Providing For Consideration Of Conference Report On H.R. 2346, Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DREIER. Let me begin by thanking my friend from Utica for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I have to say that it's with extreme disappointment and sadness that I rise in opposition to this rule, having been very supportive of it when we had it just, it seemed, a few weeks ago.

The underlying measure of the supplemental appropriations bill that's supposed to fund our troops began auspiciously as a wonderfully bipartisan effort. In fact, when the House first considered the funding measure last month, Republicans were very proud to have what was our first opportunity, Mr. Speaker, our first opportunity of this 111th Congress to consider a major bill that had been developed in a bipartisan way.

[Time: 14:45]

I noted on that occasion that the President's call for bipartisan action had previously been completely thwarted by the Democratic majority; and, frankly, the record proves that to be the case. But finally when it came to the issue of funding our troops, even the Democratic leadership that had thwarted efforts to follow the Obama directive for bipartisanship, we had concluded that they weren't about to politicize the process of funding our troops. While the bill that we considered last month was not perfect, it did accomplish the key issue at hand, adequately providing for the protection and welfare of our troops. And as I said, we were very proud to do it in a bipartisan way, something the President wants, something that the American people want, and frankly, it's something that I believe a majority of Democrats and Republicans in this House want. But unfortunately the Democratic leadership does not seem to have that same goal.

Now the Democratic leadership is, unfortunately, back to what has very unfortunately been determined to be business as usual, which is concerning a measure which should have been as depoliticized as possible, considering it in an extraordinarily partisan way.

The conference report before us actually cuts troop funding in order to pay for billions of dollars of additional non-troop non-emergency spending. This includes $5 billion for the International Monetary Fund in order to provide additional global bailouts. Now any country, Mr. Speaker, can apply for this money. So there's nothing to ensure that United States taxpayer dollars don't go to countries like Iran or Venezuela. The question of whether to provide this new IMF funding is a controversial one; and it may end up being a right decision; but it's one that should be fully debated, not air-dropped into a conference report. Again, whatever the outcome of that debate on IMF funding, it is clearly something that should not be considered as emergency funding. It should be part of the regular appropriations process, which we're in the midst of right now, where tough decisions are made, priorities are set, and a proposal to send $5 billion to the International Monetary Fund can be weighed against other priorities that Members of this House may have, like transportation funding or some other issue that it may be determined through the deliberative process is a higher priority.

Mr. Speaker, our military is on the verge of running out of money. We all know that. That, frankly, is why we're here. The resources needed for our troops to conduct their mission and return home safely are nearly depleted. This, the issue of troop funding, is a true emergency. This is what this supplemental appropriations bill is all about--to protect and support the men and women in harm's way defending our country. The Democratic leadership, instead, chose to cut troop funding and load this bill up with other very controversial funding that does not support our troops. Republicans made it clear that we could not support a troop funding bill that does not, in fact, fully fund our troops. So the leadership on the other side of the aisle found itself in a dilemma. They had lost Republican support with their partisanship, their controversial programs and their cuts for troop funding. So what could they do? How could they win the votes necessary to pass this conference report?

The obvious solution would have been to return to bipartisanship. It's what the President of the United States has called for; it's what the American people want; and it's what I believe a majority of Democrats and Republicans in this House would like. But instead, the Democratic leadership chose to push the contents of this bill as far to the left as they possibly could in the hopes of picking up support from the fringes of their own party. Having left the middle ground, the fringe was the only place left to go.

So how did they appeal to the very, very extreme left? First they watered down language related to moving terrorists to U.S. soil from Guantanamo Bay. Well, Republicans have supported much stronger language to ensure that no terrorists are ever moved to or set free on American soil. The original language would have at least required consultation with Congress and slowed down the process until we could act definitively to ensure the protection of our communities. But inexplicably, as Democrats, Republicans and Independents across the country have voiced their outrage over the prospect of having terrorists potentially released on American soil, today's conference report further weakens the already weakened language. It leaves our neighborhoods even more vulnerable to the movement of Gitmo terrorists. Furthermore, the Democratic leadership removed protections to ensure that information that could put our troops in danger would not be released. Many on the far left opposed these protections, so the Democratic leadership bartered for their support of this bill by stripping them out completely. Without those protections in place, our troops in the field will be subject to even greater harm. This was the price the Democratic leadership paid in order to negotiate with the far left rather than return to the bipartisanship and common sense that had guided earlier debates on this funding bill.

To see just how far out of the mainstream this approach is, Mr. Speaker, look no further than the vote on the motion to instruct conferees that we had just this past Friday. It was a Republican motion which handily passed the House by a vote of 267-152. Mr. Speaker, by a vote of 267-152, this House called for a clean bill that restores full funding for the troops and keeps in place the protections to prevent the release of information that could potentially endanger our troops. That strong bipartisan vote just this past Friday in favor of this motion indicates how much support there is in this House for a clean, bipartisan full troop funding bill. For those of us who naively thought that the funding of our troops was the one issue that could not be politicized, this is a very, very sobering moment. Clearly the Democratic leadership cannot help themselves. Even when bipartisanship would be the easy choice, they were compelled to move in the exact opposite direction.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, demand a clean troop funding bill, one that fully provides the resources they need, one that is stripped of all extraneous controversial non-emergency funding and one that includes full protections for American communities as well as our troops in the field.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my friend from Utica who made it very clear that he believes that troop funding is their priority; but yet this measure reduces by $4.7 billion the level of troop funding that we had in the bipartisan bill passed just last month and transfers it to the IMF. So, in fact, this measure does cut troop funding.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 3 minutes to the new ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, the very distinguished gentleman from Santa Clarita, California (Mr. McKeon).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. Speaker, this has been a fascinating debate that has taken place. It began with some very thoughtful comments from my friend from Utica talking about the need for funding for our troops, and I laude him for referring to the fact that that is the priority of this measure.

We then listened to, on our side, the distinguished new ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, my friend from Santa Clarita (Mr. McKeon), talk about the priority of funding for our troops.

And then we listened to speeches made by our colleagues, and there was barely a mention of the issue of troop funding.

We just heard our colleague talk about firefighters. Hey, I'm from southern California where we have fires, and we have horrible fires. Loss of life and property is something that regularly takes place there. It's a very, very important issue. It's an issue that should be considered under the regular appropriations process under the leadership of my California colleagues, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Obey, not in a troop funding bill.

Then we listened to our very good friend from Detroit talk about the automobile industry, a serious challenge that we, as a Nation, are trying to address. I personally believe that the notion of continuing to see the government more and more involved in this area is not the right thing to do, but it's a debate that will go on. And yet our friend, Mr. Levin, was talking about the issue of the automobile industry in this troop funding bill.

Then I listened to our friend from Houston, Texas, talk about Darfur, one of the most troubled spots on the face of the Earth, an issue that does need to be addressed, and the challenges of meeting the needs of children in Texas, a very, very important issue, but not as part of a troop funding measure.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said, through the very thoughtful work of the Appropriations Committee last month, we came to this floor with what President Obama and I believe a majority of Republicans and Democrats in this House would like to see us achieve, and I know the American people would like to see us achieve, and that is bipartisanship.

Bipartisanship is a word that is used all the time around here, all the time. Everyone talks about the need for bipartisanship, how important it is. The Speaker in her opening address here to the Congress as we began the 111th Congress talked about how she wanted to work in a bipartisan way. We Republicans say we want to work in a bipartisan way.

But this bill that emerged from the House Appropriations Committee was the first time, the very first time in this 111th Congress that we were able to see a bipartisan work product emerge from the Democratic leadership, and I congratulated them on that, and I have done that when we considered the bill, and I would like to be able to do it today.

But, unfortunately, this bill has crumbled from what it was intended to be, a bill to support funding for our troops. It in fact included a reduction by transferring money that was intended in the House-passed bill to be funding for our troops to the International Monetary Fund.

Now, I will say that that may be a worthwhile cause as we deal with the economic challenges that exist here in the United States and around the world. But, again, Mr. Speaker, that is something that should not be considered as an emergency funding measure. It is something that should be considered under the normal appropriations process, so that we can make a determination whether increasing by $5 billion the funding for the International Monetary Fund is more important than transportation priorities here in the United States or other priorities that we have.

So, some might like to say that this bill is just a continuation of what we considered last month. But, Mr. Speaker, it unfortunately has gone a long way down from where we were, creating the potential, the potential for us to not be able to prevent with absolute certainty the terrorists from Gitmo ending up in the United States. There is no guarantee that that will happen.

On the IMF, on the IMF, there is no guarantee, no guarantee in this measure that funding requests could not be made for countries like Iran or Venezuela.

So, Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of things that this troop funding bill has ended up addressing, and it was made very clear by an overwhelming majority of the remarks that came from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, so that we can come back and pass in this House what 267 Members last Friday said that they wanted to have passed, and that is a clean bill that funds our troops and ensures that we won't have terrorists in the United States, that ensures that we will not be dramatically expanding a wide range of other programs.

So vote ``no'' on this rule, and, if by chance it passes, I urge a ``no'' vote on the conference report itself, because we can do better.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source