Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1591) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, take a moment to travel through the Nation's hospitals and speak to those in this final injury ward, see the young women bending over their soldier husbands who now have lost the use of all of their limbs, 25,000-plus injured and 3,000- plus dead.

It is not the policies of this Democratic majority that is causing this absolute disaster. It is the misdirected policies of those in the administration who are causing harm to our soldiers.

Let me thank our soldiers for their leadership, for their service, and their patriotism. But as I stand here today and look at my Members, the Speaker of the House who went into the Mideast, Mr. Giuliani, there is no white flag on this side of the aisle, and I reject your insult and insensitivity.

This legislation will not give the administration a blank check. It will give a new direction to Iraq. It will begin to redeploy soldiers if the President cannot certify the readiness in July and then in October of 2007. It provides funding for veterans hospitals, for the injured with spinal injuries, with brain injury. And, yes, there are those on this side of the aisle who understand the shedding of blood of our soldiers.

That is why this legislation will allow us to go and fight the terrorists, to find Osama bin Laden, and to do the job that we have not done since the tragedy and the terrorism of 9/11.

This is a sad day in this body. I want us to support the rule and the underlying bill because there is no white flag. We have the solution, and that solution is a policy that responds to the needs of the American people and our soldiers on the battlefield. No more nine soldiers of the 82nd Airborne. We thank them for their service. We declare a military success. And we bring our soldiers home.

And maybe it will be good if some of those who did not serve would understand what it means to serve.

Mr. Speaker, as a proud member of the Progressive and the Out of Iraq Caucuses, I rise to speak in support of the Conference Report on H.R. 1591, the ``U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act.'' I support the Conference Report because this compromise offers us the first real chance to end the misguided invasion, war, and occupation of Iraq. It puts us on the glide path to the day when our troops come home in honor and triumph and where we can ``care for him who has borne the battle, and for his widow and orphan.'' This legislation helps to repair the damage to America's international reputation and prestige. It brings long overdue oversight, accountability, and transparency to defense and reconstruction contracting and procurement. Finally, it places the responsibility for bringing peace and security where it clearly belongs and that is squarely on the shoulders of the Iraqi government.

Mr. Speaker, the House and Senate conferees have approved legislation providing $124.2 billion primarily for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As part of the legislation, conferees approved a sensible plan to redeploy U.S. forces in Iraq paired with progress made by the Iraqi government in meeting diplomatic and security benchmarks. These legislative provisions, which are subject to a Presidential waiver, will ensure adequate rest between tours of duty of both active duty and Guard and Reserve forces, while also requiring that their service in Iraq not be extended beyond a year for any tour of duty.

President Bush would be required to certify that the Iraqi government is meeting the diplomatic and security benchmarks. If he makes that certification, deployment shall begin no later than October 1, 2007, with the goal of

completing the redeployment within 180 days. After that period, a limited number of U.S. forces could remain in Iraq for force protection, training and equipping Iraqi troops, and targeted counterterrorism options. The legislation makes it possible for the U.S. military to focus its resources on Osama bin Laden, whose organization attacked the nation on 9/11, and destroying his base of operations in Afghanistan.

Additionally, the U.S. commander in Iraq would provide regular progress reports to Congress on both the progress of the Iraqi government to take control of that country as well as the status of the redeployment efforts.

Finally, the conferees are also to be commended for providing needed funding to improve health care for returning soldiers and veterans, for continued Hurricane Katrina recovery for the Gulf Coast, to fill major gaps in homeland security, and to provide emergency drought relief for farmers.

Overall, the conference agreement provides more than $100 billion for the Department of Defense, primarily for continued military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The legislation includes a $1 billion increase for the National Guard and Reserve equipment and $1.1 billion for military housing. The legislation also provides $3 billion ($1.2 billion more than the President's request) for the purchase of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAP)--vehicles designed to withstand roadside bombs and more than $5 billion to ensure that returning troops and veterans receive the health care that they have earned with their service.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not point out that the tragic loss of life last week at Virginia Tech still weighs heavily on our hearts and minds. Neither the mind nor the heart can contemplate a cause that could lead a human being to resort to such senseless violence to injure and destroy fellow human beings. The thoughts and prayers of people of goodwill everywhere go out to the victims and their families. In the face of such overwhelming grief, I hope they can take comfort in the certain knowledge that unearned suffering is redemptive.

The war in Iraq has also caused a lot of unearned suffering in Iraq and here at home. This is the same war, Mr. Speaker, whose proponents misrepresented to the nation would last no more than six months and likely less than six weeks. This same war in Iraq, we were led to believe by the Administration, would cost less than $50 billion and would be paid out of the ample revenues from Iraq's oil fields. The war in Iraq, the American people were promised, should have ended years ago with Americans troops greeted as liberators by jubilant Iraqis throwing rose petals at their feet.

The President has threatened to veto the legislation now before us if it passes. According to the President and the Vice-President, H.R. 1591 ``would undermine our troops and threaten the safety of the American people here at home.'' Coming from an Administration that has been wrong on every important question relating to the decision to launch the Iraq War as well the conduct of it, this claim is laughable. Little wonder that nearly 70 percent of Americans disapprove of the way the President is handling the war. But more important, the President's claim is simply not true.

Mr. Speaker, many of the nation's most highly respected generals have endorsed H.R. 1591; all of them oppose the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. Take, for example, Maj. Gen. John Batiste, U.S. Army, Ret.

``This important legislation sets a new direction for Iraq. It acknowledges that America went to war without mobilizing the nation, that our strategy in Iraq has been tragically flawed since the invasion in March 2003, that our Army and Marine Corps are at the breaking point with little to show for it, and that our military alone will never establish representative government in Iraq. The administration got it terribly wrong and I applaud our Congress for stepping up to their constitutional responsibilities.''

Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, USA, Ret. Supports this legislation because it ``gives General Petraeus great leverage for moving the Iraqi government down the more disciplined path laid out by the Iraq Study Group.'' According to Major Eaton, the real audience for the timeline language is Prime Minister al-Maliki and the elected government of Iraq:

The argument that this bill aides the enemy is simply not mature-- nobody on the earth underestimates the United States' capacity for unpredictability. It may further create some sense of urgency in the rest of our government, beginning with the State Department.

Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), President Reagan's Director of the National Security Agency, supports the bill because it ``gives the president a chance to pull back from a disastrous course, re-orient U.S. strategy to achieve regional stability, and win help from many other countries--the only way peace will eventually be achieved.''

Mr. Speaker, to date, the war in Iraq has lasted longer than America's involvement in World War II, the greatest conflict in all of human history. But there is a difference. The Second World War ended in complete and total victory for the United States and its allies. But then again, in that conflict America was led by FDR, a great Commander- in-Chief, who had a plan to win the war and secure the peace, listened to his generals, and sent troops in sufficient numbers and sufficiently trained and equipped to do the job.

As a result of the colossal miscalculation in deciding to invade Iraq, the loss of public trust resulting from the misrepresentation of the reasons for launching that invasion, and the breath taking incompetence in mismanaging the occupation of Iraq, the Armed Forces and the people of the United States have suffered incalculable damage.

The war in Iraq has claimed the lives of 3,316 brave servicemen and women (64 in the first 16 days of this month). More than 24,912 Americans have been wounded, many suffering the most horrific injuries. American taxpayers have paid nearly $400 billion to sustain this misadventure.

The depth, breadth, and scope of the President's misguided, mismanaged, and misrepresented war in Iraq is utterly without precedent in American history. It is a tragedy in a league all its own. But it was not unforeseeable or unavoidable.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act the House passed last month provides real benchmarks and consequences if the Iraqi Government fails to live up to its commitments. First, it requires the President to certify and report to Congress on July 1, 2007 that substantial progress has been made on security, political and reconstruction benchmarks by the Iraqi government.

If the President cannot certify that the Iraqi government has made substantial progress, redeployment of U.S. combat troops must begin, with a goal of being completed within 180 days (by December 31, 2007). If the July certification is made, redeployment of U.S. combat troops must begin by October 1, 2007, with a goal of being completed within 180 days (by March 31, 2008).

The measure changes the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq after redeployment from combat to training and equipping Iraqi troops, targeted counterterrorism operations, and force protection.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, the Iraqi Government is not off to a good start. The Green Zone surrounding Baghdad remains insecure. Two weeks ago, a suicide bomber managed to penetrate the security perimeter of the Iraqi Parliament and detonated a bomb that killed at least three members of the Iraqi parliament and wounded scores of others. Additionally, the market represented by Senator McCain as an example of the improved security situation in Iraq was turned into a killing field within days after Senator McCain's visit. And just last week, we saw the bloodiest and deadliest day in Baghdad since the so-called ``surge'' began when 198 Iraqi civilians were massacred by insurgents.

Mr. Speaker, radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has reasserted his political power by yanking his loyalists from the Cabinet, a move aimed at showing his supporters he retains his credentials as an opposition leader and which increases the pressure on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to loosen his embrace of the U.S. occupation, which many Iraqis blame for violence in the country.

These developments, Madam Speaker, illustrate the wisdom of requiring benchmarks the Iraqi Government must meet to justify continued American blood and treasure in Iraq. Moreover, because those benchmarks are established pursuant to President Bush's policies, it is passing strange indeed that he would threaten to veto the bill since it necessarily means he would be vetoing his own benchmarks for the performance of the Iraqi government. He would be vetoing his own readiness standards for U.S. troops. The President demands this Congress send him an Iraq war bill with ``no strings.'' But the only ``strings'' attached, Madam Speaker, are the benchmarks and standards imposed by the President himself.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the enormous financial cost, the human cost to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces has also been high but they have willingly paid it. Operation Iraqi Freedom has exacerbated the Veterans Administration health care facility maintenance backlog; 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. But more than that, it makes a substantial down payment on that debt by providing substantial increases in funding for our troops.

The supplemental includes a total appropriation of $2.8 billion for Defense Health Care, which is $1.7 billion above the President's request. The additional funding supports new initiatives to enhance medical services for active duty forces and mobilized personnel, and their family members. Included in this new funding is $450 million for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder/Counseling; $450 million for Traumatic Brain Injury care and research; $730 million to prevent health care fee increases for our troops; $20 million to address the problems at Walter Reed; and $14.8 million for burn care.

Unlike the Republican leadership of the 109th Congress and the Bush Administration, the new Democratic majority is committed to America's veterans. What's more, we back up that commitment by investing in their well-being. For example, the supplemental includes $1.7 billion above the President's request for initiatives to address the health care needs of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and the backlog in maintaining VA health care facilities, including $550 million to address the backlog in maintaining VA health care facilities so as to prevent the VA from experiencing a situation similar to that found at Walter Reed Medical Center.

We provide an additional $250 million for medical administration to ensure there are sufficient personnel to support the growing number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and to maintain a high level of services for all veterans; $229 million for treating the growing number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans; $100 million for contract mental health care, which will allow the VA to contract with private mental health care providers to ensure that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are seen in the most timely and least disruptive fashion, including members of the Guard and Reserve; and $62 million to speed up the processing of claims of veterans returning from Iraq and Aghanistan.

Madam Speaker, 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 it was so important that we included additional funding above the President's request to support our troops. We provide $2.5 billion more to address the current readiness crisis of our stateside troops, including ensuring that they are better equipped and trained. We include $1.4 billion more for military housing allowances and $311 million more for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles for troops in Iraq. And there is included in the supplemental $222 million more for infrared countermeasures for Air Force aircraft to address the growing threat against U.S. air operations in Iraq and Afghanistan

Equally important, Mr. Speaker, the supplemental contains language directing the President to adhere to current military guidelines for unit readiness, deployments, and time between deployments.

The supplemental requires the Defense Department to abide by its current Unit Readiness policy, requiring the chief of the military department concerned to determine that a unit is ``fully mission capable'' before it is deployed to Iraq. The President may waive this provision by submitting a report to Congress detailing why the unit's deployment is in the interests of national security despite the assessment that the unit is not fully mission capable.

The Defense Department is also required to abide by its current policy and avoid extending the deployment of units in Iraq in excess of 365 days for the Army and 210 days for the Marines. The provision may be waived by the President only by submitting a report to Congress detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit's extended deployment is in the interests of national security.

Mr. Speaker, to reduce the incidence of combat fatigue and enhance readiness, it is important that our troops have sufficient ``time out of the combat zone and training between deployments. That is why we require the Defense Department to abide by its current policy and avoid sending units back into Iraq before troops get the required time away from the war theater. The President may waive this provision by submitting a report to Congress detailing why the unit's early redeployment to Iraq is in the interests of national security.

Mr. Speaker, the American people spoke loudly and clearly last November when they tossed out the Rubber-Stamp Republican Congress. They voted for a New Direction in Iraq and for change in America. They voted to disentangle American troops from the carnage, chaos, and civil war in Iraq. They voted for accountability and oversight, which we Democrats have begun to deliver on; already the new majority has held more than 100 congressional hearings related to the Iraq War, investigating everything from the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse of Iraq reconstruction funding to troop readiness to the Iraq Study Group Report to the shameful mistreatment of wounded soldiers recuperating at Walter Reed Medical Center.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the President should sign this measure, in order to get these needed resources to our troops and to our veterans and to hold the Iraqis accountable. By signing this legislation the President can help deliver the message to the Iraqi people that they must take responsibility for their own future. By signing this measure the President can show some leadership in the transitioning of the mission of U.S. troops from combat to training Iraqi troops and counterterrorism. Last, this legislation will help restore and strengthen our military, with a new Strategic Reserve Readiness Fund among other measures.

Last November the American people signaled clearly their loss of confidence in the President's leadership and their desire for a new direction in Iraq. In less than 120 days, the new Democratic majority has begun to deliver. And we will not rest, Madam Speaker, until we are clearly on a glide path to the day when our troops come home.

And even then our work will not be done. We must still be about the business of repairing the damage to America's international reputation and prestige. But this Democratic majority, led by the Progressive Caucus and the Out of Iraq Caucus, has ushered in a new era of oversight, accountability, and transparency to defense and reconstruction contracting and procurement.

I urge all members to join me in supporting the Conference Report to H.R. 1591. This is the best way to ensure accountability to our soldiers who have been sent into battle without proper training or equipment or a clear mission. It is the best way to keep faith with our veterans who are not getting the best medical care when they come home. Passing this supplemental appropriations bill is essential to restoring our military that is being stretched to the limits by the Bush policy. Last, it is absolutely necessary to regain the confidence of the American people who demand a new direction in Iraq.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Rochester, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strongest opposition to both this rule and the underlying conference report.

Mr. Speaker, this conference report implements a policy of failure. It is nothing more than a cheap attempt to score political points at a time when the American people have understandably become very weary of war. Rather than offering the American people a

policy that allows us to complete our mission in Iraq and bring our troops home, which we all want to do, this bill simply offers them a charade.

The President, Mr. Speaker, has made it very clear that he will veto this policy of failure, which does not have enough support to override his veto. We will be right back here in a matter of days voting on another supplemental. And while this political charade plays out, Mr. Speaker, our troops will be left waiting for the funding that they need to do their jobs, and our country trapped in a political quagmire created by the Democratic leadership in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this very dangerous game of ``chicken'' could have been avoided entirely. The Democratic leadership may be bereft of ideas, but I know for a fact that this entire body is not. Had we considered the original bill under an open process, which, as we all know, is the tradition for wartime supplementals in this House, we could have had a real debate. We could have considered the worthy ideas of Members in this body.

Instead, Mr. Speaker, all but a very few were shut out of this process entirely. Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives alike, were denied the opportunity to participate in this process. We didn't get any of their ideas, their expertise, their suggestions in bringing this measure to the floor. And what did that very small group in the Democratic leadership come up with? A constitutionally dubious attempt at micromanaging the Iraq war into inevitable defeat; a cynical political ploy that will leave dire consequences for the region and our own security in its wake.

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution lays out a very clear system of checks and balances derived from the ideas of the very brilliant and inspired Framers of our Constitution. James Madison I am thinking of, as I look to my friend from Virginia, Mr. Moran, obviously a native of Virginia. And I will tell you that that Madisonian spirit of giving the three branches of government distinct roles, allows us to guard ourselves against tyranny from any one branch.

The President must seek the support of Congress in order to wage war; it is Congress that has the power to authorize; and, as we all know very well, it must be this institution that funds a war. But, Mr. Speaker, once funding and authorization are granted, the President of the United States serves as the Commander in Chief, with the authority to execute the war.

This conference report ignores the intentions of our Founding Fathers and attempts to turn the Constitution on its head.

I mentioned, looking to my friend Mr. Moran, the father, the author of the Constitution, James Madison. Well, Mr. Speaker, in Federalist No. 51, Madison wrote ``that 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 ensue.

Mr. Speaker, this conference report, like the bill before it, attempts to diminish these checks and balances. It tries to turn Congress into 535 Commanders in Chief.

This legislation of micromanagement is based, Mr. Speaker, 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. We heard in a briefing today from General Petraeus, from Secretary England, from Secretary Negroponte and others that the notion of timetables in fact clearly will undermine the potential for success.

Mr. Speaker, that leadership also knew it fell hopelessly short of the necessary support within their own party for passage. But rather than opening up the process so that real ideas and solutions could be considered, they just loaded it up with billions of dollars in unrelated spending. This conference report trades victory for potential electoral gains.

Mr. Speaker, what would the consequences of defeat be? The National Intelligence Estimate, the 9/11 Commission, our people on the ground and those who briefed us today, have all made it very clear that a precipitous withdrawal would have disastrous consequences. Violence will spill out across the country and spread to the entire region.

We heard about Iran and Syria today and the challenges that exist there. 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 in the region.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, and I know this very well, and I join Americans who have been very discouraged by this war; it has been ugly, it has been difficult, it has been very painful. We all, Mr. Speaker, feel the toll it has taken and are keenly aware of the price that we are paying, especially in a human sense.

I know as I look to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that every single one of us has had the challenge and the difficulty of looking into the eyes of constituents whose family and friends have made the ultimate sacrifice in this war. Their pain is very real, and we all know that their loss is profound.

But, Mr. Speaker, we do not honor those who have sacrificed by abandoning their mission. I have regularly quoted my very good friend, a man who has become a friend of mine, a former marine called Ed Blecksmith, whose son J.P. was killed in the battle of Fallujah 2 years ago this past November. He said that if we were to withdraw, his son will have died in vain.

Mr. Speaker, 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. That was pointed out today by General Petraeus and others. As President Bush and General Petraeus have both acknowledged, success will take months, not days or weeks. But to abandon our mission would be disastrous.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the policy of defeat and the potential return of terrorism to our homeland. I urge my colleagues to reject this political charade that leaves our troops in limbo, and let us instead have a real debate with real ideas for a real solution in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I include the following article from the Sunday Times for the Record.

[From the Sunday Times, April 22, 2007]

Al-Qaeda `Planning Big British Attack'

(By Dipesh Gadher)

Al-Qaeda leaders in Iraq are planning the first ``large-

scale'' terrorist attacks on Britain and other western

targets with the help of supporters in Iran, according to a

leaked intelligence report.

Spy chiefs warn that one operative had said he was planning

an attack on ``a par with Hiroshima and Nagasaki'' in an

attempt to ``shake the Roman throne'', a reference to the

West.

Another plot could be timed to coincide with Tony Blair

stepping down as prime minister, an event described by Al-

Qaeda planners as a ``change in the head of the company''.

The report, produced earlier this month and seen by The

Sunday Times, appears to provide evidence that Al-Qaeda is

active in Iran and has ambitions far beyond the improvised

attacks it has been waging against British and American

soldiers in Iraq.

There is no evidence of a formal relationship between Al-

Qaeda, a Sunni group, and the Shi'ite regime of President

Mah-moud Ahmadinejad, but experts suggest that Iran's leaders

may be turning a blind eye to the terrorist organisation's

activities.

The intelligence report also makes it clear that senior Al-

Qaeda figures in the region have been in recent contact with

operatives in Britain.

It follows revelations last year that up to 150 Britons had

travelled to Iraq to fight as part of Al-Qaeda's ``foreign

legion''. A number are thought to have returned to the UK,

after receiving terrorist training, to form sleeper cells.

The report was compiled by the Joint Terrorism Analysis

Centre (JTAC)--based at MI5's London headquarters--and

provides a quarterly review of the international terror

threat to Britain. It draws a distinction between Osama Bin

Laden and Al-Qaeda's core leadership, who are thought to be

hiding on the Afghan-Pakistan border, and affiliated

organisations elsewhere.

The document states: ``While networks linked to AQ [Al-

Qaeda] Core pose the greatest threat to the UK, the

intelligence during

this quarter has highlighted the potential threat from other

areas, particularly AQI [Al-Qaeda in Iraq].''

The report continues: ``Recent reporting has described

AQI's Kurdish network in Iran planning what we believe may be

a large-scale attack against a western target.

``A member of this network is reportedly involved in an

operation which he believes requires AQ Core authorisation.

He claims the operation will be on `a par with Hiroshima and

Naga-saki' and will `shake the Roman throne'. We assess that

this operation is most likely to be a large-scale, mass

casualty attack against the West.''

The report says there is ``no indication'' this attack

would specifically target Britain, ``although we are aware

that AQI . . . networks are active in the UK''.

Analysts believe the reference to Hiroshima and Nagasaki,

where more than 200,000 people died in nuclear attacks on

Japan at the end of the second world war, is unlikely to be a

literal boast.

``It could be just a reference to a huge explosion,'' sald

a counter-terrorist source. ``They [Al-Qaeda] have got to do

something soon that is radical, otherwise they start losing

credibility.''

Despite aspiring to a nuclear capability, Al-Qaeda is not

thought to have acquired weapons grade material. However,

several plots involving ``dirty bombs''--conventional

explosive devices surrounded by radioactive material--have

been foiled.

Last year Al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq called on nuclear

scientists to apply their knowledge of biological and

radiological weapons to ``the field of jihad''.

Details of a separate plot to attack Britain, ``ideally''

before Blair steps down this summer, were contained in a

letter written by Abdul al-Hadi al-Iraqi, an Iraqi Kurd and

senior Al-Qaeda commander.

According to the JTAC document, Hadi ``stressed the need to

take care to ensure that the attack was successful and on a

large scale''. The plan was to be relayed to an Iran-based

Al-Qaeda facilitator.

The Home Office declined to comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, our good friend from Miami (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indianapolis who has been a hardworking fighter on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Burton.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I will yield to my friend some additional time.

I just entered into the Record, and I didn't mention this in my opening remarks, an article that was in the Sunday Times of London last, this past Sunday, ``Is al Qaeda Planning a Big British Attack?,'' and this is a report on intelligence that has just come forward of a massive, large scale terrorist attack on Britain and other Western targets with the help of supporters in Iran. According to a leaked intelligence report that came forward, they talk about this attack being on a par with Hiroshima and Nagasaki in an attempt to shake the Roman Empire. And I have entered this article in the Record that was in the Sunday Times, and I think it is very important that this be related to the remarks the gentleman has made. And I thank him for yielding. And I would yield whatever the balance of my time is on this side to him.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to a hardworking member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Morristown, New Jersey, Mr. Frelinghuysen.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the former member of the Rules Committee, now working hard on the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to one of our hardest-working fighters, the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago we lost a very dear friend of mine, one of our Nation's great former leaders, a woman who was a lifelong Democrat, and in 1984 she became a Republican when she addressed the Republican National Convention. Her name was Jeane Kirkpatrick; she served as Ronald Reagan's ambassador to the United Nations.

I will never forget the speech that she delivered at our party convention in 1984. She quoted the contemporary French writer, Jean- Francois Revel, who said, ``Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything that it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself.''

Mr. Speaker, I was struck with that because that was at a time when there were many people who were maligning the United States of America; they said that we had gone to hell in a handbag. They were attacking all of the policies of Ronald Reagan, tax cuts which were ruining the country. And I have to say that on a regular basis, Mr. Speaker, I continue to hear the same kind of criticism, and yet we have what is obviously the greatest Nation the world has ever known.

Today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average crashed through 13,000. We saw last month 185,000 new jobs created, an unemployment rate of 4.4 percent. It is amazing that during this very difficult time in which we are trying to successfully prosecute the war on terror, we are enjoying such success because of the greatness of the United States of America and because of our people.

I am very proud of the record that we have put forward, and I am saddened regularly when I hear people malign us. And now we have this debate, we have this debate, which led, as was said by my friend from Marietta and by the gentleman from Dallas, the statement by the majority leader of the United States Senate that this war has been lost. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the American people are convinced that we can be successful.

I know that there are many who today are critical of the fact that we have gone to war. People are very upset about the fact that we have gone into Iraq. I happen to still at this moment believe that we did the right thing, but I know there are many people who have said that it was the wrong thing. And I've had constituents who have come up to me. In fact, just over this most recent district work period, I was at numerous meetings in California and a number of people came to me and they said, you know, I didn't support our going into Iraq, I think it was a mistake, but the fact of the matter is we are where we are. We have our men and women in uniform who are in Iraq.

We have seen elections take place in Iraq. We know the threat that continues to exist from Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda, you can go right down the line. And people have said we want to figure out a way for victory. I've had people who said we shouldn't have gone into Iraq say to me, we need to figure out a way that we can be victorious. And the word ``victory'' is one that unfortunately we really haven't heard from the other side of the aisle. In fact, one of the questions asked today at the briefing with General Petraeus is, how do we define what victory is? Well, it is really twofold. It still is. It is, Mr. Speaker, an Iraq that can defend itself. And General Petraeus said to us today that there are members of the Iraqi Security Forces who are fighting and dying for their country, those are the exact words that he used, and an Iraq that can govern itself, Mr. Speaker.

We understand the fragility of this government, with the Shia, Sunni and Kurdish populations and the challenges that Prime Minister Maliki faces, but we do believe that we can be successful because we have to be successful.

Now we have gone through this process and we have heard people say on both sides of the aisle that we want to make sure that we get funding to our troops. Mr. Speaker, the best way for us to get funding to our troops is to defeat this rule and defeat the conference report. Why? Everyone has acknowledged that the President of the United States will veto a bill that guarantees failure, which is what this bill would do by establishing these arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal. So we have all acknowledged that the President is going to veto the bill.

Mr. Speaker, why don't we make sure that our troops have the support that everyone has said that they need by not going through the challenge of the Presidential veto, the time-consuming process of the Presidential veto, having this bill go to the other body to be considered tomorrow. Let's defeat it right now, defeat the rule. And if we don't defeat the rule, at least defeat the conference report itself so that we can immediately get down to work. When we do that, Mr. Speaker, I hope very much that we won't have a small cadre of individuals within the Democratic leadership preventing Democrats and Republicans from participating in this very important process to make sure that we have everything that is necessary so that the American people, who want victory, can in fact see victory achieved.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 332, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1591) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 1591.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 9 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill gives the President the exit strategy from the Iraqi civil war that up until now he has not had.

Next Tuesday will be the fourth anniversary of the President's ``Mission Accomplished'' landing on that famous aircraft carrier. On that date, U.S. troops had won the war in Iraq, but since that time the administration's mismanagement, their misjudgments, and their missed opportunities have entangled us in a quagmire that has become a prolonged civil war. That civil war has gutted our influence in the Middle East and much of the world. In the last 4 years, the administration has spent over half a trillion dollars. It has stretched the Army to the limit, brought our Guard and Reserve to the breaking point, and reduced our military to the lowest state of military readiness in modern history.

The President has refused to finance this war through the normal appropriations process. He has chosen to mask the true cost of the war by paying for it on the installment plan through a series of supplemental requests. He has

now requested another supplemental of almost another $100 billion in military spending, and almost $4 billion in other additional spending. The bill before us today is our response.

We provide $4 billion more than the President asked for for troops in the field. The President is objecting on two grounds. First, he does not like the conditions we have placed on funding for the war. Second, he objects to the money we have added for other crucial activities. He calls it ``pork.'' So do some of the charter members of the ``Invent Your Own Facts Club'' that seems to populate this institution.

We have provided $4 billion more than he has asked for for operation and maintenance for personnel costs and for procurement.

We have provided $750 million more than he asked for for Afghanistan.

We have provided $2.2 billion more for military health to meet the medical needs of our returning soldiers. We have added $1.8 billion for veterans health care above the amount the President asked for.

We have provided $2.2 billion more for aviation security, port security, and border security.

We have provided $80 million more for nuclear nonproliferation, and we have added $150 million for the FBI.

We have provided $650 million more than the President asked for for the pandemic flu emergency, cleaning up an action that last year's Congress never got around to completing.

We have provided $3.3 billion more for Katrina, again cleaning up some more business that last year's Congress failed to complete.

We have also provided $3.1 billion more for BRAC which the administration itself asked for in its budget last year.

We provided $500 million for wild land fires, the same amount put into the same account by the Republican majority 2 years ago for the same purposes.

We have added $400 million to low income heating assistance because the previous Congress cut that by $1 billion. We should have added back the whole billion dollars, but in the interest of saving money we confined it to $400 million.

We have added $425 million to continue the rural school payments in the West that the last Congress never got around to renewing. Unfortunately, they allowed that program to expire, as they allowed so many other things to expire last year.

We have also provided $3.5 billion for agriculture disaster, again an issue which has been hanging around for more than a year. The President has declared more than 70 percent of the counties in this country to be agriculture disaster areas. There ought to be some action that flows from that unless we are taking the President's initial action to be meaningless.

We have also provided $396 million in SCHIP to make certain that low income children and low income families don't fall off the State health care rolls. We have been asked to do that by bipartisan Governors from 14 States.

If the President wants to object to those items and call them pork, or of members of the flat earth club in this body want to call it pork, that's fine with me; I think the public will look at those issues somewhat differently.

The President is attacking these additional items as a smoke screen to obscure the fact that the key issue on this bill is whether or not there will be a change in direction with respect to our policy in Iraq.

This bill supports the troops. It begins to hold Iraq and the administration accountable, and it points the way to ending our involvement in a protracted civil war.

As a condition of providing the President with the funds he has asked for, we require that our American military units meet certain standards that are known as the Murtha standards. They simply require that any unit sent into battle be fully combat ready. They would require, as the Defense Department already has for the most part, they would require that any unit that has been in Iraq does not have to stay there for more than a year without relief, and they also require that if they are sent back, they get to spend at least a year at home before they go back. And in an era where no one is being asked to sacrifice except military families, it seems to me those are all minimum goals that we all ought to be willing to adhere to.

Because the President rejected these requirements, we have given him the right to waive these requirements, but only if he spells out to the country why he has departed from them. That is imminently reasonable. He owes the country that explanation.

We require that Iraq meet certain performance benchmarks, benchmarks that were first laid out by the President himself, and we tie those benchmarks to a timeline. If those benchmarks are met, redeployment of U.S. troops must begin by July 1. If they are not met, they must begin by October. Those dates are firm. The goal for completing such redeployment is 6 months after it starts.

Now, the President objects to the fact that we are setting timelines, but the Secretary of Defense himself was quoted in the Washington Post as noting that these timelines, in fact, have helped give the Iraqis a message that we are not going to stay in Iraq forever. We stand by them. We believe these benchmarks and these timelines are necessary in order to give General Petraeus the ability to make clear to the Iraqis that we are not going to stay there forever, while they refuse to make the political compromises necessary to end the civil war.

Iraqis and the President must understand our troops won the war. They cannot achieve the political and diplomatic compromises that are needed to end the civil war, only the Iraqis can do that.

Four years after ``mission accomplished'' is long enough, Mr. Speaker. If the President were here I would simply say to him, ``Mr. President, with this bill we have compromised on two fronts. We have responded to your objection to the Murtha principles by giving you the ability to waive them; all you have to do is explain why to the country.'' We have responded to his concerns about those timelines by adjusting them and making them somewhat more flexible in terms of their completion.

So I would say to the President if he were here, ``Mr. President, it is your turn; we need a new direction and we need it now. Please do not say, as you said last week'' I will talk but I will not compromise. ``Mr. President, after 4 years, you need to change the direction. You need to sign this bill.''

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following tabular material reflecting the funding levels in the conference report.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.013

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the Chair of the Foreign Operations appropriations subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say in response to the previous speaker, last session your party couldn't even pass a budget. Last session your party couldn't complete action on a single domestic appropriation bill.

You may not like the decisions we have made, but at least we have made them. And we have had to spend the first 30 days of this session finishing the work that you could never manage to get around to. So I suggest you look to your own house before you start criticizing somebody who has at least gotten the work done that you couldn't get done last year.

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

I simply want to take this time to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle. They worked overtime for many days and many nights, and I appreciate it very much, especially the committee staff director, Rob Nabors.

I would also simply say that we have heard twice now from the minority that this bill endorses failure. Not at all. What we have seen the last 4 years is a failure of intelligence. We have seen a failure of the administration to listen to career military. We have seen a failure to plan for the occupation of Iraq. We have seen a failure on the part of the administration to give the Congress accurate information. We have seen a failure to focus on al Qaeda and Afghanistan rather than being diverted to Iraq. We have seen a failure to understand the nature of the civil war in Iraq. And as a result, we have seen a tremendous collapse of American influence in the world. It is tragic.

I urge an ``aye'' vote for the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Murtha.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you in opposition to this resolution. Once again, it champions a dismally irresponsible and dangerous course of action. Setting a date certain for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq would envelope Iraq in a cloud of chaos and self destruction and expose us to a heightened threat of terrorism at home. It ignores the President's plan for success in totality. It makes no consideration for the effort to make progress on diplomatic and economic fronts--essential components for that success to occur. They offer no solutions in this bill, only criticism.

Mr. Hoyer's failed attempt on April 19th to correlate my involvement regarding the U.S. efforts in Bosnia in the 1990s to that of the situation in Iraq today stretches into the realm of absurdity. However, what was clear from that debate was that Mr. Hoyer at the time, as well as Mr. Murtha, agreed that we should not tie the hands of our President in military operations, even in operations that the Congress did not approve.

Mr. Speaker, let me refresh everyone's memories of that debate which took place in this Chamber, a debate in which I was the lead sponsor of three significant resolutions or amendments that set the course of this Congress--all three which passed by significant margins with support from both sides of the aisle.

But before I begin let me remind the Nation that there are significant differences and some similarities between the debate of Bosnia and today in Iraq. First, Congress did not authorize the President to use force in Bosnia. Congress did authorize the President to use military force in Iraq. Second, we did not begin the conflict in Bosnia, but we did in Iraq. Third, the Republican majority in Congress did in fact try to work with President Clinton to find a solution. Former Senator Bob Dole and I with others traveled with President Clinton to Bosnia and worked with him to set benchmarks for the civil implementation of the Dayton Accords. I did not assign a date certain to define success for each benchmark, this would have been folly. At the time the leaders of the peace were once leaders during the war and they focused more on these differences than that which brought them together as a nation. President Clinton did a very good job focusing the Bosnian leaders to accomplish the benchmarks and move to resolve their differences and build their new nation.

Last week on the House Floor my colleague, Steny Hoyer attempted to re-write the history of my involvement, claiming that I supported a date certain for withdrawal of our troops from Bosnia and therefore I should do the same with our forces in Iraq. The two contexts are dissimilar. Let me set the record straight.

On October 30, 1995, the House agreed to House Resolution 247, a bill that I sponsored with my Democrat colleague, Paul McHale of Pennsylvania, by a vote of 315 to 103. Representatives Hoyer, Murtha, and Pelosi voted ``no,'' Mr. Skelton voted ``yes.'' The bill stated that there should not be a presumption that the United States Armed Forces would be deployed to enforce a peace agreement that resulted from the negotiations regarding the conflict in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In early December 1995, the Dayton Accords concluded, laying a basis for the path to peace in Bosnia.

On December 13, 1995, I sponsored House Resolution 302 with Ike Skelton, a bipartisan bill that passed the House by a vote of 287 to 141. Representatives Hoyer, Murtha, and Pelosi voted ``no.'' That bill reiterated the serious concerns and opposition to the President's policy that would result in the deployment of 20,000 members of the U.S. Armed Forces on the ground in the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Despite the expressed will of the House, President Clinton chose to proceed with the deployment of those members of the Armed Forces to enforce the Dayton peace agreement in Bosnia. H.R. 302 declared the policy of the House was that the President should rely on the judgment of the commanders of U.S. forces on the ground on all matters affecting safety, support, and well being of U.S. forces. Congress also declared to furnish the resources to support the needs of President and the Secretary of Defense.

Also on December 13, 1995, the President expressed to Congress that the military mission in Bosnia would be accomplished in 1 year, and our troops would be pulled out no later than December 1996. No one believed that the goal could be accomplished within 1 year. A date certain does not define success, the mission does.

However, despite that assertion, in November 1996, without the consent of Congress, President Clinton announced that the timeline was slipping and that our troops would not be withdrawn until June 1998.

By that point, the United States Armed Forces had acted quickly to achieve their military objectives in Bosnia. In short order, the courage, dedication, and professionalism of those personnel resulted in a significant mitigation of the violence and suffering in that region.

However, the implementation of the civil infrastructure--the humanitarian support, the establishment of a judicial system and a validated police force--all of the fundamental parts that help make a society function had stalled and there was no definitive plan to remedy the situation.

In response, on June 24, 1997, I offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 1998 that passed the House by a vote of 278 to 148. Representatives Hoyer, Murtha, and Pelosi voted ``no'', Skelton voted ``yes.'' That amendment would have cut funding to U.S. military operations in Bosnia after June 30, 1998--a date set by the President. I did not set the date Mr. Hoyer, this was President Clinton's date. This amendment was later incorporated into the conference report that included provisions that would allow U.S. forces to remain if the President made certain certifications and accomplished certain benchmarks. While I used the date certain given to us by the President, I made it clear that I supported benchmarks that set the conditions for a withdrawal of U.S. forces after the mission had been successfully completed.

President Clinton had set an arbitrary date without articulating a comprehensive plan--he did not identify the conditions to be met into order to trigger a troop withdrawal from Bosnia. He simply set a date, and then revised that date. We in Congress took that date, and required certain benchmarks to be met, while at the same time allowing the President the flexibility to allow troops to remain if he thought it was in the interests of U.S. national security.

In Bosnia, we worked in a bipartisan manner with the President to set the conditions for success in Bosnia and gave the President maximum flexibility. Today, this President gets no such deference or flexibility from the Democrat majority. Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Murtha want to enforce a date certain for this President. They do not want to work with this President to set the conditions for success. They simply want to trigger a date for withdrawal, before the mission is done.

It is ironic that Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Murtha voted against that amendment--they did not want to set a date certain for withdrawal and tie the hands of their President. They wanted to give him the latitude that he needed to insure that the mission in Bosnia met with success; to re-establish civility, an effective government, a validated police force and civil infrastructure. Today, their position is the opposite. President Bush is not setting a date certain as President Clinton had done.

Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer and Mr. Murtha all are seeking to tie the hands of this President. They want to cut off funds to our forces who are only doing what this Congress has asked them to do.

Congress should not tie the hands of the President with a date certain for withdrawal from Iraq. Unlike President Clinton with Bosnia, President Bush had the approval of Congress to go into Iraq. He has given us a plan, conditions that must be met before we start to bring our troops home. Yet, Mr. Hoyer and his party want to set an arbitrary date, a date certain for withdrawal that does not correspond to those conditions whatsoever--cut off funding for our troops who seek only to succeed in their mission. This is defeatist strategy.

We need to help establish a stable Iraq before we withdrawal our forces--the provisions in this bill do not allow us that flexibility and

the price that we will pay is chaos in Iraq and further exposure to terror here at home.

The majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid talks about polling data from Senator Schumer that indicate ``political'' gains by their party on Iraq. It is unfortunate that the Democrat majority think of Iraq in terms of political points, not national security. If we do not resolve this issue with immediacy, the readiness of our troops will be compromised. They are struggling to determine how they will redistribute funds to pay for their operations while we are here politicking. We must stop the defeatist strategy of the majority now-- the one by which they hope to gain political capital from to the detriment of our troops in the field.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 332 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.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 332.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 332 provides for consideration of the conference report for H.R. 1591, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. It also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, after 4 years of the administration's relentless mismanagement of the Iraq war, mismanagement that has needlessly endangered our soldiers and lost countless Iraqi lives, this new Democratic Congress is determined to exercise our constitutional duty and to change the Nation's course in Iraq. We are hardly alone in our estimation of what must be done there.

A growing chorus of opinion has coalesced around the need for a new direction. Virtually all of our generals agree that this fight cannot be won militarily, and General David Petraeus has said that the American mission in Iraq is 20 percent military and 80 percent political, economic and diplomatic.

He is joined by the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, who applauded this debate, saying it will demonstrate to the Iraqi leadership that America will no longer tolerate an open-ended commitment without any benchmarks for success.

James A. Baker and Lee Hamilton of the President's own Iraq Study Group have called for the American military to focus on training Iraqi security forces instead of conducting endless security sweeps.

Retired generals have joined in as well. Retired Lieutenant General William E. Odom, to name just one, has said that the proposed change in course will, and I quote, ``re-orient U.S. strategy to achieve regional stability, and win help from many other countries--the only way peace will eventually be achieved.''

What of the people of the United States of America? It is their sons and daughters, their husbands and wives, their friends and family who have fought, have been injured and died in this war by the tens of thousands.

They, more than anyone else, have demanded that America's mission in Iraq be changed. This bill is a statement that Congress will no longer fund the war as it exists today.

With it, Democrats are demanding accountability and requiring that future support be based on tangible progress being made. We are refusing to ask our soldiers to continue fighting an open-ended battle to achieve goals that are constantly being altered. Such a request is not worthy of their sacrifice.

Let me say also that while the President said that this bill is nothing more than a political statement, the opposite is the case. Our bill reconciles hard realities with our most fundamental principles. It both protects our soldiers and seeks to give them the best chance to help to produce a secure Iraq. It could not be more sincere, and it will soon be on the President's desk. If he rejects it, that will be his political statement and not ours.

Finally, I must add briefly that this legislation also contains $18 billion to be spent on critically needed health care for the veterans injured in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly for the traumatic brain injury victims, for Katrina recovery operations, for the avian flu vaccines, wildfire prevention, and for health insurance for children, among many other things. Those things are what supplemental bills have always been for, not to fund wars.

The President and his allies have chosen to dismiss this spending as unjustifiable pork. They have asked Congress to deliver a clean bill, in their words, but I can't think of programs much cleaner and more worthy of our support than those I just mentioned.

The definition of a great nation is one that has the power to define its own destiny and that uses its strength wisely to help others in need. Insurgents who seek to destroy what is left of the Iraq society are abominable, but they can do far less damage to our country than we do to ourselves by pursuing flawed policies that deplete our Armed Forces, undermine our alliances, and lessen our influence and moral authority around the world.

Why should we do what they cannot?

At the same time, the Iraqi people deserve so much more than the life of fear they now lead. But America can be true to itself; we must have the humility and the vision to recognize what is working and what is not, and to correct our failures when reality demands it.

I believe that we are, indeed, a great Nation, Mr. Speaker. We have the ability to choose our own way forward. Starting today, starting here, we can choose to reject a path that is failing our soldiers, our citizens, and the people of Iraq. And we can set a new course that offers a real chance for a better future instead of endless, unfulfilled promises.

This bill is the first step on that new course, and I urge everybody in this body and in the White House to see it for what it truly is. It is not an admission of defeat, but it is proof that our country has the courage and the foresight needed to truly act like the great Nation that we truly are.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri and the Chair of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, the Chair of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely hard pressed to see how some people define ``success.''

I read in the New York Times front page that 80 percent of the marines who died of upper body wounds would have lived if only they had the proper equipment. I know that soldiers who serve in the National Guard and Reserve are losing their homes and their jobs, but never mind about that because the stock market is great. Aren't we doing well? It hasn't hurt us a bit. We haven't called for any sacrifice at all from the American people in this.

My heart is broken. I am ashamed and chagrined that this business about

the booming economy could be brought into this debate about life and death. My worry is about the young people who go over there and don't get the proper care that they need.

I couldn't believe the testimony of Tillman's brother yesterday and Jessica Lynch who said the military lied about them. What are we doing in this country? The country that fought the Second World War to save this world, we've been reduced to this, that we decide as long as the stock market is good, the world is good, and let them go over there and die because we are going to give them some kind of government we don't even know they want? For heaven sakes, to every man and woman in country there comes a moment to decide, Mr. Speaker. This is one of those moments.

We either vote for this rule and this bill, and we tell the President of the United States if he vetoes this, he is absolutely continuing on a road to absolute failure and that we are not going to be a party to it. We want to take care of the soldiers. And if he vetoes the money, it is on his head, not ours. But we will continue until we can get those soldiers and marines out of that morass.