---

Mr. Donnelly:Mr. Speaker, I support our men and women serving in harm's way, I support America's veterans, and I support of establishing clear benchmarks for progress in Iraq.

Our men and women in Iraq are in the middle of what is becoming an increasingly dangerous civil war. Despite their best efforts to provide security, train Iraqi forces, and pursue terrorists, the violence in Iraq ultimately must be ended by the Iraqi people. The Iraqis must step up, once and for all, and take responsibility for their future.

The Iraq war funding bill is the only proposal on the table that sets enforceable benchmarks for the Iraqi government and makes clear to the Iraqi government that we will not have our soldiers in the middle of a religious civil war indefinitely. Distinguished Hoosier and co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, Lee Hamilton, has said that tying continued U.S. support, including the presence of our troops, to benchmarks is the strongest leverage we have to force the Iraqis to act. He, too, has said that this supplemental--despite its imperfections--should move forward.

In an ideal situation, the President, and not the Congress, would hold the Iraqi government accountable for improving the political and security conditions in its country. However, the Bush Administration has not held the Iraqi government accountable even while the security situation has steadily deteriorated to the point of open civil war between rival religious sects.

In early January, I wrote the President. I asked him what the consequences would be if the Iraqi government failed to meet the benchmarks the President articulated, benchmarks the Iraqi government has agreed to meet, in a nationally televised speech. To this day, I have received no response from the Bush Administration.

In addition to forcing Iraqi accountability, the Iraq war funding bill provides desperately needed funds to ensure that current and future veterans and wounded military personnel receive the care and attention their service and sacrifice deserve. H.R. 1591 includes $1.3 billion in new funding for veterans' health care. This bill also improves our ability to care for our wounded warriors, with an additional $2.8 billion for post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic- brain injuries, and burns and amputee rehabilitation. Finally, the Iraq war funding bill provides $20 million to fix Walter Reed Army Medical Center so that the embarrassingly substandard living conditions can be quickly remedied.

This legislation also reaffirms our commitment to fighting terrorism in Iraq and around the globe. Even if the Iraqis fail to meet our benchmarks for progress in Iraq, American forces can still fight and pursue terror groups operating in Iraq while continuing to help train Iraqi security and counter-terrorism forces. The Iraq war funding bill also provides crucial funds to fight a resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and it provides much-needed money for FBI counter- terrorism initiatives, secures at-risk nuclear materials in other countries and provides money to install radiation detection equipment at overseas ports that are shipping to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I said numerous times during the campaign that Congress must continue providing full funding for our troops in the field--this bill does that by investing $95.5 billion in our military, including almost $900 million for new Humvees and $2.4 billion to improve protections against Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). Though I do not like the idea of setting a timeline for the redeployment of our troops, I will not vote against our troops on the field, period. This bill moves us in the right direction by sending a message to the President--and to the Iraqi government--that the situation in Iraq is unacceptable and must change.

The President has previously stated that he hoped Iraqi troops would be serving on the front line and that U.S. troops would primarily be in a training role before the end of this year. This funding bill extends our offensive mission almost one year past the President's own date. We are essentially asking the Iraqis to take ownership of their own country again. That is critical for both Iraq and the United States.

Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas: Mr. Speaker, as a proud member of the Progressive and the Out of Iraq Caucuses, I rise in support of H.R. 1591, the "U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act." I commend the leadership of the Speaker and her team and Chairman Obey and Defense Subcommittee Chairman Murtha for their patient and careful crafting of the bill.

I stand in strong support of our troops who have performed magnificently in battle with a grace under pressure that is distinctively American. I stand with the American people, who have placed their trust in the President, the Vice-President, and the former Secretary of Defense, each of whom abused the public trust and patience.

I stand with the American taxpayers who have paid nearly $400 billion to finance the misadventure in Iraq. I stand with the 3,222 fallen heroes who stand even taller in death because they gave the last full measure of devotion to their country.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I stand fully, strongly, and unabashedly in support of H.R. 1591, which for the first time puts the Congress on record against an open-ended war whose goal line is always moving.

Mr. Speaker, I voted against the 2002 Iraq War Resolution. I am proud of that vote. I have consistently voted against the Administration's practice of submitting a request for war funding through an emergency supplemental rather than the regular appropriations process which would subject the funding request to more rigorous scrutiny and require it to be balanced against other pressing national priorities.

The vote today will put the House on record squarely against the Bush Administration's policy of looking the other way while the Iraqi government fails to govern a country worthy of a free people with as much commitment and dedication to the security and happiness of its citizens as has been shown by the heroic American servicemen and women who risked their lives and, in the case of over 3,000 fallen heroes, lost their lives to win for the Iraqi people the chance to draft their own constitution, hold their own free elections, establish their own government, and build a future of peace and prosperity for themselves and their posterity.

Mr. Speaker, there is no more important issue facing the Congress, the President, and the American people than the war in Iraq. It is a subject upon which no one is indifferent, least of all members of Congress. Many good ideas have been advanced by members of Congress to bring to a successful conclusion the American military engagement in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, nearly every decision reached by a legislative body is a product of compromise. The bill before us is no different. If it was left solely to us, any of us could no doubt add or subtract provisions which we think would improve the bill. Indeed, more than fifty amendments were offered to H.R. 1591, including four submitted by me. In fact, the only amendments voted on by the Rules Committee were two of the amendments I offered, although neither was made in order this time.

The first of these amendments, Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1, would terminate the authority granted by Congress to the President in the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq because the objectives for which the authorization was granted have all been achieved. Specifically, Congress authorized the President to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following objectives:

1. To disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction that could threaten the security of the United States and international peace in the Persian Gulf region;

2. To change the Iraqi regime so that Saddam Hussein and his Baathist party no longer posed a threat to the people of Iraq or its neighbors;

3. To bring to justice any members of al Qaeda known or found to be in Iraq bearing responsibility for the attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001;

4. To ensure that the regime of Saddam Hussein would not provide weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists, including al Qaeda; and

5. To enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Thanks to the skill and valor of the Armed Forces of the United States we now know for certain that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction. Thanks to the tenacity and heroism of American troops, Saddam Hussein was deposed, captured, and dealt with by the Iraqi people in such a way that neither he nor his Baathist Party will ever again pose a threat to the people of Iraq or its neighbors in the region. Nor will the regime ever acquire and provide weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists. Also, the American military has caught or killed virtually every member of al Qaeda in Iraq remotely responsible for the 9/11 attack on our country. Last, all relevant U.N. resolutions relating to Iraq have been enforced.

In other words, every objective for which the use of force in Iraq was authorized by the 2002 resolution has been achieved, most with spectacular success thanks to the professionalism and superior skill of our service men and women. The point of my amendment was to recognize, acknowledge, and honor this fact.

My second amendment, Jackson Lee Amendment No. 4, would change the troop reference date for redeployment set forth in section 1904 from March 1, 2008, to December 31, 2007. What this means is that the Government of Iraq will have had more than 3 years since the United States turned over sovereignty to establish a sustainable government with secure borders that can protect its people. I believe that if the Allied Forces could win World War III in less than 4 years, certainly that is enough time for the Government of Iraq to provide for the security of its people, with the substantial assistance of the United States.

While there are many good proposals that have been advanced which are not included in the bill, we ought not to let the perfect become the enemy of the good. This emergency supplemental may not be perfect but it is better--far better--than any legislation relating to the war in Iraq that has ever been brought to the floor far a vote. Let me count the ways.

First, H.R. 1591 ensures that U.S. forces in the field have all of the resources they require. Second, the bill directs more resources to the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Third it improves healthcare for returning service members and veterans. Fourth, it establishes a timeline for ending the United States participation in Iraq's civil war. Last, it demands accountability by conditioning continued American military involvement in Iraq upon certification by the President that the Iraq Government is making meaningful and substantial progress in meeting political and military benchmarks, including a militia disarmament program and a plan that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to discuss why the American people believe so strongly that the time has come to an end the policy of not placing any demands or conditions on American military assistance to the Government of Iraq.

As Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution, and a former senior member of the NSC, brilliantly describes in his essay, "The Seven Deadly Sins Of Failure In Iraq: A Retrospective Analysis Of The Reconstruction," in Middle East Review of International Affairs (December 2006), our trust and patience has been repaid by a record of incompetence unmatched in the annals of American foreign policy.

The Bush administration disregarded the advice of experts on Iraq, on nation-building, and on military operations. It staged both the invasion and the reconstruction on the cheap. It did not learn from its mistakes and did not commit the resources necessary to accomplish its original lofty goals or later pedestrian objectives. It ignored intelligence that contradicted its own views.

It is clear now that the Administration simply never believed in the necessity of a major reconstruction in Iraq. To exacerbate matters the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the White House Office of the Vice President (OVP) worked together to ensure that the State Department was excluded from any meaningful involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq.

The Administration's chief Iraq hawks shared a deeply naive view that the fall of Saddam and his top henchmen would have relatively little impact on the overall Iraqi governmental structure. They assumed that Iraq's bureaucracy would remain intact and would therefore be capable of running the country and providing Iraqis with basic services. They likewise assumed that the Iraqi armed forces would largely remain cohesive and would surrender whole to U.S. forces. The result of all this was a fundamental lack of attention to realistic planning for the postwar environment.

As it was assumed that the Iraqis would be delighted to be liberated little thought was given to security requirements after Saddam's fall. The dearth of planning for the provision of security and basic services stemmed from the mistaken belief that Iraqi political institutions would remain largely intact and therefore able to handle those responsibilities.

But there were too few Coalition troops, which meant that long supply lines were vulnerable to attack by Iraqi irregulars, and the need to mask entire cities at times took so much combat power that it brought the entire offensive to a halt.

It was not long before these naive assumptions and inadequate planning conjoined to sow the seeds of the chaos we have witnessed in Iraq.

The lack of sufficient troops to secure the country led to the immediate outbreak of lawlessness resulting in massive looting and destruction dealt a stunning psychological blow to Iraqi confidence in the United States, from which the country has yet to recover. We removed Saddam Hussein's regime but we did not move to fill the military, political, and economic vacuum. The unintended consequence was the birth of a failing state, which provided the opportunity for the insurgency to flourish and prevented the development of governmental institutions capable of providing Iraqis with the most basic services such as clean water, sanitation, electricity, and a minimally functioning economy capable of generating basic employment.

Making matters worse, the Administration arrogantly denied the United Nations overall authority for the reconstruction even though the U.N. had far more expertise and experience in nation building.

The looting and anarchy, the persistent insurgent attacks, the lack of real progress in restoring basic services, and the failure to find the promised weapons of mass destruction undercut the Administration's claim that things were going well in Iraq and led it to make the next set of serious blunders, which was the disbanding of the Iraqi military and security services.

Mr. Speaker, counterinsurgency experts will tell you that to pacify an occupied country it is essential to disarm, demobilize, and retrain (DDR) the local army. The idea behind a DDR program is to entice, cajole, or even coerce soldiers back to their own barracks or to other facilities where they can be fed, clothed, watched, retrained, and prevented from joining an insurgency movement, organized crime, or an outlaw militia.

By disbanding the military and security services without a DDR program, as many as one million Iraqi men were set at large with no money, no means to support their families, and no skills other than how to use a gun. Not surprisingly, many of these humiliated Sunni officers went home and joined the burgeoning Sunni insurgency.

The next major mistake made in the summer of 2003 was the decision to create an Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), which laid the foundation for many of Iraq's current political woes. Many of the IGC leaders were horribly corrupt, and they stole from the public treasury and encouraged their subordinates to do the same. The IGC set the tone for later Iraqi governments, particularly the transitional governments of Ayad Allawi and Ibrahim Jaafari that followed.

Finally, by insisting that all of the problems of the country were caused by the insurgency rather than recognizing the problems of the country were helping to fuel the insurgency, the Bush administration set about concentrating its efforts in all the wrong places and on the wrong problems.

This explains why for nearly all of 2004 and 2005, our troops were disproportionately deployed in the Sunni triangle trying to catch and kill insurgents. Although our troops caught and killed insurgents by the hundreds and thousands, these missions were not significantly advancing our strategic objectives. Indeed, they had little long-term impact because insurgents are always willing to flee temporarily rather than fight a leviathan. Second, because so many coalition forces were playing "whack-a-mole" with insurgents in the sparsely populated areas of western Iraq, the rest of the country was left vulnerable to take-over by militias.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, a cruel irony is that because the Iraqi Government brought exiles and militia leaders into the government and gave them positions of power, it is now virtually impossible to get them out, and even more difficult to convince them to make compromises because the militia leaders have learned they can use their government positions to maintain and expand their personal power, at the expense both of their rivals who are not in the government and of the central government itself.

All of this was avoidable and the blame for the lack of foresight falls squarely on the White House and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Mr. Speaker, the American people spoke loudly and clearly last November when they tossed out the Rubber-Stamp Republican Congress. They voted for a New Direction in Iraq and for change in America. They voted to disentangle American troops from the carnage, chaos, and civil war in Iraq. They voted for accountability and oversight, which we Democrats have begun to deliver on; already the new majority has held more than 100 congressional hearings related to the Iraq War, investigating everything from the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse of Iraq reconstruction funding to troop readiness to the Iraq Study Group Report to the shameful mistreatment of wounded soldiers recuperating at Walter Reed Medical Center.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act provides real benchmarks and consequences if the Iraqi Government fails to live up to its commitments. First, it requires the President to certify and report to Congress on July 1, 2007 that real progress is underway on key benchmarks for the Iraqi government. If the President cannot so certify, redeployment of U.S. troops must begin immediately and be completed within 180 days. If the President fails to certify that Iraq has met the benchmarks on October 1, 2007, a redeployment of U.S. troops would begin immediately at that time and must be completed within 180 days. In any case, at the latest, a redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq must begin by March 1, 2008, and must be completed by August 31, 2008.

Since the benchmarks the Iraqi Government must meet are those established pursuant to President Bush's policies, it is passing strange indeed that he would threaten to veto the bill since it necessarily means he would veto his own benchmarks for the performance of the Iraqi government. He would veto his own readiness standards for U.S. troops. The President demands this Congress send him an Iraq war bill with "no strings." But the only "strings" attached, Mr. Speaker, are the benchmarks and standards imposed by the President himself.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the enormous financial cost, the human cost to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces has also been high but they have willingly paid it. Operation Iraqi Freedom has exacerbated the Veterans' Administration health care facility maintenance backlog; placed an undue strain on the delivery of medical treatment and rehabilitative services for current and new veterans; and exacted a heavy toll on the equipment, training and readiness requirements, and the families of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.

The emergency supplemental acknowledges the sacrifices made by, and the debt of gratitude, we and the Iraqi people owe to Armed Forces of the United States. But more than that, it makes a substantial down payment on that debt by providing substantial increases in funding for our troops.

The supplemental includes a total appropriation of $2.8 billion for Defense Health Care, which is $1.7 billion above the President's request. The additional funding supports new initiatives to enhance medical services for active duty forces and mobilized personnel, and their family members. Included in this new funding is $450 million for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder/Counseling; $450 million for Traumatic Brain Injury care and research; $730 million to prevent health care fee increases for our troops; $20 million to address the problems at Walter Reed; and $14.8 million for burn care.

Unlike the Republican leadership of the 109th Congress and the Bush administration, the new Democratic majority is committed to America's veterans. What's more, we back up that commitment by investing in their well-being. For example, the bill includes $1.7 billion above the President's request for initiatives to address the health care needs of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and the backlog in maintaining VA health care facilities, including $550 million to address the backlog in maintaining VA health care facilities so as to prevent the VA from experiencing a situation similar to that found at Walter Reed Medical Center.

The bill includes an additional $250 million for medical administration to ensure there are sufficient personnel to support the growing number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and to maintain a high level of services for all veterans; $229 million for treating the growing number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans; $100 million for contract mental health care, which will allow the VA to contract with private mental health care providers to ensure that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are seen in the most timely and least disruptive fashion, including members of the Guard and Reserve; and $62 million to speed up the processing of claims of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, when American troops are sent into harm's way, America has an obligation to do all it can to minimize the risk of harm to the troops. That is why I am pleased the supplemental includes additional funding above the President's request to support our troops. We are providing $2.5 billion more to address the current readiness crisis of our stateside troops, including ensuring that they are better equipped and trained. We include $1.4 billion more for military housing allowances and $311 million more for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles for troops in Iraq. And there is included in the supplemental $222 million more for infrared countermeasures for Air Force aircraft to address the growing threat against U.S. air operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Equally important, Mr. Speaker, the supplemental contains language directing the President to adhere to current military guidelines for unit readiness, deployments, and time between deployments.

The supplemental requires the Defense Department to abide by its current Unit Readiness policy, requiring the chief of the military department concerned to determine that a unit is "fully mission capable" before it is deployed to Iraq. The President may waive this provision by submitting a report to Congress detailing why the unit's deployment is in the interests of national security despite the assessment that the unit is not fully mission capable.

The Defense Department is also required to abide by its current policy and avoid extending the deployment of units in Iraq in excess of 365 days for the Army and 210 days for the Marines. The provision may be waived by the President only by submitting a report to Congress detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit's extended deployment is in the interests of national security.

Mr. Speaker, to reduce the incidence of combat fatigue and enhance readiness, it is important that our troops have sufficient time out of the combat zone and training between deployments. The supplemental requires the Defense Department to abide by its current policy and avoid sending units back into Iraq before troops get the required time away from the war theater. The President may waive this provision by submitting a report to Congress detailing why the unit's early redeployment to Iraq is in the interests of national security.

Last but not least, Mr. Speaker, it must be noted that the cost of the war in Iraq to the United States has also been high regarding the new and neglected needs of the American people. Americans have been exceedingly tolerant and patient with this Administration's handling of the situation in Iraq. We have postponed, foregone, or neglected needed investments in education, infrastructure, housing, homeland security.

That is why I am very pleased that the supplemental includes the following $4.3 billion for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster recovery grants, including $910 million to cover the cost of waiving the matching fund requirements in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5174 (Public Law 93-288) (Stafford Act) for state and local government meaning the Federal government will finance 100 percent of the grants.

Waiving the Stafford Act's matching fund requirement is critically important to the Gulf Coast states devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Based on my multiple listening trips to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast region, and my numerous meetings and discussions with government officials at all levels in the affected states and with survivors of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, many of whom now are relocated to my Houston congressional district, the most important lesson I have learned is that the Stafford Act is in its present form is simply inadequate to address the scale of devastation and human suffering wrought by a disaster the magnitude of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I thank Mr. Obey and Mr. Murtha for responding to concerns I expressed to President Bush about the need to modernize the Stafford Act so that it remains relevant to the 21st Century.

I believe the Stafford Act must be amended to grant the federal government explicit authority and flexibility to provide long-term recovery assistance to communities devastated by disasters of the magnitude of Hurricane Katrina and Rita. Such authority currently does not exist and the Stafford Act's emphasis on temporary assistance to affected individuals and communities is simply inadequate to address the scope of human suffering we witnessed last August and which is still with us today. I will continue my efforts to modernize the Stafford Act. But I very strongly approve of the nearly $1 billion included in the bill to waive the matching fund requirements for hard- pressed state and local governments coping with emergencies of the scale of Hurricane Katrina.

Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) funding has been extended to September 30, 2010. SSBG funding provides critically needed social services, including programs for mental health, child welfare, and the treatment of addictive disorders.

Also allocated is $1.3 billion for east and west bank levee protection and coastal restoration systems in New Orleans and surrounding parishes.

There is included $25 million for Small Business Administration (SBA) disaster loans and $80 million for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) tenant-based rental assistance. The supplemental also adds $400 million to restore partial cuts to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). This funding will bring much needed relief to many States that are running out of LIHEAP funds just as many utility shut-off moratoriums are set to expire.

The supplemental adds $750 million to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to ensure continued healthcare coverage for children in 14 States that face a budget shortfall in the program. By taking prompt action now, these States will not be forced to stop enrolling new beneficiaries or begin curtailing benefits.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the supplemental provides $30 million for K-12 education recruitment assistance; $30 million for higher education assistance; and $40 million in security assistance for Liberia. It also includes an additional $1 billion to purchase vaccines needed to protect Americans from a global pandemic. Development of production capacity for a pandemic vaccine must be accelerated so that manufacturers can quickly produce enough quantities to protect the population.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that although the bill may not be the best I might have hoped for, I have concluded that it is the best that can be achieved at this time, this moment in history. I support the bill because I believe it represents a change of course and a new direction in our policy on Iraq. This bill will place us on the road that will reunite our troops with their families and bring them home with honor and success.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before is not asking us to expand or extend the war in Iraq. I would not and will not do that. On the contrary, this bill offers us the first real chance to vote to end the war. This bill puts us on the glide path to the day when our troops come home where we can "care for him who has borne the battle, and for his widow and orphan." This bill helps to repair the damage to America's international reputation and prestige. This bill brings long overdue oversight, accountability, and transparency to defense and reconstruction contracting and procurement.

Most important, Mr. Speaker, this bill offers us the first real chance to vote to end the war. We should take advantage of this opportunity. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1591, the "U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act."

Mr. Becerra: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act. Today, Madam Speaker, we have a chance to take our country in a new direction to bring coherence and accountability to America's Iraq war policy.

As we enter our fifth year in the Iraq war, Americans have paid a high price for our involvement. Over 3,200 U.S. troops have died, approximately 25,000 U.S. troops have been wounded, and President Bush has squandered more than $350 billion of taxpayer dollars with his misadventure. Our troops have been fighting and dying in Iraq longer than American soldiers did in World War II, World War I, the Korean war, or the Civil War. This important legislation imposes long overdue accountability on the administration's war policy and will bring an end to President Bush's commitment to an open-ended war.

Specifically, the benchmarks and timelines contained in this legislation will hold both the president and the Iraqi Government accountable in how they conduct the war and the transition to a self- sufficient, democratic Iraq. This bill has taken into account both the administration's and experts' advice on how to proceed in Iraq. Many of the benchmarks are similar to provisions that President Bush has publicly supported. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended many of the goals and target dates in H.R. 1591.

Importantly, this bill protects our troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and the troops and veterans returning home. H.R. 1591 provides sufficient funding to ensure that our troops have the equipment to protect themselves from harm while they defend many of the innocent citizens of Iraq. We should all agree that never again will America send its troops into battle without the best equipment to accomplish their mission.

For our troops returning home, this legislation reverses years of neglect and moves us toward a comprehensive effort to address their needs. There is an extra $1.7 billion for military health care to be spent on military hospitals and a provision that prevents the closing of Walter Reed hospital--the first stop for so many of our wounded troops returning home. The bill also appropriates $1.7 billion additional funding for veterans' health care, $2.5 billion for improving the readiness of our stateside troops and $1.4 billion more for military housing allowances.

Mr. Speaker, when an Iraqi Shiite soldier is ready to defend an Iraqi Sunni civilian and an Iraqi Sunni soldier is ready to defend an Iraqi Shiite civilian, then perhaps we will know that the people of Iraq are ready to live in peace with security. But until such time, our troops have no business sitting in the crosshairs of a bloody civil war. By creating benchmarks and timelines for U.S. troop involvement in Iraq, this bill sends a message to Iraqis that they need to resolve their conflicts at the negotiation table and not through violence. We can help, but they must first prove that they are willing and prepared to help themselves.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1591 and start the process of bringing our troops home. Our men and women in uniform have done all we have asked of them. They won the war against Saddam Hussein and fought valiantly and timelessly to secure the peace in Iraq. Now, it is time for us to do our job: remove our soldiers from the insanity of the Iraq civil war and return them home. Only then can we rededicate ourselves and refocus our efforts to fight against the threat of terrorism.

Mr. Levin: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation before the House, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act. This measure supports our troops in the field. It provides more resources to ensure that our wounded service members and veterans receive the health care and support they need. And it sets a responsible timeline for the phased redeployment of our troops.

Our Nation continues to pay a high price for the administration's reckless invasion of Iraq and the President's open-ended commitment of U.S. military forces in that country. Our troops are entering their fifth year in Iraq, and there is no end in sight. The situation is deteriorating. Iraq is descending into a civil war. For the last 4 years, the former Republican majority in the Congress sat on its hands and followed the President's policy like robots. The American people elected a new majority in the House and Senate so that Congress would stand up and stop being a rubber stamp for the President.

The President's open-ended policies of committing U.S. troops in Iraq for as long as it takes is not working. We need a new way forward. The only chance to salvage the situation in Iraq is to put real pressure on the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future.

Last January 10, President Bush addressed the Nation and admitted that the situation in Iraq was descending into a vicious cycle of sectarian violence. He laid out a series of actions that the Iraqi Government would have to take; benchmarks that the Iraqis would have to follow through on or lose the support of the American people. The President said that Iraq would approve legislation to share oil revenue among the Iraq people; that Iraq would spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects; that Iraq would reform the laws governing de-Baathification and allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life; that Iraq would establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution; and that Iraq would set a schedule to conduct provincial and local elections. The President said, "America will hold the Iraqi Government to the benchmarks it has announced."

Since President Bush made that speech two months ago, 217 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. More than 3,200 American soldiers have died since the war began. More than 23,000 have been wounded. Until the Iraqis step up to the plate and make the difficult political decisions that need to be made, the sectarian violence will continue and American military men and women will continue to be killed and wounded. Either the factions in Iraq are going to come together and make these decisions, or they are not. We should not leave our troops in harm's way indefinitely and just hand the President another blank check to continue an open-ended policy with no end in sight.

The legislation before the House supports the troops, both in Iraq and Afghanistan. It holds the Iraqi Government to the benchmarks for progress that the President outlined in his January 10 speech. Under this bill, if the President cannot certify that Iraq has achieved these benchmarks by October 1 of this year, a redeployment of U.S. troops begins immediately and must be completed within 180 days. Absent this pressure, the Iraqi Government will continue to postpone action on achieving the benchmarks. If the Iraqi Government does, indeed, meet the benchmarks by October 1, redeployment of U.S. forces would begin next March and be completed within 180 days.

After more than 4 years, this legislation would end the open-ended commitment to this war. It would set a clear timeline for the phased redeployment of U.S. troops. Without this pressure, there is little chance that the Iraqi leaders will make the decisions necessary to end civil war and build one nation. Our country cannot make these decisions for them. I urge passage of this legislation by the House.

Mr. Tanner: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act, which sends the message to the Iraqis that we will not commit open- endedly our blood and tax dollars if they are not willing to step up and take control of their own country.

We have lost more than 3,200 of our best men and women over the last 4 years and 4 days we have been in Iraq, and more than 24,000 others have come home wounded. We are spending about $200,000 a minute in Iraq. The Iraqi people need to know that we will not continue to do all the work if they are unable or unwilling to put aside their religious differences and come together to build a civil society.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that this legislation has been mischaracterized as a timeline on our troops. The true intention of this measure, as I see it, is to put a timeline on the Iraqi people to meet the benchmarks that have already been established by the President. The bill we will vote on today will not withhold a single dollar from our men and women on the ground in Iraq, and it will not tie our commanders' hands but simply holds the Iraqis accountable for taking command of their own country.

As chairman of the U.S. delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I have talked at length with our allies who are helping us fight the war on terror in Afghanistan, where we are in a very critical year, with the Taliban planning a new series of attacks on U.S. and NATO troops there. I fear we are threatening our work on that very important effort if we continue to focus most of our resources to a deteriorating sectarian conflict that General Petraeus has said cannot be won with military might alone if there is not timely political and diplomatic progress.

I served 4 years in the United States Navy and 26 years in the Tennessee Army National Guard. During that time, it was my duty to carry out the orders handed me by the civilian leadership. Now that you and our colleagues and I are part of that civilian leadership, it is our responsibility to help shape military policy and hold the civilian leadership at the Pentagon and elsewhere accountable for the way they have managed--or mismanaged--operations in Iraq.

To that end, Mr. Speaker, I am not willing to keep asking our military families and the American taxpayers to commit their lives and tax dollars forever. The only alternative to this bill is an open-ended bleeding of our blood and tax dollars with no end in sight and no pressure on the Iraqi government to make the changes necessary.

Mr. Kind: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1591, Health, and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007.

It is time for a new direction in Iraq. We cannot continue to ask our troops to baby-sit a civil war. With our help, the Iraqis have established a coalition government, and we have trained more than 250,000 Iraqi security forces. We must now send a message to them that the patience of the American people is not endless, and that the Iraqi people must take control of their future by making the tough political compromises essential to living in peace. In short, it is time to take the training wheels off.

The bill before us today achieves the goal of redeployment of U.S. forces by setting specific benchmarks of progress using for the Iraqis and President's own benchmarks for success. If these benchmarks cannot be met, then the bill provides for a systematic approach for withdrawal of our troops.

Although I have had concerns about setting a date certain for withdrawal, a responsible timeline will work to hold the Iraqi Government accountable for much-needed and overdue progress. Essentially, this is a timeline on the Iraqis to come together and take control of their country.

The proposals included in this bill are truly a new direction, rather than just more of the same. By calling for a responsible, phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq, this bill allows us to re-focus our military efforts in Afghanistan.

I am increasingly concerned that the main threat against the United States, al Qaeda, is still a global threat with global reach, and that the person who was directly responsible for 9/11, Osama Bin Laden, is still at large. The President has taken his eye off the ball in Afghanistan and is not doing everything in his power to bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice. It sends a terrible message to would-be terrorists who may be interested in striking us that all they have to do is go in hiding and lie low until we get distracted on another adventure. I am hopeful that this supplemental appropriations bill sends a signal to the President that he needs to reassess his priorities.

Our men and women in the Armed Forces are to be commended for the terrific job they do for us across the globe each and every day, often in very difficult and dangerous circumstances. They deserve a clearer mission, they deserve to have the training and equipment they need to complete that mission, and they deserve the best care when they return home with physical and emotional wounds. The supplemental provides for all these needs.

During my three visits to Iraq, I met with our military command, troops in the field, and numerous Iraqi leaders and civilians. I can honestly say that nothing has made me prouder to be an American than seeing the performance of our troops in the field. They are well- trained, well-motivated and an inspiration to us all. They are, in short, the best America has to offer.

In particular, active military, Guard, and Reserve forces from western Wisconsin have answered the call to service. I have been to many deployment ceremonies and witnessed the anguish in the hearts and faces of family and friends as they say goodbye to their loved ones being sent abroad for lengthy stays. I have also been to several welcome home ceremonies to honor their service and to thank them for their sacrifice.

Sadly, I have also had 18 military funerals in my congressional district alone, most of which I have personally attended. If I don't have to attend another military funeral, if I don't have to pick up the phone to call another grieving family, I will be one of the happiest people in the world. They are a constant reminder of the human toll this war is having, not only with our troops but also with their families and our communities. There is not a day that goes by when I am not concerned about the safety and welfare of our troops.

A new direction, not an escalation, is what is needed in Iraq. We have now been in Iraq longer than the entire Second World War. The supplemental provides that new direction--one where the Iraqis assume responsibility for their future, and the U.S. starts to redeploy our troops and strengthen our military that is stretched too thin and on the verge of breaking. "More of the same," or "staying the course," is not an option.

Once again I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks and undying admiration for our men and women in uniform for their service to our country. May God bless them and their families during this difficult time. May God provide his special blessings and care for those who fell in the line of duty. And may God continue to bless these United States of America.

Mr. Stearns: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Democrats' so-called emergency supplemental. This cynical bill uses our troops as a political bargaining chip for additional billions in unrelated, pork barrel spending, which has nothing to do with winning the global war on terrorism. This bill has become a Christmas tree of pork.

I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, what does $25 million for spinach growers, $74 million for peanut storage, and $50 for the Capitol Power Plant have to do with winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the list of unrelated spending goes on longer than I have time.

Spinach producers and peanut farmers may very well need and deserve the money. And I am sure the Capitol Power Plant needs improvements, but why in this bill? Why is this money not being considered through regular order or subjected to normal budgetary rules, like PAYGO? And most importantly, why at the expense of our troops?

This important spending bill is being used as a vehicle to micromanage the war and score political points. Our troops deserve better. We need to focus on getting the equipment to our troops on the front lines and get away from political posturing.

However, this bill is not about the troops. It is about politics. It is about tying the hands of the commander-in-chief because some in this body do not agree with his policies.

People on both sides of the aisle can certainly agree that mistakes have been made in Iraq and a change of strategy is long overdue. However, what should this change of strategy be? Should the U.S. immediately pull out of Iraq, leave the terrorists emboldened and potentially put more Americans at risk? Or do we need a new strategy to win the war and finish the job?

While no proposal guarantees success, a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. support would guarantee failure. The stakes are too high to fail in Iraq. It remains in America's strategic interests to ensure regional stability in the Middle East and to deny terrorists a safe haven in Iraq.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. Furthermore, I hope that the House leadership will bring up a clean bill that focuses solely on supporting our troops and not one filled up with pork and unrelated spending.

Mr. Davis of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, I will vote today for a resolution that would finally draw the war in Iraq to a close, and that would for the first time put conditions of self-determination on the Iraqi government that has benefited from our country's generosity. While I was not yet in Congress at the time of the original authorization debate in 2002, I have concluded that the authorization decision was wrong and that too many American lives have been sacrificed for the dubious cause of advancing the interests of one side of an Iraqi civil war over the other.

It is also my belief that Congress has the unmistakable authority to put time limits on the commitment of American forces and to attach strings to the manner in which military funds are spent: Congress has used this power before in Lebanon, Vietnam, and Somalia, and most recently, during the second term of the Clinton Administration, when Republican congressional majorities imposed restrictions on the use of ground forces and on the duration of the force commitment made during the Balkan conflict.

Some of my colleagues who share my opposition to the war have suggested that this resolution has the defect of not going far enough in that it does not require an immediate withdrawal of American forces. I disagree: for the sake of regional stability, any withdrawal should be more orderly and more measured than the haphazard way American forces were deployed in the first place.

Other anti-war critics argue that a Democratic Congress has a moral imperative to take a bolder course, such as repeal of the 2002 authorization or a pledge to impound funding for additional deployments. While I agree that the test of Democratic legislation cannot be whether it would attract a Presidential veto (if that is the standard, Democrats would be immobilized this next 2 years), it is reasonable for the Democratic leadership to pursue a bill that can win overwhelming Democratic support, including those members from more conservative districts whose opposition to the war comes at some political cost.

Finally, I respect the concern of some Alabamians that any withdrawal from Iraq is a loss of prestige that will embolden our enemies. While this is not a trivial argument, the reality is that radical Islamic fundamentalism has exploded into a civil war in Iraq and that Al Queda will be a generation-long threat. These conflicts will rage on regardless of whether we are in combat in Iraq because they are rooted not in an assessment of our strength but in a permanent disdain for our values.

We need to engage Islamic terrorism on a different ground, such as Afghanistan, where Al Queda is resurgent, and we should use the leverage from a withdrawal from Iraq to cement international resistance to the Iranian nuclear program. Lines should be drawn in the sand around Israel's security, and the steady work of cultivating Arab moderates and isolating Arab radicals should continue. But it is time to end our active engagement in the disaster that is Iraq.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, simply put, I strongly oppose this war and have done so since its inception.

I stand ready to do whatever needs to be done to bring this conflict to a responsible end--and I have been working toward that goal since the first day I stepped onto this floor.

As a Progressive, my first inclination was to vote against this supplemental.

I still believe it's important to loudly proclaim that this war should end, but I've come to the conclusion that a vote against this bill is not the most effective way to make that statement.

Even though this supplemental does not push for an immediate end, it is our best hope in the Progressive struggle to bring our troops home and finally allow the Iraqis to determine their own future.

I am also strongly supportive of the funds provided in this bill to fund the S-CHIP shortfall.

Georgia's PeachCare program needs immediate relief and this bill will ensure children in need in my state continue to receive the health insurance we promised them, at least for the short term.

Make no mistake, I do not consider this bill to be the final statement on the war in Iraq--or the PeachCare program for that matter. But it is a good start and I will support it today.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I want to voice my support for this supplemental, not because I agree with everything in it, but because I agree with the most important thing in it: a binding deadline to redeploy our troops from Iraq.

We need to redeploy our troops from Iraq, first and foremost, because it is in our national security interest.

As someone who voted for the original resolution, I am particularly pained by the suffering of the thousands of our servicemembers killed and tens of thousands wounded. I'm glad this bill begins to put the appropriate resources into caring for those coming home with traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder, and beginning to fix the problems at Walter Reed Medical Center and other facilities. It is outrageous that this Administration has allowed our uniformed men and women to be treated so shabbily.

I also have enormous sympathy for the families of servicemembers killed and injured in Iraq. I agonize about those on the home front who worry every day about getting that horrible visit, and who struggle to raise children, pay bills, and lead some semblance of normal life with family members in a combat zone. I want our troops to come home.

Yet the hardships they and their families endure are not the reason to bring our troops home. I know that the men and women in uniform, and the families behind them, are willing to make the sacrifices they do if that is what it takes to make America more secure.

But the truth is, this war is not making us more secure.

By manipulating the intelligence and rushing to war, ignoring our allies, grossly mismanaging the occupation, and basing this entire war on ideology and hope rather than expertise and pragmatism, the Administration has torn our national security fabric.

Staying in Iraq, policing their civil war, does not bring us closer to defeating the global network of extremists who wish to harm us. To the contrary, in order to improve national security and best address our other strategic interests around the world and here at home, we must dramatically change our current direction in Iraq.

Redeployment from Iraq will enhance our security by allowing us to properly address other potential challenges around the world, from Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran to the Western Pacific, the Horn of Africa, and the greater Middle East. In particular, it will allow us to put our attention back on Afghanistan and Pakistan and the fight against a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban, the enemies who actually engineered 9/11.

Bringing troops home also allows us to resolve the concerns about the readiness of our Armed Forces, which have been strained to the breaking point because of this Administration's careless management of the war in Iraq. Perhaps most importantly, only by extricating ourselves from the mess of Iraq can we begin moving our country back to a common-sense policy of strength through leadership. Every day our military is in Iraq our standing in the international community erodes further.

Already we've seen respect for the United States plunge from record highs after 9/11 to record lows now. This loss of moral authority compromises our ability to lead multinational efforts to fight national security threats from terrorism and nuclear proliferation to global wanning and drug trafficking.

We cannot begin rebuilding our international credibility and leadership until we have redeployed from Iraq. We cannot restore the flexibility to meet the real, potentially existential threats of nuclear terrorism that were used to justify the invasion of Iraq until we exit Iraq.

We hear dire warnings about the awful results if we leave Iraq. It is true that bad things may happen when our Armed Forces leave if the Iraqis cannot or will not choose reconciliation over conflict. But that will be true if we leave at the end of this year, the end of next year, or in 2015. Delaying redeployment only delays the Iraqis' moment of responsibility.

The sooner we begin redeployment, the sooner we begin unraveling the tremendous damage that this war and its mismanagement have wrought on our national security. Given the Administration's history of manipulation and deceit, the interim deadlines of December 2007 and March 2008 may not prove binding, since the President can make certifications that waive those deadlines. I will support this supplemental, however, because it does set a binding deadline on withdrawal no later than August of next year. I would like the deadline to be sooner, but most important is that we bring finality to this war.

Our men and women in uniform have served our country courageously and performed brilliantly--just as they always do. But asking them to stand between warring factions is not only unfair, it's counterproductive.

I believe in a strong U.S. engagement around the world, including using military force when necessary. I also believe, as did Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan, that America's greatest strength comes from its values and its ability to lead. We need to restore America's leadership. We need to strengthen America's security. We need to pass this supplemental and begin the redeployment from Iraq.

Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1591. This is not an Emergency War Supplemental; it is the Partisan Repayment Act. Indeed, this legislation is less about supplying the troops than feeding the base.

There is desperate need for a new Iraq policy, and we should be using this opportunity to have a serious discussion. It is unseemly, even embarrassing, to use pork to buy support for bad policy on a bill as important as this one. It makes us look as trifling and greedy as our enemies claim. The well-being of our men and women in uniform is in the balance, as is the future of the Middle East. If ever there was a time to win on the strength of one's ideas, this is it.

I share the concerns of my colleagues regarding the progress of the war, and I believe there is value in setting benchmarks. Ours should not be an open-ended, unquestioning commitment to the Iraqis. They do need to assume more responsibility for their own affairs. It is not the job of our troops to referee partisan quarrels, nor is it our job to baby-sit the Iraqi government.

It is foolish, however, to make such milestones public. It is even more foolish to announce a date for withdrawal. Doing so gives the enemy too much information and too many options.

It is also foolish to codify deadlines. Who's to say the Iraqi government won't make a good faith effort to accomplish the tasks required of them? It would be wise to allow them flexibility, not give them a drop-dead date. We ourselves are working under a continuing resolution because we could not pass more than two appropriations bills last year. Our 5-day workweeks are often 4 days long--who are we to set a deadline in statute?

There is a pressing need to formulate a new policy for Iraq. I am disappointed the Democrats have yet to allow a serious debate on this, the most important issue facing the Congress today. Rather, we have wasted time with a non-binding resolution regarding tactics--not even strategy. Now we send the Iraqis a laundry list of errands and a pre- determined result.

Success in Iraq will require a broad based policy shift. The Iraq Study Group report includes 79 recommendations covering all facets of public policy--military, diplomatic, economic, and social. This report should form the basis of a productive discussion. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership has opted for a hodge-podge of sound bites masquerading as serious legislation. They have stifled debate rather than encouraged it by refusing to allow any amendments.

Mr. Speaker, this is but the first act in the play. Our own servicemen and women do need the funding this bill would provide. I am confident once we get beyond this charade we will be able to craft responsible legislation to give it to them.

Mr. Yarmuth: Mr. Speaker, we began this week by solemnly marking the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq, the more than 3,200 brave soldiers who have been killed there, and the 378 billion dollars that have been appropriated thus far. But we end the week with the historic opportunity to bring about an end to this catastrophe.

Over the last 4 years, the President not only failed to provide a plan to win in Iraq, he failed to offer our troops concrete and attainable objectives. Where he has let down our forces and the American people, Congress has a Constitutional obligation to step in, and this, "The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act," is our chance. It is our only real chance, to see this war end, to comply with the stated will of the American people, and to bring our troops home.

It is important to remember that this bill does more than set benchmarks and a timeline; it also provides much needed funding to protect our troops abroad and care for our veterans at home. A vote against this bill is a vote for the President but against our soldiers; it supports the war but abandons our young men and women in uniform.

That being said, whether we authorize it or not, the President will find the funding to prolong this war, even if it is at the expense of our soldiers, our veterans, and other crucial programs. This country cannot afford another Walter Reed, nor can it afford to send the President another blank check to indefinitely extend this occupation.

The President has asked for a bill without strings attached. He doesn't deserve a bill without strings. In 4 years of acting without strings, this war has never had an end in sight. We have before us today the opportunity to bring finality into view, and I urge my colleagues, members of the Senate, and President Bush not to squander this opportunity. I ask that we unite in support of Iraqi independence, U.S. troops, and H.R. 1591.

Mrs. Maloney of New York: Mr. Speaker, 4 years that have been difficult for our country, we have had to watch the administration bungle the war in Iraq in just about every way imaginable. As war became civil war in Iraq, we watched our colleagues on the other side of the aisle act as a rubber stamp for this misguided war while refusing to ask the pertinent questions, the questions we were asking, the questions the American people were asking. And we watched as 3,200 of our brave troops lost their lives in another country's civil war, while 24,000 came home with permanent injuries and billions upon billions of our taxpayers' dollars have been sunk into the quicksand Iraq has become.

This will be the case no more.

With the scores of oversight hearings our leadership has already conducted this year and now with this legislation, we are, for the first time, bringing accountability, timelines and end to the mismanaged war in Iraq.

Congress is no longer a rubber stamp.

The President has asked us time and again for money for this war without any strings. This, despite the fact that they let many of our troops go to battle without the proper equipment, and that they can't even account for $12 billion of taxpayer money for reconstruction.

With this bill, we will bring accountability as well as money for our injured soldiers who have been neglected. We are adding a total of $3.4 billion for the military health care system, including money to address the problems at Walter Reed and money for head injuries and post- traumatic stress disorder.

For 4 years, the administration's war policies have been risking lives and spending this country's treasure without any accountability.

This legislation will end the free ride and it will end the war.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor.

Mr. Costello: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1591, but with some reservations. While I appreciate the care with which Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Obey and the Democratic leadership have approached this supplemental appropriations bill, we are left, as we often are, with a flawed product. But I do believe, in regard to Iraq, that it is the best we are able to do right now.

The legislation for the first time establishes performance benchmarks for the Iraqi military and government, and firmly states that it is time to bring the troops home sooner rather than later. I did not vote to authorize the Iraq war, and I do not support President Bush's troop surge, but if this bill does not pass we will be forced to pass a funding bill that does not have these benchmarks, and that would be nothing more than the status quo, which is a blank check for President Bush. I say again, I do not support everything in this legislation, but it is the best alternative available to us at the present time.

I am particularly troubled by the non-military and non-veteran spending in this bill. While I support more funding for some of the important needs addressed here, particularly domestic spending priorities that have been severely neglected by the Bush administration over the last 6 years, they would be better considered elsewhere. The bill does address serious deficiencies in our veterans' health care system, and I whole-heartedly support this funding. We have a great deal more work to do to ensure that the brave men and women who defend this country are fully supported upon their return home, but this is a good start.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, like the war itself, presents us with tough choices. I will support the bill, and by doing so send a signal that it is time for the Iraqis to also make tough political decisions and take control of their own destiny. My thoughts and prayers are with our troops and their families, and I will continue to work for their speedy return.

Mr. Bishop of New York: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act. I concede that the legislation we are voting on today is by no means perfect, but I do believe it is a step in the right direction and deserves the support of those Americans who want to bring this misguided and mismanaged war to a responsible and timely conclusion.

In an ideal world, we would bring our troops home today, but that doesn't match the reality of our struggle in Iraq. We have an even smaller chance of accomplishing that goal in the Senate. The bill before us represents the best opportunity to affect the conduct of this war.

The benchmarks established within the supplemental are the same as those proposed by the President in January, the Iraq Study Group, and endorsed by Iraqi leaders. They include real consequences for the Iraqi government and a definite timeline for a phased and deliberate redeployment of American combat forces from Iraq by no later than August 2008. The bill provides what is currently missing in the President's policies--a plan to redeploy our troops from a situation that cannot be improved by their continued presence.

It's unmistakable that our presence in Iraq has weakened our Armed Forces and jeopardized our standing in the world. It has also diverted valuable resources away from fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan, tracking down Osama bin Laden, and preventing another terrorist attack against America. The supplemental not only provides a new direction in Iraq, but also redirects resources to fight the real global war on terrorism.

To all of those who argue that passage of this legislation would mean conceding defeat to the terrorists, I would say both that they are wrong, and that the alternative they endorse is unacceptable. For what they propose is simply "stay the course," more of the same--more deaths, more life altering injuries, more destruction, more squandered opportunity, more debt, and more diminished standing in the world. This legislation is about sending a message to the President that he cannot pursue the same failed strategy of the past 4 years and receive a blank check from this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this war. I believe the decision to invade Iraq is the single most devastating and misguided foreign policy decision our Nation has ever made. I will vote for the supplemental because I believe it is the best course available to us at this time to bring our involvement in this misguided tragedy to an end.

Ms. Bordallo: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act. This legislation would make emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007.

H.R. 1591 would provide funding for many purposes. This funding would support our military personnel who are fighting our country's enemies. This funding also would support our civilian personnel who are trying to establish a lasting peace for beleaguered citizens of some of the world's most troubled countries. Of particular note, this legislation includes much needed funding for healthcare for wounded warriors who have returned home, having given all but their lives in service to our country.

Debate with respect to this legislation will focus on the war in Iraq. Iraq is today's signature issue and it is also one of the most divisive and complex ones before this Congress. The choices we make regarding Iraq will establish a legacy for the United States that will define our policy toward the Middle East region for a generation or longer. For that reason, it is my hope that we, as an institution and, indeed, as a country can agree upon a policy that protects our national interests and those of our allies and supports those servicemembers and civilians--and their families--who so bravely serve our country today in Iraq and elsewhere around the world.

It is true the government of Iraq must work to better fulfill its obligation to govern from moderate positions, with uniformity, and with regard to the rule of law. On January 31, 2007, I introduced H.R. 744, the Iraq Policy Revitalization and Congressional Oversight Enhancement Act. H.R. 744 would take a different approach to the challenge of setting metrics to measure progress in Iraq and to define the terms for completion of the mission in that country than what is called for in H.R. 1591, the legislation that is currently before this body.

I am a member of the Committee on Armed Services and I have traveled to Iraq eight times since taking office in 2003. These trips have allowed me to observe our operations in Iraq and to personally speak with our commanders, servicemembers, and civilian personnel in the field. I have also had the opportunity to speak with Iraqi leaders during these visits. As a result, I have learned a great deal about the accomplishments made in Iraq to date. I have also learned of the many challenges that remain there.

I believe that an honest and open exchange of views on the substance of what our country and our allies must achieve in Iraq in order to complete Operation Iraqi Freedom is needed. Finding an achievable, expeditious, and honorable way to complete Operation Iraqi Freedom should be a primary goal for all of us. We owe this to those who have sacrificed so much for this mission. But the situation in Iraq will not yield a solution easily. Nevertheless, we must endeavor to find one. In doing so, we will be helping shape in the best way possible the legacy future generations of Americans will inherit and the one that we will have to defend to history. Like it or not, the United States assumed a moral obligation to bring order to Iraq when we, in a pre-emptive manner, attacked that country four years ago this month. History will judge us harshly if we act in a way that would abandon this obligation.

It is for this reason and others that I strongly support the funding called for by this legislation that supports our wounded warriors who are embarking on their long but hopeful roads to recovery, that supports our servicemembers who continue to pursue our enemies worldwide, and that supports our civilian personnel who work to stabilize and reconstruct countries that are now home to disturbing violence and heartbreaking loss of life. I urge my colleagues to support the funding called for by this legislation.

Ms. Eshoo: Mr. Speaker, our country has just begun the fifth year of war in Iraq. By overwhelming numbers, the American people want a new direction and I believe this bill contains the policy and the plan to help bring an end to the misguided policies of the Administration.

Military leaders, Generals Abizaid, Odom and Powell, as well as former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, have all come forward to observe that the Administration's war-without-end policy is not a strategy for success.

Today's legislation directs itself to important change. It sets a new course for ending the war.

The bill requires accountability: It puts the Iraqis in charge of Iraq. If they cannot or will not bring their country under control, if conditions continue to worsen and political and military benchmarks are not met, beginning in July 2007 (less than four months from today), our troops will begin an immediate redeployment.

The bill begins a redeployment: It sets a firm timeline to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq and in legally-binding terms declares that all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by August 31, 2008, if not sooner.

It requires the Iraqis--not our soldiers--to reign in the militias, aggressively pursue the insurgents and provide "evenhanded security for all Iraqis."

The bill prohibits the establishment of any permanent military bases. It bans the use of torture. It redirects resources back to the fight against terrorism and Al-Qaeda, and recommits us to creating a stable state in Afghanistan.

The bill takes care of our troops. It provides over $3 billion more than the President's request to meet the neglected needs of our returning soldiers and veterans around the country.

The following are quotes from respected national leaders:

Retired General William Odom, former Director of the National Security Agency under President Reagan and member of the National Security Council under President Carter stated recently: "Getting out of Iraq is the pre-condition for creating new strategic options."

According to former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski:

"The United States cannot afford an open-ended commitment to a war without end. A means must be devised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq and reduce our troop levels, so that we can begin to rebuild our military and reclaim our position of leadership in the world. The bill the House will consider this week does that in an effective and responsible way."

Former NATO Commander Wesley Clark:

"The conflict must be resolved politically--military efforts alone are insufficient--and this legislation strongly promotes that political solution."

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this supplemental legislation. For the first time the debate about Iraq is not "if' or "how." It is about "when" … when our troops will come home.

It is binding language.

It is sensible language.

It is language that will change the direction of the war.

It is language that will help to heal our wounded troops.

It is language that will help heal our Nation.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mrs. McCarthy of New York: Mr. Speaker, today, I will vote in favor of H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007 to fully fund our troops and end the war in Iraq.

This legislation will fully fund the troops serving in Iraq. It is imperative that they have the necessary equipment to conduct their mission as safely and swiftly as possible.

Today's vote marks a major shift in the strategy for Iraq by imposing real responsibility on the Iraqi government. President Bush outlined several benchmarks for the Iraqi government in his January 10 address. Unfortunately, there were no real consequences for the Iraqi government if these benchmarks were not met. Today's vote put real pressure on Prime Minister Maliki and the Iraqi government to meet these benchmarks. If the Iraqis do not step up and take control of their own security, U.S. forces will begin a phased redeployment as early as July 1, 2007. All U.S. troops must begin their redeployment by March 1, 2008, by which time, the Iraqis will have had ample opportunity to be trained and take control of their situation.

The U.S. cannot remain in Iraq indefinitely. During the past 4 years, the U.S. has suffered over 3,000 casualties and countless injuries attempting to curb the violence in Iraq. The time has come for the Iraqis to stand up and make a real investment in the security and future of their nation.

I will continue to support our troops and ensure they are trained and properly equipped for battle. But the course in Iraq must be changed, and that change has begun today.

Mrs. Biggert: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1591, the so-called U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007.

That's what my Democratic colleagues are calling the bill. And while I support the funding in the bill for troop readiness and veterans' health care, I wonder why the bill's title ends with Iraq Accountability. Why not mention hand-outs to dairy interests, spinach farmers, citrus growers, or for storing peanuts? Yes, $74 million for storing peanuts.

Why not mention the unrequested funding for fighting wildfires in the west, or the doubling of so-called "emergency" funds for the long- known and well planned Base Realignment and Closure effort--funding that the new majority knew was needed, but wouldn't provide in the continuing resolution just last month? Why not mention the increase in the minimum wage or funding for asbestos abatement in the Capitol contained in this alleged emergency wartime supplemental appropriations bill?

"Clean" is not a word I would use to describe this bill, which includes more than $21 billion in spending that is completely unrelated to troop readiness, veterans' health, or Iraq. Sure, I've heard of Christmas in July, but Christmas in March? What happened to the other party's promise to end business as usual? This bill is worse than usual. As the editorial in USA Today put it yesterday, "It's hard to believe which is worse: leaders offering peanuts for a vote of this magnitude, or members allowing their votes to be bought for peanuts."

Don't get me wrong. I agree that Congress has a responsibility and an obligation to ensure the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense have the resources necessary to care for our veterans from all wars and our wounded soldiers returning from Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

I agree that Congress has a responsibility and an obligation to see that American troops are ready and able to fulfill their mission. That's why I am a cosponsor of a bill introduced by my distinguished and decorated colleague from Texas, Mr. Johnson. H.R. 511 pledges, "Congress will not cut off or restrict funding for units and members of the Armed Forces that the Commander in Chief has deployed in harm's way" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I also agree that we must do a better job holding the Iraqi government accountable. For too long, we pursued an open-ended commitment without well-defined goals and clear benchmarks for success.

That's why I am a cosponsor of legislation, H.R. 1062, that will hold the Administration--and the Iraqi government--accountable in achieving clear benchmarks.

It requires the President to report to Congress, every 30 days, on the extent to which the Government of Iraq is moving forward on more than a dozen fronts, from troop training and security to rebuilding, reconciliation, international cooperation and enforcing the rule of law.

It also requires progress reports on the implementation of strategies that will prevent Iraqi territory from becoming a safe haven for terrorist activities.

But the bill we are considering today goes beyond funding and benchmarks and crosses a constitutional line that has long kept Congress from micromanaging military and foreign affairs.

Instead of sweeping away bureaucratic obstacles to success, this bill creates 435 new armchair generals.

Instead of giving General Petraeus and our diplomatic leaders the flexibility to fulfill their mission, it saddles them with bureaucratic requirements and arbitrary timetables.

Instead of ensuring that our troops in harm's way have the resources and equipment they need, this bill uses our military men and women as pawns in a dangerous political game.

Instead of giving our troops, the Iraqi people, and their fledgling government one last chance, it gives them one last mandate--to retreat in defeat.

As if the bill wasn't wasteful enough, it starts a perilous countdown to a vacuum in leadership and security that threatens any prospect for peace or stability in the Middle East for years to come. And it does a great disservice to our men and women in uniform and their commanders in the field who have already sacrificed so much for our freedom and security and that of the Iraqi people. They deserve better.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this irresponsible bill.

Ms. Slaughter: Mr. Speaker, we meet on what is the fourth day of the fifth year of the war in Iraq. It is a war that has gone on longer than the war in Korea. America has been fighting longer in Iraq than we did during World War II--even though that was an international conflict fought on two fronts against some of the most dangerous threats to our national security ever known.

Too many Members of this Congress and of this Administration have for years seen what they wanted to see in Iraq, and believed what they wanted to believe. But their conceptions couldn't matter less to the men and women of that nation, or to the men and women of the American military who are fighting there.

Civilians and soldiers don't live in the world as politicians say it is. They live in the world as it really is. And they live, every day, with the consequences of the decisions made here in this chamber.

During the first 4 years of the Iraq war, they had to live with an Administration and a Congress that either could not, or would not, see this conflict for what it really was: a war that was not being won, that was being fought by soldiers who often did not have the equipment they needed or the care they were owed, that was not improving the security of the Iraqi people, that was depleting our military and, as a result, endangering the long-term security of this nation, and that was based on a flawed strategy that desperately needed to be changed.

They lived with the former Secretary of Defense dismissing persistent equipment shortages by telling us that our nation had gone to war with the Army it had. By the time Mr. Rumsfeld had uttered those words, on December 9th, 2004, 1,288 U.S. soldiers had been killed.

They lived with predictions that the insurgency in Iraq was in its last throes, a statement made 6 months later. Four hundred thirty-seven more soldiers had lost their lives in those months.

And now, they live with more calls for patience from the Administration and its allies, and more denunciations of anyone who would seek a different course in Iraq.

As of today, more than 3,200 soldiers have died in this war. The civilian death toll is astonishing, with estimates now running as high as 1 million Iraqi men, women, and children killed as a direct or indirect result of the conflict and the chaos it has unleashed. Millions more have been dislocated, driven out of their homes and into refugee camps.

It is long past time for this institution to join with our soldiers and with the people of Iraq in seeing this war for what it really is.

The legislation before us today represents the first real chance Democrats have had since 2003 to change the course of the war in Iraq. And we intend to do it.

We will do it not because we are conceding anything to those who would do our Nation harm, not because we lack the will to continue the fight, and not because, as some would have you believe, we are giving up.

Instead, we are going to change the course of this war because the future of the people of Iraq hinges on it, because a basic level of respect for our soldiers demands it, and because the long-term security of our Nation depends on it. Mr. Speaker, the simple reality is that the situation in Iraq is stagnant at best, and deteriorating at worst. Politically, economic and military goals are not being met there. Faced with such truths, why should this House pass yet another blank check for the war, as past Congresses have done?

Instead, this bill is based on a simple and logical idea: it makes America's continued involvement in Iraq conditional on the situation there improving.

America's soldiers will no longer be asked to fight in an open-ended war whose goal line keeps moving. This legislation requires Iraqi leaders to make the political compromises necessary to produce a working government that will function for all of Iraq--or else risk losing America's military support. And it will require security benchmarks to be met if American soldiers are to continue sacrificing their own safety for that goal.

But what is more, this bill represents the first step Congress has ever taken towards ending the war in Iraq.

A clear majority of the American people want this body to take decisive steps toward that end. A clear majority of our global allies want the same thing. A significant number of generals and military officials think that ending this conflict must be achieved sooner rather than later.

This bill is a response to their words, and to their counsel. It will not end the war immediately, nor will it end it recklessly.

Instead, it rejects the idea of a war in Iraq without end.

To continue funding this conflict without requiring any tangible progress to be made in Iraq makes no sense. It would achieve neither peace in that nation, nor security here.

But what it would achieve, Mr. Speaker, is the continued depletion and degradation of our military beyond all reason. It would continue to render our armed forces unable to fight in other parts of the world against other threats. And it would continue to force suffering soldiers to return to the battlefield time and again, despite physical and mental injuries.

We know the statistics: in addition to the 3,223 soldiers that have died, tens of thousands more have been injured, some permanently. And there are more than 32,000 Iraq veterans--32,000--who who every day suffer silently from the scourge of mental health problems. More than 13,000 of those men and women have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD.

And yet, they are afforded no relief. The President's escalation of this conflict is forcing more soldiers back into combat sooner, with less rest, with less training, and with less time to heal. There are even reports of men and women being sent back to Iraq who are too injured to wear body armor.

Mr. Speaker, it is important not to view these realities in the abstract. I want to share with you a story I recently heard, the story of one young lieutenant currently awaiting his second deployment to Iraq.

Though he trained as an engineer, his first tour of duty saw him bravely patrolling dangerous streets north of Baghdad. He returned last December, and was initially expecting a year on base during which to rest and train a new platoon.

Instead, he will be heading back months sooner. He says that the soldiers under his command are not going to get the time they need to train properly for their mission. The vehicles and equipment they now use to train for war are failing and often break They are physically weary, with many still suffering from the lingering effects of leg and back injuries. Others are battling more elusive damage, and are in counseling for PTSD. He even told me that the vast majority of the once married soldiers in his unit are now or will soon be divorced. Their lives outside of the war are coming apart.

And yet, if you ask him, he will never complain about these difficulties. They are all part of the life of the soldier, he says, a few of the many challenges he and his men will confront every day they are deployed. When those in the military are given a mission, he told me, they find a way to complete it. That creed is the foundation of the strength of our Armed Forces.

It is the personification of the word sacrifice, Mr. Speaker. This young soldier and those under his charge are going back to Iraq again, even though they are wounded, and tired, and lacking in training and equipment. They miss their families. They miss their lives back home. But they are going all the same--going simply because this body has given the President the right to send them into battle.

But what this soldier did tell me is that our Armed Forces cannot go on like this. He said that if the foundation of our military's strength--its refusal to admit defeat--is misused, then we will end up destroying our system of national defense.

We hear the reports of the 82nd Airborne, for decades able to respond anywhere in the world within 72 hours, now struggling to respond to anything besides deployment orders sending its soldiers to Iraq.

We see men and women in uniform being sent back for tour after tour after tour, our services desperately trying to find a way to meet new troop requirements.

Mr. Speaker, this war represents a dramatic misuse of our military. In the name of our national security, it is undermining the only true guarantor of national security that we have: our Armed Forces. And for 4 years, this Congress let it happen.

But not any more. Today, the House will finally recognize that our military is at the breaking point--not because of any inherent weakness, but because it is being asked to complete a mission no army could succeed at.

And so, that mission must change.

The new strategy this bill sets forth has nothing to do with surrender, Mr. Speaker. Instead, it has everything to do with doing what must be done to work toward a secure Iraq. And it has everything to do with refusing to allow those who would do us harm fool us into defeating ourselves--in the process, attaining a victory that they will never be able to achieve on their own.

Let me say as well that this funding bill also respects our soldiers enough to put their needs at the forefront of our national priorities, instead of leaving them behind. From now on, if they are asked to go into battle without being fully armored, fully rested, and fully trained, then the President himself will have to stand before this country and explain why it is necessary to do so.

This bill will also provide desperately needed funds for veterans' health care. Our country is seeing more wounded soldiers returning from abroad than at any point in 40 years, and yet for years, our health care system has failed thousands of them. It is unconscionable, and it is long past time that it was changed.

Finally, this bill both increases funding for the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan and for a variety of other critically important national security objectives.

Taken together, it represents the beginning of what will be a responsible and ethical shift in our national security priorities away from a mistaken conflict in Iraq and back toward other concerns--the continued rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, for example, and the needs of wounded soldiers at home.

By changing a flawed strategy that has weakened our military for years without getting us any closer to a stable Iraq, this legislation represents our country's best chance to shake both of our nations free from the shackles of a stalemate benefiting neither.

It is an important and historic bill, one that the people of Iraq deserve, that the American people deserve, and that our troops most certainly deserve. I am proud to support it, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Katrina- Rita supplemental. The President was quoted yesterday as saying we needed a clean bill to fund the rebuild of Iraq. I disagree with that statement and suggest that we need the comprehensive bill put forth by the majority, so that the people of the Gulf Coast States can rebuild. For too long we are funding the rebuilding of foreign communities. While this is admirable, the American people deserve first call on the rebuilding money, and help when it is their very tax dollars that are being spent.

My Caucus leadership took me seriously when I challenged them to put forth action rather than words. The supplemental appropriation bill we are debating tonight is the first and only vehicle available to Katrina-Rita affected citizens! Because of budgetary rules, there is no other opportunity to address the unfinished levees, the rebuilding needs of local governments, affordable housing so people can return, and help for the coastal fisheries and farmers who have, to date, been virtually ignored.

My colleagues in the affected Gulf Coast States need to decide where they stand. If we let this one chance for $1.3 billion in levee assistance pass us by, every Member of Congress who votes against this should be held accountable for putting South Louisiana's citizens in harms way.

Are you in support of your Party, or are you for helping Louisianians, Mississipians and taxpaying Americans?

I support the Americans!

I would also like to submit the following clarification for the record:

This supplemental will provide funding for agriculture and fisheries disaster assistance along the Gulf Coast. For livestock producers, our intent is to increase the payment limit for those who lost hundreds of cattle as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. These cattlemen have been inadequately compensated as a result of previously underfunded USDA programs. Our citrus growers--whose groves were destroyed from up to a month of saltwater several feet deep--should receive an increase in the payment rate for USDA's hurricane assistance program.

Additionally, this bill contains desperately needed assistance for our shrimp, menhaden, as well as other fisheries that were devastated by the storms and, unfortunately have been forgotten for the past 18 months by the Administration and Congress.

Mr. McNulty: Mr. Speaker, in the spring of 1970, during my first term as Town Supervisor of Green Island, I testified against the War in Vietnam at a Congressional Field Hearing in Schenectady, New York.

Several months after that testimony, my brother, HM3 William F. McNulty, a Navy medic, was killed in Quang Nam Province.

I have thought--many times since then--that if President Nixon had listened to the voices of reason back then, my brother Bill might still be alive.

As a Member of Congress today, I believe that the Iraq War will eventually be recorded as one of the biggest blunders in the history of warfare.

In October 2002, I made a huge mistake in voting to give this President the authority to take military action in Iraq. I will not compound that error by voting to authorize this war's continuation.

On the contrary, I will do all that is within my power to end this war, to bring our troops home, and to spare other families the pain that the McNulty family has endured every day since August 9, 1970.

Mr. Shuler: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, we entered the fifth year of the war in Iraq. Throughout that this Congress has provided the President with all the resources needed to wage this war. However, this body failed to provide any of the oversight he needed. Today, this Congress will correct that lack of oversight, while still providing our troops the funding they need and our military leaders the flexibility they require.

Today we say an open-ended commitment to this war is no longer acceptable. We say that we will no longer grant the President a blank check.

The war in Iraq has already lasted longer than World War I, World War II, and the Civil War. Continuing this war in the same manner with no accountability from the Administration or requirements on the Iraqi government is unacceptable.

Today, we stand up for our men and women in uniform; we honor our veterans, and we begin a new course to securing Iraq by passing H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act.

Passing this emergency funding guarantees our troops will have the equipment and resources they need. This bill demands that our troops are fully mission capable and meet the readiness standards set by the Department of Defense before we send them to war. And this bill demands the Iraqis get off the sidelines and begin fighting for their country.

The people of Western North Carolina sent me to Congress to ask the tough questions and demand accountability on this war. I have attended briefings at the White House and the Pentagon where I have been able to ask those questions. I have spoken to generals and troops on the ground, veterans and the families of those fighting. I have listened to my constituents, and I have prayed. I am confident that supporting this bill is the proper course of action. Soldiers support this bill. Generals support this bill. Veterans support this bill. The families of those fighting support this bill. A vote against this bill is a vote against our troops.

I am confident that this bill is a step in the right direction towards promoting a just and stable Iraq, and in bringing our nation closer to the day when all of our troops can return home to the warm welcome of a grateful Nation. May God bless our troops and their families, and may God bless the United States of America.

Ms. DeGette: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1591.

In considering what to say about H.R. 1591, I looked back at what I said in the Congressional Record about House Resolution 861, an Iraq resolution from the 109th Congress in June of last year. I lamented the fact that 2,500 soldiers had died, 18,000 had been wounded, and 320 billion dollars had been spent or appropriated. I said that enough was enough and that it was time to begin redeploying troops to the periphery of the conflict and bring some of them home.

Sadly, in the last nine months, we have lost over 700 more troops and seen more than 5,000 additional soldiers wounded. We have little to show for our efforts, as Iraq is still in chaos and there is no peace in sight. I am afraid that if we do not take a different approach that this pattern will continue--progress in Iraq will not be made and increasing numbers of American soldiers will suffer. H.R. 1591 is a new, reasonable approach.

Like most Americans, I want Iraq to succeed as a stable democracy. But Iraqis have to want this too and actually work towards this goal in a meaningful way. H.R. 1591 encourages the Iraqi government to do this by offering our continued assistance, if it meets certain political and military benchmarks. These markers were laid out by President Bush in January. A further incentive for Iraq to take more responsibility for its own security is the knowledge that, under H.R. 1591, we will not be there forever. There will now be a date certain, August 2008, after which the Iraqi government could not longer rely on our soldiers for its security.

This is not just the right course for Iraq, it is the right course for America. After 4 long years, thousands dead and wounded, and hundreds of billions spent, it is time that this war comes to an end.

Ending the war in Iraq will stop the losses and devastating injuries inflicted on our troops. It will also allow us to redirect the billions that would otherwise be spent on Iraq to meet needed priorities here at home, such as providing health insurance to low-income children. I ask my colleagues to keep in mind this tremendous opportunity cost should we not stop the war.

While the legislation before us today will bring the war in Iraq to close over a reasonable period of time, it also supports our troops in the field. H.R. 1591 appropriates almost $100 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I strongly support our troops who have done everything asked of them with dignity, courage, and skill. It is with their safety and security in mind that I will vote in favor of this bill.

Beyond Iraq, H.R. 1591 contains over $20 billion to meet other emergency priorities. These include resources for veterans' health care, recovery from the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, relief for farmers and ranchers from years of drought, and money to states for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

Enacting H.R. 1591 is thus important to address these emergencies, support our troops in the field, and end our involvement in the war in Iraq. I strongly encourage all Members of the House to support its passage.

Mr. Holt: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill.

If the President of the United States were a rational decision maker, a bill of this kind would not be necessary in the first place. Unfortunately, the President continues to cling to the illusion that the situation in Iraq will improve if only we're willing to sacrifice still more American lives. But we cannot solve Iraq's civil war any more than we could solve Vietnam's civil war 40 years ago.

By unleashing forces he does not understand and cannot control, the President has put our military forces in an impossible situation. Our troops cannot referee Iraq's sectarian conflict. The longer our forces remain in Iraq, the more they become identified with a government that is seen as increasingly repressive, and incapable--or unwilling--to take the steps necessary to resolve Iraq's internal conflict politically and peacefully. It is for all these reasons that it is past time for Congress to take steps in forcing the President to change course and withdraw our combat troops.

This course correction is far slower and more difficult than I would like. I share the frustration of many of my colleagues that the President is not moving quickly enough or boldly enough to end our military involvement in Iraq. I for one do not expect the President to provide the Congress with accurate assessments of the readiness of our forces or of the Pentagon's ability to meet some key needs of the troops.

Existing DoD readiness assessments already show that our forces are overworked and overstretched. My friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, has included provisions in this bill that seek to limit the President's ability to deploy our ground forces to Iraq that are not truly ready and therefore less effective and more at risk. I believe zealous oversight of these provisions will be required if this bill becomes law. The President has shown he is willing to say or do anything to try to get his way when it comes to Iraq policy. He must not be allowed to politicize readiness assessments the way he has politicized intelligence assessments.

One bogus criticism of this measure is that setting a date certain for withdrawal is bad policy or micromanagement by the Congress. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been trotting this argument out frequently of late. Their position is undercut by the fact that they voted to impose time lines and benchmarks on President Clinton during our effort in the Balkans a decade ago.

By the way, I am pleased that this measure contains significantly increased funding for two critical areas of veterans health care: traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. We are only beginning to come to grips with the true costs of this conflict for our veterans, and we must take aggressive measures to ensure that they receive the follow up care they need to have the best possible chance of leading full, productive lives.

Mr. Speaker, we should be under no illusions regarding this bill. It is only the first concrete step in our effort to redirect our nation's policy in Iraq. Some weeks ago, we passed a non-binding resolution that pointed us in a new direction with respect to the occupation and war in Iraq. That was the right thing to do, even though it was non-binding on the President. Similarly, this supplemental appropriation is beneficial, although the actual withdrawal of troops will require, I believe, additional forceful action by Congress to fulfill the provisions of this bill.

It is important to move forward with this measure now and force this President to make America's combat occupation of Iraq history rather than a limitless, open-ended future.

The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Capuano): All time for debate has expired.

Pursuant to House Resolution 261, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.

The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.

The Speaker pro tempore: The question is on the passage of the bill.

Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, nays 212, answered "present" 1, not voting 3, as follows:

Roll No. 186 - House Resolution 261
YEAS--218
Abercrombie	Ackerman	Allen	Altmire	Andrews
Arcuri	Baca	Baird	Baldwin	Bean
Becerra	Berkley	Berman	Berry	Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)	Blumenauer	Boswell	Boucher	Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)	Brady (PA)	Braley (IA)	Brown, Corrine	Butterfield
Capps	Capuano	Cardoza	Carnahan	Carney
Carson	Castor	Chandler	Clarke	Clay
Cleaver	Clyburn	Cohen	Conyers	Cooper
Costa	Costello	Courtney	Cramer	Crowley
Cuellar	Cummings	Davis (AL)	Davis (CA)	Davis (IL)
DeFazio	DeGette	Delahunt	DeLauro	Dicks
Dingell	Doggett	Donnelly	Doyle	Edwards
Ellison	Ellsworth	Emanuel	Engel	Eshoo
Etheridge	Farr	Fattah	Filner	Frank (MA)
Giffords	Gilchrest	Gillibrand	Gonzalez	Gordon
Green, Al	Green, Gene	Grijalva	Gutierrez	Hall (NY)
Hare	Harman	Hastings (FL)	Herseth	Higgins
Hill	Hinchey	Hinojosa	Hirono	Hodes
Holden	Holt	Honda	Hooley	Hoyer
Inslee	Israel	Jackson (IL)	Jackson-Lee (TX)	Jefferson
Johnson (GA)	Johnson, E. B.	Jones (NC)	Jones (OH)	Kagen
Kaptur	Kennedy	Kildee	Kilpatrick	Kind
Klein (FL)	Lampson	Langevin	Lantos	Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)	Levin	Lipinski	Loebsack	Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey	Lynch	Mahoney (FL)	Maloney (NY)	Markey
Matsui	McCarthy (NY)	McCollum (MN)	McDermott	McGovern
McIntyre	McNerney	Meehan	Meek (FL)	Meeks (NY)
Melancon	Millender-McDonald	Miller (NC)	Miller, George	Mitchell
Mollohan	Moore (KS)	Moore (WI)	Moran (VA)	Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick	Murtha	Nadler	Napolitano	Neal (MA)
Oberstar	Obey	Olver	Ortiz	Pallone
Pascrell	Pastor	Payne	Pelosi	Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)	Pomeroy	Price (NC)	Rahall	Rangel
Reyes	Rodriguez	Ross	Rothman	Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger	Rush	Ryan (OH)	Salazar	Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta	Sarbanes	Schakowsky	Schiff	Schwartz
Scott (GA)	Scott (VA)	Serrano	Sestak	Shea-Porter
Sherman	Shuler	Sires	Skelton	Slaughter
Smith (WA)	Snyder	Solis	Space	Spratt
Stupak	Sutton	Tanner	Tauscher	Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)	Tierney	Towns	Udall (CO)	Udall (NM)
Van Hollen	Velazquez	Visclosky	Walz (MN)	Wasserman Schultz
Waxman	Weiner	Welch (VT)	Wexler	Wilson (OH)
Wu	Wynn	Yarmuth
Nays--212
Aderholt	Akin	Alexander	Bachmann	Bachus
Baker	Barrett (SC)	Barrow	Bartlett (MD)	Barton (TX)
Biggert	Bilbray	Bilirakis	Bishop (UT)	Blackburn
Blunt	Boehner	Bonner	Bono	Boozman
Boren	Boustany	Brady (TX)	Brown (SC)	Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan	Burgess	Burton (IN)	Buyer	Calvert
Camp (MI)	Campbell (CA)	Cannon	Cantor	Capito
Carter	Castle	Chabot	Coble	Cole (OK)
Conaway	Crenshaw	Cubin	Culberson	Davis (KY)
Davis, David	Davis, Lincoln	Davis, Tom	Deal (GA)	Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.	Diaz-Balart, M.	Doolittle	Drake	Dreier
Duncan	Ehlers	Emerson	English (PA)	Everett
Fallin	Feeney	Ferguson	Flake	Forbes
Fortenberry	Fossella	Foxx	Franks (AZ)	Frelinghuysen
Gallegly	Garrett (NJ)	Gerlach	Gillmor	Gingrey
Gohmert	Goode	Goodlatte	Granger	Graves
Hall (TX)	Hastert	Hastings (WA)	Hayes	Heller
Hensarling	Herger	Hobson	Hoekstra	Hulshof
Hunter	Inglis (SC)	Issa	Jindal	Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam	Jordan	Keller	King (IA)	King (NY)
Kingston	Kirk	Kline (MN)	Knollenberg	Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)	LaHood	Lamborn	Latham	LaTourette
Lee	Lewis (CA)	Lewis (GA)	Lewis (KY)	Linder
LoBiondo	Lucas	Lungren, Daniel E.	Mack	Manzullo
Marchant	Marshall	Matheson	McCarthy (CA)	McCaul (TX)
McCotter	McCrery	McHenry	McHugh	McKeon
McMorris Rodgers	McNulty	Mica	Michaud	Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)	Miller, Gary	Moran (KS)	Murphy, Tim	Musgrave
Myrick	Neugebauer	Nunes	Paul	Pearce
Pence	Peterson (PA)	Petri	Pickering	Pitts
Platts	Poe	Porter	Price (GA)	Pryce (OH)
Putnam	Radanovich	Ramstad	Regula	Rehberg
Reichert	Renzi	Reynolds	Rogers (AL)	Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)	Rohrabacher	Ros-Lehtinen	Roskam	Royce
Ryan (WI)	Sali	Saxton	Schmidt	Sensenbrenner
Sessions	Shadegg	Shays	Shimkus	Shuster
Simpson	Smith (NE)	Smith (NJ)	Smith (TX)	Souder
Stearns	Sullivan	Tancredo	Taylor	Terry
Thornberry	Tiahrt	Tiberi	Turner	Upton
Walberg	Walden (OR)	Walsh (NY)	Wamp	Waters
Watson	Weldon (FL)	Weller	Westmoreland	Whitfield
Wicker	Wilson (NM)	Wilson (SC)	Wolf	Woolsey
Young (AK)	Young (FL)
Answered "Present"--1
Stark
NOT VOTING--3
Davis, Jo Ann	Kanjorski	Watt

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

The Speaker pro tempore (during the vote): The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in contravention of the law and rules of the House.

The Sergeant at Arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and restore order to the gallery.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

The Speaker pro tempore (during the vote): The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in contravention of the law and rules of the House.

The Sergeant at Arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and restore order to the gallery.

So the bill was passed.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Stated for:

Mr. Watt: Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was not able to get here to cast my vote on H.R. 1591. Had I been here, I would have voted for the bill.