---

Speech Of
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson
Of Texas
In The House Of Representatives
Friday, June 15, 2007

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2642) making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes:

Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the chairman of the Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee--Congressman Edwards, Chairman Obey, and my colleagues for passing the Military Construction and Veterans Appropriations for FY 2008.

This bill is the largest increase in veterans funding in the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration.

As a result, this measure supports high priority programs such as Homeless Veterans Care, Mental Health Care, and Long-Term Care.

As a former psychiatric nurse at the Dallas Veterans Administration Hospital, I know firsthand the disparities contributed by lack of funding.

I am particularly pleased to see the bill provides increased funding for homeless veterans programs, three centers for Centers of Excellence for Mental Health and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder to become fully operational this year. It also matches the VA's request to fund programs for minority contractor procurement and streamlines the VA billing system.

The Dallas VA has been a leader in outreach to homeless veterans, who comprise almost a fourth of the homeless adults in the Nation.

The North Texas VA Health Care System in Dallas was the first to establish a comprehensive homeless program, which helps homeless veterans with mental and physical illnesses. Dallas is one of eight cities in the country with a veteran's homelessness program targeted towards women.

I am also pleased with the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs FY 08 funding because it includes funds for mental health centers. I have continually advocated for increased access to mental health care by returning veterans through the science committee.

This bill also grants the Veterans Administration request for administrative functions, including operation of Veterans Administration Medical Centers, quality of care oversight, informational technology--hardware and software, legal services, billing, coding activities, and procurement.

Funding for administrative functions is especially important to decreasing claims backlog for veterans waiting for disability and other benefits by adding more than 1,100 new claims processors. The funding also makes five polytrauma centers and three Centers of Excellence for Mental Health and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) fully operational this year. These centers will afford care for those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Subsequently, sufficient funding for procurement and billing activities is in particular important to Dallas, since the Dallas Veterans Administration actively encourages large businesses to partner with small businesses through subcontracting plans.

This bill makes available resources to support military construction projects and ensures America's servicemen and women have more effective training facilities, and better housing, health care and day care facilities. I would like to take this opportunity to once again commend my colleagues, Congressman Edwards and Chairman Obey for providing a comprehensive Military Construction and Veterans Appropriations for FY 2008 possible.

---

(Mr. Perlmutter asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

Mr. Perlmutter: Mr. Speaker, the new Democratic-led House has been listening to the American people and working to take our Nation in a new direction. We've passed a wide range of measures to strengthen our military, grow our economy and support working families, many with bipartisan support.

For example, so far this year, we've passed legislation implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations, approved a budget that achieves a balance in 5 years, passed sweeping congressional ethics reform, repealed big oil subsidies, invested funds in renewable energy and increased the minimum wage.

But the President continues his stubborn opposition to this new direction that we are providing on Iraq and on key domestic measures. He does not support or has threatened to veto about two-thirds of the important work we've already provided.

Mr. Speaker, our priorities are America's priorities. It's time the President stops obstructing our agenda and begins working with us to improve the lives of all Americans.

---

(Mr. SIRES asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

Mr. Sires: Mr. Speaker, through a congressional debate on the Iraq supplemental funding bill, Senate and House Republican leaders said that significant improvements will be needed to be seen by September in Iraq, otherwise a serious course correction might be needed.

We'll see if Republican leaders will continue to back those words and will finally join us in moving the Iraq war in a new direction, or will they move the deadline to a later date like they have done in the past. It will be interesting to see if they stand by their statements in light of General David Petraeus' acknowledgment over the weekend that conditions in Iraq were not improved by September. The general also indicated that stabilizing Iraq will take as long as 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats remain committed to forging a new direction in Iraq. In the coming months, Democrats will continue to hold President Bush accountable to fight to ensure that the Iraqi people take control of the country. A 10-year commitment is simply unacceptable to us. Now we will see if the Republicans will stand by their past statements and join us in the efforts in September.

---

The Speaker pro tempore: Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, as of today, H.R. 346, my legislation to designate the Department of Navy as the Department of Navy and Marine Corps, has 60 cosponsors.

The language of this bill has already passed the full House of Representatives last month as part of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. This is the sixth year in a row that the House has voted to support this change.

As a Member of Congress, I have heard for 14 years that the Navy and Marine Corps are one fighting team. If this is true, should not the team carry the name of both the Navy and the Marine Corps? The Marines do not serve beneath the Navy, they are coequal partners.

I was very pleased to read a comment by the new Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Carl Levin, in an article by The Hill newspaper last month, May 24, 2007, and I quote, "When asked, Levin said he would 'keep an open mind' on whether to support [language in the House bill to change the name of the Navy to the Department of Navy and Marine Corps]."

Mr. Speaker, there is no cost to this change. Renaming the Department is a symbolic gesture, but is very important to the team. It is the right thing to do for the team.

Let me quote the Honorable Wade Sanders, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Reserve Affairs between the years 1993 and 1998. He voiced his support for this change, and I quote, "As a combat veteran and former Naval officer, I understand the importance of the team dynamic, and the importance of recognizing the contributions of team components.

"The Navy and Marine Corps team is just that, a dynamic partnership, and it is important to symbolically recognize the balance of that partnership."

I will also quote Admiral Stansfield Turner, United States Navy, Retired, former Director of Central Intelligence, who said, and I quote, "I think this change in title enhances the prestige and pride of the people in the Marine Corps. And it does not necessarily take away anything from the Navy in that process."

Mr. Speaker, last year, an editorial in the Chicago Tribune on April 21 of 2006 also supported the change stating, and I quote, "No service branch shows more respect for tradition than the United States Marine Corps does, which makes it all the more ironic that tradition denies the Corps an important show of respect: Equal billing with the other service branches."

That again, Mr. Speaker, is from the Chicago Tribune.

Mr. Speaker, to further state the importance of this, I have beside me an enlargement of the orders for the Silver Star for a Marine from Camp Lejeune who was killed in Iraq. It says, "The Secretary of the Navy Washington, DC., Navy flag, the President of the United States take pleasure in presenting the Silver Star to the family." I will not read in its entirety.

But Mr. Speaker, I'd like to show you what, if the Senate will accept the House position, what this does. With the same orders for the Silver Star for this brave Marine who gave his life for this country, it says, "The Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps, Washington, DC.," with the zip code. It still has the Navy flag on one side and the Marine flag.

Mr. Speaker, it is time that the Senate accept the House position. This is the right thing to do for the fighting team. The team is the Navy and Marine Corps fighting team. And I hope that the Senate, and I'm very encouraged by Chairman Levin that he said, "I'm open to the thought of this possibility."

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform and to please bless the United States of America.

---

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, I have come down to this floor more than 200 times to hold the administration accountable for its actions in Iraq. Since then, we have seen it all, from freedom fries to "the surge." During these dog days of summer, however, we can't relent. We have to join together as never before because this administration is moving in new and even more dangerous directions in foreign policy. Let me give you an example.

Several weeks ago, the administration confirmed what I had been saying for the last 3 or 4 years; namely, that they are determined to maintain tens of thousands of American troops on permanent military bases in Iraq for many decades to come. To support this position, they draw an absurd comparison between the situation in Iraq and the situation in South Korea. South Korea, where U.S. troops have been stationed for more than 50 years. And then White House spokesman Tony Snow said U.S. troops may have to stay in Iraq indefinitely to perform what he called an over-the-horizon support role. Over-the-horizon support role. George Orwell couldn't have said it any better. Call it what it really is, Tony: Occupation.

Ever since the administration took us into Iraq, I have tried to get at the heart of what is wrong with this foreign policy, and I believe the answer is this: The administration's foreign policy has failed. It has failed because it sells America short. The administration believes that the only weapon we have to fight terrorism is military power, but by relying on military power alone and ignoring our many other strengths, they have made America much weaker, not stronger.

There is another answer: A much different look at diplomacy and foreign policy. First, we must reestablish our moral leadership and regain our standing in the global community by using diplomacy as our first and best resort, and war only as our last resort. President Roosevelt said that the Presidency is preeminently a place of moral leadership, and that is something this administration must learn.

Second, we must rebuild our international alliances. We may be a Superpower, but we don't have super powers like Spiderman. So, we need the help of other nations. International cooperation is by far the best way to dismantle terrorist networks, manage globalization, stop the spread of disease and global warming, and fight the poverty that is the breeding ground of terrorism.

Third, Mr. Speaker, we must stop using fear as an excuse to justify immoral wars, or as a bludgeon to crush dissent and trash our Constitution. Again, quoting President Roosevelt, the only thing we have to fear, he said, is fear itself. Well, this administration believes that without fear, they can't move their agenda.

Fourth, we must end our addiction to foreign oil that pumps billions of dollars into autocratic regimes and props them up. Let's get serious about sustainable energy. And let's export green technology instead of war.

Next, we must renew our commitment to nuclear nonproliferation. It is sheer hypocrisy to demand that Iran and North Korea halt their nuclear programs while we talk about developing new nuclear weapons of our very own.

And finally, we must take the money we are investing in war and reinvest it in what makes us truly strong: education, health care, jobs, child care, the environment, and nonviolent problem solving.

I have offered a national security plan myself which rests on these broad principles. It's called SMART, which stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART, H. Res. 227, is deadly serious about stopping acts of terrorism. It would beef-up our intelligence capabilities. It would enhance our efforts to cut off financing for terrorist organizations.

---

The Speaker pro tempore: Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. Sestak: Mr. Speaker, a little over 5 years ago, I was in the war in Afghanistan, first on the ground for a very short period of time, and then I returned in charge of an aircraft carrier battle group. I saw a just war.

Eighteen months later, I went back to Afghanistan, on the ground again, and saw what we had not accomplished because we had diverted our attention and our resources, our Special Forces, our Psychological Operation Forces, our Civil Affairs Forces, those and our attention were diverted to the tragic misadventure in Iraq.

To me, Afghanistan is a poster child for what we have failed to do, and that is to remain engaged throughout this world, to be ready here at home in order to provide for a strong defense in support of our diplomacy of engagement.

I am not antiwar. I am pro-security. And that is my concern, that Iraq is every day seriously degrading the strategic security of America. It is why I believe that there is a different strategy to redeploy from Iraq with a date that is certain, one that is out there in order to change the behavior of those nations in that region, give them a different incentive to work towards stability so that as we redeploy over a fixed timetable, we will leave behind a state that is fairly stable and that is not failing.

I believe, having been in Iraq with Senator Hagel and having traveled throughout that country, that my belief is only reinforced that we can no longer provide the political and the military cover for the Iraqi leadership that has failed to step up to the plate, that has failed, being in control of 32 ministries in Baghdad, to stop pursuing personal ambition, establishing personal fiefdom as our soldiers provide them not only the military, but the political cover, not to take the challenging decisions that they must take.

But I also believe, beyond that it is wrong to double-down on a bad bet by putting more troops into what is a civil war and that our military cannot resolve, the best military in the world, I believe a date certain also changes the incentives, the structure of incentives to change the behavior of Iran and Syria.

Everywhere Senator Hagel and I went in Iraq we heard that Iran has undue influence. Yes, they do. We're bleeding, bleeding profusely. But when I asked our senior political leader there, if we were to redeploy, does Iran want a failed state? The answer was, no, they don't. With a date certain and the confidence the United States should have, having dealt with the Soviet Union, having dealt with the People's Republic of China, bringing it into the world's community, we should have the confidence to deal with Iran and Syria. Bring them together to work, with a date certain as their incentive toward working on the extreme elements in Iraq as we work in the center to bring about an unfailed state that can only be brought about by a date that is certain to redeploy.

It took us 6 months to redeploy from Somalia, a much smaller contingency of forces. We have over 100,000 civilians in Iraq, in addition to our troops. I believe that the Democratic leadership, working with the Republicans, should work towards what the President said. We will not have an open-ended commitment. With a date certain, working together, we can, on an authorization bill, a bill that establishes a date beyond which no funding would be permitted for troops within Iraq, while we use appropriations bills to continue to fund our forces so that we do not ever again, as we did in the last month, place those forces, those whom we serve with, wearing the cloth of our Nation that we sent to war, that we never again play a game of chicken between us and the President.

Being in the military is a dangerous business. It has, as someone said, the dignity of danger. It does not, however, have to be unsafe. Fund them fully with a date that is certain in our authorization bill by which we must redeploy, with enough timeline that the nations there can be brought together under U.S. leadership to bring about, by the only possible means that it can be done, diplomacy, strong diplomacy, as we remain in the region on our bases in Amman, Qatar, Bahrain, carrier battle groups, disengage, reengage in Afghanistan as well as here at home and elsewhere around this world in order to bring about a stronger security for America.

---