Providing for Consideration of Senate Amendment to House Amendment to Senate Amendment to H. R. 2764, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008
Floor Speech
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE AMENDMENT TO SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2764, CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 -- (House of Representatives - December 19, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 893 provides for consideration of two measures, an amendment to the omnibus appropriations bill to provide funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a continuing resolution. Each measure is debatable for 1 hour.
The continuing resolution is necessary to keep the government open and running while the omnibus bill is processed and sent to the White House for the President's signature.
Madam Speaker, while I have no problem with the rule that is before us, I cannot support the underlying funding for Iraq. The tens of billions in new money for the war in Iraq has no timetables for withdrawal, no limitations, no requirements that the Iraqi Government make progress towards reconciliation, no benchmarks, no conditionality, nothing. Madam Speaker, this is a blank check.
The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war. It is stunning that so many have gone along for so long asking no questions, giving this President everything he wants.
After years of Bush ineptitude, how dare this Congress provide another blank check for this administration. No weapons of mass destruction, a constantly changing rationale for our occupation, benchmarks for the Iraqi Government that never get met, no democracy, no respect for human rights, no reconciliation, a government plagued with corruption, and no end in sight. All this, Madam Speaker, and some of my colleagues still say, ``stay the course.''
Our brave men and women in uniform have done their job. So many have sacrificed, and far too many have made the ultimate sacrifice. They have been successful in some areas of Iraq in quelling some of the violence, essentially providing the chance, the window of opportunity for the Iraqi Government to move ahead with efforts for reconciliation.
The response of the Iraqi Government has been to do nothing. No reconciliation.
Isn't our responsibility, as Members of Congress, to raise questions? Shouldn't we put pressure on the Iraqi Government to do more? And shouldn't we put pressure on our own government to not be such a cheap date? Don't we owe our soldiers whom we put in harm's way better than acquiescence to a Commander in Chief who is incapable of ever admitting error?
Madam Speaker, there is no military victory to be had in Iraq. To the extent that this awful situation becomes less awful depends on political progress, something the Maliki government doesn't want to do, and something our own leaders seem willing to keep putting off.
I want more, Madam Speaker, I expect more, for the sacrifice our troops have made. Quite frankly, the status quo is not worth one more American dollar or one more drop of American blood. I am sick to my stomach when I think of the hundreds of billions of dollars that we have already spent in Iraq while we nickel and dime our own people at home. None of this war is paid for. It is all borrowed money. It's all on the backs of our kids. It's all debt that is being bought up every day by China.
Madam Speaker, I long for the day when we have a President who will threaten a veto on a bill that fails to provide all our people with health care, or that fails to adequately fund education for our children. Instead, we have a White House that engages in blackmail tactics: Give me what I want on Iraq, with no strings attached, or I'll shut the government down.
Those who defend the status quo say that we need to give the President whatever he wants so we can assure ``victory.'' ``Victory'' at the beginning of this war was ridding Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. When we found that there were none, the definition of ``victory'' changed. In fact, over the last 5 years, the definition of ``victory'' has changed several times.
For me, the closest thing to victory is ending this war, getting an Iraqi Government that puts national reconciliation above its own self-interest and getting our troops out of that country and home to their families where they belong. I believe the surest way to get that type of victory is setting a firm timetable for the U.S. occupation of Iraq to end. It will change the dynamic, and it will force the Iraqi Government to embrace, rather than avoid, reconciliation.
In fact, in today's Washington Post, the U.S. military has found that the strongest point of agreement among all Iraqis across all sectarian and ethnic groups is the belief that the U.S. military invasion of their country is the primary root of the violent differences among them and that the departure of ``occupying forces,'' their words, is the key to national reconciliation.
Madam Speaker, the Iraqi people themselves firmly believe that reconciliation will not happen until we leave. If the Iraqi people want us to
leave, and a majority of the Iraqi Government want us to leave, and a majority of the American people want us to leave, then why on Earth are we staying?
Let me also state, Madam Speaker, what ``victory'' is not. It is not allowing this President to kick the ball down the field and dump this war on the next President of the United States. That is called ``passing the buck,'' and that is what we will be doing if we approve this new Iraq money.
One final observation. The war in Iraq has not only cost us dearly in terms of human life and treasure, it has also cost us in terms of our standing in the world. We have lost the support and the respect of so many who have looked to us as a force for what is good, decent and positive in world affairs. I warn my colleagues that our lost prestige and standing is also a threat to our national security. Madam Speaker, I want my country back.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, let me just respond to the gentleman from Texas by saying he is entitled to his own opinions, but he is not entitled to make up the facts. The facts are that the difference between this Congress under the Democratic majority and under the previous Congress under the Republican majority is they left Washington before their work was done. They kicked all their work onto the Democratic Congress that was elected last November. They didn't do their job. If the Congress could be sued for malpractice, they would have been sued for malpractice.
The bills that we are dealing with today the House of Representatives passed in a timely manner, all of the appropriations bills, as we were supposed to do. We did it, and they were good bills, and I commend Chairman Obey for his work on those bills. We did that in spite of all the obstructionism and resistance from the Republicans in this House.
Unfortunately, because of the Senate rules, an individual Member, and in the case of the Senate, the Senate minority leader, was successful in slowing down the process and preventing conference committees from meeting and preventing the Senate from considering certain bills. Now they can be proud of that. That is just obstructionism. That is not doing the people's business. But the bottom line is that we are here today dealing with an omnibus appropriations bill to get the people's business done; not to kick the ball down the field and dump it on next year's Congress. It is to do it now.
One other thing, Madam Speaker, and that is one of the major differences with the new Democratic majority is that we have helped undo some of the damage that the Republicans have done to domestic spending over the years. Because of the Democratic majority and our ability to reorder priority, education is better off today than it would be if the Republicans were in control. Medical research, there is more money for medical research to find lifesaving drugs and to find cures to disease because the Democrats made that a priority, over the Republican objections. Our veterans are getting a better deal today. Under the Democratic majority, there is the largest single-year increase in veterans health in the history of the Veterans Administration. Those are the things that we have done.
Today, we are considering a Senate addition to what we did in the House, which I have an objection to, and that is the funding for the war in Iraq. The Republicans, while they were in control, gave the President a blank check; no accountability, no questions asked, nothing. And here we are, the fifth year into this war, with no end in sight, and there are some of us who believe the time has come to call the President to account, to start the process of bringing our troops home so they can be reunited with their families.
So there's a huge difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.
Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge.
Source