like unmanned aerial 
     vehicles, which are used for conducting surveillance.
       Standing at a training airfield with three of the aircraft 
     nearby, Sgt. Mark Melbourne, the senior noncommissioned 
     officer for the brigade's unmanned aerial vehicles platoon, 
     said only 6 of the brigade's 15 operators had qualified so 
     far in operating the aircraft from a ground station.
       All of them are supposed to be qualified by next month, but 
     the training has been

[[Page 19819]]

     slowed by frequent rain, Sergeant Melbourne said.
       This week, the First Brigade began a full-scale mission 
     rehearsal for Iraq.
       Normally, armored units preparing for Iraq are sent to Fort 
     Irwin, Calif., for such training, but transporting a 
     brigade's worth of equipment and soldiers there takes a 
     month, which the schedule would not permit.
       So the trainers and Arabic-speaking role players, who will 
     simulate conditions the unit is likely to encounter in Iraq, 
     were brought here to conduct the three-week exercise in a 
     Georgia pine forest, rather than in the California desert.

  Mr. Speaker, I was pleased that the conferees recognize this growing 
crisis in the military and took steps to mitigate it. Specifically, the 
conference agreement provides $20 billion in additional funds to ensure 
that the needs of the Army and the Marine Corps for fiscal year 2007 
are fully funded.
  This agreement also includes forward-thinking provisions. Ranking 
Member Murtha included language in the House bill prohibiting permanent 
U.S. bases in Iraq. I was pleased to join many of my colleagues in 
supporting that language. I appreciate that conferees preserved and 
strengthened this policy in the final agreement. Quite simply, 
intentions matter. And clarity in the United States' intentions is 
needed more so in Iraq than anywhere else.
  There are many other smart provisions included in this agreement. The 
bill includes a 2.2 percent pay increase for all members of the Armed 
Forces. It increases mental health and posttraumatic stress syndrome 
research, and it provides funds for the replacement of National Guard 
and Reserve equipment lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  But, finally, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this agreement for the simple 
fact that it is on time. Conferees worked together over several weeks 
to produce a very balanced conference agreement. It should be a model 
for the work Congress still has to do.
  With only a few days remaining in this fiscal year, not a single 
appropriations bill has been signed into law. This is not new. In the 
last 5 years, only six of the 68 appropriations bills were finished on 
time. Some may try to shift blame to the other Chamber, but the 
majority has no one to blame but itself.
  Again, I turn to another article in yesterday's New York Times, which 
summarizes the situation quite clearly:
  ``While Republicans prefer to blame Democrats for the backlog, 
intramural fights and sharp differences between House and Senate 
Republicans have been chief impediments to major legislation.''

        [From the International Herald Tribune, Sept. 25, 2006]

           Congress Winds Down, With Much Business Unfinished

                            (By Carl Hulse)

       Washington.--A Congress derided as do-nothing has a week to 
     do something, and the prospects are cloudy.
       Procrastination, power struggles and partisanship have left 
     Congress with substantial work to finish before taking a 
     break at the end of the week for the midterm elections. The 
     fast-approaching recess and the Republican focus on national 
     security legislation make it inevitable that much of the 
     remainder will fall by the wayside.
       At best, it appears that only two of the 11 required 
     spending bills will pass, and not one has been approved so 
     far, forcing a stopgap measure to keep the federal government 
     open. No budget was enacted. A popular package of business 
     and education tax credits is teetering. A lobbying overhaul, 
     once a top priority in view of corruption scandals, is dead. 
     The drive for broad immigration changes has derailed.
       An offshore oil drilling bill, painted as an answer to high 
     gas prices, is stalled. Plans to cut the estate tax and raise 
     the minimum wage have foundered, and an important nuclear 
     pact with India sought by the White House is not on track to 
     clear Congress. New problems surfaced over the weekend for 
     the annual military authorization bill.
       And numerous other initiatives await a planned lame-duck 
     session in mid-November or a future Congress.
       ``It is disappointing where we are, and I think Republicans 
     need to be upfront about this,'' said Representative Jack 
     Kingston, Republican of Georgia and a member of the House 
     leadership. ``We have not accomplished what we need to 
     accomplish.''
       Given the practical and political realities, Republicans 
     have chosen to concentrate on legislation emphasizing their 
     security credentials, like the bill governing interrogations 
     and trials of terrorism detainees, a National Security Agency 
     surveillance program and spending on the Pentagon and the 
     Department of Homeland Security.
       ``With obstruction from the Democrats at an all-time high, 
     we have focused on four security issues in an effort to enact 
     some solid, substantive accomplishments,'' said Eric Ueland, 
     chief of staff to Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the 
     majority leader, who is stepping down at the end of this 
     session.
       While Republicans prefer to blame Democrats for the 
     backlog, intramural fights and sharp differences between 
     House and Senate Republicans have been chief impediments to 
     major legislation. The fissures over terrorism detainees and 
     how far to go in changing immigration law are merely the 
     latest and most public examples of serious policy differences 
     among Republicans.
       Circumstances have changed in Washington from the days when 
     Republicans were famous for party discipline. President 
     George W. Bush, weakened by his sliding popularity, has been 
     unable to hold sway over Congress.
       The Republican leadership in the House and the Senate is in 
     transition and lacks the muscle of the former House majority 
     leader, Tom DeLay. Republican lawmakers, many facing their 
     most serious electoral opposition in years, are fending for 
     themselves.
       ``We have no central core of political authority driving 
     things in Washington,'' said James Thurber, director of the 
     Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American 
     University. ``Individuals and expressions of individual will 
     by committees, and also by strong people like John McCain, 
     have dominated, and the result is internal fighting.''
       Democrats have made no secret of their intention to try to 
     brand this Congress as worse than lackluster.
       ``When we say this is the most do-nothing Congress in the 
     history of our country, this isn't just flippant,'' said 
     Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader. ``This 
     is true.'' Besides denouncing the legislative output, 
     Democrats are mounting an effort to chastise Republicans as 
     failing to conduct sufficient oversight of the Iraq war.
       Republican leaders dispute the notion that this has been an 
     unproductive session, pointing to legislation on bankruptcy, 
     class action, highway spending, energy policy and pensions, 
     as well as to two Supreme Court confirmations. And they say 
     they already plan to be back Nov. 13 to finish whatever 
     remains at the end of the week.
       Democrats have been happy throughout the year to stand 
     almost united in both the House and the Senate against many 
     of the Republican initiatives, forcing the majority to find 
     enough votes to pass legislation from its own membership. 
     That has often forced major concessions from the leadership. 
     In other cases, Republicans in the House and the Senate have 
     simply been unable to find common ground.
       ``In the 26 years I have been here,'' said Representative 
     Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, ``I don't think I 
     have ever seen so much tension between the House and the 
     Senate, and it is all among Republicans.''
       The immigration measure was a notable example as House 
     Republicans refused to entertain the bipartisan Senate bill 
     that took a comprehensive approach to the flood of illegal 
     immigrants. A push for a formal budget plan collapsed because 
     of differences over spending between House and Senate 
     Republicans.
       A House-Senate Republican feud over the handling of a 
     pension measure, which ultimately passed, left a collection 
     of tax breaks in limbo despite nearly unanimous support in 
     Congress. Those tax benefits included a deduction for college 
     tuition costs and a research and development tax credit for 
     businesses. The leadership has been reluctant to bring the 
     benefits to a vote independently because they could be used 
     to help advance more contentious legislation, like the cut in 
     the estate tax sought by Republicans.
       A new struggle between rank-and-file Republicans and the 
     leadership threatens to engulf the must-pass spending measure 
     for domestic security. Lawmakers were insisting that a 
     provision allowing Americans to bring back cheaper 
     prescription drugs from Canada be added to the bill even 
     though House leaders and the pharmaceutical industry oppose 
     the Plan.

  Mr. Speaker, the 109th Congress has had fewer voting days than almost 
any other Congress in history. We have lost precious weeks on politics 
as we debated bills that would never become law; and, as a result, 
Congress will leave Washington this week with many of the American 
people's priorities unfinished. There will be no lobbying reform, no 
comprehensive immigration reform. Congress will have ignored the 
millions of seniors stuck in the prescription drug benefit doughnut 
hole.
  As I said last year when I also managed a prior continuing 
resolution, this

[[Page 19820]]

Congress needs new and better priorities. Until then, delays will 
continue and deadlines will be missed and we will end up here every 
year with last-minute solutions to keep the Federal Government open for 
business.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, the conference report made in order under 
this rule affirms our support for the men and women of the United 
States military. I commend the conferees for their work, especially 
Subcommittee Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha. They made great 
progress in a short time by working together. I would challenge the 
rest of my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to 
yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule as well as 
the underlying legislation.
  We are a Nation at war against the forces of terror who would like to 
threaten the freedom and the liberty that we all hold so dear and are 
constitutionally required to defend.
  Now, I know that the Democratic minority leader in this House 
recently stated that national security should not be an issue in the 
upcoming election. She actually said that. She said that national 
security should not be an issue in the upcoming election. But the fact 
of the matter is that the American people are very interested in 
knowing who stands up for the defense of our Nation and who buries 
their heads in the sand when it comes to defending our freedom. They 
are interested in what we are doing here because our first and foremost 
responsibility is to provide for the national defense. That is in the 
preamble of our Constitution.
  This bill is an important indication of our national will because it 
allocates needed resources to ensure that our troops on the front lines 
have the equipment and training that they need to defeat our enemies. 
It helps us to prepare for emerging threats with support for ballistic 
missile defense. It provides needed funding for the weapons systems of 
the future, like future combat systems, that will allow our forces to 
remain the most powerful fighting force on the planet. And it also 
provides needed funding to study ways to help our troops become more 
mobile and enhance their capability in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said recently about earmarks and much of 
it in a derogatory fashion. But not all earmarks are bad, and let me 
tell you about one that I am proud to have secured that is in this bill 
being done at Selfridge Air National Guard Base in my district.
  Mr. Speaker, as we seek alternatives for everyday energy needs, we 
also need alternatives for our military. This bill is providing $4 
million for the second phase of a project to turn waste into fuel and 
electricity.
  NextEnergy, which is an alternative fuel research cooperative in the 
great State of Michigan, has been working with the U.S. Army TARDEC on 
this very important project. And the technology that they are 
developing will take waste produced by units such as mess hall and 
other types of waste and turn it into liquid fuel. This fuel would then 
run a generator that could produce high-quality electric energy that 
every unit needs.
  One, of course, can only imagine how much it costs to transport fuel 
in the battlefield. You can think about taking a unit of fuel and 
transiting it up to a mountaintop in Afghanistan, for example.
  This project not only enhances the capability and mobility of our 
troops, it will also provide additional security for our troops as 
well. So I am proud to have brought forth this earmark, and I have no 
problem coming to the floor and defending it. And I think all Members 
should come to the floor and defend their earmarks.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a reasonable rule to manage an outstanding bill. 
It has the right priorities and makes a further commitment to 
maintaining our military as the best trained, the best equipped, the 
best supported, and the most lethal fighting force on the planet.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill as 
well.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to pass the 
Department of Defense appropriation bill for the year; and, in 
addition, it will allow the Congress to move forward with a $70 billion 
partial payment on the cost of funding the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I would much prefer that we would be paying for the entire year, 
rather than continuing to see this war financed on the installment 
plan. We are now reaching almost $500 billion that has been expended on 
this endeavor, and I think it would be helpful to the American people 
if they could see the full cost each year, rather than having it 
dribbed and drabbed out month by month in order to hide the full impact 
of the cost. This rule also allows the House to consider the continuing 
resolution for the remainder of the budget.
  We will, when the House leaves this week, have passed only two 
appropriation bills, the defense bill and the homeland security bill. 
That means the entire domestic portion of the budget plus the bills to 
finance foreign operations and State Department operations will be 
delayed until after the election, well into the fiscal year.
  Now, the majority leader in the Senate, Senator Frist, I note 
yesterday objected to the ``obstructive tactics'' of the Democratic 
minority on appropriation bills. I want to point out no one in this 
House is going to be able to point to a single instance in which the 
minority party has delayed consideration of any appropriation bill. In 
fact, we can point to at least 16 occasions on which the minority 
accelerated or helped to move forward the appropriation bills. That 
does not mean we always voted for them. We voted for some and against 
others. But I made the point at the beginning of the year that we were 
going to cooperate fully procedurally because at the end of the year I 
wanted people to understand that if these bills were not passed that 
the responsibility would lie with the majority party. And it has.
  Now the responsibility does not lie with the majority appropriators. 
The problem is that this House started out the year with the majority 
party leadership allowing the strong right wing of their caucus to 
dictate the content of the budget resolution, and that budget 
resolution was incredibly unrealistic.
  Now, as a result, we find the Senate counterparts of our friends on 
the majority side of the aisle who are reluctant to go on record 
endorsing many of the actions that were required by that budget 
resolution in the appropriations process. And so they prefer to push it 
past the election so that there will be no accountability for most of 
the actions taken by Congress on the domestic portion of the budget.
  There will be no final accountability with respect to the number of 
research grants that are cut from NIH below the base 3 years ago. There 
will be no accountability for the fact that No Child Left Behind 
education funds are short-sheeted by over $1 billion. There will be no 
accountability for thousands of other decisions made in the domestic 
budget, because all of those final decisions have been postponed until 
after the election when you can then bring bills up for a vote without 
having any political consequence. I think that is unfortunate, and I 
would simply say that this demonstrates what happens when the priority 
of the majority party is simply to deliver king-size tax cuts to 
persons making over a million bucks a year.
  The minority party throughout has tried to show that we could meet 
our responsibilities in education, in health care, in science, in 
agriculture, and in other areas by having a very modest cutback in the 
size of tax cuts that are aimed at those folks who are in the top 1 
percent of earners in this country, in fact, even better than the top 1 
percent, those who make $1 million or more a year. And I would venture 
to

[[Page 19821]]

say that I think if you asked most of those people they would say ``We 
don't need a tax cut quite that large as long as you are taking care of 
the middle-class folks. Instead, use that money to meet these 
responsibilities.''
  Unfortunately, the Congress has chosen not to do that. So, once 
again, we have to finance the entire domestic portion of the budget on 
a continuing resolution, hiding until after the election all the 
multiple decisions that I thought we were so eager to make when we ran 
for election 2 years ago.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me take a moment to make a couple of points in 
response to my good friend from Wisconsin's observations. First, on the 
bridge fund for appropriations for ongoing operations in Afghanistan 
and Iraq, I just want to note for the record, it is considerably higher 
than it has been in the past, $70 billion, I believe, as opposed to $50 
billion. That is a significant increase.
  Also, that bridge fund allows us to frankly adapt to changing 
conditions on the battlefield. The reality is battlefields do not move 
in budgetary cycles, or wars do not.
  And, finally, it keeps us from building in a lot of expense of 
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq into the permanent base. We think it 
has been a good procedure to move forward with in this conflict. In 
terms of the cuts my friend mentioned, let me just say again for the 
record, if we check each year, we actually spend more money than we do 
the year before, and on more things.
  We have many, many choices to make, many, many tough decisions to 
make. The most important priority for government is always the defense 
of its citizens and the operation of its military. I would actually 
argue, I would probably agree with my friend, we should have been 
spending more there, we should have spent more there during the 1990s.
  In every other area of government, the reality is, including 
education, you mention No Child Left Behind, our expenditures are 
considerably higher than they were just a few years ago, and they 
continue to grow every year.
  So while we would all like to do more, the reality is we have 
increased the expenditures considerably. Some would argue too much.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and 
the underlying conference report for the fiscal year 2007 Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act.
  I would like to commend Chairmen Lewis and Young as well as the staff 
of the Defense Subcommittee for their tireless efforts in support of 
our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who are bravely defending us 
at home and abroad.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation covers an extensive range of priorities 
that are vitally important to our armed services, and we must pass it 
before adjourning later this week. As we fight for our way of life, our 
enemies are actively and aggressively adjusting their tactics while 
waging their terrorist war of religious intolerance against the free 
nations of this world.
  This legislation provides the necessary supplemental funding to give 
our deployed soldiers the resources they need to continue taking the 
fight to the terrorists. It contains funding for force protection, 
including improvised explosive device jammers to shield our soldiers 
from roadside bombs, as well as increased funding to replace and repair 
battle-worn equipment.
  Mr. Speaker, our House and Senate colleagues did a good job securing 
funding for many important programs which are our military's top 
priorities. Chief among these, Mr. Speaker, is the F-22 Raptor. I am 
particularly encouraged by the work the Appropriations Committee has 
done to fund the F-22 program this year, as this aircraft is vital to 
our Nation's defense.
  The conference agreement includes authority for multiyear procurement 
of 60 F-22 aircraft, beginning with 20 fully funded in this fiscal year 
and continuing with two subsequent lots of 20 aircraft each in fiscal 
years 2008 and 2009.
  This will go a long way towards providing stability for the program 
and ensuring that America maintains air dominance for the foreseeable 
future. Further, Mr. Speaker, as we fight the global war on terror, the 
United States must without question continue to modernize and 
strengthen our ability to support our men and women in harm's way.
  Maintaining our Nation's airlift capabilities is critical to this 
mission, and I would like to applaud conferees for their recognition of 
this in funding nine C-130Js, two KC-130Js, and the C-5 modernization 
program.
  The conferees also responsibly recognize the importance of developing 
life-saving innovations to benefit our warfighters. Accordingly, $1 
million was included in the conference report for the research and the 
development of protein hydrogel, which is manufactured in my district, 
by definition, Mr. Speaker, an earmark and one that I proudly 
sponsored.
  Protein hydrogel has the potential to quickly seal battlefield wounds 
to prevent excessive bleeding and death. We are absolutely doing the 
right thing providing for that research.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to again thank my colleagues, thank Mr. 
Cole, thank them for their hard work, and I urge support for this rule 
and the conference report.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California.
  Mr. Speaker, I have every intention of voting for the underlying 
appropriation bill, which will fund the Department of Defense for 
fiscal year 2007, presumably, and I believe critical to our national 
defense. Yet it has been languishing for 9 months. In the last breath 
before the election, we bring the bill to the floor.
  However, I have noticed as well, I am sure many Members have, that 
the Republican leadership has chosen to insert the must-pass continuing 
resolution in this important legislation, rather than allow a free-
standing vote on that issue.
  Let no one be mistaken. The Republican leadership, by tucking the CR 
in the defense appropriation bill, does so because in my opinion it is 
embarrassed by its own incompetence and ineffectiveness. Just look at 
the facts. This do-less-than-the-do-nothing Republican Congress is 
projected to be in session just 93 days in 2006. That is 17 fewer days 
in session than the do-nothing Congress of 1948, which was famously 
derided by President Truman.
  Yet despite the light work schedule, the Republican majority has 
failed to enact a budget for fiscal 2007. It has failed to act on even 
one appropriation bill as we are 5 days from the end of the fiscal 
year.
  No conference reports. That is why we are having this continuing 
resolution. Furthermore, the Republican-controlled Congress has failed 
to enact the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission.
  Failed to enact a long overdue increase in the Federal minimum wage. 
Failed to enact real immigration reform, and protect our borders, 
protect our country. Failed to address the fact that 46 million 
Americans are uninsured today, and failed to enact legislation that 
moves toward energy independence.
  The record, frankly and sadly for the American people and for our 
country, is that this Republican Congress on fiscal issues is simply 
abysmal. We go deeper and deeper and deeper into debt.
  In 6 years, this Republican Congress and the Bush administration have 
turned a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion into a 10-
year deficit of almost $4 trillion. Republicans' failed fiscal policies 
have created record budget deficits and forced this Congress to 
increase the debt limit four times in 5 years.
  In the last 4 years of the Clinton administration, we never once 
raised the debt limit. In fact, in the entire 8 years, the debt limit 
was only raised

[[Page 19822]]

twice, in the first 4 years as we were coming out of the fiscally 
irresponsible first Bush administration.
  Mr. Speaker, this continuing resolution, tucked as it is in this 
defense appropriation bill, is an admission of failure by the 
Republican Congress. As our friend from Georgia, Congressman Kingston, 
a Republican leader, said yesterday: ``It is disappointing where we 
are. And I think Republicans need to be up front about this. We have 
not accomplished what we need to accomplish.''
  Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with Congressman Kingston more on that 
particular issue. The CR tucked in a defense bill, a CR, an admission 
of failure, a CR in a bill that is critical to our national defense and 
to our country. How sad. What a stark admission of failure.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I actually came here to debate the defense budget, but I 
am happy to respond to a number of points that my good friend from 
Maryland made.
  Let me first say I appreciate his recognition for the outstanding 
work the Republican Congress did in the final 4 years of the Clinton 
administration balancing the budget and dragging our friends across the 
aisle kicking and screaming to that laudable thing.
  Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield on that point?
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt my friend. I 
would like to finish my remarks if I may.
  Not only did I appreciate the recognition that the budget was 
balanced with a Republican Congress, I also would ask my good friend 
simply to recall the situation this administration inherited, a 
recession that began literally within weeks after the President took 
office, followed by the shock of 9/11, which sent this economy, we 
think, into a tailspin.
  We had 3 consecutive years of reduced revenue by the Federal 
Government, the first time since the 1930s that that would happen, and 
frankly something that I would not blame on any party. I simply think 
it was an incredibly unfortunate confluence of events with a growth era 
that had run its course, and was coming down, hit by a dastardly attack 
that I know we all agree was a great tragedy in American history.
  Given that, I think the policies that the President pursued and this 
Congress supported of cutting taxes, reviving the economy, beginning to 
create jobs and now increasing the amount of revenue available to us 
were indeed the right course. And indeed the budget deficit has gotten 
progressively smaller as those policies have kicked in and been allowed 
to work.
  The challenge in front of us now is coming again to the spending 
restraint that we found in the bipartisan fashion during the 1990s. I 
would just point out to my good friend that I very seldom see my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle come here and tell us we need 
to spend less money. They usually propose more money on almost every 
piece of legislation than we propose.
  Ergo, I suspect that means taxes need to go up, because they not only 
want to cover the current deficit, they want to spend beyond the 
current spending levels or higher than current spending levels. So on 
that we are simply going to have a debate and disagree.
  I am happy about this legislation. As my good friend from California 
mentioned, we had wonderful bipartisanship in the conference. We have a 
product that we can both be proud of. I think both parties and all 
Members are doing the appropriate thing for the men and women that are 
serving us in uniform. I look forward to continuing the discussion.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have been here for many years, 
26 to be exact. The gentleman mentions 9/11, a cataclysmic event in the 
history of our country. He is right to mention that. Obviously it cost 
us money.
  But I have served here for 26 years, as the gentleman knows, 18 of 
these have been with Republican Presidents, 8 with a Democratic 
President. I tell my friend, in every one of the 18 years with a 
Republican President we ran deficits above $100 billion.
  During the Clinton administration, as you know, we ran 4 years of 
surplus and 4 years of decreasing deficits, the only President in our 
life time who had a surplus, i.e., $62.5 billion surplus; the only 
President in our lifetime who did that during his tenure.
  Further, I say to my friend, in 1993, with Democrats in control of 
the Congress of the United States, and with not one Republican vote, we 
passed an economic program which raised revenues, which you mention 
frequently, I do not mean you personally, but your party mentions 
frequently, but you never mention the fact that in that same bill, we 
cut $254 billion in spending.
  Furthermore, in terms of spending, you say restraint of spending. 
Democrats do not control spending at all. We do not have control in the 
House; we do not have control in the Senate. Yet the Republicans have 
spent, as you well know, at twice the rate of spending under the 
Clinton administration. I thank you for yielding.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.
  Well, again I want to thank my friend, in a very back-handed, but I 
think very obvious fashion thanking that Republican Congress which was 
actually in control of the purse strings. And I will leave it to the 
American people to decide who they want as the next President of the 
United States.
  But you have made a very eloquent case, in my opinion, for the 
continuance of a Republican majority in Congress, because that is when 
spending control was actually achieved. I thank my friend.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a right and an obligation to defend America, as 
one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle pointed out. It 
is in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States.
  We also have an obligation to tell the truth to the American people. 
The Bible says: ``You shall know the truth. And the truth shall set you 
free.''
  The truth is that about $70 billion in this spending will go for 
bridge funding to support the ongoing operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.

                              {time}  1615

  The truth is there should have never been a war against Iraq. The 
truth is Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. The truth is 
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The truth is Iraq did not have any 
relationship to al Qaeda and 9/11. The truth is Iraq had nothing to do 
with the anthrax attack on this country. The truth is Iraq did not have 
the intention or the capability of attacking the United States. The 
truth is Iraq did not try to get uranium from Najaf for the purpose of 
making nuclear weapons. The truth is Iraq did not try to secure 
aluminum tubes for the reprocessing of uranium. The truth is we never 
should have gone to war in Iraq, and the truth is we should bring our 
troops home from Iraq.
  Of the numerous reasons to vote against this bill, the continued 
funding for the war in Iraq is most noteworthy. If the U.S. were to 
withdraw as soon as possible out of Iraq, we would save $1.5 billion 
each week in Iraq, $6 billion a month and $72 billion annually, and 
then maybe we would not have to borrow money from China, Japan and 
Korea to fight a war.
  It is increasingly clear that this administration's occupation and 
reconstruction of Iraq has failed. For every $1 spent on war costs, we 
are taking away $1 from programs that are needed in this country for 
housing, for education, for health care, for the elderly. After 3\1/2\ 
years, Iraq is less safe, not more.
  Mr. Speaker, this administration's policies have turned Iraq into a 
breeding ground for terrorists and created

[[Page 19823]]

the greatest recruiting tool ever for al Qaeda. Even the national 
intelligence estimate suggests the invasion of Iraq has evolved into 
our largest terrorist threat. The more money we spend in Iraq, the more 
of a problem we will have with terrorism.
  What should we do? We should get out of Iraq. We should support our 
troops by bringing them home, bring them home so that we can give them 
the appropriate honor for their service.
  Congress has the power to end the war, and that power is in this 
moment. Cut off the funds for the war, and the war is over. The money 
in the pipeline can be used to bring our troops home.
  The greatest tragedy is that we have lost close to 2,700 American 
soldiers and tens of thousands more have been injured. Up to 200,000 
innocent Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion. Every day, 120 
more Iraqis die at the hands of execution-style death squads, 
kidnappings, murders, IEDs and sectarian violence.
  The war in Iraq has been a great and tragic mistake. It has cost us 
in blood and treasure. It has damaged our once unchallenged 
representation in the world. It has squandered the goodwill rained upon 
this Nation after 9/11.
  We should vote against this rule, vote against the bill. This is a 
vote on Iraq.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Again, I came here largely to talk about the defense bill, but I want 
to discuss some of the points my good friend from Ohio made. While I 
respect him, I respectfully disagree.
  Frankly, the administration, this government, never claimed we went 
to Iraq because of 9/11. We claim we went there because they repeatedly 
violated U.N. resolutions and they were pursuing activities, as indeed 
they were, to get themselves out of sanctions, and they expelled 
weapons inspectors from their country. Every intelligence agency in the 
world believed they were pursuing weapons of mass destruction; and, 
indeed, the reality is we probably simply caught them early in the 
process, rather than later in the process.
  I think my friend's comments are based on the unstated but very real 
premise that this war is somehow better off if Saddam Hussein was still 
in Baghdad. That is simply an assertion or an opinion that I reject. I 
have been to Iraq six times, as many of my colleagues frankly on both 
sides of the issues have been numerous times, and I simply remind my 
friends what Saddam Hussein and Baghdad meant: two regional wars that 
more than 1 million people died in; twice close to nuclear weapons, 
once in 1981, once in 1991; 270-odd mass graves in Iraq.
  I have been to Iraq. Nobody in Iraq wants Saddam Hussein back. Nobody 
in Iraq, at least of any significant numbers, would tell you that they 
lived in a good era, and everybody in the region I think would tell you 
that the region is better off without him.
  That does not mean that we have an easy situation that is confronting 
us. Indeed, it is very difficult and I would acknowledge that up front, 
but I think it calls for perseverance. I think an immediate withdrawal 
would be a disaster for the region and, frankly, would endanger people, 
thousands of whom have placed their faith and their confidence in the 
United States of America.
  I am extraordinarily proud, as I know each and every Member of this 
body is, of the men and women that wear the uniform of the United 
States and do the tough job that we ask them to do. I think in the long 
view of history people will look back on this and say they did a very 
important job very well for this country and, like their fathers and 
grandfathers before them, for the region in which they were deployed, 
because where they go, democracy has followed.
  Democracy certainly was not going to break out on its own in Iraq, 
nor was Saddam Hussein going to wither away on the vine in Iraq, in my 
opinion.
  So I respect the decision that the President and the administration 
made, that this Congress on a bipartisan basis supported, dozens of my 
friends on the other side of the aisle voting in favor of giving the 
President the right to use force; half, I believe, of our friends in 
other body on the other side of the aisle voting for the President to 
have the option to use force and go into Iraq.
  That is something we ought to remember as we have this debate. We did 
not go to war on a partisan vote. We went to war on a bipartisan 
decision.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, it is growing very tiresome to hear 
Republicans rewriting history and blaming all the ills of our society 
on the 1990s and the Clinton administration.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma said the Army was too small, that in the 
1990s it was reduced from 15 divisions to 10. Maybe so, but, you know, 
we have had 6 years of the Bush administration and 6 years of the 
Republican Congress to fix that if that is the problem. I have not seen 
any proposals to change that. I have not seen any proposals from that 
side of the aisle or from the administration to increase the Army to 11 
or 12 or 15 divisions.
  The real problem is that we are wasting the Army. The real problem is 
that Secretary Rumsfeld thought we could fight a war on the cheap. He 
sent the troops into Iraq with not enough troops, dismissed General 
Shinseki when he told him we need twice as many troops as you may 
think; otherwise, we will have a long-term war on our hands, and he was 
right. We sent the troops in without the proper body armor and without 
the proper equipment, and Americans died because of that.
  The other real problem is that we are wasting our funds, $300 billion 
so far, not just funds, 2,700 lives in a foolish, counterproductive war 
in Iraq, a war started by the Bush administration under false 
pretences, after misrepresenting facts and intelligence to this 
Congress.
  We were told that we had to go war to prevent the imminent 
development of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, the 
mushroom cloud by Iraq. That was not true.
  We were told about the connection of Iraq to al Qaeda. That was not 
true.
  If the President had told us the truth, that Saddam Hussein at that 
point in history, not 12 years earlier, at that point in history 
presented no real threat to us, there was no likelihood of weapons of 
mass destruction, there was no connection to al Qaeda but we should 
invade Iraq in order to make the Mideast democratic, would this 
Congress have voted for war? Would the American people have supported 
starting a war? I do not think so.
  I am not going to get into a debate whether the intelligence was 
wrong or misrepresented. That is a question the American people can 
decide eventually on whether the Bush administration was a fool or an 
ape, because that is the question. Either they had it wrong or they 
misled us. I think it is the latter, but, either way, the fact is, as 
the gentleman from Ohio said, this war has not made us safer. It is to 
the contrary.
  The national intelligence estimate says the war in Iraq has hurt our 
efforts in the real war, the war on terrorism. It is a cheap recruiting 
device of Islamic Jihadists all over the world; and, not only that, 
this war, the downfall of Saddam Hussein has done one other thing, it 
has liberated Iran to be the real menace, a far worse menace than 
Saddam Hussein ever could have been, a real menace to us and to liberty 
in this world.
  The fact is, the foolishness, the stupidity of Iraq aside, we are 
fighting a real serious war, a very serious war on a much larger scale 
against the Islamic terrorists. That is the war we must fight and win, 
but the Bush administration, the Republican Congress does not take that 
war seriously. We get a lot of rhetoric about the war on terrorism, but 
they will not up put up the money, they will not put up the effort 
because they do not take it seriously.
  The biggest threat that we are faced with is not Iraq. The biggest 
threat we are faced with is that al Qaeda or some other Jihadist group 
gets nuclear weapons. The knowledge is all over the place. The barrier 
to nuclear weapons

[[Page 19824]]

is where do you get the nuclear material, where do you get the 
fissionable material. I tell you where. You get it in the former Soviet 
Union where there is enough material to build 40,000 nuclear bombs 
lying around, not properly guarded.
  We have a program to get it out of there to protect ourselves from 
the Osama bin Laden nuclear bomb. We will get it out of there over 30 
years. We removed more nuclear material from the former Soviet Union in 
the 5 years before 9/11 than in the 5 years since. For 15 or $20 
billion, we could get it all out and would not have to worry about 
nuclear explosions in American cities as we must because of the 
stupidity of the Bush administration in not getting our stuff out of 
there.
  Twelve million shipping containers a year come into this country. 
They are not inspected. We had a party-line vote on this floor against 
the Democratic proposal to insist on electronic screening of every 
container to make sure it does not have an atomic bomb or a 
radiological weapon in it, but they say we cannot do it; we will have a 
study of it. This is 1942. In 1942, we built aircraft carriers. We did 
not have studies of weather to build aircraft carriers.
  And all the chemical and nuclear plants are unprotected which, if 
attacked or sabotaged, could kill hundreds of thousands of Americans. 
They do not want to spend the money because they do not take the war on 
terrorism seriously enough. We do.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to differ with my good friend from New York on something. I 
actually never mentioned President Clinton. You did. I talked about the 
1990s, and I think there were mistakes in terms of size in our force by 
a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. I say this as 
somebody who was very pleased to serve in my first term on the Armed 
Services Committee where Members on both sides generally found 
themselves out of step with the majority on this body on the floor and 
the administration and wanted to do more. So I do not think this was a 
partisan mistake. I think this is a bipartisan error in judgment and a 
mistake about the way the world is, and I think my remarks reflected 
that.
  In terms of talking about whether or not the President told us the 
truth, I think the record is very clear that he did tell us the best 
intelligence estimates that we had. And I suspect that most members of 
the Intelligence Committee, if you look at the committee and go back 
and look at how they voted on a bipartisan basis, you will find there 
was considerable bipartisan consensus that that was indeed the case.
  Fair enough to say that there is now evidence that the judgment was 
wrong. I think that is legitimate to bring up and discuss. What 
concerns me is, quite often, because we now disagree with the judgment, 
we have to attack the motives of the people who made the judgment at 
that time. I disagree with that. I think the motives were good motives. 
We can argue about whether or not the decision was correct, but I do 
not think the President of the United States deliberately misled this 
body, nor did this body deliberately mislead the American people in the 
war. That is my opinion and my view of it.
  In terms of not caring about the war on terror, I would submit that 
is simply not the case. We can disagree about tactics, we can disagree 
about methods, but the fact that this country has not, thank goodness, 
and I always knock on wood when I say it, suffered another attack since 
9/11, something that nobody on 9/12 would have predicted, is not an 
accident. It has happened because millions of Americans, thousands of 
people in uniform, our intelligence system, our border people and, 
frankly, people in this body have made tough and good decisions to try 
and keep this country safe.
  Now, could it be safer? I will quote the President. We are safer, but 
we are not safe. I think that is the record, but the reality is we are 
considerably safer today they than we were on 9/10, the day before, 
when we had no earthly idea the danger that we were facing and had not 
taken the preparations in my opinion that we should have taken to deal 
with it.

                              {time}  1630

  I don't judge people harshly for that. People make mistakes, and it 
is easy to have 20-20 hindsight and be a Monday morning quarterback. 
But I do give credit when the record shows that somebody has succeeded, 
and I would tell you, in my opinion, this President, this 
administration, and, frankly, this Congress has by and large done the 
right things to keep the country safe over the last several years.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her 
leadership, for her yielding, and for her fairness in this overall 
process. And I also want to thank the distinguished ranking member of 
the Defense Subcommittee, Mr. Murtha, and the ranking member of the 
full committee, Mr. Obey, all of whom have been champions for a 
significant provision of this bill that would ensure that we are not 
establishing permanent military bases in Iraq.
  The American people do not want an open-ended occupation in Iraq. 
Congress must be on record supporting this. My colleague, Mr. Allen, 
and myself offered a similar provision to the war supplemental in 
March, but it was stripped in the conference committee for the 
supplemental. So I am pleased this conference committee for this bill 
retained this important first step in taking the targets off the backs 
of our troops in Iraq by showing the world that we have no designs to 
stay in Iraq permanently.
  However, the language will apply only to funds for this fiscal year 
of 2007, which this conference committee is responsible for, and we 
need to make the policy of the United States permanently not to have 
permanent military bases in Iraq. So while I support this provision, I 
cannot support this bill.
  Yes, this war was authorized by this body. And, in fact, several of 
us, many of us supported a resolution that would have provided for the 
United Nations to continue with the inspections process. I offered the 
resolution, so did Mr. Spratt. Had that happened, and had this body 
allowed for the process to move forward, 2,700 of our young men and 
women would not have died, nor would 15,000 to 20,000 have been 
seriously injured.
  This war was unnecessary. Many knew that then, and of course now the 
National Intelligence Estimates are saying exactly what many of us 
tried to say during that horrible, horrible period. There were no 
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We knew that; you knew that. There 
was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and al 
Qaeda. We knew that; you knew that. Iraq was not a hotbed for terrorism 
when this march to war began. You knew that; we knew that.
  And so this war has been deceitful all the way from its beginning. It 
has been wrong and it has been immoral. It is a perfect example of the 
failed policies of this administration's priorities when it comes to 
protecting our Nation. Again, we have spent over $300 billion on an 
unnecessary war in Iraq that our own intelligence services say is 
increasing the risk of terrorism, yet we don't have any money to secure 
our ports or to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations.
  So why should the American taxpayers fund a failed occupation? Why 
should we pay for increasing the risk of terrorism and funding a hotbed 
for terrorists in Iraq?
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I simply want to respond to a number of the points my good friend 
made. First, let me for the record go back and remind people of all the 
statements that we could line up here of one American leader after 
another, of both political parties, who told us that Saddam Hussein had 
active weapons of mass destruction and was actively pursuing those 
programs.

[[Page 19825]]

  It was this Congress, under President Clinton, that passed 
legislation that made it the object of American policy in 1998 to 
remove him from power because we thought he was a very dangerous 
person. So I do not think you can say everybody knew that that wasn't 
the case. Quite the opposite, in my opinion, is true. Most people saw 
him as a danger.
  In my opinion, they were correct. They may not have had an exact 
count of what he had available, but I think given his record of having 
used chemical weapons against his own people, of having launched the 
wars, of having tried twice and come close twice, according to our 
people, in acquiring numeral weapons, they were right, particularly in 
light of 9/11, to be very skeptical and very concerned.
  Second, I will ask our colleagues to take somewhat of the long view 
here. If this were 1954-55, we could all get here and say, gosh, wasn't 
Korea a terrible thing; it is a dictatorship, 50,000 American lives, 
what a waste. The reality is, if you look at Korea today, the 
sacrifices, the decisions made by a Democratic President, Truman, I 
think worked very well. There is a democracy there. It is secure. Thank 
goodness we made the tough decisions in that part of the world. I think 
Iraq will look the same way down road.
  Finally, I want to deal with my friend's concern about the war in 
Iraq has made us less safe or has stimulated terrorism. I have not had 
an opportunity to read, obviously, the classified document, which I 
understand today is now going to become available to all of us, so I 
want to preface my remarks by noting that I want to read what they 
actually said. But I do want to offer this observation. To say that 
somehow that Iraq has fostered Islamic terrorism and that Afghanistan 
somehow wouldn't have is just counterintuitive to me. If Iraq did it, 
and we were in Afghanistan alone, which nobody seems to debate, we 
would still have that same force running through the Islamic world, 
that same stimulus. It is a reaction, I think, to us legitimately 
defending ourselves in the case of Afghanistan. It would occur just as 
surely as it has in Iraq.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank my friend, and I would just like to point out, is 
it not true, however, that we were told by the intelligence community 
that even if Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, that they would 
most likely use them only if we attacked?
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate my friend's 
observation, and I would be happy to deal with it, but I think that 
comment can be handled on your side and I look forward to the 
discussion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I think the discussion my good friend has 
just enunciated is the basis of the frustration of so many of us here 
in the United States Congress. In fact, we have done a horrible job of 
oversight and explaining to the American people that we, frankly, this 
government, this White House, frankly made a horrific mistake. We are 
not more safe because of the conflict in Iraq, and a lieutenant general 
of the United States Army, retired, who had been in Vietnam, said we 
have the exact same mess that we had in Vietnam.
  In fact, Iran is the one that is ecstatic, because we actually fought 
their war for them in terms of the actions of Saddam Hussein against 
Iran. We have boosted Iran's status in the region. That is, of course, 
of no interest to the United States. We have created an atmosphere that 
threatens Israel even more. The longer it goes on, it benefits al Qaeda 
and the insurgents.
  As we speak before this House on the defense appropriations, we 
remain committed to our U.S. soldiers. We thank them for their service. 
But in tribute to them, the 2,700 that are dead as we speak, and dying, 
the 18,000 that have been injured severely, this is not worth staying 
the course.
  And my words are an anecdote that is taken from this lieutenant 
general: ``It is like a person jumping off the Empire State Building, 
getting down to the 50th floor, waving at those in the window and 
saying, I am staying the course, and then plopping to the ground having 
committed suicide.''
  We are committing suicide in Iraq. We are not safer than we were. 
This Congress has failed. I support the troops and the appropriations 
dealing with their issues, but to support and give tribute to those who 
have died, we need to bring our troops home and bring them home now, 
claiming victory, transitioning leadership into Iraq and into their 
surrounding allies and stopping the divide.
  We have depleted NATO. We have depleted our military resources. And 
we realize when we left Vietnam, our standing in the world was higher 
than it had ever been. When we leave Iraq, we will have a higher 
standing. We will be able to fight the war on terror.
  I am so sad that my colleague keeps saying the same old thing over 
and over again, staying the course and committing suicide.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
will proceed to closing.
  Mr. Speaker, we had a very spirited debate here today, and those in 
the Chamber here understand that many important things are happening in 
this world and in this country. We are dealing here also with this 
conference report, and this conference report made under this rule is a 
fair and responsible agreement. It does state clearly our support to 
the troops and our military.
  As Congress considers the remaining appropriation bills later this 
year, I would urge my colleagues to follow this example, Democrats and 
Republicans working together to craft a responsible bill providing for 
the national defense. This agreement and this working together is all 
the evidence we need that national security is not a political issue, 
it is an American issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, today, in closing, I again want to 
draw the attention of the Members to the strength of the underlying 
legislation, H.R. 5631. We have had a vigorous and good debate on the 
rule and the underlying legislation today, which I believe will help 
convince the House to support this vital appropriations measure.
  Much of our discussion today, frankly, is not centered on the 
legislation or the rule; it is focused on the conflict in Iraq. I, for 
one, simply want to state for the record that I think the world is 
better off without Saddam Hussein, and I think most of the positions 
that my friends on the other side of the aisle take sort of ignore the 
question, is the world better or worse off without him. I think it is 
better, and it took American action to do that.
  I think it is better that there is a democracy in Baghdad; that 
people have gone in much higher percentages in their population to the 
polls on three occasions, under difficult situations, than frankly our 
citizens will go to the polls this November.
  I think it is better that that government is actually pluralistic, 
that represents all the different elements in the country. And I think 
long term there is more hope in Iraq, and it is a better model for the 
future in the Middle East than Iran, which simply is neither democratic 
nor peaceful in terms of its neighbors.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation takes critical and 
incremental steps in funding not only the warfighters' needs of today 
but the future needs of our warfighters as well. Today, our Nation's 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines require and rely on the passage 
of this legislation. And despite the vigorous debate we have had today 
over Iraq, I have no doubt that that legislation and this funding 
measure will receive strong bipartisan support in this House. I am very 
confident that this House will not let them down.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is no surprise that I intend to vote for 
the rule and the underlying legislation, and I

[[Page 19826]]

would urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________