Mr. Etheridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this final legislation to provide emergency supplemental appropriations for Fiscal Year 2007. While this final compromise is not perfect, I will vote for it to provide necessary funds for our troops in the field as well as meet other important priorities.
This bill contains more funding than the President requested for military health care and veterans health care. It expresses the support of the U.S. Congress for a new direction in Iraq by tying economic aid to 18 specific benchmarks on political, security and economic progress, although it provides the President the waiver authority he negotiated before agreeing to sign the bill. This bill also includes the first raise in the minimum wage in a decade as well as critical funding for domestic needs like hurricane recovery efforts.
I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress from both political parties as well as the President and the Administration to provide a new direction in Iraq and to meet the critical needs of the people of North Carolina's Second Congressional District.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, despite my opposition to the war in Iraq, I supported the passage of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007, H.R. 1591, when it came before the House in March. It was a difficult decision but I had to vote my conscience.
For the first time we were requiring accountability standards by establishing benchmarks and a timeframe for redeployment. Another persuasive factor in supporting H.R. 1591 was the funding for body armor, Mine Resistant Ambush Protection vehicles, MRAP, traumatic brain injury, TBI, and post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, and veterans health care. Finally, I was encouraged by the fact that we were taking proper care of our soldiers by ensuring that they were properly rested, trained, and equipped. Unfortunately, President Bush vetoed this bill that could not be overturned by the House.
A few weeks ago on May 10, Congress considered and passed version two of the Iraq Supplemental, H.R. 2206. This bill would have provided $42.8 billion for the Iraq War. Funding would have supported the immediate needs of the U.S. military through July. However, shortly before the August recess Congress would have to decide whether to release an additional $52.8 billion of war spending that would last until September.
This measure would have placed needed limitations on access to funding based upon the progress reports provided to Congress by the President thereby, bringing the President and his administration back to reality by enforcing accountability standards. However, in an effort to avoid another veto by President Bush, H.R. 2206 has been butchered into a bill hallow and reintroduced without needed provisions that would safeguard this country from continuing a seemingly endless military operations in Iraq. Therefore, I voted in favor of Amendment 1 to H.R. 2206 and voted against Amendment 2.
One of my primary concerns has been to ensure that the troops receive the equipment, rest and training they require and surely deserve. In keeping in line with these key concerns, I voted in support of Amendment 1 to H.R. 2206, which provides support for defense and the global war on terror totaling over $14.489 billion in funding namely, $617 million in state and foreign operations, $3.137 billion for BRAC (fully-funded), $1.789 billion in Veterans Medical Care (including funding for Walter Reed Medical Center), and $1.050 billion for Homeland Security.
Moreover, Amendment 1 supports our troops by appropriating $343 million for our military personnel in the U.S. Army, $408 million for our service members in the U.S. Navy, about $108.9 million for our troops in the Marine Corps, $139.3 million for those in the U.S. Air Force and marked increases in funding for our reserve personnel. Furthermore, it protects our troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan by supplying over $258 million for defense-wide MRAP vehicles as well as over $2.6 billion in funding for the armed forces to purchase this same equipment.
Amendment 1 also resolves many of the shortcomings of our military medical healthcare facilities and defense health programs inability to treat and care for our men and women in uniform returning from combat with injuries. In doing so, it allots $1.878 billion for our Defense Health Programs specifically, $6 million for treatment of TBI and those suffering from PTSD, the signature injuries of our troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. It also provides needed oversight of our military medical treatment facilities, military housing, medical hold personnel and housing provided to them by requiring a series of inspections be conducted by the Secretary of Defense thereby, ensuring that our service members never again return to military facilities at home that are substandard.
Amendment 1 also provides $393 million in funding to the State Children's Health Insurance Programs, SCHIP, a vital program to the Nation and to the State of Maryland.
Currently, over 137,000 children in Maryland are without health insurance. Fully funding this program will be a great step toward providing universal health care to our neediest children. I should also note that Amendment 1 also provides needed agricultural, FEMA and general Gulf Coast recovery support for those still suffering from the widespread damage caused by Hurricane Katrina by appropriating over $2.87 billion in financial support.
President Bush can no longer expect a blank check without any accountability given the current circumstances in Iraq. Over 3,400 soldiers have died and the number increases each day. We have been working diligently to negotiate with the President but he has constantly failed to meet us halfway, despite the clear need for a new direction and policy in Iraq. His mandate to have a bill with no strings attached as to time lines for redeployment or one absent of key benchmarks measuring our progress with accountability and needed oversight measures included is unreasonable and irresponsible. This is exactly why I firmly disapprove of Amendment 2.
The President has outlined the need for benchmarks himself particularly, in a January 13, 2007 radio address stating that "America will hold the Iraqi Government to benchmarks it has announced. These include taking responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November, passing legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis, and spending $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction projects that will create new jobs." These are strong commitments. And the Iraqi Government knows that it must meet them, or lose the support of the Iraqi and the American people.
The President must be held accountable. No more blank checks. It is our duty to protect our brave men and women in uniform. Therefore, I call on my colleagues listen to the American people and vote against Amendment 2.
Mr. Udall of Colorado: Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group (ISG)--also known as the "Baker Hamilton Commission"--as a bipartisan foundation for long overdue strategic change in our policy in Iraq.
I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Representatives Frank Wolf, Michael McCaul, and Daniel Lipinski--and 41 other Members--in introducing this bill, and I am grateful for all their help in building support for this legislation. Representative Wolf deserves special recognition for the role he played in spearheading the creation of the Iraq Study Group and in pushing forward its recommendations.
The ISG was created in March 2006 at the request of a bipartisan group of Members of Congress, led by Representative Wolf, and was co- chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Representative Lee Hamilton. In December 2006, the ISG released its recommendations and outlined a bipartisan approach to bringing a responsible conclusion to the Iraq war.
What this legislation does is to take these recommendations and establish them as official United States policy. Among the recommendations outlined in the bill are a new diplomatic offensive in the region that includes the creation of the Iraq International Support Group; giving the highest priority to training, equipping and advising the Iraqi military and security forces; assessing the full budgetary and personnel impact of the war in Iraq on the U.S. military; accelerating and increasing oil production and accountability including equitable distribution of oil revenues in Iraq; implementing and oversight of economic reconstruction programs in Iraq with the creation of a new Senior Advisor for Economic Reconstruction; ensuring that the President includes the cost of the war in his annual budget request; and setting conditions that can lead to redeployment of U.S. combat forces as early as the first quarter of 2008, including necessary diplomatic, infrastructure and security benchmarks.
It is clear to me that a Democratic majority in Congress cannot unilaterally legislate an end to this war and expect its architect and champion--President Bush--to sign on the dotted line. In my view, the only way to end this war--and to end it in a way that minimizes the likelihood of greater regional bloodshed--is to broaden the tent of opposition, and engage concerned Republicans in pressuring the Bush Administration to change course. That is why I worked last year with Representative Joe Schwarz on a resolution insisting on benchmarks for Iraqi political stability and a process to hold the Bush Administration accountable.
That is why I am introducing this bill today. Democrats and Republicans must work together to change the course in Iraq, and implementing the major policy recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group is an overdue step in this direction.
As an early and consistent opponent of this war I do not believe that embracing these recommendations is the only action we in Congress must take, but it is important as a foundation. I, for one, will also continue to push for a strategy of military disengagement in Iraq and phased redeployment of our forces, because I do not believe we should ask our soldiers to referee a civil war.
Ending American military participation in this war and managing the consequences of the Bush Administration's failures will not be easy and it will not come overnight, but it will come--and the ISG recommendations offer a means of moving toward these goals.
Many of us embraced the ISG's recommendations when the report was first released last year, and many of us believe that the report still provides a comprehensive blueprint for a way forward in Iraq and the Middle East, from both the military and the diplomatic perspective.
I do not believe the ISG recommendations or my bill will offer a complete solution, but they will offer a start.
We went into war as a badly divided country; I hope we can end it differently and that is my motivation in offering this bill today.
Mr. Tiahrt: Mr. Speaker, February 5th, the Department of Defense made a request for the resources and flexibility required to successfully prosecute the Global War on Terror. For 3½ months Congress has failed in this fundamental, constitutional responsibility. Today, I am pleased to finally support H.R. 2206, the FY 2007 Iraq and Afghanistan War Supplemental Appropriations bill. I believe this legislation strikes the right balance of unfettered access to resources by our military and the establishment of guiding benchmarks for the new Iraqi government. In addition, I applaud the inclusion of disaster relief funding for Greensburg, Kansas, and an increase in the Federal minimum wage.
I want to thank Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Lewis for their hard work on this legislation. Putting aside political grandstanding and maneuvering, we have finally come together to produce legislation that provides our soldiers with the funding they need, while providing the flexibility our commanders in Iraq require--showing the commitment of this Congress to success in Iraq and the broader War on Terror.
Our Soldiers and Marines are in desperate need of funding for essential procurement items, operations and maintenance, and military paychecks and benefits. Among other things, this legislation will fuel our trucks, feed our soldiers, provide imminent danger pay, and arm them against our nation's enemies. This funding comes without unrealistic and dangerous strings that could have placed lives of our servicemen and women in jeopardy.
This Congress is finally showing its commitment to success in the Global War on Terror. We must never forget that this war was started by Muslim extremists and has been waged against the United States and its citizens since the 1970s. However, almost every skirmish and battle prior to the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 found the United States on the defensive and on the losing side. Does this House remember the killing of 241 Marines in Beirut in 1983? The U.S. Embassy bombing in Lisbon in 1986? The first World Trade Center bombing in 1993? The Khobar Towers bombing in 1996? The bombing of our U.S. Embassies in Africa in 1998? Or the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000? Our ignorance of these events culminated in the attacks on September 11th, 2001. Each one of these was a battle in this war we now face. I hope this House finally understands we cannot win this war on the defensive.
The terrorists took the fight to us for decades; now we must take the fight to the terrorists. I do not want this war. But rest assured--this war will happen regardless of our presence in Iraq or Afghanistan. The question is, "Does this fight happen on the streets of Bagdad or the streets of New York City or Wichita, Kansas?" We must take the fight to the enemy. We must stay on the offense. Fortunately, this legislation now allows the United States to stay on the offensive in this global struggle.
In addition to providing critical funding for our military, this legislation provides $40 million of disaster relief funding for Greensburg, Kansas, which was completely destroyed during a recent tornado. The most devastating natural disaster to strike Kansas in years, Greensburg is a city without schools, businesses, or houses. However, the people of Greensburg have a passion and vision to rebuild their town, and I am pleased that this Congress is committing the resources required to begin that process.
Mr. Speaker, I want to personally thank Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Lewis for working with me and the Kansas delegation to include this funding for Greensburg. The tornado took away so much from this community, but it did not take away the Kansan spirit of big dreams and hard work. Greensburg will be rebuilt, and the funding provided here today will help make that happen.
Not only do the people of Greensburg receive support in this legislation, but the workers in Wichita and around the country will receive a well-deserved pay raise. I stand in support of raising the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 per hour in conjunction with providing associated tax relief for small businesses.
However, when dealing with the minimum wage, it is imperative that small businesses be provided with associated tax relief. When small and family-owned businesses are forced to shoulder increased costs, they have no choice but to hire fewer workers, reduce current worker benefits, and pass along the costs to consumers in the form of higher prices. Therefore, providing associated tax relief will allow the workers we intend to help keep their jobs. I applaud this bill for providing the minimum wage increase with the associated tax relief
Mr. Speaker, our Nation is facing great challenges from fighting the Global War on Terror to rebuilding communities devastated by natural disasters. By working together in a bipartisan approach, Congress can do the right thing. This Iraq and Afghanistan Supplemental Appropriations bill provides our troops the resources they need, helps rebuild Greensburg, and gives a well-deserved raise to $5.6 million people. For that, I am pleased to offer my support.
(Mr. Brady of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. Brady of Texas: Mr. Speaker, my message today is to our State Department in Houston. We have a problem, a serious passport problem that reached a crisis stage. We have families who applied in February for their passports that have not received them yet. We have wives that can't meet their soldier husbands on leave from Iraq. We have families who aren't able to go to experimental surgery out of this country, families leaving for the last time before college together who are simply denied the opportunity to travel.
Our passport offices are overwhelmed. Our people wait in line for hours, if not days, getting there at 4 o'clock in the morning. We appreciate the 20 additional staff the State Department sent. They are overwhelmed. We appreciate the 1-800 number. It is a middle man and causing more problems.
We need more staff. We need more information call lines manned 24/7. We need more resources. It is wrong. As our constituents tell us, they feel like they are in a third-world country. We think they deserve better treatment than that; and this deserves immediate attention, immediate, absolute action by the State Department.
(Mr. Wilson of South Carolina asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina: Mr. Speaker, today the House Armed Services Committee will examine the issue of body armor for our troops in combat. Fortunately, before going into recess for Memorial Day, Congress passed a critical war funding bill that will allow the military to purchase body armor and other equipment for our men and women in uniform.
I was grateful to visit with our troops during the break in Iraq and Afghanistan. Everywhere we went, the troops thanked us for passing the legislation to provide for their being fully equipped.
Our soldiers are fighting the terrorists overseas so we do not have to face them again in the streets of America. We are protecting American families in stopping al Qaeda's threat to our Nation.
On the 63rd anniversary of D-day, we appreciate the new greatest generation. I am pleased Congress passed and President Bush signed a bill that will provide our military with the tools it needs without handcuffing our commanders on the battlefield.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget September 11.
Mr. Ortiz: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 391) recognizing the employees of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, the North Texas Commission, USO, and the people and businesses of North Texas for their dedication to the "Welcome Home a Hero" program, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The Speaker pro tempore: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 391
Whereas the residents of North Texas have greeted thousands of troops returning to the United States from Iraq and Afghanistan for Rest and Recuperation since the program's inception in June of 2004;
Whereas volunteers from North Texas welcome over 200 troops each day who travel through Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport on their way home;
Whereas these are the first people the troops see upon their return to the United States, and the support they give the troops on behalf of all Americans is invaluable and inspirational;
Whereas citizens like Bert Brady, a veteran, spend 300 days a year at the airport thanking troops for their service and giving them a well deserved homecoming;
Whereas thousands of young men from the Boy Scouts of America's Circle Ten Council have also selflessly contributed to one of the largest and most respected community initiatives in North Texas; and
Whereas these dedicated and selfless volunteers positively impact the morale and spirit of the men and women serving our country in Iraq and Afghanistan and demonstrate our appreciation for their sacrifice to the Country: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors the valuable work of the "Welcome Home a Hero" program and its volunteers and expresses gratitude for their efforts to support our troops proudly serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The Speaker pro tempore: Under a previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Woolsey: Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning of the war, which is now an occupation, in Iraq, the Bush administration has not kept faith with our troops. Whether it was sending them into combat without the proper body armor or failing to provide wounded veterans with proper care at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, this administration has turned its back on our brave men and women time and time again.
Another example of this outrageous mistreatment is the Pentagon's "stop loss" policy. A very disturbing article about "stop loss" appeared 3 days ago in the Chicago Tribune. Actually, it should be required reading for every single Member of this House. The article says:
"As the United States moves into its 5th year in Iraq and escalates troop levels there, the Pentagon has kept combat units manned by forcing as many as 80,000 soldiers to stay in uniform in war zones even after their enlistment obligations have been met or their retirement dates have passed.
"The policy, known as "stop loss" … has sparked … a spate of lawsuits and in backlash in the ranks.
"… The vast majority of troops find that stop loss means one thing: Instead of beginning new lives in the civilian world, they are headed back to Iraq for their second, third, or even fourth combat tour, a practice critics say amounts to nothing less than an involuntary draft.
" … Suzanne Miller, a Jacksonville lawyer whose son expects to be stop-lossed this summer, said, 'I like … to call it indentured servitude … you have no control over your own destiny and are being forced, under threat of prison, to work for an employer you no longer want to work for.' "
Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop mistreating our troops and the families who wait so patiently for their return. We need bold action to bring our troops home.
Last month this House had the opportunity to take such bold action. We had a bill before us that would have fully funded a safe withdrawal of our troops and defense contractors starting within 90 days. This bill also would have provided for the social and economic reconstruction of Iraq so that the Iraqi people could look to their future with hope. And it would have supported diplomatic efforts and multinational efforts to restore security in Iraq. That plan of action made sense.
But instead of taking bold action, the Congress took the same old action and gave the President every single thing he wanted in the supplemental spending bill. There is no timetable for withdrawal, and the President doesn't even have to hold the Iraqi government accountable for failing to meet the benchmarks in the bill.
Mr. Speaker, every third grader in America is being held accountable for meeting his or her reading and math benchmarks under No Child Left Behind. We are demanding more from our 8-year-olds than the Iraqi government.
Mr. Speaker, the American people didn't send us here to go all wobbly in the knees and weak in the stomach when the moment of truth arrived. They sent us here to stand up to the President to end this war, and that is what we must do.
So let us begin to restore the good name of the Congress by overturning the original authority for the war. Congress didn't authorize this President to use U.S. troops to police a civil war, which is what Iraq has come to.
From here on, there must be one benchmark and one benchmark only. The orderly, fully funded, and fully protected withdrawal of our troops. They have done their duty. Now it is our time to do our duty for them.
The Speaker pro tempore: Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Paul: Mr. Speaker, good intentions frequently lead to unintended bad consequences. Tough choices, doing what is right, often leads to unanticipated good results.
The growing demand by the American people for us to leave Iraq prompts the naysayers to predict disaster in the Middle East if we do. Of course, these merchants of fear are the same ones who predicted invading and occupying Iraq would be a slam-dunk operation, that we would be welcomed as liberators and oil revenues would pay the bills with minimum loss of American lives. All this hyperbole, while ignoring the precise warnings by our intelligence community of the great difficulties that would lie ahead.
The chaos that this pre-emptive undeclared war has created in Iraq has allowed the al Qaeda to establish a foothold in Iraq and the strategic interests of Iran to be served. The unintended consequences have been numerous. A well-intentioned but flawed policy that ignored credible warnings of how things could go awry has produced conditions that have led to a war dominated by procrastination without victory or resolution in sight.
Those who want a total military victory, which no one has yet defined, don't have the troops, the money, the equipment, or the support of a large majority of the American people to do so. Those in Congress who have heard the cry of the electorate to end the war refuse to do so out of fear the demagogues will challenge their patriotism and their support for the troops. So nothing happens except more of the same. The result is continued stalemate with the current policy and the daily sacrifice of American lives.
This wait-and-see attitude and a promised reassessment of events in Iraq late this summer strongly motivates the insurgents to accelerate the killing of Americans to influence the coming decision in 3 months. In contrast, a clear decision to leave would prompt a wait-and-see attitude, a de facto cease fire, in anticipation of our leaving; a perfect time for Iraqi factions to hold their fire on each and on our troops and just possibly start talking with each other.
Most Americans do not anticipate a military victory in Iraq, yet the Washington politicians remain frozen in their unwillingness to change our policy there, fearful of the dire predictions that conditions can only get worse if they leave. They refuse to admit the conditions of foreign occupation is the key ingredient that unleashed the civil war now raging in Iraq and serves as a recruiting device for al Qaeda. It is time for a change in American foreign policy.
But what if those who were so wrong in their predictions as to the outcome of their invasion are equally wrong about what might happen if we leave? Unanticipated good results may well occur. There is room for optimism. The naysayers have been wrong before and are probably going to be wrong again.
The truth is, no one knows exactly what would happen if we leave. Civil strife may last for a while longer, but one thing is certain, no longer will American lives be lost. That in itself would be a blessing and reason enough for doing so.
After we left Vietnam under dire circumstances, chaos continued, but no more American lives were lost. But, subsequently, we and the Vietnamese have achieved in peace what could not be achieved in war. We now are friends. We trade with each other, and we invest in Vietnam. The result proves the sound advice of the Founders: Trade in friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Example and persuasion is far superior to force of arms for promoting America's goodness.
It is claimed that we cannot leave until a new military faction is trained to fill the vacuum. But the question is, will there really be a vacuum, or are we talking about our proxy army being trained well enough to continue to do battle with the very strong militias already in place? Lack of training for the local militias has never been a problem for them.
The real problem with our plans to train a faction of Iraqis to carry out our plans for the Middle East is that the majority of Iraqis object and the army trainees are not as motivated as are the members of the various militias. The Kurds have a militia capable of maintaining order in their region. Sadr has a huge militia that is anxious to restore order and have us gone. The Badr brigade is trained to defend its interests. And the Sunnis are armed and determined. Our presence only serves to stir the pot by our troops being a target of nearly all the groups who are positioning themselves for our anticipated departure.
After we leave, just maybe the Shiites and the Sunnis will develop an alliance based on nationalism. They already talk of this possibility, and it could include the Badr brigade and the Sadr militias. A coalition like this could serve as an efficient deterrent to al Qaeda and Iran since they all share this goal.
Al Qaeda and Iran were not influential in Iraq before the invasion and would not be welcomed after we leave. There is cooperation now, motivated by the shared desire of the Sunnis and the Shiites to oppose our occupation. There's definitely a potential that the Iraqis may do much better in dealing with their own problems than anyone can imagine once we leave. Already there are developing coalitions of Sunni and Shiites in the Iraqi parliament that seek this resolve.
It is claimed by some that leaving the Middle East would not serve the interests of Israel. Israel with its nuclear arsenal is quite capable of defending itself under all circumstances. Its dependency on us frequently prevents it from taking action that otherwise may be in its best interests because we do not approve of such actions. Israel's overtures to Syria and other neighbors would not be road blocked by U.S. policy if we left the Middle East. With us gone Israel would have greater motivation to talk with other Arab countries as they did with Egypt. It just may be that Israel would accept the overtures made by the Arab League for a comprehensive peace. The Arab League might be an acceptable alternative to the U.S. influencing policy in the region.
We're told we can't let this happen or we'll lose control of the oil and gasoline prices will soar--exactly what has happened with our invasion. And if the neo-conservatives have their way there will be an attack on Iran. If that occurs, then watch what happens to the price of oil.
No matter who ends up controlling the oil they will always have a need for western markets. Instead of oil prices soaring with our leaving, production may go up and prices fall A change in our foreign policy is overdue.
