Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act of 2007

Mr. Presdient, earlier this week, I joined the majority leader in the introduction of S. 3297, the Advancing America's Priorities Act. The majority leader selected 35 legislative items from the jurisdiction of seven Senate committees, including eight bills from that of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for this effort. These are all measures with bipartisan support and, we believe, the support of a strong bipartisan majority of the Senate. I have moved several through the Judiciary Committee, and several have already passed the House. All have the support of all Democratic Senators, and all were cleared for unanimous Senate passage, but each has been stalled on the Senate floor by Republican objection.

One key bill included in this package is the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act. I thank Senator Dodd and Congressman Lewis for their tireless work on this bill over the last 4 years. It will strengthen the ability of the Federal Government to investigate and prosecute unsolved murders from the civil rights era. It would create new cold case units in the Justice Department and FBI dedicated to investigating and prosecuting unsolved cases involving violations of criminal civil rights statutes which resulted in death and occurred before January 1, 1970. The Senate legislation was introduced on February 8, 2007. I was proud to cosponsor Senator Dodd's bill. The Judiciary Committee reported it by unanimous consent as amended on June 20, 2007, more than a year ago. The House legislation passed the House on June 20, 2007, more than a year ago, by a vote of 422 to 2. Its Republican cosponsors include Senator Cochran,

Senator Hatch, Senator Alexander, and Senator Cornyn.

Yesterday I had the privilege of meeting Emmett Till's cousin, Simeon Wright, who was with him that terrible night. The brutal killing of Emmett Till galvanized this Nation. I want to acknowledge Mr. Wright's courage and his commitment to fight for justice for all these years.

The primary purpose of the Till bill is to track down those whose violent acts during a period of national turmoil remain unpunished. By passing this legislation, we honor Emmett Till and all those who sacrificed their lives advancing civil rights. It is disgraceful that it has taken us so long to take this basic step to pursue justice too long delayed. It is incredible to me that some continue to obstruct these efforts. It reminds me of those who so adamantly opposed a national holiday to recognize the contributions of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the progress this country has made toward equal justice.

Another important piece of legislation in this bill is the reauthorization of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. Many Vermonters have told me how much that act is needed to help young people in Vermont and around the country. I held a hearing in Rutland this year on crime in small cities and towns, which emphasized the need for programs to help young people in difficult circumstances, and held another here in Washington on this measure before the Judiciary Committee reported it in April. The companion House bill passed in June.

In addition, the eight Judiciary Committee related bills include several concerning child pornography, exploitation and drugs. The Effective Child Pornography Prosecution Act passed the House 409 to 0 last November; the Enhancing the Effective Prosecution of Child Pornography provision passed the House 416 to 0 last November; the PROTECT Our Children Act passed the House 415 to 2 last November; the Drug Endangered Children Act passed the House last September 389 to 4. All of these bills have been cleared by all Democratic Senators.

Thus, the Judiciary Committee components in S. 3297 are all measures that should have passed the Senate long ago. Two of the eight have Republican Senators as their lead sponsors. Others have Republican cosponsors.

People are rightly worried about keeping their communities safe and protecting their children. The Judiciary Committee has worked throughout this Congress to advance these priorities of Americans. Sadly, these important efforts have been obstructed by Republican objections. I hope that all Senators will join together tomorrow to pass S. 3297 without further delay.

The bill we will consider tomorrow contains eight Judiciary Committee-related pieces. There were selected from many more bills that have been reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee and that have passed the House. All these bills have the support of every Democratic Senator, and it is Republican objections, usually anonymous objections, that are keeping them from passing.

Let me mention some of the others:

S. 879, No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2007--this bill would make it illegal for any foreign state or any instrumentality or agent of a foreign state to act collectively with another foreign state to limit the production, set the price, or take any other action to restrain trade of oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product. The actions of OPEC to limit production of oil, natural gas, and other petroleum products result in higher prices of crude oil and, thus, gasoline in the United States. These actions are having a harmful effect on American consumers. This legislation will make clear that the actions of nations and their agents to limit supply and fix prices of oil, natural gas, and other petroleum products to affect the U.S. market violates U.S. antitrust law, and it will authorize the Attorney General to enforce antitrust law against such nations and prevent technical legal doctrines such as sovereign immunity and act of state from preventing actions for redress.

S. 368, COPS Improvements Act of 2007--this bill would reauthorize and improve the Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS. Since 1994, the programs created by the COPS initiative have helped drive down crime rates. The COPS Program would restore vital programs that have been cut at a time when our law enforcement officers need it most. S. 368 would authorize $600 million to hire officers to engage in community policing, intelligence gathering and antiterror initiatives, and to serve as school resource officers. It would authorize $350 million per year for technology grants and $200 million per year to help local district attorneys hire community prosecutors. Also, it would establish the COPS office as an entity within the Department of Justice to carry out these functions and activities under the COPS Program in order to eliminate duplication of efforts.

S. 119/H.R. 400, War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007--this legislation would strengthen the tools available to Federal law enforcement to combat contracting fraud during times of war, military action, or relief or reconstruction activities. It would also extend extraterritorial jurisdiction in an attempt to reach fraudulent conduct wherever it occurs. The bill would create a new criminal fraud offense in title 18 of the U.S. Code to prohibit fraudulent acts involving the provision of goods or services in connection with a war, military action, or relief or reconstruction activities.

S. 185, Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007--this bill would repeal provisions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that eliminated the jurisdiction of any court to hear or consider applications for a writ of habeas corpus filed by aliens who have been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as enemy combatants. Passage of this bill would restore the basic and essential right to challenge arbitrary detention by the Government to noncitizens, including the 12 million lawful permanent residents currently in this country, who under current law may be held forever with no recourse to challenge their detention in court. This legislation will contribute to renewed global respect for American values and the rule of law.

S. 2511, a bill to amend the grant program for law enforcement armor vests to provide for a waiver of or reduction in the matching funds requirement in the case of fiscal hardship--this bill would amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to authorize the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to waive, in whole or in part, matching fund requirements applicable to the grant program for the purchase of armor vests for law enforcement officers.

S. 2344, Internet Safety Education Act of 2007--this bill would create a competitive grant program for eligible organizations to carry out free, age-appropriate programs that promote Internet safety for children. This would give educators and parents the tools necessary to teach proper online interactions and promote safe Internet usage to their students and children in an age-appropriate manner.

H.R. 3095, to amend the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 to modify a deadline relating to a certain election by Indian tribes--this bipartisan bill would provide Indian tribes a 1-year extension in which to decide how to comply with the requirements of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. The Adam Walsh Act enacted new requirements for States and Indian tribes to maintain sex offender registration information, post such information on the Internet, and share such information among States and other Indian tribes. The Justice Department proposed detailed regulations for States and Indian tribes to comply with the Adam Walsh Act, but those regulations are not yet final. The Indian tribes cannot make an informed decision on how to comply with the act until those regulations are final. This 1-year extension would give Indian tribes sufficient time to make appropriate choices.

S. 267/H.R. 545, Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act--this bill would ensure that Indian tribes are able to apply for grant programs authorized by the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. When Congress passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, tribes were unintentionally left out as eligible applicants in some of these programs. This bill would clarify that

territories and Indian communities are eligible to receive the resources they need to fight methamphetamine use.

S. 877, Controlling the Abuse of Prescriptions Act of 2007--this bill seeks to crack down on performance-enhancing drugs by putting human growth hormone on the same list of controlled substances as anabolic steroids. Classifying human growth hormone, HGH, as a schedule III controlled substance would subject the drug to more Government regulation and stiffer penalties for illegal distribution.

S. 1027, PACT Act--this bill would help combat cigarette trafficking by updating existing antitrafficking laws and introducing new tools to combat illegal remote sales, such as those conducted over the Internet. The legislation closes loopholes in current tobacco trafficking laws, enhances penalties for violations, and provides law enforcement with new tools to combat the innovative new methods being used by cigarette traffickers to distribute their products. By strengthening criminal laws governing cigarette trafficking and empowering Federal, State, and local law enforcement with the powers to investigate and prosecute the cigarette traffickers of the 21st century, the PACT Act can help disrupt terrorist groups and other organized criminal enterprises.

S. 627, Safe Babies Act of 2007--this bill would amend the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 to require the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to award a grant to a national early childhood development organization to establish a National Court Teams Resource Center. The goals of the Center would be to promote the well-being of maltreated infants and toddlers and their families, help prevent the recurrence of abuse and neglect of children, and promote timely reunification of families.

H.R. 5569, to extend for 5 years the EB-5 Regional Center Pilot Program, and for other purposes--this bill would extend the EB-5 Regional Center Program for 5 years. This program allows entrepreneurs from around the country to apply for Regional Center designation with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which in turn allows project managers to attract foreign investment to discrete projects within specified geographic areas, many of which are rural areas in need of economic stimulation. Over the years, this program has resulted in foreign capital investment of billions of dollars and the creation of thousands of jobs in American communities. This important program is set to expire on September 30, 2008, and its reauthorization is critical for the many Americans who depend upon this program to make positive economic changes to their communities.

S. 442, John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007--this bill would establish a student loan repayment program for qualified attorneys who agree to remain employed for at least 3 years in certain public sector employment. This targeted student loan repayment assistance program will bolster the ranks of attorneys in the criminal justice system, enhancing the quality of that system and the public's confidence in it.

S. 3296, to extend the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court Police to protect court officials off the Supreme Court grounds and change the title of the Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice--this bill would extend for 5 years the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court Police to protect Supreme Court Justices when they leave the Supreme Court grounds. In January of this year, the Court Security Improvement Act was signed into law to authorize additional resources to protect Federal judges, personnel, and courthouses. This additional legislation would extend the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court Police to protect the Supreme Court Justices on and off Court grounds. It would also change the title of the Chief Justice's senior advisor from ``Administrative Assistant'' to ``Counselor.''

S. 3106, a bill to amend chapter 13 of title 17, United States Code, relating to the vessel hull design protection, to clarify the definitions of a hull and a deck--this bill would give the Department of Defense full assurance that Government and defense designs will not be subject to unwarranted restrictions. In 1998, Congress passed the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act to recognize the significant time, effort, and innovation that figure into ship design. Recent action in the courts has made it clear that in order to be effective, this law needs to be clarified and refined. This bill does exactly that by clarifying the definition of ``hull'' and ``deck,'' to ensure that the intellectual property rights of vessel hull designers would be protected.

H.R. 6344, Responsive Government Act of 2008--this bill would provide the Federal courts and the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, with needed emergency authority to delay judicial proceedings or statutory deadlines in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency situation which makes it impractical for parties, including the United States, to comply with certain filing conditions or to protect the rights and privileges of people affected by certain emergencies or a major disaster. We have recently observed how the ravages of natural disasters disrupt the lives of our fellow citizens, which can impede the ability to comply with strict statutory deadlines. Thus the Responsive Government Act provides critical flexibility to the courts and the PTO to help ameliorate the practical difficulties caused by these emergency situations.

S. 621, Wartime Treatment Study Act--this bill would establish two factfinding commissions to supplement the work done in the 1980s by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, which studied the treatment of Japanese Americans during World War II. The act would create one commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans during World War II, and another commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War II.

S. 2942, a bill to authorize funding for the National Advocacy Center--this bill would authorize the National District Attorneys Association to use the National Advocacy Center in Columbia, SC, for a national training program to improve the professional skills of State and local prosecutors and to enhance the ability of Federal, State, and local prosecutors to work together.

I hope that those Republican Senators who are holding up these measures will work with me by coming forward and letting me know what it is in the bill that they find objectionable. That way, we might be able to work something out to accommodate them. But when they object anonymously and do not come forward to work with us, it seems they are only interested in obstruction.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York, the distinguished Chair on the Committee of Rules for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the strongest possible opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation. I could start this debate by quoting my Democratic colleagues on the Rules Committee when they decried Republican tactics over the last few years, how they railed against closed rules and chided me personally. I am a big guy, I can handle it. But they attacked me personally constantly for denying amendments that were offered by both Democrats and Republicans. I could quote every instance that they promised to do better, to have the most open and fair Congress in the history of this country, and to not have late- night meetings. But today, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to do that. I am going to recognize that that would simply distract from this very, very important issue. Instead, I

am going to simply provide the House, Mr. Speaker, and you witnessed much of this last night, with a factual account of what took place in the wee hours of this morning.

Shortly before 1 a.m., the Rules Committee on party-line votes reported out two self-executing closed rules, and denied the consideration of some 70 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee from both Republicans and Democrats as well. That is what happened. There is no denying it. You, Mr. Speaker, witnessed it yourself when you were upstairs in the Rules Committee.

So regardless of the process, this supplemental appropriations bill is a constitutionally dubious attempt at micromanaging the Iraq war into what I believe would be inevitable defeat if it succeeds. It enjoys such limited support on the other side of the aisle that it had to be ladened with unrelated pork in order to win enough votes to have any hope of passing. It is a cynical ploy that will leave dire consequences for the region, and for our own security, in its wake.

The Constitution lays out a very clear system of checks and balances derived from the ideas of the Framers of our Constitution. By giving the three branches of government distinct roles, we guard ourselves against tyranny; we guard ourselves as individuals against tyranny in each branch.

The President cannot wage war without authorization or funding from Congress. But if authorization and funding are granted, the President serves as the Commander in Chief with the authority to execute the war.

Mr. Speaker, this bill ignores the intentions of those Framers, and it attempts to turn the Constitution on its head. James Madison, Father of the Constitution, the author of the Constitution in Federalist No. 51, wrote, and I quote, ``In framing a government that is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself.''

Mr. Speaker, Madison recognized the inherent challenges in designing a government that is both effective and limited. He knew that, without checks and balances, tyranny would, in fact, ensue.

This bill attempts to diminish these checks and balances. It tries to turn Congress into a collection of 535 Commanders in Chief. This legislation of micromanagement is based on a disastrous strategy. Its authors fund the war, and then mandate its failure. They seek to tie the hands of our military commanders, and then force them to retreat when they are unable to meet impossible timetables. They mandate the withdrawal with no regard for the situation on the ground, and then they sweeten the deal with $15 billion in money that is unrelated spending that has got a little something in there for practically everyone: $283 million for the milk income lost contract program; $74 million for peanut storage costs; $1.3 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers. Billions and billions of dollars for these projects, some worthy, some not.

But none of them related to the troops, and what this is, this is a war funding supplemental. None of these are emergency items.

Their only connection to emergency supplemental appropriations for the war, Mr. Speaker, in Iraq, is that they are necessary to build support for this bill, a bill that trades victory for electoral gains. Make no mistake, this legislation is a political solution for Democrats, not a strategy for winning in Iraq.

And what would the consequences of defeat be? The National Intelligence Estimate, the 9/11 Commission, and our people on the ground have all made it very clear that a precipitous withdrawal would have catastrophic consequences. The carnage of the battle of Baghdad that we are witnessing today will be just the beginning. Violence will spill out across the country and spread to the entire region.

In our absence, Iran and Syria will be utterly unfettered in their ability to incite a regional war that threatens global security, with enormous casualties suffered by the people of the region.

Proponents of a policy of defeat often point to our diminished standing in the international community. But what about our standing with the Iraqi people? Terrorist attacks on our own soil have demonstrated that our security and their security are directly linked.

And, Mr. Speaker, Operation Iraqi Freedom has bound us even more closely. We have a commitment to help the Iraqi people establish lasting security through democracy. We have a commitment not to abandon them to be slaughtered by terrorists.

And if we retreat, we not only abandon the Iraqi people, we draw terrorism back to our own doorstep. Have we so soon forgotten the tragedy of attacks on our homeland?

We took the war on terror to the terrorists and have suffered not one attack since September 11 of 2001.

With this bill, we would bring the war on terror back home. Only this time we will have strengthened the terrorists ourselves with a road map for success. We will have demonstrated precisely what it takes to defeat the United States of America. We will have clearly signaled to them that they must simply bide their time until the mandated retreat, at which time they will be able to terrorize with impunity.

I, like many Americans, Mr. Speaker, have been discouraged by this war. We all feel the toll that it has taken. And we are keenly aware of the price that we are paying, especially in a human sense. Every one of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, has, as I have, looked in the faces of constituents whose family and friends have made the ultimate sacrifice in this war. Their pain is very real, and their loss is profound.

I regularly talk to a man called Ed Blecksmith whose son J.P. was tragically killed 2 years ago this past November in the very famous battle of Fallujah. And he has, time and time again, said to me, if we don't complete this mission, my son J.P. will have died in vain.

But we do not honor those who have sacrificed by abandoning their mission. We do not honor those in the field who are fighting, as we speak, by tying their hands and depriving them of the means to succeed. We will honor them by winning the war in Iraq so that our men and women come home having completed their mission.

We know that their mission will not be complete in the immediate future. As President Bush and General David Petraeus have both acknowledged, success will take months, not days or weeks. But there are signs of hope that the President's new plans, under General Petraeus, are working.

As Brian Williams of NBC reported from the field in Iraq, he said, ``This change in policy, getting out, decentralizing, going into the neighborhoods, grabbing a toehold, telling the enemy we are here, talking to the locals, that is having an obvious and palpable effect. There are hopeful signs.'' That was said by the NBC news anchor, Brian Williams.

Mr. Speaker, to abandon our mission now would be disastrous. I urge my colleagues to reject the policy of defeat, reject the return of terrorism to our homeland, and reject this unconstitutional power grab whose sole purpose is to cede victory to our enemies.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a very hardworking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to another hardworking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Miami (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to

another hardworking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Dallas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Goddard, Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a former member of the Committee on Rules, who works hard on the Armed Services Committee now.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the ranking Republican on the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Janesville, Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Bridgeport, Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the former chairman of the National Security Subcommittee, who has made 15 trips to Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Lafayette, Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the former attorney general of California, my friend from Folsom, a hardworking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Indianapolis, Mr. Burton.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy at this time to yield 1 minute to my friend from Cherryville, North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentlewoman if there are any further speakers on her side.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 1859 that great philosopher and religious leader John Stuart Mill wrote: ``War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.''

We have yet to hear from the other side of the aisle about how we are going to win the global war on terror. We haven't heard, as my friend, Mr. Lungren, just said to me, the ``V'' word. How are we going to be victorious in this war?

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. This is the largest supplemental spending bill in the history of this planet; and it is being brought up under a closed rule.

Our colleagues in the other body will have an opportunity to amend and discuss and debate this. Only a few Members of the Democratic leadership fashioned this measure, Mr. Speaker. It is unfair. It sends the wrong message to our troops. We must be victorious in this war.

With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and if they pass this rule, a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation.

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, I rise to support the rule governing the debate of H.R. 1591, ``U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act.'' There is no more important issue facing the Congress, the President, and the American people than the war in Iraq. It is a subject upon which no one is indifferent, least of all members of Congress. Beginning with the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, many good ideas have been advanced by members of Congress to bring to a successful conclusion the American military engagement in Iraq.

It is in that spirit that I commend the leadership and the Chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for their patient and careful crafting of the Iraq Emergency Supplemental that will come before us later today. I support this rule and I support the supplemental because I support our magnificent servicemen and women in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, nearly every decision reached by a legislative body is a product of compromise. The rule and bill before us are no different. If it was left solely to us, any of us could no doubt add or subtract provisions which we think would improve the bill. For example, I offered four amendments to H.R. 1591. Let me describe them.

Amendment No. 1

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1 terminates the authority granted by Congress to the President in the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq. The resolution is terminated because the objectives for which the authorization was granted have all been achieved. Let me explain.

Congress authorized the President to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following objectives:

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks to the skill and valor of the Armed Forces of the United States we now know for certain that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction. Thanks to the tenacity and heroism of American troops, Saddam Hussein was deposed, captured, and dealt with by the Iraqi people in such a way that neither he nor his Baathist Party will ever again pose a threat to the people of Iraq or its neighbors in the region. Nor will the regime ever acquire and provide weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists.

Third, the American military has caught or killed virtually every member of al Qaeda in Iraq remotely responsible for the 9-11 attack on our country. Last, all relevant U.N. resolutions relating to Iraq have been enforced.

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

Amendment No. 2

The Armed Forces of the United States have performed magnificently. They won the war they were sent to fight. Their civilian leadership has not succeeded in winning the peace. Rather than undertaking a misguided and futile surge in troops, the United States should surge diplomatically and politically.

That is why Jackson Lee Amendment No. 2 called for the creation and appointment of a high-level Special Envoy for National and Political Reconciliation in Iraq (SENPRI) to launch a new offensive on the diplomatic front. This Special Envoy--who would be an individual of the stature of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, or James Baker--would be commissioned to undertake the peaceful reconciliation of the major stakeholders in a free and democratic Iraq, particularly the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds.

The SENPRI shall meet with any and all such persons, organizations, and entities, and make such recommendations as he deems necessary and expedient for bringing about national and political reconciliation in Iraq, including recommending the assistance of a bona fide international peacekeeping force where necessary.

A real diplomatic surge requires a full-court press designed to engage all six of Iraq's neighbors--Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait--more constructively in stabilizing Iraq. These countries are already involved in a bilateral, self-interested but disorganized way.

As the Iraq Study Group report makes clear, none of these countries wants to live with an Iraq that, after our redeployment, becomes a failed state or a humanitarian catastrophe that could become a haven for terrorists or a hemorrhage of millions more refugees streaming into their countries. To avoid this catastrophe, there needs to be national reconciliation between the contending factions in Iraq. A Special Envoy dedicated to achieving this goal would help a great deal in bringing about this reconciliation.

Amendment No. 3

Mr. Speaker, as I have stated, the Armed Forces of the United States have performed magnificently in Operation Iraqi Freedom. This fact is deserving of effusive praise and explicit acknowledgment in H.R. 1591. My third amendment did this.

The brave servicemen and women of the United States toppled the repressive Baathist regime, deposed one of history's greatest tyrants and gave the Iraqi people the chance to draft their own constitution, hold their own free elections, establish their own government, and build a future of peace and prosperity for themselves and their posterity.

But the cost of America's magnificent gift to the people of Iraq has been high. It has been paid for with the lives of more than 3,000 service members and the limbs of countless thousands of other. It has been paid for with the hard-earned tax dollars of the families of America.

The cost to the United States has also been high regarding the new and neglected needs of the American people. Operation Iraqi Freedom has exacerbated the backlog in Veterans Administration health care facility maintenance; placed an undue strain on the delivery of medical treatment and rehabilitative services for current and new veterans; and exacted a heavy toll on the equipment, training and readiness requirements, and the families of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. My amendment acknowledged the sacrifices made by, and the debt of gratitude, we and the Iraqi people owe to Armed Forces of the United States.

Amendment No. 4

Last, Jackson Lee Amendment No. 4, changed the troop reference date for redeployment set forth in section 1904 from March 1, 2008, to December 31, 2007. What this means, Mr. Speaker, is that the Government of Iraq will have had more than three years since the United States turned over sovereignty to establish a sustainable government with secure borders that can protect its people. If the allied forces could win WorId War II

in less than four years, certainly that is enough time for the Government of Iraq to provide for the security of its people, with the substantial assistance of the United States.

But Mr. Speaker, we ought not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. The emergency supplemental may not be perfect but it is better-- far better--than any legislation relating to the war in Iraq that has ever been brought to the floor for a vote.

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

But the cost of America's magnificent gift to the people of Iraq has been high. It has been paid for with the lives of more than 3,000 service members and the limbs of countless thousands of others. It has been paid for with the hard-earned tax dollars of the families of America.

The cost to the United States has also been high regarding the new and neglected needs of the American people. Operation Iraqi Freedom has exacerbated the backlog in Veterans Administration health care facility maintenance; placed an undue strain on the delivery of medical treatment and rehabilitative services for current and new veterans; and exacted a heavy toll on the equipment, training and readiness requirements, and the families of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.

The emergency supplemental acknowledges the sacrifices made by, and the debt of gratitude, we and the Iraqi people owe to Armed Forces of the United States. More than that, it makes a substantial down payment on that debt by providing substantial increases in funding for our troops. For example, the supplemental provides $2.8 billion for defense health care, which is $1.7 billion above the President's request. Additionally, another $1.7 billion is provided to address the maintenance backlog at VA health care facilities. We provide $2.5 billion to ensure that our troops are properly equipped and trained.

Because after all, when American troops are sent into harm's way, America has an obligation to do all it can to minimize the risk of harm to the troops. That is why I am pleased the bill directs the President to adhere to current military guidelines for unit readiness, time between deployments, and meeting benchmarks and ending our involvement in Iraq's civil war.

Although the bill may not be the best I might have hoped for, I have concluded that it is the best that can be achieved at this time, this moment in history. I support the rule and the bill because I believe it represents a change of course and a new direction in our policy on Iraq. This bill will place us on the road that will reunite our troops with their families and bring them home with honor and success. I urge all members to support the rule and the bill.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 261 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all

Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 261.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 261 provides for the consideration of the emergency supplemental, the U.S. Troops Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act. The rule provides 4 hours of general debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report shall be considered as adopted. The rule waives all points of order against the bill as amended and provides that the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, with a deep appreciation for how critical this bill is, the Rules Committee reported out a rule that allows for 4 hours of what will be a full debate. It allows for the consideration of clear and concise legislation that everyone in the Congress is familiar with. It is a responsible rule, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

But we are here today to debate much more than procedure, Mr. Speaker. We meet today on the fourth day of the fifth year of the war in Iraq, a conflict that has gone on longer than the Korean War, even longer than the Second World War, that war being fought against the greatest threat to world security.

The scenarios painted by politicians here about the war in Iraq don't affect the men and women fighting it or living it. They actually know what the world for them really is. And what is that reality? This is a war being fought by soldiers who often do not have the equipment they need or the care they are owed. And it is not improving security for the Iraqi people. It is depleting our military and endangering the security of this Nation; and that is to this day based on a flawed strategy that desperately needs to be changed.

Under such circumstances, for this Congress to support an open-ended commitment to this conflict, passing yet another blank check as past Congresses have done, would be a dereliction of duty. By contrast, passing a bill that has a chance of changing a stagnant situation in Iraq is not micromanaging; it is living up to what we owe our soldiers and the Iraqi people, to give them a fighting chance for success.

The supplemental makes America's continued involvement in Iraq conditional on the situation there improving. America's soldiers will no longer be asked to fight in an open-ended war whose goal line keeps moving. The bill would require Iraqi leaders to make the political compromises necessary to produce a working government, or risk losing the American military support. It will require the President's own security benchmarks to be met if American soldiers are to continue sacrificing their safety for that goal. And it will be the first step toward ending the war.

Ending this flawed conflict is crucial not just for Iraq, but also for the future of our own military and, hence, to our own national security.

This Congress was aghast when it learned of the conditions of Walter Reed. But every day, the men and women of our military are suffering beyond reason. Let me briefly share one story with you that I recently heard, the story of a young lieutenant awaiting his second deployment to Iraq.

His first tour saw him bravely patrolling dangerous streets north of Baghdad. He returned last December, expecting a year on base during which to rest and train a new platoon. Instead, with the escalation in place, he will be heading back months sooner. The soldiers under his command are not getting the time they need to train properly for their mission. The vehicles and equipment they use to train for war are failing and often break. They are physically weary, many still suffering from the lingering effects of leg and back injuries. Others are in counseling for post-traumatic stress disorder. Most of the soldiers who were married before the war are now divorced. Their lives outside the conflict are coming apart.

This lieutenant and his soldiers personify sacrifice. They never complain. When those in the military are given a mission, he told me, they find a way to complete it. That creed is why our Armed Forces are so strong.

But what this officer did tell me is that our Armed Forces cannot go on like this. He said that we are in danger of destroying our system of national defense. We see soldiers being sent back tour after tour, some too injured to wear the body armor. Our services are desperately trying to find a way to meet new troop requirements, sending back the wounded.

Mr. Speaker, this war is a dramatic misuse of our military. In the name of our national security, it is undermining the only true guarantor of national security that we have, our Armed Forces. And for years this Congress has let it happen, but not anymore.

Today the House will finally recognize that our military is at the breaking point, not because of any inherent weakness, but because it is being asked to complete a flawed mission. And so that mission itself must change.

Let me add as well that while our soldiers may stoically bear the burdens of short leaves and shoddy equipment, that in no way means that we in Congress should allow it to happen.

This bill respects our men and women in uniform enough to put their needs at the forefront of national priorities. From now on, if they are asked to go into battle without being fully armored, fully rested, and fully trained, then the President himself will have to stand before them, look them in the eye, and explain why he thinks our national safety is worth that level of sacrifice.

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

And, finally, this bill both increases funding for the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan and for a variety of other critically important national security objectives. Taken together, it represents the beginning of what will be a responsible and ethical shift in our national security priorities away from a war in Iraq that we can't end and back towards where it ought to be.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is the first real chance that Democrats have had since 2003 to change the course of the war in Iraq, and we intend to do it. We will do it not because we are conceding anything to those who would do our Nation harm, not because we lack the will to fight for security, and not because, as some would have you believe, we are giving up. With this first step, we will change the course of this war because the future of the people of America depends on it, because a basic level of respect for our soldiers demands it, and because the long-term security of our Nation requires it.

This is an important and historic bill, and I am proud to support it. I urge all of my colleagues to do the same thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I have no further speakers, and I will close.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, Mr. Cardoza, the gentleman from California, for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, on the opening day of this Congress, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, came to the floor and said that the new majority would, `` . . . begin to return this Chamber to its rightful place as the home of democracy and deliberation in our great Nation.'' That pledge echoed a document by Speaker Pelosi titled A New Direction For America. That document said, ``bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate.''

Now as we approach the closing hours of the 110th Congress, I think it is appropriate for us to take a look at whether the majority has actually lived up to those promises.

Let us begin with closed rules. There really can be few, if any, parliamentary procedures that are more offensive to the essential spirit of democracy, the spirit of democracy, than a closed rule. A closed rule shuts off, blocks Members from both sides of the aisle from offering any amendments to legislation that is considered on the floor. As I said, no matter what their party affiliation, if and when Congress operates under a closed rule, all Members are shut out from the legislative process on the floor.

Even though the majority promised a more open Congress, as I referred to in the beginning of my remarks, they silenced the vote of every Member and thus all of every Member's constituents a record 63 times this Congress. Sixty-three times. No other Congress in the history of the Republic has ever brought forth so many closed rules. No other Congress in the history of the Republic has brought so many pieces of legislation to the floor under that legislative framework that prohibits every Member of this House from offering amendments to the legislation.

The consistent use of closed rules by the majority constitutes an affront to the democratic spirit as well as to their own promises. But that is not the only way that they have failed to live up to their promises. They have also systematically bypassed what is known as the conference process, effectively shutting out the minority from having a say on legislation that makes its way to the President's desk.

Madam Speaker, as you know, the conference process is the process by which the House and Senate work out differences, resolve their differences and achieve a final legislative product that is exact to be passed by the House and the Senate and sent to the President.

Now the majority has also used a technique known as ``ping-pong'' to avoid that conference process. They have used that technique in order to subvert the rights of the minority to offer motions to recommit and amendments. For comparison, in the 108th Congress and 109th Congress-- those Congresses combined--that technique known as ping-ponging was used three times during the 108th Congress and 109th Congress.

But that is not all. The majority has also considered 45 bills outside the regular order. They also blocked minority substitute amendments, allowing only 10 minority substitute amendments even though they promised a procedure that, and again I remind the majority of its own words, they promised that they would ``grant the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''

So here we are today with a rule that a distinguished senior member of the majority on the Rules Committee said, and I quote, is `` . . . outside the normal parameters of the way that the House should conduct its business . . . it effectively curtails our rights and responsibilities as serious legislators.''

Prior to becoming Speaker, Ms. Pelosi pledged, and I quote, ``to conduct our work with civility and bipartisanship and to act in partnership, not partisanship, with the President and the Republicans in Congress.''

Obviously, the record has been another story.

Now with regard to what the majority is doing today, the majority is bringing forth 44 bills for consideration under what is known as suspension of the rules. It's a process by which usually noncontroversial bills, as my friend described them, bills that generally have bipartisan support because they require two-thirds of the House in order to pass, under the rule being brought forth today, we will be authorizing under this rule 44 bills for consideration under suspension of the rules. At least they're telling us what the 44 bills are. That's why it took some time for the Clerk to read them, because there are 44 bills to read the titles. So at least I think the majority should be commended for telling us what the 44 bills are.

Now, unfortunately, we're informed that the Rules Committee is meeting at this time, as we speak, to pass a rule to authorize more suspensions, but not telling us what they are; in other words, a blanket authority. So, obviously everything has to be put in perspective.

Compared to what the Rules Committee is doing now for the rest of the session, this is a commendable rule because at least it is informing us and the American people what we will be considering. At least the titles have been brought forth. So that is something that, when we consider how the majority has acted procedurally in this Congress, we have to be grateful that we're being informed at least what bills are being authorized for consideration under the rule today.

Madam Speaker, as we look back at this 110th Congress that is nearing its end, I think it would be fair to say that when one considers the promises for openness and fairness and transparency made by the majority at the beginning of this Congress and in their campaign before this Congress began, when one compares that with their record of having broken all precedent in terms of the number, the number, having broken the record in terms of the number of pieces of legislation brought to this floor authorizing no amendments, in other words, closed rules, there is an extraordinary difference between the promise and the reality by our friends on the other side of the aisle.

I reserve the balance of my time.

No, I would inform my friend that we have no other speakers. So at this time I yield back the balance of my time.