Recently, I called my newly elected Democratic representative, Gabrielle Giffords to ask her to vote no on the supplemental appropriations bill. As we know now, Ms. Giffords voted with Republicans to approve the funding. Today, I received an e-mail letter from Ms. Giffords defending her position. I share it with you below the fold.
I appreciate your interest in the U.S. involvement in Iraq and I am writing to update you on the most recent congressional action.
As you probably know, on May 24th the House of Representatives passed the final version of the Fiscal Year 2007 Emergency Supplemental bill. It passed 280 - 142 with strong bipartisan support and also cleared the Senate. The next day President Bush signed it into law.
I voted for this legislation because I cannot, in good conscience, allow the military to run out of money while American service men and women are being attacked every day. As this month concludes, it unfortunately becomes the deadliest month for U.S. troops in 2 years; ten soldiers were killed on Memorial Day alone.
Earlier this year, I voted against the President's surge plan. I also voted four times to send him a supplemental appropriations bill with firm timetables for a responsible redeployment of troops from Iraq. That includes my vote to attempt to override his veto of the first version.
Along with most Americans, I understand that achieving stability in Iraq requires an aggressive political and diplomatic strategy-not a massive U.S. military presence. But failing to pass a supplemental appropriations bill or prompting another veto would not have fixed President Bush's strategy in Iraq-it would only have prevented the military from replacing worn out equipment. Our troops are embroiled in an untenable civil war between Iraqi factions, but they did not choose or design their mission. We cannot abandon them.
General Richard Cody, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, recently testified before Congress that if a supplemental appropriations bill was not approved by June, the Army's ability to provide equipment to soldiers on the ground in Iraq would be significantly compromised.
Specifically, the bill includes a $1 billion increase for the National Guard and Reserve equipment, $1.1 billion for military housing, and $3 billion for the purchase of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAP)-vehicles designed to withstand roadside bombs. Also $4.8 billion is designated to ensure that troops and veterans receive the health care they have earned with their service.
In addition, the bill includes eighteen key benchmarks for political, economic and reconstruction progress in Iraq. This is the first step in creating much-needed accountability.
Make no mistake, the effort to require a timeline for redeployment of troops from Iraq is far from over. I will continue to vote in support of a responsible shift of troops from Iraq to targeted regions around the world where there are serious threats to America. Many members of Congress and military leaders agree that September will be an important turning point for evaluating the effects of the President's surge. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I will be briefed on the situation in considerable detail.
But given the President's refusal to do the right thing, time for negotiations on a supplemental appropriations bill has run out and our troops on the frontlines must have the equipment they need.
Did I miss the part about how she'll vote in September after she's briefed in considerable detail? Will she keep voting with Republicans as long as troops are on the ground? Inquiring minds want to know.