[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7404-7409]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Braley of Iowa). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Meek) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to come back before 
the House this evening. And I must say that tomorrow is going to be the 
judgment day as it relates to Members that are willing to lead on 
behalf of the men and women in uniform and those that have worn the 
uniform, and even making sure that we take care of some of the issues 
as it relates to homeland security.
  Today there was a 3-hour, 4-hour-or-so debate on the emergency 
supplemental that is coming up tomorrow. And you know, part of the 
mission of the 30-Something Working Group is to come to the floor to 
make sure the Members have accurate information and to make sure that 
we provide good information, not only to the Members, but also to the 
American people. And having Members come to the floor that may 
represent one view or another is a part of our democracy, and I embrace 
it 110 percent.
  I think it is also important for the Members to be able to receive 
up-to-date information and also talk a little bit about the past. And I 
think the past is something that we should embrace from time to time to 
allow the Members to be able to make a good assessment on how they 
should vote.
  A couple of days ago, Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor and I 
recommended to some of the Members that it is important on both sides 
of the aisle that maybe some of us need to go see the wizard and find 
some courage and also find a heart when it comes down to standing up 
for the men and women in uniform.
  And I talked a little bit about what is in this supplemental bill, 
emergency supplemental, which is over $125 billion and which will be, 
from what I understand, the last supplemental outside of the budget.
  Now, when we talk about this emergency supplemental, this is for a 
war that we are going into the fifth year of. And I just want to say 
that again: a war that we are going into the fifth year of. It has 
lasted longer than any other conflict in U.S. history. And I just want 
to make sure the Members understand that.
  We have heard statements on the floor. Members come to the floor, 
especially on the other side of the aisle, saying, well, we just need 
to give the troops what they need and then, you know, not have any 
oversight or any language in the bill that may bring about 
accountability.
  Well, I voted for two past supplementals. I said that the other 
night. I will say it again. Some parts of that supplemental I did not 
like, but the last thing, the last thing that I wanted to do was to 
vote against the troops having what they need that are in harm's way. 
And I think that is important.
  I don't know how I would have been able to go home to talk to my 
constituents and say that I voted against the supplemental because 
there was a part in it that I didn't agree with, while we have folks 
that are in a forward area, while we have men and women on the ground 
in Afghanistan, while we have men and women that are patrolling the 
streets of Baghdad now because the Commander in Chief sent them there 
to do so.
  We want to support those men and women in harm's way and their 
families while they are here, and in this supplemental we are going to 
support them when they come back.
  We are in the majority now. The Democrats are in the majority. But we 
have a minority spirit, to make sure that there is no Member in this 
House left behind because of a lack of information on what they are 
going to vote on. And that is the reason why I am here.

                              {time}  2200

  I returned back to the Capitol tonight to talk a little bit about 
what is in this supplemental and what has happened in the past. Now, we 
had a number of Members on both sides of the aisle that talked a lot 
about what is not in this supplemental and what should be in this 
supplemental in the future. And I can tell you right now, it is far 
beyond what the President has called for as it relates to emergency 
dollars.
  And when I see my friends on the other side, and I do say friends, I 
can tell you every Member that is in leadership now on the Republican 
side voted for a timeline for Bosnia. I mean, I just want to make sure 
that Members understand that, because there may be some Members who 
weren't here at that time, including myself, and it is important.
  When we start to close out on this bill tomorrow, you are going to 
have Members of the Republican leadership that are going to come to 
this floor and call the Speaker of the House ``General'' what have you, 
call the majority leader ``General'' whatever they want to call him, 
call the whip ``General'' this, that, and the other. Meanwhile, here is 
the Congressional Record where they voted for the very same thing when 
President Clinton was in office.
  Bosnia didn't have half of the conflict that Iraq has now. Not even a 
quarter of the money that has been spent in Iraq was spent in Bosnia. I 
am a member of the Armed Services Committee. There is a difference when 
you come to the floor and speak a cappella and when you come to the 
floor with the Congressional Record.
  Let us talk about what the Congressional Record says because I want 
to make sure that Members understand. And if that was all about 
politics, I would be home right now doing whatever, reading a book or 
spending some time with the family right now, because if it was about 
politics, I would say I want the Republican minority to vote ``no.'' I 
want them to vote ``no'' so that they have to go home and tell their 
constituents that they voted against increasing veterans' health care 
funding, they voted against making sure that out of the 100 Stryker 
Brigades that we have in the Army, that they voted to make sure that 
some bureaucrat from the Department of Defense can waive their own 
rules and not make sure that those men and women have what they need to 
go to battle. And in every Stryker Brigade and every Stryker unit, you 
have to have a driver, a gunner. You have to have three individuals in 
that vehicle. And it is very, very important that everyone understands 
that we have to give our men and women what they deserve when they go 
into harm's way.
  Let me just talk about the Congressional Record here. June 24, 1997, 
House Republicans brought to the floor an amendment that would set a 
timeline, a date certain, to withdraw from the U.S. peacekeeping 
mission in Bosnia, a mission that was only 18 months old. Mr. Speaker, 
I said this mission now in Iraq is in its 5th year. That was 18 months 
old.
  Now, if my colleagues on the other side want to call someone General, 
Colonel, four-star, Secretary of Defense, whatever they want to call 
them, we are, as Members of Congress, to make sure that we carry out 
the oversight of any action of the U.S. taxpayer dollar. They don't 
want to talk about the investment that U.S. taxpayers have made in this 
war. They don't want to talk about the sacrifice of the over 3,222-plus 
members of the Armed Forces that are not coming home again, Mr. 
Speaker. They don't want to talk about the 10,000-plus members who were 
injured in Iraq that cannot return back to battle because of their 
injury. The Republicans do not want to talk about the casualties of 
this war as it relates to families that will no longer have their loved 
one back home, and they don't want to talk about the accountability 
that

[[Page 7405]]

they did not put forth when they were in charge of this U.S. House of 
Representatives to say, Department of Defense, if you have regulations 
saying that military personnel that are going into harm's way, that 
they have to have armor, that they have to have the support staff, that 
they have to have everything they need to go to battle; if you aren't 
willing to stand by that, then don't criticize what we are doing.
  I hope that my Republican colleagues follow and come along and join 
us because this is national security. This is not an issue of 
partisanship, or I am a Republican and you are a Democrat. That should 
not be the issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I have said personally I voted for the supplemental that 
the Republican majority put forth two times in a row, not saying, I am 
a Democrat and, because they are Republican, I am going to vote against 
it.
  Yes, I want to see redeployment in this war, but I do not want to 
leave our men and women without what they need to be able to fight the 
battle. There won't be a lack of ammunition or a lack of food or a lack 
of support or a lack of backup when there is a patrol out on the 
streets of Baghdad.
  Do I support the President's surge? No, I do not. And I voted in the 
affirmative for the nonbinding resolution that came before this House 
that said that we do not support the surge that the President has put 
forth. Just because I disagree with the President doesn't mean that I 
need to disagree with the men and women in harm's way.
  Now, some Members may have problems with this. They may not like a 
word over here or something that is said over there. But the bottom 
line is when you start looking at the morale of the men and women in 
uniform, the worst message that we can send to them is that because of 
partisanship, because someone is a Republican or someone is a Democrat, 
that I am voting against it because my party leader said that I need to 
vote against it. I am here as an American, not as a Democrat here 
tonight, because I think it is important that we think about those 
families that cringe to hear about another casualty in Iraq of a U.S. 
military personnel or a nonforeign personnel that is in Iraq. And by 
Members saying, I don't want to vote for that because there is certain 
language in there that I disagree with, I think it is not a good enough 
reason for Members to say that I am not going to vote for it.
  We talked about a commander. We talked about a gunner. We talked 
about a driver in a Stryker force vehicle. We talked about 100 brigades 
that are out there now. I have been to Iraq twice. I don't need to come 
to the floor and say, I am a member of the Armed Services Committee and 
I have been to Afghanistan, and I have been to many of the other 
``stans'' in the Middle East to understand what our men and women are 
facing in harm's way. I have been to military bases. I have met with 
military families before. I don't need to come to the floor and talk 
about that. We have some Members saying, well, I love the troops.
  Well, I love the troops more than you.
  No, I have a tattoo saying that I love the troops more than you.
  I believe we can come to the floor and talk tough and talk about what 
we believe in. But when it comes down to it, Mr. Speaker, Members are 
going to have to take out their voting card come tomorrow, and they are 
going to have to vote if they support the troops or not, period, dot. 
They can say, well, I support them, or what have you, go home, talk to 
the VFW and march in the Veterans Day parade and write letters back to 
their constituents that I support them 110 percent. The bottom line is 
that there is nothing in this bill that the Democratic majority has put 
forth that has not already been recommended.
  Think about the policy. Okay. Readiness. It comes from the Department 
of Defense regulations. Who can argue with that? Who can complain about 
that? Who can argue, saying we are micromanaging?
  No, not micromanaging. We are just saying if you have rules and 
regulations that have been set forth for the men and women in uniform, 
follow them, period, dot.
  Being a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have watched 
individuals sit at a table testifying before Congress in committee, 
saying that the troops have what they need, and, yes, they all have 
body armor, and, yes, they all have up-armed vehicles, and, yes, they 
have the jammers to stop the improvised explosive devices; and better 
yet, you go to Iraq and you talk to the men and women in uniform, and 
they say they don't have it.
  So what should we do? Should we just say we trust the bureaucrats 
over at the Department of Defense because they say they have what they 
need? Or do we come to this Congress and put in a language of 
legislation that not may or if you get around to it, or if you think 
about it, that you make sure that you live by your own standards. No. 
We say ``shall'' in this bill. We say, yes, readiness is important. 
Yes, we say that what General Schoomaker has asked for as it relates to 
additional soldiers, we said yes to it in this supplemental. You will 
be voting against readiness if you vote against the emergency 
supplemental.
  The Commandant of the Marines asked for three new brigades. That is 
in this supplemental bill. If you vote against this supplemental, you 
are voting against the readiness of the U.S. Marines.
  There are a number of issues that are in this bill that I think are 
important. But I think when you look at House amendment 302 by 
Representative Buyer, Republican from Indiana, and the timeline of 
December 15 of 1997, President Clinton was required to report to 
Congress on the political and military conditions in Bosnia and by a 
date certain, by June 30 of 1998, all troops to be withdrawn. Mr. 
Speaker, that actually came to the floor. And the Republican leadership 
that was here at that time voted in the affirmative for the amendment. 
And so for Members to come here and start talking about it as though 
this is some new idea like ``never before.''
  I heard that today. I was sitting in my office. I could not believe 
that Members on the Republican side of the aisle were saying never 
before, that this never happened, that we have micromanaged generals 
and commanders and all the men and women that are in uniform and from 
this Congress we have 135 generals. Here is the Congressional Record 
right here.
  One guy once said, ``I am not talking about anybody. I am just 
talking about what I am talking about.'' And the bottom line is in the 
Congressional Record, just as clear as I am speaking now, 20 years, 200 
years from now, someone can unearth what I have said here tonight. And 
we have unearthed, to my colleagues on the Republican side, what took 
place, and guess what? Only four Republicans voted ``no.'' Here is the 
voting record right here. I have it. Of all the Republican Members that 
voted at that time, only four Republicans voted ``no'' when it came 
down to a timeline for Bosnia.
  Now, this is not something that came from the Democratic National 
Committee or from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee or 
from my office because it sounded good. This came out of the 
Congressional Record.
  So I want to make sure that the Members know and their constituents 
know that when Members come to the floor and give inaccurate 
information to the American people and to Members of the House, it is a 
disservice. And I am not calling any names. I am just saying that here 
is the Congressional Record. For those Members who said never before in 
the history of the House of Representatives, you have got to know what 
you are saying before you say it, and if you said it, you should come 
to the floor and correct yourself so that individuals are not misled.
  This is 18 months in Bosnia, let alone going into a 5th year in Iraq. 
No matter how you feel about the war, whether you voted against it or 
voted for it, I am not going to editorialize or have an opinion on how 
you voted when you voted. We are talking about right now. We are 
talking about tomorrow, less than 12 hours from now, you are going to 
have an opportunity to say if you

[[Page 7406]]

are with the troops or you are not with the troops. And it is not going 
to be a floor speech, and it is not going to be a press release. It has 
to be if you vote ``yes'' or ``no'' tomorrow.
  And I am speaking to every Member of the House. This is something 
that you have to live with. You cannot go to Iraq or Afghanistan or 
even write a letter or answer an e-mail from a troop if you found 
yourself in a situation where you said, no, I don't agree with what you 
are doing; that is fine, but to defund the mission while it is ongoing, 
our men and women that are in harm's way right now, is something that 
you are going to have to answer to your constituents. You don't have to 
answer to me, you just have to answer to your constituents. And I think 
that it is something you should take into consideration. And one of the 
great reasons why we come to the floor is to make sure that the Members 
know exactly what they're voting for.
  And, Mr. Speaker, if I can, and Members, if they will indulge me, I 
would just like to talk a little bit about what is in this bill, what 
is in the emergency supplemental, because I want to make sure that the 
Congressional Record reflects it when you have some voters that may go 
into the archives of what took place at this time right now. Mr. 
Speaker, I used to see all the time in 109th Congress where we had some 
rough, rocky water, in the 109th Congress.

                              {time}  2215

  We had Members that are no longer Members of this House, not by vote 
but by the fact they had to leave the Congress because of unethical 
behavior, not unethical, criminal behavior, and we never once called 
the names of those individuals. But we said we have to do away with the 
K Street Project and other projects like it, because once upon a time 
this House, when the other side was in control, you had to pay to play. 
Either you were on a list or you didn't get access to this House.
  Now we have returned this House to the people of the United States of 
America. We are going to continue to move in that direction, and I 
think it is important that we make sure that every Member of the House 
has the opportunity to vote on good legislation.
  We are going to consider H.R. 1591, which is the U.S. Troop 
Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007.
  I am sorry, I was just corrected, not only four Republicans will vote 
against it, only two Republicans will vote against it. We are checking 
while we are on the floor. I want to make sure the Record reflects the 
accurate information.
  I think it is important that Members understand the defense 
healthcare is $1.7 billion more than what the President has requested. 
I want to just outline that. The President put forth his 
recommendations which should be in this emergency supplemental. We have 
on top of that, as it relates to the Appropriations Committee, which I 
commend not only the chairman but the chairman of the subcommittee and 
the members of the Appropriations Committee giving us an opportunity to 
vote on $1.7 billion more for healthcare, defense healthcare, above 
what the President has called for.
  $450 million for posttraumatic stress, which is going to happen. This 
vote is going to come up tomorrow. That is very, very important. And 
counseling. We talk about families, you have to remember that there are 
men and women that have seen a lot, an awful lot, some things that we 
would never see. Members of this House, a few Members serve in the 
Reserves, some have served in the Guard, some have seen some of this. 
But the majority of Members of the Congress has not seen what these men 
and women have seen or gone through what they have gone through, seeing 
someone in the mess hall one day and not seeing them the next day, and 
hearing about what took place with them, that happened to them.
  Sniper fire, improvised explosive devices, we could never understand 
that. But they come home with those real issues, and we have a number 
of members of our armed services that have admitted that they have 
issues mentally that they need help with. Now, let's think about it. We 
are talking about men and women of the armed services that admitted 
they have issues. How many of those have not?
  We talk about preparation for when our troops come home. It is not 
just when you are in harm's way that some Members may say well, you 
know, it is important we take care of them. No, when they get home, we 
need to be there for them. $450 million in traumatic brain injury care 
and research.
  $730 million for prevention healthcare.
  $20 million to address the problems at Walter Reed Hospital. I think 
it is important, and I think we have that chart here dealing with 
Walter Reed, that is so very, very important. The Washington Post broke 
the story saying that Walter Reed wasn't up to par. Then you had U.S. 
News and World Report. We have a specialist here. We have troops, men 
and women in need, and I think it is important that you look at this 
Newsweek cover. If you have this at home, take a look at it. It just 
came out March 5, 2007. I think it is important that everyone pays 
attention and focuses on this.
  We have to make sure we are here for them. $14.8 million for burn 
care. For veterans care, $1.7 billion more than what the President 
requested.
  I want to stop there to say we put I believe $3.7 billion in the 
continuing resolution. What do we mean when we say continuing 
resolution? We mean that the Republican Congress did not finish their 
work in passing all of their appropriations bills on time. The fact 
that they weren't able to do so, we were able to meet that shortfall.
  Let me correct myself. $2.7 billion that was a shortfall for that. We 
were able to put $3.6 billion in January 31. The Democrats increased 
the veterans healthcare budget by $3.6 billion. And that was prior to 
the story coming out about Walter Reed. We had several amendments on 
the floor where we tried to increase veterans healthcare because we 
knew already there were issues in VA hospitals, VA clinics, our 
veterans getting what they need, leave alone the number of troops and 
soldiers and also their families that we are going to put into the 
system of active and those that have left the military, the strain on 
it. That is when it comes down to planning, and that is already there.
  But when you look at the $1.7 billion more than the President asked 
for, we are talking about $550 million to address the backlog of 
maintaining VA health care facilities that were intended to prevent 
veterans from experiencing a situation similar that they found at 
Walter Reed.
  $250 million for medical administration to be able to bring on 
sufficient personnel to support the growing number of Iraq and 
Afghanistan veterans and to maintain the level of service at all VA 
facilities and for veterans.
  $229 million for treatment for a growing number of Iraq and 
Afghanistan veterans.
  $100 million for contracting mental healthcare, with the funding to 
allow the VA to contract with private mental healthcare providers to 
ensure that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are seen in a timely manner. 
I think this is an important point.
  We have veterans now, Members, that are waiting, not hours, not 
weeks, but months, and it is real really unfortunate they have to do 
so. I told the story about a friend of mine that was in a VA hospital 
that had my cellular number in his cell phone, and he called me and 
said, ``Kendrick, things are not going the way they are supposed to go. 
I am waiting to see a specialist, and I have been here for some time 
and I haven't seen one and I don't think I am going to see one.'' He 
was admitted.
  Of course, my office called. We were in a truck moving around. My 
office called the administrator of the hospital, Mr. Speaker, and I am 
sure not only did he have the specialist, he had the head of the 
department of the area that he needed assistance in, and he got what he 
needed.
  But, guess what? Every American, every American, every family member 
of a veteran, doesn't have the cell number of a Member of Congress. 
That

[[Page 7407]]

shouldn't be the requirement for service, and that is why we are trying 
to respond to it.
  It is also important, as I talk about readiness and support for our 
troops, $2.5 billion more to address the current readiness crisis that 
is the situation on stateside for our troops, including those that are 
better equipped and trained.
  It is important that we make sure that our National Guard units are 
equipped. Mr. Murtha, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense 
Appropriations, has said there is not a National Guard unit that is at 
a point of readiness right now, Mr. Speaker. They are not ready? Why? 
Because half of their equipment is in Iraq. Why? Because the training 
has not been taking place because of the lack of funding to be able to 
allow them to be battle ready. I think it is a disservice for those who 
have volunteered to serve our country.
  You have $1.4 billion more for military housing allowance, $311 
million more to make sure that you have the mine resistant ambush 
protection, which we call MRAP, for the vehicles in Iraq at this time. 
Everything that the military has asked for to make sure that our men 
and women don't come back in a way that this specialist had to come 
back.
  She didn't have a choice, Mr. Speaker. Members, by voting for this 
supplemental, you are going to give her and many other people like her 
an opportunity to know that we have done everything possible that we 
can do here in the Congress to avoid what has happened to so many of 
our men and women that are going in for treatment, physical therapy, to 
make sure that we can avoid misfortune from happening to them, even 
though they keep the spirit that we ask them to keep, and these are the 
most resilient men and women in our society that are citizens.
  I think it is important also to look, when I talked about the size of 
the military, $2.3 billion for the full cost of fielding an additional 
36,000 Army troops and 9,000 Marines, and also $720 million as it 
relates to military construction costs. I think it is important that we 
look at this.
  This is exactly what I was stating earlier. Members want to talk 
about readiness for voting against this bill? You are saying you are 
fine with the status quo. We don't know when the next conflict is going 
to take place. We don't know when. We asked the Army, why do you have 
soldiers rotating in in 120 days when they just served several months, 
almost a year, and beyond a year in Iraq?
  We don't have the troops. That is what the Army is saying. The 
Marines are saying we are stretched thin. They are asking for help, and 
we are saying we are there to help them, and it is in this bill, and I 
think it is important that Members understand that.
  I could not go to Iraq, which I am going to be going again for the 
third time, and look a marine, soldier, sailor, airman, Coast Guard 
person, in the face and say that I am there for you if I voted against 
the supplemental.
  Mr. Speaker, I go back to say that I voted for the Republican version 
of the supplemental. I believe we should have redeployment, but the 
last thing that I want to do as a Member of Congress, the last thing 
that I want to do is vote against our men and women having what they 
need when they are in harm's way. That is the last thing I want to do. 
There has to be a really rough day for me not to vote to support these 
troops.
  I know that there are some Members that are going to do what they 
need to do, but I just want to make sure, especially for my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle, those conversations that I have had 
with many of my friends, they say, ``Our leadership tells us that we 
need to vote against it.'' In the Appropriations Committee, some of my 
good friends on the other side of the aisle, the leadership said that.
  Well, what about what our troops are saying? What about what their 
families are saying? What about our responsibility as men and women of 
the U.S. Congress?
  Of course, I am not a general. I am not even a sergeant. I am not 
even a specialist in the Army. But I have been elected and federalized 
by my constituents to come here and represent them and the United 
States of America and make sure that we carry out our responsibility as 
Members of Congress to have oversight.
  It is not making decisions here in the Chamber. It is oversight. What 
is wrong with the Iraqi government having to meet benchmarks? Let's 
just put it this way, Members. How long have we been talking about, and 
I do mean talking, about the training of Iraqi troops to secure their 
own country? How long? I just want to know how long. We have been 
talking about it I know for at least 3 years, which this is a war in 
its fifth year.
  For at least 3 years there has been a strong conversation about 
training Iraqi troops, taking over patrols. They have a brigade now 
taking over a city. We look the next couple of months, U.S. troops are 
riding side-by-side with Iraqi troops, and in some cases it is a U.S. 
patrol, because that is what we are down to. A coalition of the few. 
Great Britain has already said, you know, guess what, folks? We are out 
of here. We have done our mission. Saddam Hussein is gone, has gone on 
to another place. His two sons are gone. And they know it is a civil 
war going on right now in Iraq and they know full well that the key to 
Iraq, using the Iraq Study Group, I must add, and also every other 
expert as it relates to Iraq, will not be solved militarily.

                              {time}  2230

  It will not be solved militarily. Diplomacy is going to play a big 
role. Unless we start to endorse diplomacy, and Members are coming to 
the floor and saying, by passing this bill, we are saying we are 
surrendering.
  Let me go back to what President Bush said. He was asked during the 
last campaign when would there be a victory. Well, there won't be a 
victory.
  What he meant by that by saying there will not be a time when someone 
will go and hand a flag over to the United States and say ``you won.'' 
That is not going to happen. That is not going to happen. So for 
Members thinking there is going to be some big conversation at Little 
Big Horn or whatever the case may be for those historians that are 
around, that is not going to happen.
  If you are waiting for an insurgent to come up and say let's sign an 
agreement and say, let me borrow this pen. This pen is fine. I will 
sign right here to say we surrender to the great U.S. military. That is 
not going to happen, ladies and gentlemen, and every Member of Congress 
has to know that. So to say we are going to hang around officiating a 
U.S. war, and losing two to three troops on average to sniper fire and 
IEDs, just to say we are tough and we are going to keep riding until we 
can't ride any more, we are moving into $525 billion-plus, with a B, in 
spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Afghanistan is a worthy cause because they had everything to do with 
9/11. Because of Iraq, the Taliban and al Qaeda still live in 
Afghanistan, and they are getting stronger because of the lack of 
oversight by this Congress and the White House saying we need to send 
more troops because we have the coalition of the few who are leaving 
Iraq. So we have to continue to send brigades and troops into Iraq. 
This supplemental is moving in a new direction. It is moving in the 
direction of oversight saying that the President of the United States 
put benchmarks on the Iraqi Government, and in this bill it addresses 
that. If they don't meet those benchmarks, we start reversing our 
troops out. If we have an unwilling government in Iraq saying we can 
continue to do what we are doing because the Americans are going to be 
here, that is not so. The American people are far beyond several 
Members of Congress on this issue. Democrats and Republicans and 
Independents know full well that the reaction in Iraq of saying we are 
going to continue to send military in and some bureaucrat over at the 
Department of Defense saying, well, regardless of the fact that they 
had enough downtime, we are going to send them anyway because we have 
to keep over 140,000 troops in harm's way, just in Iraq. In this bill 
it goes against that theory.

[[Page 7408]]

  Now, Mr. Speaker, let me just clarify. Does it tie the hands of the 
administration? No, it doesn't. It says if it is within the national 
interest of national security, you have to come before Congress and 
justify stepping out of what we want to pass here in this House. It 
doesn't do anything to the President. It doesn't tie the hands of the 
military. It says if you are going to do something outside of the rules 
that you have already set, you have to come before Congress and let us 
know what you are doing. What's wrong with that?
  Newsweek, Time, and other periodicals that are weekly, and some 
daily, have asked, Is the President listening? What is the President 
thinking?
  The American people are saying they want to do certain things as it 
relates to Iraq, but they don't want to be in the middle of a civil 
war.
  The Department of Defense 2 weeks ago admitted there is a civil war 
in Iraq. They said that 2 weeks ago, and it has been going on for over 
a year. The media 6 months ago said we are now calling it a civil war. 
And the Department of Defense just came to grips with that.
  I am going to tell you, there are four star generals that are friends 
of mine that know full well and have told me, Just between you and I, 
Congressman, we are in a civil war.
  But the administration had to give the okay. So, you know, things are 
getting tough now, and you go ahead. You can say it, yeah.
  That is the kind of DOD that we have right now. When I say DOD, the 
Department of Defense. This bill unearthed that kind of philosophy. We 
want the Department of Defense to be professionals. We want our three 
and four star generals and our people in harm's way to make the 
decisions and come before Congress and tell us the truth, not because 
someone in the White House or someone in the Department of Defense said 
if you tell it, there is going to be a price to pay.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a list of generals that have paid that price that 
have said otherwise than what the Department of Defense wanted them to 
share.
  One thing that is good, Secretary Rumsfeld is gone, and that is good. 
I am glad he is gone from the Department of Defense. I asked him 
politely, Maybe you want to consider retiring after Abu Ghraib. When 
you have the kind of power over DOD, it smothers other ideas. This is 
not something in DOD. This was printed in newspapers. If you disagreed 
with the Secretary of Defense, you had a problem. We want to fight 
against that.
  I want to talk about my colleagues on the other side. My good friend 
who used to be the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, he said he 
never felt stronger against what was going on as relates to the surge. 
They are going to have an opportunity to vote on the supplemental.
  You had Senator Hagel who is also a Republican and I consider a good 
person. He said: ``I think the speech that was given last night,'' and 
this was after the President presented his plan for the surge, ``by the 
President represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this 
country since Vietnam. If it is carried out, it will be resisted.'' 
That is Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony of 1-11-07. It 
goes on and on. Senator Snowe, Senator Collins, Senator Coleman, 
Senator Smith, Senator Brownback, Senator Specter, Senator Bunning, and 
on and on and on. Senator Sununu.
  So we can go on and on talking about the justification of third-party 
validators that are here. And then we have generals, Mr. Speaker, that 
have said otherwise against what this administration is proposing. The 
President has threatened to veto this supplemental. I wonder why. It is 
his words that he said here at that podium that the Iraqi Government 
has to be held accountable because we will not be there.
  We used his words and put it on paper, put it into law. Here is the 
bill. It is on the Internet. Folks can read it. Every Member has a 
copy. There is no secret. It is not in some back room, it is not like, 
I have not seen the bill yet. H.R. 1591. You can read about all of the 
good things that are in here that are already Department of Defense 
regulations. That is what the President said when he made his surge 
speech and the accountability that is being placed on the Iraqi 
Government.
  The Iraq Study Group, it is in here. Their recommendations are in 
here. It is nothing new. They were bipartisan, appointed by the 
President of the United States.
  All we are saying is we are going to hold you to your word. What is 
wrong with that? Whatever happened to those good old days, if you say 
it, you are going to do it? What is wrong with that?
  I don't know what the problem is, Members, but the only problem I can 
find with holding you to your word is probably politics, partisan 
politics. When we look at national security, there is no room for that.
  Let's talk about some of these military leaders that have raised a 
concern about the escalation.
  General Colin Powell, can't say enough about him, former chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, former Secretary of State. That is some 
resume. ``I am not persuaded that another surge of troops in Baghdad 
for the purpose of suppressing this continued violence, this civil war 
will work.''
  That is General Colin Powell. It is not Kendrick Meek. And he is a 
Republican. He is just being an American when he said this. I know 
General Powell, and he is a friend.
  General Wesley Clark, retired, former Supreme Allied Commander of 
Europe of NATO. This is a man who led us in Bosnia. He said troops 
surge and accountability will be seen as rhetoric. The bottom line of 
what he is saying is that the accountability of what we say that we 
want to be accountable for in Iraq as it relates to security is not 
going to see itself through.
  General McCaffrey, who is retired, he said: ``It is a foolish idea. 
Our allies will leave us.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is what has happened.
  ``Make no mistake about that, most will be gone by the summer.'' This 
is what he said. And sure enough, they are going to be gone by the 
summer.
  These are our decorated members of the military that are saying this. 
So when Members come to the floor and start calling Members names and 
calling the Speaker names and calling the Speaker ``general'' and 
carrying on and trying to make a point and trying to sensationalize the 
obvious, it is not serving our troops well and it is not serving our 
country well.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to close with this: we have a responsibility 
as Americans and also as Members of the House to make sure that we 
follow through on what we said and told our constituents that we would 
do, that we would come as thinkers to this process and that we would 
represent them in the best way possible.
  For the men and women that allow us to salute one flag, for those who 
have served in the past, we thank them and honor them. Let's honor them 
tomorrow when we come to this floor and vote for this emergency 
supplemental. We had a nonbinding resolution a couple of weeks ago that 
said we were against the escalation of troops in Iraq. This bill and 
this emergency supplemental is binding, and it has meat and teeth on it 
on behalf of those in harm's way, and even those that have served. In 
this bill we are taking care of the needs of not only military but 
military families. We are providing homeland security with the 
necessary funding that they need. And so when you think about, when you 
pray about what you are going to do tomorrow, think about those that 
are counting on us to represent them.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker and majority leader for allowing me 
to come to the floor tonight. I want to thank the Members of the House 
for listening. It is always a true honor to address the House.
  Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. TAYLOR. First let me tell the gentleman from Georgia I appreciate 
him trying to save some money. I think his efforts, though, are a year 
late. If you want to look for Katrina fraud, look for Katrina fraud 
that was perpetrated by the Bush administration.

[[Page 7409]]

  In south Mississippi we had 40,000 people at one point living in FEMA 
trailers. We are grateful for every one of them, but those trailers 
were delivered by a friend of the President, Riley Bechtel, a major 
contributor to the Bush administration. He got $16,000 to haul a 
trailer the last 70 miles from Purvis, Mississippi down to the gulf 
coast, hook it up to a garden hose, hook it up to a sewer tap and plug 
it in; $16,000.
  So the gentleman never came to the floor once last year to talk about 
that fraud. But now little towns like Waveland, Bay Saint Louis, Pas 
Christian, that have no tax base because their stores were destroyed in 
the storm, a county like Hancock County where 90 percent of the 
residents lost everything, or at least substantial damage to their 
home, he wants to punish Bay Saint Louis, he wants to punish Waveland, 
he wants to punish Pas Christian.
  * * *


                  announcement by the acting chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask Members to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire as to whether or 
not those words are eligible to be taken down.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot render an advisory opinion on 
that point.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand that his words be taken 
down.

                          ____________________