Agricultural Disaster Assistance and Western States Emergency Unfinished Business Appropriations Act, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to express my appreciation to my very good friend from Rochester, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules (Ms. Slaughter), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I have to say that this is somewhat unusual for me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule, but I rise in even stronger opposition to the underlying legislation.

Here we go again, Mr. Speaker. These bills bring us to round three, round three of the Democratic leadership's Iraq charade.

First they brought up a bill that they knew the President would veto. Then they called for a veto override that they knew would fail. And today we are once again considering the same defeatist policy that failed in the first two rounds plus, plus, Mr. Speaker, a call for redeployment, basically withdrawal, within 90 days, to begin withdrawal within 90 days.

Mr. Speaker, they may think that they made progress, but in truth we have, in fact, gone backwards. Kicking the pullout vote a few months down the road is not a solution.

Mr. Speaker, the closing remarks that were just offered by the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, I think were right on target in describing the exact goal that we have here. We want to make sure that the American people are secure. We want to make sure that our troops can be successful. We want to make sure that our troops come home. And we want to make sure that the Iraqi people can live with dignity. The one thing that I will add with that statement that Ms. Slaughter just made, Mr. Speaker, is that not only simply live with dignity but with the kind of self-determination that led to a 70 percent voter turnout in Iraq. So obviously we share the exact same goal that Ms. Slaughter just outlined.

But I am very, very troubled with the plans that we have before us. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, withdrawal that would begin in 90 days would undermine every single one of those goals to which Ms. Slaughter just referred. And this time, Mr. Speaker, it is not just the President's opposition that stands in their way of what it is that they are trying to do. Their own colleagues in the Senate have said that the House Democratic leadership's approach won't work on their side of the Capitol.

Senate Majority Leader Reid has criticized their punting strategy and acknowledged he has serious doubts that the House plan could actually get through the Senate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this policy of defeat couldn't prevail in April. It won't prevail in May. So it would appear the idea is to wait and hope for the best in July.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq is not a game. Funding our troops who are in harm's way is not a game. These votes may make my friends on the other side of the aisle feel good, but they aren't doing anything to get our troops what they need to protect themselves and to fight effectively against terrorists around the world. Mr. Speaker, that's what matters here.

Again, going back to the words of the very distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, we want to make sure that we are secure at home. The way to do that is to ensure that the troops have what they need.

Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation to have a serious, substantive debate to supply our troops with the funds they need to do their job and to demonstrate to the American people that we are doing what is necessary to win in Iraq and to bring our troops home. But rather than fulfilling our duties as responsible legislators, Democratic leadership has simply scheduled one more empty political vote under yet another totally closed process. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats go so far as to have three closed rules, two of them on appropriations bills. Now, we will consider four appropriations bills this year, and all of them, Mr. Speaker, will have been under a completely closed process. And we all know, under both Democrats and Republicans, the tradition is that when it comes to wartime supplementals, they be considered under an open amendment process, but that's been thrown out the door.

This is a far cry, Mr. Speaker, from the open and fair Congress that was promised to the American people. Worse yet, buried in the appropriations bill is yet another totally closed rule, completely and prospectively shutting out Republicans 2 months from now.

And they even go so far as to totally deny us a motion to recommit, something that we never did in the 12 years that we were in the majority. And those were tame restrictions when compared to what they tried to do to the Senate.

It has been said by my very good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for whom I have the highest regard. I served with him for many years on the Rules Committee. I had the privilege for the past 8 years of chairing the Rules Committee, and during that period of time, Mr. McGovern would regularly say that the Rules Committee is the place where democracy goes to die. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is only fitting that it is the rule which provides for this bill, for his bill, that we will use to pronounce the time of death. And while this tactic fails to achieve a legislative success here at home, it is already producing disastrous results in Iraq.

Ryan Crocker, the very highly regarded new ambassador to Iraq, I've heard a number of leading Democrats, a number of leading outspoken foes of what it is that we are doing in Iraq speak very highly of Ryan Crocker. Ambassador Crocker said last week in an interview with Morton Kondracke of The Roll Call, that the Iraqis are watching the Democratic leadership's political games play out in Congress. They hear the calls to abandon our mission, and it is taking away any will to negotiate among political factions and achieve an effective government capable of bringing about a political solution to the crisis.

Mr. Speaker, as Kondracke puts it in his piece, and I quote, ``What is going on in Congress is hurting Crocker's ability to get the sides in Iraq to make agreements with one another.'' He goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, ``It hardens the sectarian divisions. They think we are going to leave, and instead of reaching across lines and making agreements with the adversary, they are getting ready to go to the mat.''

Now, that is what Mr. Kondracke writes following his discussion with Ambassador Crocker, and it's very troubling.

What we do here and say here, Mr. Speaker, has consequences. And the report back from the new Ambassador to Iraq is that those consequences are not good. Those who would declare this war lost before the new strategy of, again, the very highly regarded General David Petraeus, who enjoyed unanimous support of the United States Senate, that means Democrats and Republicans on a recorded vote provided unanimous support confirming General David Petraeus. We are now basically, with what we are trying to do here with this effort, not even giving his new strategy a chance to succeed, and I believe that it is a huge mistake.

Now, Mr. Speaker, like everyone in this institution and people around this country, I read the newspapers, and I watch the news. I watch the pictures on television. And I know that the terrible images of violence that are broadcast every day permeate. And as we see those horrible pictures, I don't blame the American people for becoming extremely discouraged by what is being reported out of Iraq. And I will say that I am horrified by the pictures and the things that we see coming out of Iraq. But there is real and significant progress that is being achieved by our military.

Mr. Speaker, the Chicago Tribune editorialized just yesterday on one of the great success stories, that success story being the al Anbar province, which is the large province just to the west of Baghdad. Its capital city, Ramadi, was once described by the New York Times as the most dangerous city in Iraq and potentially the most dangerous city on the face of the earth. Today, Mr. Speaker, this former outpost for the insurgency is not only a secure city, it is a model for Sunni, Shia and American cooperation in the fight against the organization that was responsible for what happened on September 11, 2001, that being al Qaeda.

Mr. Speaker, the Chicago Tribune editorial said, ``al Qaeda's terrorists in Iraq now face a new enemy, Sunni tribesmen in the al Anbar province.'' Their editorial goes on, and I quote, ``These tribal leaders in the heart of the insurgency are now backing coalition and Iraqi forces against the terrorists.'' ``You want good news from Iraq,'' the Chicago Tribune editorial goes on to say, ``there it is, flashing in neon.''

Now, Mr. Speaker, this editorial goes on to quote the New York Times report saying, ``The progress has inspired an optimism in the American command that among some officials borders on giddiness.'' ``There are some people who would say we have won the war out here,'' one Marine officer said. I am simply quoting, I would say to my friend, the chair of the Rules Committee, not something that a Republican said, but the editorial that appeared just yesterday. I would encourage all of our Members to look at that editorial in the Chicago Tribune.

Now, Mr. Speaker, through the Joint Services stations that have been established, local Sunni police, Shia Army officers and U.S. military have worked hand in hand to take back the city and the province and drive al Qaeda out. With the full support and cooperation of the local Sunni leaders, the Shia Army has earned the confidence of the local population. Through their alliance, they are achieving our objective for the entire country, peace sustained by the Iraqis themselves through national unity.

Mr. Speaker, General Petraeus came here, as we all know, just 2 weeks ago to provide Members of the House of Representatives with a classified briefing on Iraq. Unfortunately, the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, was unable to attend that briefing, but for those of us who were there, we were given a realistic picture from General Petraeus of what was taking place. He did not, and I don't know all of the Members who were there, Mr. Speaker, but I will say, General Petraeus did not sugarcoat the tremendous challenges that lie ahead in this war in Iraq. But, Mr. Speaker, he also described tremendous successes, such as this great success that I just reported on in Ramadi, what was one of the most dangerous cities on the face of the Earth and has now been stabilized in the al Anbar province.

General Petraeus described the Sunni Arabs who have turned against al Qaeda and have joined the Iraqi Security Forces. Our American and Iraqi forces have succeeded in detaining a number of key network leaders, getting critical intelligence on how various elements of al Qaeda operate in Iraq, taking apart a car bomb network that killed 650 citizens in Baghdad and destroying several significant car bomb factories. These are the kinds of joint efforts that are taking place at this very moment in Iraq, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, General Petraeus has spoken publically about these successes, about the reduction in sectarian murders in Baghdad by two- thirds so far this year, about the tripling of seizures of weapons cashes this year, about the revival of markets and the return of displaced families to neighborhoods and cities that were previously totally uninhabitable because of violence. Mr. Speaker, these success stories are not meant to paint a rosy picture of Iraq. And I will say that again, Mr. Speaker. I'm not attempting to sugarcoat the situation in Iraq. I'm not attempting to paint a rosy picture of what is taking place in Iraq. I know how horrendous and what a difficult situation this is.

We all know the enormous challenges that our military still faces there and will continue to face for some time to come, not just to be solved by September; it will extend longer than that, we all know that. The other night I was with Ambassador John Negroponte who reminded me of the public statement that he made just as he left his ambassadorial post in Baghdad; he said it would be at least 5 years. So we all know that this battle and this struggle is going to continue.

But what these successes do demonstrate very, very clearly is that we have not lost this war. They demonstrate that our men and women, when they have the necessary resources, can achieve victory. We must give General Petraeus adequate time and adequate resources to build upon these successes and make his new strategy work. Setting a day for defeat, whether it is today, next week or at the end of July or September is simply not an acceptable policy. Rationing funding for our troops is not an acceptable policy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I offered two amendments yesterday in the Rules Committee that would have stricken two of the most egregious elements of

this legislation. First, I proposed to remove the July cutoff date for the troops' funding. Our generals in the field have said that this limitation ties their hands and keeps them from doing even their near- term planning, which is absolutely essential if the successes that we have seen are going to continue. Wars aren't won in 2-month increments, and military victories aren't achieved by congressional decree.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my second amendment would eliminate the requirement that the President make his reports to Congress on the Internet. Even in its unclassified form, this highly sensitive information would provide information to our enemies and the enemies of the Iraqi people. It would provide them with their blueprint for victory. The notion of providing this report from the President to the Congress, not in any kind of confidential way but on the Internet, is absolutely outrageous. There is no justifiable reason for us to give the people who are wanting to kill us and are responsible for the violence in Iraq this kind of information.

Now, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, neither of the amendments that I offered was made in order. They would have provided an opportunity to consider a troop funding bill that would actually be enacted and would actually fund the troops rather than simply staging one more meaningless vote allowing Members to posture.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand very well, having been in the majority for a while, I understand that the Democratic leadership is in a very tough spot. They want to be able to say that they are funding the troops. At the same time, they have to accommodate their Members who want to get out yesterday. They want to get out immediately, regardless of the consequences. So their political situation is to schedule vote after meaningless vote. They get their weekly opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to say, ``I support the troops,'' out of one side of their mouth, and ``Let's retreat'' and get out immediately out of the other side of their mouth.

But, Mr. Speaker, our troops and the American people deserve more than political gimmicks. We must stop playing dangerous games with the lives of the American people, our men and women in uniform, and the Iraqi people who have been struggling for freedom. We must get our troops the funding that they need and give our military commanders the means to win and to do what we all want, Mr. Speaker, to bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my very good friend from Vermont, my Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Welch, for whom I have the highest regard, he talked about the fact that the President was sticking his heels into the ground and was not willing to make any modifications whatsoever.

Well, I will acknowledge that the President has in fact, I would say to my friend from Vermont, Mr. Welch, stuck his heels in the ground when it has come to his quest for victory, to ensure that we keep the battle against al Qaeda and those forces that would want to do us in in Iraq. What he has done in recognizing that mistakes have been made, in recognizing that there have been challenges, as has historically been the case in war, we have seen a dramatic change.

I don't know if my friends have noticed, but there is a new Secretary of Defense, his name is Robert Gates; and there have in fact been a number of changes made. I don't know if people have noticed, there is in fact a new commanding general on the ground in Iraq. His name is David Petraeus. As I said in my opening remarks, he has enjoyed strong bipartisan support.

Obviously, these military leaders, the Secretary of Defense and other military leaders, are insistent upon giving a very sober assessment of what is taking place and not providing an unrealistic, rosy picture of what is happening in Iraq. And they have reported, they have reported that we have in fact seen success, especially, as I said in my remarks, in Ramadi, what was determined to be one of the most dangerous cities on the face of the Earth; and we have now seen stability there, and this alliance which exists, Sunni, Shia and American forces working together to bring about this kind of peace and stability.

So while I am not saying there aren't difficult days, weeks, months, and, Mr. Speaker, I hope not, but possibly difficult years ahead in Iraq, the fact of the matter is this President has made it very clear that he is willing to make modifications so that we can in fact ensure victory over those who want to do us in.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Dallas, the distinguished chair of the Republican Study Committee, Mr. Hensarling.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I had one Member who was hoping to come over, and I do not see him here. So I'm going to yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, we all know how painful the war in Iraq has been. As I said in my opening remarks and throughout this debate, no one is trying to paint a rosy picture of the situation there.

My very good friend from Wisconsin, distinguished Chair of the Appropriations Committee, has just told us that we should be fighting the war in the right place. Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we have found tragically over the past several years is that al Qaeda can be found almost anyplace on the face of the Earth.

It was just a few months ago that we saw a successful effort by the Ethiopians going into Mogadishu, Somalia, to liberate that capital from the forces of al Qaeda. We know very well that on September 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacked us here in the United States, and we regularly go through the litany of the actions of al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah: the bombing of the two embassies, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya; the USS Cole; the Khobar Towers; the World Trade Center in 1993.

We can go on and on and on about al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. And guess what, Mr. Speaker, virtually everyone has acknowledged that the front line in the battle against al Qaeda is where they are mostly, and that is in Iraq.

Now, I just reported the great statement that came from our new ambassador, Ryan Crocker, in Iraq who has talked along with General Petraeus about the success that we have seen in the al Anbar province, in Ramadi in particular, one of the most dangerous spots on the face of the Earth until we saw this alliance develop among Sunni, Shia and American forces standing up against al Qaeda because, Mr. Speaker, al Qaeda is there in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that fighting al Qaeda in Iraq plays a big role in preventing them from attacking us right here in the United States of America, which is obviously their goal. They have done it before, and they would love to do it again.

This process around which we are considering this measure is very unusual to say the least. In fact, my good friend from Rochester, distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, described this rule as one of the most complicated that we have ever seen.

Now, my good friend again, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, just talked about the fact that we are going to give the President his chance to see this. Well, here is what we are going to give the President. We are going to give the President a bill that potentially calls for cut-and-run and immediate withdrawal within 90 days, beginning a pullout of our troops in Iraq; number two, a supplemental appropriations bill that has all of this redeployment that creates fits and starts, beginning and reduction, just incrementally putting it out, which has been harshly criticized by the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gates; General Petraeus; Ambassador Crocker and others. So that is included in this measure, and then the agricultural appropriations provision.

Now, my friend from Wisconsin just asked how many Members will stand up and be supportive of the effort that I laud in dealing with something that we were not able to deal with in the last Congress as we struggled with the appropriations process, that, among others, being this agricultural appropriations issue, with the disasters that we have faced. And of course, there will be Members on our sides of the aisle who will support that.

But, Mr. Speaker, I think we need to recognize that this is the most convoluted process because we are not allowing it to stand on its own. What we are doing with this rule is we are taking all three of these very separate items, linking them up, and sending them to our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol in the United States Senate, where the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, the one who's already announced that we've lost the war in Iraq, he said there's very little chance of success there.

That's why I have always considered myself, I like to have that Jeffersonian spirit of a healthy skepticism, as opposed to a corrosive cynicism, which sometimes we have seen more than a few people slip to around here. But I can't help but be skeptical. I'm not going to be cynical, Mr. Speaker, but I can't help but be a little skeptical as we look at the one, two, three punch of vote after vote after vote when we know full well it will most likely die in the Senate; and if it by chance, as this last bill did, ends up getting to the President, it's going to be vetoed by the President.

So as I said earlier, it allows our colleagues to stand up, as so many have, during this debate saying they support the troops, but at the same time they want to get out immediately and not provide the troops with the kind of consistency and support that they need for us to be victorious.

Again, one of the interesting things that we hear, as we juxtapose the debate that emanates from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and ours, is that we regularly talk about victory. We regularly talk about being victorious in this battle against Islamic extremism, the battle which we all united to fight on September 11, 2001. It is tragic that we have gotten to the point where we are not united on this.

And I will acknowledge that there were some who tried to exude the image that Iraq was involved on September 11, and I never said that and most people I know never claimed that Saddam Hussein was involved in command and control of what happened on September 11, 2001; but, Mr. Speaker, I will say this: Saddam Hussein had the exact same goal for the future of the United States as al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and that's why we need to be prepared to fight them at any spot whatsoever.

I am going to offer when, I say ``when'' because I am going to be an eternal optimist, when we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer the amendment that I was speaking about earlier.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that just before the vote on the previous question that the text of my amendment that I am going to be submitting when we defeat the previous question be made in order, and I ask unanimous consent that that be included in the Record, Mr. Speaker.

And let me just briefly say that that amendment says that

when the President of the United States reports to the Congress that on the success in training or lack of success in training the Iraqi security forces, that that report not be made available to the leadership of al Qaeda by way of the Internet.

The amendment that I am going to offer when we defeat the previous question, Mr. Speaker, is an amendment that will allow us to say that we will strike the provision that says that the report from the President to the Congress is provided on the Internet for the world to see. We should not be feeding our enemies, those who want to kill us, with this kind of information.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge defeat of the previous question, and when we defeat that, I urge support of my quest to make the amendment in order that will allow us to prevent the President's report from getting on to the Internet for our enemy to see, and if by chance I am not successful, I urge defeat of the rule.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, Will Rogers once said, ``If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.''

My colleagues, the majority now finds itself in a hole, and contrary to Will Rogers' advice, it continues to dig. Indeed, this ill conceived emergency supplemental is evidence of a majority party in complete disarray, unable to develop consensus on supporting American troops, and unwilling to work in a bipartisan manner with the minority and the President to develop a way forward.

This legislation rations funding to our troops over a 60-day period and dishonors the long-term sacrifice and service of our men and women in uniform. It is legislation that says to the troops, we support you conditionally today, but don't expect Congress to support you 2 months from now.

I ask my colleagues, is this the message Congress wants to send to our troops?

Is this the message we want to send to al Qaeda?

Is this the best a divided majority can do?

This legislation has caused me and others to question the majority's commitment to our troops. No political party has a corner on virtue, but the majority's reluctance to fully fund our troops clearly calls into question its commitment to our men and women in uniform.

It is no secret that Chairman Obey is a strong supporter of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a program that receives broad bipartisan support. In recent years, Mr. Obey has supported advanced appropriations for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Is it an accident that Chairman Obey, who advocates funding Kermit the Frog and Clifford the Big Red Dog 2 years at a time, now wants to fund our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan 2 months at a time?

What does that say about the majority's commitment to our troops during a time of war?

Why is the majority setting our troops up for failure?

Mr. Speaker, it is time that we take funding our troops seriously and move beyond the gamesmanship and the partisanship on display today. Supporting our men and women in uniform is not a joke or a game. It is among the most important responsibilities each of us has as elected officials.

I was hopeful when the Speaker emerged from the White House last week signaling her willingness to work with Republicans and the President to craft a troop funding bill worthy of bipartisan support. Instead, Speaker Pelosi has chosen confrontation over cooperation and has demonstrated unwillingness to compromise.

Chairman Obey and his leadership have dramatically rewritten the Iraqi supplemental bill without any input from the minority, and unfortunately, the result will be the same as the last supplemental.

One more time it appears that the majority is more interested in appeasing the left than supporting our troops. One more time the House is being asked to consider a bill that is going nowhere fast. Even the Senate is opposed to this piecemeal approach to funding our troops. One more time, the House is preparing to approve a supplemental that the President will veto.

Today I am left scratching my head trying to determine which bill is worse, the one before us now or the one vetoed by the President last week.

Frankly, I believe the bill before us today is considerably worse than the measure vetoed last week. I will take a moment or two to explain why I think that. Under this proposal, the President is required to report by July 13 on the specific progress the Iraqi government has made in meeting 16 specific goals.

Once this report is received, only the chairman, only the chairman of the Appropriations Committee can introduce a joint resolution to release the funds. He is not required to introduce the joint resolution, and no other Member can do it.

Secondly, in an almost unprecedented move, this supplemental includes the rule under which the joint resolution will be brought to the floor. And under this rule, the only amendment made in order is the one that mandates the withdrawal of troops from Iraq within 6 months.

Further, this legislation includes a new reporting requirement that the President provide a detailed monthly accounting of the combat readiness status of Iraqi forces. The supplemental dictates that this report be made publicly available at the Department of Defense's Web site with a link to the detailed data. As a result, we will provide, not only to the public but also our enemies, the detailed readiness report and potential vulnerability of Iraqi security forces. We do not release this kind of information to our own troops. In fact, we keep it classified. Why would we ever mandate that the United States provide al Qaeda a blueprint for targeting Iraqi vulnerabilities?

Lastly, this supplemental includes a number of questionable legislative provisions otherwise known as earmarks, including a land transfer in Pennsylvania and a flood control earmark in New York.

Before closing, I want to express my profound disappointment over these emergency supplemental appropriations bills coming to the floor again under a closed rule. This is yet another violation of the longstanding tradition of the committee and the House.

Mr. Obey's first two bills as chairman, the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution and the first Iraqi supplemental, were both considered under a closed rule. These will be the third and fourth appropriations bills under Mr. Obey's chairmanship brought to the floor with a closed rule. It is pretty obvious we do not have very much input from the general membership regarding these bills when they are on the floor.

I have spoken with Chairman Obey about this concern, and expressed my belief that these bills, and all other committee bills, should be considered in regular order under an open rule. I say these supplemental bills, because my friend, Chairman Obey, and his leadership have decided to split the ag, disaster, wild fire, rural schools and salmon relief funding into another bill that will be considered either later this evening or maybe even tomorrow.

Following consideration of both bills, the majority is apparently planning to wave a magic wand in a feat that would make even Houdini proud to merge them into one single package as it heads over to the other body.

Albert Einstein was correct when he said, and I quote, ``You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.''

The bottom line is this, the majority cannot have it both ways. The majority cannot say it supports the troops as it pulls the plug on funding. You either support the troops or you do not.

My colleagues, let us not signal that America is preparing to walk away. Let us not send the wrong message to America, to our troops, let alone to al Qaeda.

We must provide our full and unconditional support to our troops during this time of war. We must support our commanders in the field. We must support the President, our commander in chief.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this piecemeal, ill- conceived approach to funding our troops.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner.

Mr. Speaker, I will yield 2 minutes to my colleague from the committee, Mr. Tiahrt.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

We have two speakers remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me repeat that one more time it appears that the majority is more interested in appeasing their left, that is the left in their caucus, than in supporting the troops.

One more time, the House is preparing to approve a supplemental that the President will veto in no small part because it tells our enemy we are ready to wave the white flag.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this piecemeal, ill- conceived approach to funding our troops.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer this very simple and straightforward motion to recommit.

Included within Mr. Obey's emergency supplemental proposal is legislative language that requires the President to report by July 13 on the specific progress the Iraqi Government has made in meeting 16 specific goals. Once this report is received, only the chairman of the Appropriations Committee can introduce a joint resolution of approval to release any additional funds to our troops in Iraq.

The chairman of the House Appropriations Committee is not required to introduce the joint resolution of approval, and no other Member can do it. The authority that this gives the chairman of the committee to introduce or not introduce legislation is unprecedented.

Further, in an almost unprecedented move, this supplemental includes the rule under which the joint resolution will be brought to the floor. And under this rule, the only amendment made in order is one that mandates the withdrawal of troops from Iraq within 6 months.

Mr. Speaker, this legislative language sets dangerous precedents that should be of great concern to Members on both sides of the aisle.

My motion to recommit strikes this legislative language in section 1331, the so-called fence language, limiting the availability of funds for our troops. This ill-conceived language not only grants the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee extraordinary authority, but also preordains the rule by which the joint resolution will be brought to the floor.

I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 387, I call up the bill (H.R. 2206) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on H.R. 2206.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. Let me start by saying what is not in this bill. There is no money in this bill for agriculture, there is no money for western wildfires, there is no money for western schools. All of that will be in the next bill, which will be considered separately.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is our response to the President's request for $100 billion in additional funding for the civil war in Iraq, after he vetoed the Congress's first attempt to deal with that problem.

What the bill does is to provide roughly $40 billion in funds that are needed for the troops. We provide $30.5 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We provide additional funding for training of Afghan and Iraqi soldiers.

We provide $3.5 billion for defense health, a number of these items we are providing the President has not asked for. We are providing, for instance, for the full $3.1 billion for base realignment. That is money which he asked for last year, but not in this bill.

We are also asking for $1.8 billion for veterans health care, which he did not ask for. We are asking for $2.2 billion for homeland security to strengthen our ports, our border and our cargo security.

We are providing $660 million to defend this country against the flu pandemic, which could kill many more Americans than have died in Iraq if we get hit with that flu. This is money the administration itself asked for 2 years ago.

We are also, in addition to that, asking to finish a number of jobs left over from the last Congress. We are asking to finish the construction, the job of cleaning up the mess after Hurricane Katrina.

We are also trying to restore 40 percent of the cut that the previous Congress, last year, made in the Low-Income Heating Assistance Program in light of the higher energy prices that are rising every day. And we are providing, roughly $400 million in order to keep some of America's poorest kids from losing their access to health care.

In addition to that, we are fencing the remaining funds that the President has asked for, for Iraq, and we are fencing that money, just as we did in 1984 when the MX missile issue was in dispute. And that money is being held until the President issues three reports.

By July 13, he needs to issue a report defining the progress Iraq is making in meeting the benchmarks which the President himself laid out several months ago.

And we also ask him to submit a second report outlining whether or not any of those benchmarks have actually been achieved.

And then, in addition to that, we are requiring a monthly report on the combat-ready status of Iraqi military units.

When the Congress receives those reports, it will then have about a week and a half before it has to consider, under expedited procedures provided in this bill, it would have to consider, essentially, two questions.

The pending question before the House would be whether or not the remaining funds should be released so that the President, essentially, gets all of his money with no strings.

The second proposition to be voted on is whether or not that money should instead be used to simply reposition our troops out of a combat role in Iraq.

We make certain exceptions, the same exceptions that we had in the bill the last time it was before the House. And I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, that I think we guarantee that the administration has a fair, clean shot at getting the result it wants; and I think those in this Chamber who want a different result and want to see a new policy in Iraq, will get a clean shot at their preference.

What we are, in essence, doing is giving the President about 60 more days to make his case before those votes occur. I think that is eminently fair to him, and I think it is eminently fair to those of us in the Congress who disagree with his position.

We are trying to find a way to reach a final decision on these matters, even though many of us in this body very strongly disagree with the President's package. With this package, we will have compromised, now, on three very major items. We will have compromised on the initial Murtha principles with respect to military unit readiness by providing a waiver for the President.

We have also compromised with respect to the time line, because we have kept in our national bill that he vetoed, we retained the initial date by which troop repositioning was supposed to begin. But the final close-out date was left very much an open-ended affair. That was a huge concession to the White House.

And now, in a third concession, we are offering a way for the President to get the rest of his money. All he has to do is issue these three reports and then go to the Congress and try to persuade the Congress that his case is better than those who have a different view. That is a straight, fair way to deal with the problem.

And I would urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, it is not the majority party that is in a hole. It is the U.S. policy toward Iraq that is in a hole. It is not the majority party that is in disarray. Last time I looked, the headlines said that there was a bunch of Republicans going down to the White House yesterday to tell the President that the jig is almost up on his Iraqi policy.

The gentleman says we should fully fund the troops. We have provided $4 billion more for the troops than the President asked for. We are fully funding the troops. What we are not fully funding is a bankrupt policy in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

What the gentleman is telling the House is that he thinks his accounting principles are more important than providing additional veterans medical care. He is saying his accounting principles are more important than providing the funding for base closure. He is saying his accounting principles are more important than port security, cargo security, and border security. He is saying his accounting principles are more important than defending this country from a pandemic flu epidemic. He is saying his accounting principles are more important than providing a bunch of kids in this country with the health care they need.

And then he squawks about the tunnel in the Capitol. The fact is what we are doing is protecting workers who were exposed to life-threatening asbestos. That is what we are doing.

So the gentleman may like the ad that we hear for the accounting company. He may have a passion for accounting. I would much prefer if he had a passion for people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Let me simply point out to the gentleman that in the last session of Congress, it took the Congress almost 110 days to respond to the President's request. Let me also point out that the first 30 days of this session were occupied because, while he was majority leader, we never managed to pass a single domestic appropriation bill, and we had to finish his unfinished business, which took the first 30 days of this session.

Let me also point out that we have had two meetings with the administration. We have laid out a number of compromises. I have laid out, frankly, to the administration that we are pursuing a two-track strategy. We asked them what concessions they would put on the table. They still have not put a single concession on the table in their conversations with us on this side of the Capitol. So absent that, we have no choice to proceed except sit here like a bunch of potted palms waiting for a miracle. Not many miracles on this House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Democratic Caucus chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Could I inquire of the gentleman from California how many speakers he has remaining?

We have only one remaining speaker, so why don't you proceed?

Parliamentary Inquiry

I have no idea what any Member put out by way of press release, and I claim no responsibility for any statement made by any Member.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that this motion is very simple.

It simply removes the provision in this bill which fences almost $50 billion pending the three reports from the President that we have talked about for the last hour. The effect of it is to give the President every dollar he wants, no questions asked, no oversight, no review, no nothing. It is a blank check, and it guts the bill, and I would urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, if you remove the fencing, you remove all pressure for policy change. That's the last thing we ought to want to do. If you vote for this motion, it is an endorsement of the status quo. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 387, I call up the bill (H.R. 2207) making supplemental appropriations for agricultural and other emergency assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may

have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, in the bill which the President vetoed last week, in addition to funding for the troops in Iraq, we provided funding for a number of other high-priority purposes. We provided additional funding above the President's request for veterans' health care, something which the President did not want. We added additional funding to defend the country against a potential epidemic from the pandemic flu virus that our scientists are concerned about. The President asked for that money 3 years ago, but this time around said he didn't want it in the bill. The President said he did not want to see the money that we put in the bill for homeland security and a variety of other programs.

It seemed to me the administration took special pleasure in also objecting to the fact that we had agricultural disaster funding in the bill and that we had the funding in the bill to respond to the court decision on western salmon and we also had funding in the bill to deal with Western school programs that had been allowed to lapse by the previous Congress and several other provisions like that. The President said that those programs didn't belong in this bill because they weren't emergencies.

Well, in fact, I think the President had it backwards because what the President seemed to suggest is that the only legitimate funding for an emergency appropriation would be for the war in Iraq. In fact, the war in Iraq should not be funded at all as an emergency appropriation. After all, it has been around for more than 4 years, despite the President's landing on that aircraft carrier. And the fact is that the President, in order to hide the full cost of the war, asked for that war to be funded in 11 different slices. Those funds should have been provided in regular appropriation bills, not in supplementals. So it is the President who has the usual practice figured out just backwards. We didn't object to dealing with the Iraqi problem, and we would appreciate it if he would not object to dealing with other legitimate emergency problems.

The President seemed to suggest, in his veto message, that we didn't have the courage to deal with the agriculture and other related issues alone, that we had to slip them in, so to speak, in the Iraq bill. And, frankly, that got my dander up. And so now that we are back in the second bill, I have insisted that when the House votes on this matter tonight that we vote on it separately to demonstrate to the President that there is support in both parties, I believe, for dealing with some of these issues, especially with the agriculture problem.

Now, I didn't declare 70 percent of the counties in this country to be disaster areas. The President did. The Congress has an obligation not to ignore those declarations and act accordingly, and that is what we are trying to do. So very simply, we are going to have these votes tonight, and I am glad that we are.

There are two items that are not in the bill that should be in the bill. One is spinach. When the President vetoed the bill, his administration made a lot of fun of the fact that we had funding for spinach in the bill. Well, there is no spinach in my district, but let me tell you why we had that funding. Nobody was laughing a year ago when people were deathly sick because they had consumed spinach that was contaminated with E. coli, and then the Federal Government went to spinach growers and asked that they take their products off the shelf voluntarily, and when they did that, that cost those spinach growers a lot of money. Now, I have heard a lot of conservatives and liberals alike in this House complain and cry and whine all over the floor when the government engages in an uncompensated taking from a private citizen. Well, if you tell an industry that they can't collect for their product after they have been asked by the government to take it off the market even though 99 percent of that spinach was perfectly safe, then what have you done? You have engaged in an uncompensated taking. Now, that may not bother many people in a city like Washington, D.C., where a lot of people look down their noses at anything rural, but the fact is that farmers are entitled and spinach growers are entitled to the same kind of consideration any other economic group would have in this country.

The second thing that isn't in here is funding for Great Lakes fishery problems. We had several Members of the minority party make fun of the bill 2 weeks ago because they claimed we had money in the bill for tropical fish. Well, I want to tell you what we had in the bill. The Federal Government discovered last year that fisheries in the Great Lakes, especially in Lake Michigan, that fish were being found with a disease called viral hemorrhagic septicemia. It does to fish what ebola does to human beings. It is a bloody problem. And that problem, if left unchecked, has the potential to destroy the entire Great Lakes fisheries. That is an 8 to $9 billion annual business. So what we tried to do was to simply recognize the plight of a few commercial fish growers who were told by the government they could not ship their product across State lines because it would endanger the entire fisheries, and so they complied. The irony was under the law if the fish produced by those farmers had been diseased, they could have collected from the government, but because those fish were healthy, they couldn't. So they were stuck in a catch-22 situation.

We tried to fund that, and we got laughed off the screen because the demogogues in this institution and demogogues on the other end of the avenue made fun of a problem that is a very serious environmental problem. We have taken that item out of the bill, too, simply because there is only so much bowl gravy that you can counter in a political debate. So we are left with the bare bones proposition that deals with legitimate problems faced by farmers and faced by Western States with respect to wildfires and the other problems funded in this bill.

So I am happy we finally are going to have an opportunity to vote on these items standing alone. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairwoman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, Ms. DeLauro.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me keep it short and sweet, Mr. Speaker. Let me simply point out that the items contained in this bill are not new add-ons. They are essentially items that clean up and finish last year's unfinished business. That is certainly the case with agriculture disaster. It is certainly the case with rural schools, a program which the previous Congress allowed to lapse. It is certainly the case with western wildfire, and it is certainly the case with the western fisheries' issues which the Congress of last year should have dealt with but didn't.

I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is really quite interesting. What it says is that the same folks who want to spend $57 billion on tax cuts on millionaires this year, all paid for with borrowed money, the same folks who are comfortable with the idea that we have got over a trillion dollars in unfunded tax cuts, all paid for with borrowed money, the same folks that want us to spend, no questions asked, at least $600 billion in a sad, sad war in Iraq, these folks have suddenly gotten religion, and they now have a motion that says they would like to see this bill be deficit neutral.

What that mean is they are going to ask the farmers of America to bear the full weight of deficit reduction in this bill. This is simply a device to kill the bill because instead of asking that the bill be reported forthwith, it asks that the bill be reported promptly. That, as you know, is code language for killing the bill. I don't think I need to say anything further.

If you want to provide the funding in this bill, you will vote against this motion to recommit. If you care about the farmers, if you care about the western wildfire problem, if you want to meet our obligation to the parts of the country that generally get stiffed and ignored, then you vote against the motion to recommit. If you care about these folks, you will vote against the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it's not working. This policy is not working. That's why we want to change direction. I mean, it is one thing to stand here and rhetorically say it's working, say there's progress to make statements. Because the White House says it? Because the Pentagon says it?

Let me tell you, the Pentagon wrote and said, ``Further, the lack of timely supplemental funds has limited the Department's ability to properly contract for the reconstitution of equipment for both the active and reserve forces.''

We put extra money in the budget, $17 billion last year. There wouldn't have been any money in the budget to reset. We have no strategic reserve. Our National Guard has only 40 percent of the equipment they need. They can't respond to a national disaster. As a matter of fact, the National Guard in this country couldn't be deployed overseas. The active duty American Armed Forces could not be deployed overseas because we have no strategic reserve.

This war has been mishandled. We need accountability. We had a hearing on contracting today, and I have been studying this contracting. Some of the accusations are that the contractors, there's 126,000 contractors in Iraq. We have approximately 140,000 troops there and 126,000 contractors. Now, imagine this. Some of them are making or being paid $600 a day, the contractors, and no accountability. It took us 2 weeks to find out who those contractors were, what they were doing. We still haven't gotten the details of what they're doing or who they are. This is unacceptable.

I saw in the book about Blackwater. It said in this book that Ambassador Bremer had 26 Praetorian Guards and those Praetorian Guards made $600 a day. Now, you can imagine them pushing through an area where the Iraqis lived, with their sunglasses on, you know, those little sunglasses that wrap around your eyes, with their khaki uniforms with their AK-47s or whatever weapons they carry. That does not make friends.

When I went to Iraq the first time, you could drive around anyplace in the city. Today, you can't drive anyplace. Matter of fact, they fly you from the airport to the Green Zone.

We are occupying Saddam Hussein's palaces. We are in the very area where Saddam Hussein occupied and there's no accountability.

We need to redeploy to stabilize this situation. We need to get our troops out of the killing zone. We have lost more people in the last 4 months than we lost any other 4 months in the entire war.

Now, let me tell you what you're voting against if you vote against this bill.

Well, first of all, let me tell you why I say it's not working. Oil production, below pre-war level; oil exports, below pre-war level; electricity production, below pre-war level. Hours of electricity in Baghdad, they had to shut down the Parliament the other day because they didn't have enough electricity. The microphones wouldn't work, and they had no air conditioning inside; and, of course, they have air conditioning in the Green Zone. Potable water, people with potable water, below pre-war level; unemployment rate between 25 and 40 percent; inflation rate in Iraq, 50 percent.

Now, here's what you're voting if you vote against this bill. There's $95.5 billion for the troops. There's $12.3 billion for military personnel pay and benefits program. $1.15 billion to cover the full cost of housing allowances, something that was left out last year.

We are adding $2 billion to address the training and equipping shortfalls in the forces not deployed. We actually have $4 billion more in this bill than was asked for.

We have $2 billion dedicated to the strategic reserve readiness fund. We recommend adding $1 billion for Afghanistan, where the real war should be fought.

We have $25.6 billion in this bill, and if you vote against it, you're voting against $25.6 billion purchases to increase the President's request by $800 million. That's the acquisition. The proposal allocates $3 billion. Let me tell you, the Pentagon asked for $1.3 billion. We added $1.2 billion for MRAPs. What are MRAPs? MRAPs are the V-shaped vehicles that resist IEDs.

Now, some of your children have been there. Some of your sons and daughters have been there. This the Pentagon says is their most important equipment, and we added twice as much money as they asked for in the budget, and if you vote against this, you are voting against that very equipment.

We passed legislation that fully funded everything at $4 billion more and the President vetoed it. He should have signed that bill.

For the Army procurement accounts, we approved a total of $15.8 billion, more for Humvees, more for Strykers. Somebody mentioned Strykers. Let me tell you something, if it hadn't been for the Subcommittee on Defense, there wouldn't have been any Strykers for the Army because they wanted them, but they weren't willing to ask for the money.

The defense health programs, somebody mentioned Walter Reed. All of us have been to Walter Reed. All of us have seen the young people who have been shattered by this war. All of us have seen the people who go to Walter Reed and are taken care of so well. None of us knew about Building 18, but we put money in the budget for three or four years in a row, and it was mishandled. It didn't go to fixing up the places that should have been fixed up.

I just went out there a week ago, and I met with the doctors. The doctors

said we don't have enough doctors. They said we don't have enough nurses, we don't have enough administrative people, at Walter Reed today. Why? Because they can't afford to pay them as much as they would on the outside. We put $2.1 billion above the budget request for Walter Reed.

$450 million for post-traumatic stress. Of all the other injuries that are suffered in Iraq, this is going to be the most damaging, the things that people will have to live with the most. I have seen young people that came back from Iraq that are having a hard time adjusting, and they were not in the heaviest contact. The psychologists that appeared before the committee said to me, 3 months in this situation is a long time, 3 months they start getting post-traumatic stress. Predictions are we will have 65,000 Americans, not Iraqis, Americans that are going to have post-traumatic stress.

You wonder why we want to bring this to an end? We want to change the direction? You wonder why we want to convince the President that it's not working? Why we have to have a diplomatic surge instead of a military surge?

We put $450 million in for brain damage to see if we can't find ways to help the people with brains that have been damaged. If you vote against this, you're voting against that.

Amputee care, $62 million for amputee care; $12 million for care givers. The care givers at Walter Reed, at Landstuhl are suffering because they see this all the time. They see these young people coming in, and they are shattered.

Let me tell you this, finally. I went down to Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Fort Stewart; and I saw at those bases these families who inspire me, these families who I can't say enough about them. And they gathered around me and we talked about their problems. It had just been announced they are going to extend the troops for 15 months. Now, Secretary Gates made the right decision because he wasn't going to leave them at home. Because of what we have done here in the Congress, he is now leaving people at home for at least a year, and let me tell you that's essential for these people who have to go back.

Some of these troops in the 82nd Airborne will be deployed for the fourth and the fifth time. They're individuals. They're people. They're people suffering from the horrendous impact of this war, and I ask you to vote for this because we want to hold this President accountable for this war, hold him accountable and convince him we need compromises.

Mr. Speaker, let me say, I see the Vice President has gone to Iraq to urge the Iraqis not to take a 2-month vacation. I mean, we have got to put some pressure on them. It hasn't been working. I mean, I see the Vice President also said, he said they seem to be more enthused than they used to be. Let me tell you something, we have got to do something more than be enthused when the Americans are in the killing zone. That's the problem.

If this amendment were adopted, we would lose all our leverage on the Iraqis. The Iraqis could go on as they have, and one of the biggest problems

we have right now is that every time the Iraqis don't do something, the Americans are put in a killing zone.

So I would urge the Members to reject this motion to recommit.