Providing for Consideration of Senate Amendments to House Amendments to Senate Amendment to H.R. 2642, Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

Mr. DREIER. I want to begin for the second time today by expressing my great appreciation to my very good friend and colleague, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it was interestingly enough on February 5 of 2007, February 5 of 2007, which is exactly 500 days ago--500 days ago President Bush made a request of this Congress to provide supplemental funding for our troops to ensure that they have all the tools necessary to prosecute these struggles going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan, 500 days, a long period of time. But Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that I believe that we've finally gotten there.

As I listened carefully to the statement of my good friend from Rochester, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, I have to say that I completely concurred with the first third of her statement in which she went through a very accurate description of exactly what this supplemental appropriations bill consists of. I could not disagree with her more on the second third of her presentation, and on the last part, I have sort of a mixed view.

When it comes to the first third, I will say that, again, I completely concur. This measure is designed to ensure that we get to our men and women in uniform the tools that they need, the resources that they need to continue this struggle. It ensures that the request and the directive by Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, raising very serious concern about the prospect of not being able to have the resources necessary is addressed.

She also in her remarks talked about the need to deal with the economic challenges that we face, and I completely concur. When we saw the largest increase in the unemployment rate in 22 years, a half a percent increase in the unemployment rate, it's clear that we want to ensure that those Americans who are very much in need are going to be able to have their concerns addressed by providing with that 20-work week requirement, which we've gone back to and which we supported in the early part of this decade in 2001 and 2002, that that requirement will continue to be in place. So I wholeheartedly support that effort for the 13-week extension.

And she also talked about the need to ensure that we provide the resources for the veterans. For those men and women who have been engaged in this struggle and have come home, it is absolutely crucial that we do everything that we can to provide those very important resources for those brave and courageous men and women who have served in our Armed Forces.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when it came as I said to the second third of Ms. Slaughter's presentation, I could not disagree more vigorously. She referred to the term ``political progress'' as being one of posturing. Well, I've got to say if we look at the independent assessments that have been provided by even some of the most harsh critics, some of the harshest critics of this war, there has been acknowledgment that this surge has worked.

All one needs to do is this week look at lead articles in both the Washington Post, hardly an entity that has been sympathetic with this effort, and the Associated Press. Both of those entities have strongly come forward and pointed to the tremendous progress that has been made not only, not only militarily but the political progress which has been made as well.

And so I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleagues who have worked in a bipartisan way. I see Mr. Obey here. He just testified before the Committee on Rules and talked about his concerns, and he talked about the need to make sure that we move forward.

Our Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, has also worked very, very diligently on this, and I have to say it's interesting as we mark today the 500th day since the President made this request for supplemental funding for our troops, it's fascinating that this all came together within what is just about a maybe 28-, 29-, 30-hour period of time.

So I think that it's important for us to get this done. It's important for us to address these concerns which include the much-needed relief to those victims of the floods in the Midwest and the strengthening of the levees following Hurricane Katrina, and I believe that we have a wonderful indication of bipartisanship at its best here.

[Begin Insert]

I am very pleased to finally take up a Rule for a Supplemental Appropriations bill that is based on bipartisan compromise that gets our troops the funding they need. And most important, it is a bill that the President can actually sign. I just wish we could have done this months ago.

Mr. Speaker, the request for supplemental funding for our troops came to us on February 5th of 2007--exactly 500 days ago. Since that time, we have heard hours of testimony from our military commanders, warning us in clear terms of the strains on our troops from the failure to fund them. For months, we have heard of impending layoffs of military contract employees. Of vital programs getting cut off or put on hold. The message was very clear: our armed forces in harm's way needed emergency funding in order to effectively continue their jobs.

But what did they get from the Democratic Leadership? Endless political posturing. Funding bills that were purely political documents, with no hope of being enacted. I find it very troubling that this partisan process could drag on for so long.

I find it very troubling that it took so long before there was an attempt at bipartisan negotiation to craft a good bill that provides for our troops and will be enacted into law.

After months of posturing, once the Democratic Majority finally reached across the aisle so that real progress could be made--how long did it take to reach a workable compromise? Mere hours. Once the dialogue began, Republicans and Democrats quickly came to a solution--a bill that funds our troops, while also addressing other priorities in a responsible way.

Today's underlying bill fully funds our armed forces. It will provide a new education benefit to veterans, without raising taxes. And it will extend unemployment insurance in these uncertain economic times, without eliminating key provisions to prevent fraud and abuse. This is a compromise that Republicans and Democrats can support, fulfilling our duty to the men and women who are in harm's way. This is a duty that we as a body must take far more seriously than the last few months have demonstrated.

When we are bogged down by the Democratic Majority's political gamesmanship, there are real-world consequences to these actions--or lack of action.

As we have heard from our military commanders over the past weeks and months exactly what these consequences are, one of the most troubling revelations came just last week. Adm. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that our commanders had run out of funds to pay for development projects in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is perhaps the most perverse outcome of the Democratic Leadership's failure to fund our troops.

Regardless of where you stand on the war, we all know and agree that the fight against extremism demands more than a purely military solution. Our armed forces are working to provide a security environment that allows for development to take place--and they are succeeding. But if we squander this opportunity, we will never succeed in the long term. We will fail to win hearts and minds, and we will fail to provide an alternative to terror and extremism.

The people of Iraq and Afghanistan need to see that our fight is not against them. They need to see that we support democratic institutions and the good governance that ensures peace, liberty and opportunity. Without our development efforts, our military efforts can have no hope for sustainable success. By stonewalling the troops' funding, the Democratic Leadership not only shortchanges our troops, they are blocking our efforts to assist in the development of the foundation for lasting peace.

This is an unconscionable policy. Especially at the very time that the seeds of reconciliation are starting to take root. For months we have known that the surge has succeeded in reducing violence. Even the war's harshest critics have begrudgingly conceded that violence has been significantly reduced. But they called it an empty victory, saying that the improved security situation has failed to bring about political progress.

But today, that is changing. Monday's lead AP story was ``Iraqi violence down, confidence in government up.''

Tuesday's Washington Post announced ``Calm in Iraq Spurs Debate; Decline in Violence, Focus on Politics May Signal Turning Point.'' These are stories not just of reduced violence. They tell of the political reconciliation and progress that is now being made possible by the increased security. Iraqis are gaining faith in the Maliki government. And minority Sunni parliamentarians are heartened that a Shiite government would go after Shiite terrorists with the same zeal they go after Sunni terrorists.

Of course, this progress is fragile. Tuesday's terrible attack in Baghdad reminded us that while violence is diminishing overall, the danger of large-scale attacks remains very real. Furthermore, the political progress is still in its infancy. The Post story goes on to say ``analysts question whether the limited political accommodation among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds can be sustained if the U.S. withdraws its forces quickly.'' It points out that Iran would love to fill any void that we create, and that Iraqis fear today's calm is simply the calm before the storm. Clearly, our mission is not complete.

But demonstrable progress is being made. After years of terrible violence, setbacks and enormous challenges, many of us have become desensitized to any signs of progress and improvement. But they are there. The tragic part is that any delay in providing critical funding puts this fragile progress in jeopardy. Today's underlying bill is urgently needed. While I am deeply sorry it has taken this long, I am truly pleased to finally have a bipartisan bill that will deliver our troops the vital resources they need.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, and I do so to simply congratulate my friend on his very thoughtful statement. The fact that we have been able to come together in a bipartisan way to ensure that the Sean Walshes and the other men and women in uniform who have sacrificed for this country are going to have what they are due is, I believe, a great testament to what we are doing in this House.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and my colleague, the chairperson of the Rules Committee, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today with a very heavy heart. Today this Congress will vote to spend $165 billion more on war. War is bloody. War is messy. It tends not just to hide the truth, but to sacrifice the truth. It destroys the hopes, the dreams and the aspirations of a people.

When the citizens of this Nation are begging for aid, struggling to make ends meet, it doesn't make sense to spend our precious resources on an unnecessary war. Sometime, somehow, some way, somebody must say enough is enough.

The rest of you may do what you may, but, as for me and my house, I will not vote for another dollar, another dime, another nickel, another penny, for this war. I will vote ``no'' on funding for war.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it was February 5, 2007, February 5, 2007, exactly 500 days ago, that President Bush made a request for supplemental funding for our men and women in uniform to ensure that they have the resources necessary to successfully prosecute this war. That is what we are here doing this evening now.

We are here because we have actually seen, based on reports that have come from some of the harshest critics of this war, that we are making progress. All one needs to do is look at the Washington Post the day before yesterday, the Associated Press story that has been referred to by a number of my colleagues. Time and time again we hear of the success that is being made in our effort to ensure that we are able to continue to enjoy our freedoms and that we have a world that has a greater degree of stability. Only the United States of America, only the United States of America, is in a position to do this.

Sacrifice has been made. Time and time again our colleagues have talked about the number of lives that have been lost.

As I listened to my friend from Chicago (Mr. Emanuel), he was referring to one of his constituents, I was immediately reminded of one of my constituents whom I refer to on a pretty regular basis here.

It was in the battle of Fallujah in November of 2004 that J.P. Blecksmith tragically was killed. His father, who was a former Marine from San Marino, California, has, on repeated occasions, to me said if we don't complete our mission, my son, J.P., will have died in vain.

War is an ugly thing, but it's not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war is worse. Those were the words of a very, very famous writer who wrote them following the Civil War. We are in the midst of a painful struggle.

But on this issue, I am very happy that we have been able to come together in a bipartisan way to deal with this. I congratulate my colleagues, Messrs. OBEY and LEWIS, for working together on this, and Mr. Boehner, who has provided great leadership in this effort.

We need to ensure that our men and women in uniform not only have everything that they need to successfully prosecute this war, but we also need to make sure that they have the tools necessary as they come back into our society. We have for years seen great warriors come back to the United States of America and work to make their country an even better place, and I believe that the provisions that we provide in here with these GI benefits will go a long way towards doing that.

The American people are hurting. We saw, as has been repeatedly said, the largest increase in 22 years in the unemployment rate, going up a half a percent. That's why, again, we have come in a bipartisan way to ensure that those who are truly in need, those who through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs, are able to see an extension in their unemployment benefits.

Again, I think that what we are going to be doing here in the next few minutes is we are going to be casting a bipartisan vote which will be done in the spirit of what the American people want us to do, and that is to get things done, deal with very, very important issues and problems that we face.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source