Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2346) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.

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.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 434, I call up the bill (H.R. 2346) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and that I may insert extraneous and tabular material on H.R. 2346.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, we have a new President who has inherited a war he is trying to end. This bill tries to help him do that. We have no real alternative but to support it. I urge support for the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey),

the chairwoman of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Let me simply say that public health at all levels must continue to respond to this current outbreak and the increasing number of U.S. and worldwide cases, but also prepare for the potential of increased severity or for a new, novel strain to emerge. This bill will give HHS the funds needed to develop and purchase vaccines and replenish and expand Federal and State stockpiles of antiviral drugs and other necessary medical supplies, such as masks, ventilators, delivery devices, and other items.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland, the distinguished majority leader.

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

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Vermont.

Let me simply say that, representing a lot of dairy farmers myself, and being a former cosponsor of the milk program, I obviously would like to see additional help provided to them. The Appropriations Committee is not the committee of jurisdiction. So we would need to work out something with the White House and the proper authorizing committee. But we are open to any reasonable suggestions.

Mr. Speaker, I have only one remaining speaker, myself. And I have the right to close. I would suggest the gentleman go through his speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, there is an old story about a second baseman for the old New York Giants, Eddie Stanky. Leo Durocher was the manager of the club. And during spring training, Durocher was hitting ground balls to the infield, and Stanky dropped two in a row. And so Durocher said, Kid, give me the glove. I will show you how it is done. So he went out to second base, and the very first ball hit to him Durocher dropped. And he turned to Stanky and said, Hey, kid, you got second base so screwed up, nobody can play. That is pretty much the situation that we face with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan.

And this bill spends $97 billion because we're in a mess. After 9/11, the Bush administration went after al Qaeda hiding in Afghanistan. That was a perfectly understandable response. They hit us and we tried to hit them back. But then the administration diverted their attention and their resources to a tragically wrong-headed war in Iraq, a country with no connection to 9/11.

Seven years later, 33,000 American casualties later, more than 4,000 American deaths later, we now have a new President who has a commitment to try to end American combat in Iraq. He's also confronted with the mess in Afghanistan, which is made much worse because of the diversion of attention that should have been focused on that country over the past 7 years. And that job is made even more difficult because of the impact of events in Pakistan on Afghanistan.

Now, the President cannot wave a magic wand and end that war. He has inherited what I consider to be the worst foreign policy mess from his predecessor in the history of the country, a three-country regional mess. Now, he has decided that he will try to refashion our efforts in Afghanistan to give us a better chance to stabilize the situation. I hope I'm wrong, but I am forced to say that I significantly agree with the gentleman from California. I have a profound doubt that he can succeed, not because of any problem with his policy but because I am dubious that there are the tools available in that region for us to succeed using any policy. The tools we have to rely on for want of any others are the Government of Pakistan and the Government of Afghanistan. And I feel that they are both hugely unreliable reeds to lean upon, which is why I think that in that region we are unfortunately in an Eddie Stanky situation, because those governments are corrupt, they are weak, they are chaotic, they appear to lack the focus and cohesion and effectiveness to turn the countries around.

Nonetheless, it's clear to me that there is a consensus to try to do something to stabilize the situation. If we're going to go down that road, I want the President to get everything that he asked for and then some to maximize his chances for success. And that is what this bill does. I frankly have very little faith that it will work.

I came here in 1969, 3 months after Richard Nixon became President. I was vehemently opposed to the Vietnam War. But Nixon correctly pointed out that he had inherited that war from his Democratic predecessor, Lyndon Johnson. And so I thought, well, it's reasonable for him to ask for some measure of time to see whether he could move the policy forward. So I decided to give him a year before I started speaking out against the war, and that's what I did. I'm pretty much in the same situation today, and that's why this bill contains the following language.

It says: ``Because the stability and security of the region is tied more to the capacity and conduct of the Afghan and Pakistani Governments and to the resolve of both societies than it is to the policies of the United States, the President shall submit a report to Congress not later than the date of submission of the fiscal year 2011 budget, assessing whether the Governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan are, or are not, demonstrating the necessary commitment, capability, conduct, and unity of purpose to warrant the continuation of the President's policy. The President, on the basis of information gathered and coordinated by the NSC, shall advise the Congress on how the

assessment requires, or does not require, changes to that policy. The measures used to evaluate the Afghan and Pakistani Governments' record of concrete performance shall include the following standards of performance:

``Number one, level of political consensus and unity of purpose across ethnic, tribal, religious, and party affiliations to confront the political and security challenges facing the region.

``Two, level of government corruption and action taken to eliminate it.

``Three, performance of the respective security forces in developing a counterinsurgency capability, conducting counterinsurgency operations, and establishing population security.

``Four, performance of the respective intelligence agencies in cooperating with the United States on counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations and in purging themselves of policies, programs, and personnel that provide material support to extremist networks that target U.S. troops or undermine U.S. objectives in the region.

``Five, ability of the Afghan and Pakistani Governments to effectively control the territory within their respective borders.''

So there are no deadlines, no conditions, no timelines. But there are very clear measurements against which we should be able to judge the performance of the Afghanistan and Pakistani Governments. I believe that if this policy fails, it will not fail because of any lack of imagination or effort on the part of this administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself another 5 minutes.

If that policy fails, in my judgment it will fail because of the failure of the two governments in the region to do what's necessary to save their own countries.

I hope I can come here a year from now when we are evaluating the President's policy and evaluating the performance of those two governments. I hope I can say my judgment was wrong, these countries have performed far better than we expected. But only time will tell. I think we have no choice but to give the President a shot. It's a miserable situation that he has inherited, and he does not have a good hand to play.

Having said that, I also want to note that, in addition to dealing with this problem, we deal with a number of other problems in this bill. We deal, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) indicated, with the need to renew our ability to provide farm loans. We deal with the need for additional food aid around the world. We deal with the need to add $500 million to the President's request to deal with the pandemic flu problem that could be facing us. We've had over 11,000 layoffs of public health officials at the State and local level, and that is not going to stand us in good stead if we have to deal with the flu pandemic, so we're trying to fill those holes.

So let me simply close, Mr. Speaker, by saying this is a bill that I have very little confidence in, but I have a responsibility as committee chairman to move the process forward. I think we have a responsibility to give the new President, who did not get us into this mess, the best possible opportunity to get us out of it. So that's what this bill attempts to do. I make no apology for it. I urge support for it.

I want to thank the staff especially for their work, especially led by Beverly Pheto of the central office and the staff members on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate the hard work done by the Appropriation subcommittee Chairs and ranking members and other members of the committee as well. I appreciate the frustration of each and every Member of this House.

This is a no-win bill no matter how you vote on it. It's a mess. And let's hope that with God's help we can get out of it in a reasonably decent time.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard many a lecture from the other side of the aisle about spending levels, but this proposal would add $3 billion to the spending levels in this bill, and it would eliminate a rescission that saves us money, a rescission that's been endorsed by Secretary Gates.

It also takes $200 million out of the global financial crisis fund, which is the last thing we ought to do at a time when we have a worldwide financial crisis that is threatening our own economy as well as others around the world.

Thirdly, it eliminates the Pakistani counterinsurgency fund for next year, which has already been endorsed by Secretary Gates.

And lastly, with respect to Mexico, it purports to add $200 million to deal with drug problems in Mexico. The bill already contains $400 million directly for aid to Mexico, plus another $350 million in the Department of Defense.

And I would point out that in the stimulus bill, which virtually every Member on that side of the aisle voted against just a few short weeks ago, we provided an over $700 million increase to deal with our border problems. All in all, between the omnibus and the stimulus, we already raised funding for that by 10 percent.

So I would suggest this is a financial double game and that we turn down the motion.

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

I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns raised by many about whether this bill reflects the ``perfect'' strategy for Afghanistan and Iraq.

The stakes are high in Afghanistan and the challenges are complex. As then-Senator Barrack Obama noted in July 2007, ``the Afghan-Pakistan border region is where the 9/11 attack was plotted. It is where most attacks in Europe since 9/11 originated. It is where Osama bin Laden lives and his top confederates still enjoy safe haven, planning new attacks. And it is where we must urgently shift our focus . . . using the totality of America's strength, not merely our military, incredible as it is.''

For the first time since I have been here in Washington, discussion about a supplemental has focused on where most of our efforts since 9/ 11 should be: Afghanistan.

I am encouraged that we finally have a President who is committed to a redeployment of our troops from Iraq so that we can focus on where the threats from Al-Qaeda originated on September 11 and which unfortunately we have seen the threat to our country, to Afghanistan, and to Pakistan grow in the past few years. The Supplemental is consistent with the President's plan to begin winding down the number of combat troops in Iraq over the next several months.

While I wish we did not need to have military forces in Afghanistan, the deteriorating security situation will necessitate more U.S. troops--at least for a time--to help ``disrupt, dismantle, and destroy'' safe havens for Al-Qaeda. Creating a situation in Afghanistan that prevents the return of the Taliban and al Qaeda is clearly a priority for our national security.

It's a decision I take with a heavy heart and after much deliberation. I err on the side of peace. I never look forward to sending more of our brave young soldiers to the battlefield or for war. Yet, it is unfortunately clear to me that military forces must continue to be a part of our effort in Afghanistan to help protect innocent Afghan civilians.

This increase in forces must be accompanied by clear guidelines to minimize civilian casualties that have only inflamed public opinion in Afghanistan against the U.S. and its coalition partners.

We cannot win any war where we lose the support of the local populace.

The use of airstrikes that may have killed some terrorist leaders but also killed or injured more innocent civilians--such as the attack from earlier this week--and fanned anti-American sentiment must be reexamined at the highest levels of our defense establishment.

But if we have learned anything from the situation in Iraq, it is that military force alone is not sufficient in and by itself to achieve our nation's foreign policy objectives in combating terrorism. I remain concerned that a strategy that relies on our military alone--who have served and continue to serve with valor, honor, and dedication and done all that their country has asked of them--to address the vast range of challenges facing the Afghanistan government and people is not a viable way forward in Afghanistan.

Yet, without security, the Taliban will continue to disrupt and destroy U.S. and international efforts to boost health care, governance, and economic growth in the country, as

evidenced by the continuing attacks against innocent girls who have now been empowered to go to school and get an education.

I am also concerned about the growing influence of the Taliban on Afghanistan's government and what that would mean for the respect for human rights, including the rights of women and the future of women and girls if we allow Afghanistan to become a failed state.

Development in Afghanistan cannot occur if we do not protect and empower the 50 percent of the population that are women. However, the prospects for women and girls in Afghanistan under the Taliban or a government heavily influenced by the Taliban are chilling.

We saw this growing influence I believe with the March 2009 approval by Afghan's parliament of a law that would, according to news reports, legalize marital rape, strip mothers of custodial rights in the event of a divorce, and prohibit a woman from leaving her home unless her husband gives his approval.

This law violates the basic human rights of women under several international treaties and convention and appears to contravene Afghanistan's own constitution.

This law has been rightly condemned by President Obama and others around the world and I urge President Karzai to officially reject it as well.

Its passage is a troubling omen of what the future holds for many of the committed women and girls who have courageously stepped out of the shadows since the fall of Taliban rule in Afghanistan in 2001.

I have advocated for a comprehensive strategy in Afghanistan and a comprehensive strategy will include the appropriate and judicious use of our military forces--otherwise it would not be comprehensive. It is clear that the Afghan security forces are overwhelmed and under- resourced to combat Al-Qaeda. In Afghanistan--a country that has both a larger population and a larger geography than Iraq--current U.S. forces are one-fifth the size of the forces in Iraq.

We must support efforts by the Afghanistan government to improve security for the millions of innocent Afghans whose future is threatened by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

An important piece of a comprehensive strategy is an exit plan. That is an unfortunate gap in the bill before us, but nothing prevents the House or Congress from addressing that issue in the days or weeks ahead.

I am an original cosponsor of legislation by Congressman James McGovern that asks the Secretary of Defense to provide Congress with a plan for an exit strategy for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan by the end of the year. I look forward to helping move it through the House as soon as possible.

Additionally, the increase in fighting forces in Afghanistan undertaken by this Administration must be matched by concomitant increases in diplomatic, development, and other nonmilitary aid.

The FY 2009 supplemental remains the most immediate avenue available at this point to secure the $7 billion in foreign aid requested by the President to support his boost for such efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere. In fact, this bill would add $3 billion to the President's request.

The $5.1 billion in the bill for Afghanistan is a significant step in the right direction. The $3.6 billion for training Afghan security forces and police; $980 million for economic development and expanding the rule of law and combating corruption; and $536 million for increased U.S. civilian and diplomatic staff are key parts of the Administration's new strategy for the region and will hopefully pave the way for the Afghan government to take the lead in securing its territory and meeting the needs of its people. On that point, today, 17 members of the Wisconsin National Guard--most of them based in Milwaukee--will return home after 10 months in Afghanistan training and advising the Afghan National Police.

I don't need to mention the critical need for the Pakistan assistance as troubling media reports surface by the hour that graphically illustrate the challenge facing that country and its government in its battle against Al-Qaeda and insurgent groups. The House bill would provide over $2 billion for Pakistan, almost $600 million more than requested by the President to boost State Department and civilian staffing, to strengthen governance and economic development efforts.

While I wish the mix between military aid and development and other aid in the bill were different, I also realize that this bill is taking an important step to better balance that mix while acknowledging a difficult reality for there are hundreds of thousands of troops still in war zones and at the same time, there is a lack of staffing at USAID and State that will need to be addressed to properly support a more forceful role for those agencies going forward.

The bill also addresses a number of other priorities including compensating all members of our military who were subject to the DoD's stop loss policy after September 11, boosting funding for MRAP's to protect our troops from IED's, and providing over $1 billion for medical care to servicemembers and their family members, including research and treatment of PTSD and TBI.

The supplemental would also provide millions in funding for new wounded warrior facilities to help soldiers wounded in combat to recover and to support their families through that process. It would speed up the construction of new military hospitals in Bethesda and at Fort Belvoir and provide over $1 billion for family support programs including improving access for families to child psychologists, child care, child development centers, financial counseling and other support.

Important funding is also included to facilitate the Middle East Peace process including economic aid and security assistance for Israel, Egypt, West Bank and Gaza, Jordan, and Lebanon.

The bill also makes investments in efforts to combat pandemic flu, to aid developing countries negatively affected by the global financial crisis, and to extend the compassion and aid of the American people though the provision of food aid, refugee assistance, and support of peacekeeping operations.

While I am disappointed by the fact that there are no deadlines or timelines in the bill before the end of Fiscal Year 2009 which is covered by the funding in this bill, Congress will certainly have the opportunity to examine whether or not these new policies are working and how to make effective changes both for the sake of our national security and for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This bill is not ``perfect'' and can be improved. I hope it will get better and stronger when it goes to conference including the addition of more funding for the State Department to conduct diplomacy, build schools, hospitals and roads, and promote economic growth. Any efforts to reduce funding for these goals and funding for some of the important programs I have outlined below the levels in this bill will be of concern to me.

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.