Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 332, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1591) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Speaker pro tempore: Pursuant to House Resolution 332, the conference report is considered as read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of April 24, 2007, at page H3823.)
The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 1591.
The Speaker pro tempore: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 9 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this bill gives the President the exit strategy from the Iraqi civil war that up until now he has not had.
Next Tuesday will be the fourth anniversary of the President's "Mission Accomplished" landing on that famous aircraft carrier. On that date, U.S. troops had won the war in Iraq, but since that time the administration's mismanagement, their misjudgments, and their missed opportunities have entangled us in a quagmire that has become a prolonged civil war. That civil war has gutted our influence in the Middle East and much of the world. In the last 4 years, the administration has spent over half a trillion dollars. It has stretched the Army to the limit, brought our Guard and Reserve to the breaking point, and reduced our military to the lowest state of military readiness in modern history.
The President has refused to finance this war through the normal appropriations process. He has chosen to mask the true cost of the war by paying for it on the installment plan through a series of supplemental requests. He has now requested another supplemental of almost another $100 billion in military spending, and almost $4 billion in other additional spending. The bill before us today is our response.
We provide $4 billion more than the President asked for for troops in the field. The President is objecting on two grounds. First, he does not like the conditions we have placed on funding for the war. Second, he objects to the money we have added for other crucial activities. He calls it "pork." So do some of the charter members of the "Invent Your Own Facts Club" that seems to populate this institution.
We have provided $4 billion more than he has asked for for operation and maintenance for personnel costs and for procurement.
We have provided $750 million more than he asked for for Afghanistan.
We have provided $2.2 billion more for military health to meet the medical needs of our returning soldiers. We have added $1.8 billion for veterans health care above the amount the President asked for.
We have provided $2.2 billion more for aviation security, port security, and border security.
We have provided $80 million more for nuclear nonproliferation, and we have added $150 million for the FBI.
We have provided $650 million more than the President asked for for the pandemic flu emergency, cleaning up an action that last year's Congress never got around to completing.
We have provided $3.3 billion more for Katrina, again cleaning up some more business that last year's Congress failed to complete.
We have also provided $3.1 billion more for BRAC which the administration itself asked for in its budget last year.
We provided $500 million for wild land fires, the same amount put into the same account by the Republican majority 2 years ago for the same purposes.
We have added $400 million to low income heating assistance because the previous Congress cut that by $1 billion. We should have added back the whole billion dollars, but in the interest of saving money we confined it to $400 million.
We have added $425 million to continue the rural school payments in the West that the last Congress never got around to renewing. Unfortunately, they allowed that program to expire, as they allowed so many other things to expire last year.
We have also provided $3.5 billion for agriculture disaster, again an issue which has been hanging around for more than a year. The President has declared more than 70 percent of the counties in this country to be agriculture disaster areas. There ought to be some action that flows from that unless we are taking the President's initial action to be meaningless.
We have also provided $396 million in SCHIP to make certain that low income children and low income families don't fall off the State health care rolls. We have been asked to do that by bipartisan Governors from 14 States.
If the President wants to object to those items and call them pork, or of members of the flat earth club in this body want to call it pork, that's fine with me; I think the public will look at those issues somewhat differently.
The President is attacking these additional items as a smoke screen to obscure the fact that the key issue on this bill is whether or not there will be a change in direction with respect to our policy in Iraq.
This bill supports the troops. It begins to hold Iraq and the administration accountable, and it points the way to ending our involvement in a protracted civil war.
As a condition of providing the President with the funds he has asked for, we require that our American military units meet certain standards that are known as the Murtha standards. They simply require that any unit sent into battle be fully combat ready. They would require, as the Defense Department already has for the most part, they would require that any unit that has been in Iraq does not have to stay there for more than a year without relief, and they also require that if they are sent back, they get to spend at least a year at home before they go back. And in an era where no one is being asked to sacrifice except military families, it seems to me those are all minimum goals that we all ought to be willing to adhere to.
Because the President rejected these requirements, we have given him the right to waive these requirements, but only if he spells out to the country why he has departed from them. That is imminently reasonable. He owes the country that explanation.
We require that Iraq meet certain performance benchmarks, benchmarks that were first laid out by the President himself, and we tie those benchmarks to a timeline. If those benchmarks are met, redeployment of U.S. troops must begin by July 1. If they are not met, they must begin by October. Those dates are firm. The goal for completing such redeployment is 6 months after it starts.
Now, the President objects to the fact that we are setting timelines, but the Secretary of Defense himself was quoted in the Washington Post as noting that these timelines, in fact, have helped give the Iraqis a message that we are not going to stay in Iraq forever. We stand by them. We believe these benchmarks and these timelines are necessary in order to give General Petraeus the ability to make clear to the Iraqis that we are not going to stay there forever, while they refuse to make the political compromises necessary to end the civil war.
Iraqis and the President must understand our troops won the war. They cannot achieve the political and diplomatic compromises that are needed to end the civil war, only the Iraqis can do that.
Four years after "mission accomplished" is long enough, Mr. Speaker. If the President were here I would simply say to him, "Mr. President, with this bill we have compromised on two fronts. We have responded to your objection to the Murtha principles by giving you the ability to waive them; all you have to do is explain why to the country." We have responded to his concerns about those timelines by adjusting them and making them somewhat more flexible in terms of their completion.
So I would say to the President if he were here, "Mr. President, it is your turn; we need a new direction and we need it now. Please do not say, as you said last week" I will talk but I will not compromise. "Mr. President, after 4 years, you need to change the direction. You need to sign this bill."
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following tabular material reflecting the funding levels in the conference report.
Note from Liberated Text Editors: Pages H4133 - H4145 are graphics files which were scanned from tiffs available in the pdf version of GPO DOCID:cr25ap07-92. They can be downloaded together in a 590kb zip file or viewed individually using the following links:
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Republican leader of the House.
Mr. Boehner: Mr. Speaker, what are we doing? What in the world are we doing? The President asked for funding for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to meet our commitments to bring freedom to those people and to protect the American people, and here we are with a bill that has some $25 billion worth of spending over and above what the President asked for. And if that is not bad enough, we handcuff our generals and we handcuff our troops and we go about this backhanded way of trying to end the war in a backhanded way because the votes are not there to do it in a straight-up fashion.
Mr. Speaker, we are sent here by the American people. We have grave responsibilities to them and to our allies around the world, and I understand that there are deeply held differences over what is going on in Iraq. But all of us understand what we heard today from General Petraeus. All of us understand what we have heard over the last few months coming out of Iraq.
The real battle in Iraq today is not with the Iraqis. The real battle in Iraq today is with al Qaeda that has made this the central front in their war with us. And let us remember, we did not start the war with al Qaeda; they did.
It is al Qaeda that has made Iraq the central front in their war with us, and if we are not willing to take on al Qaeda in Iraq today, when will we? When will we stand up to radical Islam that is spreading all over the world, endangering our allies and endangering our citizens? When will we stand up and fight? We did not do it like other world leaders for some 20 years because America, like the rest of the world, looked up, looked away, and just hoped the problem would go away. It is not just going to go away.
People who are raised to believe that killing Americans and our allies and killing freedom and hating freedom is the answer to get to Allah is not just going to go away. And so we can look up and we can walk out, we can walk out of Iraq, just like we did in Lebanon, just like we did in Vietnam, just like we did in Somalia, and we will leave chaos in our wake.
Now, if dealing with al Qaeda is not enough of a reason to finish the job that we have in Iraq, what about the issue of the Iranians? The Iranians are trying to spew their hate all over the Middle East and elsewhere. You see Iranians who are bringing new devices into Baghdad to kill Americans and our allies. It is Iranians who are bringing funds and doing training to stir up sectarian violence in Baghdad. Are we just going to look the other way again?
I say to my colleagues, and I have said this before, every generation of Americans has had their obligation. Every generation of Americans has had their obligation to stand up and to protect our country, not for just today but for tomorrow and for the next generation.
After looking away for 20 years during the 1980s and 1990s, what was America to do after 3,000 of our citizens died on 9/11? Just all hope it goes away, hope they do not care anymore?
I say to my colleagues that we have a solemn obligation to the American people to finish the job that we started. And while Iraq may not have started out as the central front in our war with al Qaeda, it may not have started out with a fight against the Iranians, all of us in this Chamber today know, all of us know that this is the central front in our war with al Qaeda, and this is the battleground with Iran. You all know it. You know it as well as I do.
And the question is, are we going to stand up and fulfill our obligation to the American people? Are we going to fulfill our obligation to the Iraqis who are struggling to create a government of the people, by the people and for the people?
I think they are on clear notice that they have got a job to do on their own, but if we step out today, we are ensuring that they will fail. We are ensuring that we will leave chaos in our wake. We will embolden our enemies, and it is our kids and their kids who will pay a very, very steep price.
This is not the right thing to do, in my opinion. I respect those who have opinions that are otherwise, but as I stand here as a Member of Congress, we need to think seriously about what we are doing, think seriously about the message that we are sending to our enemies around the world and ask ourselves, is this what our forefathers would have done? Is this the message that we want to send to the world? I would suggest to all of you it is not. We should vote "no."
Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House.
Ms. Pelosi: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for his exceptional leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor. I also acknowledge the leadership of Mr. Murtha and Mr. Skelton for all that they are doing to make our country safer and to support our troops.
Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq is the greatest ethical challenge facing our Nation. This is so because our troops are being sent into battle without the training, equipment. And the strategic plan for success because the administration is not honoring our commitment to our veterans and because the Iraqi war has strained our military, and therefore weakened our ability to fight the war on terrorism.
By placing an unacceptable strain on our military, this war is undermining our ability to protect the American people. Instead of making the American people safer, the war in Iraq has weakened our ability to protect our Nation from the threat posed by international terrorism, I repeat.
As Major General Petraeus said, right now we are not prepared. We are not prepared for the threat this Nation faces here at home. And, because in this business you cannot be half ready or half prepared, you are either ready or you are not.
We have put our citizens at greater risk. We have put their lives at greater risk, their property, our economy, our way of life, and that is just unacceptable.
Instead of strengthening our hand, the President's policies in Iraq have weakened our reputation in the world and diminished our ability to lead the international effort against terrorism, which again is the real threat.
With U.S. focus on Iraq, the war in Afghanistan has intensified because of the resurgence of the Taliban and al Qaeda in the absence of the fullest effort on our part there.
As Major General John Baptiste said, Here is the bottom line. Americans must come to grips with the fact that our military alone cannot establish a democracy. We cannot sustain the current operational tempo without seriously damaging the Army and the Marine Corps. Our troops have been asked to carry the burden of an ill-conceived mission. End of quote, Major General John Baptiste.
Our troops have done everything that they have been asked to do and excellently. We salute them for their courage, their patriotism, and the sacrifices they and their families are making. Instead of being honored as the heroes they are when they come home, our wounded veterans are being forced to cope with a system that is not equipped to care for them. Preparation was not made.
Americans have been shocked by the revelations of the appalling care at Walter Reed. As Senator Max Cleland, a great patriot, a decorated Army veteran, said, Walter Reed is the ugly face of the Iraq war. It is a face that the American people need to see because this administration from the beginning never planned to deal with casualties, never planned for the consequences of this war.
Last fall, the American people voted for a new direction in Iraq. They made it clear that our troops must be given all they need to do their jobs but that our troops must be brought home responsibly, safely and soon.
The President responded to this clear call for winding down the war in Iraq with a policy of escalation in Iraq that has been tried three times previously and failed and, additionally, has burdened our already strained military.
The problems addressed in this bill are problems of the President's own making. From the start of the war, the President has failed to recognize and to request in his budget the funds needed by our troops serving in Iraq, as has been indicated by the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey.
This is the seventh emergency appropriations bill that Congress has had to pass to make up for the President's failure, seven emergencies. What is the surprise? Why aren't they understanding the cost of this war in lives and health, in reputation, in dollars, and the readiness of our military?
Furthermore, the President's budgets have failed to provide adequately for the medical needs of our troops wounded in Iraq and for other veterans. This bill supports our troops, honors our commitments to our veterans, rebuilds our military, and holds the Iraqi government accountable. It winds down the war by providing for the responsible redeployment of our combat forces based on benchmarks endorsed by the Iraqi government and by President Bush. They are his own benchmarks.
Oddly, though, even though they are the President's own benchmarks, holding the administration accountable to benchmarks has been criticized by the administration. They are criticizing their own benchmarks. Yet both Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and retired Major General Paul Eaton, formerly in charge of training of Iraqi security forces, have noted the value of timelines in persuading Iraqis to make the political compromises needed to end the violence.
Secretary Gates noted, we are all familiar with this, it bears repeating, "The strong feelings expressed in Congress about the timetables probably has had a positive impact … in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment."
General Eaton said, "This bill gives General Petraeus great leverage for moving the Iraqi government down the more disciplined path laid out by the Iraq Study Group."
My colleagues, the war in Iraq has lasted longer than World War II and resulted in the lowest level of American military readiness since the Vietnam War. It has cost thousands of American lives, tens of thousands, scores of thousands of Iraqi lives, plus tens of thousands of our soldiers to suffer grievous injuries, and will cost well over $1 trillion if the war ended today.
The sacrifices borne by our troops and their families demand more than the blank check the President is asking for, for a war without end. The sacrifices demand a plan for bringing the war to an end. This bill contains that plan and provides the President for every dollar he asked for the troops, and, indeed, thank you, Mr. Murtha, much more.
I urge my colleagues to support it. I urge the President to sign the bill so that we can focus on winning the war against terrorism, which is the real threat to the American people. That is our responsibility, and we fully intend to honor it.
Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, we know that this conference report before us will be vetoed by the President because of the Iraqi withdrawal language and the many unrelated and costly spending items that have absolutely nothing to do with the global war on terror or recovery efforts in the gulf coast.
It is no secret that many Members of the House and Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, have strong reservations about the manner in which this legislation undermines the authority of the President, our Commander in Chief. Members are also rightly concerned about how this legislation places military decisions in the hands of politicians rather than the military commanders in the field.
As I have said many times before, this legislation ought to focus on our troops. It ought to focus on providing those in harm's way with the resources they need to complete their mission successfully. It ought to respect, not micromanage, our combatant commanders in whom we place the ultimate responsibility for prosecuting military actions.
My colleagues know that I have great respect for my friend, Mr. Murtha, but I strongly disagree with his assertion that we ought to have 535 Members and Senators micromanaging the war in Iraq. With all due respect, that is not our job.
Let me again remind my colleagues, we are not generals, we are not the Secretary of State, and we most certainly are not the Commander in Chief. It is tragically ironic that the House is considering this conference report the same day that General David Petraeus met with Members in closed session on the current situation in Iraq.
It was on January 26 of this year, just 3 months ago, that the Senate voted 81-0 to confirm General Petraeus to be the top military commander in Iraq. One would have thought that Members and Senators would trust his judgment following such an extraordinary vote of confidence over 3 months ago. Senator Reid, who supported the General's confirmation, now says, and I quote, "I don't believe him."
Recent history reminds us that the enemy we face in Iraq, in Afghanistan and other countries that harbor terrorists will stop at nothing to seek opportunities to attack the United States and our allies. Have we not learned anything from the original World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the Khobar Towers bombing, the attack on USS Cole or 9/11 itself?
Al Qaeda will view this legislation as the first sign of the United States backing down from its commitment to the war on terror. It will view the withdrawal provisions contained in this conference report as America signaling retreat and surrender. Indeed, al Qaeda will view this as a day that the House of Representatives threw in the towel, waved the white flag and signaled retreat and surrender in Iraq.
Our failure to learn the lessons of history, our failure to lead today, will result in devastating consequences, including an even greater loss of lives, and even more resources needed to fight tomorrow. Just as we have only one top General in Iraq, one Secretary of State and one Commander in Chief, we only have one Speaker of the House at a time.
Speaker Pelosi and I have been friends and have served as colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for many years. The Speaker played an important role in supporting the development of unmanned aerial vehicles, a critical and successful military capability that is a key element to the war on terror. She and I worked on that in the Intelligence Committee together years ago. It is puzzling to me that the Speaker would not only openly question the judgment of General Petraeus, Secretary Rice, and our Commander in Chief, but that she would also willingly work to undermine their efforts to secure a successful outcome in Iraq.
My colleagues, it is absolutely essential that America, the last remaining superpower on Earth, continue to be the voice for peace and freedom in our shrinking world. Our success is critical. Walking away will further signal to Syria, Iran, Afghanistan and others that the United States is no longer committed to a successful outcome in Iraq.
In closing, I ask Speaker Pelosi and my friends in the majority to weigh the implications of supporting this conference report. Even as I hold hope that the Speaker might have a road-to-Damascus conversion, I ask her to weigh the enormous consequences of putting our troops in peril. I strongly urge a "no" vote on this emergency supplemental.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the Chair of the Foreign Operations appropriations subcommittee.
Mrs. Lowey: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 1591 and commend Chairman Obey for your efforts to protect our troops, respect the wishes of the American people, and preserve our Nation's interest in this bill.
Our troops have served with honor and courage. However, they should be deployed only when battle ready and with a clear and achievable mission. Neither is the case today in Iraq. Recent reports indicate the troop surge is not working. The number of casualties rose again in March, and this bloody trend continues.
We have heard from this administration that it is not willing to negotiate on Iraq. Frankly, their unwillingness to compromise has led us to this point, and the right of the American people to be heard is nonnegotiable. No amount of American blood or treasure can help Iraq if the Iraqis don't help themselves.
The Maliki government must exhibit the political will to confront extremists, to give all segments of society a stake in Iraq's future, and to put Iraqi revenues towards the hard task of reconstruction. That is why this bill asks the President to certify that the Iraqis are doing their part in meeting critical benchmarks.
In addition, I am pleased the conference report includes nearly $200 million in increased funding for Afghanistan, $80.3 million for Jordan, $45 million for Liberia, $769 million for Lebanon, much needed assistance for Sudan and Somalia, increased funding for disaster and refugee aid to Iraq, increased accountability through funding expanded mandates for the special Inspector General and the State and USAID IG operations.
While this bill provides most of the funding requested by the President, it puts in place safeguards and oversight to stop waste, fraud and abuse with U.S. taxpayer dollars in Iraq.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member on Homeland Security, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. Rogers of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, I rise, regrettably, today in opposition to the supplemental conference report before us, the first time I have risen in opposition to an appropriations conference report in more than 12 years. The Democratic side of the aisle and many of their liberal newspaper editors are intent on substituting their judgment for that of our professional, trained, experienced military leaders.
I am reminded of a quote that I want to read to you, it's very brief, that speaks to this subject. I will tell you the author in just a moment. "It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant citizens to edit newspapers. In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I am readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I will, in turn, do my best for the cause by writing editorials after the fact." Signed, Robert E. Lee.
This Congress is made up of 535 lawyers, doctors and teachers, some with military experience, some without. It is not, however, made up of 535 military commanders who possess the ability to manage a war against al Qaeda. Yet that is what this conference report does. It enables over just half of 535 politicians to micromanage the war in Iraq against al Qaeda.
Sadly, though, this is not the only reason to vote against this conference report. It's also full of billions of dollars in spending categorized as an emergency which undermines the true needs of our troops and gulf coast hurricane recovery efforts. Specifically for Homeland Security, the supplemental contains two categories of emergency funding, hurricane recovery and the global war on terrorism.
Speaking to the hurricane recovery portion, this is a true 2007 emergency. FEMA needs these funds now to continue our commitment to the devastated gulf coast region and to ensure the disaster relief fund does not run dry in the middle of what experts are predicting will be an active hurricane season.
I can only hope that in an effort to keep the overall exorbitant spending of the bill down, the majority has not shortchanged the true needs of this account.
The global war on terrorism, part of this funding bill, is another story. While it contains many worthy and important items such as nuclear and explosive detection systems and additional aircraft for the northern border, things I have supported in the past and continue to support, they are in no way a 2007 emergency. In every instance, these items could and should be addressed in the regular 2008 appropriations bill. By including them in this 2007 emergency, the majority is simply trying to look strong on security and buy down requirements to free up funds in 2008 for additional spending.
While I support homeland security spending, I support it in a fiscally responsible way.
Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I have two such compelling reasons to vote against a bill: taking away authority to manage our war against al Qaeda from the military commanders, and carelessly adding billions of dollars in non-emergency spending. These are the very reasons we will be back here addressing these matters again in a couple of weeks after the President vetoes the bill.
We should address these issues now, and stop the political gamesmanship that harms both our troops and the gulf coast recovery effort. This bill is nothing short of a cut-and-run in the fight against al Qaeda. I urge a "no" vote.
Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. Hoyer: Mr. Speaker, this bill is not cut and run. It's think and succeed. It's a good policy to try.
Mr. Speaker, tonight this House will adopt this reasonable conference report that fully funds our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and that responds to the will of the American people, who are demanding, demanding, that our Nation change course. I urge all of our Members here, on both sides of the aisle, to support this bill.
After the Senate passes this conference report and it is sent to the White House, I urge and implore the President to sign this bill, even though he seems determined to veto this legislation, thereby defying the will of the American people, 70 percent of whom disapprove of his handling of the war in Iraq.
I know there is not a Member in this body who does not pray for our success in Iraq and for the safe return of our brave servicemen and women who serve us there. However, we cannot ignore the facts. After the loss of more than 3,300 American soldiers and nearly 25,000 injured, and after the expenditure of more than $400 billion, which will be after the end of this fiscal year some $600 billion, on a war now in its fifth year, even President Bush and Secretary of Defense Gates acknowledge that our efforts are not succeeding.
The Defense Department has concluded that the situation in Iraq is "properly descriptive of a civil war." The Army Chief of Staff has issued warnings about the effect of the war on America's overall military readiness. And the Iraq Government has failed to meet political goals, such as reversing debaathification, drafting a plan for national reconciliation and disbanding militias, all of which are essential if we are to reach a political solution, as General Petraeus says is necessary.
In fact, last week, six ministers loyal to Muqtada al Sadr withdrew from the Iraqi Government, imperiling the chances of political resolution, which General Petraeus, as I said, says is imperative because, quoting again General Petraeus, "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq." General Petraeus: "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq."
Meanwhile, the violence in Iraq continues. In just the last 2 weeks, a suicide attack inside the Iraqi Parliament killed eight, and spectacular car bombs, which occur almost daily, have killed hundreds.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, the question before the Members again today is this: Will we change direction in Iraq, or will we continue to stay the course with a failing policy? That is the question before this House tonight.
The answer, I think, is clear. After 4 years of rubber-stamping this administration's failed policy, not a service to the American people, this Congress must insist on accountability and a new direction. As the Speaker has said, more blank checks from this Congress would constitute an abdication of our responsibility and of our duty.
In short, this conference report protects our troops, requiring deployments to adhere to existing Defense Department standards. Mr. Murtha has not adopted these standards, nor has Mr. Obey, nor have any of us on this side of the aisle. These are Defense Department standards for training, acquiring equipment and armor, while allowing the President to waive those standards that are the Defense Department standards if, in his judgment, national security requires it. How much more responsible a position can we take?
The conference report holds the Iraqi Government accountable. I think that reflects the sentiments of the American people, who believe that the Iraqis need to step up and take responsibility. What Secretary Gates said was if we do not have a consequence of not taking responsibility, they will not do it.
In fact, even if Mr. Maliki wants to do it, he will not be able to get the disparate factions in Iraq to do it, unless they feel a necessity to do it. We've seen that here in this Congress. That's democracy at work. So this is an assistance to the Iraqi Government to bring people together, because it says if you don't, there is a consequence. The American public supports that alternative.
And it includes a responsible strategy for a phased redeployment of U.S. forces and refocuses, refocuses our efforts on fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. There is nobody in this Congress who does not want to nor is not committed to confronting and defeating terrorism. No one should be misled by the false claims of those who argue that we must follow the same failing stay-the-course strategy. This bill does not constitute capitulation or micromanaging this war.
This may sound harsh, but had somebody told Custer that you are not supporting the troops unless you leave them here, they would have been wrong. As retired General Paul Eaton, who was in charge of training the Iraqi military in 2003 and 2004 recently stated, "This bill gives General Petraeus great leverage for moving the Iraqi Government down the more disciplined path laid out by the Iraq Study Group. The real audience for the timeline language is Prime Minister Maliki," as I have said, "and the elected Government of Iraq." So concluded Paul Eaton, the general in charge of training Iraqis in 2003 and 2004.
Mr. Speaker, the American people want and deserve a Congress that holds the Iraqis accountable for making progress. The American people are paying a steep price; our children are paying a steep price for this war. They haven't been given the bill yet, but they will be. And our young men and women, and not so young men and women, are paying with their lives, with their limbs, and with their health.
The American people want and deserve, as I have said, a Congress that holds the Iraqis accountable, that holds the administration accountable for implementing a policy designed to succeed. This conference report gives us that opportunity.
I urge all of my colleagues, on every side of the aisle, from whatever party, support this conference report. I urge the President, when we pass this conference report, when the Senate passes it and we send it to the President, sign this conference report. It fully funds our troops, it does not micromanage the war, it tells the Iraqis we expect accountability; because if they take accountability, our troops will be safer, our country will be better off and Iraq will be on the path to democracy that we hope for her and pray for her.
Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member on Military Construction of Appropriations, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
Mr. Wicker: Mr. Speaker, I served as a conferee on this bill Monday afternoon, and I was disappointed at what I saw. Everyone in the room knew then, as they know now, that President Bush will veto this legislation because it contains dangerous timelines for withdrawal in Iraq, undercutting our chances for success and making a political statement at a time when we should be working in a bipartisan manner to give our troops the resources they need to succeed.
Many of us heard General Petraeus this afternoon. I think most Members are highly impressed with his command of the situation and his candor. We ought to be willing to give him and his new strategy a chance. Instead, the bill before us tonight would guarantee failure.
This is a futile exercise and a waste of valuable time. It ensures further delay in getting the equipment, supplies and support to the troops. Because Congress has not provided this funding already, our military leaders must shuffle existing funds. Spending on new equipment will be postponed and repair work will be slowed on equipment needed elsewhere around the world, and the Pentagon will have to curtail training for National Guard and Reserve units. This will hamper their capabilities and their readiness.
The veto will come quickly, and, when it does, I hope the majority will not engage in further attempts to micromanage the war. Let's craft a responsible, focused supplemental package that funds the military and demonstrates to our soldiers that we support their efforts to complete the mission.
Contrary to what some in the Democratic leadership say, the war is not lost. Let's not legislate as if it is.
Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
Ms. Kilpatrick: Mr. Speaker, I thank our chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. We are legislators. The President has a job and we who represent the people have a job. It funds the war, a war that the other side started, and the speech that they are giving tonight is the same speech they gave 4 years ago.
It's time to change course. This bill funds veterans who have been wounded severely, children who need health care, and all the emergencies that this country needs to address and has not been taking care of the last decade.
Pass the bill.
Mr. President, sign the bill. It's the best bill. The Senate and House have agreed, and we don't care that the President has said, before we even passed it out of the first Chamber, that he would veto it. We have to pass this bill, bring our troops home, and have a plan for success.
This is a good conference report. Americans, speak out. If the President does veto the bill, there is something to be paid. The troops need our help and our support, and I thank Chairman Obey and Chairman Murtha for their leadership. Vote for the conference report.
"Few will have the greatness to bend history itself; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation." Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.
This vote will affect us today, it will affect our children tomorrow, it will affect our grand children of the next generation. Unlike some of our colleagues, I refuse to legislate any bill, much less this bill, merely because the President has issued a veto threat. Our brand of government has lasted for more than 230 years because of the separation of powers. The President needs the money, and Congress controls the power of the purse.
We have the opportunity to change course, confront crises, and continue the legacy of not only the Democratic Party but of America with this vote today.
As of April 23, 2007, there have been 3,333 U.S. Military Deaths Confirmed by the Department of Defense. There have been at least 20,000 women and men who have been wounded, and untold numbers of women and men who have been affected by traumatic brain injuries that we are just discovering, and will suffer for decades from post traumatic stress disorder.
The Democrats have worked to compromise with the Administration. While I, like many of my colleagues, hoped that we would retain the House language with regard to the troop deployment provisions, I understand that honesty and compromise are the hallmarks of this august body.
Make no mistake about it; this vote is a vote to support our troops and will bring an end to the war in the near future. The military options for Iraq are exhausted; we need to pursue diplomatic solutions so that the Iraqis and other countries in the Middle East can be real shareholders in the fate of Iraq.
This supplemental enforces the President's own benchmarks that the Iraqis protect and end their civil war. This bill has the military's own standards for readiness and deployment. This bill provides more than the President requested for military procurement, construction, health care, and readiness.
I am proud that the Committee supported my request for increased funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, to remove the matching funds for many of the grants and loans going to the rebuilding of states affected by Hurricane Katrina, in particular the city of New Orleans.
$450 million for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)/Counseling: African American male Vietnam and Iraq theater veterans have higher rates of PTSD than Whites. Rates of current PTSD are 28% among Hispanics, 21% among African Americans, and 14 percent among Whites. African Americans have greater exposure to war stresses and had more predisposing factors than Whites, which appeared to account for their higher rate of PTSD.
$450 million for Traumatic Brain Injury care and research: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is caused by a blow or jolt to the head or a penetrating head injury that disrupts the function of the brain.
$20 million to address the problems at Walter Reed: When the federal base-closing commission recommended shutting down Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, it was noted through a number of reports that most of the patients and communities affected were African- American.
$100 million to allow the VA to contract with private mental healthcare providers to offer veterans, including Guard and reserve members, quality and timely care: African Americans are more likely to be victims of serious violent crime than are non-Hispanic whites.
Food Assistance (PL 480 Title II): Adds $450 million, which is $100 million above the President's request, to support food aid in Sudan/ Eastern Chad, Southern Africa, and the Horn of Africa.
Agricultural Assistance: Adds $3.7 billion. According to the National Farmers Union, over 80 percent of U.S. counties were designated as disaster areas in 2005, and 60 percent were declared in 2006, making this assistance essential if farmers are to maintain their livelihoods in the coming year.
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): The Supplemental adds $400 million to partially restore cuts to the program.
Pandemic Flu Preparedness: Adds $1 billion to purchase vaccines needed to protect us from a global pandemic.
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP): As amended in Committee, the proposal adds $750 million for SCHIP to ensure continued healthcare coverage for children in 14 states that face a budget shortfall in the program.
Foreign Aid: $40 million in security assistance is added for Liberia. This provision was added only because of the CBC.
After far too long, the bill will address the outstanding needs of our working women and men by increasing the minimum wage of Americans.
The Speaker pro tempore: The Chair would remind Members to address their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the former chairman of the Defense Subcommittee and former chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Speaker, first I want to make the point as strongly as I can that I want our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and anyplace else in the world where they are in harm's way as soon as we can possibly do it without risking the security of our own Nation and the security of our own people.
Mr. Murtha and I have been partners in this business for many, many years, and he and I have both stood by the bedside of too many wounded troops and have attended too many funerals, and we want this over.
As a matter of fact, the legislation before us, the appropriations part of this defense bill is a good package. Mr. Murtha and I met prior to him submitting this to the full Appropriations Committee and we agreed. Basically I told Mr. Murtha that these are about the same numbers that I would have recommended if I were still the chairman. But we did agree to disagree on the issue of the restrictive language on the conduct of the battlefield.
My memory takes me back, as we discuss this legislation now, to October of 1983, where terrorists attacked the Marine barracks in Beirut. The Marines there on a peacekeeping mission and 241 of our troops were killed. In February of 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed, as Chairman Lewis noted in his comments. Six lives were lost.
In June of 1996, Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, where our airmen were being housed, was bombed. Nineteen American lives were lost. August of 1998, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists again. Two hundred fifty-nine lives were lost. October of 2000, the USS Cole off the shore of Yemen was bombed by terrorists. Again, 17 American lives lost, and almost every crewman on the ship injured.
But all this time nothing happened except a lot of rhetoric. Well, we talked a lot. We were going to hunt them down. And you can run, but you can't hide.
But finally, after September 11, the people of America were so incensed by what they saw with the airplanes flying into the two World Trade Centers, the airplane flying into the ground in Pennsylvania, in or near Mr. Murtha's district, and the airplane flying into the Pentagon right across the river, killing some 3,000 innocent people. The people of America were incensed. They demanded action. The President of the United States promised action, and the Congress provided action. And subsequently, our troops are in Afghanistan and are in Iraq. And it is essential that we provide whatever they need to carry out their mission and to protect themselves while they are carrying out the mission.
But now, what about leaving today or tomorrow or March or July, as some of these restrictions provide?
One of our great successes was Desert Storm. In Desert Storm, we attacked Saddam Hussein's armies successfully, and we annihilated, basically, his army. At least they ran away. They ran for cover. They surrendered. A lot of them lost the battle because the United States was aggressive and our coalition partners.
But here's where we made a mistake. Once we had Saddam's armies defeated, we left. We left before there was anything else there to provide a reasonable, logical government for the people of Iraq.
And what happened? Saddam responded in a vicious attack upon his own Iraqi citizens to continue the genocide that he began in earlier years. After we left from Desert Storm, he killed thousands of Shia Iraqis.
What General Petraeus and our American troops are trying to do is to give the Iraqi government that has been elected by the people, Constitution approved by the people, a parliament elected under the new Constitution by the people; General Petraeus said that the Iraqi security forces were growing in number, were growing in capability. Even the Sunnis are starting to join up with these security forces in Iraq to show a Sunni-Shia coming together. Not much, but a little bit.
But to let this government exist so that we didn't have another situation where we left, we didn't leave anybody in charge, and the bad guys took over again.
Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. Scott of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, you know, it's hard for me to even sit here and hear the other side talk about this, because they are missing the point. This is about our soldiers. If you care about our soldiers, you say you care about our soldiers, you will vote for this supplemental.
This supplemental has over $4 billion more than what the President asked for in everything. I'll tell you what this supplemental is about. It's about those soldiers that I visited in Landstuhl, Germany. On three different occasions, every time we went over to Iraq and over to Afghanistan we'd make a stop to come back.
You want to know what this supplemental is about? It's about those sons and daughters, 19 and 20 years old, who will never walk again with their legs because they have been cut off.
You talk about the President wants to veto this. Let's send it to him. Let him veto it. If he vetoes this bill that's got the money in it for the body armor that he sent troops into battlefield without, let him veto this. If he vetoes this bill, it will be like sending a dagger right in the heart of our soldiers.
Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Kingston of Georgia, a member of the committee.
Mr. Kingston: Mr. Speaker, Winston Churchill said, "The United States of America always does the right thing after it has exhausted all the other alternatives."
And what we are doing here tonight, through the Democrat Party, is exhausting all the other alternatives.
This bill is wrong for a number of reasons. First of all, the Democrat leadership promised to cut out the pork and nondefense spending and give us a clean bill. But this bill contains minimum wage legislation, children's health care appropriations, $31 million for milk subsidies, $460 million for food aid, much of that not even going to the Middle East, $40 million for grain storage, $37 million for new computers for the FSA in Kansas City, $4 million for the Office of Women's Health, and $15 million for livestock subsidies.
What does this have to do with Iraq? Not a thing.
And yet some of this stuff may have a lot of merit and get bipartisan support. But why not bring it up on the proper pieces of legislation, not on a military aid bill?
It's interesting, one of the Democrat Senators actually justified the nonmilitary spending saying, "But the Republicans did it." And I agree with her. She's right. We did it. And that's why we are in the minority. The American people are tired of these kind of shenanigans.
Let's pull these items out and have a debate on their own merits, not on the backs of soldiers in Iraq.
Let's talk about Iraq. The Constitution, article I, section 2, says, and I quote, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States."
In other words, the President, as Commander in Chief, runs wars, not 535 arm chair generals on Capitol Hill.
But this legislation, or surrender document, usurps the President's constitutional prerogative. For this reason alone we should reject it.
And finally, let's talk about the gist of this surrender. Putting a timeline on a war is great if the enemy agrees with it. But for some reason, they never do. Never in the history of war has a country won by announcing their surrender date to the world. It's odd, it's reckless, and it won't work.
We should not micromanage this war. We should do as Winston Churchill said and do the right thing.
And I urge a "no" vote.
Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. This week, nine of my fellow paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division were killed in Iraq. Nine more heroes killed, nine more paratroopers returning home in coffins draped in the American flag.
Mr. Speaker, Daniel Webster's words that are etched in the marble above implore each of us in this room, and I quote, "To see whether we also, in our day and generation, may not perform something worthy to be remembered."
Mr. Speaker, I know the task is daunting, but let this Congress be remembered for leading our country in a new direction in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, I was deployed to Iraq in 2003 and 2004. Nineteen of my fellow paratroopers I served with never made it home from the streets of Baghdad. I carry their names with me every single day to remind myself of the solemn responsibility we face each time the Speaker bangs down her gavel.
Nineteen men, including Specialist Chad Keith from Indiana. Nineteen guys who never made it home to their families. Specialist James Lambert III, from North Carolina. Nineteen all Americans who paid the ultimate sacrifice. Private Kyle Gilbert from Vermont. Nineteen men who are missed. Private First Class Marc Seidan from New Jersey. Nineteen men. Now we have nine more paratroopers to add to this list.
Mr. Speaker, how many more suicide bombs must kill American soldiers before this President offers a time line for our troops to come home?
How many more military leaders must declare the war will not be won militarily before this President demands that the Iraqis stand up and fight for their country?
How many more terrorists will President Bush's foreign policy breed before he focuses on developing a new strategy, a real strategy for fighting and beating al Qaeda?
Mr. Speaker, this bill says enough is enough. No more shortchanging our troops. No more open ended commitment in Iraq. No more refereeing a religious civil war.
Mr. Speaker, on the fourth anniversary of the war, I led this body in a moment of silence. Now my fellow Democrats offer a time line to bring our troops home.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are about to vote "no" on this bill, will you stand with us next year to offer a time line on the war's fifth anniversary?
How about a time line on the sixth? How about a time line on the 10th? Because that's what voting "no" does. It says no to the tough questions. No to accountability and no to providing our troops on the ground with a clear mission.
Mr. Speaker, I may be hopeful, but I am not naive. I hear Vice President Cheney taunt patriotic Americans who are concerned with the direction of our country. I see the President using his veto to hold our troops hostage to further his failed strategy in Iraq. I read the Bush Republicans' attacks questioning my patriotism and support for my fellow soldiers. But, Mr. Speaker, we have all heard these attacks before.
The American people know that President Bush and his allies are sadly out of touch. The American people know that supporting the troops means demanding accountability. The American people know we need a change.
Mr. Speaker, one of my fellow soldiers lost his brother in the World Trade Center on September 11 of 2001. This soldier is now in Iraq serving on his second deployment. And last week he sent me a message, unsolicited. It said, and I quote, "Never did I think I would disagree with our foreign policy 5 years after my brother was murdered. Our latest mission here is to secure the Iraqi people. I signed up to secure the American people."
My fellow colleagues, this bill, this vote helps us secure the American people. For too long the American people have been craving leadership, craving accountability, and craving a new direction in Iraq. Let's give this to them today.
Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member on the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, when the new majority came into power, they talked about being fiscally conservative. They talked about bringing fiscal responsibility back to the people's House. Well, that's not what we see here today, and that's not what we have seen for the last 4 months.
Last session, Mr. Speaker, we brought a bill that said if we are going to do emergency spending bills, let's clean these up. Let's not put pork barrel, unnecessary spending in emergency spending. We actually defined what an emergency is.
And then we set aside a reserve fund, $6.4 billion, to say we are setting this aside for emergency spending, and if we go over this amount, we have to scrutinize every dollar to make sure that it is truly an emergency.
What did the new majority do? To their credit, they carried these rules over into this session of Congress. Thankfully, they said, you know what? Let's not pork up emergency spending bills. Let's make sure that if it's really an emergency, it will get funded as an emergency. If it's not, it won't.
What happened the first time the pressure hit? They waived the rules. They waived the rules completely. And now the new budget resolution the majority is proposing gets rid of these proposals altogether. No more checks on emergency spending. All it takes is to waive the rules, stamp it as an emergency, and we can spend as much as we want. It's outside the budget caps. It gets added onto the deficit. And that's what is happening right here tonight.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, this bill right here violates the majority's own PAYGO rules by $5.8 billion. That's right. They are violating their own PAYGO that they put into place just a few months ago by $5.8 billion. They are adding $21 billion of nonemergency spending that were unrequested, that have nothing to do with the war on terror. And they have added $11 billion of congressional add-ons that have nothing to do with the war on terror, that were not requested.
The majority came out with their first spending bill, adding $6 billion on top of the deficit. Now they are adding $21 billion on top of the deficit with this unrequested, nonemergency spending. And in their budget resolution they are bringing to the floor, another $25 billion next year.
Fiscal responsibility is the last thing you could say to describe this bill. I urge rejection of this motion.
Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say in response to the previous speaker, last session your party couldn't even pass a budget. Last session your party couldn't complete action on a single domestic appropriation bill.
You may not like the decisions we have made, but at least we have made them. And we have had to spend the first 30 days of this session finishing the work that you could never manage to get around to. So I suggest you look to your own house before you start criticizing somebody who has at least gotten the work done that you couldn't get done last year.
