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…
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.