Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States had a chance to fully fund the troops just a few weeks ago, he chose not to take it, I tell my friend, Mr. Tiahrt, from Kansas. We fully funded the troops. In fact, we gave more money for the fight against terrorism. We want to see success.

Mr. Speaker, let every Member here and all those watching this debate at home be perfectly clear, this legislation fully funds our troops in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, ensuring that they have the resources they need to conduct their missions. Not only that, this bill includes additional funding, as the last bill did, not requested by the President, to fight the war on terror, to improve America's military readiness and to meet our veterans' unmet health needs.

However, while this legislation funds our troops, it insists, as we tried to last time, for the first time in more than 4 years that the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government be accountable. The American public expects accountability.

Plain and simple, this legislation responds to the will of the people, who are dismayed by the failed implementation of American foreign policy, perhaps more failed than in any in the generation.

On Tuesday, a CNN poll found that two-thirds of Americans oppose the war, and 61 percent support benchmarks like the ones in this bill that would measure Iraqi progress.

Let me say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, Vice President Cheney was deployed by this administration. What for? To tell the Iraqis they had to perform, that they had to meet benchmarks; that the American public was running thin on its support, and in fact is not supporting this war.

But, frankly, the Congress has taken the position that we won't say that, and the President vetoes a bill that said that, a bill that required performance so that the millions that the American public, the billions that the American public, the $500 billion-plus that the American public has dug from their pockets, will be responsibly met by the Iraqi Government.

Thus, Mr. Speaker, this legislation holds the President and the Iraqi Government accountable by fencing off 52-plus of the $95.5 billion provided to the Defense Department until released by subsequent legislation.

What is there to fear from this Congress as we oversee whether or not there is a turn from an unsuccessful implementation of a policy to a successful policy? Perhaps that fear is that that corner will not be turned, and therefore this vote may be at risk.

Before this additional funding is released, however, the President must report to Congress by July 13 regarding the success of the Iraqi Government in meeting security and political benchmarks. General Petraeus has said there is no solution but a political solution, and the only people who can accomplish a political solution are the Iraqis themselves.

What do we ask for? Disarming militias who are killing our men and women, enacting legislation to equitably share oil revenues. There will be no resolution without that. Reforming the debaathification process, which says to literally tens of thousands of people, we know you were Baath members, but you really weren't in politics, so you can come back and do the work to build this society. Without that, we will not succeed and our men and women will pay the price, as they are paying the price every day.

Lastly, providing for provisional elections. We are fighting for democracy. We are investing in democracy. That is what we are told. But we haven't amended the constitution and we are not providing for the provincial elections that were promised. If that is the case, the Iraqi people are not going to think democracy is on its way.

Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States himself has stated that our commitment in Iraq is not open-ended. That is what this legislation says. If you think it is open-ended, if you think there should be no benchmarks, if you think the American taxpayers' money ought to be spent without seeing results and without the carnage to our troops decreasing, then vote against this.

To this we say, no more. No more blank checks. Not after more than 3,370 Americans have lost their lives in Iraq and more than 25,000 have been injured. Ten percent of those lives have been lost in the last 4 months. Not after the American taxpayer spent nearly half a trillion dollars. And not after 4 years of egregious misjudgments by this administration, from ``mission accomplished,'' to ``the insurgency is in its last throes,'' to ``Iraq will fund its own reconstruction.''

Every Member in this body, every Member, hopes and prays that the current troop escalation succeeds, that the Iraqis stabilize and secure their country and that our troops can return home safely. Why should you fear waiting 60 days and making another judgment as to whether that is occurring? That is our responsibility.

We swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States which says that we are the policymakers. But there is little reason for optimism when the violence in Iraq continues unabated and progress on the ground is somewhere between illusive and nonexistent.

The two-step funding approach in this legislation effected by Mr. Obey and Mr. Murtha is not only appropriate, it is imperative. Even the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, has stated, ``I think the time to look at where we are is late summer.'' This is a few days before that, and we will continue consideration into that late summer that Senator McConnell talks about.

We cannot want to succeed more than the Iraqis. They must take the lead in restoring stability and securing their nation. And the Iraqi Parliament must not go on vacation while American men and women are fighting and dying for them.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, support this bill. Let us forge a new direction in Iraq and implement a policy and design to succeed.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion at the desk.

I thank the distinguished chairman, and I congratulate him for the great work that he is doing. This is a critical bill that we consider today. And, as he has pointed out, we have had a number of bills dealing with homeland security on the floor.

I also want to thank the ranking member for his leadership both in this Congress and in the past Congress on this issue. I think the American people are advantaged by having two people of real substance who care about this issue working together, even though from time to time, as the gentleman has pointed out, there are disagreements. He had the same problems that the chairman is having, and we are trying to work through those problems. And I certainly am going to support the manager's amendment as he tries to work this.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Congressman Thompson, for all his hard work on this very, very important authorization bill.

The highest duty of our government is to protect the American people, to secure our homeland and to defend our national security. Unfortunately, since the horrific terrorist attacks on our Nation on September 11 opened our eyes and exposed our vulnerabilities, we have not done enough to protect our homeland. As Tom Kean, the former Republican Governor of New Jersey and cochair of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission stated last August, ``We are not protecting our own people in this country. The government is not doing its job.''

Yesterday's arrest of six men who apparently were plotting to attack and kill soldiers in Fort Dix in New Jersey is a stark reminder that we cannot, we must not let down our guard; that we must remain vigilant.

This legislation, which I believe will receive strong bipartisan support, is a critical step in the right direction. Among other things, this bill authorizes $39.8 billion for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2008, which is $2.1 billion in addition for our homeland security that was asked for by the President. It restores the President's 52 percent cut to the State Homeland Security Grant Program, which helps first responders to prevent, prepare for and respond to acts of terrorism. It restores the President's 55 percent cut in firefighter assistance grants. It restores the elimination of the local law enforcement terrorism prevention program and restores the elimination of the SAFER, which is the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response program. I want to thank the chairman for doing that and congratulate him on his leadership because, as the ranking member pointed out, this bill was reported out unanimously. It was a joint effort and a very important one at that.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, this legislation contains strong accountability measures aimed at strengthening and streamlining management of the Department of Homeland Security, which has struggled with its management challenges; and it includes provisions to improve information sharing, to enhance bioterrorism preparedness and to eliminate the Department's authority to establish its own personnel management system.

Mr. Chairman, ever since the Department of Homeland Security was created, an effort which I opposed because I thought that would create a Department too large and too diverse to manage well, frankly, I think my concerns have been evidenced. It is the challenge of this committee, now that we have created the Department, to ensure that in fact it does act in an efficient manner to protect our homeland. But I have been concerned about the efficacy of consolidating 22 agencies and 170,000 people into one Department. However, since the Congress chose to create this new Department, it is our duty, as I said, to ensure that it has the resources it needs to do its job as effectively as possible and to ensure that the Department is well managed.

This legislation, Mr. Chairman, by focusing on oversight and management is a critical response to the issues and problems that have been encountered at the Department since its creation.

I want to again congratulate Mr. Thompson, who is doing such an excellent job of leading this committee, and Mr. King, who brings a focus for the country as opposed to a partisan focus to this work with Mr. Thompson. I want to congratulate them both.

If the gentleman will yield, I believe we did give notice. My staff gave notice to the leader's staff, I believe. This came out of committee, as you know, unanimously. I think we are all for this provision. There was a jurisdictional issue raised. I think we have resolved that jurisdictional issue. I know that all your Members voted for it. I think most of our Members would want to vote for it, and we are certainly hopeful that we can move ahead and have this in the bill at this time.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Will my friend yield?

I don't want to be cute about this, but this was the amendment that was offered by you, I don't mean you personally necessarily, but this was the amendment you just offered. It was not approved, not because we didn't favor it but because we had a jurisdictional issue on our side. And in light of the fact that it is your amendment that you offered and it is an amendment which I think will pass the House handily, I would hope that the gentleman would reconsider or perhaps if we could give him maybe 5 minutes for the purposes of reviewing his amendment to determine whether he is still for his amendment.

This is your amendment we are asking unanimous consent to adopt.

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the parliamentary situation in which we find ourselves is that we adopted a motion to recommit forthwith to be reported back with an amendment. That amendment was adopted favorably. When the vote was called, you indicated that amendment was defeated.

My parliamentary inquiry: Would at this point in time a motion to reconsider that vote be in order?

I would suggest that a motion to reconsider might solve the problem.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the last voice vote be vacated and that the question be put de novo.

By the way, I'm trying to help the gentleman. You may have missed that, but I'm trying to help your side. But we can do it by unanimous consent that it be done de novo.

Parliamentary inquiry. And just so that the gentleman from Louisiana knows, on a voice vote, of course, because there is not a recorded vote, anybody can ask for a motion to reconsider because there is no record as to who voted on the prevailing side or who voted on the opposing side.

But, notwithstanding that, I press my motion de novo; that, in other words, the question be placed, once again, de novo.

Mr. Speaker, this will be one of the serious votes that we cast during this session. This will be a vote on whether or not we are going to allow bigotry to manifest itself in hate and result in violence.

My friend, Artur Davis, rose and he said he didn't know anybody of faith who recommended violence. I would suggest that tragically the citizens of the United States know all too well some who claim to be men of faith and who have issued fatwas to kill those not of their faith, and that if they do so, Allah will reward them. We call them terrorists. They kill not because of individual wrongdoing or individual action. They kill because of the membership in a faith or a race or a nationality, because perhaps we are Christian or we are Jews or we are Americans. And we call them terrorists.

This is an important vote. Neither the exercise of bigotry nor the rationalization of bigotry ought to be sanctioned in this great House, but we know through the centuries it has been. We know there were those who in times past rose on this floor and rationalized slavery and rationalized why we should not have antilynching laws in America. We know that. We lament it, and we say to ourselves had we

lived in those times, had we lived in the 18th century, hopefully we would have been beyond our time, or in the 19th century hopefully beyond our time, or in the 20th century hopefully beyond our time, as Martin Luther King, Jr., urged us to be.

We serve now in the 21st century, and we know that there are those in America and throughout the world who preach hate against a class of people not because of their actions, not because of their character, but because of who they are. That is what this vote is about today.

Through this legislation, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Members of this body will make a strong statement in favor of values that unite us as Americans: tolerance, respect for our differences, and justice and accountability for those who perpetrate violent acts against others.

It has been too recent that lynching was rationalized in our country. It is too present in today's society that some across the sea and, yes, some here rationalize violence because of membership in another class different than they. It is long past time to bring the existing Federal hate crimes law, which was enacted nearly 40 years ago, into the 21st century. Under existing law, Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes is limited to those acts directed at individuals on the basis of race, religion, color, or national origin.

Let me say something about that to my friends. We have come to accept in America in the 21st century that it is not respectable nor acceptable to be bigoted against those who are black, be bigoted against those who are women, be bigoted against those who are Catholic or Baptist or Jews or Muslims. It is not respectable. It is not acceptable. You don't talk about that in the restaurant anymore.

But there is a class in America that is still respectable, rationalized many times by faith. But then segregation was rationalized for faith-based reasons.

My friends, this is an important vote of conscience, of a statement of what America is, a society that understands that we accept differences. We may not agree with those differences, but we know if society is to be free that we must accept differences.

That is the bedrock of what America means, not just to us, but to all the world.

And so today, my friends, I say we have an important statement to make, not a bill to pass, but a statement to make about the values of our country.

I had a prepared statement here, I won't read the balance of it. But I hope that every Member has the courage and the perspective, that when they rise from their bed 20 years from now, they will be able to say, unlike some of our predecessors in centuries past who failed the test of tolerance, to say that we had the courage to live out the principles that makes America such a wonderful, great, decent and just Nation.

Vote for this bill. Vote for our principles. Vote for your faith that teaches that we reach out to lift up and to love. Vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, through this legislation--``The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act''--the Members of this body will make a strong statement in favor of values that unite us as Americans: tolerance, respect for our differences, and justice and accountability for those who perpetrate violent acts against others.

It is long past time to bring the existing Federal hate crimes law, which was enacted nearly 40 years ago, into the 21st century.

Under existing law, Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes is limited to those acts directed at individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin and only when the victim is targeted because he or she is engaged in a Federally protected activity, such as voting.

This legislation broadens this provision to cover all violent crimes motivated by race, religion, or national origin, when the defendant causes bodily injury or attempts to cause bodily injury.

Furthermore, the bill expands current law to prohibit the same conduct, if such conduct is motivated on the basis of the victim's gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is, the Federal Government has long had a history of combating crimes based on prejudice.

This bill simply expands the current law to groups that historically have been affected by violence and thus it responds to the reality in America today.

According to the FBI, race ranks first among motivations for hate crimes and sexual orientation ranks second among the reasons that people are targeted.

Some people ask: Why is this legislation even necessary?

To them, I answer: because brutal hate crimes motivated by race, religion, national orgin, gender, sexual orientation and identity or disability not only injure individual victims, but also terrorize entire segments of our population and tear at our Nation's social fabric.

Let us be clear: This legislation does not affect free speech, or punish beliefs or thoughts. It only seeks to punish violent acts.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this bill would allow the Federal Government to provide assistance to State and local law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute hate crimes, and would clarify the conditions under which such crimes could be federally investigated and prosecuted.

Enacting these important additions to current law will send a very powerful message that crimes committed against any American--just because of who he or she is--are absolutely unacceptable.

Not surprisingly, this legislation is supported by 31 State attorneys general, and more than 280 national law enforcement, professional, education, civil rights, religious and civic organizations, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association and the National Sheriffs Association.

I urge my colleagues: Vote for this legislation, not only because it is important and necessary but also because it is the right thing to do.

I thank the distinguished chairman.

This motion, my colleagues, reeks with the stench of cynicism. Let me tell you why. The distinguished chairman rose and asked for unanimous consent to add the protections to members of our Armed Forces who are either serving or have served, and he then asked to protect our senior citizens. He

asked for unanimous consent to do that, and the gentleman from Texas objected, so it was not added.

Then the chairman rose and asked that we substitute ``forthwith'' for ``promptly'' so their amendment could be immediately adopted, and the gentleman from Texas objected.

How cynical can you be to offer an amendment, I tell my friend, which in its own framework will kill the very proposition you are making? For if this amendment prevails, what will happen is, the bill will be killed and the protection of the Armed Forces that he seeks, the protection of the seniors that he seeks, will be killed.

My friends on this side of the aisle, this is a political game. The American public knows it is a political game. Let's reject this cynical political game and pass this legislation.

I thank my friend for yielding, and respond to him that on Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour business and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules, and we expect to appoint conferees on the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution.

Again, Monday night, we intend to have a motion to go to conference and appoint conferees, so that Members know it will be in addition to suspension bills.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour business and noon for legislative business. We will consider additional bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of those bills will be distributed by the end of business tomorrow.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. We expect to consider the fiscal year 2008 intelligence authorization bill; the fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security Department authorization bill; H.R. 1873, a bill regarding small business contracting; H.R. 1294, the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Recognition Act; and a bill to reauthorize the COPS program.

We are still determining which rules and bills will be considered on which days.

If the gentleman would yield.

As you know, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid in our meeting at the White House indicated that it was their intent and their objective to have to the President's desk before the Memorial Day break another bill to fund our troops, and for such other purposes as the bill may include.

In that context, I am hopeful that we will move a bill through this House no later than the 15th or 16th of May. In other words, not next week but the week after. If we can do it next week, we would maybe do it; but it is our intention to move it before the middle of the second week.

If the gentleman would yield.

I think we agree on that, and that is certainly our objective.

If the gentleman would yield, I am not sure I am accurate because when you say come before the House again, what we will do is take

the Senate bill from the desk, substitute the House language, ask for a conference, move to go to conference, and then you will have in order your motion to instruct conferees. To that extent, the bill will come before us, but only to that extent. In other words, the budget that was passed by the House, we will take the Senate bill from the floor, substitute the House language.

The reason we need a rule, frankly, is we asked unanimous consent to do that procedure, a unanimous consent which we had given to you in 2003 and 2005. For whatever reasons, it was not your personal determination, but it was the determination of your side not to give unanimous consent for that purpose. Therefore, in order to effect that objective, we need to pass a rule to allow us to do that which is what we will do Monday night.

If the gentleman would yield.

That is not my understanding. Now the gentleman may have more information than I have, but if that is the fact, I don't have that information. At this point in time, I was not aware of any such problem.

The only problem I was aware of, as I informed the gentleman, we can either do this by asking for unanimous consent to effect the process of taking the Senate bill, substituting the House bill, and then requesting the conference and appointing conferees by unanimous consent. Or, failing to get unanimous consent, we have to do that by rule. We did not get unanimous consent. The Rules Committee met today. We will consider that rule and the bill itself on Monday late afternoon, early evening.

Yes.

Yes, sir.

It will not be this coming week. That is being worked on. We want to make sure that it is a bill which accurately reflects reform and is workable. That is what we are trying to achieve.

It is my view it will go through a committee process. The Judiciary Committee is considering it. Mr. Conyers' committee is considering it.

If the gentleman would yield, if we have the full cooperation of all those people who have mothers or had mothers, we can accomplish that objective.

Having said that, as you know, I announced we have Friday scheduled as a day for us to do our business. Now if we were extraordinarily fortunate and got our business done by Thursday, or frankly could conclude it late Thursday night, perhaps we would be able to do that. But I do not anticipate that. I know as many Members on my side of the aisle, I want to assure the gentleman, have talked to me, as I am sure Members on your side of the aisle have talked to you about that, and if we can accommodate them, we will. But you heard the schedule. It is a pretty full schedule with a lot of substantive legislation. We have the intelligence authorization and other bills. It is my expectation that we will be in on Friday. But it is also my intent to make every effort to make Friday as short a day as we possibly can. As you know, our objective is no later than 2 p.m.; but if we could do earlier, 12:30, before 1, to accommodate Members and their flights, we certainly would like to do that. I would certainly welcome your help in accomplishing that objective.

Right.

Let me say, I agree with the gentleman. I was not pleased myself that we did not give more notice to Members. As you pointed out, we had votes very late in the day.

I take full responsibility because I think we may have been able to get, certainly early Tuesday at the latest, information to Members. We probably should have done that.

As you know, the issue was the veto, when it was going to go down there and when it was going to come back. That was not decided until late.

But I think the gentleman's criticism is a constructive criticism, and I take responsibility. We should have done that, in my opinion. I was not pleased, frankly, with myself or with the notice our office gave because we do want to give Members as accurate information as we possibly can. And, frankly, we want to give them as timely information as we can so they can accomplish what you have said, make their schedules comport with what we are actually doing. To the extent that did not happen this time, I will try to prevent it from happening a second time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Wednesday, May 9, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. on Thursday, May 10.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order on Thursday, May 10, for the Speaker to declare a recess subject to the call of the Chair for the purpose of receiving in this Chamber former Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Thursday, May 10, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. on Friday, May 11.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to John Constance, who last week retired from the National Archives after 35 years of Federal Service.

For 14 years, John served as the National Archives liaison to Capitol Hill, supervising congressional relations, public affairs, communications, and the agency's web program.

A native of Baltimore, Maryland, John joined the Archives after graduating from the College of William and Mary in 1972.

He served in a number of managerial positions with the agency, including Director of Policy and Program Analysis, and the Chief of Product Acquisition and Marketing for the National Audiovisual Center.

In addition, Mr. Constance served in extended details to both the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Education during his career, managing public affairs projects for both agencies.

I am personally grateful to John for all the expertise and assistance he provided to me in the early 1990s during a time of extraordinary transformation for the National Archives, particularly when it established a second facility in College Park, Maryland to accommodate the growing volume of historical materials and improve services to researchers.

This state-of-the-art facility, which has become known as ``Archives II,'' is a treasure to anyone who believes that a nation cannot progress unless it first understands its past. The historically significant records it maintains literally document the history of our great nation, and will serve as primary sources for countless scholars of history, culture, politics, and science for generations to come.

All of us who embark on careers in public service hope that when the day comes to move on to other pursuits, we will be remembered for the good works we have rendered to the American people. John will be remembered for, of all things, his part in advancing our nation's sacred duty to remember its always rich, often glorious, and sometimes controversial history.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me comment on the ranking member's observation about political posturing.

First, let me say I wonder what the President was doing standing in front of that sign saying ``Mission Accomplished'' on that aircraft carrier with taxpayers' dollars. Let me suggest to you that he was politically posturing, trying to take credit for a great victory that occurred 4 years ago. No one in America believes that the mission has been accomplished. No one in America thinks we have had a success.

Let me say that it was totally appropriate for the Speaker and for the majority leader in the United States Senate to sign a bill and let the public know that this is what the Congress believes.

My friend may think political posturing is taking responsibility, which is our constitutional duty, as opposed to simply rubber-stamping what the President wants done. There has not been any question asked for the last 4 years by this Congress. There has not been any interposition of a correct policy as opposed to the President's failed policy.

We don't see that as political posturing, I tell my friend--we see it as exercising the constitutional duty that the American public expects us to do as their independent representative.

This is only the second veto. Why is it only the second veto? Because you wouldn't pass anything the President didn't want. That is not the role of the Congress of the United States. The role of the Congress of the United States is to make policy. That is what article I says. That is what we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, regrettably, the President has chosen not to follow the will of the American people and bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate by vetoing legislation that fully funds our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, that holds the Iraqis accountable for making progress, and that calls for a responsible redeployment of American forces who are mired in a civil war.

It is our duty now as the elected representatives of the people to try to override the President's veto even though we may not succeed, and even as we prepare to meet with the President today to discuss next steps. That is our responsibility. We intend to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I believe our President, who was wrong 4 years ago when he stood under a banner announcing ``Mission Accomplished,'' is wrong again. The escalation of American troops in Iraq does not represent a change in this administration's failed policy. In fact, it is the fourth time we have escalated troops. In fact, it has been tried, unsuccessfully.

The President's claim last night that ``We've begun to see some important results'' is unfortunately contradicted by the facts. I wish it were true. I want to succeed in this effort, although what success is is ill-defined or not defined by the President.

In fact, Iraq is wracked by violence, including massive car bombs, almost daily. The U.S. death toll in April of 104 made last month the deadliest of the year and the sixth most lethal month since the war started, notwithstanding this increase in troop presence.

Senator Hagel, who recently returned from Iraq, stated: ``This thing is coming undone quickly, and the Maliki government is weaker by the day.''

And the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction just reported: ``The U.S. project to rebuild Iraq remains far short of its targets, leaving the country plagued by power outages, inadequate oil production and shortages of clean water and health care.''

I suggest to my friend, in that context, the Congress ought to be impacting on the policies that are being pursued that are not succeeding.

Finally, let me say, and I call the attention of my friend, the ranking member, to this because he referenced this. The President's claim last night that this legislation ``substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders'' is totally inaccurate.

But let me tell you what is not inaccurate is that our military commanders have made none of the decisions on the policies we have been pursuing in Iraq, and that is the tragedy. The decisions have been made not by military men and women, but by the President, by Mr. Cheney, by Mr. Rumsfeld, by Mr. Wolfowitz, and, yes, by Mr. Bremer.

We have seen nothing, I tell my friend, but a series of political decisions made on this war over the last 4-plus years; would that it have been otherwise. We do not seek to micromanage our military, which has done everything we have asked of them. Rather, we do continue to question the decisions of top administration officials, including, yes, the President,

whose judgments regarding this war have proved repeatedly, almost without exception, wrong.

Indeed, it is ironic that the President makes this claim when, in fact, we are mired in Iraq, because politicians who I have just referenced made decisions that prove to be wrong and did not lead to success.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress must not continue to simply rubber-stamp this administration's request. Our Founding Fathers did not think that was our role. They thought our role was to make independent judgments on the people's behalf and have the courage to pass legislation reflecting that judgment.

This legislation responds to the will of the American people and sets forth a policy to take us in a new direction that requires Iraqi responsibility and the pursuit of the political solution that General Petraeus and the Iraq Study Group say was essential if we were going to succeed.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle: Listen to the American people, fully fund our troops, hold the Iraqis accountable, support responsible redeployment of American troops. Vote to override this veto.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of H.R. 1867 pursuant to

House Resolution 349, the Chair may reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the service to the House of Representatives of our reading clerk Paul Hays, who after 19 years in that position and 41 years as an employee of this House has announced that he will retire--effective Monday, April 30--and begin a new phase of his life.

The fact is, Madam Speaker, Paul Hays--with his deep, crisp, commanding voice--is perhaps more recognizable to regular viewers of C- SPAN than many of the Members of Congress who are privileged to serve here.

Since 1789, the House has employed reading clerks, who are responsible for reading aloud the text of bills, amendments, motions, messages, special rules and other privileged resolutions, and veto messages.

Our reading clerks almost always have been appointed from the ranks of existing House employees who have extensive prior floor experience.

And, Paul--a graduate of Georgetown University--is no exception.

In fact, Paul was appointed reading clerk in 1988 by my very good friend and a great public servant, the former Republican minority leader Robert Michel of Illinois.

It is no coincidence, Mr. Speaker, that--given his speaking talents-- Paul intends to do voice-over work in the future.

Paul, we thank you for your service and wish you well in the future.