---

The Speaker pro tempore: Pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 261, proceedings will now resume on the bill (H.R. 1591) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The Speaker pro tempore: When proceedings were postponed on Thursday, March 22, 2007, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) had 59½ minutes remaining and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) had 51 minutes remaining.

Who yields time?

Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Yesterday, a number of Members on the Republican side of the aisle sought to belittle the legislation before us because, in addition to funding the needs of the troops in Iraq, it contains money to address a number of domestic priorities. To ridicule that legislation, they tried to belittle items such as funding for levees in New Orleans, and agriculture disaster payments. In that they have been joined by editorial writers at papers such as the Washington Post.

Like the Post, the Republican speakers of yesterday indicated that their main objection to this legislation is the way it tries to create pressure to end our military involvement in an Iraq civil war. Those speakers and the Washington Post editorial writers make no effort to understand why these additional items are there. They simply ridicule them for their own purposes. This bill has my name on it, and I take full responsibility for each and every item in the bill.

Despite the comments of my good friend from California suggesting that if I could have written this bill, it would have been quite different, this is not a bill that was imposed from Nancy Pelosi's Speaker's Office. Oh, yes, she was consulted. But every last provision in this bill was not included until I personally approved of it, and I take full responsibility for it.

I want to be very clear about some of the items that the editorial writers and certain Members of this House have been criticizing.

Let's start with agriculture. I haven't voted for a farm bill in the last 10 years because I believe that existing farm programs provide way too much funding for large farmers and way too little funding for family farmers. But the fact is that over the past 2 years, over 70 percent of the counties in this country were declared disaster areas, not by me, but by the President of the United States. That entitles farmers who have suffered that weather-related disaster to certain forms of compensation.

The previous Congress tried to work its way through that problem for well over a year and failed. We at one time this year were looking at a bill in the Senate costing $6 billion. Thanks to the efforts of Chairman Peterson on this side of the Capitol, the cost of those agriculture disaster programs have been cut by one-third, by tightening up eligibility requirements.

I applaud him for making those changes.

There is a second criticism being made about the fact that there is some money in here for dairy. You bet there is. Because under the Republican stewardship, during the last Congress, or two Congresses ago, actually, in order to use an accounting gimmick, the then majority on the Agriculture Committee arranged to have the dairy program expire one month before every other farm program. That was done only for budget fiction purposes, to hide the true cost of the farm bill 5 years ago. You bet, in this legislation there is a 1-month fix so that when we go into writing the next farm bill, dairy will have a chance to compete with other farm programs.

I find the Washington Post criticism of this especially interesting, since they often squawk about the fact that farm programs give too much to large farmers. The MILC Program happens to focus on small farmers, which is why so many big farmers don't like the program. I make no apology for recognizing that is an inequity that needs to be fixed.

Then we have a squawk about spinach. Let me tell you why spinach is in here. You can laugh about it now, but people were dying last year because of an E. coli outbreak.

Now, the FDA did not have the authority to require mandatory recalls of spinach. What some of these companies did, despite the fact that their product was clean, they voluntarily withdrew their product from the market. That cost them a bundle and brought a lot of people to near bankruptcy.

I have heard a lot of conservatives on this floor talk about how outrageous it is when the government engages in an unconstitutional taking. They usually are talking in terms of land or environment. Doesn't the government that required or that asked these people to participate in the withdrawal in order to protect public health, doesn't that government have an obligation to people who exercise their patriotic duty and did what they were asked? I think they do. That is why this is in here.

Then they are squawking about aquaculture. Well, let me explain why that item is in the bill. In eight States in the union, fish farmers woke up one morning and discovered that the Federal Government had issued an edict which prevented them from transferring their product across State lines because lake trout, in the Great Lakes region, had been discovered to have viral hemorrhagic septicemia, a highly virulent fish disease. If it was allowed to get into lakes, in the Great Lakes, it could have ruined the entire fish supply. So, the government said you can't sell your fish across State lines.

Again, the problem was that the fish that they were prohibited from shipping across State lines was all healthy. In a catch-22 situation, if their fish had been diseased, they could have collected under disaster programs. But because they were healthy, they couldn't collect. So the government put those people out of business.

Does the government have an obligation to correct that problem? You better bet you they do. That is why it is in this bill.

There are some other items in the bill as well that people don't like. But the main frustration on the part of the opponents of this bill is because people don't like the way that we are going about trying to end our military participation in an Iraqi civil war.

Let me submit to you the problem we have today is not that we didn't listen enough to people like the Washington Post, it is that we listened too much. They endorsed going to war in the first place. They helped drive the drumbeat that drove almost two-thirds of the people in this Chamber to vote for that misbegotten, stupid, ill-advised war that has destroyed our influence over a third of the world. So I make no apology if the moral sensibilities of some people on this floor, or the editorial writers of the Washington Post, are offended because they don't like the specific language contained in our benchmarks or in our timelines.

What matters in the end is not what the specific language is. What matters is whether or not we produce a product today that puts pressure on this administration and sends a message to Iraq, to the Iraqi politicians, that we are going to end the permanent, long-term babysitting service. That is what we are trying to do.

If the Washington Post is offended about the way we do it, that is just too bad. But we are in the arena, they are not. This is the best we can do, given the tools we have, and I make absolutely no apology for it.

I would say one thing, those of us who voted against the war in the first place wouldn't have nearly as hard a time getting us out of the war if people like the Washington Post and those who criticized us on the floor yesterday hadn't supported going into that stupid war in the first place

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the gentleman from Wisconsin to think, since I don't have an opening statement, that I don't feel as passionately about this issue as he does. We just happen to disagree about how we support the troops, whether we make an effort to support them by providing adequate and flexible funding for the commanders, or have a mandatory withdrawal

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) a member of the committee, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Weldon of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I thought freedom was worth fighting for. I thought, when we saw all those Iraqis risk their lives to go and vote and establish a government and establish a Constitution and to have, possibly, freedom of speech, that was something worth our level of effort. If you actually go over there and talk to those people, you find out that it is a minority that is trying to break the will of this body. That is what is going on.

What I object to in this bill is the way you have brought this to the floor. You have got subsidies for spinach. You know, my constituents are asking, who put that in the bill, Popeye? Why don't you let us have a vote on whether or not we want to attach funding for peanut farmers and funding for spinach farmers to a war supplemental?

Yes, why don't we have a vote on the Murtha language? Why are you denying us an opportunity, this body, a Democratic institution, the ability to say collectively as a majority, we think this kind of language is what we want to have?

I don't deny the gentleman from Pennsylvania, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense, to put forward his plan. Even though he is not the Commander in Chief, the way I read the Constitution, he can do that. But the way I also read the Constitution and the Federalist papers, we are supposed to have some kind of a vote, and you are just bringing this thing forward under a closed rule.

I personally think that is a disgrace, what is going on here. I am going to vote against this bill. I hope, as we move forward in this process, democracy, which the Iraqis are willing to risk their lives for, will someday be reinstituted in this body here.

Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Van Hollen: Mr. Speaker, 4 years ago President Bush sent our troops to war without a plan for success in Iraq, and without a plan to care for our wounded soldiers returning home.

During those 4 years, the old Congress rubber-stamped the failed policies of the Bush administration. The American people know well that when you ignore failure and bad decisions, you simply get more of them.

Today, we are demanding accountability for a change, accountability to ensure that our troops get the training and equipment they need, accountability to ensure that our wounded soldiers returning home are treated with a dignity that they deserve. We hold the Iraqi government accountable for taking the steps toward political reconciliation which they, themselves, have said are necessary to achieve stability.

The accountability measures in this bill track the recommendations made by the independent bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Commission. The President chose to reject those recommendations and, instead, to escalate the war in Iraq.

At the same time, the President has not paid adequate attention to those who were responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001, al Qaeda, operating out of Afghanistan.

This bill provides additional resources for completing that mission and for holding those responsible who did attack us on September 11. Al Qaeda is still plotting against us. It demands accountability, it supports our troops, and it strengthens our national security.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for a change and direction in Iraq. It is time to bring some accountability to the history of failed decisions we have made so we don't continue to make the same bad decisions going forward. The American people asked for and deserve a change in direction. That is what this bill does.

Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas.

(Mr. Gene Green of Texas of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Gene Green of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, thanking both Congressman Murtha and Congressman Obey for their work.

It has now been 4 years since this war started, over 3 years since we heard the phrase "mission accomplished," and almost a year and half since the Iraqi elections for a permanent government--it is time for the Iraqi government to police, govern, and run its country. This bill also provides more support for our veterans and military healthcare.

This legislation will provide funding for our troops, but it will also force the Iraqis to take control of their own country, and bring our troops home within the next 18 months--possibly sooner, if the Iraqis do not meet benchmarks that demonstrate they are making progress.

Our commitment in Iraq, which grew under the President's surge plan last month, has strained our military, cost thousands of U.S. and Iraqi lives, and has created serious readiness problems in the Army and Marine Corps.

I don't like the idea of setting a timeline, but for 4 years we have had an open-ended commitment, and after those 4 years, we are still seeing some of the bloodiest attacks, and highest casualty numbers to date. We need to set benchmarks to force the Iraqis to take over their own country, and this bill does that. It is not pulling our troops out immediately--if Iraqis rise to this responsibility, we will have troops there for another 18 months, but if they don't, we will begin redeployment this year.

After 4 years, it is time Congress exercise authority over the way this war is being run. Congress is not 535 commanders in chief, but we must provide guidance on what we will ask the American taxpayers to fund. We have held dozens of hearings this year, and passed a non- binding resolution opposing the escalation or surge in U.S. troops. Our vote on this Supplemental will be another step in bringing a resolution to this conflict and will let the Iraqis know our commitment is not open-ended.

I applaud the leadership and Appropriations committee on bringing this bill to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield time to my Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois, Dennis Hastert, 3 minutes.

Mr.Hastert: I thank the chairman, and I rise today in strong opposition to 1591.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my friend from Wisconsin, I have a great deal of respect for the fights that he has fought on this floor for over 30 years, but we do disagree.

Supplemental spendings are intended to provide additional funding for programs and activities that are too urgent and pressing to wait for the regular appropriations process. To be clear, only emergency funds should be included in this supplemental. Period. So if Democrats are looking for an avenue to send money back to their districts, they should look to regular order.

Last year when the Senate tried to include over $14 billion in nonemergency funds in the supplemental, House Republicans demanded a clean bill. And when the House sat down with the other body to negotiate a final bill, we accepted nothing less than a supplemental free of unrelated and nonemergency funding.

Why did we do that? Because we wanted to pledge the faithful support of this Congress to the members of the armed services serving in harm's way. This legislation should remain focused on the needs of the troops and not become a vehicle for extraneous spending and policy proposals.

In yet another show of a different way, the same Members who screamed for a straight up or down vote on minimum wage legislation just 1 year ago are today trying to attach that legislation to a wartime supplemental. And the very Members who voted to reinstitute PAYGO rules just 2 months ago are here today casting fiscal responsibility to the wind.

This bill should be limited to necessary funding for our troops serving bravely in Iraq and around the world in the war on terror. I ask my honorable Democratic friends how the Democrats can on the one hand say they support our troops by providing them with money, but on the other undermine them by telegraphing a date for their withdrawal from Iraq.

Congress should under no circumstances micromanage the war and have politicians making decisions that should be left to our Commander in Chief and generals on the ground. Even The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, hardly supporters of this administration, have editorialized that this legislation oversteps the bounds of Congress and both support a Presidential veto of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and think long and hard about its consequences. This bill is fiscally irresponsible; it holds our troops hostage to nonemergency spending and policy proposals, and it signals to the insurgents and terrorists around the world a lack of American will to do what is necessary to win the war on terror.

Vote "no" on H.R. 1591.

Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that we could do as the distinguished speaker has indicated and simply rubber-stamp what the administration asks for and do nothing else. But the fact is, what we are doing is exercising our responsibilities to provide checks and balances; Congress has every right to limit the terms and conditions under which appropriations are made, especially in wartime.

I would also point out that lest there be any doubt for the support of the troops, in addition to all of the funding that Mr. Murtha has put in his section of the bill to meet the everyday combat and readiness needs of the troops, we have $1.7 billion above the President's request for veterans health care; we have another $1.7 billion above the President's request for defense health care. I think that makes quite clear that if you are concerned about the troops and concerned about the veterans, you will vote for this bill.

I will now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, we have a moral obligation to support our troops while they are in combat and when they come home. That is why we fully fund our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and why we commit $3.1 billion in this bill to build better barracks, housing, and training facilities here at home for our troops returning from war.

We also believe that supporting our veterans is a real cost of war, just as real as guns, tanks, and bullets. That is why we had $1.7 billion in high-priority health care and benefits programs for our veterans, with a special focus on taking care of those who need us the most, those suffering from traumatic brain injury, PTSD, or loss of arms and legs. Our veterans' sacrifices don't end after they return home, and neither should our commitment to them.

For members of the Guard and Reserves in rural areas, we provide $100 million for contracting out mental health care services so these brave citizen soldiers don't have to suffer even more by waiting weeks or months for health care they desperately need and deserve. For some, that timely care could mean the difference between health and depression; for other, the difference between life and death.

To prevent a Walter Reed Annex 18 tragedy from occurring in VA hospitals, we commit $550 million to address serious maintenance and repair needs at those hospitals. Not one soldier, not one veteran, not one, should ever again have to endure the indignity of living in rat- infested, moldy housing.

The needs addressed in this bill are real, and our troops and veterans deserve no less. A vote for this bill is a vote for better health care and housing for America's heroes. By voting for this bill, we can honor and respect our troops, our veterans, and their families, not just with our words, but with our deeds.

Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) for 1 minute.

Mr. Burton of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I understand my Democrat colleagues have the votes. I guess there was a lot of arm twisting last night. So congratulations on getting the votes necessary to pass this. But I am sad because this bill spends $31 billion more than the President requested. It is a budget buster. And also I am kind of sad because I think a little bit about history.

You know, if George Washington had a Congress with the attitude of this Congress, we might very well have lost the Revolutionary War. If Abraham Lincoln had a Congress with the attitude of this Congress, we might very well have lost the Civil War. And I am sad for our valiant troops who you are going to jerk out of Iraq. It is a withdrawal bill. That is what you want to do, withdraw. And I am sad for our troops, our valiant troops, who want to win. Who want to win. And you are not going to let them if you have your way.

So I would just like to say, if I were talking to the President of the United States today, Mr. President, hang tough. Hang tough.

Mr. Obey: I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Mr. Murtha: Let me just say that the Revolutionary War, my great- great-grandfather fought in it. We fought our own war. In the Civil War, I have my great-grandfather's hat in my office. He fought against the South in the Civil War. We fought our own war. What we are trying to do in this legislation is force the Iraqis to fight their own war. That's what it's all about. Sixty-two Americans have died this month. We want to force the Iraqis to fight their own war.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Flake: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Flake: Mr. Speaker, is it true that House Rule XXI, clause 9(d) defines an earmark as report language included primarily at the request of a Member recommending a specific amount of spending authority for an entity or targeted to a specific State, locality, or congressional district?

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is correct.

Mr. Flake: Mr. Speaker, does the language in the committee report directing $35 million to risk mitigation project at NASA's Stennis facility constitute an earmark, as defined in rule XXI, clause 9(d)?

The Speaker pro tempore: The Chair discerns no question of order with respect to the statement that is included in the report. Questions concerning the content of that statement may be addressed by Members by engaging in debate.

Mr. Flake: So I can understand this, if the chairman of the committee simply says there are no earmarks, then the Chair is obligated to say there are no earmarks for the purpose of the rule?

The Speaker pro tempore: That is not a proper parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Flake: Is it accurate to say that a Member could request an earmark through the chairman of the committee and have that earmark funded, and then the report come to the floor claiming that there are no earmarks in fact in the bill?

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman has stated a hypothetical question. The Chair does not respond to such questions.

Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Flake: Mr. Speaker, we have passed some good rules with regard to earmark reform and transparency, but we have found a way around them already, because when a report comes to the floor the rule states that it has to state if there is an earmark there, which Member requested it, and what it is for. Yet here we have something that is clearly an earmark for the Stennis facility and not an emergency by any definition. And my office actually called NASA, called the administration, asked was this requested. No, it wasn't; the request came from Congress. Clearly, an earmark request.

Yet the report comes to the floor; and because it says there are no earmarks, we have to take it for the purpose of the rule that there are no earmarks.

I am just wondering if this is how the appropriations cycle is going to go this year? Do the earmark rules mean anything? Or simply, can we get around them this way? What is to stop every Member from going to the chairman and saying, I have a request for this for my district. Will you simply put it in the overall request? Therefore, my name won't be attached to it.

We need to clean up these rules. If the chairman of the Appropriations Committee would clarify this, I would be most appreciative.

Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The fact is that an earmark is something that is requested by an individual Member. This item was not requested by any individual Member; it was put in the bill by me. And it is there because we are simply doing the same thing with this facility that we are doing throughout the gulf coast, which is to make investments that mitigate against risk because of hurricanes.

This is a valuable Federal facility, and it certainly does not pass any definition of earmark that I know. I know the gentleman wants to see earmarks in every closet that he can find, but the fact is it is not an earmark. It was not asked for by any Members of Congress.

Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, I can count on one hand the number of times I voted with this gentleman. He is on the other side of the aisle, but he couldn't get any time on that side. So I am pleased to recognize that all of us have the right to speak regardless of whether we agree with one or not.

I recognize Mr. Kucinich of Ohio for 1 minute.

Mr. Kucinich: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I rise in opposition to the bill.

Four years ago, Congress was told we had no alternative but to go to war. That was wrong. Now Congress is telling the American people, we have no alternative but to continue the war for just another year or two, and then we will be able to end the war. So war equals peace. I don't think so.

This war now has a momentum of its own, which has captured even people of good will who say they want peace but are going to vote to keep us at war. The same false logic that trapped Members into voting for the war is trapping Members into voting to continue the war.

I believe you cannot say you are for peace and vote to keep this war going. You cannot say you are for peace and facilitate the theft of Iraqi oil. You cannot say you are for peace and give the President money not just to keep this war going but to attack Iran if he so chooses.

If you want peace, vote for peace now. If you want peace, stop funding the war. If you want peace, stand for the truth.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

The Speaker pro tempore: The Chair will remind visitors in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House, and any manifestation whatsoever of approval or disapproval of these proceedings is in violation of the rules of the House.

Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the characterization just placed on the previous speaker is flat out wrong.

Last night we had plenty of time for a lot of Members who didn't show up before the session expired. We called the gentleman from Ohio's office twice to inform him he had time available last night even though he was opposed to our position. He wasn't in a position to take it last night. So I would suggest that we have a different set of speakers today. We called on four Members of the caucus last night who were opposed to our position. And if the gentleman is suggesting that we have not called on Members who are opposed to our position, he is just flat out wrong.

Mr. Kucinich: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Obey: I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Kucinich: I want the gentleman to know that my office did make an attempt to get me time, that we were told that he didn't think there was any time, and that I came down here this morning seeking the opportunity.

Mr. Obey: With all due respect, we called your office twice last night, and we were informed that you had already gone home.

Mr. Kucinich: Actually, I was there until very late.

I want to thank my friend from California for yielding 1 minute and thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Obey: I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. George Miller of California: Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I rise in very strong support of this bill, and I want to thank Chairman Obey and Chairman Murtha for all of their hard work to put this legislation together.

I believe it is time to bring our troops home, to come home from Iraq, and I believe it is time for this Congress to support this legislation.

As the American soldiers begin their fifth year in this war of choice in Iraq, we confront the tragic fact that the Bush administration's preparation, planning and execution of this war has not kept faith with the enormous sacrifices our men and women in uniform and their families have made.

More than 3,200 American soldiers have died in Iraq, and close to 25,000 more have been seriously wounded. And Iraq is mired in a civil war, with tens of thousands of civilians killed, or even more internally displaced. Hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars have been squandered in this war that has left our military readiness in jeopardy, the All-Volunteer Army is at a breaking point, and the world's faith in America's leadership is gravely shaken.

The American people recognize President Bush's approach in Iraq for what it is, a failure. That is why we sent a message to Washington this past November to change the course, to end this war, to get out of Iraq. That is what the American people said in November.

Instead, this President, in all of his arrogance and all of his lying, chose to choose a surge.

Well, the time is now for the Congress to do something about that because the American people do not support a war in Iraq, and has no end in sight, and continues the tragic, unnecessary loss of life. And given the President's unwillingness to change course, it is incumbent upon the Congress to act. With this bill the Democrats in Congress are taking a stand against the President on behalf of the soldiers in this country and the American people.

The bill before the House would protect our troops on the battlefield and at home, and require accountability from the Bush administration and the Iraqi Government, and set a responsible timeline for the phased redeployment of U.S. troops with a date certain by September 2008 at the latest. We must support this legislation. And again, I thank the authors of this legislation.

I rise in strong support of this bill and I encourage all of my colleagues who believe it is time for our troops to come home from Iraq to support it.

As American soldiers begin their fifth year of this war of choice in Iraq, we confront the tragic fact that the Bush Administration's preparation, planning, and execution of this war has not kept faith with the enormous sacrifices our men and women in uniform and their families have made.

More than 3,200 American soldiers have died in Iraq and close to 25,000 more have been seriously injured. Iraq is mired in a civil war, with tens of thousands of civilians killed and even more internally displaced. Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have been squandered in this war that has left our military readiness in jeopardy, the all-volunteer Army at the breaking point, and the world's faith in America's world leadership gravely shaken.

The American people recognize President Bush's approach in Iraq for what it is--a failure. That's why they sent a message to Washington this past November to change course.

Americans do not support a war in Iraq that has no end in sight and continues the tragic and unnecessary loss of life. Given the President's unwillingness to change course, it is incumbent on Congress to act. With this bill, Democrats in Congress are taking a stand against the President but on behalf of our soldiers and the American people.

The bill before the House would protect our troops on the battlefield and at home, require accountability from the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government, and set a responsible timeline for a phased redeployment of U.S. troops--with a date certain, by September 2008 at the latest, for U.S. combat troops to be redeployed from Iraq.

Adoption of our plan is the answer to America's plea to bring this war to an end and turn away from the President's bottomless commitment to U.S. participation in the Iraqi civil war. Our plan provides a responsible, phased plan for requiring the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And voting yes on this bill will clearly show to the American people that a majority in Congress clearly stand with them in their desire to bring an end to the tragic U.S. occupation of Iraq.

My colleagues must understand that if they oppose the war, if they oppose spending more money on the war, if they oppose continuing the tragic loss of life in Iraq, then they must support this bill.

The only alternative to this bill that could garner enough votes to pass would be a supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war with no accountability, no timetables, and no end. That is the reality.

I know that the majority of the House opposes the continuation of the war. There are differences over strategy, on how best to achieve our goal on behalf of the country, on behalf of the soldiers, and on behalf of their families.

Defeating this bill would prolong the war. Defeating this bill would enable the President to continue to his irresponsible and deadly failures. Defeating this bill would send a message to the American people that Congress is not listening to them.

The President has run out of excuses for his failures in Iraq.

The American people have correctly run out of patience waiting for him to change course.

And America's soldiers have done everything asked of them and everything that could be expected of them.

It is time for a new direction.

The bill before the House provides a new direction for America. And it is the only bill that can take us in that direction.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The Speaker pro tempore: The Chair would remind all Members to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. McHenry: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHenry: Mr. Speaker, how is it in order to continue to consider H.R. 1591 when rule XXI, clause 9 of the House clearly states that, and I quote, "it shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee unless the report includes a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits and limited tariff benefits in the bill or in the report, and the name of any Member, Delegate or Resident Commissioner who submitted a request to the committee for each respective item included in such list, or a statement that the proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits or tariff benefits"?

The Speaker pro tempore: No Member rose to a point of order at the appropriate point in time.

Point of Order

Mr. McHenry: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. McHenry: Mr. Speaker, is there a list of congressional earmarks with this?

The Speaker pro tempore: Is the gentleman stating a point of order?

Mr. McHenry: Point of order. House rule XXI, clause 9 states, and if I shall repeat, or if the gentleman would, if the Speaker would look at House rule XXI, clause 9, is there not cause for action?

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman's point of order is not timely.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. McHenry: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHenry: Mr. Speaker, at what time would it be timely for consideration?

The Speaker pro tempore: It would be timely at the outset of consideration of the matter.

Mr. McHenry: Further parliamentary inquiry.

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman will state his point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHenry: Am I correct to interpret the Chair's statement to mean that even if an earmark is clearly present in the bill under consideration today, that the mere inclusion of a statement certifying that there are no earmarks within the provision effectively neuters the rule?

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman has posed a hypothetical question. The Chair does not respond to such questions.

Mr. McHenry: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, it is a fact, not a hypothetical. This bill contains earmarks. And the rule under the House is that----

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is engaging in debate and not stating a point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHenry: Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHenry: Mr. Speaker, it simply takes a waiver submitted by the chairman to make this rule, this no earmark rule, in fact, noneffective; is that not correct?

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is reminded again he is engaging in debate and not stating a point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHenry: Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHenry: How does the Chair understand the definition term of "earmark" as it relates to rule XXI, clause 9?

The Speaker pro tempore: The Chair does not provide advisory opinions.

Mr. McHenry: Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHenry: Under the rules of the House, what is an earmark?

The Speaker pro tempore: The Chair does not respond to requests for advisory opinions.

Mr. McHenry: Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman shall state his point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHenry: Mr. Speaker, according to the definition of an earmark, as I interpret it, because the Chair won't provide a definition, how does section 2101 of the legislation before us today----

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is engaging in debate and not stating a point of parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman is no longer recognized.

Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I yield 2½minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Emanual: Mr. Speaker, today this Congress, the 110th Congress, faces an historic vote, a vote to truly change the direction of the Iraqi conflict.

Let us review the cost America has borne in 4 years: 3,200 lives have been lost, 25,000 of our citizens have been injured, and nearly a half a trillion dollars have been spent, and America's reputation around the world has been sullied.

And under the President's leadership, his Iraqi policy comes down to something very simple: more troops, more money, more time, more of the same. That is it.

Now, there is a lot of rhetoric going around. We fund our troops. You fund the troops. There is one fundamental difference: We require the Iraqis to bear responsibility for Iraq, and you provide them and the President another blank check for another year. And that is the fundamental difference, whether you will bring accountability and responsibility to the Iraqis to stand up for Iraq.

Now, some bemoan and say we are micromanaging. I would say to you, you rubber-stamped 4 years of mismanagement. Not enough troops, not a plan for the occupation and elimination of the Iraqi Army has brought us in from in search of WMD to policing a sectarian civil war.

And when you talk, as the President said on January 10, that he wants the Iraqis to meet his benchmarks, but you don't have any benchmarks or any accountability for Iraq, I can only say one thing, as we say in Chicago, "You're all hat and no cattle."

It is time, after 4 years and an unbelievable cost across America, borne mostly by our troops and their families and our military, that we ask the Iraqis to do for Iraq what they have asked us to do for them for 4 years, and that is to be accountable for their own future.

And I am proud that we have finally done something. We will fund the troops, and we will also demand that Iraq stand up for Iraq's future and stop leaning on America alone.

And we have done something that is so important that has been missing in this policy, and that is not only a new direction, but fundamentally bringing the responsibility and accountability to the Iraqis, which is why many in the Armed Forces are happy we are forcing Iraqis to do for Iraq's future what they have asked us to do, which is stop policing their civil war, but demand accountability, bring a new direction to this, because after 4 years, more troops, more money, more time is only rubber-stamping more of the same.

Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, could I request the amount of time on each side?

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from California has 42½ minutes. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 40 minutes.

Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) for 1 minute.

(Mr. Price of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Price of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, it is truly incomprehensible that there are those who believe that the best course of action in the face of a determined enemy is to tell them that we are less determined. Yet that is exactly what this Iraq supplemental financing bill does.

What message do we send our brave military men and women when we won't guarantee them the resources and the equipment that they need without including a litany of restrictive and arbitrary timetables?

What will our soldiers on the front lines of this war think when they hear they have been sold for salmon fisheries and spinach growers, money used to buy votes?

This Iraq supplemental bill is just one more step in what has become a long list of unprecedented attempts by this majority to accept defeat at any cost.

For those of us in Washington, we get to face this moment in the warmth and the comfort of our homes and offices. For so many Americans, they will face this moment in the harsh reality of a war zone. We must not forget what is at stake. Our military will not, and the American people will not.

Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

(Mr. Dicks asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Dicks: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise to commend my colleagues, Mr. Obey and Mr. Murtha, for the excellent work on the supplemental appropriations bill that they have brought to the House floor. The House leadership has worked hard to put together the votes to pass this legislation.

This bill funds the troops. We have given them extra funds to deal with the critical issues of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. We need to clean up the mess at Walter Reed and the other hospitals around the country, including the VA hospitals. There is money in this bill to provide extra staff, nurses and to clean up these facilities.

It is critical that we put pressure on the Iraqi Government to end the civil war. The Maliki government must get the message that the American people do not have unlimited patience. General Petraeus has said that we cannot end this war with only a military solution. We need the Iraqis to resolve the conflict amongst themselves. We need them to fix their Constitution, pass necessary oil legislation, and end the sectarian violence. The benchmarks in this bill will help them to accomplish these objectives.

I hope that General Petraeus is successful in reducing the violence in Baghdad and the surrounding area. I hope that U.S. forces embedded with Iraqi forces can stop the sectarian killing. Without political reconciliation, we cannot stop the sectarian violence and the al Qaeda- led terrorist attacks. We also need an economic recovery program across Iraq to create badly needed jobs.

This bill sets a timetable. It puts pressure on the Maliki government, and I think it is the right bill at the right time to change our Iraq policy and to bring the troops home in a reasonable period of time.

I hope we can stabilize Iraq, but we can only do it with the effort of the Iraqi Government and their people.

Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1¼minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

(Mr. Neugebauer asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Neugebauer: Mr. Speaker, I hope today, as we take this vote, that people will understand really what is at stake here.

I have heard a lot of discussion today, and some Members are going to go back home and say, well, I voted for this bill and against the troops because I brought home some things for the people in my district.

But today this vote is not about bringing home bacon for the people in your district. It is about American security.

My family was in New York on 9/11, and my daughter-in-law and her mother were supposed to be at the World Trade Center on 9/11. So when I take this vote this afternoon or at noon, whenever we have this, let me tell you the reason why Randy Neugebauer is going to be voting "no." Because I am looking forward, not at what we are doing today and what is going to, who is going to be able to take what projects home, but I am looking forward to the security of America. I am looking into the eyes of my grandsons Nathan and Noah and saying, Nathan and Noah, I didn't leave America safe and secure for you.

This is about security. 9/11 is a real event. America was attacked. We have been attacked before. We know this enemy is going to come back and attack us again.

This bill, this vote, is about keeping America safe. So when Members go home and brag about their vote on this, I hope that they go home and brag about the fact that they cast a vote that will ensure a safe and secure America because, you see, if you take all of these projects home, and there is no security in America, there is no America.

I urge my colleagues not to vote for this bill.

I rise today in strong support of our troops and their mission in Iraq.

Ten days ago, I returned from my third trip to Iraq. From the generals to the privates, the message I heard from our troops in Iraq was "let us do our job so we can win." And that is precisely what we should be doing here today.

Today, we should be working to provide our military with the tools and resources needed to attain victory …

Today, we should be showing our troops that we are behind them 100 percent … And today, we should be showing the world that America has the resolve to stand up to terrorist threats even when the going gets tough.

Instead, this ill-advised legislation does just the opposite. By putting restrictions on our military commanders and the President … and setting a firm timeline and final date for withdrawal, this bill undermines the war effort, sends the wrong message to our troops, and telegraphs our war strategy to the enemy.

Our Constitution is clear in that it places the responsibility for conducting the war in the hands of a single Commander-in-Chief, not Congress. Our Founding Fathers wisely understood that having 535 politicians in Washington attempt to micromanage a war is a recipe for disaster.

I am further disappointed that the majority has jeopardized the success of the drought relief package for farmers and ranchers.

I strongly support drought relief and have been calling for federal assistance since last summer. However, as much as I know producers in my district support disaster assistance, I cannot in good conscience support this supplemental because of the flawed military strategy that the majority is pursuing in this bill.

Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I yield 2½minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the subcommittee Chair on Foreign Operations.

Mrs. Lowey: Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1591 and commend Chairman Obey, Chairman Murtha, and our Speaker for putting together a bill that protects our troops, responds to the will of the American people, and preserves our Nation's interests.

Our men and women in uniform have served with honor and courage, but we are not doing our part. Our Armed Forces are not battle-ready, nor is their mission clear and achievable. There is no definition of victory. The nature of the battle has changed, and our troops now find themselves policing a bloody civil war. It is well past time to set clear parameters for this war.

Since the beginning, this war and reconstruction efforts have been ill-managed. Just yesterday the Iraq IG reported yet again on how unprepared the administration was for the task of reconstruction. The Defense Department had no strategy for restoring government institutions, establishing security, or rebuilding infrastructure, and the State Department was cut completely out of the work.

There continues to be a lack of coordination and strategy to achieve our objectives. Putting billions of dollars more into this war without any parameters and risking the lives of more of our brave men and women is not only foolish; it is immoral. As the New York Times editorial noted on Thursday, if the President won't step up to the task of setting benchmarks and ensuring the safety of our troops, then it falls to us, this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does just that. We are stepping up to our responsibilities. This legislation does not micromanage the war, as many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim. It is a very carefully considered approach to bringing accountability to the execution of the war and to the reconstruction efforts. Moreover, it sets a date certain for the end of this war so we can bring our troops home.

No amount of American blood or treasure can help Iraq if the Iraqis don't help themselves. The Maliki government must exhibit the political will to confront extremists on both sides of the Sunni-Shia divide, to give all segments of society a stake in Iraq's future, and to put Iraqi revenues towards the hard task of reconstruction. Congress didn't pull these benchmarks from the air. They were put forth by the Iraqis and by President Bush in his January 10 speech.

Mr. Speaker, we are already into the fifth year of this war. The bill provides the funding the President requested, but it does not do so unconditionally. This bill sets benchmarks, provides a date certain for withdrawal.

The days of open-ended commitment and unilateral check-writing privileges are over. This bill deals with Iraq responsibly, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. McHenry: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHenry: Mr. Speaker, is a point of order in order against page 87, the subsection appropriating $35 million to NASA, which I believe to be an earmark?

The Speaker pro tempore: The time for making a point of order on this issue has passed. The Chair does not provide advisory opinions.

Point of Order

Mr. McHenry: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. McHenry: Mr. Speaker, according to the definition of an earmark under rule XXI, clause 9, the section 3103 of this legislation which appropriates $35 million to spinach growers, does this not qualify as an earmark under rule XXI, clause 9?

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman has not stated a point of order.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. McHenry: Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHenry: Mr. Speaker, according to the definition of an earmark under rule XXI, clause 9, which the Chair recognizes from the House rules, how does section 3104, which appropriates $20 million to a particular agricultural interest in a particular district, not qualify as an earmark?

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman may engage in debate on that subject if yielded to, but the Chair will not recognize a Member for debate under the guise of a parliamentary inquiry.

The gentleman is no longer recognized.

Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, on Monday I spoke on this floor about a conflict I had in supporting this measure because I want peace in our world and I want our troops to come home. I asked for my constituents to let me know how they felt.

Hundreds of people responded with e-mails and phone calls, and I appreciate each of them. They want us to support our troops. They want to bring our troops home from Iraq, and they want to take care of our veterans.

The most effective way to accomplish those things is to vote for this bill. This will be the first step in ending the war in Iraq, taking care of our veterans, but at the same time, supporting our troops.

I am proud to be a Member of this Congress and to vote "aye" today on this bill.

Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton.

Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, first let me compliment my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee; and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), for the excellent work that they have done. And we thank our minority for working with us on this bill.

The purpose of the Members of Congress front and center is to provide for the common defense of our country. I must tell you how concerned and worried I am about the readiness and state of readiness of the United States Army based upon testimony and briefings that we have had within the Armed Services Committee.

Readiness is based upon equipment and based upon people able to do their job as defenders in uniform. This is a serious situation in which we find ourselves. This bill is a major step toward helping our readiness.

It is our job not just to appropriate money for today's concerns, whether it be in the Middle East or elsewhere. It is our job to make sure that those in uniform can protect the interests of America in the days and years ahead.

In the last 30 years, we have had 12 military conflicts in which our military associates have been involved. What does the future hold? We don't know. But as sure as God made little green apples, there will be threats that we need to deter or challenges that we need to fight in the days and years ahead. We must have a ready force in all services and my deep concern for the United States Army causes that to come into question in our capability.

In this we provide money for the real war in Afghanistan, the Strategic Reserve Fund, which supports training, not just operations but repair of equipment, purchase of equipment, and expenses to improve the readiness of the nondeployed military forces.

I am deeply concerned about the readiness of our forces in the days and years ahead. This bill will help immeasurably in that first step toward restoring readiness for our United States Army. And this is no small thing. A vote against this is a vote against those uncertainties of the future as well as where we are today involved in conflict.

Military health care is very important, and we look at that in this bill solidly. Veterans' health care, military housing allowances. We do so many good things in this bill for our military.

Let us not let the readiness of our United States Army suffer as a result of not passing this all-important legislation.

Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2½ minutes to the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

Mr. McCrery: Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Lewis for yielding me this time.

In my almost 19 years in the United States House of Representatives, I have cast many difficult votes. And I have often spoken to groups of constituents over the years, and in the course of their asking me questions, inevitably one of the questions will be, What is the most difficult vote you have taken as a Member of the House?

And I am always quick to respond, even though there have been many difficult votes, clearly the most difficult vote I have had to make as a Member of the House is to vote to send our troops into war.

And certainly the vote that this House made to authorize the President to send our troops to Iraq this most recent time was a very difficult vote for all of us. Some of us, it seems, have changed our minds and wish we hadn't cast that vote. But the fact is we did cast that vote. We voted in the majority to start this war.

I believe, based on my reading of history, my studies of past engagements, military engagements, it would be a tremendous mistake for the Congress of the United States to attempt to micromanage this war and bring it to a conclusion through artificially constraining decisions on the battlefield.

I have spoken face to face with the President of the United States about this war. I know he is trying his best to bring this war to a conclusion. He is trying his best to make sure that the interests of the United States, as well as the interests of the people of Iraq, are served as he plans strategy and works with our military leaders to plot the best course for ending this war and preserving and serving the interests of the United States.

He has a new strategy in play. It seems to be working. We are getting favorable reports from the commanders in the field.

Let us give this Commander in Chief and his military leaders a chance to serve this country, to serve Iraq, and end this in the best possible way for the United States. Let us not try to micromanage from the Congress, with 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate, telling our leaders how to conduct this war and when to end it. That is the wrong course of action for this country.

Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California has quite a bit more time remaining. I suggest he run some off the clock.

Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, may we hear what the time left is on both sides, please.

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from California has 38 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin has 31½minutes.

Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. McHenry: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California.

Mr. Speaker, we have an interesting bill before us here today. It appropriates $100 million for shrimp, it appropriates $100 million for citrus growers, it appropriates $74 million for a particular type of peanut storage and $25 million for spinach. It even appropriates $50 million for a Capitol Hill power plant. And they do this in the name of funding the troops. I think this is, again, Washington hypocrisy at work.

The most egregious part of this bill, I find, is that there are billions of dollars in this bill for livestock, which the American people, Mr. Speaker, should know is literally pork for pork.

And it is all about getting votes together to fund the troops in harm's way, but instead of funding the troops in harm's way, they are funding pork-barrel projects here in the United States.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, this is wrong for our troops in battle, but it is a great gift for Washington Democrat politicians who are in power here in the House today.

This is a failure to understand what "emergency" means, what "war" means and the fight we have going in Iraq.