Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns raised by many about whether this bill reflects the ``perfect'' strategy for Afghanistan and Iraq.

The stakes are high in Afghanistan and the challenges are complex. As then-Senator Barrack Obama noted in July 2007, ``the Afghan-Pakistan border region is where the 9/11 attack was plotted. It is where most attacks in Europe since 9/11 originated. It is where Osama bin Laden lives and his top confederates still enjoy safe haven, planning new attacks. And it is where we must urgently shift our focus ..... using the totality of America's strength, not merely our military, incredible as it is.''

For the first time since I have been here in Washington, discussion about a supplemental has focused on where most of our efforts since 9/11 should be: Afghanistan.

I am encouraged that we finally have a President who is committed to a redeployment of our troops from Iraq so that we can focus on where the threats from Al-Qaeda originated on September 11 and which unfortunately we have seen the threat to our country, to Afghanistan, and to Pakistan grow in the past few years. The Supplemental is consistent with the President's plan to begin winding down the number of combat troops in Iraq over the next several months.

While I wish we did not need to have military forces in Afghanistan, the deteriorating security situation will necessitate more U.S. troops--at least for a time--to help ``disrupt, dismantle, and destroy'' safe havens for Al-Qaeda. Creating a situation in Afghanistan that prevents the return of the Taliban and al Qaeda is clearly a priority for our national security.

It's a decision I take with a heavy heart and after much deliberation. I err on the side of peace. I never look forward to sending more of our brave young soldiers to the battlefield or for war. Yet, it is unfortunately clear to me that military forces must continue to be a part of our effort in Afghanistan to help protect innocent Afghan civilians.

This increase in forces must be accompanied by clear guidelines to minimize civilian casualties that have only inflamed public opinion in Afghanistan against the U.S. and its coalition partners.

We cannot win any war where we lose the support of the local populace.

The use of airstrikes that may have killed some terrorist leaders but also killed or injured more innocent civilians--such as the attack from earlier this week--and fanned anti-American sentiment must be reexamined at the highest levels of our defense establishment.

But if we have learned anything from the situation in Iraq, it is that military force alone is not sufficient in and by itself to achieve our nation's foreign policy objectives in combating terrorism. I remain concerned that a strategy that relies on our military alone--who have served and continue to serve with valor, honor, and dedication and done all that their country has asked of them--to address the vast range of challenges facing the Afghanistan government and people is not a viable way forward in Afghanistan.

Yet, without security, the Taliban will continue to disrupt and destroy U.S. and international efforts to boost health care, governance, and economic growth in the country, as evidenced by the continuing attacks against innocent girls who have now been empowered to go to school and get an education.

I am also concerned about the growing influence of the Taliban on Afghanistan's government and what that would mean for the respect for human rights, including the rights of women and the future of women and girls if we allow Afghanistan to become a failed state.

Development in Afghanistan cannot occur if we do not protect and empower the 50 percent of the population that are women. However, the prospects for women and girls in Afghanistan under the Taliban or a government heavily influenced by the Taliban are chilling.

We saw this growing influence I believe with the March 2009 approval by Afghan's parliament of a law that would, according to news reports, legalize marital rape, strip mothers of custodial rights in the event of a divorce, and prohibit a woman from leaving her home unless her husband gives his approval.

This law violates the basic human rights of women under several international treaties and convention and appears to contravene Afghanistan's own constitution.

This law has been rightly condemned by President Obama and others around the world and I urge President Karzai to officially reject it as well.

Its passage is a troubling omen of what the future holds for many of the committed women and girls who have courageously stepped out of the shadows since the fall of Taliban rule in Afghanistan in 2001.

I have advocated for a comprehensive strategy in Afghanistan and a comprehensive strategy will include the appropriate and judicious use of our military forces--otherwise it would not be comprehensive. It is clear that the Afghan security forces are overwhelmed and under-resourced to combat Al-Qaeda. In Afghanistan--a country that has both a larger population and a larger geography than Iraq--current U.S. forces are one-fifth the size of the forces in Iraq.

We must support efforts by the Afghanistan government to improve security for the millions of innocent Afghans whose future is threatened by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

An important piece of a comprehensive strategy is an exit plan. That is an unfortunate gap in the bill before us, but nothing prevents the House or Congress from addressing that issue in the days or weeks ahead.

I am an original cosponsor of legislation by Congressman JAMES MCGOVERN that asks the Secretary of Defense to provide Congress with a plan for an exit strategy for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan by the end of the year. I look forward to helping move it through the House as soon as possible.

Additionally, the increase in fighting forces in Afghanistan undertaken by this Administration must be matched by concomitant increases in diplomatic, development, and other nonmilitary aid.

The FY 2009 supplemental remains the most immediate avenue available at this point to secure the $7 billion in foreign aid requested by the President to support his boost for such efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere. In fact, this bill would add $3 billion to the President's request.

The $5.1 billion in the bill for Afghanistan is a significant step in the right direction. The $3.6 billion for training Afghan security forces and police; $980 million for economic development and expanding the rule of law and combating corruption; and $536 million for increased U.S. civilian and diplomatic staff are key parts of the Administration's new strategy for the region and will hopefully pave the way for the Afghan government to take the lead in securing its territory and meeting the needs of its people. On that point, today, 17 members of the Wisconsin National Guard--most of them based in Milwaukee--will return home after 10 months in Afghanistan training and advising the Afghan National Police.

I don't need to mention the critical need for the Pakistan assistance as troubling media reports surface by the hour that graphically illustrate the challenge facing that country and its government in its battle against Al-Qaeda and insurgent groups. The House bill would provide over $2 billion for Pakistan, almost $600 million more than requested by the President to boost State Department and civilian staffing, to strengthen governance and economic development efforts.

While I wish the mix between military aid and development and other aid in the bill were different, I also realize that this bill is taking an important step to better balance that mix while acknowledging a difficult reality for there are hundreds of thousands of troops still in war zones and at the same time, there is a lack of staffing at USAID and State that will need to be addressed to properly support a more forceful role for those agencies going forward.

The bill also addresses a number of other priorities including compensating all members of our military who were subject to the DoD's stop loss policy after September 11, boosting funding for MRAP's to protect our troops from IED's, and providing over $1 billion for medical care to servicemembers and their family members, including research and treatment of PTSD and TBI.

The supplemental would also provide millions in funding for new wounded warrior facilities to help soldiers wounded in combat to recover and to support their families through that process. It would speed up the construction of new military hospitals in Bethesda and at Fort Belvoir and provide over $1 billion for family support programs including improving access for families to child psychologists, child care, child development centers, financial counseling and other support.

Important funding is also included to facilitate the Middle East Peace process including economic aid and security assistance for Israel, Egypt, West Bank and Gaza, Jordan, and Lebanon.

The bill also makes investments in efforts to combat pandemic flu, to aid developing countries negatively affected by the global financial crisis, and to extend the compassion and aid of the American people though the provision of food aid, refugee assistance, and support of peacekeeping operations.

While I am disappointed by the fact that there are no deadlines or timelines in the bill before the end of Fiscal Year 2009 which is covered by the funding in this bill, Congress will certainly have the opportunity to examine whether or not these new policies are working and how to make effective changes both for the sake of our national security and for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This bill is not ``perfect'' and can be improved. I hope it will get better and stronger when it goes to conference including the addition of more funding for the State Department to conduct diplomacy, build schools, hospitals and roads, and promote economic growth. Any efforts to reduce funding for these goals and funding for some of the important programs I have outlined below the levels in this bill will be of concern to me.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source