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

Floor Speech

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me time and her leadership on the committee.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress is on the cusp of an historic step, a first step to changing Iraq policy, enacting a fixed timetable to bring our troops home. The bill made in order under this rule is not perfect, but it deserves our strong support because it offers us our best chance at forcing a change of direction in Iraq after 4 long years of mismanagement.

Mr. Speaker, I opposed this war from the beginning, and I believe we must bring our troops home soon and in a responsible way. The President's reckless insistence on sticking to a failed policy in Iraq underlines the need for Congress to show leadership. This legislation gives us the chance for the first time to take a concrete step towards bringing the war to a close.

This bill does not go as far as I would like. I support a more rapid redeployment of our troops from Iraq. I also strongly believe the President should not be allowed to waive the legislation's troop readiness requirements. But it has become clear in recent weeks that this is the most aggressive approach that can obtain the necessary votes to pass this House. That is the reality here. This is, after all, the legislative branch. That means we can't change the policy if we can't pass the bill.

Enacting a fixed timetable to bring our troops home is a very significant leap forward in our Iraq policy. It provides a foundation for further action and increases pressure on the President. That is why the President opposes it so strongly. Defeating this bill would ultimately play into the President's hands, resulting in the eventual passage of a blank-check bill that places fewer restraints on the President.

Ultimately Congress faces a choice: Do we set a timetable to bring the troops home while providing for the troops in harm's way, or do we give the administration a blank check for a war without end?

I choose to begin steps to end the war. For that reason I urge all Members to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from New York, the distinguished chairman of our committee, Ms. SLAUGHTER for the time and for her leadership.

Mr. Speaker, in the next twenty-four hours, this Congress will undertake a historic first step to changing our Iraq policy.

The bill made in order under this rule is not a perfect bill. But it deserves our strong support because it will bring a critical change of direction in Iraq after four long years of mismanagement.

Mr. Speaker, I opposed this war from the beginning. And I believe we must bring our troops home soon and in a responsible way. Our men and women in uniform have done everything we have asked of them.

They have endured multiple deployments and extended separation from their loved ones. They have followed orders into combat often without the proper body armor or equipment.

These are signs of an inexcusable lack of leadership from the President. Rather than change direction, the President has chosen to send tens of thousands of additional troops to Iraq.

This goes against the advice of his generals ..... against the advice of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group ..... and against the expressed wishes of the voters.

The President's reckless insistence on sticking to a failed policy in Iraq underlines the need for Congress to show leadership.

I support Congress taking firm steps to change our Nation's direction in Iraq. And I have cosponsored legislation to establish a timetable for redeployment of our troops.

As I said at the beginning, Congress has a historic opportunity to demonstrate its responsible leadership with this bill. And that's the prism through which I evaluate my vote this week.

The decision comes down to this--do we want to enact a bill that has flaws but does contain a fixed timetable to bring our troops home? Or do we want to vote down the fixed timetable and endorse President Bush's ability to continue to wage this war without any limits?

This bill does not go as far as I would like. I support a more rapid redeployment of our troops from Iraq. I also strongly believe the President should not be allowed to waive the legislation's troop readiness requirements.

Because of his gross mismanagement of the conflict, I believe the President has abdicated any right to deference on that front.

Having said that, it has become clear in recent weeks that this is the most aggressive approach that can obtain the necessary votes to pass the House of Representatives.

That is disappointing to me, but that is the reality here. This is, after all, the legislative branch. That means we can't change the policy if we can't pass the bill.

Enacting a fixed timetable to bring our troops home is a very significant leap forward in our Iraq policy. It provides a foundation for further action and increases pressure on the President. That is why the President opposes it so strongly.

To defeat this bill would result in the eventual passage of a blank check bill that places even fewer responsibilities on the President.

I believe it is simply unacceptable to give the President permission to mismanage the war as he chooses.

Ultimately, Congress faces a choice: Do we set a timetable to bring the troops home while providing for our troops in the field at every moment?

Or do we give the Administration a blank check for a war without end? I believe Congress must choose the former.

This legislation, whatever its flaws may be, enacts a timetable to bring our troops home while giving them the resources they need for protection while they are still in harm's way. For that reason, I am voting yes on the supplemental appropriations bill.

I urge all Members to support the rule and the underlying bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source