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

Mr. Speaker, I regret that the minority leader has chosen to trivialize one item in this bill, which represents our direct responsibility to people who work in the most outrageous conditions on Capitol Hill. Roll Call itself, in describing the funding that we have in this bill on the Capitol heating plant, which the majority leader just trivialized, wrote that "what we have on our hands is a 'horrific scandal'. The working environment for the 10-member Capitol tunnel shop team resembles that of hell."

One of our own Republican colleagues in this House is mentioned in the editorial as describing the conditions in that heating plant as, quote, "inhumane and unprofessional," and said of the tunnel workers, that they are "probably going to end up dying because of their exposure to asbestos."

The money in this bill is for cleaning up the asbestos problem, which people in that tunnel have to work in every day. I make no apology whatsoever for providing that funds. The minority leader ought to be standing side by side with us to meet our obligations to clean up that mess. I am surprised he doesn't recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy).

Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of Pennsylvania: Thank you to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, there are 435 Members of Congress, and I know there are many people on the other side of the aisle who don't know who I am. I am Patrick Murphy, and I am from Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Back home, my wife and my daughter Maggie are watching, probably on C-SPAN right now.

Over 13 years ago, I wore the United States Army uniform for the first time. I was able to live the American dream. I was able to rise through the ranks and become a captain and a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division. We had a saying in the Army: Lead, follow or get out of the way.

Well, in the past 4 years, the Republican-led Congress followed. They had their chance, and they followed lockstep as this President led our country into an open-ended commitment refereeing a religious civil war.

For the last 4 years, this Republican Congress followed lockstep as my fellow soldiers continued to die in Iraq without a clear mission, without benchmarks to determine success, without a clear timeline for coming home. In the last 4 years, the Republican Congress followed this President as thousands of brave American soldiers returned home in coffins with our American flag. Nineteen of those coffins had soldiers that I served with in Iraq, 19 paratroopers.

Mr. Speaker, with this bill, with this vote, we mark the end of that error.

Many of the 49 new freshmen, both Democrats and Republicans, were elected a few months ago on the promise of new leadership, and that is what this bill does. It leads our way out of Iraq. It leads the way to rebuild our overextended Army, and leads the way to win the war on terror.

To those on the other side of the aisle who are opposed, I want to ask you the same questions that my gunner asked me when I was leading a convoy up and down Ambush Alley one day. He said, "Sir, what are we doing over here? What's our mission? When are these Iraqis going to come off the sidelines and stand up for their own country?"

So to my colleagues across the aisle, your taunts about supporting our troops ring hollow if you are still unable to answer those questions now 4 years later.

Mr. Speaker, to vote "no" on this bill is to stand idly by, to let our commitment to Iraq remain open-ended and to let countless more American soldiers be killed in the sands of al-Anbar and the streets of Baghdad.

Short-term political peril may sidestep those who cast their vote for the status quo, but our children's history books will not treat them kindly, nor should they.

Mr. Speaker, the 110th Congress will be judged whether we have the political courage to put forth a plan to restore accountability and oversight, to bring our troops home from Iraq and, most importantly, to win the war on terror.

This is our opportunity. This is our chance to lead. For too long, the American people have been craving leadership, craving accountability and craving a new direction in Iraq. Let's give that to them today.

Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield the balance of my time to my hero of the United States Congress, Sam Johnson of Texas.

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Thank you, Members. Nancy, John, David, I appreciate you all.

I rise today in support of a clean emergency spending bill for our troops, but this one is all smoke and mirrors. We must give our men and women in uniform everything they need to thwart the insurgency in Iraq and come home safely and soon. You know, we can't tie the hands of the guys on the ground with time lines or benchmarks. And, worse, we shouldn't be using the emergency troop spending bill as the way to finance the political gimmickry of special interest projects. It is just exasperating that the Democrat leaders have turned the emergency troop spending bill into a pork barrel project giveaway.

This bill gives piles of money to shrimpers, spinach farmers, and peanut storage. You know, what does throwing money at Bubba Gump, Popeye the Sailorman, and Mr. Peanut have to do with winning a war? Nothing.

The special interest projects added to increase the likelihood of this bill passing are really an insult to the troops who want, need, and deserve our full support. The Democrats are trying to buy the majority vote today one pork project at a time, perhaps because the majority does not support their slow bleed surrender strategy.

Since the President announced his new plan for Iraq in January, there has been measured, steady progress. He changed the rules of engagement and removed political protections. Coalition forces nabbed more than 50 suspects and dismantled a bomb factory in Iraq over the past few days. Coalition forces in Iraq detained seven suspects with reported ties to foreign fighter groups. In Ramadi, troops nabbed four other suspects with alleged ties to al Qaeda. In Mosul, coalition forces captured a former paramilitary leader who allegedly is responsible for setting up al Qaeda terrorist training camps in Iraq and Syria. During another operation, troops captured a suspected terrorist with alleged ties to al Qaeda car bomb and assassination cells.

We must seize this opportunity to move forward and not stifle future success and harm troop morale.

More importantly, I want to know, how many of you have ever asked your constituents, Do you want to lose in Iraq? I think if you ask that question, do you want to lose in Iraq, Americans will wholeheartedly say no.

We have smart, strong men and women serving in Iraq, and they need our help, and they need the full support of their country and their Congress.

Our troops don't need 435 generals in Washington declaring, we will send you money for bullets, but we won't send you bulletproof vests. Our troops don't need folks in suits sitting in wood paneled rooms on Capitol Hill saying, we will send you armored tanks, but we won't send you gas.

Literally, this bill forces our guys on the ground to fight a war with one arm tied behind their backs. That just smacks of defeat.

Most of you in the Chamber know that I spent nearly 7 years as a prisoner in Vietnam, more than half of that time in solitary. Well, that was during my second tour in Vietnam. During my first tour, I worked for General Westmoreland at MAC-V Headquarters, that is the Military Assistance Command Vietnam.

While working late at night, we had a bunch of men involved in the first real hand-to-hand combat using bayonets. You may remember that, John. That was war. It turns out someone sent back footage to Washington that would match the opening scene of "Saving Private Ryan." In the middle of the night, the red phone rang and I answered it. I heard an earful that is not fit for this House Chamber, something like, This is the White House. What the heck is going on over there? I replied, I'll wake up General Westmoreland. They slammed the phone down and hung up. That was the control they had over our guys.

Starting in 1965, we had folks in Washington trying to tell the generals how to run things on the ground in Vietnam. A generation ago, we saw what happens when you stop the funding and America stiffs its friends. As a matter of fact, we all know just this morning Iran captured 15 British sailors. This bill prevents us from responding from Kuwait to help our strong allies of British in an emergency. We show weakness, and the world knows it.

Just think back to the dark day in history when we saw visions of American marines airlifting Vietnamese out of the U.S. embassy. You remember that. That is what happens when America makes a commitment; Congress cuts the funding, and we go home with our tails between our legs.

The brave marines who died on that day in 1975 while innocent people desperately clung to life on a rope tied to a helicopter are a testimony to what happens when Congress cuts the funding and we leave without finishing the job.

We can't let that happen again. And I don't think any of you on either side in this Chamber wants that to happen. Frankly, we all want our troops to come home, when the job is done. We want to win. Internationally announcing our timelines for withdrawal literally hands the enemy our war plan and gives them hope that they will win if they just wait it out. What world superpower would do such a thing?

We are the United States of America. We are the premier military force on the globe. We are the land of the free and the home of the brave. Surely we do not go around announcing to the world how we will conduct and win a war. Surrendering is not an option, and neither do I think abandoning our troops is an option.

Look around you. We are all America. Do you want to lose in Iraq? Voting to set a hard exit date for U.S. troops in Iraq and imposing strict standards for deploying forces gives hope to the enemy, and it is a prescription for failure. Worse, forcing Members of Congress to decide on this issue when the bill is cluttered with excess money for spinach and peanuts is abhorrent, infuriating, and ill-advised.

My dear colleagues, if you really want to debate the merits of a time withdrawal, give each Member in Congress an up or down vote so we can vote our conscience. The sweeteners in this bill are political bribery, and our troops deserve more than this.

Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot abandon our men and women in uniform for politically charged benchmarks wrapped up in fat-cat constituent projects. If we learned anything from the brave Marines who died trying to save innocent people that day at the embassy in Vietnam, and John, you know this, it is that the marines never quit. Neither should we.

Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, to close the debate I yield the remainder of our time to the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Ms. Pelosi: Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of Mr. David Obey, who understands that the strength of our country is indeed measured in our military might but also in the health and well-being of the American people.

Thank you for bringing this important legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, today is indeed an historic day. Today, this new Congress will take the first step: it will vote to end the war in Iraq.

Any statement on the war in Iraq must begin with a tribute to our troops. Today and every day we thank our troops for their courage, for their patriotism, for the sacrifice that they and their families are willing to make.

For 4 years and under the most demanding and dangerous conditions imaginable, they have worked together to do everything that was asked of them. As Members of Congress, our first responsibility under the Constitution, the preamble to the Constitution to which we take an oath of office, is to provide for the common defense. We here in this body have an obligation to work together to do that for the American people.

Mr. Johnson, our colleague, you, Patrick Murphy, and everyone in between who has served our country have helped make it the home of the brave and the land of the free. I salute you both.

I would like to also acknowledge two people who have been the champions of our troops and experts on our national security in this body. The two of them are the leading proponents on the legislation that is on the floor today: the Chair of the Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton; and the Chair of the Defense Appropriations Committee, Jack Murtha. The two of them care deeply about the well-being of our troops, the readiness of our troops and its importance to our national security, and they are proposing that we pass this legislation today.

I have said from the beginning of this war, this war is a grotesque mistake. Last year's bipartisan Iraq Study Group said: "The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating." They called for action.

The facts on the ground are these: after 4 years, Iraq is in chaos and the government is not being held accountable. The administration is sending troops into the battle who are not mission-ready.

And when they come home, our veterans are not being honored as the heroes they are. The revelation of appalling conditions at Walter Reed Hospital and VA facilities across the Nation remind us, once again, that our troops are being sent into a war without the right preparation to welcome them home when they return. What kind of message does that send to our troops?

In terms of the chaos in Iraq, our Commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, recently said, "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq." General Petraeus. Yet, the President's response to escalating levels of violence is to deploy more troops, a strategy that has been tried and failed, tried and without success three times already.

In the short time since the escalation began, disturbing facts have come to light.

The admission by General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that he is, "not comfortable" with the readiness of Army units in the United States.

The declaration whereby the Department of Defense has finally admitted that elements of a civil war do exist in Iraq; in fact, it is even worse than that.

Yesterday, in terms of reconstruction, the conclusion of the Special Inspector General that the failure of the reconstruction effort in Iraq was caused by a lack of planning, coordination and oversight. In fact, more than $10 billion has disappeared, with no accountability. Waste, fraud and abuse are rampant in the reconstruction in Iraq.

How are we going to win the hearts and minds if the money is disappearing in thin air? We must address those and other facts about the war in Iraq.

The bill we debate today, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act, does that by rebuilding our military, honoring our promises to our veterans, holding the Iraqi Government accountable, and enabling us to bring our troops home.

Rather than sending more troops into the chaos that is the Iraqi civil war, we must be focused on bringing the war to an end. We can do that by passing this bill that transforms the performance benchmarks that have already been endorsed by President Bush and the Iraqi Government into requirements.

When those benchmarks are met, or when it becomes clear, after a reasonable amount of time, that they will not be met, the bill requires that our troops leave Iraq on a schedule that our former colleague, Lee Hamilton, a cochair of the Iraq Study Group, called responsible, not precipitate.

Benchmarks without deadlines are just words. And after 4 years of this war, words are not enough.

As Former National Security Advisor Brzezinski wrote in a letter endorsing this bill, "It is clear that a different approach is needed if the Iraqis are to be encouraged to make the political accommodations necessary to promote stability and national reconciliation." That should have been happening a long, long time ago.

Bring the troops home too soon? It is too late for that, 4 years into a war, a war in which we have been engaged longer than we were in World War II.

This bill, in its wisdom, calls upon the Defense Department to adhere to its own readiness standards. The benchmarks were endorsed by the President and the Iraqi Government. The guidelines for the readiness standards are the Defense Department's own. Those standards are intended to assure that before our troops are sent into harm's way, they have the training and the equipment they need to enable them to perform their missions successfully. That simply is not happening.

The war in Iraq has produced a national security crisis, well described by Mr. Murtha and Mr. Skelton and others in the course of the day. Our readiness is at its lowest level since the Vietnam war. By addressing that crisis, the bill supports the troops, supports the troops, and protects the American people.

How do we support the troops by sending them into harm's way without the proper training and equipment, without the proper dwell time at home, and taking them there and overextending their stays and redeploying them over and over again? This bill says, adhere to your own guidelines.

Over and over again, Senator Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, and I have appealed to the President to have a new direction in Iraq, change the mission from combat to training, enabling us to redeploy our troops for limited purpose in Iraq. Engage in diplomacy, encourage the Iraqis to engage in the regional diplomacy so necessary to bring stability to the region. Have real reconstruction. Real reconstruction, reform it; reconstruction, not corruption. And have the political change that is necessary, amend the Constitution to relieve the civil unrest and strife that has produced so much violence.

When we do that, we can bring our troops home. We can redeploy them out of Iraq, and we can turn our attention to the real war on terror in Afghanistan.

A matter of weeks ago I was in Afghanistan with some of our colleagues, and the commander of the coalition forces there told us, flat out, that if we had not taken our attention away from Afghanistan, if we had stayed focused there, the al Qaeda and the Taliban would not have the opportunity that they have there now to make a comeback. That is where the war on terror is. The war in Iraq is a separate war from the war on terror. It is a separate war.

Again, the American people have lost faith in the President's conduct of this war. The American people see the reality of this war. The President does not.

Today, the Congress has an historic opportunity to vote to end the war in Iraq. Each Member of Congress will make a choice. The world is watching for our decision. The choice is clear. Will we renew the President's blank check for an open-ended war without end, or will we take a giant step to end the war and responsibly redeploy our troops out of Iraq?

The American people want a new direction in Iraq. Today the Congress will provide it. The American people do not support a war without end, and neither should this Congress. I urge an "aye" vote.

Mr. Waxman: Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to begin the end of American military involvement in Iraq.

I am so troubled by the war that I'm tempted to vote no on the supplemental spending bill (H.R. 1591) and claim a moral victory.

But our actions have consequences. If the war's opponents side with its proponents to defeat this bill, we will have won a moral victory at an unacceptable cost. It will give the President and our Republican colleagues the result they're hoping for. They know if the bill fails, the House will pass legislation to give the President a blank check to do whatever he wants in Iraq.

H.R. 1591 contains legally binding language that will force the President to begin redeploying troops by March 2008 and to completely withdraw them by September 2008. It is the only legislation with a realistic chance of passing that will extract us from the war.

H.R. 1591 makes sure that we give our troops and veterans support they desperately need. It includes significant increases in funding for healthcare services, troop readiness and protection, and military housing. It will fix the scandalous situation at Walter Reed Hospital. And, it requires overdue reforms in Iraq contracting.

The Bush Administration is pursuing a failed, delusional policy. We cannot stabilize Iraq alone and we cannot do so militarily. We must find a diplomatic solution with Iraq's neighbors and the international community. H.R. 1591 puts us on that path, and I urge Members to vote for it.

Mr. Scott of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans Health and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007.

There is no doubt that the conflict in Iraq is now a civil war marked primarily by sectarian violence, pitting Sunnis against Shias, with our troops caught in between. This bill is in fact the most responsible means to get our men and women out of this quagmire.

This legislation does not call for an immediate withdrawal. Instead, the legislation gives Iraq's government a timeline to achieve political and military progress, a timeline already set by President Bush and Iraqi leaders. If Iraq's government fails to meet the benchmarks outlined in the legislation, U.S. forces must be redeployed by March 2008. If the benchmarks are met by the deadlines established in the legislation, U.S. forces must be redeployed by September 2008. In doing this, the legislation creates leverage that the U.S. can use to hold Iraq's government accountable and make it ultimately responsible for creating a political solution to this conflict that will result in American troops coming home.

I acknowledge that Congress should generally avoid trying to micro- manage a war. When decisions need to be made, there is no time for committee hearings or floor votes; the Commander-in-Chief may need to act immediately. However, this Administration, contrary to the facts of the situation on the ground, continues to claim that success is around the corner. The then-Republican Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee stated that "in two or three months if this thing hasn't come to fruition and this level of violence is not under control" then we would need to rethink our policy--he made that statement six months ago.

Some have suggested that any deadline is problematic. However, the Administration's original time estimate for the war was 'six days, six weeks, no more than six months,' so a firm deadline 18 months from now, after four years of this open ended conflict, cannot create any more problems than we already have and in fact sets a date that we can begin to bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, today's legislation, for the first time in the four year history of this conflict, finally puts real pressure on the President and Iraq's leaders to bring this war to an end. This bill will begin a responsible process to remove our forces from Iraq.

Foreign Policy Experts Support H.R. 1591. Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski has stated that "only a political solution will end this war," and that the plan approved by the House today provides "a means to hold the Iraqi government accountable for its performance by conditioning U.S. support to the meeting of benchmarks already endorsed by President Bush and Iraqi leaders."

Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright recently stated, "the bottom line is that there must be a political settlement in Iraq that will end the civil war and reduce the level of insecurity to something that can be managed. With a settlement, we could withdraw gradually, with mission accomplished. Without a settlement, our troops can do little good and might as well come home sooner rather than later."

In a letter to House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, former Congressman, 9/11 Commissioner and co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, Lee Hamilton said that "a strategy of sustained pressure on the Iraqi government to meet benchmarks on national reconciliation, security, and improving the lives of the Iraqi people--backed by clear conditionality of U.S. support--has the best chance of advancing stability in Iraq." Congressman Hamilton added under the House proposal, "the President retains his flexibility and authority as commander-in-chief."

High Ranking Military Officials have questioned our current policy in Iraq.

Former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.), former President of the National Defense University Lt Gen. Robert G. Gard, Jr. (Ret.), former Deputy Commander of Multinational Force Iraq Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, current Deputy Commander of Multinational Force Iraq Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, and First Head of Training of Troops in Iraq Maj. Gen Paul Eaton (Ret.), have all pointed out that the solution in Iraq is primarily political, diplomatic and economic.

In an open letter to Congress, several retired generals and other high ranking military officials stated that the situation in Iraq is "grave and deteriorating" and that top military officials have "consistently acknowledged that the repeated and lengthy deployments are straining" the U.S. military.

General David Petraeus, the new Commander of Multinational Force Iraq, recently declared that "there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq."

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, today, I voted for the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act because it provides our Nation's returning troops and veterans with the care they need and deserve, and makes our country more secure by setting forth a new, responsible course in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The people of my District have told me that after four years and thousands of lives lost, they are looking to Congress to ensure that our commitment in Iraq is not open-ended, that there is not a blank check on American lives, and that the Iraqi government will be held accountable.

While I have serious concerns about some aspects of this legislation, and, in general, do not support an absolute, Congressionally-mandated timetable in Iraq, I believe that, on balance, this legislation does more good than harm. Ideally, I would have preferred a more bipartisan approach, especially on an issue of this magnitude.

I am deeply disappointed in my Party's leadership for insisting on a timetable instead of working with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I am also disappointed that leadership saw fit to include millions of dollars for unrelated spending projects for shrimp farmers and peanut storage facilities. I will be working with my colleagues to remove these provisions as this bill goes to conference.

Our sons and daughters are in harm's way, however, and I cannot in good conscience withhold the resources they need while we continue what is likely to be a lengthy debate in Washington.

I also believe that as the Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, I have a unique responsibility to our veterans.

I am working hard to make caring for our veterans a national priority, and this legislation is a good start. It secures a much- needed $1.7 billion for veterans' health care, including $550 million to get rid of the maintenance backlog that will help ensure veterans' facilities are clean and well-maintained.

This bill provides $20 million to clean up the mess at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. These funds, combined with the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act of 2007--which I introduced last month--are an important first step.

By voting this emergency supplemental down, Congress would send a distressing and insulting message to our injured soldiers, veterans and their loved ones that its years of neglectful under-funding and failed oversight of Walter Reed would go on and on.

This bill also makes our country more secure. It provides our troops with the resources they need to fight al Qaeda and other terrorists in an increasingly hostile situation in Afghanistan. For too long, the situation in Afghanistan has gone under the radar while al Qaeda and elements of the Taliban have grown stronger.

In Iraq, we are setting forth a new, responsible course that demands that the Iraqis take responsibility for their own security and stability. That requires the Iraqi government to meet its own benchmarks.

This is precisely the type of plan the bipartisan Iraq Study Group outlined just a few months ago. The distinguished members of that panel, including James Baker, Lee Hamilton and Arizona's own Sandra Day O'Connor, believed, as I do, that benchmarks are an appropriate way to chart the Iraqi government's progress, or lack thereof.

Among these benchmarks are quelling sectarian violence, disarming sectarian militias and developing a plan to share oil revenues equitably among all Iraqis. Holding the Iraqi government accountable is imperative because they have not always lived up to their promises.

Mr. Reyes: Mr. Speaker, this week we lost another four soldiers from Fort Bliss to an IED attack in Iraq. That makes a total of 35 troops from El Paso who went to Iraq and didn't come home.

Remember, 35 is not just a number. It's not an abstract concept. Thirty-five is the number of families suffering--aunts and uncles, grandparents, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, children. There are friends, classmates, teachers, coaches, fellow soldiers, colleagues, and so many others who are connected to the lives of our lost heroes.

The cost of this war has been too high not just in terms of lives lost and warriors wounded. We have poured taxpayers' money into Iraq. We have spent 500 billion--half a trillion!--dollars to that country. And as we have increased our investment in Iraq, we have less and less to show for it. Rather than progress, our billions of dollars have produced civil war.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the Iraq War, my colleagues know two things about me. One, I opposed this war from the beginning. It was a mistake. Two, since the Iraq War began, I have been committed to our troops and to supporting the best possible outcome.

As a Vietnam veteran I know what combat is about. I have visited Iraq seven times. I have been to Afghanistan many times. I know what our troops require. I have worked out of the spotlight behind the closed doors of the Intelligence Committee and in the Armed Services Committee. My focus has been providing our soldiers with the tools they need to complete their mission and return home safely--body and vehicle armor, IED jammers, and timely, accurate intelligence.

And I'm proud of that work. I'm saddened that our troops didn't have the protection they needed right off the bat, and I'm ashamed we went to war with bad intelligence, but I'm proud of the work we've done in committee to set things right when we could.

But today we send a strong message, that it is long overdue for the Iraqis to stand up for their country, for the Iraqis to assume responsibility for their security and for their political decisions.

If Iraq is to become a democracy--and we're willing to stay and help them with training, other support functions--but after four years it's time that they accept responsibility for their own future. And that's what this legislation is about.

More importantly, this bill takes care of our troops. It brings them home. And once our troops are home, this bill commits our government to caring for our troops and veterans in a fashion that reflects the sacrifices they have made for our country.

Mr. Speaker, I've been listening to the arguments of my colleagues on the other side. One thing I'm struck by is how similar the arguments I'm hearing today are to what they've been saying for the past four years. Every step of the way, my colleagues on the other side have been wrong on our policy in Iraq. Yet they pony up the same rhetoric, the same rationale for the same policies that have gotten us nowhere but into the middle of a civil war.

For four long years, our troops have made immeasurable sacrifices in Iraq, and now it is time for the Iraqis to step up and take responsibility for their own security.

Mr. Larsen of Connecticut: Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this letter from Connecticut Governor Rell for the Record. This letter to Chairman Skelton echoes the sentiment that has been debated in this Chamber and reaffirms why the bill before us today is so important. As we move forward with a new direction in Iraq, we must address the readiness of our military; we must provide the necessary support and equipment to our troops--this includes the National Guard in Connecticut and across the country.

Mr. Castle: Mr. Speaker, regrettably, I rise in opposition to the Fiscal Year 2007 Emergency Supplemental Spending bill.

Earlier this year, our military submitted a request to Congress for emergency funding to protect our brave soldiers, and it is our duty to respond to this important request in a timely fashion. Unfortunately, the legislation before us today includes billions of dollars in non- emergency spending and numerous provisions relating to troop withdrawal not requested by the Administration, which have the potential to delay passage of this vital emergency funding.

Much of the extra spending included in this bill will go to wasteful pork barrel projects and non-emergency subsidy programs, including millions of dollars for spinach farmers in California and peanut storage in Georgia. While I have strongly supported some of the policy provisions added to this bill, such as the minimum wage increase and expanded funding for homeland security, I am concerned that the Democratic leadership is attempting to hold critical resources for our soldiers in limbo in order to force political votes.

Our military leaders on the ground in Iraq have warned that disruptive changes in day-to-day operations will occur without immediate supplemental funding. In fact, the acting Secretary of the Army recently stated that if it does not receive additional funding by the end of April, the military will be forced to start making difficult decisions, such as postponing repairs on equipment. Sadly, rather than providing our military with the tools it has requested, the Democratic leadership is forcing a political agenda, which is certain to lead to an impasse with the Administration and further delay this important funding.

I have disagreed with many aspects of our strategy in Iraq, and I have worked hard to convince our government to change its course in the region and begin pursuing robust diplomacy to end the conflict. Indeed, I am hopeful that my efforts, and those of my colleagues, have prompted the Administration to begin engaging in an intense diplomatic initiative to establish peace and stability, so that our troops may return home to their families. However, when it comes to funding for our soldiers who are serving in harm's way, it is not appropriate for Congress to set arbitrary timelines for withdrawal or condition military resources based on partisan objectives. It is important that our strategy in Iraq include goals for bringing the troops home, but excluding the judgment of U.S. commanders and mandating an exact deadline for withdrawal--regardless of the situation on the ground-- would endanger our brave soldiers.

Mr. Speaker, the President has pledged to veto this legislation due to the inclusion of non-emergency spending and policy provisions. We can not afford to waste precious time arguing over disingenuous political proposals and extraneous pork barrel spending projects. I intend to vote against this bill and I will adamantly oppose any attempts to play politics with funding for our soldiers.

Ms. Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the matter before us today, the Iraq Supplemental, is before us for the first time. However, this is not the last time that we will vote on this bill. This bill will go to the Senate and from the Senate to a Conference Committee and from there back to the floor of this house. If the President exercises his veto power, we may ultimately vote on this matter as many as three or four times.

Today, I make no commitments about what I will do or how I will vote when this matter comes back to this house. How could I? I don't know what this bill will look like when it comes back … I don't know what it will say. Rather, I rise to explain how I will vote today, as this bill comes before this house for the first time.

It is clear to me that today, we have only two options. We can send to the Senate the bill before us, with binding language to end the war or, should this bill fail, we will send a bill that gives the President unchecked power to continue his misguided, mismanaged war without end.

That is the choice today. And my vote will be "yes" to advance the bill which begins to end the war. Reaching this decision has been difficult. My deliberation has been long and thoughtful. The difficulty of the decision may seem somewhat surprising given the rather stark description I just provided of the choice before us. However, there are several reasons why this decision has been hard.

First, the bill before us, despite its binding language to end the war, is far from perfect. It does not end the war soon enough. It mishandles the issue of Iraqi oil. It fails to address necessary safeguards to prevent this President from taking military action in Iran without Congressional authorization. The bill's shortcomings are reason enough for a no vote.

Second, until today … until this vote … I have played a different role. My job yesterday, and the day before (like so many war opponents) was to fight to make the language in this bill stronger and to make this legislation better. And having failed to accomplish all I sought to achieve provides me with another reason to vote no.

Third, until this day I have voted against all of the Iraqi war spending bills. I strongly favor using the power of the purse to end the war. That this binding language to end the war is attached to a war funding bill provided me with yet another reason to vote no.

Many on the left have invoked the words of Saul Alinsky in describing today's vote: "… I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be," he says in his book Rules for Radicals. "That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be--it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be," Alinsky continues. So today we start where this congressional world is, with this imperfect bill as the vehicle to begin to end the war.

The choice is clear, today we can begin to end the war, or we can stand in the way of doing so. I will vote to end the war.

Mr. Stark: Mr. Speaker, today's vote is very difficult for me.

I support the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act is a significant improvement over the President's failed Iraq policies. For years, Bush has sent our troops into harms way without the proper equipment. Today's legislation aims to hold the Administration accountable for its own readiness standards--and for the benchmarks President Bush himself proposed for Iraqi government performance. This bill also goes farther toward providing an actual end date for this war than any other legislation that has reached the House floor.

I applaud Speaker Pelosi, Jack Murtha, and Dave Obey for this significant achievement. I wish I could support my Speaker today and vote with the overwhelming majority of my Democratic colleagues. But, I can't vote "yes."

I ran for Congress because of my strong opposition to our government's unyielding commitment to the Vietnam War. I didn't think it made sense for American men and women to die for the half-truths of the Johnson and Nixon Administrations. Today, I don't think it makes any more sense for lives to be lost for the outright lies of the Bush regime.

I voted against the original resolution authorizing the President to take military action against Iraq. At the time, I said I didn't trust this president and his advisors.

During the war's four long years, nothing has happened to convince me otherwise. On the contrary, the Bush Administration has repeatedly misled the American people about Iraq. They lied to Congress about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, about the cost and length of the war, and about meeting arbitrary benchmarks.

Their goalposts keep moving. The amount of money they requested for this supplemental alone is nearly twice the amount they initially projected the war would cost in its entirety.

Throughout my career in Congress, I've voted against defense spending and against war. Building new weapons systems and waging war doesn't solve problems. If the last four years are any indication, it actually makes them worse.

The longer we stay in Iraq, the higher the cost of this senseless war. Unless we withdraw immediately, the Shiite-Sunni civil war will continue taking the lives of additional American troops and Iraqi civilians. Education, health care, and other domestic needs will go under-funded in America while additional billions are spent in Iraq. And our international allies will further doubt our actions and intentions around the world.

Despite my utmost respect for my colleagues who crafted this bill, I can't in good conscience vote to continue this war. Nor, however, can I vote "no" and join those who think today's legislation goes too far toward withdrawal.

That's why I'm making the difficult decision to vote "present." My vote should be interpreted as opposing the war's continuation while permitting this Congress--under Speaker Pelosi's leadership--to deliver a strong message to President Bush that his blank check to wage war has been canceled.

I urge my colleagues to vote their consciences and help end the war in Iraq.

Mr. Baird: Mr. Speaker, no votes in Congress are more wrenching or difficult than those involving war; whether that vote involves initiating combat, or in this instance, steps to bring about the end. The consequences are profound, uncertainty about the right course is great, and there are strong feelings on all sides.

Every member of Congress is committed to the security of this Nation and to supporting our troops and their families. There are legitimate differences about how best to achieve those goals, but the core commitment to security and to support of our troops should not be doubted or questioned, regardless of where one stands on this matter.

Before the first vote authorizing force in Iraq in 2002, I asked fundamental questions of the President: 'What will the cost be in human casualties on all sides? What are the international and potential regional scenarios that might be developed? What is our long term strategy for the region?' I also asked about the economic costs to our Nation and the world, and about the likelihood of religious conflicts leaving our soldiers caught between warring religious factions with grievances that are centuries old. I asked what provisions had been made to care for the wounded and their families when they return? I called for greater commitment to resolving the Israeli/Palestinian issues and for reducing our Nation's dependence on petroleum. Finally, knowing well the history of the region, I asked how long our commitment was expected to last if hostilities were initiated.

Not one of these questions was answered by President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld or any member of the administration. That is why I voted "no" on that initial resolution. Sadly, the same questions remain today and they have still not been answered by the President, which is why I will vote "yes" on the bill before the House today.

For the sake of our Nation's security, for the safety or our troops, for the sake of our economy at home, for the sake of our international standing, we must say to the Iraqi leaders and to the world, 'We have removed a dictator from power, we have disarmed a tyrant, elections have been held, and a constitution is in place. We have shed the blood of our finest, we have indebted our children, we have tried to help rebuild infrastructure and put in place the basis of a democratic republic. Now, it is up to the Iraqi people themselves to find a political solution that is in everyone's interest and will lead to an end to the bloodshed.' Our Nation cannot and should not attempt to impose that solution indefinitely; it must come from the Iraqis themselves.

Today's bill says just that. It provides the necessary funds to continue to support our soldiers in the field. It adds much needed resources to ensure they receive care when they come home. It addresses needed priorities within our own Nation. And, most importantly, it says affirmatively, there will be an end to our role in combat in Iraq and it is time for our Nation, for the Iraqis, and for the world, to begin to prepare for that time. This cannot go on forever.

Those who talk about staying the course without end, as well as those who would call for opposing this bill because they want the war to end tomorrow, must all recognize that in the process of this conflict, our overall military readiness has been profoundly impaired and our Nation is now vulnerable should other, more severe, threats emerge elsewhere in the world. At the same time, our local preparedness of the National Guard is in tatters. Our Guard lacks key resources, equipment, and manpower to respond to fires, floods, or other disasters or to join in serious conflicts elsewhere if called upon to do so. This bill, quite rightly, seeks to correct these deficits.

The reality before us today is that we cannot immediately stop funding for our forces or neglect the readiness deficits that now endanger our Nation. That would be irresponsible and would leave our soldiers on the ground and our citizens at home and abroad in greater danger. It would also endanger the lives and hopes of the Iraqi people themselves and leave them vulnerable to extremists and chaos.

At the same time, however, it would be equally irresponsible to allow this hemorrhaging of blood and money, this neglect of our own Nation's needs here at home, to continue unchecked. This legislation changes the direction for our Nation and says the Iraqi's must change the direction of their Nation. They must take responsibility for their own security, share their oil wealth equitably with their own citizens, arid establish fundamental constitutional reforms. This bill requires that our President must certify that such things are being done.

Far from 'tying the hands' of the President, this legislation gives him much needed direction. If it becomes law, President Bush must at long last say that his own people, the American people, in the constitutional democratic republic that is our Nation, and that he is sworn to defend, have spoken through their representatives and have said it is time for change. It will soon be up to the Iraqi's themselves to determine the fate of their own Nation so that we can, at long last, may again determine the fate of ours.

If you care about the security of this Nation, vote "yes" to restore our military readiness. If you care about our soldiers, vote "yes" to give them the equipment they need while deployed and the care they need when they return home. If you want to see an end to this conflict, vote "yes" to begin the process that will at last bring that about.

Mr. Baca: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act.

I voted against this war 5 years ago and believe we should never have gone into Iraq.

But as a veteran, I stand by our troops and have always committed to providing for them regardless of politics.

And H.R. 1591 supports our troops before, during, and after service. It mandates proper training and equipment, it requires that our troops get the rest they need between deployments to stay sharp, and provides for our wounded as they return from battle.

This bill also sets deadlines for the Iraqi government so that we can start shifting responsibility to the Iraqi people and bring our troops home by 2008 at the very latest. Mr. Speaker, we have 160,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq right now, many of which lack proper equipment and training.

We also have 32,000 wounded soldiers from the Iraq conflict who need medical attention and assistance to get back on their feet.

Unfortunately, we have a veteran healthcare system that is failing. Report after report indicates under funding, neglect, improper conduct, and almost no accountability.

If the tragedies at Walter Reed Army Medical Center have taught us anything, it is that wartime spending shouldn't just stop with tanks and guns.

It needs to extend to taking care of our wounded heroes and their families after they return from the battlefield.

Mr. Speaker, I recently visited our returning veterans at Walter Reed Medical Center. And what I saw there just broke my heart.

Some of our wounded told me their doctors weren't giving them the attention they needed and that they even had to prove to the medical staff that they were injured!

One man in particular really touched my heart. I met a wounded soldier from my home State of California who told me about his father who had dropped everything, closed his business, and flew to Washington so that he could take care of his son full time.

This young man's family not only had to risk their son for this war, they're now sacrificing their livelihood to help him recuperate.

And yet sadly, he's one of the lucky ones.

What about the majority of military families who simply can't afford to quit their jobs, move cross-country and take care of their husbands, wives, and children?

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the American people shouldn't have to put up with these hardships.

They shouldn't have to worry that their family members in uniform are getting the best care possible.

How poorly does it reflect on us as a Nation when we don't adequately take care of our veterans when they come back home?

Veterans healthcare is one of the most neglected and underfunded programs in this country.

This isn't just embarrassing, it is unconscionable.

We have a duty to minimize the risk to our troops and their families by making sure they have the very best training, the finest equipment, and stay deployed only as long as absolutely necessary.

Furthermore, we have a moral obligation to take care of each and every soldier who has been injured in the line of duty in defense of our great Nation.

H.R. 1591 addresses these responsibilities and that's why I will vote in favor of this bill today.

The American people have already paid too high a price for this war.

3,233 soldiers have died in Iraq, including 10 men from my own district.

We owe it to these heroes to set a deadline for withdrawal and let our soldiers move on with their lives.

We owe it to our families who are praying for the safety of their loved ones to take care of our troops every step of the way.

That's why I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1591.

Mr. Murphy of Connecticut: Mr. Speaker, 9 years ago on this floor, Congressman Floyd Spence, the Republican Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, had this to say about the bill withdrawing American forces from Bosnia: "The time is long overdue for Congress to express its will on behalf of the American people."

I couldn't say it better myself. In this place, the People's House, the will of the people must mean something. Elections must mean something. And if the 2006 election represented anything, it was that the American people were tired of the lack of oversight and accountability from this Congress, and they were tired of a war with growing numbers of casualties, and mounting costs with no end in sight. They asked for a new direction from this Congress, and The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, is the answer to their call.

There are many of us who feel uncomfortable giving this President another dime to spend to perpetuate this misguided and shortsighted strategy in Iraq. But I come here to support this legislation because for the first time since the start of this disastrous engagement, Congress is making sure that any further spending on this war comes with unprecedented support for our troops and veterans, and a real plan to redeploy our forces and resources to fights that we can still win.

This Administration has been wrong on just about everything about Iraq--there were no weapons of mass destruction, we were not welcome as liberators, the country has plunged into a civil war, and we have no exit strategy.

The days of issuing a blank check to this Administration with no questions asked are over. As we enter the fifth year of this war, people in Connecticut and across the country demand a change in our policy in Iraq. This bill is the change that they asked for.

Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act.

This legislation will support our troops and veterans, hold the Bush Administration and Iraqi government accountable and bring our soldiers home by August 2008 or sooner. It will also provide emergency funding for critical programs that have suffered from years of neglect.

This supplemental appropriations bill provides emergency funding for critical programs that have long been underfunded by the Republicans. It includes $750 million to correct the funding shortfall in the State Children's Health Insurance program so that hundreds of thousands of children will not lose their health care. It provides $2.9 billion for Katrina relief and recovery. The bill also includes $2.6 billion for homeland security needs left unaddressed by Congressional Republicans, as well as $1.7 billion to remedy the unconscionable state of our military and veterans' health care systems. All of these issues are emergencies in their own right and rise to the level of inclusion in this emergency supplemental spending bill.

The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act requires the Iraqi government to meet the security, political and economic benchmarks established by the President in his address of January 10th, including improvements in the performance of the Iraqi security forces, a greater commitment by the Iraqi government to national reconciliation, and reductions in the levels of sectarian violence in Iraq.

If the Iraqi government is unable to meet these benchmarks by July 7 of this year, redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq would begin immediately and must be completed by January of 2008. If the benchmarks are met, the latest possible starting date for redeployment would be March 1 of next year, with complete withdrawal by August 31.

The bill ensures that our troops have the tools and resources they need to do the job they have been asked to do. It prohibits the deployment of troops who are not fully trained, equipped and protected according to current Department of Defense standards. The President can only deploy unprepared troops if he certifies, in writing, to Congress, that deploying those troops in the national interest. The bill also provides funding so the Veterans Administration can meet the obligations of a new generation of veterans, particularly by ensuring that they will have the medical care they need.

I have been an outspoken opponent of military action against Iraq since the day the administration started beating the war drums. My preference would have been to vote for a stronger bill that would bring our troops home even sooner than this one. I am disappointed that the bill includes waivers to allow the President to send less than fully- equipped troops into battle. I am also unhappy that the provision requiring the president to get Congressional approval for an attack on Iran was removed from the bill. I have additional concerns about the section of the bill that allows an unspecified number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq after the August 2008 deadline to train Iraqis and fight terrorism.

However, I support this legislation in spite of these deficiencies because I believe it is an affirmative step towards our ultimate goal of ending the war. This bill is not everything that I would have liked, but it represents a critical turning point. No longer will this body uncritically hand over billions of dollars for the President to wage endless war. For the first time, Congress is considering binding legislation that sets a date certain for the end of the Iraq war. I will not help the Republicans defeat it.

The President and most Congressional Republicans ask that we continue to fund this war with "no strings attached." But the United States cannot afford an open-ended commitment to a war without end. It is the responsibility of this Congress to devise a means to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq so that we can reclaim our position of leadership in the world and direct our resources back towards urgent needs here at home. I believe that this bill moves us towards these goals in an effective and responsible way.

Mr. Rush: Mr. Speaker, today marks an historic vote, one that will go down in history and signal a turning pointing in the war in Iraq. Much like the vote authorizing the President to go to war in 2002, this vote will be a defining moment, and one that will be discussed and debated for years to come.

While I do not believe this is a perfect bill, I personally would vote to bring our troops home today if that was an option, in fact this bill is the best compromise that could be adopted. Finally, there is an end in sight to this ill-conceived war, and Congress is sending a message to the Iraqis, that our sons and daughters will not continue to shed blood to defend their country indefinitely.

We are sending the Iraqi government a message, that the time to step up their own efforts to bring peace and stability to their own land is fast approaching.

Mr. Speaker, this vote is one of conscience and the decision to vote for or against it is deeply personal. But let us make no mistake, the consequences of our actions here today will be widely felt and the impact will be broad and far-ranging. The American people are watching closely, and the eyes of the world are on us as well.

Today's vote is an example of what makes America great and what makes our democracy so strong. The fact that we, as elected Members of Congress, can express the will of the American people and compel the Administration to alter its misguided policies of war, demonstrates the essence of American society.

After years of having a free reign, with no accountability, consultation, or oversight from Congress, the President will now be compelled to listen to the will of Congress, and therefore the will of the American people.

Winning the war in Iraq will require a political and diplomatic offensive, not sending more of our men and women into harm's way to facilitate a civil war. With a clear conscience, but a heavy heart I cast my vote for the Iraq supplemental. My only solace is that we finally can see an end to this ill-fated war.

Mr. Langevin: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1591, legislation that would chart a new course for the United States in Iraq. I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, for their leadership and for drafting a measure that answers Americans' calls for real change.

Four years after our nation initiated military operations in Iraq, America demands a new approach to this open-ended conflict that has resulted in the deaths of more than 3,200 service members, including at least 25 with strong ties to Rhode Island. Our operations in Iraq have endangered the ability of our armed forces to respond to other crises, distracted from efforts to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban, and damaged our international reputation. Our military now finds itself in the middle of a civil war, and it is time to bring our troops home.

Despite calls by the Iraq Study Group for a new approach to the "grave and deteriorating" situation in Iraq, President Bush has proposed escalating military operations, sending more troops to prosecute a war mismanaged from the start by the civilian leadership. Fortunately, we have another choice. The House of Representatives will vote today on an emergency spending bill that would, for the first time, set a clear deadline to end U.S. combat operations in Iraq. As one who originally voted against giving the President authority to invade Iraq, I will proudly support this Democratic measure as the first real step to end the war.

Last November, an American public dissatisfied with President Bush's Iraq policy elected a Democratic Congress that promised a new direction. Having heard frustration from so many Rhode Islanders, I have worked with the Democratic leadership to develop a better strategy. I spoke of my conversations with military families and advocacy groups to underscore the sincerity and passion of Rhode Islanders' call for change. Meanwhile, Democratic leaders consulted with an array of current and former military commanders, foreign policy experts and advocates, with committees holding more than 100 hearings on operations in Iraq.

The bill before us is the direct result of those efforts and reflects the will of the American people. Not only does it demand accountability by establishing clear benchmarks for Iraqis to take control of their own security, but it also sets a deadline to bring our troops home--no later than August 2008. This measure sends a clear signal to the President and the world that we do not intend to remain an occupying force in Iraq.

The bill also addresses other serious problems facing our military andf their families. President Bush has recommended sending more troops into harm's way, but has not provided the resources they need upon their return home, as demonstrated by reports of substandard care at facilities such as Walter Reed Medical Center. With nearly 25,000 American troops--among them 93 Rhode Islanders--injured in Iraq thus far, the House spending bill provides an additional $2.8 billion for military health care and $1.7 billion for veterans' health care to ensure that those who have sacrificed for our nation get the support and treatment they deserve.

Furthermore, the bill adds critical funds to restore our military readiness and re-equip National Guard and Reserve forces, which face major shortages as a result of operations in Iraq. Lt. General H. Steven Blum, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, has stated that 88 percent of Army Guard units and 45 percent of Air Guard units are unprepared for deployment as a result of equipment shortages. We depend on our National Guard to protect us in the event of catastrophes or natural disasters, and we must ensure they are fully prepared to defend the Nation they serve.

In Congress, I have constantly strived to protect our national security and to support our military, which has served valiantly in some incredibly challenging missions. At this point, though, the Iraqis' problems no longer require a U.S. military solution. The underlying causes of violence are primarily political and must be addressed as such. Unlike the President's plan, which promises more of the same failed policy, the Democratic approach will support the political process to end sectarian divisions in Iraq, help rebuild the economy and infrastructure, and promote maximum diplomatic efforts to bring an end to the violence.

Some have argued that the bill does not go far enough. Like them, I support an even earlier exit for our troops and have co-sponsored legislation to redeploy them out of Iraq by December 31, 2007. However, there is no question that the Democratic measure being offered marks a major turning point and answers Rhode Islanders' pleas by setting a firm deadline for withdrawal. This is a tremendous step--one which serves our troops, our constituents, and our conscience--and I will wholeheartedly support it.

Mr. Israel: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.

Is this the perfect solution? No. But how can there be a perfect solution to a war so imperfectly devised, so catastrophically planned, so horribly managed by the Bush administration?

This resolution turns in a better direction. It provides health care to our veterans.

It provides support to our warfighters.

It demands accountability from our President.

And it creates the process to redeploy our troops.

I voted for the use of force in Iraq, Mr. Speaker. I believed then, as I believe now, that the Middle East is an exceedingly dangerous region on the brink of an eruption that threatens global security.

But the war in Iraq did not stabilize the Middle East. It has destabilized it.

Before the war in Iraq, Iran was concerned about Israel. Today, Israel is concerned about Iran.

Before the war in Iraq, there was no such thing as "Al Queda in Iraq". Today, there is.

Before the war in Iraq, our military was capable of swiftly and decisively responding to multiple threats, foreign and domestic. Just yesterday, the New York National Guard reported to my office that it has only 37 percent of the mission critical transportation it needs to respond to a homeland security emergency in my state: whether it's a terrorist attack or a severe hurricane.

This resolution reinvests in the priorities we need. And it says to both the Iraqi government and the Bush Administration:

"No more blank checks. No more endless commitments."

Many are troubled with the inclusion of a strategic withdrawal of our troops between December of this year and August of next. Mr. Speaker.

And I must be honest. I have struggled with this as well. The decision should be hard. It should be contentious. It should torment us all. Because no matter what we do, the stakes are high. The consequences are great.

If you lean to the right, an August 2008 redeployment is way too soon.

If you lean to the left, an August 2008 redeployment is way too long.

I reached my own judgment a few months ago. Based not on polls, not on politics, not on the convenience of sound-bytes on either side of the aisle and not on righteous absolutism that can only be formulated in a vacuum. I formed it after listening to the Commanding General of CENTCOM testify to the Armed Services Committee that we had until the middle of this year before Baghdad spins out of control. Shortly after that, the Iraq Study Group, after months of non-partisan work and study, reached the judgment that: "By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq."

The middle of this year to the middle of next year.

Those are the benchmarks, Mr. Speaker. Those are the nonpartisan, nonpolitical, balanced and reasoned benchmarks.

And those benchmarks are contained in this resolution.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say this: Today Republicans and Democrats will disagree. Fair enough. But it's time to stop thinking about our disagreements and begin working together on our agreements.

Last week, several members of the House Center Aisle Caucus, which I have the privilege of co-chairing, met to discuss cooperating on several Iraq initiatives. This week. I introduced the first of these bipartisan measures with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Carney), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany). Our resolution requires the President to submit a Status Of Forces Agreement to the Iraq government, just as we have with other governments where we have a military presence. This will send the message that we are not occupiers of Iraq. And we follow the rule of law.

I mention this now, Mr. Speaker, in the hopes that my colleagues who wish to join us in constructive ways forward will join us. That the debate will turn from left and right to forward.

That is what our troops want. That is what our constituents want. That is our obligation.

Mr. Terry: Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1591, a pork-laden $124.3 billion war supplemental that would force U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq.

I strongly support benchmarks and high accountability for military and political progress in Iraq, but not in a manner that hurts our chances of accomplishing those goals. Under this legislation, U.S. troops would be withdrawn from Iraq unless the President's benchmarks for progress are met by July. This unreasonable requirement would not give General Petraeus enough time to show if the new "troop surge" is effective.

In addition, this bill would force U.S. troops to withdraw by August 2008 regardless of whether the benchmarks are met. Members of Congress should not be dictating strategy to our generals in the field.

The authors of this bill are talking out of both sides of their mouths. In attempting to reach a compromise, they would fund the troop surge while dooming it to failure by not allowing enough time to see if it works. It is clear that a forthright and honest vote on withdrawing U.S. troops would fail. The Majority Party's Leadership has instead chosen to entice Members of Congress with pork-barrel spending in exchange for their vote on this bill.

The Washington Post reported: "House Democratic leaders are offering billions in federal funds for lawmakers" pet projects large and small to secure enough votes this week to pass an Iraq funding bill that would end the war next year."

This so-called "emergency" war supplemental includes non-defense spending such as $283 million in milk subsidies, $474 million in peanut subsidies, and $25 million in spinach subsidies.

This legislation abandons the Majority Party's supposed leadership on fiscal discipline. It is a hypocritical and blatant attempt to gain votes from Members of Congress through special interest spending. The bill includes non-military items such as an increase in the minimum wage, tax relief for small businesses, drought aid, hurricane relief, agricultural subsidies and funds for child health insurance. Each of these items should be debated under regular order in the House.

I strongly support the defense-related spending items in this legislation, including critical equipment for our troops and health care improvements for our veterans such as funding for Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I was also proud to sign the discharge petition to vote on Congressman Sam Johnson's legislation to ensure full funding of our troops.

We must demand meaningful progress in Iraq to curb sectarian violence, disarm militias, train security forces and strengthen the arm of the new Iraqi government until Iraq can govern itself. However, H.R. 1591 is clearly not the answer. Immediately withdrawing U.S. troops would be an irresponsible display of politics that would endanger future generations of Americans.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting against this legislation, and to demand a "clean" war supplemental that meets the needs of our troops without pork-barrel politics.

Mr. Etheridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important legislation.

This supplemental appropriations bill contains vitally important funding for critical priorities and unmet needs. For example, this bill includes $1.7 billion more than the President requested for military health care, including funds to correct the scandalous conditions at Walter Reed and other military hospitals. It includes another $1.7 billion for veterans' health care, $2.5 billion for improving the readiness of our stateside troops and $1.4 billion for military housing allowances. A nation at war simply must provide necessary funds to support our troops.

In addition, this legislation includes $3.1 billion for military construction to implement the BRAC mandates that impact Fort Bragg in my Congressional District and military communities all across the country. It is important to note that the former Republican Congressional Majority failed to pass the military construction appropriations and imperiled these priority projects. This legislation corrects that failure.

Mr. Speaker, the standards and benchmarks in this legislation will assert some measure of oversight and accountability to a war policy that has been tragically mismanaged by this administration for too long. I have resisted supporting date certain language for troop redeployment because it is preferable that the executive branch have the lead in foreign policy in partnership with the legislature. Unfortunately, this Administration has mistakenly interpreted that deference as a blank check for its go-it-alone approach. No more.

The President's speech this week calling for "courage and resolve" demonstrated a continued state of denial. The American people do not need more lectures from this President about resolve. Our troops do not need more lectures about courage. What we need is a new direction to rebuild our military and refocus on the true threat to America from al Qaeda and the Islamic jihadists who attacked us on 9/11. We must deploy our military might to Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere to eliminate Osama bin Laden and the true "grave and gathering threat" to America.

We must pass this legislation to send a wake-up call to the President that "Stay The Course" is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable policy. I urge my colleagues to support a new direction and vote for this bill.

Mr. Udall of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this Defense Supplemental appropriations bill.

Whatever some may say, I think it would be grossly irresponsible to vote against it. That would be to vote against providing America's men and women in uniform with the equipment and resources they need and against providing them the best health care they may require when they come home.

I understand why some are urging a vote against the bill. Many Americans are frustrated and angry because we are four years into a war the Bush Administration assured us would be short and decisive. The Administration's misjudgments, lack of planning and poor leadership have made a bad situation worse. So there are many who do not trust the Bush Administration to find a way to end this war, and who believe Congress should simply act to cut off additional funds.

But whatever may be said about the wisdom of invading Iraq four years ago--and I am one who believed it was a mistake to do so--the fact is that we are still deeply engaged in Iraq. We also must finish the job of securing Afghanistan and defeating the Taliban and al-Qaeda. So long as our troops are in the field, we must provide them what they need even as we move to change the mistaken policies of the Administration in Iraq.

This bill begins that change. It includes important language to hold the president accountable to the benchmarks set by his own administration and the Iraqi government.

Those benchmarks were outlined in January, when President Bush announced that the Iraqi government had agreed to pursue all extremists, Shiite and Sunni alike; to deliver Iraqi Security Forces to Baghdad to join in the "surge"; and to establish a strong militia disarmament program. President Bush also announced that Prime Minister Maliki and his government agreed to pursue reconciliation initiatives, including enactment of a hydro-carbon law; conducting of provincial and local elections; reform of current laws governing the de-Baathification process; amendment of the Constitution of Iraq; and allocation of Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects.

By holding the president and the Iraqi government accountable for achieving these benchmarks, this bill will provide General Petraeus and the Administration with the leverage necessary to help the Iraqi government forge a political solution. And we all know that it will take a political solution--not a military one--to end this war.

The bill is an important step toward what I think must be our goal--a responsible end to the war in Iraq, based on a strategy of phased withdrawal of troops, accelerated diplomacy and redeployment that is based on Iraqi stability and not arbitrary deadlines.

It is true that this legislation includes a date certain for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq. I do not believe this language is wise and were it up to me, this provision would not be included in the bill. As a matter of national security policy, we should steer clear of arbitrary public deadlines and focus instead on realistic goals. Our military needs flexibility to be able to link movements of U.S. troops to the realities of the situation on the ground.

The deadline established in this bill--August of 2008--is far enough away that I believe we may be able to revisit it if need be, and while I find its inclusion troubling, I do not believe in letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. And the bill's language does give the president flexibility to protect U.S. interests, since it allows sufficient troops to remain to protect U.S. military and civilians in Iraq, conduct counterterrorism operations, and train Iraqi Security Forces.

The bill also protects our troops by limiting deployment schedules and setting minimum readiness standards--based on current Defense Department standards--for U.S. troops deploying to the region. The president could waive these requirements but only by certifying in writing to Congress that waiving them would be in the interest of national security.

The bill also includes many provisions important to our troops, such as funds for military personnel for imminent danger pay, family separation allowances, and basic allowances for housing; funds for recruiting and retention in the Army Reserve and National Guard; and funds to develop countermeasures to prevent attacks from improvised explosive devices. The bill recommends the creation of a new Strategic Readiness Reserve fund, and provides $2.5 billion for the program, which is intended to improve readiness, training and equipping of U.S. forces not already deployed.

Given the recent revelations about problems with the defense health system at Walter Reed and other facilities across the system, I am very pleased that the bill provides $2.8 billion for military health care costs and $1.7 billion for initiatives to address the health care needs of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, particularly those suffering from traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress disorder. Funding is also included to address facility deficiencies so the Department of Veterans Affairs does not have to defer facility maintenance and upkeep in order to provide quality health care services.

The bill also provides $52.5 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and funds the $5.9 billion request for the Afghan Security Forces and the $3.8 billion request for Iraq Security Forces.

And the bill includes $3.1 billion to fully fund the Pentagon's FY07 request for the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission's recommendations, which is vitally important for Ft. Carson as it prepares to expand and for other military installations in Colorado.

On the non-military side, the bill includes critically important funding for farmers and ranchers in southeastern Colorado who were recently hit hard by winter storms. Thousands of cattle were killed in storms worse than the October 1997 storm that killed approximately 30,000 cattle and cost farmers and ranchers an estimated $28 million. The struggles that family agriculture producers and small counties face are significant and are having a negative impact on the livelihood of hundreds of farmers and ranchers and their communities. So I am pleased that the Colorado delegation was successful in persuading the House leadership to include financial assistance for farmers and ranchers, including for those affected by Colorado's recent blizzards, and I am hopeful that the funding will be included in the final conference report.

Mr. Speaker, we have entered the 5th year of the war in Iraq. Already, more than 3,200 of our men and women in uniform have made the ultimate sacrifice in the performance of their duty. More than 24,000 others have been wounded. The Iraqi death toll is at least 60,000, with more than 650,000 other Iraqis displaced and at least one million who have fled to Syria and Jordan and other countries.

Even these heavy costs are not the whole story, because nation- building in Iraq has degraded our ability to counter other threats to our national security around the globe. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am all too aware of the pressures on our active duty and National Guard and reserve soldiers, including a lack of equipment and training, multiple or extended deployments, and limited time at home between deployments. To be successful, U.S. forces must be trained, equipped, and ready to quickly deploy worldwide. Shortfalls in personnel, equipment, or training increase the risk to our troops and to their mission.

Mr. Speaker, many of us who voted against authorizing the President to rush to war in Iraq were worried that while it would be easy to eliminate the Saddam Hussein regime, the aftermath would be neither easy nor quick. Sadly, our fears have proven to be justified. And now, as the Pentagon has finally admitted in its most recent quarterly report, the situation in Iraq is "properly descriptive of a civil war."

Insisting on keeping our troops in the middle of that kind of internecine war is not a recipe for victory; it is only a prescription for quagmire. And as a new Foreign Relations Council report notes, we bear responsibility for developments within Iraq, but are increasingly without the ability to shape those developments in a positive direction.

We need to be scaling back our military mission in Iraq. We need to make the U.S. military footprint lighter--not in order to hasten defeat or failure in Iraq, but to salvage a critical measure of security and stability in a region of the world that we can ill afford to abandon.

But as we do so, we must work to avoid a collapse in the region--not only because we have a moral obligation to the people of Iraq, but also because our national security has been so badly compromised by the Bush administration's failures there. The President's decision to take the nation to war has made our country less safe. We need to change course and chart a path that enhances our national security and sets the right priorities for the war on terrorism and struggle against extremists.

This bill begins to chart this path, and I will support it.