Kendrick Meek

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Tell you what. You start naming off a few, and then I will name off. Because we need to make sure the Members know that this not just something that came out the back room. Oh, I have my list here now. There is so much information, Mr. Ryan, that we have to share.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Third party validator.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Don't get too far from the rhythm here. Don't go anywhere.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. The Trust for Public Land and Conservation Fund endorse. The Trust Alliance endorse what we are doing here. The U.S. Public Interest Research Group endorse what we are doing here. Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States endorse what we are doing, because they are seeing the largest increase in commitment that so many Members of Congress have talked about over the years. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. These are the folks that work every day. These are the individuals that come in before we get here and leave after us. These are the works folks that know what it means to punch in and punch out. The Audubon Society, Catholic Charities, the Committee for Education Funding, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, Catholic Health Association, Defenders of Wildlife, Disabled American Veterans. These are the individuals, Mr. Ryan, and that is just, I can't go through all of the letters. We have the letters right here. I am not just reading from a sheet, just saying, well, I am just going to read. Anybody want to see this, they can stop by 1039 Longworth, and I will give them several copies of this. And, Mr. Speaker, they can run and take a look at them. My Republican colleagues, some that I believe that will vote with us on this budget resolution, since it is so good and it is doing the right thing and it is not just about Iraq and Iraq and the other issue, Iraq. It is about domestic priorities. It is about making sure that our children have health care. It is about protecting the homeland. It is about all of the things and all of the reasons why we came to Congress. Not just to hear from the President and say, so shall it be written, so shall it be done. So, Mr. Ryan, for you to get passionate about this, not that I am not passionate about it, but I think it is important that we share this accurate information with the people, with not only Members of Congress but the American people. So I am glad that you entered it into the Congressional Record. Those that may be able to get on-line or even get a copy of the Congressional Record will be able to see these great American organizations that will endorse. And I know, Mr. Speaker, as this budget resolution, when we start moving through the process and the Senate product and we go into conference and we send it to the President of the United States, there will be a true momentum of the American spirit that will be rolling over to the White House on Pennsylvania. It will go right down the street here. If the President wants to veto domestic priorities and things that are going to help Americans every day and be able to make sure that our military is strong and make sure that our veterans get better service that we promised them when they signed up as volunteers to protect this country, then we have to continue, Mr. Ryan and Members, to persuade the President to do otherwise. If he wants to veto it, we have to persuade him not to do it. I am not going to say have at it. It would be okay if it wasn't the budget of the United States of America. It would be okay if it wasn't an emergency supplemental to make sure that our troops and men and women have what they need and accountability measures are in that emergency supplemental to hold the Iraqi government's feet to the fire, and what the administration has said, and making sure that our troops have what they need when they are sent into harm's way and make sure when they come back home that they are able to even go to their son or daughter's school without coming back in 6 weeks and 2 months being shipped back to Iraq for another 14-month tour. Because the administration, it takes them so long to admit that they have a problem. They just admitted 2 weeks ago, the Defense Department just called the conflict in Iraq a civil war after a year of the media and Members of Congress saying it was a civil war. They just got there, Mr. Ryan. So the good thing about it is that, and in the last Congress we used to talk about if we had the opportunity to do. Now we have the opportunity, and we are doing, and I would just want the majority of this House to join us in the leadership opportunities that the American people have provided us. And I am not just talking to Democrats, Mr. Speaker, I am talking to my Republican colleagues. Because, guess what? Maybe not this November but next November is going to be another opportunity for the American people to stand in judgment. And I guarantee you this: People are going to vote their personal priorities over their politics. The President got out there today. They are going to get us. Terrorists are coming. We have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them over here. Well, guess what? When we passed and fully implemented the 9/11 recommendations, we are ready to protect America. That is what this budget reflects, and that is the way we protect the homeland, not continuing to stay in the middle of civil war.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. I think it is important that we continue to say this. Mr. Ryan, you said something that I thought was very interesting, very interesting.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. The Members who are in their offices, those that may be on the floor, I don't want them to have to wait to read the Congressional Record tomorrow, the next day or what have you. I just wanted to name a few of these folks. I think it is important. Military Officers Association of America wrote a letter in support of this budget. The National Child Support Enforcement Association, the National Low Income Housing Association, the National Women of Law Centers Association, Fight Crime, Invest in Kids. The National Association of Counties. Who are they? These are counties throughout the country and parishes that are saying enough is enough. The National Association of Police Organizations, Inc. Who are they? They are our law enforcement community that is looking for the COPS program to come back. The National School Board Association, the National Head Start Association, the Ohio Child Support Enforcement Agency Directors Association. I thought I would mention that, Mr. Ryan, since you were here.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, it is very good, interesting, because I have a lot of veterans in my district. As a matter of fact, I was just talking to a group of veterans yesterday that came to this capital. We had an opportunity to talk. You know, veterans, why are you giving the President a hard time about funding, the President loves us. The President loves veterans. We all do. Who doesn't? Who is running around here saying I don't like veterans? No one. But it is not what you say, it is what you do. Mr. Ryan, I think you pointed it out. I just want to share this information and the sources from the House budget committee, and also from the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Budget Office, and this is from the president's budget office and the Congressional Budget Office, and it is from the House Budget Committee. So you have three, third party validators to these numbers. As we look at the President's budget as he proposed for the United States of America, when you look at the veterans, the Democrat budget is $32 billion above what the President's budget over the next 5 years. You can see the numbers going across. But let's just get all the way over to 2010. The President's budget is $39.7 billion. We have $48.3 billion. All right, what do these numbers mean? It means shorter waits at VA hospitals. It means better care for our veterans. It means that we will have a system set up for when these men and women come home, and those that are in the system now. Doctors will be able to receive the kind of training they need. Medical professionals will be able to receive the training. VA medical facilities will better. There will be oversight because we have made an investment there. It won't just be the same old thing over and over again. These are the facts. Politically, you know, if someone just says, I am with the President, that is fine. But have the facts, have the facts.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. One last point before we recognize Ms. Jackson- Lee because I know we want to get to our next discussion, get into the budget. Mr. Speaker, to hear the President say even the word ``veto'' is something we have never heard since he has been President of the United States. He has never vetoed anything. Spending out of control, foreign debt, record numbers, passing tax cuts for the superwealthy and for the special interests, President never said a mumbling word. Cricket sounds of special interest subsidies and tax breaks, rolling through this floor, Members held hostage here on the floor, voting for special interest legislation for hours upon hours, the board is left open, not a mumbling word out of the President, not a mumbling word. And now legislation happens to pass that he no longer has his rubber stamp Congress, he no longer has a Speaker who says, hey, this is the way I want it or no longer has President, this is the way we want to do it over in the Senate, so shall it be written, so shall it be done, his original thoughts are not followed through here in the Congress. Since that no longer exists, now all of the sudden, the President wants to get animated when it comes down to I am going to veto what they send and they are blocking money. We are not blocking money for the troops. Matter of fact, we are giving them more than what he asked for. We are dealing with the issue of the VA. We are dealing with the issue of the crisis that we have here in the United States of America. It is an emergency. The children do not have health care. This is not an emergency for Iraqi children. It is an emergency for kids in Alabama. It is an emergency for the kids in Georgia, and it is an emergency for the kids in the Midwest and in Florida. This chart here, and I am going to leave it alone and I am going to recognize Ms. Jackson-Lee, I have over 12 percent of uninsured. This is my State here in Florida. Over 12 percent of the children in the State of Florida, more than 12 percent are uninsured. That is my State. Texas, hello, President of the United States, he has a house there. It is where the West White House is. Over 12 percent of the children in that State do not have health insurance. This is an emergency to the American families. This is an emergency here in this country. It cannot be Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, and that other issue, Iraq. We have to care about our own country, and if we cannot put that in an emergency supplemental without the President threatening a veto, if he vetoes that bill he is denying U.S. children, need it be Republican, Democrat, Independent, concerned citizen thinking about voting in the next election, yes, your children, too; yes your State, too; yes, your community, too, will be without health insurance because the last Congress decided not to do it. They decided not to do it, and I think it is important when you look at this, as we move into the budget, if we were to follow what the President wants to do as it relates to vetoing this emergency supplemental, $2 billion for what we call the State insurance plan for children. In the budget resolution that we have, $50 billion to make sure that we cover the costs of that as we look in the projection as the years go out. So I am glad that Mr. Ryan is bringing these issues up, and as we now segue into the budget, the next thing you know, Mr. Speaker, I guess when we pass this budget tomorrow, we will probably end up being a bipartisan vote just like the emergency supplemental was a bipartisan vote in the House and Senate, that the President will probably have a press conference tomorrow and say I am going to veto the budget, too. So, if he now believes in vetoes, after 6 years of being President of these United States, out-of-control spending, record borrowing from foreign Nations, and now there are accountability measures in the budget and in the emergency supplemental, I do not even want to tell the President to have at it because, as an American, I am going to do everything I have to do to stop him from doing it. I yield to Ms. Jackson-Lee.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you so much, Ms. Jackson-Lee. Thank you so much for coming down and sharing information that you shared with us. I think it is also important to note in the budget resolution that we have, it will not change the tax structure that the taxes, the President's tax cuts will sunset 2010. It doesn't change that. So as we start to move along. But I just want to make this point. I think it is very important. I am just going to ask the question, since we have three Members on the floor, and I know, Ms. Jackson-Lee, you are about to leave. Here at the Capitol, when we are walking across the street to come over here to vote, and even when we have groups come up to visit with us, and even in my district office, in the 5 years, 5, going on 5 years that I have been in Congress, Mr. Ryan and I have been here 5, you have been here longer than us, that not one millionaire or billionaire came to me and said, please protect my tax cut. Not one billionaire wearing Polo shoes walked up outside of the Chamber and said, Congressman, I am a billionaire, you know, with a pinky with diamonds and everything on it. Please protect my tax cut. Done give my tax cut to kids without health insurance, not one. Not one. I am just trying to figure out, but I can tell you, people from the State of Florida, that is in government, say please help insure our children. There have been veterans running in here saying, I can't wait 6 months to see the ophthalmologist any more. Can you help us? Back in the District, Congressman, have you been to the VA hospital recently, or the clinic? Do you have to pin your nose when you walk in because of the conditions there? I have seen that. I haven't seen a billionaire or millionaire run up and say, please, fall on your knees, Congressman, whatever you do, do not take my tax cut away that I didn't even ask for.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. If the gentleman would suspend, is this the company where the CEO is moving to Dubai?

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, they don't say 10 percent match for the special interests. When it comes down to big oil and some other big guys and gals here in this town, Mr. Speaker, they don't say you have to match us halfway. They say just, we will give you what you need. As a matter of fact, we will give you technical assistance to be able to take the U.S. taxpayer dollar and do what you want. And guess what, we will not even look. We will cover our eyes. We won't even have hearings. Get my hearing chart, Mr. Ryan. I want to get down to the nitty- gritty here. Mr. Speaker, we come to the floor 10 minutes past 10, 12 minutes past 10, and there are some things that we could be doing, but this is serious business. We come with the facts. These numbers are from the Clerk of the House of Representatives. It is not from the DNC, and it is not from my cousin back in Miami that said hey, this looks good, maybe you want to take that to the floor and talk about it. This comes from the Clerk's Office. I actually like the Clerk's Office. These are the facts. The 107th Congress, 108th Congress, this is the 109th Congress that many media outlets have called the do-nothing Congress. At this point in March of 2005, compared to March of 2007, the new Democratic Congress, the new direction Democratic Congress, the Congress only had 90 roll call votes. We have already had 189 roll call votes and counting for this month. When you look at suspension bills that are coming over from the Senate what have you, kind of agreed upon, 26 votes that took place by this time; 72 we have done here in this new direction Congress, Mr. Speaker. When you look at bills passed under a rule, 11 votes by this time in the last Republican-controlled Congress; 24 in this Congress. We are here to do business. Days in session, 26 days in the Republican-controlled Congress; 48 days under this new direction Congress, Democratic-controlled Congress. We bring these facts to the floor to make sure that not only Members, but the American people understand we are here to carry out the business of the American people. Mr. Ryan has some numbers when it comes down to accountability on Iraq because some Members would lead you to believe, a small number, would lead other Members to believe that there was some backroom decision that was made about accountability in Iraq, and all of the things that we are learning about Iraq, all of the accountability measures that we come up with as it relates to Iraq and policing the U.S. taxpayer dollars and all of the protection measures that we have in for the troops and men and women in uniform, they just think it happens in some backroom here in the capitol.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Just stop right there, Mr. Ryan. Brookings Institute.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Very quickly, while you get the chart to give the Web site, Mr. Ryan, I just wanted to say in this letter that Senator Reid, the leader in the Senate, and also the Speaker here in the House wrote to the President saying that we will no longer move in the old direction but, rather, a bipartisan majority of the House and Senate believes strongly that the U.S. mission should transition to a counterterrorism force protection and training equipment of the Iraqi forces. Phasing redeployment of U.S. troops should commence. So this is the stage that we want to move in now. It won't be a total withdrawal but definitely will be making sure that there are accountability measures there, that their troops get trained and that we get our men and women back home more sooner than later.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Would not.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to come to the floor. Mr. Ryan and I have spent a long time, Mr. Speaker, when it was just Mr. Ryan and I on the floor. This goes back to the 108th Congress and a little of the 109th Congress, and I am so glad we are having the opportunity to come to the floor to talk about not only the budget but what we were able to do last week, last Friday, moving in a new direction as it relates to the emergency supplemental. Mr. Speaker, as you know, the 30-Something Working Group comes to the floor to not only share facts but to also do away with the fiction that many of the Members on the other side of the aisle come to the floor many times sharing information that I guess someone gave them some information and said, go on the floor and say this, or what have you. I can't help but watch some of this debate on the floor and question where some of the information comes from. The good thing about the 30-something Working Group, we actually have third-party validators for information that we share here on the floor. We want to make sure that every Member is able to make a sound decision and that the American people are able to get great information from what we share here on the floor. As you know, every time we come to the floor, we talk about a number of issues. But tonight, again we are going to talk about the budget. We are also going to talk about the ongoing issue of Iraq and the courageous step we took just last week, and the Senate has taken a step in that direction also in accountability measures within the emergency supplemental. Mr. Ryan, I don't know if you had an opportunity to see the President's press conference today, but it was quite interesting. It was like he was trying to sell something to the American people. He was speaking to the Cattlemen's Association, and he took that opportunity not to talk about beef, but to talk about what the Congress is doing in the area of making sure that we bring about accountability. He was saying he is going to veto what we actually passed. What he is trying to do, and there is a word on the street that is used, flipping the script. He is trying to flip the script and trying to fake the American people out in saying that the Democratic Congress is standing in the schoolhouse door of the funding getting to our troops. Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ and I think we have prima facie evidence here to show that the emergency supplemental, everything in the emergency supplemental is a true emergency, making sure that we fund our troops beyond what the President has called for, making sure that we stand up on behalf of our veterans, an unprecedented commitment to Veterans Affairs and to the VA in the history of this country. Because we already had a system that needed work and needed funding, this Congress stepped forth and put forth, the 110th Congress, the Democratic controlled Congress stepped forward and made sure we did what we needed to do for the veterans, and we are just getting started. At the same time, Mr. Ryan, we have to look at the issue of Hurricane Katrina. The President said there is other funding in there. We are doing things in the emergency supplemental for the people on the gulf coast that have been waiting on the President. They don't want lip service, they want action. If the President wants to veto that, that's on him. But I guarantee you that the American people will see through what our President is saying as it relates to and as he continues to explain how he is going to veto an emergency supplemental. He is saying if the money runs out, and it is on the back of the U.S. Congress. Well, I can tell you this: The American people are on the side of the U.S. Congress. They have asked us to lead, and we are leading. They didn't ask us to balk at the first threat that the President makes. Or I am going to veto. Well, okay, that is something that you are going to have to live with. That is something you will have to explain. But we are going to continue to do what we need to do here in providing the kind of leadership necessary. America said in November they want to move in a direction. They said they want accountability. They no longer want a rubber stamp. They want a do-something Congress and not a do-nothing Congress. We will talk about that tonight. Mr. Ryan, I am so glad you are here as we continue to share this information with the Members so they can make an accurate decision tomorrow when we vote on the budget, on our priorities, making sure that we give every child in the United States health care, and making sure that we move in the direction that the U.S. mayors have asked us to move in, making sure that we move in the direction that governors have asked us to move in, and giving the necessary dollars to homeland security to protect the homeland. We are going to make sure that the Members know exactly what they are voting on so when we go on a 2-week break, Mr. Speaker, Members can't go home and say, I didn't really understand what was in the budget. I yield to Mr. Ryan.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you so very much, Mr. Murphy. It is an honor to be here on the floor with you. I look forward to having a discussion not only with you, but also other Members of the House about what is coming up this week. I know that you alluded to last week's action that took place here on this floor. Democrats and Republicans and the majority were able to pass an emergency supplemental war bill that would not only put benchmarks in to make sure that the Iraqi Government is doing all that they should do to make sure that they carry out their responsibility since the U.S. taxpayer will be spending over $100 billion and counting over in Iraq in this piece of legislation, this supplemental, but also the $400-plus billion that have already been spent. And also security for the troops, making sure that Department of Defense regulations, Mr. Speaker, that have been put forth to protect our troops, that they have what they need: the up-armor that they need, the training that they need, the equipment that they need, the personal equipment that they need. And also making sure that our troops, as it relates to their rotation into theater, that they actually get an opportunity to have a Defense Department that has to do what they said they would do, and making sure they have enough time to be with their families, make sure they are able to maintain a job, those that are Reservists and National Guard men and women back home. And to also make sure that their families have an opportunity to be a part of their father or their mother's lives, or their parents having an opportunity to enjoy their son or daughter. And I think that is so very, very important as family values, and it is also standing by our word. If we can't stand by our word while they are enlisted or federalized to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan, then how do they expect for us to stand next to them and behind them when they are veterans and they are out in the world of veterans health care? I can tell you also, Mr. Speaker, that I am very pleased with the fact that we did put something in the legislation that will hopefully point towards redeployment of our troops. This war will continue and continue and continue if left up to the President of the United States. But before I start talking about the action really that we took, passing that legislation, seeing the voice vote that took place in the Senate last week, moving on legislation even with a closer time line and different benchmarks, which, Mr. Speaker, you know we will come together in conference to talk about a little further and iron out and be able to get a work product to the President. But as you know, today, March 26 of 2007, the number stands at 3,235 U.S. servicemen and women that have died in Iraq; some 13,415 of U.S. troops have been injured and returned back to battle. You have to think about it, injured and then returned back to battle; 10,000 U.S. troops have been injured and have not been able to return back to battle. Hearing those numbers and hearing how they continue to move up, Mr. Speaker, even speaks further to the kind of oversight that this Congress must have in this conflict in Iraq, this civil war in Iraq, I must add, that we are officiating. We know that the President had a press conference after we took our action here on the floor. I want to commend the Members again who voted in the affirmative to make sure that we were able to take action, the first time the U.S. Congress has taken action with benchmarks, even against profiteering with U.S. contractors that are the third largest, you may call it coalition partner, or the second largest outside of U.S. servicemen and women in Iraq. You would assume that there are other countries in the world, since this is such a world issue that the United States is involved in, you would assume that there would be a number of countries before U.S. contractors, but U.S. contractors are the second largest number of individuals that are there. Mr. Speaker, when I talk about these numbers and when we talked about the action last week, the President, then he sprung into action. He had a press conference talking about how the Congress is now holding dollars back from our men and women in theater and asking us to please stop. Well, I am glad that I lived long enough over the weekend to come back here to the floor, Mr. Speaker, to not only share with the President, but those that may think that by us standing up on behalf of veterans health care, by us making sure that Walter Reed Hospital gets the necessary dollars they need to be able to take on the influx of men and women coming back from theater that are injured of the 10,772 that cannot and will not go back to theater and the 13,415, when that number continues to increase, that when they get their care in the field and then they move on to Germany and they get even further care, and some of them have to come back here to Washington, D.C. to even get physical therapy and all the things that they need to get back to the theater, if that is stopping the dollars from getting to the troops, then I think that we need to go back to a civics lesson of what this is all about. We are putting dollars in what the Republican majority did not put in. Anything that the President asked for, the Republican majority rubber-stamped it. As a matter of fact, the Republican majority in the last Congress was so loyal to the President of the United States that whatever he said, whatever he wanted, they did it. And guess what, Mr. Speaker? I am here to report that that is one of the big reasons why we have a Democratic majority right now in the U.S. House of Representatives and in the Senate. Some 30-odd seats were lost living under that philosophy. And all of the hours that we spent on this floor, all of the hours that we spent in committee saying that if you give us the opportunity to lead, we will lead. Democrats, Republicans, Independents and some Americans who never voted before in their life went out and voted last November. Now, the President can have a press conference, that's fine, he is the President of the United States. I can go out and have a press conference. The bottom line is let's not have the people of the United States of America feel that the U.S. House and the Senate are holding money back from the troops. As a matter of fact, we have given more than what the President called for as it relates to armor. We've given the troops more as it relates to troop safety and force protection. We've added three new brigades to the Marines. We've added 36,000 more soldiers to the Army to make sure we are at the readiness level. Under the Republican majority of the 109th and the 108th Congress, as this war started and continued to escalate to the numbers of where it is now, our readiness levels, and when I speak of readiness levels, Mr. Speaker, I speak of the fact that if we had to go into another conflict, we are not ready. There is not a National Guard unit right now that is ready to go to battle. Now, what do we mean by readiness? Making sure that they have the equipment, making sure that they have enough personnel to be able to rise to the occasion, all the specialists that are needed, all the striker brigades that are needed. We have 100 of them, but we are not at the readiness level that we need to be, and we haven't been at this low level that we are now since the Vietnam war. I am not giving out any national secrets. Everyone knows that this is the case. So if we know the obvious, why not take care of it? We are doing more than what the President has asked for. The President just has a problem. Do you know what the problem is? It is the fact that the Congress has said: Guess what, Mr. President. I know you have been saying a lot over the last 4 or 5 years of this war, now within its fifth year, the third escalation of troops that you have sent over to Iraq; and we pass a nonbinding resolution in the majority and Republicans voted for that, too, saying that we disagree with that philosophy. The American people are far beyond the President on this issue. So we are here to represent the American people. The second point, when you look at this issue of the binding resolution, it says that if the Iraqi government does not meet the benchmarks set by who, the President of the United States, George W. Bush, then the redeployment of troops will start. The clock will start at that point for a redeployment of a number of troops within 6 months. What else took place? The President said that it is important that we are not there forever. Well, still living under going in the old direction, the President wants the prerogative to be able to say, well, they are going to be there as long as they need to be there, and there is not necessarily a plan, and you haven't given an opportunity for the plan to work of the new escalation of troops. Well, guess what? We saw plan one, and the violence did not go down. We sat here and watched plan two, and the violence did not subside. They weren't using Vice President Cheney's, the enemies are in the last throes of their insurgency, later to find out that that is not the truth. So I guess we are just are supposed to continue to go on and on and on. So, Mr. Murphy, I guess when we start looking at the benchmarks, that is the problem. Why doesn't the President say, that is my problem; I have a problem with the fact that the U.S. Congress is saying they no longer want to go with my original thoughts? There is nothing wrong with that. He is an American. He can say it. But the bottom line is every last one of us sitting in these seats here in Congress and across the hall in the Senate, our obligation is to the individuals that have sent us here. Our constituents that have Federalized us here to make decisions on their behalf. We are not generals. Some of us served in the military, some of us did not serve in the military, some of us never wore a uniform in our lives, but I can tell you this much. We have been sent here to watch over the U.S. taxpayer dollars, have the well-being of our U.S. troops that are allowing us to salute one flag, and to make sure that our number one obligation is to be loyal to the American people, and not one person. So I speak very firmly and I stand very firmly on this point. Because I sat here the last 4 years in the minority not having an opportunity to be a part of the decisionmaking, not even being able to agenda a bill in committee or subcommittee, not able to bring a bill up here on the floor that the Republican majority did not allow me to. I mean, under the rules, they didn't allow me to. To now say, well, the President says that we are holding up dollars, emergency dollars for the war in Iraq? Let me just share a few other things, and then possibly we can go into an exchange. In the summer of 2005, there was a shortfall as it relates to veterans' health care, $2.7 billion. In March of 2006, the President's budget cut funding by $6 billion over 5 years that was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress. And the first time, Mr. Murphy, that we had an opportunity to do anything, when I say the Democratic majority, the first action, and it was because of the inaction by the Republican Congress that did not pass the appropriations bills on time, that we passed a continuing resolution to keep this government running, and what did we do? Well, we went into that bill and we made sure some of the special interest tax breaks and all of the things that the Republicans had in place, being loyal to individuals that had great influence in this House, and I am not talking about Members, I am talking about outside forces. We took $3.6 billion of the U.S. taxpayer dollars to increase the VA health care program and to make sure that their budget was in place so that our veterans would have somewhere that they can get care and their families. That was our action. The President didn't ask for that. As a matter of fact, the President didn't even want it. But we did it because it was the right thing to do, and that was prior to the Walter Reed. I keep saying that because that is so very, very important. People think that politicians and some folks do things just because somebody was looking or somebody said that you should do it or you are under some political pressure. That was a natural thing for the Democratic majority to do, and we did it. And for the President to stand and say, well, you know, there is things in there that should not be in there and things that I didn't ask for. Well, guess what, we have to ask for it. I am even going to go down memory lane again. January of 2003, the same administration, President Bush cuts veterans' health care for 164,000 veterans. March of 2003, Republican budget cut $14 billion from veterans' health care, passed by the Congress, with 199 Democrats voting against it. That is House Concurrent Resolution 95, vote number 82. March, 2004, Republican budget shortchanged veterans health care by $1.5 billion. It was passed by the Congress, 201 Democrats voting against it. That is House Concurrent Resolution 393, vote number 92. March, 2005, President Bush's budget shortchanged veterans' health care by more than $2 billion for 2005 and cut veterans' health care by $14 billion over 5 years. That was passed with 201 Democrats voting against it. That is House Concurrent Resolution, vote number 88. I think it is very important that we outline that. Just like I said here earlier when I talked about the 2005 shortfall, after Democrats pressured the Bush administration and finally acknowledged that the 2006 shortfall for veterans' health care totaled $2.7 billion, Democrats fought all summer to make sure that those dollars were placed back in the right direction as it relates to veterans' health care. Also in March, 2006, President Bush's budget cut veterans' funding by $6 billion over 5 years, passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and, like I said, at $3.6 billion. Mr. Speaker, we come to the floor and we mean business. We are not coming here to have a press conference and talk to some folks that may not quite understand exactly what is going on day to day in Congress. That is why we are here. We are here to make sure the American people know exactly what is going on here. The reason why we speak very passionately about, you may say, well, it is Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq and, guess what, that other issue, Iraq. The reason we speak very passionately about that is that we have seen so much on this floor and so many words that Mr. Murphy talked about earlier, Members going on passing out inaccurate information every now and then, or the spirit of the information, whichever way you want to frame it, and to see the hard-core reality of these issues are still not addressed. I had something here where all of the veteran groups, I must add here, Mr. Speaker, ``This much-needed funding increase will allow the Department of Veterans Affairs to better meet its needs for the men and women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as all veterans who have served in the past.'' That is from the National Commander of Disabled American Veterans. That press release was March 21, 2007. ``The American Legion and its 2.8 million members applaud the Budget Committee for the budget resolution recommendation for $43.1 billion in discretionary funding for veterans. Your recommendations are close with the views that are estimated, that was estimated by the American Legion earlier this year.'' That is by the legislative director and the lead on the American Legion. I think it is very, very important that Members understand that. Veteran groups are 110 percent, 110 percent, Mr. Speaker, about what this Democratic-controlled Congress is doing; and we are just getting started. This is Monday. We are talking about the things that we need to put in place to make sure that our men and women need to have what they need to have when they are in theater and when they are out of theater. I challenge the President to think within his heart and within his mind that he would turn a new leaf, and making sure that when we send this emergency supplemental to his desk, if he vetoes it, it will be his action that will be delaying the dollars to go to our men and women in harm's way. I have said once before last week, Mr. Speaker, I voted for two emergency supplementals, a lot that I did not agree with, but the last thing I wanted to do was to leave our men and women in harm's way without the necessary funding that they need. So if I, someone that has a different opinion than the President and the old Republican majority as it relates to this war in Iraq, we are all Americans first and, guess what, life is not perfect and everything is not going to come the way you want it to come when you want it to come. There are other people in this democracy that have something to say about it, and I know there are Republicans in America that feel the way the way that we feel. I know that there are Independents in America that feel the way we feel, and I know that there are Democrats and those that are looking to vote in coming elections to be a part of this democracy. So I come very proud of the work that has been done and the work that will continue to be done here in this House.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. If I may, and then I will yield and you can share all the great information. And Ms. Wasserman Schultz happens to be in between us today, so all we need is Mr. Ryan down here, and she will have a real challenge. But I can tell you from past experience of serving with her for 12 plus years now that she is very capable of rising to the occasion here. Let me just point out, just today, Mr. Murphy and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, we took a vote. We took a vote saying that we would like for the appointed U.S. District Attorneys to come and be confirmed before Congress. Something that is very, very important, giving the chief judge an opportunity to appoint a temporary U.S. District Attorney, for that opportunity to take place because of what is happening now in the Justice Department. And I think it is important. I saw Ms. Wasserman Schultz earlier talking today about this very subject. But, on the Republican side, you have some Republicans that are saying it is just horrible of what is happening. Because if what we think or believe what happened, these political appointees and then they got taken out because they were either going after someone that the administration did not want them to go after or they weren't going after certain individuals as it relates to political motivation. And under what we may call regular order in the 109th Congress or the 108th Congress or beyond, the kind of grip that this administration had over the House and the Senate, the chokehold that they had over the House and Senate, this would have never been an issue. It never would have been followed up on. There never would have been a hearing. Guess what? Now, Mr. Speaker, there are hearings in both House and Senate, and now the Attorney General is getting caught in his own words. One minute he had nothing to do with it, and he didn't know what anyone was talking about. Now we understand that he led a meeting even talking about this issue. So when you look at it, and Mr. Murphy and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, 329 Members of the House. It goes to show you, with the right leadership in place, we have a Democratic majority, Republicans will vote, some Republicans will vote and move in the right direction. Only one Member of the Republican leadership voted for this commonsense approach. There are still Members on the Republican side that are in the leadership that are still holding on to what used to be. The election took place last November. You would think, well, maybe the American people are not with this. So I am just saying that this issue is continuing to evolve, and I bring these examples up so that the Members can see that we have a lot of work to do. It is not about partisanship. This is about leadership, and we are providing the leadership here. I know Ms. Wasserman Schultz who serves on the Judiciary Committee can speak more eloquently on this issue. But this is one example amongst many. You called out those bipartisan votes at the beginning of the hour. We have to continue to embrace bipartisanship because that is what the American people want. They don't want us to be Democrats and Republicans. They want us to be Members of Congress watching out for the better good.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we have all worked very hard this week to see the positive outcome of the legislation today. As I started, I would like to close in my comments today by saying that I am glad that the Members voted in the affirmative for this legislation that passed. I think the American people will reflect on this day, and historians will reflect on this day that this has been the first day by the House of Representatives since the start of the war in Iraq that there were true accountability measures in there. There is reporting back to the Congress that the troops were protected by the language that the Department of Defense used as relates to its own policy of deploying troops, of sending troops back into theater on another rotation of what they have to have. I think men and women in uniform and their families will be forever appreciative of our action here today. It is like when you are working at a work site, not at headquarters, you are working in a subsidiary, and you know there are certain policies management is supposed to meet, but because nobody is watching, they decide to waive the policy manual and have you work overtime without being paid overtime, or have you working in conditions that you should not be working in just to keep their numbers up so they don't get in trouble with their bosses. Well, with the emergency supplemental that we passed here today, we have the backs of those workers. In this case, we have the backs of the men and women who wear the uniform. Furthermore, I think it is important for those who have served in a battle zone that we have started down the track of making sure that we provide the kind of funding so when they get back, they will be able to get the counseling that they deserve. There is money in here to prevent abuse as it relates to children and families when they get back to military bases, and there is money to make sure that veterans don't have to wait months to be able to see a specialist. I think it is very, very important because there is a back end to this war, and there is a reality to this war, and it is our responsibility to ensure there is assistance to those who need it when they come back. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the American people for the role that they have played during this whole war. This week here at the Capitol we had people that were supporting the war, and against war but saying we have to support our troops. And I commend both of them for exercising their rights as Americans to be able to speak to their government about their feelings. I am glad that we live in a country that you can do that. I am glad that Members did come to the floor. Some of them voted their conscience, some voted partisanship, and some voted because it was the right thing to do on behalf of this legislation. As we move on with this process of bringing accountability to the war in Iraq and bringing an end to the war in Iraq with troops on the ground, that Members continue to pay attention to what our democracy is all about. I commend the Speaker for standing in the wind, getting bugs in her teeth on this issue and being tough on this issue even when we were in the minority. Now we are in the majority, and I think the American people are going to be very appreciative. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for hosting this hour today. It is always an honor to come to the floor and talk about the actions of today and look forward to tomorrow.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, when you think about it, you can't help but think about the debate that took place, and the vote has now happened. And again, Mr. Speaker, I commend those that worked very hard day in and day out to make sure that Members felt comfortable in voting for this legislation. I think it is also mindful for us to remember, because so many times here in Washington, D.C., and even when we return back to our districts, I return back to sunny south Florida; Ms. Wasserman Schultz does the same. Some of us go to the far West. Some of us go to the Northeast, where it is very cold and frigid. Some of us go down to the Southwest and Arizona and Texas and some of the other areas of the great part of our country. Some of us from the gulf coast, some of us from the great Blue Mountains. I think it is very, very important for us to remember that over 56 of our men and women in uniform died this month alone, and we are not even out of this month yet. Over 55 men and women wearing the uniform, some citizens, some non-citizens, some are from the west coast, some are from the east coast, some are from urban areas, some of them are from rural America. They are not coming back home. Their memory will ever be in our minds and in our hearts. And we appreciate their paying the ultimate sacrifice. We pray for their families. And we stand on their behalf here today in making sure that we can bring the kind of accountability forward to this government and to the Iraqi Government, and to make sure that those that are in harm's way have what they need when they need it. Also, what is in this bill, and I think it is very, very important because I want Members to not only go home and talk about that they voted for, the majority of this House, which was good, but for those who voted against it, I want not only them, but I want their constituents to know what they voted against. This is serious business. I have a lot of friends here in this Chamber. I don't know of a Member of the House that I have a negative relationship with that I don't talk to that person or that person doesn't talk to me. I get along. I am second generation here in this House of Representatives; my mother served here. But this is serious business when we start talking about the sacrificing that U.S. families are making to bring about some sort of harmony in the middle of a civil war in Iraq. So the vote that took place today, Mr. Speaker, is a vote in the right direction and in a new direction, to let it be known that this House of Representatives is willing to play a role in the oversight of the U.S. taxpayer dollar, and also on behalf of those that are in harm's way right now. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I am glad that she is a member of the Appropriations Committee because they spent a lot of time with this legislation, this emergency supplemental. It is probably going to be the last time that we have an emergency supplemental outside of the regular budget process. And speaking of the budget, Mr. Speaker, we are going to be debating the budget here on this floor next week. We are going to have a great discussion about where our priorities are as Americans and the things that are important to the financial standing of the country and where we are going to make the kind of investments that we need to make on behalf of this great country of ours. It is also important to understand next week that is tied in with this bill that we are going to also consider the Wounded Warriors bill that is going to be coming up next week, which is 1538, for consideration before this House that I must add that passed Armed Services Committee this week with a unanimous vote, to make sure that we correct some of the issues that are dealing with our veterans. And we are going to deal with H.R. 1401, that is the Rail Security Act that will be coming up next week. This is serious business, and we have to be very serious about what we do here. And I want to make sure that this vote will be seen as one of the many. Now, we had a vote, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, about a month ago that folks criticized, the vote to say that we are against the escalation, against the President's escalation of troops in Iraq. Seventeen Republicans voted with the majority of the House Members on that. Obviously, 15 of those Republicans decided to vote against the binding resolution. Remember all those, oh, it's nonbinding, it really doesn't mean anything; why are you doing this? Why are you spending a whole week of debate? Even the President said, oh, it's nonbinding. And the President said at that time a binding resolution will be coming which will be the emergency supplemental. I want to know the House of Representatives' stand on the binding resolution. Well, that message is clear today where we stand. And I think that in the Senate, with the passage of the legislation even has a shorter time line passed the Appropriations Committee last night than what the House is calling for, I think the issue of a time line and benchmarks are going to be in that legislation when it goes to the President. Now, the President is saying that he is going to veto it. Well, that is all a part of his right to do so. But I think the American people and Members of this Congress have to rise up. If the President is not willing to lead us in a new direction as it relates to Iraq, then we may need to lead the President. That is the reason why we have a democracy. That is the reason why we have an executive branch and a legislative branch. That is the reason why men and women who no longer can walk on two legs now paid the price for us to have this democracy that we celebrate here today, which I don't take lightly. That is the reason why this specialist here, that covers the page of Newsweek, paid with her legs. She is a patriot. So if Members or anyone has a problem with the way our democracy is working, then you have a problem with America. I am glad that I am free and able to stand here on this floor to say that what took place here today is a great testimonial to that democracy. And just because you said that you are going to do one thing doesn't necessarily mean that you have to follow through on it to show folks that you are tough. You have folks coming to the floor saying, well, by passing this emergency supplemental, it will waive the white flag. What white flag? Okay. Continuing to do the same thing expecting different results? The Speaker of the House took the well here earlier, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and said there have been three other escalations of troops in Iraq and the same outcome is the fact that we lost more troops in the middle of the battle, in the middle of a civil war, and that did not turn the security situation around on the ground. What did the Iraq Study Group say? They said that diplomacy is going to be the number one key in dealing with this. What did Mr. Murtha say, a decorated marine and chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee? This is a diplomacy issue, and we need to make sure that the Iraqi Government stands up not only on behalf of their country, but for the region and provide the kind of leadership that they deserve. For every day we are in Iraq, Mr. Speaker and Members, that is a day that a U.S. city will not receive the kind of appropriations that it needs to be able to provide the quality of life that the U.S. taxpayers deserve. It is another day that we won't be able to fully implement all the 9/11 recommendations and be able to provide the kind of funding to secure the homeland. It means that what we pay now on the debt that the Republican Congress and the Bush administration has given us, that we will not have enough money to pay down on that debt, just on the debt of the money that this country has borrowed, and which is more than what we invest in education, more than what we invest in homeland security, more than what we invest in veteran affairs. So I think it is important that this paradigm shift that took place here today is recognized as one of the great days of the U.S. House of Representatives and moving in a new direction, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. I can tell you, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, it was definitely a pleasure hearing you speak as we were talking before in the cloakroom, in the back here, Mr. Speaker, we were talking about what happened here on this floor less than 2 hours ago. A major vote that took place here in this House. And it didn't pass by one or two votes. It only takes one vote to win as it relates to a bill or what have you, a resolution moving through the floor here. I just want to say that I am proud of the Members that voted in the affirmative for this bill. The emergency supplemental funding bill has started a new era as it relates to how Americans think about the war in Iraq, how our troops are being treated in Iraq and Afghanistan and even here back at home on health care services. And also it gave voice to those individuals that went to the voting booth looking for representation, looking for a new direction, looking for the Congress to carry out the kind of oversight that we should carry out as Members of Congress on behalf of any action that will involve the American taxpayer and in many cases involve foreign nations loaning money to the United States of America. We have to pay all of that back. We have to be accountable to the U.S. taxpayer. And we have to make sure that we provide the oversight for the American people. Now, I heard Ms. Wasserman Schultz speak to the point. As some members came to the floor to vote against the bill, some voted against the bill because that's just what they do. They vote against war. They vote against whatever their philosophy may be as it relates to war, but also you had people that voted for the bill that is against war, that want to see an end to war. No other emergency supplemental up until the one that came before this House today actually put forth benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, actually hold the feet to the fire of the executive branch saying that if you are going to send additional troops, then the parameters that you put on the Iraqi government will actually be enforced. Department of Defense regulations as it relates to how troops can be deployed and the readiness of our troops before they go into theater. They wrote that in the Department of Defense, the administrator, bureaucrats, Secretary, what have you, in the Bush administration wrote those regulations. We put it inside this piece of legislation and enforced it. And also we made sure that Members had the opportunity to show their constituents where they stand. Now, let's talk a little bit about that, because I heard the gentlewoman from Florida mention something, folks coming to the floor, saying things like, ``never before in the history of the country that we've ever voted to micromanage.'' They would use words like ``micromanage.'' ``We've never come to the floor to limit anything as it relates to war.'' And when will we have a victory? And that has never, ever, ever happened. You know, I am in my office, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and I am watching these Members on the floor, and I spoke to this point last night, because last night I was here after 10, 10:30, I actually closed the House last night, moved to adjourn the House last night, and I couldn't help but try to get the evidence to show that it has happened. As a matter of fact, timelines have been set by some of the very Republican leaders that are now in the Republican leadership right now that came to this well here today and had issue with what the majority of the Members of the House wanted to do and ultimately did in the vote. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure, because this is what this whole 30-Something Working Group is about, making sure that we shed light where it needs to be. Let's look at this. Bosnia, June 24, 1997, the House brought to the floor an amendment that would set a timeline and a date certain for withdrawal of U.S. peacekeepers from the mission in Bosnia. Pay attention to these dates. On December 13, 1995, an attempt to prohibit funds from being used for the deployment of ground troops in Bosnia. It actually failed 210- 218, which I have the names of those individuals that are in the Republican leadership now that voted in the affirmative to try to stop that from happening. December 13, 1995, a resolution passed expressing serious concerns in opposition to the deployment of troops in Bosnia, where ethnic cleansing was taking place. Some of our same Members in the Republican leadership voted to pass that piece of legislation. Again, June, there was also another vote that was taken on June 24, 1997, voted to set a timeline, date certain for withdrawal of troops from Bosnia, and that passed 278-148. The date certain that troops had to leave was June 30, 1998. I am going to say it again. Some of the same individuals that voted today against, their reason for voting against this emergency supplemental for the men and women in harm's way and the veterans to be able to receive the kind of healthcare they deserve, voted for a timeline in Bosnia. Let's talk about the comparisons here. The Bosnia conflict was 18 months, Mr. Speaker. This conflict is 48-plus months, moving well into its fifth year. The cost of Bosnia to the United States of America, $7 billion. The cost of the war in Iraq, $379 billion and counting, well beyond $379 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars and loan money. Casualties in Bosnia, casualties in Bosnia, I repeat, zero of U.S. troops. Zero. Casualties as of 10 a.m. today in Iraq of U.S. personnel, troops, men and women in uniform, 3,229. I would even go further to say 13,415 wounded in action and have returned to duty. I would even go further by saying 10,772 wounded in action who cannot return back to duty. I think it is important that we look at the facts. Again, I want to say we didn't come down here to play around, we came down here to share the facts, because we are both very busy people and we have things to do and this is the end of the workweek and Members are heading back to their districts. We want to go back to our districts too. But we want to make sure this moment of leadership, this moment of courage, is in the Congressional Record, to let it be known that we did have Members that stood up on behalf of our men and women in uniform and we had the men and women of this House that were in the majority that were willing to put their name and their vote on the line on behalf of the men and women that serve our country and their families. I have the vote sheet here from the Bosnia vote. Every Republican voted yes for the timeline, with the exception of two. It is right here. Any Member that wants to run down to the floor and take a look at that, they can. Also we have here the vote as it relates to passing the resolution that we had today, which is the emergency supplemental, roll call vote 186. I can say for the two Republicans who voted in opposite of the Republican leadership, when we took the vote on June 24, 1997, were consistent today of the only two Republicans that voted in the affirmative with the majority of the House to make sure that we place benchmarks and a timeline in Iraq. Consistency for those two Members, that anyone can find in the Congressional Record, and we commend them for their consistency. So I think it is important, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, that we look at the hard facts here and the tough votes that need to be taken. Does everyone agree with what is in the emergency supplemental? I don't agree with everything that is in the emergency supplemental. But for the greater good of the men and women in harm's way, I voted for it. There are Members in here who had a rough time and it was also very tough vote for them. But they didn't want to continue to look in the eyes of their constituents as they go to high school programs and junior high school programs and they are asked a question, as I am asked a question, and I don't ask folks for their voter registration, I don't ask, well, are you a constituent of mine or not? The prevailing question is, Congressman, how long are we going to be in Iraq? I can't answer the question, because the President says we are going to be there as long as we need to be there. And, guess what? Those very same individuals, Democrat, Republican, independent, some individuals never voted before in their lives, went last November and voted for a new direction, voted for leadership, voted for an opportunity to have this Congress stand in the position that it should be standing, and that is oversight and accountability on behalf of the men and women that are in harm's way. So I feel that the Members that voted in the affirmative, voted for outstanding healthcare, moving in the direction of outstanding healthcare for our veterans, making sure that our men and women when they are deployed, some of them are deployed 120 days after they return back to their family because some bureaucrat in the Defense Department says, well, we got to make sure we keep our rotation and our troop numbers, levels, up to over 143,000 troops on the ground. I know this brigade has only been home for a couple of months, three months, we have to get them back in the fight, when the Department of Defense regulations rule against that. But I must add, Mr. Speaker, to make sure since we are having a moment of clarity, in this bill it allows the President, if it is within the national security interests that these troops go back into theater, he has the ability to do that, but report to Congress on that action. So anyone that says we are binding the President, we are endangering the troops, the general can't do what he wants to do, that has nothing to do with it. That is nothing but rhetoric. That is nothing but good talking points for a crowd that you may want to get a cheer out of based on where you are. But the reality and the hard-core facts are we have been sent up here to legislate and to bring about oversight, and that the President of the United States is not the only person that can make decisions on accountability and oversight. It is the U.S. Congress constitutionally and also it is our duty. We are not in the forward area. We don't wear a uniform. But we have been sent here to make sure things go the way they are supposed to go on behalf of the men and women in harm's way.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to come back before the House this evening. And I must say that tomorrow is going to be the judgment day as it relates to Members that are willing to lead on behalf of the men and women in uniform and those that have worn the uniform, and even making sure that we take care of some of the issues as it relates to homeland security. Today there was a 3-hour, 4-hour-or-so debate on the emergency supplemental that is coming up tomorrow. And you know, part of the mission of the 30-Something Working Group is to come to the floor to make sure the Members have accurate information and to make sure that we provide good information, not only to the Members, but also to the American people. And having Members come to the floor that may represent one view or another is a part of our democracy, and I embrace it 110 percent. I think it is also important for the Members to be able to receive up-to-date information and also talk a little bit about the past. And I think the past is something that we should embrace from time to time to allow the Members to be able to make a good assessment on how they should vote. A couple of days ago, Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor and I recommended to some of the Members that it is important on both sides of the aisle that maybe some of us need to go see the wizard and find some courage and also find a heart when it comes down to standing up for the men and women in uniform. And I talked a little bit about what is in this supplemental bill, emergency supplemental, which is over $125 billion and which will be, from what I understand, the last supplemental outside of the budget. Now, when we talk about this emergency supplemental, this is for a war that we are going into the fifth year of. And I just want to say that again: a war that we are going into the fifth year of. It has lasted longer than any other conflict in U.S. history. And I just want to make sure the Members understand that. We have heard statements on the floor. Members come to the floor, especially on the other side of the aisle, saying, well, we just need to give the troops what they need and then, you know, not have any oversight or any language in the bill that may bring about accountability. Well, I voted for two past supplementals. I said that the other night. I will say it again. Some parts of that supplemental I did not like, but the last thing, the last thing that I wanted to do was to vote against the troops having what they need that are in harm's way. And I think that is important. I don't know how I would have been able to go home to talk to my constituents and say that I voted against the supplemental because there was a part in it that I didn't agree with, while we have folks that are in a forward area, while we have men and women on the ground in Afghanistan, while we have men and women that are patrolling the streets of Baghdad now because the Commander in Chief sent them there to do so. We want to support those men and women in harm's way and their families while they are here, and in this supplemental we are going to support them when they come back. We are in the majority now. The Democrats are in the majority. But we have a minority spirit, to make sure that there is no Member in this House left behind because of a lack of information on what they are going to vote on. And that is the reason why I am here. I returned back to the Capitol tonight to talk a little bit about what is in this supplemental and what has happened in the past. Now, we had a number of Members on both sides of the aisle that talked a lot about what is not in this supplemental and what should be in this supplemental in the future. And I can tell you right now, it is far beyond what the President has called for as it relates to emergency dollars. And when I see my friends on the other side, and I do say friends, I can tell you every Member that is in leadership now on the Republican side voted for a timeline for Bosnia. I mean, I just want to make sure that Members understand that, because there may be some Members who weren't here at that time, including myself, and it is important. When we start to close out on this bill tomorrow, you are going to have Members of the Republican leadership that are going to come to this floor and call the Speaker of the House ``General'' what have you, call the majority leader ``General'' whatever they want to call him, call the whip ``General'' this, that, and the other. Meanwhile, here is the Congressional Record where they voted for the very same thing when President Clinton was in office. Bosnia didn't have half of the conflict that Iraq has now. Not even a quarter of the money that has been spent in Iraq was spent in Bosnia. I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. There is a difference when you come to the floor and speak a cappella and when you come to the floor with the Congressional Record. Let us talk about what the Congressional Record says because I want to make sure that Members understand. And if that was all about politics, I would be home right now doing whatever, reading a book or spending some time with the family right now, because if it was about politics, I would say I want the Republican minority to vote ``no.'' I want them to vote ``no'' so that they have to go home and tell their constituents that they voted against increasing veterans' health care funding, they voted against making sure that out of the 100 Stryker Brigades that we have in the Army, that they voted to make sure that some bureaucrat from the Department of Defense can waive their own rules and not make sure that those men and women have what they need to go to battle. And in every Stryker Brigade and every Stryker unit, you have to have a driver, a gunner. You have to have three individuals in that vehicle. And it is very, very important that everyone understands that we have to give our men and women what they deserve when they go into harm's way. Let me just talk about the Congressional Record here. June 24, 1997, House Republicans brought to the floor an amendment that would set a timeline, a date certain, to withdraw from the U.S. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, a mission that was only 18 months old. Mr. Speaker, I said this mission now in Iraq is in its 5th year. That was 18 months old. Now, if my colleagues on the other side want to call someone General, Colonel, four-star, Secretary of Defense, whatever they want to call them, we are, as Members of Congress, to make sure that we carry out the oversight of any action of the U.S. taxpayer dollar. They don't want to talk about the investment that U.S. taxpayers have made in this war. They don't want to talk about the sacrifice of the over 3,222-plus members of the Armed Forces that are not coming home again, Mr. Speaker. They don't want to talk about the 10,000-plus members who were injured in Iraq that cannot return back to battle because of their injury. The Republicans do not want to talk about the casualties of this war as it relates to families that will no longer have their loved one back home, and they don't want to talk about the accountability that they did not put forth when they were in charge of this U.S. House of Representatives to say, Department of Defense, if you have regulations saying that military personnel that are going into harm's way, that they have to have armor, that they have to have the support staff, that they have to have everything they need to go to battle; if you aren't willing to stand by that, then don't criticize what we are doing. I hope that my Republican colleagues follow and come along and join us because this is national security. This is not an issue of partisanship, or I am a Republican and you are a Democrat. That should not be the issue. Mr. Speaker, I have said personally I voted for the supplemental that the Republican majority put forth two times in a row, not saying, I am a Democrat and, because they are Republican, I am going to vote against it. Yes, I want to see redeployment in this war, but I do not want to leave our men and women without what they need to be able to fight the battle. There won't be a lack of ammunition or a lack of food or a lack of support or a lack of backup when there is a patrol out on the streets of Baghdad. Do I support the President's surge? No, I do not. And I voted in the affirmative for the nonbinding resolution that came before this House that said that we do not support the surge that the President has put forth. Just because I disagree with the President doesn't mean that I need to disagree with the men and women in harm's way. Now, some Members may have problems with this. They may not like a word over here or something that is said over there. But the bottom line is when you start looking at the morale of the men and women in uniform, the worst message that we can send to them is that because of partisanship, because someone is a Republican or someone is a Democrat, that I am voting against it because my party leader said that I need to vote against it. I am here as an American, not as a Democrat here tonight, because I think it is important that we think about those families that cringe to hear about another casualty in Iraq of a U.S. military personnel or a nonforeign personnel that is in Iraq. And by Members saying, I don't want to vote for that because there is certain language in there that I disagree with, I think it is not a good enough reason for Members to say that I am not going to vote for it. We talked about a commander. We talked about a gunner. We talked about a driver in a Stryker force vehicle. We talked about 100 brigades that are out there now. I have been to Iraq twice. I don't need to come to the floor and say, I am a member of the Armed Services Committee and I have been to Afghanistan, and I have been to many of the other ``stans'' in the Middle East to understand what our men and women are facing in harm's way. I have been to military bases. I have met with military families before. I don't need to come to the floor and talk about that. We have some Members saying, well, I love the troops. Well, I love the troops more than you. No, I have a tattoo saying that I love the troops more than you. I believe we can come to the floor and talk tough and talk about what we believe in. But when it comes down to it, Mr. Speaker, Members are going to have to take out their voting card come tomorrow, and they are going to have to vote if they support the troops or not, period, dot. They can say, well, I support them, or what have you, go home, talk to the VFW and march in the Veterans Day parade and write letters back to their constituents that I support them 110 percent. The bottom line is that there is nothing in this bill that the Democratic majority has put forth that has not already been recommended. Think about the policy. Okay. Readiness. It comes from the Department of Defense regulations. Who can argue with that? Who can complain about that? Who can argue, saying we are micromanaging? No, not micromanaging. We are just saying if you have rules and regulations that have been set forth for the men and women in uniform, follow them, period, dot. Being a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have watched individuals sit at a table testifying before Congress in committee, saying that the troops have what they need, and, yes, they all have body armor, and, yes, they all have up-armed vehicles, and, yes, they have the jammers to stop the improvised explosive devices; and better yet, you go to Iraq and you talk to the men and women in uniform, and they say they don't have it. So what should we do? Should we just say we trust the bureaucrats over at the Department of Defense because they say they have what they need? Or do we come to this Congress and put in a language of legislation that not may or if you get around to it, or if you think about it, that you make sure that you live by your own standards. No. We say ``shall'' in this bill. We say, yes, readiness is important. Yes, we say that what General Schoomaker has asked for as it relates to additional soldiers, we said yes to it in this supplemental. You will be voting against readiness if you vote against the emergency supplemental. The Commandant of the Marines asked for three new brigades. That is in this supplemental bill. If you vote against this supplemental, you are voting against the readiness of the U.S. Marines. There are a number of issues that are in this bill that I think are important. But I think when you look at House amendment 302 by Representative Buyer, Republican from Indiana, and the timeline of December 15 of 1997, President Clinton was required to report to Congress on the political and military conditions in Bosnia and by a date certain, by June 30 of 1998, all troops to be withdrawn. Mr. Speaker, that actually came to the floor. And the Republican leadership that was here at that time voted in the affirmative for the amendment. And so for Members to come here and start talking about it as though this is some new idea like ``never before.'' I heard that today. I was sitting in my office. I could not believe that Members on the Republican side of the aisle were saying never before, that this never happened, that we have micromanaged generals and commanders and all the men and women that are in uniform and from this Congress we have 135 generals. Here is the Congressional Record right here. One guy once said, ``I am not talking about anybody. I am just talking about what I am talking about.'' And the bottom line is in the Congressional Record, just as clear as I am speaking now, 20 years, 200 years from now, someone can unearth what I have said here tonight. And we have unearthed, to my colleagues on the Republican side, what took place, and guess what? Only four Republicans voted ``no.'' Here is the voting record right here. I have it. Of all the Republican Members that voted at that time, only four Republicans voted ``no'' when it came down to a timeline for Bosnia. Now, this is not something that came from the Democratic National Committee or from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee or from my office because it sounded good. This came out of the Congressional Record. So I want to make sure that the Members know and their constituents know that when Members come to the floor and give inaccurate information to the American people and to Members of the House, it is a disservice. And I am not calling any names. I am just saying that here is the Congressional Record. For those Members who said never before in the history of the House of Representatives, you have got to know what you are saying before you say it, and if you said it, you should come to the floor and correct yourself so that individuals are not misled. This is 18 months in Bosnia, let alone going into a 5th year in Iraq. No matter how you feel about the war, whether you voted against it or voted for it, I am not going to editorialize or have an opinion on how you voted when you voted. We are talking about right now. We are talking about tomorrow, less than 12 hours from now, you are going to have an opportunity to say if you are with the troops or you are not with the troops. And it is not going to be a floor speech, and it is not going to be a press release. It has to be if you vote ``yes'' or ``no'' tomorrow. And I am speaking to every Member of the House. This is something that you have to live with. You cannot go to Iraq or Afghanistan or even write a letter or answer an e-mail from a troop if you found yourself in a situation where you said, no, I don't agree with what you are doing; that is fine, but to defund the mission while it is ongoing, our men and women that are in harm's way right now, is something that you are going to have to answer to your constituents. You don't have to answer to me, you just have to answer to your constituents. And I think that it is something you should take into consideration. And one of the great reasons why we come to the floor is to make sure that the Members know exactly what they're voting for. And, Mr. Speaker, if I can, and Members, if they will indulge me, I would just like to talk a little bit about what is in this bill, what is in the emergency supplemental, because I want to make sure that the Congressional Record reflects it when you have some voters that may go into the archives of what took place at this time right now. Mr. Speaker, I used to see all the time in 109th Congress where we had some rough, rocky water, in the 109th Congress. We had Members that are no longer Members of this House, not by vote but by the fact they had to leave the Congress because of unethical behavior, not unethical, criminal behavior, and we never once called the names of those individuals. But we said we have to do away with the K Street Project and other projects like it, because once upon a time this House, when the other side was in control, you had to pay to play. Either you were on a list or you didn't get access to this House. Now we have returned this House to the people of the United States of America. We are going to continue to move in that direction, and I think it is important that we make sure that every Member of the House has the opportunity to vote on good legislation. We are going to consider H.R. 1591, which is the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007. I am sorry, I was just corrected, not only four Republicans will vote against it, only two Republicans will vote against it. We are checking while we are on the floor. I want to make sure the Record reflects the accurate information. I think it is important that Members understand the defense healthcare is $1.7 billion more than what the President has requested. I want to just outline that. The President put forth his recommendations which should be in this emergency supplemental. We have on top of that, as it relates to the Appropriations Committee, which I commend not only the chairman but the chairman of the subcommittee and the members of the Appropriations Committee giving us an opportunity to vote on $1.7 billion more for healthcare, defense healthcare, above what the President has called for. $450 million for posttraumatic stress, which is going to happen. This vote is going to come up tomorrow. That is very, very important. And counseling. We talk about families, you have to remember that there are men and women that have seen a lot, an awful lot, some things that we would never see. Members of this House, a few Members serve in the Reserves, some have served in the Guard, some have seen some of this. But the majority of Members of the Congress has not seen what these men and women have seen or gone through what they have gone through, seeing someone in the mess hall one day and not seeing them the next day, and hearing about what took place with them, that happened to them. Sniper fire, improvised explosive devices, we could never understand that. But they come home with those real issues, and we have a number of members of our armed services that have admitted that they have issues mentally that they need help with. Now, let's think about it. We are talking about men and women of the armed services that admitted they have issues. How many of those have not? We talk about preparation for when our troops come home. It is not just when you are in harm's way that some Members may say well, you know, it is important we take care of them. No, when they get home, we need to be there for them. $450 million in traumatic brain injury care and research. $730 million for prevention healthcare. $20 million to address the problems at Walter Reed Hospital. I think it is important, and I think we have that chart here dealing with Walter Reed, that is so very, very important. The Washington Post broke the story saying that Walter Reed wasn't up to par. Then you had U.S. News and World Report. We have a specialist here. We have troops, men and women in need, and I think it is important that you look at this Newsweek cover. If you have this at home, take a look at it. It just came out March 5, 2007. I think it is important that everyone pays attention and focuses on this. We have to make sure we are here for them. $14.8 million for burn care. For veterans care, $1.7 billion more than what the President requested. I want to stop there to say we put I believe $3.7 billion in the continuing resolution. What do we mean when we say continuing resolution? We mean that the Republican Congress did not finish their work in passing all of their appropriations bills on time. The fact that they weren't able to do so, we were able to meet that shortfall. Let me correct myself. $2.7 billion that was a shortfall for that. We were able to put $3.6 billion in January 31. The Democrats increased the veterans healthcare budget by $3.6 billion. And that was prior to the story coming out about Walter Reed. We had several amendments on the floor where we tried to increase veterans healthcare because we knew already there were issues in VA hospitals, VA clinics, our veterans getting what they need, leave alone the number of troops and soldiers and also their families that we are going to put into the system of active and those that have left the military, the strain on it. That is when it comes down to planning, and that is already there. But when you look at the $1.7 billion more than the President asked for, we are talking about $550 million to address the backlog of maintaining VA health care facilities that were intended to prevent veterans from experiencing a situation similar that they found at Walter Reed. $250 million for medical administration to be able to bring on sufficient personnel to support the growing number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and to maintain the level of service at all VA facilities and for veterans. $229 million for treatment for a growing number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. $100 million for contracting mental healthcare, with the funding to allow the VA to contract with private mental healthcare providers to ensure that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are seen in a timely manner. I think this is an important point. We have veterans now, Members, that are waiting, not hours, not weeks, but months, and it is real really unfortunate they have to do so. I told the story about a friend of mine that was in a VA hospital that had my cellular number in his cell phone, and he called me and said, ``Kendrick, things are not going the way they are supposed to go. I am waiting to see a specialist, and I have been here for some time and I haven't seen one and I don't think I am going to see one.'' He was admitted. Of course, my office called. We were in a truck moving around. My office called the administrator of the hospital, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure not only did he have the specialist, he had the head of the department of the area that he needed assistance in, and he got what he needed. But, guess what? Every American, every American, every family member of a veteran, doesn't have the cell number of a Member of Congress. That shouldn't be the requirement for service, and that is why we are trying to respond to it. It is also important, as I talk about readiness and support for our troops, $2.5 billion more to address the current readiness crisis that is the situation on stateside for our troops, including those that are better equipped and trained. It is important that we make sure that our National Guard units are equipped. Mr. Murtha, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, has said there is not a National Guard unit that is at a point of readiness right now, Mr. Speaker. They are not ready? Why? Because half of their equipment is in Iraq. Why? Because the training has not been taking place because of the lack of funding to be able to allow them to be battle ready. I think it is a disservice for those who have volunteered to serve our country. You have $1.4 billion more for military housing allowance, $311 million more to make sure that you have the mine resistant ambush protection, which we call MRAP, for the vehicles in Iraq at this time. Everything that the military has asked for to make sure that our men and women don't come back in a way that this specialist had to come back. She didn't have a choice, Mr. Speaker. Members, by voting for this supplemental, you are going to give her and many other people like her an opportunity to know that we have done everything possible that we can do here in the Congress to avoid what has happened to so many of our men and women that are going in for treatment, physical therapy, to make sure that we can avoid misfortune from happening to them, even though they keep the spirit that we ask them to keep, and these are the most resilient men and women in our society that are citizens. I think it is important also to look, when I talked about the size of the military, $2.3 billion for the full cost of fielding an additional 36,000 Army troops and 9,000 Marines, and also $720 million as it relates to military construction costs. I think it is important that we look at this. This is exactly what I was stating earlier. Members want to talk about readiness for voting against this bill? You are saying you are fine with the status quo. We don't know when the next conflict is going to take place. We don't know when. We asked the Army, why do you have soldiers rotating in in 120 days when they just served several months, almost a year, and beyond a year in Iraq? We don't have the troops. That is what the Army is saying. The Marines are saying we are stretched thin. They are asking for help, and we are saying we are there to help them, and it is in this bill, and I think it is important that Members understand that. I could not go to Iraq, which I am going to be going again for the third time, and look a marine, soldier, sailor, airman, Coast Guard person, in the face and say that I am there for you if I voted against the supplemental. Mr. Speaker, I go back to say that I voted for the Republican version of the supplemental. I believe we should have redeployment, but the last thing that I want to do as a Member of Congress, the last thing that I want to do is vote against our men and women having what they need when they are in harm's way. That is the last thing I want to do. There has to be a really rough day for me not to vote to support these troops. I know that there are some Members that are going to do what they need to do, but I just want to make sure, especially for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, those conversations that I have had with many of my friends, they say, ``Our leadership tells us that we need to vote against it.'' In the Appropriations Committee, some of my good friends on the other side of the aisle, the leadership said that. Well, what about what our troops are saying? What about what their families are saying? What about our responsibility as men and women of the U.S. Congress? Of course, I am not a general. I am not even a sergeant. I am not even a specialist in the Army. But I have been elected and federalized by my constituents to come here and represent them and the United States of America and make sure that we carry out our responsibility as Members of Congress to have oversight. It is not making decisions here in the Chamber. It is oversight. What is wrong with the Iraqi government having to meet benchmarks? Let's just put it this way, Members. How long have we been talking about, and I do mean talking, about the training of Iraqi troops to secure their own country? How long? I just want to know how long. We have been talking about it I know for at least 3 years, which this is a war in its fifth year. For at least 3 years there has been a strong conversation about training Iraqi troops, taking over patrols. They have a brigade now taking over a city. We look the next couple of months, U.S. troops are riding side-by-side with Iraqi troops, and in some cases it is a U.S. patrol, because that is what we are down to. A coalition of the few. Great Britain has already said, you know, guess what, folks? We are out of here. We have done our mission. Saddam Hussein is gone, has gone on to another place. His two sons are gone. And they know it is a civil war going on right now in Iraq and they know full well that the key to Iraq, using the Iraq Study Group, I must add, and also every other expert as it relates to Iraq, will not be solved militarily. It will not be solved militarily. Diplomacy is going to play a big role. Unless we start to endorse diplomacy, and Members are coming to the floor and saying, by passing this bill, we are saying we are surrendering. Let me go back to what President Bush said. He was asked during the last campaign when would there be a victory. Well, there won't be a victory. What he meant by that by saying there will not be a time when someone will go and hand a flag over to the United States and say ``you won.'' That is not going to happen. That is not going to happen. So for Members thinking there is going to be some big conversation at Little Big Horn or whatever the case may be for those historians that are around, that is not going to happen. If you are waiting for an insurgent to come up and say let's sign an agreement and say, let me borrow this pen. This pen is fine. I will sign right here to say we surrender to the great U.S. military. That is not going to happen, ladies and gentlemen, and every Member of Congress has to know that. So to say we are going to hang around officiating a U.S. war, and losing two to three troops on average to sniper fire and IEDs, just to say we are tough and we are going to keep riding until we can't ride any more, we are moving into $525 billion-plus, with a B, in spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a worthy cause because they had everything to do with 9/11. Because of Iraq, the Taliban and al Qaeda still live in Afghanistan, and they are getting stronger because of the lack of oversight by this Congress and the White House saying we need to send more troops because we have the coalition of the few who are leaving Iraq. So we have to continue to send brigades and troops into Iraq. This supplemental is moving in a new direction. It is moving in the direction of oversight saying that the President of the United States put benchmarks on the Iraqi Government, and in this bill it addresses that. If they don't meet those benchmarks, we start reversing our troops out. If we have an unwilling government in Iraq saying we can continue to do what we are doing because the Americans are going to be here, that is not so. The American people are far beyond several Members of Congress on this issue. Democrats and Republicans and Independents know full well that the reaction in Iraq of saying we are going to continue to send military in and some bureaucrat over at the Department of Defense saying, well, regardless of the fact that they had enough downtime, we are going to send them anyway because we have to keep over 140,000 troops in harm's way, just in Iraq. In this bill it goes against that theory. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me just clarify. Does it tie the hands of the administration? No, it doesn't. It says if it is within the national interest of national security, you have to come before Congress and justify stepping out of what we want to pass here in this House. It doesn't do anything to the President. It doesn't tie the hands of the military. It says if you are going to do something outside of the rules that you have already set, you have to come before Congress and let us know what you are doing. What's wrong with that? Newsweek, Time, and other periodicals that are weekly, and some daily, have asked, Is the President listening? What is the President thinking? The American people are saying they want to do certain things as it relates to Iraq, but they don't want to be in the middle of a civil war. The Department of Defense 2 weeks ago admitted there is a civil war in Iraq. They said that 2 weeks ago, and it has been going on for over a year. The media 6 months ago said we are now calling it a civil war. And the Department of Defense just came to grips with that. I am going to tell you, there are four star generals that are friends of mine that know full well and have told me, Just between you and I, Congressman, we are in a civil war. But the administration had to give the okay. So, you know, things are getting tough now, and you go ahead. You can say it, yeah. That is the kind of DOD that we have right now. When I say DOD, the Department of Defense. This bill unearthed that kind of philosophy. We want the Department of Defense to be professionals. We want our three and four star generals and our people in harm's way to make the decisions and come before Congress and tell us the truth, not because someone in the White House or someone in the Department of Defense said if you tell it, there is going to be a price to pay. Mr. Speaker, I have a list of generals that have paid that price that have said otherwise than what the Department of Defense wanted them to share. One thing that is good, Secretary Rumsfeld is gone, and that is good. I am glad he is gone from the Department of Defense. I asked him politely, Maybe you want to consider retiring after Abu Ghraib. When you have the kind of power over DOD, it smothers other ideas. This is not something in DOD. This was printed in newspapers. If you disagreed with the Secretary of Defense, you had a problem. We want to fight against that. I want to talk about my colleagues on the other side. My good friend who used to be the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, he said he never felt stronger against what was going on as relates to the surge. They are going to have an opportunity to vote on the supplemental. You had Senator Hagel who is also a Republican and I consider a good person. He said: ``I think the speech that was given last night,'' and this was after the President presented his plan for the surge, ``by the President represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam. If it is carried out, it will be resisted.'' That is Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony of 1-11-07. It goes on and on. Senator Snowe, Senator Collins, Senator Coleman, Senator Smith, Senator Brownback, Senator Specter, Senator Bunning, and on and on and on. Senator Sununu. So we can go on and on talking about the justification of third-party validators that are here. And then we have generals, Mr. Speaker, that have said otherwise against what this administration is proposing. The President has threatened to veto this supplemental. I wonder why. It is his words that he said here at that podium that the Iraqi Government has to be held accountable because we will not be there. We used his words and put it on paper, put it into law. Here is the bill. It is on the Internet. Folks can read it. Every Member has a copy. There is no secret. It is not in some back room, it is not like, I have not seen the bill yet. H.R. 1591. You can read about all of the good things that are in here that are already Department of Defense regulations. That is what the President said when he made his surge speech and the accountability that is being placed on the Iraqi Government. The Iraq Study Group, it is in here. Their recommendations are in here. It is nothing new. They were bipartisan, appointed by the President of the United States. All we are saying is we are going to hold you to your word. What is wrong with that? Whatever happened to those good old days, if you say it, you are going to do it? What is wrong with that? I don't know what the problem is, Members, but the only problem I can find with holding you to your word is probably politics, partisan politics. When we look at national security, there is no room for that. Let's talk about some of these military leaders that have raised a concern about the escalation. General Colin Powell, can't say enough about him, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, former Secretary of State. That is some resume. ``I am not persuaded that another surge of troops in Baghdad for the purpose of suppressing this continued violence, this civil war will work.'' That is General Colin Powell. It is not Kendrick Meek. And he is a Republican. He is just being an American when he said this. I know General Powell, and he is a friend. General Wesley Clark, retired, former Supreme Allied Commander of Europe of NATO. This is a man who led us in Bosnia. He said troops surge and accountability will be seen as rhetoric. The bottom line of what he is saying is that the accountability of what we say that we want to be accountable for in Iraq as it relates to security is not going to see itself through. General McCaffrey, who is retired, he said: ``It is a foolish idea. Our allies will leave us.'' Mr. Speaker, that is what has happened. ``Make no mistake about that, most will be gone by the summer.'' This is what he said. And sure enough, they are going to be gone by the summer. These are our decorated members of the military that are saying this. So when Members come to the floor and start calling Members names and calling the Speaker names and calling the Speaker ``general'' and carrying on and trying to make a point and trying to sensationalize the obvious, it is not serving our troops well and it is not serving our country well. Mr. Speaker, I am going to close with this: we have a responsibility as Americans and also as Members of the House to make sure that we follow through on what we said and told our constituents that we would do, that we would come as thinkers to this process and that we would represent them in the best way possible. For the men and women that allow us to salute one flag, for those who have served in the past, we thank them and honor them. Let's honor them tomorrow when we come to this floor and vote for this emergency supplemental. We had a nonbinding resolution a couple of weeks ago that said we were against the escalation of troops in Iraq. This bill and this emergency supplemental is binding, and it has meat and teeth on it on behalf of those in harm's way, and even those that have served. In this bill we are taking care of the needs of not only military but military families. We are providing homeland security with the necessary funding that they need. And so when you think about, when you pray about what you are going to do tomorrow, think about those that are counting on us to represent them. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker and majority leader for allowing me to come to the floor tonight. I want to thank the Members of the House for listening. It is always a true honor to address the House.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be down here, and I am glad that the chairman brought this bill up. I can tell you the only thing that I can see in this bill is ultimate accountability and oversight by this Congress, which hasn't happened in the last two emergency supplementals, those that I voted on and those that I voted in the affirmative on. But the good thing about this bill is that we have the troops back. We are saying that they have to be prepared, just like the Department of Defense says that they have to be when they go off to war. This is actually in this bill. We look at this bill dealing with health care for our veterans, we look at planning, we look at the needs of our troops. Once they get back here to the United States, this bill covers and starts that investment that we have to make to make sure that we take care of our troops in the field and when they get back here at home. So this is very, very important, Members. I would hate for my Members on either side of the aisle to be on the other side of this bill, because you have a lot of explaining to do when you get back home, the reason why you voted against this bill. You can call Members of Congress, General X and General Y, but the bottom line is accountability is in this bill and funding.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. I think it is important, as we start to look at this, I cannot help but reflect on the fact that as of 10 a.m. today, and that is today, that we have lost 3,222 men and women in Iraq. I mean, that is not a small number when we look at the sacrifices that have been made. Also, we are looking at another 13,415 wounded that have returned to duty, and 10,722 wounded that cannot return to duty. Then we have folks that are whining about having some accountability in what we now call 5 years later emergency supplemental funding. I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, for the Members to understand because we want to come to the floor, we do not want a Member going back to their district saying they did not understand what was in the bill because we know it is on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Ryan pointed that out we have some folks that are just going to vote on principle; I am going to vote against this because it was not my idea. I am going to vote against it because I am a Republican. Well, guess what? The American people voted last November for leadership, not saying that I am going to send a Democrat or Republican. We had Republicans that were tenured in this House, served 10-, 15-year terms unelected because they were following partisan politics. It is very, very important that we look at the bipartisanship in this. I will yield because I was about to make a point on the readiness issue.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Murphy, I think it is important for us to look at the following line. This bill puts also enforcement behind what is already out there. There is no policy risk here in this bill. We know that the Iraq Study Group says that we should have timelines. That is in this bill. We know that the military, as it relates to readiness, and we know that there are four basic components to readiness, you have, for instance, we have 100 Striker brigades that are in our military right now. We know in every Striker vehicle you have to have a commander, a gunner and a driver. We need to make sure that we have all three of those components before we send a Striker force into Iraq or Afghanistan. That is in this bill, and that is what the military calls for. I think it is important to also outline that there is not a National Guard unit that is right now in our National Guard force that is combat ready. Right now, I say that with great confidence. We don't have that right now. I am on the Armed Services Committee because I know this stuff. I mean, I know this stuff because we talk about it. We talk about the fact that we are not ready to do the things that we need to do as it relates to equipment maintenance. In many parts of the theater we don't have what we need to keep heavy vehicles moving. We look at the reason why we don't have up-armored vehicles, in some instance, going out on patrol. If you ask some here in Washington DC, that is every time, but not all the time. In Baghdad, this is very, very important, the training and making sure that everyone is trained and have what they need to have to carry out the task within a brigade is very, very important. In this supplemental we are meeting the needs of the Army as it relates to what they need. I think it's 36,000 troops, additional troops. They need an Army, and we are also increasing the Marines by three brigades, if Members want to vote against this piece of legislation. I think it's also good to outline in 2001, we were at 80 percent of readiness. When we say ``readiness,'' everyone was trained and equipment was in place to be able to deal with it. We haven't been down at the numbers or the level we are now as it relates to readiness or a lack thereof since the end of the Vietnam War. In this day and time when we have Iran and we have Syria and we have North Korea and we have other countries of interest to the United States as it relates to a threat, now more than ever we need to make sure that we are there not only for the troops but also for the American people. I think it is also important to shed light on the fact that there are several other great things that are in this bill, $2.6 billion to deal with Homeland Security issues that were not dealt with, Hurricane Katrina relief, $2.9 billion, also as it relates to urgent State children's health care and insurance needs at $750 million, urgent needs for pandemic flu preparedness at $1 billion. As we start to look at and uncover in these hearings, as some talk about, that are a waste of time, we start looking at the gaps of the lack of oversight and a lack of execution on behalf of programs and initiatives that will make our troops' lives better, those that are enlisted, those that are Reservists, to be able to secure our troops that are in theater at this time, many of whom are in the areas of great danger and constant fire, and also looking at the needs of the country, of the everyday American people. Now, it is interesting because the minority side, the Republicans over there, when we start looking at some of them, when we start looking at some of these votes that have taken place, many of the Members of the leadership, if not all, have voted against commonsense legislation that we passed on a bipartisan basis. I mean, we had a number of Republicans voting for bills that were brought up by this Democratic Congress. You look at implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations, we had 299 votes, Democrats voted in the affirmative, we had 299 overall votes, 86 of those individuals were Republicans. Minimum wage, to be able to raise minimum wage, 315 with 82 Republicans joining us. Also, you have funding enhancement for stem cell research, 253, and a majority of Members voted for that bill. Thirty-seven Republicans joined us making prescription drugs affordable for seniors. H.R. 4, 255, it passed with 24 Republicans joining us. Cutting the student loan interest rates in half, H.R. 5, 356, with 124 Republicans joining us. Again, creating long-term energy initiatives, H.R. 6 passed, 264, with 36 Republicans joining us. Now, I can tell you tomorrow or Thursday, there will be a number of individuals thinking about how they are going to vote. But I can tell you this, there are several things that we can say about this emergency supplemental that is really, really good for the country, and there are also eight or nine points that I can point out that are leadership calls. You have to be a leader to take a position on anything, and I think we have some Members on the minority side that don't want to take a position. Let me go back to David Broder's article that he wrote, and the Members can get it at miamiherald.com; it was March 18. It should still be on, you can get it for free on the World Wide Web: ``Congress won't sign any more blank checks,'' but it goes on down to paragraph 6 and talks about the fact that for 6 years the Bush administration and the aids that they are talking about earlier in the bill would have free rein on carrying out whatever political policy or assignment they wished, and also the President. Let's just say hypothetically, that the President wanted this done. A Congress, under a firm Republican control, was solemn when it came down to oversight of the executive branch. No Republican committee chairman wanted to turn rocks over as it relates to the Republican administration. I think it's important that we have the kind of forward lean that we have now, because that is what the American people have called for. They asked for accountability. They asked for oversight. They asked for Members of Congress to come here and be Members of Congress, not just say Mr. Murphy is my friend, and we all get along and I see him in the hall, he wears nice ties, what have you, is a member of Financial Services and also Government Oversight. They didn't send us here to have great relationships and to slap each other in the back. They sent us here to provide the kind of leadership that they deserve. The bottom line is, when that bill and this emergency supplemental bill comes up, war supplemental comes up on the floor, we will have to take a position. We have to answer for the fact that we have put benchmarks in this bill saying that the Iraqi Government, their feet have to be held to the fire, because, guess what, back in my district there are mayors and there are county commissioners and there are city commissioners and there are school board commissioners and there are constituents of mine that want health care, and their feet are being held to the fire. Mayors have to fill out more paperwork. I guarantee you the mayor of Baghdad has to fill them out too as it relates to Federal dollars. You talked about in the early days of voting money on the back of a truck and passing out cash money to pay government workers in Iraq and to do other things that we know very little about now. We also know that weapons that we bought are unaccounted for at this time. To say that we are the so-called board of the United States of America, and the President is the chief CEO, the chief executive officer, we are not carrying out our responsibilities, making sure that the President does exactly what he said he would do, making sure that Iraqi government does what they said they would do. We need to make sure that our men and women don't have to speak under their breath as it relates to readiness, as they board a plane to go to Kuwait to then be shipped to Iraq, that they don't have what they need in a Striker brigade, that they don't have what they need as it relates to the training or the equipment or the down time that they deserve, not a rotation based on some bureaucrat in Washington DC saying, well, we need three more brigades in Iraq. Oh, well, I know they have only been home for 120 days, but we need them there to keep up our troop level there at over 147,000. I must add, where other countries have announced or have withdrawn, we have replaced them with American troops. Yes, this is a leadership vote, and, yes, some of us are going to have to go to the wizard and get some courage and come here and vote on behalf of the supplemental. Now, I respect folks having different opinions, but this is a far better supplemental bill than Members in this Congress have voted on in the past. We have voted on at least two of them since I have been here. I can remember two of them, and they did not have benchmarks. They just had money in the bill saying trust the President and trust the Department of Defense, they know what they are doing.