Providing for Consideration of HR 1591, US Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, 2007

Floor Speech

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1591, U.S. TROOP READINESS, VETERANS' HEALTH, AND IRAQ ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2007

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding time.

The supplemental before us today is a case study of what happens when one branch of the government tries to do the job assigned to another. It is hard to say what this will be known for, unconstitutional legislation that would allow Congress to micromanage a war, or a crude political compromise designed to win votes.

One thing though is perfectly clear: The bill is a sham. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric you will hear today. The managers on the other side of the aisle will try to convince you that we are addressing pressing needs, providing critical resources for our troops in the field and other so-called disasters here at home. But make no mistake, the bill will only hamstring our troops, provide fodder for our enemies abroad, cause a disastrous and precipitous cut and run, and indescribable damage to America's reputation in the vital Mideast and worldwide.

It also breaks the bank here at home by providing funds for pork-laden Democrat wish-lists. What does dollars for a spinach producer have to do with providing help for our troops in Iraq? What does money to a salmon farmer have to do with providing support for our troops in Iraq? What about aquaculture money? What has that got to do with troops in Iraq?

And for those Members who have surrendered their better judgment for pork for their districts, the majority adds $2.5 billion in so-called emergency homeland security items to sweeten the pot.

Don't get me wrong, many of the majority's homeland security adds are worthy and important items, such as nuclear and explosive detection systems and additional aircraft for the northern border, things I have supported in the past and continue to support, but they are in no way a 2007 emergency. They can be handled regularly in the 2008 bills. In every instance these bills could and should be addressed through the 2008 process.

By including them as 2007 emergencies, the majority is simply trying to look strong on security and buy down requirements to free up funds in fiscal 2008 for additional spending. While I support homeland security spending, I support it in a fiscally responsible way.

Let me turn to the real issue under debate today now. To the defense provisions that will cause the precipitous withdrawal of our forces from Iraq and take from a President his constitutional powers of Commander in Chief, there is a very good reason why our Founding Fathers gave the executive branch the responsibility to conduct war.

The House of Representatives is made up of 435 individuals; lawyers, doctors, teachers, farmers, some with military experience, some without. It is not made up of 435 military commanders who possess the ability to manage a war. We have military professionals to do that. Why are we attempting to insert our military judgment, which can cause the death or injury of our troops, when we are neither trained nor skilled to do so? Leave the management of the war to the trained professionals who know what they are doing.

If your aim is to end the war, and it is, this is the absolute wrong way to do it. The right way, bring forth a resolution or a bill to reverse the original authorization for the war. But as long as you have authorized the war, please don't tie the hands of our great soldiers and their commanders behind their backs in carrying out your authorization, still on the books, to fight this war against terror.

Mr. Speaker, this committee has lost its way on this one. It is a shameful turn of events. Handcuffing the authorities of the President, undermining our troops in harm's way and exploiting worthy government programs for political gain is beyond the pale. Our troops and our Nation deserve better. They deserve our undying support.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source