Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the House amendments to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2642) making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

I thank the gentlelady from New York. I rise today to thank Chairman Obey and thank the leadership, Speaker Pelosi, for addressing the question that confronts us in the most strategic way possible. But it is important to note that many of us have opposed consistently a war that continues to go on unbridled and misdirected.

We thank our soldiers. But it's important to note that now some $600 billion has gone to Iraq. We've lost 4,100 soldiers. Instead of having a military surge, we should have a diplomatic surge. We now give $165 million unrestricted to this White House. But I do rise in support of amendment 2 that provides for the GI Bill that acts as a good Samaritan to those who have been unemployed for 13 extra weeks of unemployment, that provides for elimination of six Medicaid provisions that will help restore partially the health care that Americans need. But I believe we should have had provisions in this particular appropriation that would indicate that the dollars should be used to redeploy our troops, thank them and grant them the success that they have had because they are successful.

But we need to bring our troops home. And we need to indicate that the authority for military force has expired. The GI Bill is a ``thank you'' to our soldiers. Let's bring them home safely. And let's provide the investment that it needs. I am grateful that we had the disaster relief for all of those suffering in the Midwest, but that we've not forgotten the Katrina victims and survivors that now are still homeless. It is important, as we move forward, to begin to look at domestic funding.

This is a first start. But we need to have legislation that acknowledges the honor of those who have fallen, declare a military success and allow Iraq to invest. And I am grateful for the two amendments that require Iraq to invest in its own domestic development. This is the time to redeploy our troops.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to Amendment #1, and in strong support of Amendment #2 of the bill H.R. 2642, Making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes. While I am supportive of the portions that contain provisions beneficial to the American people designed to improve our economy and protect

our young men and women, I remain adamantly opposed to this legislation because it continues a disastrous policy of providing unrestricted funding to continue the Bush Administration's war in Iraq.

Amendment #1--Iraq War Funding

Mr. Speaker, I oppose Amendment #1 because I stand with the American taxpayers, who have paid over $600 billion to finance the misadventure in Iraq. I stand with the 4100 fallen heroes who stand even taller in death because they gave the last full measure of devotion to their country. In May, I was proud to vote against amendment #1 to the previous version of the supplemental spending bill that would have provided funds for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, which included a timetable for the redeployment of U.S. troops. I was extremely pleased that the House did not pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this legislation as it provides a total of $165.4 billion for the Department of Defense for FY 2008 and FY 2009, funds that are handed over without any strings. This legislation does not withhold funding for the Iraq war, a war that so many of my colleagues in Congress oppose, and which only 32 percent of Americans now support. The bill we are considering today does not require that war funds can only be used for the responsible redeployment of American troop's home from Iraq. Instead, it hands the President nearly $163 billion of virtually unrestricted funding, allowing him to continue a war that the American people do not support.

Mr. Speaker, I voted against the 2002 Iraq War Resolution. I am proud of that vote. I have consistently voted against the Administration's practice of submitting a request for war funding through an emergency supplemental rather than the regular appropriations process which would subject the funding request to more rigorous scrutiny and require it to be balanced against other pressing national priorities. I cannot support legislation that provides the President with the resources to prolong his ill-advised war effort unrestrained. As a Member of both the Out of Iraq and the Progressive Caucuses, I am proud to vote for legislation that, like other measures passed by this Congress, begins the process of withdrawing U.S. men and women from Iraq.

The congressional authorization providing for the use of military force in Iraq has expired. The 2002 Resolution authorized the President to:

(1) Defend the national security of the United States

against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council

Resolutions regarding Iraq.

Specifically, the resolution called for the disarming of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, removal of the rogue Iraqi regime, the capture of any al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq, as well as the promotion of democracy in Iraq. All of these objectives have been met.

Mr. Speaker, our troops have achieved extraordinary military success in Iraq, toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein in only 21 days, assuring the world that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction, assisting the Iraqis in holding free elections, and setting the nation on a path toward democracy. However, while our troops have achieved the objectives for which they were sent to Iraq, they are now caught in the midst of a sectarian conflict. Unfortunately, there is no military solution to Iraq's ongoing political and sectarian conflicts. This is a war without end. Though President Bush continues to rely on a strategy that seeks to stabilize and reconcile Iraq by force, only the Iraqi government can secure a lasting peace. Thus far, the Iraqi government has demonstrated an inability or an unwillingness to deliver on the political benchmarks that they themselves agreed were essential to achieving national reconciliation, which was the rationale and stated objective of the surge.

Amendment #2--Iraq policy provisions

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that Amendment #2 contains two important Iraq policy provisions. This amendment requires that funds spent by the State Department and USAID for Iraqi reconstruction be matched, dollar- for-dollar, by the Iraqi government. In addition, this legislation prohibits military construction funds from being used to establish permanent bases in Iraq.

Like many of my colleagues, I am also concerned that the United States has paid and continues to pay a disproportionate amount for Iraq reconstruction, especially when the Iraqi government reportedly has a $25-30 billion budget surplus this year. I am pleased that this legislation calls on the Iraqi government to share equally in the cost of rebuilding the country. To date the United States has appropriated more than $45 billion for Iraq reconstruction. American-funded reconstruction programs have included the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces.

Iraq is a resource-rich nation. Though still facing problems including a lack of technology, damage from previous mismanagement, the effects of looting, and water intrusion, Iraqi oil production is currently at around 2 million barrels per day. The price of oil has skyrocketed to over $100 a barrel and Iraqi oil exports are generating an estimated $56.4 billion this year alone, according to the GAO, yet it is U.S. taxpayers who continue to foot the bill for Iraqi reconstruction. The government of Iraq is stashing its money in global banks, including a reported $30 billion in the United States, instead of investing this money in the development of crucial Iraqi infrastructure.

I am also extremely concerned about the direction of U.S. policy in Iraq, and the future of U.S. commitments. I am also very worried about the Administration's apparent desire to circumvent congressional approval and oversight in the process of negotiating a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government, as well as the still-open question of the establishment of permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, to which I am strongly opposed. Today's legislation, crucially, continues a prohibition on permanent American military bases in Iraq.

Expanded GI Bill

Mr. Speaker, Amendment #2 of this legislation provides funding for much needed domestic programs and foreign aid. By extending unemployment benefits, expanding veterans' education benefits, and placing a moratorium on the Bush Administrations' six Medicaid regulations, this legislation gets us closer to where the Economic Stimulus package should have taken us. I am particularly pleased that this legislation expands the educations benefits that veterans receive under the GI, providing $50 billion over the next 10 years for veterans' college funding. This legislation restores the promise of a full, four-year college education, and will entitle veterans who enlisted after the Sept. 11 attacks and served three years or more to what amounts to four years of college education at a state university. By passing these provisions, we are making the veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan an integral part of an American economy recovery, much in the same way World War II veterans were incorporated under the original GI bill. I would like to see us go even farther to make an affordable college education a possibility for all those brave men and women who selflessly served our nation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today's legislation does allow service members to transfer educational benefits to their spouses and dependents.

Extension of unemployment

In addition, Mr. Speaker, this legislation includes a 13-week extension of jobless benefits for long-term unemployed. The number of Americans looking for work has grown by 800,000 over the last year, and the number of American jobs has declined by 260,000 since the beginning of 2008. The extension of unemployment benefits will provide a crucial safety net to American workers who are feeling the strain of the sagging economy.

Emergency funding for the Midwest

This legislation also includes $2.65 billion in much-needed aid for the storm-ravaged American Midwest. Violent storms, bringing tornados and flooding, have been blamed for at least 24 deaths since late May. With damage still not fully assessed, what has been called the worst flooding in the Midwest in 15 years has ruined an estimated 5 million acres of farmland. According to the Army Corps of Engineers, 23 levees along the Mississippi have failed this week alone, and 48 more, which protect over 285,000 acres of cropland, are either overflowing or at high flood risk. Today's legislation provides critical resources to respond to these disasters, which are affecting millions of Americans.

Medicaid

In addition, this legislation also delays most of the destructive Medicaid cuts proposed by this President. The Bush Administration sought to cut services and payments to American families by adding seven different Medicaid regulations to the stimulus. This legislation places a much needed moratorium on six of these regulations, giving back to our seniors, families, and those with disabilities as well as cut payments to safety net providers.

Because I believe that fixing our health care system is one of the most important issues we currently face, I recently introduced the ``Medicare Efficiency and Development of Improvement of Care and Services Act of 2008'' (MEDICS Act), which provides a solution to the Medicare reimbursement problem as well as grows beneficiary access.

My bill increases the number of primary care physicians. It specifically requires that within one year of enactment, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination with the Association of American Medical Colleges shall submit to Congress an effective plan to increase the number of primary care physicians particularly those practicing in counties, cities, or towns ``underserved'' or with a disproportionate number of Medicare-eligible and/or Medicare recipients. In addition, my legislation forces an examination of the disparities in our health system, particularly those based on race, ethnicity, and gender,

and begins the process of eliminating these discrepancies, and making health care an affordable reality for all Americans.

Food aid and disaster assistance

I am also pleased that this legislation provides increased funding for international affairs. This includes $1.865 billion for food aid and disaster assistance, which is $745 million above the President's request. This sum includes $500 million above the President's request for PL480 Food Assistance and $245 million above his request for development assistance and disaster assistance programs meant to alleviate world hunger.

This additional funding comes at a crucial time. As my colleagues are aware, we are facing an international food crisis. According to the International Monetary Fund, IMF, global food prices have increased an average of 43 percent. In fact since March 2007, wheat has increased by 146 percent, soybean has increased by 71 percent, corn by 41 percent, and rice prices have increased by 29 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Sadly, approximately 1 billion people--or one-sixth of the world's population--subsist on less than $1 per day. Of this population, 162 million survive on less than $0.50 per day. Overall, increased food prices particularly affect developing countries, and the poorest people within those countries, where populations spend a larger proportional share of income on basic food commodities. It is simply unacceptable in this day and age that so many children are going hungry. We have millions of dollars to bailout Bear Stearns, let's find that same money to help our families and our children.

Refugee assistance

I am also extremely supportive of the provisions in this legislation that increase funding for refugee assistance. This legislation provides $696 million, a total $475 million above the President's request, to address the ongoing refugee crises in Iraq and elsewhere. This funding comes in the midst of a worldwide surge in the number of refugees, with Iraq and Darfur facing particularly severe crises. Having recently spent time on the ground with refugees living in camps in Darfur and Chad, I am pleased that the figures in this legislation represent the reality of the global refugee situation, and will make important strides toward meeting the needs of the growing number of people displaced by conflict, poverty, disaster, or other extreme circumstances, particularly those in Darfur and in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support amendment #2 to this legislation because it contains vital provisions that will directly benefit the American people. I must oppose amendment #1 because I refuse to support the continuation of a disastrous policy of providing unrestricted funding to continue the Bush administration's war in Iraq. It is pure fantasy to imagine that President Bush's military surge has created the necessary safety and security to meet economic, legislative, and security benchmarks. It is time for a new strategy, a new plan that will encourage Iraqis to take charge of their own destiny, seek constructive and sustained regional engagement, and substitute the ill- advised military surge for a thoughtful diplomatic one. It is time to be realistic and pragmatic, to recognize that our troops achieved what they were initially sent in for and that continued U.S. military engagement is not bringing about the desired results.

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

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I want to begin for the second time today by expressing my great appreciation to my very good friend and colleague, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it was interestingly enough on February 5 of 2007, February 5 of 2007, which is exactly 500 days ago--500 days ago President Bush made a request of this Congress to provide supplemental funding for our troops to ensure that they have all the tools necessary to prosecute these struggles going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan, 500 days, a long period of time. But Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that I believe that we've finally gotten there.

As I listened carefully to the statement of my good friend from Rochester, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, I have to say that I completely concurred with the first third of her statement in which she went through a very accurate description of exactly what this supplemental appropriations bill consists of. I could not disagree with her more on the second third of her presentation, and on the last part, I have sort of a mixed view.

When it comes to the first third, I will say that, again, I completely concur. This measure is designed to ensure that we get to our men and women in uniform the tools that they need, the resources that they need to continue this struggle. It ensures that the request and the directive by Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, raising very serious concern about the prospect of not being able to have the resources necessary is addressed.

She also in her remarks talked about the need to deal with the economic challenges that we face, and I completely concur. When we saw the largest increase in the unemployment rate in 22 years, a half a percent increase in the unemployment rate, it's clear that we want to ensure that those Americans who are very much in need are going to be able to have their concerns addressed by providing with that 20-work week requirement, which we've gone back to and which we supported in the early part of this decade in 2001 and 2002, that that requirement will

continue to be in place. So I wholeheartedly support that effort for the 13-week extension.

And she also talked about the need to ensure that we provide the resources for the veterans. For those men and women who have been engaged in this struggle and have come home, it is absolutely crucial that we do everything that we can to provide those very important resources for those brave and courageous men and women who have served in our Armed Forces.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when it came as I said to the second third of Ms. Slaughter's presentation, I could not disagree more vigorously. She referred to the term ``political progress'' as being one of posturing. Well, I've got to say if we look at the independent assessments that have been provided by even some of the most harsh critics, some of the harshest critics of this war, there has been acknowledgment that this surge has worked.

All one needs to do is this week look at lead articles in both the Washington Post, hardly an entity that has been sympathetic with this effort, and the Associated Press. Both of those entities have strongly come forward and pointed to the tremendous progress that has been made not only, not only militarily but the political progress which has been made as well.

And so I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleagues who have worked in a bipartisan way. I see Mr. Obey here. He just testified before the Committee on Rules and talked about his concerns, and he talked about the need to make sure that we move forward.

Our Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, has also worked very, very diligently on this, and I have to say it's interesting as we mark today the 500th day since the President made this request for supplemental funding for our troops, it's fascinating that this all came together within what is just about a maybe 28-, 29-, 30-hour period of time.

So I think that it's important for us to get this done. It's important for us to address these concerns which include the much- needed relief to those victims of the floods in the Midwest and the strengthening of the levees following Hurricane Katrina, and I believe that we have a wonderful indication of bipartisanship at its best here.

I am very pleased to finally take up a Rule for a Supplemental Appropriations bill that is based on bipartisan compromise that gets our troops the funding they need. And most important, it is a bill that the President can actually sign. I just wish we could have done this months ago.

Mr. Speaker, the request for supplemental funding for our troops came to us on February 5th of 2007--exactly 500 days ago. Since that time, we have heard hours of testimony from our military commanders, warning us in clear terms of the strains on our troops from the failure to fund them. For months, we have heard of impending layoffs of military contract employees. Of vital programs getting cut off or put on hold. The message was very clear: our armed forces in harm's way needed emergency funding in order to effectively continue their jobs.

But what did they get from the Democratic Leadership? Endless political posturing. Funding bills that were purely political documents, with no hope of being enacted. I find it very troubling that this partisan process could drag on for so long.

I find it very troubling that it took so long before there was an attempt at bipartisan negotiation to craft a good bill that provides for our troops and will be enacted into law.

After months of posturing, once the Democratic Majority finally reached across the aisle so that real progress could be made--how long did it take to reach a workable compromise? Mere hours. Once the dialogue began, Republicans and Democrats quickly came to a solution--a bill that funds our troops, while also addressing other priorities in a responsible way.

Today's underlying bill fully funds our armed forces. It will provide a new education benefit to veterans, without raising taxes. And it will extend unemployment insurance in these uncertain economic times, without eliminating key provisions to prevent fraud and abuse. This is a compromise that Republicans and Democrats can support, fulfilling our duty to the men and women who are in harm's way. This is a duty that we as a body must take far more seriously than the last few months have demonstrated.

When we are bogged down by the Democratic Majority's political gamesmanship, there are real-world consequences to these actions--or lack of action.

As we have heard from our military commanders over the past weeks and months exactly what these consequences are, one of the most troubling revelations came just last week. Adm. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that our commanders had run out of funds to pay for development projects in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is perhaps the most perverse outcome of the Democratic Leadership's failure to fund our troops.

Regardless of where you stand on the war, we all know and agree that the fight against extremism demands more than a purely military solution. Our armed forces are working to provide a security environment that allows for development to take place--and they are succeeding. But if we squander this opportunity, we will never succeed in the long term. We will fail to win hearts and minds, and we will fail to provide an alternative to terror and extremism.

The people of Iraq and Afghanistan need to see that our fight is not against them. They need to see that we support democratic institutions and the good governance that ensures peace, liberty and opportunity. Without our development efforts, our military efforts can have no hope for sustainable success. By stonewalling the troops' funding, the Democratic Leadership not only shortchanges our troops, they are blocking our efforts to assist in the development of the foundation for lasting peace.

This is an unconscionable policy. Especially at the very time that the seeds of reconciliation are starting to take root. For months we have known that the surge has succeeded in reducing violence. Even the war's harshest critics have begrudgingly conceded that violence has been significantly reduced. But they called it an empty victory, saying that the improved security situation has failed to bring about political progress.

But today, that is changing. Monday's lead AP story was ``Iraqi violence down, confidence in government up.''

Tuesday's Washington Post announced ``Calm in Iraq Spurs Debate; Decline in Violence, Focus on Politics May Signal Turning Point.'' These are stories not just of reduced violence. They tell of the political reconciliation and progress that is now being made possible by the increased security. Iraqis are gaining faith in the Maliki government. And minority Sunni parliamentarians are heartened that a Shiite government would go after Shiite terrorists with the same zeal they go after Sunni terrorists.

Of course, this progress is fragile. Tuesday's terrible attack in Baghdad reminded us that while violence is diminishing overall, the danger of large-scale attacks remains very real. Furthermore, the political progress is still in its infancy. The Post story goes on to say ``analysts question whether the limited political accommodation among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds can be sustained if the U.S. withdraws its forces quickly.'' It points out that Iran would love to fill any void that we create, and that Iraqis fear today's calm is simply the calm before the storm. Clearly, our mission is not complete.

But demonstrable progress is being made. After years of terrible violence, setbacks and enormous challenges, many of us have become desensitized to any signs of progress and improvement. But they are there. The tragic part is that any delay in providing critical funding puts this fragile progress in jeopardy. Today's underlying bill is urgently needed. While I am deeply sorry it has taken this long, I am truly pleased to finally have a bipartisan bill that will deliver our troops the vital resources they need.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm very happy to yield 3 minutes to my thoughtful and diligent colleague from Irvine, California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Monticello, Florida (Mr. Boyd).

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to our very thoughtful and hardworking colleague from Columbus, Indiana, an area that has been victimized by the floods and will be assisted in this package that is coming forward, Mr. Pence.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I'm happy to yield my friend 1 additional minute.

I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Brooksville, Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

At this time, I am very happy to yield to one of our top experts on Veterans Affairs, the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations subcommittee that deals with this issue, my friend from Chattanooga (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 3 minutes to a hardworking member of the Committee on Appropriations, my friend from Ames, Iowa (Mr. Latham).

I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this juncture I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, and I do so to simply congratulate my friend on his very thoughtful statement. The fact that we have been able to come together in a bipartisan way to ensure that the Sean Walshes and the other men and women in uniform who have sacrificed for this country are going to have what they are due is, I believe, a great testament to what we are doing in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was February 5, 2007, February 5, 2007, exactly 500 days ago, that President Bush made a request for supplemental funding for our men and women in uniform to ensure that they have the resources necessary to successfully prosecute this war. That is what we are here doing this evening now.

We are here because we have actually seen, based on reports that have come from some of the harshest critics of this war, that we are making progress. All one needs to do is look at the Washington Post the day before yesterday, the Associated Press story that has been referred to by a number of my colleagues. Time and time again we hear of the success that is being made in our effort to ensure that we are able to continue to enjoy our freedoms and that we have a world that has a greater degree of stability. Only the United States of America, only the United States of America, is in a position to do this.

Sacrifice has been made. Time and time again our colleagues have talked about the number of lives that have been lost.

As I listened to my friend from Chicago (Mr. Emanuel), he was referring to one of his constituents, I was immediately reminded of one of my constituents whom I refer to on a pretty regular basis here.

It was in the battle of Fallujah in November of 2004 that J.P. Blecksmith tragically was killed. His father, who was a former Marine from San Marino, California, has, on repeated occasions, to me said if we don't complete our mission, my son, J.P., will have died in vain.

War is an ugly thing, but it's not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war is worse. Those were the words of a very, very famous writer who wrote them following the Civil War. We are in the midst of a painful struggle.

But on this issue, I am very happy that we have been able to come together in a bipartisan way to deal with this. I congratulate my colleagues, Messrs. Obey and Lewis, for working together on this, and Mr. Boehner, who has provided great leadership in this effort.

We need to ensure that our men and women in uniform not only have everything that they need to successfully prosecute this war, but we also need to make sure that they have the tools necessary as they come back into our society. We have for years seen great warriors come back to the United States of America and work to make their country an even better place, and I believe that the provisions that we provide in here with these GI benefits will go a long way towards doing that.

The American people are hurting. We saw, as has been repeatedly said, the largest increase in 22 years in the unemployment rate, going up a half a percent. That's why, again, we have come in a bipartisan way to ensure that those who are truly in need, those who through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs, are able to see an extension in their unemployment benefits.

Again, I think that what we are going to be doing here in the next few minutes is we are going to be casting a bipartisan vote which will be done in the spirit of what the American people want us to do, and that is to get things done, deal with very, very important issues and problems that we face.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

I will say that I never said anything about ``affording.'' I said that only the United States of America can do this job of ensuring this struggle for freedom around the world.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1284, I call up from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2642) making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments to the House amendments to the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I offer the motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the pending legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot of comments tonight about what there should or should not be in this legislation, and I agree with many of those comments. And honestly, just once, acting as chairman of a committee, I would like to put together a bill which reflects my priorities. But that is not usually what chairmen have to do in this place.

What we have to do is try to find a consensus that will gather 218 votes and be sustained over time. And on this bill, there are some peculiar problems because, very frankly, we have a very different constituency in this House for continuing the war in Iraq than we have for most of the other items in the bill and, therefore, we had to find a way to allow each and every Member of the House to express his or her opinion. We had to try to find a way to allow each and every Member to vote their convictions in a way which would not keep the House tied up in knots for another 6 months.

Now, the way we did that was to adopt a procedure under which we took a conference report pending between the Senate and the House, and used that as the device by which each House would express their preferences, and we would work our way to a solution.

Our committee is often criticized because we wind up producing omnibus appropriations in which everything is thrown into one package, and people are forced to vote up or down on the entire package. What we tried to do this time was to do just the opposite, to disaggregate these issues so that people would have a chance to vote separately on the major propositions in the legislation.

And that is why the House sent to the Senate originally three amendments. We sent one amendment that would fund the operations for Iraq and Afghanistan. We sent a second amendment which stipulated the conditions under which the first amendment money could be expended. And then we had a third amendment which laid out, basically, other domestic priorities or associated military priorities that we thought were important. And we sent it to the Senate, and it included a number of items about which questions have been raised tonight.

In addition to the expanded GI benefits for veterans and unemployment compensation, we tried to protect the Medicaid safety net by having a moratorium on seven Medicaid regulations.

We also had a number of restrictions on Iraq policy, one requiring that any money that is expended for reconstruction by the State Department or USAID be matched dollar for dollar by the Iraqi Government so that they

would begin to pick up a fair share of the cost of redeveloping their own country.

We also had language with respect to trying to assure that there would be no permanent bases in Iraq. We had funding $2.2 billion above the President's level for military construction and veterans' hospitals, and we fully funded BRAC.

Someone asked earlier on the floor today why did we have $178 million in this war supplemental for the Bureau of Prisons. Very simple. Because the executive agency asked for the money because if we don't, there are going to be prison guards laid off because there has been a heavier than expected Federal prison population. And that may not be an emergency to Members of Congress, but if you're one of those prison guards who's working shorthanded under dangerous situations, you don't want to have people laid off in those Federal prisons.

And so we sent that package over to the Senate, and the Senate added roughly 37 additional items which cost $10 billion and which the House felt, in many instances, did not accurately reflect emergency expenditure funds.

So the Senate sent those amendments back to us, and among other things, they stripped out totally the conditions on the war. That is why I will personally vote against amendment No. 1 because I would vote for that amendment provided that we had a set of reasonable conditions in defining what our national policy is in Iraq. Absent those conditions, I don't intend to vote for that amendment.

But I do intend to vote for the second amendment, and I want to take just a moment to explain what was in it. Primarily, we do three important things: We, first of all, create a new program to provide greatly expanded education benefits for American veterans under the GI Bill. We have some Members of this House who are unhappy about the fact that that is not paid for. I am among them. But I would point out that the entire war is not being paid for. Mr. Murtha and I and Mr. McGovern tried to offer the House an opportunity to vote to pay for the entire war. We did not, frankly, find much enthusiasm for that on either side of the political aisle.

But we stipulated that we felt that if that war was going to be fought, even though I personally think it's the most misguided war since the War of 1812, nonetheless, we felt if the war was going to be fought, at least we ought to pay for it so we didn't pass the cost down to our grandkids.

That has not happened.

My point is simply that if we aren't going to pay for the war, then I feel no particular guilt about saying to the GIs who have fought the war that we aren't going to provide you with the equivalent of a 4-year college education because we have had no sense of self-sacrifice in this country except on the part of military families. They've been asked to sacrifice again and again and again while the rest of us have been asked to go shopping or swallow a tax cut. And I think that's illegitimate.

We lost the argument on funding the war, and it just seems to me that it is a peculiar view of proportion if people get exercised about not paying for the GI Bill expansion but don't get exercised about not paying for the war. It would take over 50 years of paying benefits under this new expanded GI Bill. It would take more than 50 years to spend as much money on veterans as will be spent in a 2-year period in Iraq.

And so I make no apology. While I would prefer that it be paid for, I make no apology for the fact that, in the end, it wasn't. This is the only way that we could get the United States Senate and the administration to accept the expanded GI Bill. And I think we owe it to those veterans to provide it no matter what the budgetary niceties are.

Secondly, with respect to unemployment compensation. We wound up essentially--and I want to thank Mr. Rangel especially for the work he did in conference yesterday. The House initially sent over a package which provided 13 weeks of expanded unemployment benefits for every State in the country and then provided an additional 13 weeks on top of that for States with high unemployment rates.

The administration, as you know, Mr. Speaker, did not want that. They objected to it. So we looked for various ways to try to salvage as much of that as we could.

In the end, we adopted changes which bring the cost of that down from about $10 billion to $8 billion. So we have retained 80 percent of the original unemployment compensation provision.

We've made two changes. We have agreed with the administration's request to require 20 weeks of work history if a person is going to be eligible for that, and we also dropped the second step, the targeting of those benefits. We will have to deal with that issue on another bill in another venue.

The third issue that was causing great controversy was the fact that we were trying to place a moratorium on seven Medicaid regulations that the administration was trying to impose that would cut services to seniors, families, and those with disabilities. In the end, we got six of those seven in the package. I think that's doing pretty well.

Because of the new disasters that we have had around the country, certainly most visible in Iowa recently, the administration agreed to $1.8 billion in disaster funding. This bill comes in considerably higher than that at $2.65 billion.

That's basically the outline of what we have done. And there are several other items in the bill. One that Members should be aware of, if we do not get our appropriation bills done by the end of the fiscal year--that has been known to happen from time to time around here--if that doesn't happen, then if we were to proceed for a short time on a continuing resolution, Israel would wind up receiving $170 million less than the President's budget. We did not want that to happen. And so we are including in this bill a provision which guarantees that as of October 1, that even if we were to pass a continuing resolution at last year's level, Israel would not be accidentally shortchanged by that action and they would get that additional $170 million.

There are a number of other provisions in the bill, but I think most Members are familiar with them. Most of these items have been around for quite a while.

And so with that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel. I want to thank Mr. Rangel for the work he did in conference.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Let me simply take this opportunity to thank the staff, especially Rob Nabors, on our side of the aisle. And I want to especially also thank Mr. Murtha and Senator Inouye and Mr. Young for the work they did in fashioning amendment No. 1 that we have before us today.

I also want to thank Mr. Rangel, certainly Mr. Hoyer, and the Speaker for all of the work that they have done in bringing us to this point. And I also want to thank especially Mr. Boehner, who certainly has been integral to achieving this today. And also Mr. Lewis and Cantor, who have worked consistently on this, and I appreciate the work they did even through yesterday. And one more thank you to Senator Webb and to Representative Herseth Sandlin in this House for leading the efforts to see that we did have an expanded GI Bill benefit for veterans, and also Senator Reid.

And now let me inquire, does the gentleman have any other speakers?

I intend to have the Speaker do the closing. Would you like to finish before I ask her to close?

I thank the gentleman, and I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1284 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 and also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1284.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1284 provides for consideration of the Senate amendments to the House amendments to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2642, Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008. The rule makes in order a motion by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations that the House, one, concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment numbered 1, and two, concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment numbered 2, with the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report.

The motion is debatable for 1 hour and controlled by the Committee on Appropriations, and the Chair shall divide the question between the dispositions of the two Senate amendments.

Mr. Speaker, the issue to be debated today could not be of greater consequence to the future of our Nation or the citizens of this body and all of this country. For that reason, the Rules Committee has reported out a rule that gives each Member the opportunity to vote his/ her conscience on the most pressing issue of our day: funding for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as critical domestic spending to bring relief to the American people and provide our veterans with access to higher education.

This legislation meets the spending requirements made by President Bush

with the exception of the $2.65 billion in disaster relief for the aftermath of the tornadoes and floods that hit the Midwest which was added at the President's request.

In addition, the bill includes the $5.8 billion that President Bush asked for to strengthen the levees in New Orleans and does not include a single earmark except those explicitly requested by his administration.

Mr. Speaker, in order to bring the legislation forward today, the Democrat majority had to make very difficult decisions. However, making difficult choices is appropriate when deciding issues of great importance such as the war in Iraq, a war that has placed unprecedented strain on this Nation.

At no time in our history has America fought a war of this magnitude, or one that is this difficult, with an entirely voluntary military force composed of only 1 percent of the general population. And no one in this country has been asked to sacrifice as our troops and their families have.

Our soldiers are well aware of what the current situation means for them, two, three, four, sometimes five deployments of duty, while their political leaders casually use words like ``political progress'' to justify their redeployment.

However, these extraordinary individuals know full well that they return again and again to a conflict that has taken the lives of over 4,000, almost 5,000 now, of their fellow soldiers and 28 from my district alone.

They know that tens of thousands of American men and women are returning home wounded and physically disabled, many suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and a host of other mental health issues.

They know full well that they are redeployed to a civil war that has left millions of Iraqi men, women and children dead and millions more in refugee camps or fleeing to other countries that will accept them.

Our soldiers already know quite a lot, and by that I mean, they've come to learn that terms like ``political progress'' are little more than political posturing and empty rhetoric, and that is not how a Nation shows respect for its military.

Unfortunately, such disrespect is what our brave men and women in uniform are accustomed to. Our troops were repeatedly promised that they would have the equipment they needed to do their jobs. Yet we all saw the reports of desperate searches through junk heaps to refit ill- equipped armored vehicles. We all heard the stories of struggling families frantically emptying their savings accounts to purchase adequate body armor for their children going off to war.

Our troops were repeatedly promised that they would be taken care of when they came home from combat. Yet once again this administration's promises turned out to be nothing more than rhetoric. Remember the disgraceful images of Walter Reed Hospital, and that is not how a grateful Nation shows respect for its troops.

Mr. Speaker, it is with this in mind that we proceed today with this legislation. While some pieces of this bill required difficult decisions before it could be brought to the floor, others were easy to make.

The bill provides immediate resources to our troops currently in the field, and nothing is more important than their safety and security. And in addition, the bill keeps our promises to our veterans.

Part of the cost of waging war is ensuring that those who fight receive the resources that they need to resume their lives when they return home. Given all the sacrifices that our troops have made for this Nation, it is simply unconscionable to nickel and dime them when it comes time for us to keep up our end of the bargain.

The underlying legislation includes a dramatic expansion of the education benefits provided to our veterans. Not only do our troops deserve this benefit, the same one provided to veterans of World War II, but for every dollar we spend on education today, we will see a return that will bolster our economy tomorrow. And frankly, our economy needs bolstering.

Far too many hardworking Americans are feeling enormous pressure with skyrocketing gas and food prices, unaffordable health care costs, rising college tuition rates, home foreclosures that are far too commonplace, and a terrible job market.

Last month's atrocious unemployment numbers highlight the urgent need for assistance to millions of struggling families calling out for relief. In fact, the number of Americans looking for work has grown by 800,000 over the last year, and the number of American jobs has declined by 260,000 since the beginning of 2008.

This bill takes immediate action to extend unemployment insurance for workers who have exhausted their benefits by up to 13 weeks in every State.

Furthermore, the American people are feeling the pain as their hard- earned tax dollars finance the rebuilding of a foreign Nation while their country's own economy and infrastructure are falling apart at the seams. To that end, this legislation removes the unfair burden placed on the American taxpayer by requiring the Iraqi government to pull its own weight and match U.S. reconstruction money dollar-for-dollar.

In addition, it prohibits, once again--and we have to look out for those signing statements--but it prohibits once more the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq, blocking this administration from saddling the American people with a costly occupation long after their soldiers are home.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation deals with some of the most important issues of the day, our fellow citizens who have been sent to fight in a conflict far away from home, as well as critical domestic spending that will give relief to the millions of Americans struggling just to survive.

The structure of the rule we consider today provides each Member the opportunity to cast his or her vote according to their values and their priorities. I am proud to support the rule, and I ask my colleagues to do the same.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

And, Mr. Speaker, let me add an additional minute to that.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Edwards.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley).

(Mr. BRALEY of Iowa asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one brief remark and that is in answer to what my dear friend and colleague Mr. Dreier said about only the United States of America could afford this war. I'm not sure what kind of bookkeeping allows him to say that. Obviously the fact we are in such extraordinary debt, as one speaker on your side already pointed out today, this is an unprecedented debt. In the history of the Republic we have never been so far in debt and to say that we can afford to continue to do this, not just in money, not just in treasure, but what we are losing in lives and young people whose lives will never be the same because of the life-threatening wounds that they are bringing home.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

If I may reclaim my time, I think doing this job probably says we can give enough soldiers to die or to be maimed and that we have the money to pay for it. At least that would be my interpretation of what you had said.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and for this bill and I hope a ``no'' vote when we get to final passage on amendment 1.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.

I want to join my colleague, Mr. Obey, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, in acknowledging the great work of Rob Nabors and all of the staff involved in putting this bill together today.

I want to join him in acknowledging the leadership of the distinguished minority leader, our majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, the chairman, Mr. Rangel, for his important work on unemployment insurance, Mr. McDermott, who just spoke, for his important work getting the bill ready. Mr. Lewis, to you and to Mr. Cantor and all involved in all this. Mr. Murtha, to you as well, and Mr. Skelton, to you as well.

We were able to come to this compromise because we were ready. As Mr. McDermott said, earlier in the year we had a bill ready for unemployment insurance. It wasn't going to be signed by the President. We had to put it off until another time. Two weeks ago tomorrow, the unemployment rate in our country shot up by half a point from approximately 5 to 5.5 percent. It sent a very stern message to the Congress of the United States and to the President that we must act.

Following that, on the floor last week, on two occasions, we had a very strong bipartisan vote in favor of unemployment insurance. So when Mr. Rangel went to the table to talk about compromise, it was clear that we had to reflect the will of the American people, and he was ready, he was ready with the legislation. And I'm pleased that Mr. Boehner was ready to accept that.

When we started talking about the final versions of this bill in the past couple of weeks, little did we know that the skies would open and rain would fall and the Midwest of our country would be deluged, and there would be a need to make some adjustment in this bill for disaster assistance to the Midwest and to replenish the FEMA fund to make up for funds spent now. We were ready. And I don't think there was any compromise on that subject; we all agreed that that had to be done.

I am particularly pleased that in the legislation there is a signal sent that this Congress cares about investments in science, it cares about the future, not as much as I would like, but nonetheless, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having that included. And I thank my colleagues for accepting that.

I want to join in all the commendations, again, to those who helped bring this compromise to the floor. I am very pleased that it has the GI Bill, finally. It became clear that this is what we had to do, what we owed our young people to say thank you to them by sending them to college. Mr. Chet Edwards has been a champion on this issue. I will come back to that in a moment.

But, Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that I cannot fully participate in all of the comradery that is accompanying this legislation that we bring to the floor because of the huge amount of money that is in this bill to fund the war in Iraq without any conditions, without any limitation on time spent there. I'm glad that we have something about no permanent bases, yes, but this is the first time that we will be sending a bill-- well, we sent it to the Senate with conditions and they struck it. We have no choice. This is not about a failure of this House of Representatives; it's about what we cannot get past the next body and onto the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, about a week ago, I spoke at the opening of the groundbreaking for the Institute of Peace. I know that you have been involved in that over the years. And I said that day, on a warm June day like today, it was reminiscent of one 45 years ago when President John F. Kennedy delivered the commencement address at American University.

In the last summer of a life that ended far too soon, President Kennedy spoke of the need to seek peace even in the midst of the Cold War. He said, ``The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war,'' Kennedy told the crowd assembled. ``We shall be prepared if others wish it, we shall be alert to try to stop it, but we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just.'' That was President Kennedy's philosophy of his foreign policy.

Contrary to that policy, President Bush started a war based on a false

premise. He sent our troops into a situation that he didn't know what he was getting into. The philosopher Hannah Arendt once said, she observed that nations are driven by the endless flywheel of violence, believing that one last, one final violent gesture will bring peace. But each time they sow the seeds for more violence.

Five years later, we are still engaged in the war in Iraq, 2 years longer than we were in World War II, and that has come at a very great cost. The costs are clear, of course, and we all mourn 4,100 of our troops who have lost their lives in battle, tens of thousands of our troops injured, thousands of them permanently. I met with some of them with my colleagues, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Inslee and Mr. McDermott, at the Seattle VA Hospital last Friday. And before that, Mr. Murtha and I visited our troops in the hospital as well here in Washington, D.C.

Over Memorial Day, I visited our troops in Iraq with some of our colleagues. It was my sixth trip into the theater. And what they asked me is what they always ask: What's going to happen to us when we go home? And for a long time on those visits I didn't have an answer that I could be very, very pleased to tell them. But now, because of the leadership of Mr. Edwards, and others, we're able to say that when you come home, you will be met with the biggest increase in the Veterans Administration health budget in the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration, and that means in the history of our country, an even bigger investment this year.

And after tonight, in a bipartisan way, we can proudly say--and Mr. Young, who has done more than you? You have just been wonderful, and I salute you as well. We can proudly say to our troops, to our young student veterans, that when they come home, we will say thank you by sending them to college; $7 for every dollar spent on the GI Bill following World War II. We owe these troops nothing else.

Now let's go back to the cost of that war. We talked about those who lost their lives, we talked about those who are permanently injured. And it's such a sad story. The cost to our reputation in the world is enormous. The cost in dollars, the Heritage Foundation said $2.75 trillion. The Heritage Foundation, that's their figure; nearly $3 trillion projected to be the cost of this war.

And so it's hard to understand when we say to the President, we would like to insure 10 million children in America, and he says we can't afford it, so I vetoed the bill. And the Republicans stuck with him on that veto--not all, many voted in a bipartisan way. Forty days in Iraq, 10 million children insured in America for 1 year. We can't afford it? $2.75 trillion, the cost of this war.

But what is worrisome--I know to Mr. Skelton, to Mr. Murtha, and I'm certain to Mr. Young, although he has not given me license to speak for him--is the cost of the military capability of our Nation, lives, limbs, reputation, dollars, opportunity costs at home. But this is about keeping the American people safe. That's what we take an oath of office to do, to provide for the common defense. And our ability to honor our oath of office to uphold the Constitution--in the preamble it says ``to provide for the common defense''--is greatly diminished because this war has diminished the capability of American military forces to protect our interests wherever they are threatened in the world.

So let us think and hope that this is the last time that there will ever be another dollar spent without constraints, without conditions, without direction. Why should we trust the same judgment that got us here in the first place in this war?

So while I'm pleased that we have some spirit of civility here tonight about coming to a conclusion on this bill to bring it to the floor, and I enthusiastically will vote for the domestic piece of this, I'm not urging anyone to do anything, I just want you to know why I would be voting ``no'' on the spending without constraints.

We owe our troops more than sending them into war on a false premise, without the equipment and training they need, without a plan for success, without a strategy to leave. This war has not made the region more stable, it has not made our country safer. It has undermined our capability to protect the American people. It should come to an end safely, honorably, responsibly, and soon.

Mr. OBEY, Mr. Speaker, I submit the following:

Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Obey, Chairman of the House

Committee on Appropriations, Regarding the Further Amendment of the House of Representatives Relating to Supplemental Appropriations for

Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009

Following is an explanation of the further amendment of the

House of Representatives (relating to supplemental

appropriations for fiscal years 2008 and 2009) to the Senate

amendment numbered 2 to the House amendment numbered 2 to the

Senate amendment to H.R. 2642, the Supplemental

Appropriations Act, 2008.

In this statement, the provisions of the further House

amendment are generally referred to as ``the amended bill''.

The further House amendment provides that, in lieu of the

matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate, language be

inserted providing supplemental appropriations for military

construction, international affairs, disaster assistance, and

other security-related and domestic needs, as well as

language providing for accountability in contracting,

improved veterans education benefits, temporary extended

unemployment compensation, and a moratorium on certain

Medicaid regulations. The amendment also strikes lines 1

through 3 on page 60 of the Senate engrossed amendment of

September 6, 2007.

The text of the amendment is printed in the Rules Committee

report (H. Rpt. 110-720) to accompany House Resolution 1284.

Unless otherwise noted, all appropriations in the amendment

are designated as emergency requirements and necessary to

meet emergency needs pursuant to section 204(a) of S. Con.

Res. 21 and section 301(b)(2) of S. Con. Res. 70, the

congressional budget resolutions for fiscal years 2008 and

2009.