Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4351) to amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide individuals temporary relief from the alternative minimum tax, and for other purposes.

Let me just say that the Revolutionary War, my great- great-grandfather fought in it. We fought our own war. In the Civil War, I have my great-grandfather's hat in my office. He fought against the South in the Civil War. We fought our own war. What we are trying to do in this legislation is force the Iraqis to fight their own war. That's what it's all about. Sixty-two Americans have died this month. We want to force the Iraqis to fight their own war.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing people say that we have got to give this a chance. For 4 years we have given this a chance. For 4 years we have had our troops overseas.

Here is the problem that we face. Every time that we give them a chance, they disappear. For instance, they said that the Iraqis are going to lead this surge. Let me tell you, 50 percent of the Iraqis in the units aren't showing up. So the Americans have to take over. We have to pay the bill.

The Europeans, this is just as important to the Europeans as it is to us, and the Europeans benefit from the oil that comes from Iraq, yet they are not really participating to any significant amount, versus the first war where they participated significantly. George Bush I got a coalition together.

The problem we have with what is going on, this is not General Petraeus' war, this is the administration's war. This administration has put us in a position where the military has to actually violate their own guidelines in order to get troops to Iraq.

I knew over an a year ago we didn't have the numbers of troops we needed to sustain this deployment, and the surge makes it worse. The worst thing we can do is send troops, and if you vote against this, you are going to vote for sending troops into war without being fully mission-capable, without the training and equipment they need, and that is absolutely unacceptable.

I note to the Congress and I note to the people sitting on that side who worked so hard to fund the military, we put $70 billion in last time that the administration did not even ask for.

We have 36,000 additional troops in here for the overall picture. So if you vote against this, you are voting against those 36,000 troops, for the total number of troops that need to be not deployed, but need to be available to be deployed.

Our reserves are in desperate shape. Our Strategic Reserve, when we started this war with C-1, they are now in the lowest state of readiness. They couldn't be deployed. Only two divisions would be deployed. So we have a lot of work to do.

And I say to the Members, you are voting against supporting the troops if you vote against the money that goes to the troops and the money that has already been sent or is going to be sent. They are going to run out in April, and we need to get this bill through.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members on both sides of the aisle to vote for this legislation.

Mr. LEWIS OF California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Let me tell you what is in this bill and what you are voting against. There is $1.7 billion of this bill request for military health care. If you vote against this bill, you are denying our troops $1.7 billion.

There is $450 million for post-traumatic stress. There is $450 million for brain injury care. It is insufficient, but that is the money we put in the bill; $62 million for amputee care at Walter Reed, $20 million to fix up Walter Reed. That is what is in this bill for health care.

If you vote against this bill, the military families will be denied $17 million to help prevent child-spouse abuse.

The bill increases accountability over contractors. When I was in Iraq a month and a half ago, the contractors were falling all over each other. GAO and the inspector general of Iraq said to us, help us get this under control. I asked or one of the Members in the subcommittee asked the GAO what we could do to help. And I asked the Under Secretary of Defense: How many contractors do you have in Iraq? He couldn't tell me. He said, we will tell you within a week. We still haven't heard, and that has been over a month ago. We have had 11 hearings, and we are going to have 35 more hearings before this year is over. We are going to hold the Department of Defense accountable for the money that they are spending and the strategy that they are using.

This bill bans permanent bases in Iraq. This bill bans torture in Iraq. We have sent troops to Iraq that were not trained in their specific MOSs, and that is exactly why Abu Ghraib happened. We had people that were untrained, National Guard members who were untrained who went into that prison, didn't know how to handle it, and it caused a natural disaster, a public relations disaster.

The way the military is doing the job, and there is nobody that regards the military higher than I do. Nobody is more inspired by the troops that I have talked to and I have seen. But let me tell you something. With the type of tactics that they have to use, by knocking down doors and by using overwhelming force, it makes enemies. That is the problem we have, and we are not winning the hearts and minds of the people when we do that.

Let me talk about the readiness of our troops. Every unit in the United States, except two National Guard units, went into this war with the highest state of readiness. Now, there are only two units in the United States that are at the highest state of readiness.

This provides money to take care of that. If you vote against that, you are voting against money to take care of readiness for our strategic reserve.

Let me tell you what General Craddock says. General Craddock is the European commander, the NATO commander, American commander. Listen to what I am saying. This is what General Craddock says: ``We have very little capacity left after we source the global force pool, if you will, for these ongoing European Command missions. Our ability to do that now is limited because we don't have the forces available since they are in the rotation to the other missions.''

He is saying what I have been saying for a year and a half. This is a failed policy wrapped in illusion. We do not have the troops. We do not have a strategic reserve to be able to react to a future national threat to this great country. The troops can only do so much.

This bill includes $1.4 billion for new armored vehicles. If you vote against this, you are voting against the new armored vehicles which we need so badly. We put an extra $313 million above what the Defense Department requested for those vehicles. That is the V-shaped vehicles which resist the IEDs. If you vote against this bill, you will be denying the troops better protection and better equipment.

The bill also includes billions to reset the forces. What I have been saying is the equipment, somebody said the other day, well, they train on old equipment. Well, why does that mean anything? Those of you who have been in the military knows what it means. It means when you go into combat, you do not have the type of equipment you need. You are risking the lives of these people by training on inadequate equipment. We have two units that will not go to the desert because they have to rush them out over to Iraq.

It is not the military's fault. The administration has forced the military to break their own guidelines in order to send troops over to supply this surge and to sustain this deployment.

Finally, we are saying in this bill, you cannot send troops back into battle unless they have the appropriate training, they are fully trained, mission capable. Is there anybody that is going to vote against that? If you vote against this bill, you vote against that. If you vote against this bill, you vote against sending troops back in less than a year at home. That is unacceptable.

You can sit here and say we are fighting this war, oh, yes, you can sit here in Washington and say you are fighting this war. But let me tell you something, those young people sometimes went back three and four times; their families are suffering. These are not 140,000 people. These are each individuals with families and relatives that are bearing the brunt of this fighting that are sent back.

This bill forces the administration to live up to the guidelines they have set for their military and not to extend them. A psychologist told us in a hearing that if you spend 3 months in combat that there is a good chance you will start to develop PTSD three months in this intensive combat in Baghdad.

Now, you can sit here and talk about us fighting this war on terrorism. We put an extra billion dollars for Afghanistan in this bill so we could fight terrorism where it started in Afghanistan. That is where it started.

Let me tell you something. We set benchmarks. We set benchmarks because it has not worked. Every time something happens over there, what he says is, well, we will send American troops; we will send American troops

back before they have their time at home. We will extend American troops. The Iraqis have to start to bear this responsibility for themselves, and that is why we are putting it in the bill.

The American people in the last election sent a message. They said we want the Iraqis to solve their own problems in Iraq. The Americans have borne the brunt. We are spending $8.4 billion a month, $2 billion to get people and equipment and supplies over to Iraq, $2 billion a month, 8,000 miles away.

I will tell you what hurts the troops; I will tell you what hurts them. It hurts them when they extend it beyond 13 months or the marines, beyond 7 months. What hurts the troops, if you send the troops back before they have a year at home. That is what hurts the morale of the troops. I am the person that found the 44,000 shortage of body armor in the initial invasion of Iraq. We had troops in danger because they did not have the equipment they needed. We cannot send troops back into combat without equipment and fully being trained.

Let me just say this in the end. My grandfather's Civil War hat is in my office. He lost his arm in the Civil War fighting for the North, some of you Southerners here. My great-grandmother lived to be 96. I was 6-years-old when she died. She said you are on this Earth to make a difference. We are going to make a difference with this bill. We are going to bring those troops home. We are going to start changing the direction of this great country.

Mr. Speaker and distinguished Members of this body, the United States currently has 145,000 troops on the ground in Iraq and over half a trillion dollars has been expended in the war. More than 3,200 of our sons and daughters have lost their lives and close to 25,000 have been wounded; hundreds with amputated limbs and thousands with traumatic brain injuries.

The Pentagon reports that the Iraqi Security Forces have grown in number, reaching their goal of 325,000 trained and equipped. The Iraqis have a Constitution and have held national elections. These milestones have been met, yet lack of security and stability continues. The war in Iraq has been plagued by mischaracterization based on unrealistic optimism instead of realism. Reality dictates that conditions on the ground are simply moving in the wrong direction.

There are limits to military power. There is no U.S. military solution to Iraq's civil war. It is up to the Iraqis.

Beginning in May 2005, after two years of mischaracterizations and misrepresentations by this Administration, the Defense Appropriations subcommittee required the Department of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress on the facts necessary to measure stability and security in Iraq. Since July 2005, we have received these reports. They are dismal and demonstrate a clear lack of progress in vital areas of concern. Electricity, oil production, employment and potable water remain at woeful levels.

The average weekly attacks have grown from 430 in July 2005 to well over 1000 today. In fact, attacks throughout the country have increased 10 percent over the last 4 months. Iraqi casualties have increased from 63 per day in October 2005 to over 125 per day.

Recent polls show that more than six in 10 Iraqis now say their lives are going badly, double the percentage who said so in late 2005. Sixty- nine percent of the Iraqis surveyed said the presence of U.S. forces in the country makes the overall security situation worse. In January 2006, 47 percent of Iraqis approved of attacks on U.S.-led forces. When the same polling question was asked just 8 months later, 61 percent of Iraqis approved of attacks on U.S-led forces.

The support of the American public continues to erode and there is little confidence in the current strategy. Today less than 30 percent of Americans approve of the way the President is handling the war, and only 11 percent support the President's plan to increase troop levels in Iraq. A February 2006 poll showed that 72 percent of American troops serving in Iraq believed the U.S. should exit Iraq within the year and 42 percent said their mission was unclear.

Wars cannot be won with slogans. There must be a clear and reachable plan and a defined way to measure the success of that plan. The President says he has a new plan for a way forward in Iraq. General Peter Schoomaker, Chief of the United States Army, said in a recent hearing that in order for a plan to be effective we ``have to be able to measure the purpose.'' But the President sets forth a plan with no defined matrices for measuring progress and no consequences if progress is not made. This new plan is simply more of the same open ended commitment in Iraq that has not worked.

A new strategy that is based on redeployment rather than further U.S. military engagement, and one that is centered on handing Iraq back to the Iraqis, is what is needed. I do not believe that Iraq will make the political progress necessary for its security and stability until U.S. forces redeploy.

In order to achieve stability in Iraq and the Region, I recommend:

(1) The redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq

(2) The execution of a robust diplomatic effort and the restoration of our international credibility

(3) The repairing of our military readiness and the rebuilding of our strategic reserve to face future threats.

Redeployment of U.S. Forces from Iraq

To achieve stability and security in Iraq, I believe we first must have a responsible phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. General William Odom (U.S. Army, Retired) recently testified, ``We are pursuing the wrong war.''

Stability and security in the Region should be our overarching strategy, not a ``victory in Iraq.'' I agree with General Odom and believe that Regional Stability can only be accomplished through the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq.

Who wants us to stay in Iraq? In my opinion, Iran and Al Qaeda, because we intensify the very radical extremism we claim to be fighting against, while at the same time depleting our financial and human resources.

As long as the U.S. military continues to occupy Iraq, there will be no real security. Maintaining U.S. troop strength in Iraq or adding to the strength in specified areas, has not proven effective in the past nor do I believe it will work in the future. The Iraq war cannot be won by the U.S. military, predominantly because of the way our military operates. They use overwhelming force, which I advocate to save American lives, but it is counter to winning the hearts and minds of the people.

How to Re-deploy

I recommend the phased redeployment of U.S. forces, first from Saddam's palaces, then from the green zone. Next, from the prime real estate of Iraq's major cities, out of the factories and universities, and finally out of the country all together. We need to give communities back to the Iraqis so they can begin to self govern, begin economic recovery and return to some type of normality. I recommend the adoption of a U.S. policy that encourages and rewards reconstruction and regional investment and one that is dictated and administered not by the United States, but by the Iraqis themselves.

Restoration of International Credibility

I believe that a responsible redeployment from Iraq is the first step necessary in restoring our tarnished international credibility. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, our international credibility, even among allies, has plummeted. Stability in Iraq is important not only to the United States, but it is important to the Region and to the entire world. The BBC recently released a poll showing that nearly three- quarters of those polled in 25 countries disapprove of U.S. policies toward Iraq. More than two-thirds said the U.S. military presence in the Middle East does more harm than good. Just 29 percent of respondents said the United States has a general positive influence in the world, down from 40 percent two years ago.

How do we Restore our International Credibility

In order to restore international credibility, I believe it is necessary for the U.S. to completely denounce any aspirations of building permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq; I believe we should shut down the Guantanamo detention facility; and we must bulldoze the Abu Ghraib prison. We must clearly articulate and demonstrate a policy of ``no torture, no exceptions'' and directly engage countries in the region with dialogue instead of directives. This includes allies as well as our perceived adversaries.

Repairing of our Military Readiness and Rebuilding our Strategic

Reserve to Face Future Threats

Our annual Defense spending budget is currently in excess of $450 billion. Above this amount, we are spending $8.4 billion dollars a month in the war in Iraq and yet our strategic reserve is in desperate shape. While we are fighting an asymmetric threat in the short term, we have weakened our ability to respond to what I believe is a grave long term conventional and nuclear threat.

At the beginning of the Iraq war, 80 percent of ALL Army units and almost 100 percent of active combat units were rated at the highest state of readiness. Today, virtually all of our active-duty combat units at home and ALL of our guard units are at the lowest state of readiness, primarily due to equipment shortages resulting from repeated and extended deployments to Iraq. In recent testimony given by a high ranking Pentagon official it was reported that our country is threatened because we lack readiness at home.

Our Army has no strategic reserve, and while it is true that the U.S. Navy and the U.S.

Air Force can be used to project power, there is a limit to what they can achieve. Overall, our military remains capable of projecting power, but we must also be able to sustain that projection, and in this regard there is no replacement for boots on the ground.

How do we Repair Readiness and Rebuild our Strategic Reserve

We must make it a national priority to re-strengthen our military and to repair readiness. I advocate an increase in overall troop strength. The current authorized level is below what I believe is needed to maintain an optimal military. In recent testimony to the Defense Subcommittee that I chair, the Army and Marine Corps Commanders testified that they could not continue to sustain the current deployment practices without an adverse effect on the health and well- being of service members and their families.

For decades, the Army operated on a deployment policy that for every one year of deployment, two years were spent at home. This was considered optimal for re-training, re-equipping and re-constituting. Without relief, the Army will be forced to extend deployments to Iraq to over one year in country and will be forced to send troops back with less than one year at home. The Army reported that a 9-month deployment was preferable. Medical experts testified that in intensive combat, deployments of over 3 months increased the likelihood for service members to develop post traumatic stress disorders. A recent report by the Harvard University School of Government put the total cost of providing medical care and disability benefits to veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan at $350 to $700 billion.

We must invest in the health and well being of our service members by providing for the right amount of troops and for appropriate deployment and rotation cycles. Our military equipment inventories are unacceptably low. The Services report that at least $100 billion more is needed to get them back to ready state. In doing so, we must not neglect investment in military technologies of the future. While we remain bogged down in Iraq, the size and sophistication of other militaries are growing. We must not lose our capability to deter future threats.

Let me conclude by saying historically, whether it was India, Algeria or Afghanistan, foreign occupations do not work, and in fact incite civil unrest. Our military remains the greatest military in the world, but there are limits to its ability to control a population that considers them occupiers.

I have said this before and I continue to say that there are essentially only two plans. One is to continue an occupation that has not worked and that has shown no progress toward stabilization. The other, which I advocate, is to end the occupation of Iraq, redeploy and re-strengthen our military and turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.

The Waters-Boehner Coalition

(By Scott Lilly, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress)

The U.S. House of Representatives is an unusual place and

politics makes strange bedfellows. But the coalition to block

funding for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and improve

the deplorable state of medical care for our returning

veterans is one for the record books.

Led by House Minority Leader John Boehner on the right and

Los Angeles Congresswoman Maxine Waters on the left, the

coalition is striving to put together enough votes to block

passage of the $124 billion spending package expected to go

to the House Floor on Friday. Boehner, hoping to get nearly

all House Republicans to vote against the measure, contends:

. . . there is only one way to do the right thing: fully-

fund the troops without strings attached . . . Setting

timelines is no different than handing the enemy our war plan

itself. It serves as a road map for the terrorists to plot

maneuvers against American men and women in uniform.

Micromanaging the war from Capitol is, by any standard or

definition, a recipe for disaster.

Boehner also opposes ``incomprehensible spending'' on

``unrelated, non-emergency'' items not requested by the White

House. This includes among other things, $2.8 billion to

address the health care problems confronting returning

veterans--funds to address the problems at Walter Reed;

improve treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and

Traumatic Brain Injury; speed the processing of veteran

requests for entry into the VA medical system and clean up

the $550 million maintenance backlog at VA health facilities.

Boehner also objects to more than $3 billion in unrequested

funds to cope with other military needs, primarily correcting

the shortfall in the readiness of military units being sent

into combat.

Waters reaches the same conclusion as Boehner based on an

entirely different assessment of the facts:

Not only did the American public speak loudly and clearly

last Nov. 7, but poll after poll reinforces the message that

Americans want their troops home now. The president's

supplemental request is just what the word ``supplemental''

implies--additional funds to expand and continue this war. I

believe that there is enough money available in the pipeline

to fund a planned exit. I will vote against the supplemental

unless the additional funds are used to fully fund the safe,

secure and timely withdrawal of our troops by Dec. 31

Boehner wants no strings attached and Waters not only wants

strings, but shorter and stronger strings. Boehner does not

like the pressure that the bill places on the President to

bring an end to the U.S. military presence in Iraq and Waters

does not want to end U.S. presence through pressure but

rather mandate it by law. As a result both want to defeat

money needed for fuel, ammunition, spare parts and medical

care for those presently in harms way.

Both also in my judgment misread the mood of the American

people and are wrong on the best course for the country. The

American people overwhelmingly oppose the war but they even

more overwhelmingly oppose anything that would put the brave

men and women we have called into service at greater risk. No

war in American history has ended as the result of a

legislative fiat. Even Vietnam, which is the closest

parallel, was ended because of political pressure rather than

legislative direction. The right way to end our presence in

Iraq is for the Executive and Legislative branches of our

government to reach an accommodation on Iraq policy.

The Bush Administration needs Congress to support its

military and foreign policy objectives and the language in

the Supplemental now pending sends a clear message that such

support will be contingent upon a plan for an ordered

withdrawal--a withdrawal that protects our troops and

American interests in the region.

But what Waters and her supporters seem to fail to

recognize is that the Congress needs the White House. That

may be hard for some to accept but extracting U.S. forces

from the violence now besieging much of Iraq will be a

complex and hazardous process. It will take the best planners

that the Defense Department can find; it will take strong

leadership on the part of commanders and hard choices in

terms of both military and political priorities. Equally

important it will take extensive diplomatic consultation on

both a regional and global basis. None of those things can be

accomplished by the Congress. It is not the way our

government was designed and it is not the way it works. If

the two branches cannot reach accommodation there will be

hell to pay and those who have already been asked to pay the

most will be forced to pay again.

The language contained in the supplemental demands that the

Iraqi government meet certain bench marks and provided those

benchmarks are achieved, begins redeployment of American

forces in March of next year. It also requires that if the

White House believes that it must violate long standing

Pentagon policies on the readiness of military units sent

into combat, the length of deployments into combat zones and

the length of time between deployments the President must

fully explain why he is ordering a violation of those

policies.

This is very strong pressure on a President that is very

strong willed. It is the beginning of a process which will

either bring the two powerful branches of our government

together in mutual accommodation or push the country closer

to a Constitutional crisis. It is the first step in a process

that will either fortunately or unfortunately continue all

year.

Following the Friday House vote on the Supplemental, that

legislation will come before the Senate and the final version

will be crafted in a conference committee in April and

presented to both houses for final approval by the end of

that month. Within weeks the House will begin deliberation on

the Fiscal 2008 Defense Appropriation which will remain under

various stages of consideration until September. There will

be numerous opportunities for Congress to strengthen its

demands with respect to Iraq and for the Administration to

respond. What opponents of the War cannot do at this juncture

is overplay their hand and slow the growth of public

sentiment and political pressure against the current Iraq

policy and its supporters.

Boehner is also playing a high risk game. He is putting the

Congressional wing of his party on record as opposing

measures to require that the troops are well trained and well

equipped before they are sent into deadly conflict. He is

opposing funds his own President says the troops need now and

he is opposing medical care for the troops once they return.

Simultaneously, he is saying that the Congress should not

apply pressure to the White House for a new strategy to pull

us out of Iraq. That is a position that is not only opposed

by nearly all Democrats but by an overwhelming majority of

independents and a substantial share of Republicans. It is

not a particularly smart way to redefine the Republican Party

in the wake of the drubbing his part took in last fall's

elections.

The supplemental is not perfect. There is probably no one

who supports every provision. But there is much that is good

in the bill and begins the process by which the Congress and

the White House can come together on a solution that is best

for the country. It is not as simple or straight forward as

many would like but it is the process that our founding

fathers bestowed on us and it is the only approach that can

bring an ordered end to this catastrophic engagement.

Mr. Speaker, as a proud member of the Progressive and the Out of Iraq Caucuses, I rise in support of H.R. 1591, the ``U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act.'' I commend the leadership of the Speaker and her team and Chairman Obey and Defense Subcommittee Chairman Murtha for their patient and careful crafting of the bill.

I stand in strong support of our troops who have performed magnificently in battle with a grace under pressure that is distinctively American. I stand with the American people, who have placed their trust in the President,

the Vice-President, and the former Secretary of Defense, each of whom abused the public trust and patience.

I stand with the American taxpayers who have paid nearly $400 billion to finance the misadventure in Iraq. I stand with the 3,222 fallen heroes who stand even taller in death because they gave the last full measure of devotion to their country.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I stand fully, strongly, and unabashedly in support of H.R. 1591, which for the first time puts the Congress on record against an open-ended war whose goal line is always moving.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no more important issue facing the Congress, the President, and the American people than the war in Iraq. It is a subject upon which no one is indifferent, least of all members of Congress. Many good ideas have been advanced by members of Congress to bring to a successful conclusion the American military engagement in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, nearly every decision reached by a legislative body is a product of compromise. The bill before us is no different. If it was left solely to us, any of us could no doubt add or subtract provisions which we think would improve the bill. Indeed, more than fifty amendments were offered to H.R. 1591, including four submitted by me. In fact, the only amendments voted on by the Rules Committee were two of the amendments I offered, although neither was made in order this time.

The first of these amendments, Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1, would terminate the authority granted by Congress to the President in the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq because the objectives for which the authorization was granted have all been achieved. Specifically, Congress authorized the President to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following objectives:

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks to the skill and valor of the Armed Forces of the United States we now know for certain that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction. Thanks to the tenacity and heroism of American troops, Saddam Hussein was deposed, captured, and dealt with by the Iraqi people in such a way that neither he nor his Baathist Party will ever again pose a threat to the people of Iraq or its neighbors in the region. Nor will the regime ever acquire and provide weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists. Also, the American military has caught or killed virtually every member of al Qaeda in Iraq remotely responsible for the 9/11 attack on our country. Last, all relevant U.N. resolutions relating to Iraq have been enforced.

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

My second amendment, Jackson Lee Amendment No. 4, would change the troop reference date for redeployment set forth in section 1904 from March 1, 2008, to December 31, 2007. What this means is that the Government of Iraq will have had more than 3 years since the United States turned over sovereignty to establish a sustainable government with secure borders that can protect its people. I believe that if the Allied Forces could win World War III in less than 4 years, certainly that is enough time for the Government of Iraq to provide for the security of its people, with the substantial assistance of the United States.

While there are many good proposals that have been advanced which are not included in the bill, we ought not to let the perfect become the enemy of the good. This emergency supplemental may not be perfect but it is better--far better--than any legislation relating to the war in Iraq that has ever been brought to the floor far a vote. Let me count the ways.

First, H.R. 1591 ensures that U.S. forces in the field have all of the resources they require. Second, the bill directs more resources to the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Third it improves healthcare for returning service members and veterans. Fourth, it establishes a timeline for ending the United States participation in Iraq's civil war. Last, it demands accountability by conditioning continued American military involvement in Iraq upon certification by the President that the Iraq Government is making meaningful and substantial progress in meeting political and military benchmarks, including a militia disarmament program and a plan that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to discuss why the American people believe so strongly that the time has come to an end the policy of not placing any demands or conditions on American military assistance to the Government of Iraq.

As Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution, and a former senior member of the NSC, brilliantly describes in his essay, ``The Seven Deadly Sins Of Failure In Iraq: A Retrospective Analysis Of The Reconstruction,'' in Middle East Review of International Affairs (December 2006), our trust and patience has been repaid by a record of incompetence unmatched in the annals of American foreign policy.

The Bush administration disregarded the advice of experts on Iraq, on nation-building, and on military operations. It staged both the invasion and the reconstruction on the cheap. It did not learn from its mistakes and did not commit the resources necessary to accomplish its original lofty goals or later pedestrian objectives. It ignored intelligence that contradicted its own views.

It is clear now that the Administration simply never believed in the necessity of a major reconstruction in Iraq. To exacerbate matters the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the White House Office of the Vice President (OVP) worked together to ensure that the State Department was excluded from any meaningful involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq.

The Administration's chief Iraq hawks shared a deeply naive view that the fall of Saddam and his top henchmen would have relatively little impact on the overall Iraqi governmental structure. They assumed that Iraq's bureaucracy would remain intact and would therefore be capable of running the country and providing Iraqis with basic services. They likewise assumed that the Iraqi armed forces would largely remain cohesive and would surrender whole to U.S. forces. The result of all this was a fundamental lack of attention to realistic planning for the postwar environment.

As it was assumed that the Iraqis would be delighted to be liberated little thought was given to security requirements after Saddam's fall. The dearth of planning for the provision of security and basic services stemmed from the mistaken belief that Iraqi political institutions would remain largely intact and therefore able to handle those responsibilities.

But there were too few Coalition troops, which meant that long supply lines were vulnerable to attack by Iraqi irregulars, and the need to mask entire cities at times took so much combat power that it brought the entire offensive to a halt.

It was not long before these naive assumptions and inadequate planning conjoined to sow the seeds of the chaos we have witnessed in Iraq.

The lack of sufficient troops to secure the country led to the immediate outbreak of lawlessness resulting in massive looting and destruction dealt a stunning psychological blow to Iraqi confidence in the United States, from which the country has yet to recover. We removed Saddam Hussein's regime but we did not move to fill the military, political, and economic vacuum. The unintended consequence was the birth of a failing state, which provided the opportunity for the insurgency to flourish and prevented the development of governmental institutions capable of providing Iraqis with the most basic services such as clean water, sanitation, electricity, and a minimally functioning economy capable of generating basic employment.

Making matters worse, the Administration arrogantly denied the United Nations overall

authority for the reconstruction even though the U.N. had far more expertise and experience in nation building.

The looting and anarchy, the persistent insurgent attacks, the lack of real progress in restoring basic services, and the failure to find the promised weapons of mass destruction undercut the Administration's claim that things were going well in Iraq and led it to make the next set of serious blunders, which was the disbanding of the Iraqi military and security services.

Mr. Speaker, counterinsurgency experts will tell you that to pacify an occupied country it is essential to disarm, demobilize, and retrain (DDR) the local army. The idea behind a DDR program is to entice, cajole, or even coerce soldiers back to their own barracks or to other facilities where they can be fed, clothed, watched, retrained, and prevented from joining an insurgency movement, organized crime, or an outlaw militia.

By disbanding the military and security services without a DDR program, as many as one million Iraqi men were set at large with no money, no means to support their families, and no skills other than how to use a gun. Not surprisingly, many of these humiliated Sunni officers went home and joined the burgeoning Sunni insurgency.

The next major mistake made in the summer of 2003 was the decision to create an Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), which laid the foundation for many of Iraq's current political woes. Many of the IGC leaders were horribly corrupt, and they stole from the public treasury and encouraged their subordinates to do the same. The IGC set the tone for later Iraqi governments, particularly the transitional governments of Ayad Allawi and Ibrahim Jaafari that followed.

Finally, by insisting that all of the problems of the country were caused by the insurgency rather than recognizing the problems of the country were helping to fuel the insurgency, the Bush administration set about concentrating its efforts in all the wrong places and on the wrong problems.

This explains why for nearly all of 2004 and 2005, our troops were disproportionately deployed in the Sunni triangle trying to catch and kill insurgents. Although our troops caught and killed insurgents by the hundreds and thousands, these missions were not significantly advancing our strategic objectives. Indeed, they had little long-term impact because insurgents are always willing to flee temporarily rather than fight a leviathan. Second, because so many coalition forces were playing ``whack-a-mole'' with insurgents in the sparsely populated areas of western Iraq, the rest of the country was left vulnerable to take-over by militias.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, a cruel irony is that because the Iraqi Government brought exiles and militia leaders into the government and gave them positions of power, it is now virtually impossible to get them out, and even more difficult to convince them to make compromises because the militia leaders have learned they can use their government positions to maintain and expand their personal power, at the expense both of their rivals who are not in the government and of the central government itself.

All of this was avoidable and the blame for the lack of foresight falls squarely on the White House and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

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, H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act 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 real progress is underway on key benchmarks for the Iraqi government. If the President cannot so certify, redeployment of U.S. troops must begin immediately and be completed within 180 days. If the President fails to certify that Iraq has met the benchmarks on October 1, 2007, a redeployment of U.S. troops would begin immediately at that time and must be completed within 180 days. In any case, at the latest, a redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq must begin by March 1, 2008, and must be completed by August 31, 2008.

Since the benchmarks the Iraqi Government must meet are those 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 veto his own benchmarks for the performance of the Iraqi government. He would veto 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, Mr. 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 bill 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.

The bill includes 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 Afghanistan.

Mr. 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 I am pleased the supplemental includes additional funding above the President's request to support our troops. We are providing $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. The supplemental requires 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.

Last but not least, Mr. Speaker, it must be noted that the cost of the war in Iraq to the United States has also been high regarding the new and neglected needs of the American people. Americans have been exceedingly tolerant and patient with this Administration's handling of the situation in Iraq. We have postponed, foregone, or neglected needed investments in education, infrastructure, housing, homeland security.

That is why I am very pleased that the supplemental includes the following $4.3 billion for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster recovery grants, including $910 million to cover the cost of waiving the matching fund requirements in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5174 (Public Law 93-288) (Stafford Act) for state and local government meaning the Federal government will finance 100 percent of the grants.

Waiving the Stafford Act's matching fund requirement is critically important to the Gulf Coast states devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Based on my multiple listening trips to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast region, and my numerous meetings and discussions with government officials at all levels in the affected states and with survivors of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, many of whom now are relocated to my Houston congressional district, the most important lesson I have learned is that the Stafford Act is in its present form is simply inadequate to address the scale of devastation and human suffering wrought by a disaster the magnitude of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I thank Mr. Obey and Mr. Murtha for responding to concerns I expressed to President Bush about the need to modernize the Stafford Act so that it remains relevant to the 21st Century.

I believe the Stafford Act must be amended to grant the federal government explicit authority and flexibility to provide long-term recovery assistance to communities devastated by disasters of the magnitude of Hurricane Katrina and Rita. Such authority currently does not exist and the Stafford Act's emphasis on temporary assistance to affected individuals and communities is simply inadequate to address the scope of human suffering we witnessed last August and which is still with us today. I will continue my efforts to modernize the Stafford Act. But I very strongly approve of the nearly $1 billion included in the bill to waive the matching fund requirements for hard- pressed state and local governments coping with emergencies of the scale of Hurricane Katrina.

Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) funding has been extended to September 30, 2010. SSBG funding provides critically needed social services, including programs for mental health, child welfare, and the treatment of addictive disorders.

Also allocated is $1.3 billion for east and west bank levee protection and coastal restoration systems in New Orleans and surrounding parishes.

There is included $25 million for Small Business Administration (SBA) disaster loans and $80 million for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) tenant-based rental assistance. The supplemental also adds $400 million to restore partial cuts to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). This funding will bring much needed relief to many States that are running out of LIHEAP funds just as many utility shut-off moratoriums are set to expire.

The supplemental adds $750 million to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to ensure continued healthcare coverage for children in 14 States that face a budget shortfall in the program. By taking prompt action now, these States will not be forced to stop enrolling new beneficiaries or begin curtailing benefits.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the supplemental provides $30 million for K-12 education recruitment assistance; $30 million for higher education assistance; and $40 million in security assistance for Liberia. It also includes an additional $1 billion to purchase vaccines needed to protect Americans from a global pandemic. Development of production capacity for a pandemic vaccine must be accelerated so that manufacturers can quickly produce enough quantities to protect the population.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that although the bill may not be the best I might have hoped for, I have concluded that it is the best that can be achieved at this time, this moment in history. I support the bill because I believe it represents a change of course and a new direction in our policy on Iraq. This bill will place us on the road that will reunite our troops with their families and bring them home with honor and success.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before is not asking us to expand or extend the war in Iraq. I would not and will not do that. On the contrary, this bill offers us the first real chance to vote to end the war. This bill puts us on the glide path to the day when our troops come home where we can ``care for him who has borne the battle, and for his widow and orphan.'' This bill helps to repair the damage to America's international reputation and prestige. This bill brings long overdue oversight, accountability, and transparency to defense and reconstruction contracting and procurement.

Most important, Mr. Speaker, this bill offers us the first real chance to vote to end the war. We should take advantage of this opportunity. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1591, the ``U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act.''

Mr. Speaker, I would not want the gentleman from Wisconsin to think, since I don't have an opening statement, that I don't feel as passionately about this issue as he does. We just happen to disagree about how we support the troops, whether we make an effort to support them by providing adequate and flexible funding for the commanders, or have a mandatory withdrawal

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) a member of the committee, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield time to my Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois, Dennis Hastert, 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I can count on one hand the number of times I voted with this gentleman. He is on the other side of the aisle, but he couldn't get any time on that side. So I am pleased to recognize that all of us have the right to speak regardless of whether we agree with one or not.

I recognize Mr. Kucinich of Ohio for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, could I request the amount of time on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) for 1 minute.

(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

Mr. Speaker, may we hear what the time left is on both sides, please.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), a member of the Defense Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the chief deputy whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) for 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, you all know that I have worked over the years very, very

closely with Mr. Murtha and our chairman Mr. Obey. I think most would agree that some of us make a significant effort to reach out on both sides of the aisle to solve problems where that is possible.

In this case, we have a major, major disagreement. I do not presume others to be insincere in their disagreement, but I feel very strongly that we must make absolutely certain that we do nothing to undermine the mission of our troops by way of this debate.

There is absolutely no doubt that the message that we will be sending as this bill passes today, in part, will say to the terrorists of the world, including Iraq, that America is not willing to stay and complete the mission.

I rarely refer to newspaper items in addressing the House, but I cannot help but note that the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Atlanta Journal, et cetera, those newspapers all have expressed grave concerns about combining this supplemental funding for a war with huge amounts of pork.

As a result of that, I am going to use an item several times mentioned today as a part of my own close. The item is entitled: ``Retreat and Butter. Are Democrats in the House Voting for Farm Subsidies or Withdrawal from Iraq?''

``Today, the House of Representatives is due to vote on a bill that would grant $25 million to spinach farmers in California. The legislation would also appropriate $75 million for peanut storage in Georgia and $15 million to protect Louisiana rice fields from saltwater. More substantially, there is $120 million for shrimp and menhaden fishermen, $250 million for milk subsidies, $500 million for wildfire suppression and $1.3 billion to build levees in New Orleans.

``Altogether the House Democratic leadership has come up with more than $20 billion in new spending, much of it wasteful subsidies to agriculture or pork barrel projects aimed at individual Members of Congress. At the tail of all this log rolling,'' and by the way I would not use this next phrase so that Mr. Obey knows that, ``log rolling and political bribery lies this stinger: Representatives who support the bill, for whatever reason, will be voting to require that all U.S. combat troops leave Iraq by August 2008, regardless of what happens during the next 17 months or whether U.S. commanders believe a pullout at that moment protects or endangers U.S. national security, not to mention the thousands of American trainers and Special Forces troops who would remain behind.

``The Democrats claim to have a mandate from voters to reverse the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. Yet the leadership is ready to piece together the votes necessary to force a fateful turn in the war by using tactics usually dedicated to highway bills or the Army Corps of Engineers budget. The legislation pays more heed to a handful of peanut farmers than to the 24 million Iraqis who are living through a maelstrom initiated by the United States, the outcome of which could shape the future of the Middle East for decades.

``Congress can and should play a major role in determining how and when the war ends. Political benchmarks for the Iraqi Government are important, provided they are not unrealistic or inflexible. Even dates for troop withdrawals might be helpful, if they are cast as goals rather than requirements, and if the timing derives from the needs of Iraq, not the U.S. election cycle. The Senate's version of the supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan contains nonbinding benchmarks and a withdrawal date that is a goal; that approach is more likely to win broad support and avoid a White House veto.

``As it is, House Democrats are pressing a bill that has the endorsement of MoveOn.org but excludes the judgment of the U.S. commanders who would have to execute the retreat the bill mandates. It would heap money on unneedy dairy farmers while provoking a constitutional fight with the White House that could block the funding to equip troops in the field. Democrats who want to force a withdrawal should vote against war appropriations. They should not seek to use pork to buy a majority for an unconditional retreat that the majority does not support.''

At this point, I include for the Record the Statement of Administration Policy.

Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 1591--U.S. Troop Readiness,

Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act

(Sponsor: Obey (D), Wisconsin)

The Administration strongly opposes the ``U.S. Troop

Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act.''

The Administration seeks prompt enactment of the President's

request to support our armed forces and diplomatic corps as

they implement the new strategy to achieve America's

strategic objective of a democratic Iraq that can govern,

defend, and sustain itself and be an ally in the war on

terror.

This legislation would substitute the mandates of Congress

for the considered judgment of our military commanders. This

bill assumes and forces the failure of the new strategy even

before American commanders in the field are able to fully

implement their plans. Regardless of the success our troops

are achieving in the field, this bill would require their

withdrawal. In addition, the bill could withhold resources

needed to enable Iraqi Security Forces to take over missions

currently conducted by American troops. Many policy makers

agree that the Iraqi Security Forces must assume

responsibility in defending Iraqi democracy, and it is

unconscionable that funds for the Iraqi Security Forces be

subject to conditions that may threaten our full support.

These Congressional mandates would place freedom and

democracy in Iraq at grave risk, embolden our enemies, and

undercut the Administration's plan to develop the Iraqi

Security Forces and the Iraqi economy. This bill would impose

inappropriate, operationally unsound, and arbitrary

constraints on how the Department of Defense should prepare

units to deploy. Prohibiting the deployment of units to

combat unless a Chief of Service certifies the units as fully

mission-capable 15 days prior to deployment is unnecessary,

since the Department of Defense will not send into battle

troops that are not fully capable of performing their

assigned missions. It is unwise to codify in law specific

deployment and dwell times, since this would artificially

limit the flexibility of our commanders to conduct operations

in the field and infringe on the President's constitutional

authority as Commander in Chief to manage the readiness and

availability of the Armed Forces. If this legislation were

presented to the President, he would veto the bill.

The war supplemental should remain focused on the needs of

the troops and should not be used as a vehicle for added non-

emergency spending and policy proposals, especially domestic

proposals, that should be fully vetted and considered on

their own merits, such as minimum wage, various tax

proposals, and changes in contracting policy. This bill adds

billions in unrequested spending that is largely unjustified

and non-emergency. Because of the excessive and extraneous

non-emergency spending it contains, if this legislation were

presented to the President, he would veto the bill.

Congress should reject this legislation, and promptly send

the President a responsible bill that provides the funding

and flexibility our troops need, without holding funding for

the troops hostage to unrelated spending.

The Administration would like to take this opportunity to

share additional views regarding the Committee's version of

the bill.

Title I--Global war on terror

Base Realignment and Closure. The Administration submitted

a budget amendment on March 9, 2007, that would fully offset

the $3.1 billion shortfall needed to implement the

recommendations of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure

Commission. Including this funding as an emergency request

without offsets is inappropriate and unnecessary. The

Administration urges passage of its request instead.

Additionally, the Administration opposes any amendment to

the bill that would alter the approved recommendations of the

2005 BRAC Commission. The BRAC process, as authorized by

Congress, requires that both the President and Congress

approve or disapprove the Commission's recommendations in

their entirety to allow the process to remain apolitical.

Legislating a specific change to a BRAC Commission

recommendation would adversely affect the integrity of the

BRAC 2005 process.

Operation and Maintenance (O&M). The Administration objects

to cuts of almost $1.9 billion for priority O&M activities

while increasing areas less critical to the war effort. Such

reductions (including reductions for contracting) could

damage the military's ability to execute wartime operations

and the readiness of U.S. forces as they prepare to deploy to

Afghanistan and Iraq. The Administration urges Congress to

support the President's amended request.

In addition, the bill does not fund the President's $350

million request for training, equipping, transporting, and

sustaining our partners in the Global War on Terror. Our

allies are critical to our success in combating extremists

across the globe and providing this support reduces the

burden on U.S. forces. We strongly urge the House to restore

these funds.

General Transfer Authority (GTA). The Administration

appreciates the Committee's approval of the requested $3.5

billion in GTA for this bill, but urges that GTA for the FY

2007 DOD Appropriations Act be increased from $4.5 billion to

$8.0 billion, as included in the March 9 revised request.

This increase is essential for the Department of Defense to

reallocate funds to sustain critical operations and to

address the needs of our field commanders.

International Affairs Programs. The Administration commends

the Committee for providing the President's request for

important international affairs funding for avian influenza,

assistance to Afghanistan and Lebanon, peacekeeping in

Somalia, Chad, and East Timor, and unanticipated needs to

help relieve human suffering, including in Sudan and other

parts of Africa.

While the Administration appreciates the House's support of

the request for Iraq-related funding, it objects to the

reductions to Iraq assistance programs and Provincial

Reconstruction Team (PRT) expansion. The bill reduces funding

for democracy programs, building national capacity,

strengthening local governing capacity and delivery of

essential services, creating jobs to help stabilize the

country, and supporting Iraqi rule of law programs--the

very things that must be done for Iraq to become self-

reliant and assume responsibilities from the United

States. The reduction in funding for PRT expansion will

also impede our ability to get civilians into PRTs to

support Iraqis at the local level. The Administration also

opposes the reductions to the request for Kosovo which

could inhibit our effort to support economic growth,

security, and political stability during and after the

resolution of its status. Given the reductions to Iraq and

Kosovo, the Administration is especially concerned that

the House bill provides over $600 million in unrequested

international programs. The House is urged to redirect

funds from unrequested programs to fully fund the Iraq and

Kosovo requests.

The Administration also does not support section 1905 of

the bill, which establishes a Presidentially appointed,

Senate-confirmed position to oversee Iraq assistance

programs. This position is not necessary since the Secretary

of State has already appointed a coordinator for

reconstruction.

The Administration also opposes the $2.5 billion in

unrequested emergency funding provided to the Department of

Homeland Security (DHS). This funding does not meet the

standard for emergency funding and should be considered

within the regular annual appropriations process.

Title II--Hurricane recovery

Department of Homeland Security. The bill provides the

States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and Texas with a

100-percent Federal match for FEMA public and individual

assistance related to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and

Dennis and would eliminate the prohibition on forgiving

Community Disaster Loans. The bill also extends utility

assistance for an additional 12 months. The Administration

opposes a waiver of the State match requirement. The

Administration also notes that the Administration is funding,

at the President's direction, 90 percent of Gulf Coast

rebuilding costs for public infrastructure and that the

Federal Government has provided--following negotiations with

the State governments of Louisiana and Mississippi--

sufficient Community Development Block Grant funding to meet

the Federal match requirements for Louisiana and Mississippi,

in essence federally funding 100 percent of such costs.

Corps of Engineers. The Administration opposes the $1.3

billion in unrequested funding the bill provides to address

increased costs for certain ongoing levee restoration

projects that were provided supplemental funding in P.L. 109-

234. These funds are unnecessary because the Administration

proposed FY 2007 supplemental language to allow the Corps to

reallocate $1.3 billion of previously appropriated emergency

funding to address these needs. The Administration plans to

consider the need for additional funding once the Corps

completes its revised cost estimates for all planned work

this summer.

Constitutional concerns

The Administration urges the House of Representatives to

strike provisions of the bill that infringe upon the

President's constitutional authorities, interfere with the

President's ability to conduct diplomatic, military, and

intelligence activities or supervise the unitary executive

branch effectively, or violate the constitutional principle

of separation of powers, such as sections 1311, 1314(c)(1),

1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 4403(c), and 5004(b) and language in

title I relating to committee approval under the headings in

chapter 7 for ``Military Construction, Army'' and ``Military

Construction, Navy and Marine Corps'' and in chapter 8 under

the heading ``Diplomatic and Consular Programs.'' The

Administration notes that, while the legislation includes

authority to waive restrictions relating to readiness and

deployment periods (sections 1901, 1902, and 1903), it does

not include authority to waive the all-or-nothing

restrictions relating to benchmarks for performance of the

Iraqi government. Moreover, several provisions of the bill

purport to require approval of the Committees prior to the

obligation of funds. These provisions should be changed to

require only notification of Congress, since any other

interpretation would contradict the Supreme Court's ruling in

INS v. Chadha.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Republican leader.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield the balance of my time to my hero of the United States Congress, Sam Johnson of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Yesterday, a number of Members on the Republican side of the aisle sought to belittle the legislation before us because, in addition to funding the needs of the troops in Iraq, it contains money to address a number of domestic priorities. To ridicule that legislation, they tried to belittle items such as funding for levees in New Orleans, and agriculture disaster payments. In that they have been joined by editorial writers at papers such as the Washington Post.

Like the Post, the Republican speakers of yesterday indicated that their main objection to this legislation is the way it tries to create pressure to end our military involvement in an Iraq civil war. Those speakers and the Washington Post editorial writers make no effort to understand why these additional items are there. They simply ridicule them for their own purposes. This bill has my name on it, and I take full responsibility for each and every item in the bill.

Despite the comments of my good friend from California suggesting that if I could have written this bill, it would have been quite different, this is not a bill that was imposed from Nancy Pelosi's Speaker's Office. Oh, yes, she was consulted. But every last provision in this bill was not included until I personally approved of it, and I take full responsibility for it.

I want to be very clear about some of the items that the editorial writers and certain Members of this House have been criticizing.

Let's start with agriculture. I haven't voted for a farm bill in the last 10 years because I believe that existing farm programs provide way too much funding for large farmers and way too little funding for family farmers. But the fact is that over the past 2 years, over 70 percent of the counties in this country were declared disaster areas, not by me, but by the President of the United States. That entitles farmers who have suffered that weather-related disaster to certain forms of compensation.

The previous Congress tried to work its way through that problem for well over a year and failed. We at one time this year were looking at a bill in the Senate costing $6 billion. Thanks to the efforts of Chairman Peterson on this side of the Capitol, the cost of those agriculture disaster programs have been cut by one-third, by tightening up eligibility requirements.

I applaud him for making those changes.

There is a second criticism being made about the fact that there is some money in here for dairy. You bet there is. Because under the Republican stewardship, during the last Congress, or two Congresses ago, actually, in order to use an accounting gimmick, the then majority on the Agriculture Committee arranged to have the dairy program expire one month before every other farm program. That was done only for budget fiction purposes, to hide the true cost of the farm bill 5 years ago. You bet, in this legislation there is a 1-month fix so that when we go into writing the next farm bill, dairy will have a chance to compete with other farm programs.

I find the Washington Post criticism of this especially interesting, since they often squawk about the fact that farm programs give too much to large farmers. The MILC Program happens to focus on small farmers, which is why so many big farmers don't like the program. I make no apology for recognizing that is an inequity that needs to be fixed.

Then we have a squawk about spinach. Let me tell you why spinach is in here. You can laugh about it now, but people were dying last year because of an E. coli outbreak.

Now, the FDA did not have the authority to require mandatory recalls of spinach. What some of these companies did, despite the fact that their product was clean, they voluntarily withdrew their product from the market. That cost them a bundle and brought a lot of people to near bankruptcy.

I have heard a lot of conservatives on this floor talk about how outrageous it is when the government engages in an unconstitutional taking. They usually are talking in terms of land or environment. Doesn't the government that required or that asked these people to participate in the withdrawal in order to protect public health, doesn't that government have an obligation to people who exercise their patriotic duty and did what they were asked? I think they do. That is why this is in here.

Then they are squawking about aquaculture. Well, let me explain why that item is in the bill. In eight States in the union, fish farmers woke up one morning and discovered that the Federal Government had issued an edict which prevented them from transferring their product across State lines because lake trout, in the Great Lakes region, had been discovered to have viral hemorrhagic septicemia, a highly virulent fish disease. If it was allowed to get into lakes, in the Great Lakes, it could have ruined the entire fish supply. So, the government said you can't sell your fish across State lines.

Again, the problem was that the fish that they were prohibited from shipping across State lines was all healthy. In a catch-22 situation, if their fish had been diseased, they could have collected under disaster programs. But because they were healthy, they couldn't collect. So the government put those people out of business.

Does the government have an obligation to correct that problem? You better bet you they do. That is why it is in this bill.

There are some other items in the bill as well that people don't like. But the main frustration on the part of the opponents of this bill is because people don't like the way that we are going about trying to end our military participation in an Iraqi civil war.

Let me submit to you the problem we have today is not that we didn't listen enough to people like the Washington Post, it is that we listened too much. They endorsed going to war in the first place. They helped drive the drumbeat that drove almost two-thirds of the people in this Chamber to vote for that misbegotten, stupid, ill-advised war that has destroyed our influence over a third of the world. So I make no apology if the moral sensibilities of some people on this floor, or the editorial writers of the Washington Post, are offended because they don't like the specific language contained in our benchmarks or in our timelines.

What matters in the end is not what the specific language is. What matters is whether or not we produce a product today that puts pressure on this administration and sends a message to Iraq, to the Iraqi politicians, that we are going to end the permanent, long-term babysitting service. That is what we are trying to do.

If the Washington Post is offended about the way we do it, that is just too bad. But we are in the arena, they are not. This is the best we can do, given the tools we have, and I make absolutely no apology for it.

I would say one thing, those of us who voted against the war in the first place wouldn't have nearly as hard a time getting us out of the war if people like the Washington Post and those who criticized us on the floor yesterday hadn't supported going into that stupid war in the first place

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas.

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that we could do as the distinguished speaker has indicated and simply rubber-stamp what the administration asks for and do nothing else. But the fact is, what we are doing is exercising our responsibilities to provide checks and balances; Congress has every right to limit the terms and conditions under which appropriations are made, especially in wartime.

I would also point out that lest there be any doubt for the support of the troops, in addition to all of the funding that Mr. Murtha has put in his section of the bill to meet the everyday combat and readiness needs of the troops, we have $1.7 billion above the President's request for veterans health care; we have another $1.7 billion above the President's request for defense health care. I think that makes quite clear that if you are concerned about the troops and concerned about the veterans, you will vote for this bill.

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

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The fact is that an earmark is something that is requested by an individual Member. This item was not requested by any individual Member; it was put in the bill by me. And it is there because we are simply doing the same thing with this facility that we are doing throughout the gulf coast, which is to make investments that mitigate against risk because of hurricanes.

This is a valuable Federal facility, and it certainly does not pass any definition of earmark that I know. I know the gentleman wants to see earmarks in every closet that he can find, but the fact is it is not an earmark. It was not asked for by any Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the characterization just placed on the previous speaker is flat out wrong.

Last night we had plenty of time for a lot of Members who didn't show up before the session expired. We called the gentleman from Ohio's office twice to inform him he had time available last night even though he was opposed to our position. He wasn't in a position to take it last night. So I would suggest that we have a different set of speakers today. We called on four Members of the caucus last night who were opposed to our position. And if the gentleman is suggesting that we have not called on Members who are opposed to our position, he is just flat out wrong.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

With all due respect, we called your office twice last night, and we were informed that you had already gone home.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the subcommittee Chair on Foreign Operations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California has quite a bit more time remaining. I suggest he run some off the clock.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that at the end of the debate the closing speech on the Republican side will be given by our good friend from Texas Mr. Johnson. I think everyone in this place respects him and loves him.

I must say that having gone through this for the last 3 weeks trying to talk to each and every person who I could reach about this measure has given me a profound respect for a good many Members of this institution whom I had not known before, especially the newcomers.

The caucus that we had this morning was one of the most moving experiences that I have ever felt in my 38 years in the Congress. I heard Member after Member stand up and discuss this issue as a matter of high principle; but they also discussed it in terms of what the impact of their votes would be, not on themselves, but on the people of this country, on the soldiers who are fighting in the field, on the people in Iraq, and on our country's ability to influence the world.

This is a very tough issue. There are many considerations that each of us brings to this judgment, but in the end, I think we have a choice. As I said earlier today, we have a choice in determining what kind of Congress this is going to be. We can continue the practices of the past which rubberstamped virtually everything the President wanted on Iraqi policy. We can continue to do what he wants and only what he wants and only when he wants to do it and only in the way he wants to do it; or we can do what our Founding Fathers envisioned when they created the Congress. We can exercise checks and balances in order to try to move policy into a more constructive direction for this country.

If you oppose this bill today, and if you take the position that all it should contain is what the President sent down, then you would be saying that you wanted to finance BRAC, the base-closing program, by gutting key education programs as the President recommends. You would be opposed to additional border security, additional port security and additional cargo security.

You would be opposed to finally, after all of the horrendous pictures and all of the horrendous human suffering, you would be opposed to finally meeting our total obligations to the victims of Katrina.

You would be opposed to asking for the money which the President himself asked that we provide in 2005 on an emergency basis to prepare this country to meet the pandemic flu epidemic which will surely at some time come.

You would be opposing the additional $3.5 million that we have provided in this bill for veterans' health care and defense health care, and you would be opposing the timelines and the benchmarks which we place in this legislation, not because they are so perfect, but because they are the instrument by which we communicate to the Iraqi politicians that they must begin to resolve their differences, they must step up, because we are not going to run our baby-sitting service forever.

It is imperative that we finally send that signal. The President cannot send

that signal, but we can help General Petraeus. We can help our own government by sending the signal that this Congress is going to play bad cop until the Iraqis get the message.

That is what Mr. Murtha's efforts have been about, that is what mine have been about, that's what the Speaker's efforts have been about, and that's what the efforts have been about by virtually every person in this caucus and this House who has had a say in what this bill was going to contain.

I strongly urge an ``aye'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman is entitled to his own opinions; he is not entitled to his own facts.

There is nothing in this bill whatsoever that has anything to do with tropical fish, unless he thinks that Lake Erie is in the Tropics.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that the minority leader has chosen to trivialize one item in this bill, which represents our direct responsibility to people who work in the most outrageous conditions on Capitol Hill. Roll Call itself, in describing the funding that we have in this bill on the Capitol heating plant, which the majority leader just trivialized, wrote that ``what we have on our hands is a `horrific scandal'. The working environment for the 10-member Capitol tunnel shop team resembles that of hell.''

One of our own Republican colleagues in this House is mentioned in the editorial as describing the conditions in that heating plant as, quote, ``inhumane and unprofessional,'' and said of the tunnel workers, that they are ``probably going to end up dying because of their exposure to asbestos.''

The money in this bill is for cleaning up the asbestos problem, which people in that tunnel have to work in every day. I make no apology whatsoever for providing that funds. The minority leader ought to be standing side by side with us to meet our obligations to clean up that mess. I am surprised he doesn't recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, to close the debate I yield the remainder of our time to the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, we meet on what is the fourth day of the fifth year of the war in Iraq. It is a war that has gone on longer than the war in Korea. America has been fighting longer in Iraq than we did during World War II--even though that was an international conflict fought on two fronts against some of the most dangerous threats to our national security ever known.

Too many Members of this Congress and of this Administration have for years seen what they wanted to see in Iraq, and believed what they wanted to believe. But their conceptions couldn't matter less to the men and women of that nation, or to the men and women of the American military who are fighting there.

Civilians and soldiers don't live in the world as politicians say it is. They live in the world as it really is. And they live, every day, with the consequences of the decisions made here in this chamber.

During the first 4 years of the Iraq war, they had to live with an Administration and a Congress that either could not, or would not, see this conflict for what it really was: a war that was not being won, that was being fought by soldiers who often did not have the equipment they needed or the care they were owed, that was not improving the security of the Iraqi people, that was depleting our military and, as a result, endangering the long-term security of this nation, and that was based on a flawed strategy that desperately needed to be changed.

They lived with the former Secretary of Defense dismissing persistent equipment shortages by telling us that our nation had gone to war with the Army it had. By the time Mr. Rumsfeld had uttered those words, on December 9th, 2004, 1,288 U.S. soldiers had been killed.

They lived with predictions that the insurgency in Iraq was in its last throes, a statement made 6 months later. Four hundred thirty-seven more soldiers had lost their lives in those months.

And now, they live with more calls for patience from the Administration and its allies, and more denunciations of anyone who would seek a different course in Iraq.

As of today, more than 3,200 soldiers have died in this war. The civilian death toll is astonishing, with estimates now running as high as 1 million Iraqi men, women, and children killed as a direct or indirect result of the conflict and the chaos it has unleashed. Millions more have been dislocated, driven out of their homes and into refugee camps.

It is long past time for this institution to join with our soldiers and with the people of Iraq in seeing this war for what it really is.

The legislation before us today represents the first real chance Democrats have had since 2003 to change the course of the war in Iraq. And we intend to do it.

We will do it not because we are conceding anything to those who would do our Nation harm, not because we lack the will to continue the fight, and not because, as some would have you believe, we are giving up.

Instead, we are going to change the course of this war because the future of the people of Iraq hinges on it, because a basic level of respect for our soldiers demands it, and because the long-term security of our Nation depends on it.

Mr. Speaker, the simple reality is that the situation in Iraq is stagnant at best, and deteriorating at worst. Politically, economic and military goals are not being met there. Faced with such truths, why should this House pass yet another blank check for the war, as past Congresses have done?

Instead, this bill is based on a simple and logical idea: it makes America's continued involvement in Iraq conditional on the situation there improving.

America's soldiers will no longer be asked to fight in an open-ended war whose goal line keeps moving. This legislation requires Iraqi leaders to make the political compromises necessary to produce a working government that will function for all of Iraq--or else risk losing America's military support. And it will require security benchmarks to be met if American soldiers are to continue sacrificing their own safety for that goal.

But what is more, this bill represents the first step Congress has ever taken towards ending the war in Iraq.

A clear majority of the American people want this body to take decisive steps toward that end. A clear majority of our global allies want the same thing. A significant number of generals and military officials think that ending this conflict must be achieved sooner rather than later.

This bill is a response to their words, and to their counsel. It will not end the war immediately, nor will it end it recklessly.

Instead, it rejects the idea of a war in Iraq without end.

To continue funding this conflict without requiring any tangible progress to be made in Iraq makes no sense. It would achieve neither peace in that nation, nor security here.

But what it would achieve, Mr. Speaker, is the continued depletion and degradation of our military beyond all reason. It would continue to render our armed forces unable to fight in other parts of the world against other threats. And it would continue to force suffering soldiers to return to the battlefield time and again, despite physical and mental injuries.

We know the statistics: in addition to the 3,223 soldiers that have died, tens of thousands more have been injured, some permanently. And there are more than 32,000 Iraq veterans--32,000--who who every day suffer silently from the scourge of mental health problems. More than 13,000 of those men and women have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD.

And yet, they are afforded no relief. The President's escalation of this conflict is forcing more soldiers back into combat sooner, with less rest, with less training, and with less time to heal. There are even reports of men and women being sent back to Iraq who are too injured to wear body armor.

Mr. Speaker, it is important not to view these realities in the abstract. I want to share with you a story I recently heard, the story of one young lieutenant currently awaiting his second deployment to Iraq.

Though he trained as an engineer, his first tour of duty saw him bravely patrolling dangerous streets north of Baghdad. He returned last December, and was initially expecting a year on base during which to rest and train a new platoon.

Instead, he will be heading back months sooner. He says that the soldiers under his command are not going to get the time they need to train properly for their mission. The vehicles and equipment they now use to train for war are failing and often break They are physically weary, with many still suffering from the lingering effects of leg and back injuries. Others are battling more elusive damage, and are in counseling for PTSD. He even told me that the vast majority of the once married soldiers in his unit are now or will soon be divorced. Their lives outside of the war are coming apart.

And yet, if you ask him, he will never complain about these difficulties. They are all part of the life of the soldier, he says, a few of the many challenges he and his men will confront every day they are deployed. When those in the military are given a mission, he told me, they find a way to complete it. That creed is the foundation of the strength of our Armed Forces.

It is the personification of the word sacrifice, Mr. Speaker. This young soldier and those under his charge are going back to Iraq again, even though they are wounded, and tired, and lacking in training and equipment. They miss their families. They miss their lives back home. But they are going all the same--going simply because this body has given the President the right to send them into battle.

But what this soldier did tell me is that our Armed Forces cannot go on like this. He said that if the foundation of our military's strength--its refusal to admit defeat--is misused, then we will end up destroying our system of national defense.

We hear the reports of the 82nd Airborne, for decades able to respond anywhere in the world within 72 hours, now struggling to respond to anything besides deployment orders sending its soldiers to Iraq.

We see men and women in uniform being sent back for tour after tour after tour, our services desperately trying to find a way to meet new troop requirements.

Mr. Speaker, this war represents a dramatic misuse of our military. In the name of our national security, it is undermining the only true guarantor of national security that we have: our Armed Forces. And for 4 years, this Congress let it happen.

But not any more. Today, the House will finally recognize that our military is at the breaking point--not because of any inherent weakness, but because it is being asked to complete a mission no army could succeed at.

And so, that mission must change.

The new strategy this bill sets forth has nothing to do with surrender, Mr. Speaker. Instead, it has everything to do with doing what must be done to work toward a secure Iraq. And it has everything to do with refusing to allow those who would do us harm fool us into defeating ourselves--in the process, attaining a victory that they will never be able to achieve on their own.

Let me say as well that this funding bill also respects our soldiers enough to put their needs at the forefront of our national priorities, instead of leaving them behind. From now on, if they are asked to go into battle without being fully armored, fully rested, and fully trained, then the President himself will have to stand before this country and explain why it is necessary to do so.

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

Finally, this bill both increases funding for the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan and for a variety of other critically important national security objectives.

Taken together, it represents the beginning of what will be a responsible and ethical shift in our national security priorities away from a mistaken conflict in Iraq and back toward other concerns--the continued rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, for example, and the needs of wounded soldiers at home.

By changing a flawed strategy that has weakened our military for years without getting us any closer to a stable Iraq, this legislation represents our country's best chance to shake both of our nations free from the shackles of a stalemate benefiting neither.

It is an important and historic bill, one that the people of Iraq deserve, that the American people deserve, and that our troops most certainly deserve. I am proud to support it, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.