Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2764) making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 72) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the House amendment to H.R. 2764 to highlight the key elements of division J, the Department of State, foreign operations, export financing, and related programs appropriations act of fiscal year 2008.

This amendment reflects a bipartisan, bicameral process. We worked tirelessly with ranking member Wolf, Senator Leahy, and Senator Gregg to create a product that addresses our strategic priorities and our national security interests, as well as increases assistance for programs that promote development, reduce poverty, meet humanitarian needs and respond to global health crises.

Despite our bipartisanship, the President's intransigence forced us to make difficult cuts to worthy programs. His unwillingness to compromise with Congress, while spending $12 billion a month in Iraq, is both fiscally and

morally irresponsible. We have worked to limit the damage of this President's misplaced priorities, and I appreciate Chairman Obey and Speaker Pelosi's commitment to robust foreign assistance.

Division J includes over $5.3 billion for State Department operations in the United States and abroad, and exceeds the President's request for worldwide security protection to ensure that our diplomats and development workers remain safe and secure. It also provides $501 million for educational and cultural exchanges, and $366 million for public diplomacy.

Promoting National Security Through Support for Strategic Partners

The bill also provides $7.5 billion in economic and military assistance for our strategic partners throughout the world, including Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Indonesia among other countries. It fully meets the President's request of $2.4 billion for Israel and $1.715 billion for Egypt, excluding the 0.81% across-the-board cut required to reach agreement with the President, and provides assistance to Jordan, including debt relief critical to its economic revitalization.

Addressing Global Health and Humanitarian Crises and Promoting Peace

Combating global health threats--including tuberculosis, avian flu, HIV/AIDS, and malaria--is a security imperative as well as a moral responsibility. We are leading the fight against HIV/AIDS and other global health emergencies--providing $6.5 billion, $796 million above the President's request and $1.4 billion over fiscal year 2007, to address these critical needs. Within the total provided for global health, $5 billion is for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care efforts internationally, $544 million above the President's request. We have also included, government-wide, $841 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria.

I must express my great disappointment that President Bush was willing to veto this entire vital bill because it would have allowed the U.S. to send contraceptives to poor men and women around the world. The President's dogmatic adherence to an illogical position diminishes our influence around the world and thwarts one of the most effective strategies for stemming the spread of HIV/AIDS and reducing unintended pregnancies and abortions. This is a fight we cannot win if our policy continues to put ideology ahead of proven results, and I will continue fighting to restore common sense to our international family planning initiatives.

I am pleased that we were able to provide significant funding to promote peace and address humanitarian crises throughout the world. Without the across-the-board cut, we would have provided the full request for the Peace Corps to support 7,749 volunteers in 67 posts serving in 73 countries.

The bill includes over $1 billion to help displaced people around the world, especially the growing number of Iraqi refugees. Additionally, over $430 million is provided to avert famines, provide life-saving assistance during natural disasters, and assist internally displaced persons in Iraq, Darfur and elsewhere.

Since declaring the atrocities in Darfur, Sudan, genocide in July, 2003, this committee has appropriated over a billion dollars to support the African Union peacekeeping mission and to provide emergency assistance. We are hopeful that the long-overdue United Nations mission will finally be able to bring stability to this region, and allow the Darfuri people to rebuild their lives. To that end, this bill provides over $550 million to support the UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur. We have made a strong commitment to international peacekeeping activities, and this bill includes $1.6906 billion for ongoing operations in Liberia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, Ethiopia/ Eritrea, Haiti, Timor-Leste, Lebanon, and Kosovo.

I am also pleased that we were able to provide additional funding to meet our commitment to provide critical security sector assistance for Liberia.

Investing in Development Around the World

The bill also increases funding for development programs managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development. These resources will expand our basic education, safe water and environment programs.

Access to basic education has been one of my top priorities for many years because it not only improves an individual's chances for a better, more productive life, it creates a more tolerant and informed citizenry. We have provided a total of $694 million for basic education programs in this bill, including $189 million targeted to help developing countries with national education plans meet the international goal of quality education for all children by 2012.

This bill also provides $510 million for clean energy and biodiversity programs worldwide. This includes funding for the Global Environment Facility and international conservation programs that work with developing nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, preserve national parks, and protect wildlife.

There is also $1.544 billion for the Millennium Challenge Account in this bill. While this funding level is lower than that provided by the House, it is $344 million above the Senate level, and it will allow the MCC to undertake all its planned compacts and threshold programs through fiscal year 2008.

Responding to Developing Situations

This bill responds to a number of evolving diplomatic needs throughout the world. In addition to providing the strong annual aid package to Israel, we must ensure that our assistance to the Palestinians supports the current movement toward negotiating a peaceful two-state solution between the two parties.

In addition to language on assistance to the Palestinians that has been carried in the Foreign Operations bill for many years, we have included additional accounting conditions on part of any funding provided as cash transfer to the Palestinian Authority. It also ensures that no funding goes to Hamas or to salaries of Palestinian Authority personnel located in Gaza. It is essential that we track every dollar of any cash transfer, and before funding is obligated or expended, I expect the Department of State to take the following steps:

(1) Representatives of the government of the United States and the Palestinian Authority will develop a list of mutually-agreed disbursements. Emphasis will be on funding projects in the West Bank that quickly demonstrate quality of life benefits for the population.

(2) The Palestinian Authority may not obligate or expend any funds on items not mutually-agreed upon and will repay any funds which are used in any way not mutually agreed by the United States and the Palestinian Authority.

(3) The Secretary of State shall certify that none of the funds will be used to support violence or terrorism. All contractors will be investigated through the same United States embassy process that is used to vet implementers of United States-administered assistance programs.

(4) The Palestinian Authority will establish a separate account to hold funds received in the cash transfer. Authorized United States officials will have complete and unfettered access to the records of this account.

(5) The Department of State will report bi-weekly to the Committees on Appropriations on all expenditures, disbursements and balances associated with the cash transfer assistance to the Palestinian Authority.

(6) The Secretary of State shall report to the Committees on Appropriations, in classified form if appropriate, on how much funding the Arab states are providing to the Palestinian Authority, and steps the Palestinian Authority is taking to end incitement.

I look forward to working with the State Department to ensure that these funds are fully accountable and used to support President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad as they work to end corruption and bring needed services to the Palestinian people in the West Bank.

Also related to peace in the Middle East, I remain gravely concerned about the smuggling operation from Egypt to Gaza, and funds in this bill for Egypt are conditioned on steps taken to detect and destroy these tunnels.

The developing situation in Pakistan, which continues to be an important ally of the United States, also demands action in this bill. I appreciate the recent steps towards restoring the constitution and advancing democracy and human rights. However, the actions of the past few months warranted measures in this bill to end cash transfers and condition military assistance on continued progress on political reforms. We remain steadfast in our support of the Pakistani people, and this assistance package maintains the robust development and security assistance that is central to reducing poverty, increasing stability, and fighting AI Qaeda, the Taliban, and other terrorist groups.

Because our efforts to combat narcotics in Colombia have been ineffective for some time, this bill restructures assistance for Colombia. We have shifted greater resources to the development and interdiction programs. We have also increased funding for rule of law and justice efforts in order to strengthen the Government of Colombia's ability to combat and demobilize their criminal paramilitary organizations that fuel the drug war. It is time for the Colombians to take ownership over their eradication and military assistance programs, and restructuring of our assistance package reflects that position.

Advancing Our Priorities at Home

In addition to the many steps we have taken in this bill to advance international stability and security here at home, this bill also addresses many of our most important domestic priorities from education funding to worker training to biomedical research to public health activities.

It provides relief for families that desperately need child care and afterschool programs; for first responders in need of training and equipment that will help keep our communities safe; for teachers anxious to receive classroom training or professional development; for students who won't be able to attend college

without an increase in the maximum Pell Grant; and for the elderly who depend on LlHEAP to help pay for the rising cost of home heating oil.

Initiatives funded in this bill literally make a life-or-death difference in the lives of countless individuals and families who are struggling to make ends meet. While we could have done much more with the cooperation of the President, the work that we have accomplished together in this final product will help make America more secure and will improve the lives of millions throughout the world.

In closing, I would like to thank our staff for their tireless work, and their many sleepless nights as they put together this final product. Nisha Desai, and her new baby Safya, Craig Higgins, Michele Sumilas, Steve Marchese, Lucy Heenan, Celia Alvarado, and our minority staff Christine Kojac, Rob Blair and Molly Miller. Lastly, I would like to thank Cherith Norman, as she prepares the leave the State Department, for her years of outstanding work with this Committee.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 893 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 893.

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

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, I have no problem with the rule. I do have a problem with the underlying bill, which provides the President with another blank check in support of his Iraq war policy, but I stated I think very clearly my concerns about that.

Other than a few closing remarks, I am going to reserve my time.

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

Madam Speaker, as of today, 3,893 of our bravest men and women have lost their lives in Iraq. Tens of thousands more have been wounded. They have lost limbs, lost their sight and suffered severe brain injuries. We have spent half a trillion tax dollars, none of it paid for. When is enough enough? When will this Congress finally reflect the will of the American people and begin to bring our men and women in Iraq home to their families? I hope it is today. I think it can be today.

As I mentioned earlier, Madam Speaker, in today's Washington Post the U.S. military has found that the strongest point of agreement among all Iraqis across all sectarian and ethnic groups is the belief that the United States' military invasion of their country is the primary root of the violent differences among them and that the departure of ``occupying forces,'' their words, is the key to national reconciliation.

Madam Speaker, I include today's Washington Post article for the Record.

[From washingtonpost.com, Dec. 19, 2007]

All Iraqi Groups Blame U.S. Invasion for Discord, Study Shows

(By Karen DeYoung)

Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the

U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent

differences among them, and see the departure of ``occupying

forces'' as the key to national reconciliation, according to

focus groups conducted for the U.S. military last month.

That is good news, according to a military analysis of the

results. At the very least, analysts optimistically

concluded, the findings indicate that Iraqis hold some

``shared beliefs'' that may eventually allow them to surmount

the divisions that have led to a civil war.

Conducting the focus groups, in 19 separate sessions

organized by outside contractors in five cities, is among the

ways in which Multi-National Force-Iraq assesses conditions

in the country beyond counting insurgent attacks, casualties

and weapons caches. The command, led by Army Gen. David H.

Petraeus, devotes more time and resources than any other

government or independent entity to measuring various

matters, including electricity, satisfaction with trash

collection and what Iraqis think it will take for them to get

along.

The results are analyzed and presented to Petraeus as part

of the daily Battle Update Assessment or BUA (pronounced boo-

ah). Some of the news has been unarguably good, including the

sharply reduced number of roadside bombings and attacks on

civilians. But bad news is often presented with a bright

side, such as the focus-group results and a November poll,

which found that 25 percent of Baghdad residents were

satisfied with their local government and that 15 percent

said they had enough fuel for heating and cooking.

The good news? Those numbers were higher than the figures

of the previous month (18 percent and 9 percent,

respectively).

And Iraqi complaints about matters other than security are

seen as progress. Early this year, Maj. Fred Garcia, an MNF-I

analyst, said that ``a very large percentage of people would

answer questions about security by saying `I don't know.'

Now, we get more griping because people feel freer.''

Iraqi political reconciliation, quality-of-life issues and

the economy are largely the responsibility of the State

Department. But the military, to the occasional consternation

of U.S. diplomats who feel vastly outnumbered, has its own

``mirror agencies'' in many areas. Officers in charge of

civil-military operations, said senior Petraeus adviser Army

Col. William E. Rapp, ``can tell you how many markets are

open in Baghdad, how many shops, how many banks are open . .

. We have a lot more people'' on the ground.

On Iraqi politics, ``we have four to six slides almost

every morning on `Where does the Iraqi government stand on

de-Baathification legislation?' All these things are embassy

things,'' Rapp said. But Petraeus is interested in ``his

`feel' for a situation, and he gets that from a bunch of

different data points,'' he added.

Even though members of the military ``understand the

limitations'' of polling data, Rapp said, ``subjective

measures'' are an important part of the mix. In July, the

military signed a contract with Gallup for four public

opinion polls a month in Iraq: three nationwide and one in

Baghdad. Lincoln Group, which has conducted surveys for the

military since shortly after the invasion, received a year-

long contract in January to conduct focus groups.

Outside of the military, some of the most widespread

polling in Iraq has been done by D3 Systems, a Virginia-based

company that maintains offices in each of Iraq's 18

provinces. Its most recent publicly released surveys,

conducted in September for several news media organizations,

showed the same widespread Iraqi belief voiced by the

military's focus groups: that a U.S. departure will make

things better. A State Department poll in September 2006

reported a similar finding.

Matthew Warshaw, a senior research manager at D3, said that

despite security improvements, polling in Iraq remains

difficult. ``While violence has gone down, one of the ways it

has been achieved is by effectively separating people. That

means mobility is limited, with roadblocks by the U.S. and

Iraqi military or local militias,'' Warshaw said in an

interview.

Most of the recent survey results he has seen about

political reconciliation, Warshaw said, are ``more about

[Iraqis] reconciling with the United States within their own

particular territory, like in Anbar. . . . But it doesn't say

anything about how Sunni groups feel about Shiite groups in

Baghdad.''

Warshaw added: ``In Iraq, I just don't hear statements that

come from any of the Sunni, Shiite or Kurdish groups that say

`We recognize that we need to share power with the others,

that we can't truly dominate.'

According to a summary report of the focus-group findings

obtained by The Washington Post, Iraqis have a number of

``shared beliefs'' about the current situation that cut

across sectarian lines. Participants, in separate groups of

men and women, were interviewed in Ramadi, Najaf, Irbil, Abu

Ghraib and in Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad. The

report does not mention how the participants were selected.

Dated December 2007, the report notes that ``the Iraqi

government has still made no significant progress toward its

fundamental goal of national reconciliation.'' Asked to

describe ``the current situation in Iraq to a foreign

visitor,'' some groups focused on positive aspects of the

recent security improvements. But ``most would describe the

negative elements of life in Iraq beginning with the `U.S.

occupation' in March 2003,'' the report says.

Some participants also blamed Iranian meddling for Iraq's

problems. While the United States was said to want to control

Iraq's oil, Iran was seen as seeking to extend its political

and religious agendas.

Few mentioned Saddam Hussein as a cause of their problems,

which the report described as an important finding implying

that ``the current strife in Iraq seems to have totally

eclipsed any agonies or grievances many Iraqis would have

incurred from the past regime, which lasted for nearly four

decades--as opposed to the current conflict, which has lasted

for five years.''

Overall, the report said that ``these findings may be

expected to conclude that national reconciliation is neither

anticipated nor possible. In reality, this survey provides

very strong evidence that the opposite is true.'' A sense of

``optimistic possibility permeated all focus groups . . . and

far more commonalities than differences are found among these

seemingly diverse groups of Iraqis.''

Madam Speaker, the Iraqi people themselves firmly believe that reconciliation will not happen until we leave. If the Iraqi people want us to leave and a majority of the Iraqi Government wants us to leave and a majority of the American people want us to leave, then why on Earth are we still staying?

As I have said on a number of occasions today, what is contained in the underlying bill is a blank check. There are no restrictions on the tens of billions of dollars that we are going to give the President in support of his Iraq policy. There is no conditionality. There are no timetables for withdrawal. There is nothing. This is a blank check. We are into the fifth year of this war, and after all that we have seen, after all that we have been told that has turned out not to be true, it seems unbelievable to me that this Congress would vote for yet another blank check.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this latest blank check, which essentially is in support of an endless war in Iraq, and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. I ask for support of the rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 893 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 893.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 893 provides for consideration of two measures, an amendment to the omnibus appropriations bill to provide funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a continuing resolution. Each measure is debatable for 1 hour.

The continuing resolution is necessary to keep the government open and running while the omnibus bill is processed and sent to the White House for the President's signature.

Madam Speaker, while I have no problem with the rule that is before us, I cannot support the underlying funding for Iraq. The tens of billions in new money for the war in Iraq has no timetables for withdrawal, no limitations, no requirements that the Iraqi Government make progress towards reconciliation, no benchmarks, no conditionality, nothing. Madam Speaker, this is a blank check.

The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war. It is stunning that so many have gone along for so long asking no questions, giving this President everything he wants.

After years of Bush ineptitude, how dare this Congress provide another blank check for this administration. No weapons of mass destruction, a constantly changing rationale for our occupation, benchmarks for the Iraqi Government that never get met, no democracy, no respect for human rights, no reconciliation, a government plagued with corruption, and no end in sight. All this, Madam Speaker, and some of my colleagues still say, ``stay the course.''

Our brave men and women in uniform have done their job. So many have sacrificed, and far too many have made the ultimate sacrifice. They have been successful in some areas of Iraq in quelling some of the violence, essentially providing the chance, the window of opportunity for the Iraqi Government to move ahead with efforts for reconciliation.

The response of the Iraqi Government has been to do nothing. No reconciliation.

Isn't our responsibility, as Members of Congress, to raise questions? Shouldn't we put pressure on the Iraqi Government to do more? And shouldn't we put pressure on our own government to not be such a cheap date? Don't we owe our soldiers whom we put in harm's way better than acquiescence to a Commander in Chief who is incapable of ever admitting error?

Madam Speaker, there is no military victory to be had in Iraq. To the extent that this awful situation becomes less awful depends on political progress, something the Maliki government doesn't want to do, and something our own leaders seem willing to keep putting off.

I want more, Madam Speaker, I expect more, for the sacrifice our troops have made. Quite frankly, the status quo is not worth one more American dollar or one more drop of American blood. I am sick to my stomach when I think of the hundreds of billions of dollars that we have already spent in Iraq while we nickel and dime our own people at home. None of this war is paid for. It is all borrowed money. It's all on the backs of our kids. It's all debt that is being bought up every day by China.

Madam Speaker, I long for the day when we have a President who will threaten a veto on a bill that fails to provide all our people with health care, or that fails to adequately fund education for our children. Instead, we have a White House that engages in blackmail tactics: Give me what I want on Iraq, with no strings attached, or I'll shut the government down.

Those who defend the status quo say that we need to give the President whatever he wants so we can assure ``victory.'' ``Victory'' at the beginning of this war was ridding Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. When we found that there were none, the definition of ``victory'' changed. In fact, over the last 5 years, the definition of ``victory'' has changed several times.

For me, the closest thing to victory is ending this war, getting an Iraqi Government that puts national reconciliation above its own self- interest and getting our troops out of that country and home to their families where they belong. I believe the surest way to get that type of victory is setting a firm timetable for the U.S. occupation of Iraq to end. It will change the dynamic, and it will force the Iraqi Government to embrace, rather than avoid, reconciliation.

In fact, in today's Washington Post, the U.S. military has found that the strongest point of agreement among all Iraqis across all sectarian and ethnic groups is the belief that the U.S. military invasion of their country is the primary root of the violent differences among them and that the departure of ``occupying forces,'' their words, is the key to national reconciliation.

Madam Speaker, the Iraqi people themselves firmly believe that reconciliation will not happen until we leave. If the Iraqi people want us to

leave, and a majority of the Iraqi Government want us to leave, and a majority of the American people want us to leave, then why on Earth are we staying?

Let me also state, Madam Speaker, what ``victory'' is not. It is not allowing this President to kick the ball down the field and dump this war on the next President of the United States. That is called ``passing the buck,'' and that is what we will be doing if we approve this new Iraq money.

One final observation. The war in Iraq has not only cost us dearly in terms of human life and treasure, it has also cost us in terms of our standing in the world. We have lost the support and the respect of so many who have looked to us as a force for what is good, decent and positive in world affairs. I warn my colleagues that our lost prestige and standing is also a threat to our national security. Madam Speaker, I want my country back.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, if I can inquire if the gentleman from Florida has additional speakers.

I will reserve my time at this point.

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

First, let me just respond to the gentleman from Texas by saying he is entitled to his own opinions, but he is not entitled to make up the facts. The facts are that the difference between this Congress under the Democratic majority and under the previous Congress under the Republican majority is they left Washington before their work was done. They kicked all their work onto the Democratic Congress that was elected last November. They didn't do their job. If the Congress could be sued for malpractice, they would have been sued for malpractice.

The bills that we are dealing with today the House of Representatives passed in a timely manner, all of the appropriations bills, as we were supposed to do. We did it, and they were good bills, and I commend Chairman Obey for his work on those bills. We did that in spite of all the obstructionism and resistance from the Republicans in this House.

Unfortunately, because of the Senate rules, an individual Member, and in the case of the Senate, the Senate minority leader, was successful in slowing down the process and preventing conference committees from meeting and preventing the Senate from considering certain bills. Now they can be proud of that. That is just obstructionism. That is not doing the people's business. But the bottom line is that we are here today dealing with an omnibus appropriations bill to get the people's business done; not to kick the ball down the field and dump it on next year's Congress. It is to do it now.

One other thing, Madam Speaker, and that is one of the major differences with the new Democratic majority is that we have helped undo some of the damage that the Republicans have done to domestic spending over the years. Because of the Democratic majority and our ability to reorder priority, education is better off today than it would be if the Republicans were in control. Medical research, there is more money for medical research to find lifesaving drugs and to find cures to disease because the Democrats made that a priority, over the Republican objections. Our veterans are getting a better deal today. Under the Democratic majority, there is the largest single-year increase in veterans health in the history of the Veterans Administration. Those are the things that we have done.

Today, we are considering a Senate addition to what we did in the House, which I have an objection to, and that is the funding for the war in Iraq. The Republicans, while they were in control, gave the President a blank check; no accountability, no questions asked, nothing. And here we are, the fifth year into this war, with no end in sight, and there are some of us who believe the time has come to call the President to account, to start the process of bringing our troops home so they can be reunited with their families.

So there's a huge difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 893, I call up the bill (H.R. 2764) making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 893, I offer a motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, before I get to the matter at hand, I would like to, as the minority leader did just a moment ago, I would like to take special note of the fact that the Appropriations Committee in the House is losing a highly valuable member of our staff.

David Morrison has served the Appropriations Committee and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee with distinction for a number of years. I know I have certainly come to rely on him for many things, and I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, has certainly heavily relied on him as well. I hesitate to point out that before he served the Appropriations Committee in the House, he had an errant career. He spent part of that career at the Office of Management and Budget, and he spent another portion of that career in the other body. Despite that fact, he has recovered very well, and he has served us extremely well in the House. We hate to see him leave, and I think we all owe him a round of applause.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to take much time. I know people want to leave. Let me explain the procedure that is being followed. I have a ministerial duty to call up this Senate amendment, even though I intend to vote against it.

As the House I think understands, yesterday the House considered an omnibus appropriation bill, and what we did was to consider two amendments; one amendment related to the domestic funding for the bill, and the other amendment related to funding for Afghanistan and for certain force protection items. We sent those two amendments over to the Senate, and the Senate has amended the product in one respect. They have substituted for the $30 billion that we sent to the Senate for Afghanistan and for force protection items, they have substituted $70 billion, and sent it back to the House.

I have an obligation to allow the House to work its will on this matter, even though I suspect I am going to disagree with the result of this action.

In my view, when we sent legislation over to the Senate 3 weeks ago, that legislation provided for $50 billion for the purpose of helping to shut down the war by establishing a timeline, by requiring that all agencies of the Federal Government adhere to the U.S. Army Manual with respect to torture, and would also require that every unit be militarily ready to perform its duties. That is still sitting in the Senate. In my view, all that we had to do to deal with the so-called shortfall that the White House has been talking about is for the President to sign that bill with those conditions. The White House has blocked that legislation in the Senate, and so we have come to this.

Members will vote however they choose. I intend to vote ``no,'' but this is an individual vote of conscience.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that probably no bill that the House will consider this year more aptly demonstrates the divided nature of this Congress and this government than does the bill that is before us right now. People often say there is not a dime's worth of difference between the two political parties. My response, at least on this occasion, is you are absolutely right. At least with respect to this legislation, there is a $40 billion difference between the two parties. Because when you take into account what this Congress did in January when it passed the continuing resolution in January, and if you take into account the money that has been moved from the President's priorities into congressional priorities in this bill, you will see that that amounts to almost $40 billion. It is not as much as I would like, but it certainly is worth the fight.

So I think there is a very big difference between a Congress run by our friends on the other side of the aisle and a Congress run by the now-majority Democratic Party.

But I think there is another significant difference, and that is the way the two parties have approached the war in Iraq. We have tried every way known to man to bring this war to a conclusion. Mr. Murtha has produced out of his subcommittee time and time again language trying to produce a policy change, and on each occasion, that language has either been vetoed by the President or it has been blocked by the President through the use of his friends in the other body.

So I think it is clear that if the Nation wants a change in direction with respect to this war, it has only two options: Number one is to elect more progressive voices in the United States Senate; second is to elect a President who has a different set of priorities domestically and a different vision for America's involvement in the Middle East and especially in Iraq.

This, in my view, is a conscience vote. As it comes down to us at this point, we have disposed of all of the domestic issues and we have this one remaining issue with respect to Iraq. I would simply say that I think we have provided more than enough money for that war.

I would note that earlier today, just a few moments ago, we had some 64 Members of this House vote against the alternative minimum tax fix because it was not paid for, and it added $50 billion to the debt. I would point out that the document before us will add $70 billion to that debt. And so I would hope that persons who felt it necessary to express their concern about the debt a few moments ago would be willing to do so on this occasion as well.

I would also point out that Mr. Murtha, Mr. McGovern and I have offered this Congress a way to avoid adding to that debt because we believe that if this war is such a hot idea, then we ought to at least pay for it so we don't shovel yet another bill off on our kids.

It is apparent that this House does not have the will to do that. And so not only do I think this is an unnecessary war, it is also an unnecessary add-on to the national debt.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman, and I would simply say that I am not going to advise anyone how to vote. This is a conscience vote, in my view.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives today is faced with a regrettable decision on the eve of the adjournment of the first session of the 110th Congress. With the appropriations bills that fund the routine operations of all of the departments and agencies of the Federal Government now approved by both Houses of Congress, we are once again being asked to provide additional funding for the ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House has already expressed its view on this question when we voted on November 14th to approve $50 billion in supplemental defense funding with three very clear and very reasonable conditions: that our troops should be properly trained; that our forces will not use torture when conducting interrogations of enemy combatants; and, that we should establish a goal of redeploying all offensive troops from Iraq by the end of 2008. It would have been easy--and appropriate--for the President to sign the bill that was approved by a majority of the Members of this House and supported by a majority of Americans, rendering the debate we are having today unnecessary. The President has remained stubbornly determined to continue our involvement in Iraq without clearly defining a plan for the eventual re-deployment of our troops, and he has stated his intention to veto any legislation that attempts to change the course he has set.

After more than 4\1/2\ years, it is clear that our Nation's involvement in Iraq has cost far too much. It has cost the lives of nearly 3,900 men and women in our military and it has affected the lives of many thousand more who have been seriously wounded--both physically and psychologically. It has cost at least $450 billion in national debt to date, with hundreds of billions more in future costs that will be incurred no matter how quickly we are able to extricate ourselves. It has also seriously diminished our military readiness and our ability to respond to other national security threats. And finally, our initial invasion and our protracted involvement in Iraq has diminished our international prestige and made it more difficult for the United States to exert leadership and influence around the globe.

It is against this backdrop that we in Congress have been working toward a strategy of timely redeployment of our troops that I believe is both militarily appropriate and necessary for encouraging the Iraqi government to assume greater control of the security of the Iraqi people. It was discouraging to me on our visit to Iraq last month led by the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Congressman Jack Murtha, that the Iraqi government has clearly not taken advantage of the improved security climate, brought about largely by the increased numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq during this past year. President Maliki and his government have not taken the steps they pledged to take in national reconciliation, in the distribution of the oil revenues or in several other key benchmarks that were established as indicators of progress.

On the face of it, the provision that has been sent to us by the Senate appears to be strictly about providing funds for the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is true that these funds would ensure that the soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen in harm's way are protected and continue to have the equipment, the supplies, the fuel, and the transportation resources that keeps them fed, repairs their equipment, treats their medical needs, and allows them to continue to operate. The reality, however, is that these funds will necessarily have an impact on our entire military. Because of the immediate need to protect troops in wartime conditions, all of the men and women in uniform--as well as the civilian workforce of the Defense Department-- are caught in the position of having to curtail important operations that underpin the very readiness of our forces, not just for Iraq, but for all aspects of our nation's defense.

The Army is on the leading edge of these impacts with installations across the country already having been notified to prepare for curtailing operations in the middle of February. The Army can keep going that long only by accelerating spending regular operations funds intended to last for the entire year, and by reprogramming other funds to the maximum allowed in law. If no further action is taken on this funding, the Army intends to furlough as many as 100,000 civilian employees and a comparable number of contractor personnel. In addition, it will sharply reduce travel, training, maintenance and child care and other day-to-day activities at installations across the Nation. And we know that the Marine Corps is close behind the timing of the Army in experiencing these impacts, all of which will exacerbate the level of readiness already diminished by our long involvement in Iraq.

So it is frustrating for me and for many Members of this House to be presented with the Hobson's choice that we have before us today: whether to impose a terribly chaotic situation on the entire U.S. military or whether to approve another substantial increment of funding for the Iraq war without any clear and well-articulated strategy for the eventual re-deployment of American troops. We are presented with this choice by a President who is unwilling to consider any change whatsoever in our strategy in Iraq and who has clearly not listened to the will of the American people or the views of their representatives here in Congress.

I have reluctantly concluded at this point that a vote to deny these funds now could potentially harm the troops in theater and could seriously diminish the condition of all of our military forces who still face other threats around the globe. Out of a responsibility to the men and women in uniform, to their families, to the civilian workforce in DOD and to our Nation's overall security, I intend to vote in favor of this resolution.

At the same time, it is my intention to continue working with what I believe is a growing majority here in Congress and a solid majority in the country to advocate for a major change in the direction of our policy in Iraq, and for the prompt re-deployment of the U.S. troops currently stationed in Iraq.