Recognizing Armed Forces Day and the exemplary service of the members of the United States Armed Forces.

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

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

First, let me express my appreciation to my very good friend from Golden, a hardworking and thoughtful member of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that today we will be considering legislation that represents a true bipartisan effort on a critically important issue. The underlying bill, an emergency supplemental funding bill for our troops, was largely developed through bipartisan consensus, and we as Republicans are very happy to have had the opportunity to work with President Obama on this issue.

The President has repeatedly said that he would like to work with Republicans to develop real solutions for the challenges that we face as a country. So far, unfortunately, the Democratic leadership has done a less than perfect job in dealing with the request for bipartisanship, shutting out Republicans and injecting a greater and greater amount of partisanship into the legislative process.

But today we have before us our first real opportunity to come together and work in a bipartisan way. This occasion is all the more significant because the issue at hand is the funding of our troops.

I'm very proud that we're able to demonstrate to the men and women who voluntarily, voluntarily put their lives on the line for our country, that the support for them in Congress is unified and unequivocal. We owe a great debt to them and to their families, and it is very fitting that we should be joining together in this show of support just before Memorial Day.

Our troops in Afghanistan are facing rapidly increasing threats. Our troops in Iraq are working to fully turn responsibility for security over to the Iraqis. Thousands of others are deployed in dangerous places, as we all know, around the world.

We must ensure that they have the resources, protection, and support they need to do their jobs effectively and, as my friend from Golden said in his statement, to come home safely. The underlying appropriations bill will help to ensure just that.

But this is not, by any means, Mr. Speaker, a perfect bill. There are some key improvements that I believe need to be made. Unfortunately, the rule that we are considering today prevents any amendments from being considered. Even amidst this great bipartisan effort, the Democratic leadership has chosen to tarnish the outcome by refusing to allow debate on a number of key issues. Allowing amendments to be debated and considered would enable us to take this important bill and make it even more effective.

One such amendment which my friend and colleague Mr. Rogers, the gentleman from Kentucky, has offered, would have redirected some funding to very important border security efforts. This is a critical national security issue. Violent drug wars have been escalating, as we all know, on our border for months, and we need to ensure that we have adequate homeland security resources. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this rule does not allow us to ensure the needed additional funding to deal with border security.

Another key issue that must be addressed, as we all know because it has been the center of a great deal of controversy, is the question of how the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay will be shut down.

The President has made it clear that he intends to close this facility, and his administration has already begun to move forward on this. Yet Congress has been presented with no clear plan as to how the facility will be closed and, most important, what will be done with the detainees. Will they be moved to American soil? Tried in jail or--God forbid--released here in the United States?

The Guantanamo detainees include Khalid Sheik Muhammad, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks; Hambali, al Qaeda's operation chief for Southeast Asia who planned the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 200 people; Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists, who helped plan the 1998 bombings of our embassies at Dar es Salaam and Nairobi.

These are Guantanamo detainees, and we have received no plan for where they will be moved if the facility is shut down. We have received no commitment, no commitment at all, for congressional oversight. This bill should explicitly require planning and consultation with Congress so we can ensure that unacceptable security risks will not be borne by our communities and our constituents.

Republicans have repeatedly raised this issue, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership, apparently feeling the pressure to address this issue, would like to self-execute an amendment in this rule to the bill that will place restrictions on the process for closing the detention facility at Guantanamo.

But there are two key problems with their approach here, Mr. Speaker. First, the substance of their amendment does not adequately address the risks that we must guard against. It does not guarantee that governors and State legislators will have the final say on whether terrorists can be housed in their States.

Under the Democratic plan, States can be forced to allow the world's most

dangerous terrorists to be held in their communities.

Second, by self-executing this flawed and inadequate amendment, they are circumventing the debate and scrutiny that an issue of this magnitude demands. The issue of bringing committed terrorists onto American soil--not people who perpetrated crimes who are American citizens, but foreign-born terrorists--on American soil should not be dealt with haphazardly, nor cloaked in secrecy. It must be considered extremely carefully, thoroughly, and openly. This rule denies us that opportunity and fails to ensure the protection of Americans.

There are other issues that should be dealt with, Mr. Speaker. The large increase of foreign assistance funding, while important to long- term efforts to combat the roots of terrorism, should not be considered emergency funding. This funding should be included in the regular budget subject to regular budgetary considerations. Designating them as emergency funds just skirts the tough choices that responsible budgeting demands.

All of these issues should be addressed in an open debate with an amendment process, which is standard operating procedure for appropriations. As I said in the Rules Committee yesterday, appropriations bills are considered privileged resolutions. They come straight to the floor. We don't even need to go to the Rules Committee for consideration of appropriations bills. It is done traditionally to simply protect the bill and the work product of the Appropriations Committee, and then allow for an open amendment process.

Fixing these problems, Mr. Speaker, would make a good and important bill all that much more effective. It would allow the legislative process for this bill, which has developed in such a bipartisan way, to finish in the same cooperative spirit in which it began.

During my tenure as chairman of the Rules Committee for 8 years, every single wartime supplemental was considered under an open rule. Not even one has been open over the last 3 years since the new Democratic majority has been in charge. It is very unfortunate that the Democratic leadership once again is trying to thwart the best efforts of President Obama and congressional Republicans to work together and build consensus.

But despite their disdain for bipartisanship and open debate, we as Republicans will join with the President in support of this troop funding bill, and we welcome this opportunity to work with him on this issue.

We sincerely hope that we can continue to come together on other very pressing issues that we will want to address effectively and responsibly in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and I will be explaining throughout this debate time what it is that we hope to do if we are able to defeat the previous question as it relates to Guantanamo. If by chance we are not successful in defeating the previous question, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying rule so we can, in fact, continue with the spirit of bipartisanship to make this important bill even better.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

On border security, it continues to be a high priority, and the situation has gotten worse since we provided that level of appropriations.

On the issue of Guantanamo, Mr. Wolf, a member of the committee, has come forward with a very thoughtful amendment. We are going to seek to make that in order if we are able to defeat the previous question. I know that the chairman of the committee has said that he doesn't believe that State legislators and governors should be able to preempt Federal law. We know, as Mr. Wolf said in his testimony, that there are a number of States that have already indicated an interest in having an opportunity to receive these detainees.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, I would say to my friend from Worcester that it is very important that he realizes that he should be voting ``no'' on this rule so we can have the kind of debate to which he aspires.

With that, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for 3 minutes.

Would the gentleman yield? I would be happy to yield 30 seconds to my friend from our time if the gentleman would yield.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, the author of the very important border security amendment to which I referred earlier, the gentleman from Somerset, Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Republican leader, our friend from West Chester, Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to another hardworking member of the Committee on Appropriations who had an amendment dealing with Guantanamo Bay, but unfortunately, with the structure we've got, it won't be made in order, the gentleman from Goddard, Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Well, I guess for a different reason my friend from Ohio is going to be joining us in opposition to this rule, and I very much appreciate that.

Of course I am happy to yield.

I understand. I appreciate the gentleman joining us, as I say, for a somewhat different reason than ours. We all want this war to end, there's no doubt about that, but we also want to ensure success.

With that, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Hinsdale, Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

I would like to say, the gentlewoman has offered an extraordinarily thoughtful amendment which reaffirms our dedication to our men and women in uniform. Especially as Memorial Day approaches, it seems to me that we should have an open amendment process that would allow us to fully debate the Biggert amendment. And it saddens me that this structure around which we are considering this issue is so restricted.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to a hardworking new Member with a very, very distinguished career in public service, the gentleman from Aurora, Colorado (Mr. Coffman).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

May I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side?

May I inquire of my colleague how many speakers he has remaining on his side of the aisle?

Mr. Speaker, in light of that, I would ask my friend to proceed, and I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to again inquire of my friend, does he have two speakers remaining?

I will reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I will inquire again of my friend.

Then you will close. I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me, at this time, yield 4 minutes to the extraordinarily patient author of the amendment about which we have been speaking dealing with the issue of Guantanamo, my good friend and classmate from Vienna, Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

The gentleman will be closing for his side?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that I speak for my Republican colleagues when I say that when President Obama said that he wanted to work in a bipartisan way, we would agree when it was the right thing to work with him in a bipartisan way.

Clearly, supporting our men and women who are daily stepping forward and volunteering to help us in the effort to prosecute this ongoing struggling against radical extremism deserves bipartisan support. So we are pleased that President Obama has made this request. We all hope, as Memorial Day approaches 1 week from Monday, we all hope very much that we are able to see this war come to an end. And we all want to see our men and women come home just as soon as we possibly can.

It is unfortunate that while President Obama has agreed to work with Republicans in our quest to ensure that we have adequate funding and support for our troops, that the Democratic leadership has chosen to use a procedure that is, unfortunately, one that we never once used when we were in the majority in dealing with a wartime supplemental. This is a closed rule that denies us a chance to offer the very, very thoughtful amendment that Mr. Wolf has come forward with.

It's clear, for those who heard our colleague from Vienna speak from this well about the deliberation that he took in crafting this amendment, that it's one that should be considered by this full House. But, unfortunately, the rule that is before us denies that.

Our colleague from Hinsdale, Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) had a very, very needed amendment that would increase the compensation level for our men and women in uniform. Unfortunately, this rule denies a chance for that to be considered.

The distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Somerset, Kentucky, of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security (Mr. Rogers), had his amendment that would have allowed for a transfer to deal with the pressing need that exists on our southern border, to secure it so that the drug cartels that are moving throughout Mexico killing literally thousands and thousands of people, so that we're able to protect ourselves from that. We are not even allowed to debate that amendment that Mr. Rogers, a hardworking member of the Appropriations Committee, brought forward.

So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that what we should do is defeat the previous question. And if Members who are committed to allowing for congressional involvement to deal with this difficult issue of Guantanamo, if they share that concern, Democrats and Republicans, we should join to defeat the previous question.

If I'm successful in my quest to defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to substitute Mr. Obey's inadequate language on the Guantanamo detainees with Mr. Wolf's far more robust solution to the detainee problem.

And, again, to be very specific, Mr. Speaker, the Wolf amendment would require real risk assessments on the dangers of releasing Guantanamo detainees into our local communities. It would require the consent of governors and State legislatures before the Guantanamo detainees are sent here, and it would require a certification that bringing detainees on U.S. soil won't create legal repercussions that could result in terrorists roaming freely on our streets.

Mr. Speaker, most importantly, the application of the Wolf amendment has the effect of extending beyond the end of this fiscal year by requiring a detailed report in advance of any releases or transfers, while Mr. Obey's language would allow terrorists to be released into the wild of our local communities without a second thought anytime after October 1.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the full language of the amendment in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question if they're committed to dealing responsibly with the Guantanamo issue and, if we're not successful with that, to vote ``no'' on the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 434 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded is for debate only.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 434.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 434 provides for consideration of H.R. 2346, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009. No Member of Congress takes today's vote lightly. In my two terms in Congress, I've had many late nights thinking about our troops who protect all us around the globe--ones who I have met, ones from my district, and others--thinking about how to bring them home safely and responsibly.

Today, we vote to fund them and their efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is not a perfect bill, and it is not the silver bullet which will end the wars within the next year. But it is a responsible plan to support our servicemen and -women and assist them as much as possible.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot fully understand the next steps in Iraq and Afghanistan without looking at the steps our Nation has taken to get here.

In 2001, following the September 11 attacks, Congress authorized President Bush to take action against Afghanistan for harboring and enabling al Qaeda to attack us. We were greeted as liberators for the most part and even had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora.

But in 2002 and 2003, President Bush and others changed the country's focus from the biggest threat to American security to a country which actually posed little threat--that being Iraq.

Ever since that moment, we have been playing catchup in both countries, trying to defeat insurgencies while promoting democracy and economic development, which are precarious at best. Even experts concede achieving these missions simultaneously is difficult.

Last November, Barack Obama and John McCain outlined two very different visions of our future involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, President Obama's plan involved expeditiously transitioning authority to

the Iraqi Security Forces, promoting economic development, and removing combat troops within a year. This vision is very close to the plan I described to my voters when I was elected to my first term.

In Afghanistan, the plan involved broadening the international coalition, eradicating al Qaeda and the Taliban, empowering women, and providing an increase in troops, is what is provided for in this particular bill.

Knowing full well Barack Obama's military and diplomatic goals in Iraq and Afghanistan, more Americans voted for President Obama and the plans he outlined than they did for Senator McCain or his plans.

Over the course of the past few months, President Obama has put the pieces in place to keep his promise, putting a national security team in place--a bipartisan team at that--of Robert Gates, James Jones, and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Today's bill is a plan laid out by the President and his bipartisan national security team that finally understands that victory will not be achieved by military might alone.

Many in the House today, on both sides of the aisle, have stated their opposition to this bill before the new President with his new ideas has even had a chance to implement his plan.

President Obama inherited an international mess. American voters chose President Obama and his plan, and it is time that Congress gave our troops the resources they need to complete their assignments.

In my opinion, there are three components to this bill. First: in Iraq, we provide funding for military operations, including $4.8 billion for lightweight mine-resistant vehicles, or MRAPs, and $1.3 billion for IED threat mitigation. The bill also provides $1 billion for economic development in Iraq.

These provisions are essential to President Obama in order to meet his intended date of August 31, 2010, to remove all combat troops from Iraq.

In Afghanistan, we require the President to objectively report to Congress on five critical areas in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Among these are questions of anticorruption efforts, independent security forces, and political consensus. We also provide $1.52 billion in international aid for development of that war-torn country.

Lastly, the bill focuses on our troops and domestic emergencies. We provide funding for H1N1 influenza. We also provide $470 million to address Mexican border violence and drug cartels. We also provide to our troops stop-loss payments in recognition of their additional participation in the wars in the Middle East. These troops who signed up to serve fell victim as part of a backdoor draft--and this bill justly repays them.

Mr. Speaker, today we will have an emotional debate about how our Nation moves forward in Iraq and Afghanistan. The way forward in Iraq and Afghanistan is to vote ``yes'' today. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my friend from California. I just would like to respond on a couple of matters.

First of all, we hope and expect that this will be the last supplemental that we will have to do in this fashion so that these budgets for our military, whether it is in Iraq or Afghanistan, or elsewhere around the world, are treated within the whole budget.

So I appreciate your comments about that, but this has been a system that we intend to stop. This is the last one. As it was laid out, we left it halfway finished last year.

Second, to my friend from California, I would say that in the spirit of bipartisanship, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has come up with the rule concerning Guantanamo, or the amendment concerning Guantanamo. Some of the Members of my caucus are going to take real issue with that amendment. They think that it goes too far in terms of giving the President time to develop a plan for releasing or transferring the prisoners who are held at Guantanamo. I know that Members on your side of the aisle think it doesn't go far enough. So in an effort of bipartisanship, the chairman has tried to craft this amendment.

My last point is with respect to the border. There were hundreds of millions of dollars appropriated in the stimulus bill for border protection and border enforcement, and there is even more so in this particular bill.

So three of your points I would like to take issue with. I do appreciate the extension of the hand in bipartisanship.

For about 15 seconds. I have a lot of speakers.

Reclaiming my time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

I have to agree with my friend, Mr. Lewis from California. You're right, there will be other supplementals. The purpose is that these supplementals are not going to become a regular course of business as they have been as it applies to Iraq and Afghanistan.

With respect to your points about the housing of these prisoners, nobody wants these particular prisoners in their State or in their prison system; but on the other hand, we have very unsavory characters from time to time in various prisons across the country. Fort Leavenworth might be an appropriate place. But the amendment, as Mr. Obey has projected it, is no money within this appropriation will be used for release or transfer. And so the amendment is an attempt to strike a compromise between your concerns and the concerns of our caucus, and that's what this whole process is about.

I want to yield to my friend from California (Ms. Harman) for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to my friend from Nevada, Congresswoman Berkley.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Kansas, I know, knows full well that it says in the amendment, ``None of the funds made available in this or any prior act may be used to release an individual who is detained, as of April 30, 2009, at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, into the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or the District of Columbia.''

That's what the amendment says. That's what is part of this bill.

I would now like to yield 1 minute to my friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time does each side have?

I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, to my friend from Colorado, it's good to see you here.

I would just say on page 55 of the bill, there is a provision that says that no funding, no assistance is to be provided to or through any individual, or private or government entity, that advocates, plans, sponsors, engages in, or has engaged in, terrorist activity.

With that, I would like to yield 1 minute to my friend from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield my friend 30 additional seconds.

I have at least three.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to my friend Mr. Perriello from Virginia.

I would like to extend my friend 30 additional seconds.

I would like now to yield 1 minute to my friend from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.

I have three speakers remaining.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Ohio, Congresswoman Sutton.

I have two more. I have two 1-minute speakers.

I would yield 1 minute to my friend from California (Ms. Watson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker, Mr. Kind from Wisconsin, for 1 minute.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I think I will begin where my friend from California just left off, and that's with the Guantanamo issue, which I think has been blown way out of proportion because in the amendment that is proposed as part of this rule, none of the funds made available in this or any prior act may be used to release an individual who is detained as of April 30, 2009, at the Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or the District of Columbia. It goes on to say that the President shall submit to the Congress in writing a comprehensive plan regarding the proposed disposition of each individual who is detained as of April 30, 2009, at Guantanamo Bay.

So this amendment provides precisely what they're concerned about. So their complaint is one that completely baffles me, and all the rhetoric and the histrionics attached to it as the potential for terrorists running amok in the streets simply is not accurate under this amendment or this supplement.

But the real purpose of the supplemental appropriation deals with several other things. Let's begin with wildfire suppression, making sure that firefighters can receive different kinds of grants for rehiring and personnel purposes; border enforcement, there's additional funding so that the border enforcement along the Mexican border is beefed up, as it was within the stimulus bill. There's additional funding for narcotics trafficking. We deal with the influenza as part of this supplemental, farming.

But then the most important and the real key to this supplemental deals with our troops. And it begins with allowing additional funds for stop-loss so that those people who have had to stay in the military beyond their original tours of duty get an additional $500 a month. There is a potential pay increase, and there is funding for warriors in transition. We had the terrible incident a few days ago of one of our troops killing a number of others because of the stress that comes from these war zones. So there's additional funding for that. Then, of course, the additional funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. We require reports as to how things are proceeding

towards the President's withdrawal date of August 31, 2010, from Iraq as well as requiring reports as to reconciliation and political consensus in Afghanistan.

I urge that my friends and my colleagues here in the Congress vote ``yes'' on the previous question and vote ``yes'' on the rule.

Amendment to H. Res. 434 Offered by Mr. Dreier of California

Strike ``printed in the report of the Committee on Rules

accompanying this resolution'' and insert ``printed in the

Congressional Record on May 12, 2009 and numbered 2''.

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

America went to war against Iraq based on a lie. We were told in 2002 Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The previous administration even pursued torture to try to extract false confessions to try to justify the war.

It's time to tell the truth. The truth is, we should not have prosecuted the war against the Iraqi people. The truth is, the Democratic Senate could have stopped the Iraq war in 2002. The truth is, we Democrats were given control of Congress in 2006 to end the war. The truth is, this bill continues a disastrous war which has cost the lives of thousands of our soldiers. The truth is, the occupation has fueled the insurgency. The truth is, the Iraq war will cost the American and the Iraqi people trillions of dollars.

As many as 1 million innocent Iraqis have lost their lives as a result of this war. Don't tell the American people you're ending the war by continuing to fund the war. Don't tell the American people that the war will end when their plans leave 50,000 troops in Iraq. Don't tell the American people that the way out of Afghanistan is to escalate and more counterinsurgency.

Get out of Iraq. Get out of Afghanistan. Come home, America. Come home.

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2346, War Supplemental Appropriations for FY 2009. This bill devotes an additional $84.5 billion to military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for fiscal year 2009. I believe that the U.S. has a moral obligation to fulfill in Iraq and Afghanistan. We must remain dedicated to reconstruction, stability and prosperity in these countries and in the region.

The U.S. cannot be in and out of Iraq at the same time. The U.S. has agreed to withdraw all combat troops from Iraqi cities by July of this year. However, recent news reports indicate that some combat troops will remain beyond this date. Our continued funding of war operations in Iraq only ensures our continued presence and undermines our stated goals for withdrawal by 2011. Funds for Iraq should be dedicated to bringing all of our troops and contractors home. We must meet our moral obligation to rebuild Iraq and support viable solutions to the refugee and internally displaced populations. We must hold ourselves responsible for the death of over 1 million innocent civilians in Iraq.

Funding of expanded combat operations in Afghanistan will not meet the security objectives of the U.S. Sending additional brave American service members to Afghanistan does not increase security and it is not an act of diplomacy. Sending additional troops sends one message: The U.S. is ramping up combat operations. This message only encourages the Taliban and other insurgent groups to do likewise. We have ensured that the months and perhaps years ahead will be bloody. And we have failed to present an exit strategy.

Bombing raids and drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan have inflamed the civilian populations in these countries. Innocent civilians are killed in these massive and unpredictable attacks. This includes innocent children, mothers, fathers, grandparents, sisters and brothers. Communities, homes and infrastructure are destroyed. The number of refugees and the internally displaced continue to rise from the destruction.

The brutalities of war produce more than news reports of so-called ``collateral damage.'' Taliban and insurgent recruitment profits from these failed policies. The drone attacks are propagating extremism in the targeted areas. Former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell maintains that drone attacks are not an effective counterinsurgency technique. If the Administration will not stop the drone attacks, Congress must use the power of the purse to ensure their cessation.

Ninty percent of the resources devoted to Afghanistan over the last eight years have gone to support military resources. This is contrary to the counter-insurgency strategy put forth by General Petraeus that calls for an 80-20 split, that devotes 80 percent of resources to political solutions and only 20 percent of resources to military operations. General Eaton, who trained Iraq Security Forces in 2004, has echoed this strategy. This bill fails to correct the imbalance and continues the failed status quo.

We need to provide for the traditional sense of security by first ensuring economic security, health security, and job security for all. The roots of terrorism begin not in hatred, but in desperation. All people seek the basic necessities such as food, clothes, shelter, good health, and the ability to earn a decent living. If we can level this playing field, there is no desperation that may potentially evolve into hatred. We have failed to meet these objectives in Afghanistan.

Stability in Afghanistan requires that aid dollars reach local Afghans, Afghan institutions and organizations. The current instability of Afghan institutions must be replaced with strong education and health care systems, judiciary and law enforcement systems, workforce development and transportation systems. These institutions must be built and run by Afghans. The current practice by which foreigners fill high-skill and high-level positions will leave Afghanistan without the skills and leaders to ensure sustainable, long-term stability in the country.

The U.S. must partner with Afghans to empower women and girls. Currently, one in six women die in childbirth in Afghanistan; 80% of women are illiterate; and development assistance has not reached Afghan women. We can encourage and foster reform by investing in Afghan institutions that create educational, economic, social and political opportunity for women.

National security will not be achieved through military might but rather through our dedication to supporting Afghans as they build a foundation of human security, social security and economic security.

Security cannot blossom from the ravages of war. Terrorism will not be stopped by acts of terror.

[From the Nation, May 12, 2009]

The Politics of Escalation

(By Tom Hayden and Joseph Gerson)

Congressional leaders are cooperating with the Obama

administration in quashing any serious criticism of growing

military escalation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Indications are that there will be no benchmarks or

conditions set on the $96 billion supplemental appropriation

before Congress beginning this week. The administration,

which once promised no more rushed supplemental

appropriation, is rolling funds for war and swine flu into

one package, while not yet disclosing how much is earmarked

specifically for Afghanistan. Rep. David Obey says he wants

to give the Obama administration a one-year deadline for

results, which likely means making it more difficult to

withdraw from a deepening quagmire.

The only current Congressional vehicle for dissent is a

proposed amendment by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass) that

requires the secretary of defense to report on an exit

strategy from Afghanistan by this December, six months after

Congress has appropriated funds for escalating the war. Even

that modest measure, with fifty co-sponsors at present, has

met with administration resistance to an exit strategy with

benchmarks.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, under fire for what she knew

about Guantanamo waterboarding and when she knew it, is going

along with the administration by preventing the McGovern

amendment from being voted on. Congressional leaders believe

that war opponents are not sufficiently powerful to either

require a vote on the McGovern measure to achieve more than

two hours of debate on the supplemental, which could also

include soliloquies on the swine flu.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus has met with President

Obama and, according to sources attending, will not be

opposed at this point to his Afghanistan-Pakistan policies.

Instead, the caucus is sponsoring a series of informational

hearings on public policies for the region.

The Senate, with the possible exception of Sen. Russ

Feingold, is not expected to question the Obama policies,

either.

Insiders say the dominant message behind closed doors is a

political one, not to embarrass the president. On policy, one

knowledgeable expert reports, doubt is widespread in Congress

and ``no one has any idea where it will all end.''

The desire to protect the resident may shy Democrats away

from demands that were routinely made of the Bush

administration: requiring regular reports on an exit

strategy, transparency in the budgets for war, clear

definitions of casualty levels on all sides, application of

human rights standards in detention centers, and others.

It is understandable that the economic crisis and high

expectations for the new president have deflected

Congressional Democrats away from their oversight role. As

the quagmire deepens, however, antiwar questioning will rise

again. The danger is that by then the Obama administration

will be engulfed in the politics of escalation, as happened

to earlier Democratic presidents.

Will the gentleman yield?

Well, of course I will be voting against the rule. I want the war to end.

I want to thank Mr. Dreier for the time.

I rise in opposition to the rule. I had an amendment which dealt with the Guantanamo Bay issue. And let me sort of lay it out. There are several issues really involved. One, there are Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay that Eric Holder was prepared to release into the United States. This is not a Khalid Sheik Mohammed that we are transferring to release in the neighborhoods in the United States.

Who are the Uyghur detainees? They are members of a group called the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement. Many of them have been trained in al Qaeda training camps in Tora Bora. Now, that is something that the American people should know. Also, their leader is a man named Abdul Haq. Haq is on the terrorist list of the U.N. The Obama administration also put him on their terrorist list last month. And yet Eric Holder is saying, and some people believe he was ready to do it 2 weeks ago Friday, to release them, to release them with Federal pay, if you will, so they can live on the environment, go to the shopping malls, do whatever, release them in the United States, without even telling the Congress anything.

Now, Congress cannot be like Pontius Pilate and sort of wash our hands and say, you know, we don't want to be involved in this. We don't want to know. If something happens, it is your responsibility. The Congress, the United States Congress and the American people want us to be involved. That is why they sent us here. So that is the Uyghurs, Eastern Turkistan Islamic group, terrorists, Tora Bora, Abdul Haq.

The other one is they want to move some of these terrorists like Khalid Sheik Mohammed that Mr. Dreier mentioned to the United States. Now, he is the one, he is the one who beheaded--beheaded Daniel Pearl. He was the mastermind of 9/11 which killed 30 people from my district. Now, is it okay for Eric Holder to say, well, we are not going to give you a report? And it just so happens that no Member of Congress--Eric Holder has refused to allow the FBI career people to come up and brief the Congress. Now if Attorney General Ashcroft had prohibited the FBI from coming up to brief Senator Leahy, this place would be up in arms. But Holder is prohibiting the FBI up until maybe next week to come up and brief on this issue.

Now, everyone said, well, we can hold him without any trouble. Okay. Great. But don't forget, Officer Pepe was stabbed in the eye by one of these guys at the World Trade Center--in the eye up in Attica. And don't also forgot the sheik, the blind sheik, Rahman, was proceeding sending information out with regard to his lawyer.

And lastly many people forget but the terrorists who were in American prisons were in communication to the Madrid bombers, with the Madrid bombing. But Eric Holder said, we are not going to give you a report. And do you know what? The Congress said, we don't want a report. We don't really want to be involved. We really don't want to know. So you go ahead and do whatever you want to do.

And lastly this: everyone in Guantanamo is medium to high security. The others have been released. Of the others that have been released, 61 have come back on the terrorist field, terrorist attacks against us and against our men and women in uniform. That is the low level guys.

These are the medium and high. So what we wanted to do is say that Congress ought to be involved. We didn't get into whether or not you close Guantanamo Bay or not. We were not stopping that. We were just saying, let's give us a report. Let's let the American people know. If the Congress doesn't want to know, let the American people know about whoever may be released in their neighborhood. They will at least know.

And lastly the Governors and the State legislators ought to participate. For that reason, this amendment should have been made in order whereby we could debate it to say, do you want these people to be released or do you want them to be retransferred? And should the Congress be involved?

Mr. Speaker, in 2001 I voted in favor of the resolution to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan to hold to account al Qaeda and the Taliban for their unconscionable and unforgivable acts against our fellow citizens. I would do it again if faced with the same decision.

But after 8 long years, our mission has been vastly expanded and the policy is unclear. It has been a very hard decision to make because I appreciate the good work of Chairman Obey and many of the items in this bill; but I cannot support the supplemental appropriations bill.

I believe not just the United States but the international community made a promise to the people of Afghanistan, not to the Karzai government, not to the regional powers, but to the people of Afghanistan. We promised that we would stand by them as they rebuilt their country after ousting al Qaeda and the Taliban government that provided these terrorists safe haven.

Everyone I know, including President Obama, keeps telling me that there is no military solution in Afghanistan, only a political solution. And I believe this, too. So I am very concerned when we put billions of dollars into building up the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan without a clear mission and without an exit strategy.

Just as I insisted that the previous administration provide Congress with clear benchmarks and an exit strategy for Iraq, then we should do the same with this administration in Afghanistan. I am not advocating for an immediate withdrawal of our military forces from Afghanistan. All I am asking for is a plan. If there is no military solution for Afghanistan, then please, just tell me how we will know when our military contribution to the political solution has concluded.

I appreciate and I support the required reports on Afghanistan and Pakistan that Chairman Obey has included in this supplemental. But these reports don't tell us anything about the mission of our service men and women in Afghanistan and how we will know when it is time to bring them home.

I hope, at the very least, at some point in the near future we will have a full and thorough debate about our strategy in Afghanistan. Sadly, that will not happen today.

In preparation for that debate, I have introduced this morning a bill with 73 bipartisan cosponsors that requires the Secretary of Defense to outline for Congress by the end of the year the exit strategy for our military forces in Afghanistan. My bill doesn't withdraw our forces; it doesn't set a definite timetable. It simply asks the Secretary of Defense to outline what our strategy is.

I don't think that it is too much to ask that over the next 7 months the Defense Department tell us what is the

plan for completing our military mission in Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, when I first ran for Congress, I promised my constituents that I would never vote to send our servicemen and -women into war without a clearly defined mission, and I am sticking to that promise. I am sick and tired of wars that have no exits, deadlines or an end. We owe our troops and their families much better, and I am deeply concerned about how long we will be able to sustain and pay for an expanded military presence in Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to know: What is the exit strategy that brings our servicemen and -women home? Until someone gives me a credible answer, I will be voting ``no.''