[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 67 (Wednesday, April 25, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H4131-H4158]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 U.S. TROOP READINESS, VETERANS' HEALTH, AND IRAQ ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 
                                  2007

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 332, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1591) making emergency 
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2007, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 332, the 
conference report is considered as read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
April 24, 2007, at page H3823.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.


                             General Leave

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 1591.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 9 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill gives the President the exit strategy from the 
Iraqi civil war that up until now he has not had.
  Next Tuesday will be the fourth anniversary of the President's 
``Mission Accomplished'' landing on that famous aircraft carrier. On 
that date, U.S. troops had won the war in Iraq, but since that time the 
administration's mismanagement, their misjudgments, and their missed 
opportunities have entangled us in a quagmire that has become a 
prolonged civil war. That civil war has gutted our influence in the 
Middle East and much of the world. In the last 4 years, the 
administration has spent over half a trillion dollars. It has stretched 
the Army to the limit, brought our Guard and Reserve to the breaking 
point, and reduced our military to the lowest state of military 
readiness in modern history.
  The President has refused to finance this war through the normal 
appropriations process. He has chosen to mask the true cost of the war 
by paying for it on the installment plan through a series of 
supplemental requests. He has

[[Page H4132]]

now requested another supplemental of almost another $100 billion in 
military spending, and almost $4 billion in other additional spending. 
The bill before us today is our response.
  We provide $4 billion more than the President asked for for troops in 
the field. The President is objecting on two grounds. First, he does 
not like the conditions we have placed on funding for the war. Second, 
he objects to the money we have added for other crucial activities. He 
calls it ``pork.'' So do some of the charter members of the ``Invent 
Your Own Facts Club'' that seems to populate this institution.
  We have provided $4 billion more than he has asked for for operation 
and maintenance for personnel costs and for procurement.
  We have provided $750 million more than he asked for for Afghanistan.
  We have provided $2.2 billion more for military health to meet the 
medical needs of our returning soldiers. We have added $1.8 billion for 
veterans health care above the amount the President asked for.
  We have provided $2.2 billion more for aviation security, port 
security, and border security.
  We have provided $80 million more for nuclear nonproliferation, and 
we have added $150 million for the FBI.
  We have provided $650 million more than the President asked for for 
the pandemic flu emergency, cleaning up an action that last year's 
Congress never got around to completing.
  We have provided $3.3 billion more for Katrina, again cleaning up 
some more business that last year's Congress failed to complete.
  We have also provided $3.1 billion more for BRAC which the 
administration itself asked for in its budget last year.
  We provided $500 million for wild land fires, the same amount put 
into the same account by the Republican majority 2 years ago for the 
same purposes.
  We have added $400 million to low income heating assistance because 
the previous Congress cut that by $1 billion. We should have added back 
the whole billion dollars, but in the interest of saving money we 
confined it to $400 million.
  We have added $425 million to continue the rural school payments in 
the West that the last Congress never got around to renewing. 
Unfortunately, they allowed that program to expire, as they allowed so 
many other things to expire last year.
  We have also provided $3.5 billion for agriculture disaster, again an 
issue which has been hanging around for more than a year. The President 
has declared more than 70 percent of the counties in this country to be 
agriculture disaster areas. There ought to be some action that flows 
from that unless we are taking the President's initial action to be 
meaningless.
  We have also provided $396 million in SCHIP to make certain that low 
income children and low income families don't fall off the State health 
care rolls. We have been asked to do that by bipartisan Governors from 
14 States.
  If the President wants to object to those items and call them pork, 
or of members of the flat earth club in this body want to call it pork, 
that's fine with me; I think the public will look at those issues 
somewhat differently.
  The President is attacking these additional items as a smoke screen 
to obscure the fact that the key issue on this bill is whether or not 
there will be a change in direction with respect to our policy in Iraq.

                              {time}  1945

  This bill supports the troops. It begins to hold Iraq and the 
administration accountable, and it points the way to ending our 
involvement in a protracted civil war.
  As a condition of providing the President with the funds he has asked 
for, we require that our American military units meet certain standards 
that are known as the Murtha standards. They simply require that any 
unit sent into battle be fully combat ready. They would require, as the 
Defense Department already has for the most part, they would require 
that any unit that has been in Iraq does not have to stay there for 
more than a year without relief, and they also require that if they are 
sent back, they get to spend at least a year at home before they go 
back. And in an era where no one is being asked to sacrifice except 
military families, it seems to me those are all minimum goals that we 
all ought to be willing to adhere to.
  Because the President rejected these requirements, we have given him 
the right to waive these requirements, but only if he spells out to the 
country why he has departed from them. That is imminently reasonable. 
He owes the country that explanation.
  We require that Iraq meet certain performance benchmarks, benchmarks 
that were first laid out by the President himself, and we tie those 
benchmarks to a timeline. If those benchmarks are met, redeployment of 
U.S. troops must begin by July 1. If they are not met, they must begin 
by October. Those dates are firm. The goal for completing such 
redeployment is 6 months after it starts.
  Now, the President objects to the fact that we are setting timelines, 
but the Secretary of Defense himself was quoted in the Washington Post 
as noting that these timelines, in fact, have helped give the Iraqis a 
message that we are not going to stay in Iraq forever. We stand by 
them. We believe these benchmarks and these timelines are necessary in 
order to give General Petraeus the ability to make clear to the Iraqis 
that we are not going to stay there forever, while they refuse to make 
the political compromises necessary to end the civil war.
  Iraqis and the President must understand our troops won the war. They 
cannot achieve the political and diplomatic compromises that are needed 
to end the civil war, only the Iraqis can do that.
  Four years after ``mission accomplished'' is long enough, Mr. 
Speaker. If the President were here I would simply say to him, ``Mr. 
President, with this bill we have compromised on two fronts. We have 
responded to your objection to the Murtha principles by giving you the 
ability to waive them; all you have to do is explain why to the 
country.'' We have responded to his concerns about those timelines by 
adjusting them and making them somewhat more flexible in terms of their 
completion.
  So I would say to the President if he were here, ``Mr. President, it 
is your turn; we need a new direction and we need it now. Please do not 
say, as you said last week'' I will talk but I will not compromise. 
``Mr. President, after 4 years, you need to change the direction. You 
need to sign this bill.''
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following tabular material 
reflecting the funding levels in the conference report.

[[Page H4133]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.001



[[Page H4134]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.002



[[Page H4135]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.003



[[Page H4136]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.004



[[Page H4137]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.005



[[Page H4138]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.006



[[Page H4139]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.007



[[Page H4140]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.008



[[Page H4141]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.009



[[Page H4142]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.010



[[Page H4143]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.011



[[Page H4144]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.012



[[Page H4145]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.013



[[Page H4146]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Republican leader of the 
House.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, what are we doing? What in the world are we 
doing? The President asked for funding for our troops in Afghanistan 
and Iraq to meet our commitments to bring freedom to those people and 
to protect the American people, and here we are with a bill that has 
some $25 billion worth of spending over and above what the President 
asked for. And if that is not bad enough, we handcuff our generals and 
we handcuff our troops and we go about this backhanded way of trying to 
end the war in a backhanded way because the votes are not there to do 
it in a straight-up fashion.
  Mr. Speaker, we are sent here by the American people. We have grave 
responsibilities to them and to our allies around the world, and I 
understand that there are deeply held differences over what is going on 
in Iraq. But all of us understand what we heard today from General 
Petraeus. All of us understand what we have heard over the last few 
months coming out of Iraq.
  The real battle in Iraq today is not with the Iraqis. The real battle 
in Iraq today is with al Qaeda that has made this the central front in 
their war with us. And let us remember, we did not start the war with 
al Qaeda; they did.
  It is al Qaeda that has made Iraq the central front in their war with 
us, and if we are not willing to take on al Qaeda in Iraq today, when 
will we? When will we stand up to radical Islam that is spreading all 
over the world, endangering our allies and endangering our citizens? 
When will we stand up and fight? We did not do it like other world 
leaders for some 20 years because America, like the rest of the world, 
looked up, looked away, and just hoped the problem would go away. It is 
not just going to go away.
  People who are raised to believe that killing Americans and our 
allies and killing freedom and hating freedom is the answer to get to 
Allah is not just going to go away. And so we can look up and we can 
walk out, we can walk out of Iraq, just like we did in Lebanon, just 
like we did in Vietnam, just like we did in Somalia, and we will leave 
chaos in our wake.
  Now, if dealing with al Qaeda is not enough of a reason to finish the 
job that we have in Iraq, what about the issue of the Iranians? The 
Iranians are trying to spew their hate all over the Middle East and 
elsewhere. You see Iranians who are bringing new devices into Baghdad 
to kill Americans and our allies. It is Iranians who are bringing funds 
and doing training to stir up sectarian violence in Baghdad. Are we 
just going to look the other way again?
  I say to my colleagues, and I have said this before, every generation 
of Americans has had their obligation. Every generation of Americans 
has had their obligation to stand up and to protect our country, not 
for just today but for tomorrow and for the next generation.
  After looking away for 20 years during the 1980s and 1990s, what was 
America to do after 3,000 of our citizens died on 9/11? Just all hope 
it goes away, hope they do not care anymore?
  I say to my colleagues that we have a solemn obligation to the 
American people to finish the job that we started. And while Iraq may 
not have started out as the central front in our war with al Qaeda, it 
may not have started out with a fight against the Iranians, all of us 
in this Chamber today know, all of us know that this is the central 
front in our war with al Qaeda, and this is the battleground with Iran. 
You all know it. You know it as well as I do.
  And the question is, are we going to stand up and fulfill our 
obligation to the American people? Are we going to fulfill our 
obligation to the Iraqis who are struggling to create a government of 
the people, by the people and for the people?
  I think they are on clear notice that they have got a job to do on 
their own, but if we step out today, we are ensuring that they will 
fail. We are ensuring that we will leave chaos in our wake. We will 
embolden our enemies, and it is our kids and their kids who will pay a 
very, very steep price.
  This is not the right thing to do, in my opinion. I respect those who 
have opinions that are otherwise, but as I stand here as a Member of 
Congress, we need to think seriously about what we are doing, think 
seriously about the message that we are sending to our enemies around 
the world and ask ourselves, is this what our forefathers would have 
done? Is this the message that we want to send to the world? I would 
suggest to all of you it is not. We should vote ``no.''
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker 
of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I thank the gentleman 
for yielding and commend him for his exceptional leadership in bringing 
this important legislation to the floor. I also acknowledge the 
leadership of Mr. Murtha and Mr. Skelton for all that they are doing to 
make our country safer and to support our troops.
  Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq is the greatest ethical challenge facing 
our Nation. This is so because our troops are being sent into battle 
without the training, equipment. And the strategic plan for success 
because the administration is not honoring our commitment to our 
veterans and because the Iraqi war has strained our military, and 
therefore weakened our ability to fight the war on terrorism.
  By placing an unacceptable strain on our military, this war is 
undermining our ability to protect the American people. Instead of 
making the American people safer, the war in Iraq has weakened our 
ability to protect our Nation from the threat posed by international 
terrorism, I repeat.
  As Major General Petraeus said, right now we are not prepared. We are 
not prepared for the threat this Nation faces here at home. And, 
because in this business you cannot be half ready or half prepared, you 
are either ready or you are not.
  We have put our citizens at greater risk. We have put their lives at 
greater risk, their property, our economy, our way of life, and that is 
just unacceptable.
  Instead of strengthening our hand, the President's policies in Iraq 
have weakened our reputation in the world and diminished our ability to 
lead the international effort against terrorism, which again is the 
real threat.
  With U.S. focus on Iraq, the war in Afghanistan has intensified 
because of the resurgence of the Taliban and al Qaeda in the absence of 
the fullest effort on our part there.
  As Major General John Baptiste said, Here is the bottom line. 
Americans must come to grips with the fact that our military alone 
cannot establish a democracy. We cannot sustain the current operational 
tempo without seriously damaging the Army and the Marine Corps. Our 
troops have been asked to carry the burden of an ill-conceived mission. 
End of quote, Major General John Baptiste.
  Our troops have done everything that they have been asked to do and 
excellently. We salute them for their courage, their patriotism, and 
the sacrifices they and their families are making. Instead of being 
honored as the heroes they are when they come home, our wounded 
veterans are being forced to cope with a system that is not equipped to 
care for them. Preparation was not made.
  Americans have been shocked by the revelations of the appalling care 
at Walter Reed. As Senator Max Cleland, a great patriot, a decorated 
Army veteran, said, Walter Reed is the ugly face of the Iraq war. It is 
a face that the American people need to see because this administration 
from the beginning never planned to deal with casualties, never planned 
for the consequences of this war.
  Last fall, the American people voted for a new direction in Iraq. 
They made it clear that our troops must be given all they need to do 
their jobs but that our troops must be brought home responsibly, safely 
and soon.
  The President responded to this clear call for winding down the war 
in Iraq with a policy of escalation in Iraq that has been tried three 
times previously and failed and, additionally, has burdened our already 
strained military.
  The problems addressed in this bill are problems of the President's 
own making. From the start of the war, the President has failed to 
recognize and to request in his budget the funds needed by our troops 
serving in Iraq, as has been indicated by the distinguished chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey.

[[Page H4147]]

                              {time}  2000

  This is the seventh emergency appropriations bill that Congress has 
had to pass to make up for the President's failure, seven emergencies. 
What is the surprise? Why aren't they understanding the cost of this 
war in lives and health, in reputation, in dollars, and the readiness 
of our military?
  Furthermore, the President's budgets have failed to provide 
adequately for the medical needs of our troops wounded in Iraq and for 
other veterans. This bill supports our troops, honors our commitments 
to our veterans, rebuilds our military, and holds the Iraqi government 
accountable. It winds down the war by providing for the responsible 
redeployment of our combat forces based on benchmarks endorsed by the 
Iraqi government and by President Bush. They are his own benchmarks.
  Oddly, though, even though they are the President's own benchmarks, 
holding the administration accountable to benchmarks has been 
criticized by the administration. They are criticizing their own 
benchmarks. Yet both Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and retired 
Major General Paul Eaton, formerly in charge of training of Iraqi 
security forces, have noted the value of timelines in persuading Iraqis 
to make the political compromises needed to end the violence.
  Secretary Gates noted, we are all familiar with this, it bears 
repeating, ``The strong feelings expressed in Congress about the 
timetables probably has had a positive impact . . . in terms of 
communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended 
commitment.''
  General Eaton said, ``This bill gives General Petraeus great leverage 
for moving the Iraqi government down the more disciplined path laid out 
by the Iraq Study Group.''
  My colleagues, the war in Iraq has lasted longer than World War II 
and resulted in the lowest level of American military readiness since 
the Vietnam War. It has cost thousands of American lives, tens of 
thousands, scores of thousands of Iraqi lives, plus tens of thousands 
of our soldiers to suffer grievous injuries, and will cost well over $1 
trillion if the war ended today.
  The sacrifices borne by our troops and their families demand more 
than the blank check the President is asking for, for a war without 
end. The sacrifices demand a plan for bringing the war to an end. This 
bill contains that plan and provides the President for every dollar he 
asked for the troops, and, indeed, thank you, Mr. Murtha, much more.
  I urge my colleagues to support it. I urge the President to sign the 
bill so that we can focus on winning the war against terrorism, which 
is the real threat to the American people. That is our responsibility, 
and we fully intend to honor it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we know that this conference report before us will be 
vetoed by the President because of the Iraqi withdrawal language and 
the many unrelated and costly spending items that have absolutely 
nothing to do with the global war on terror or recovery efforts in the 
gulf coast.
  It is no secret that many Members of the House and Senate, both 
Republicans and Democrats, have strong reservations about the manner in 
which this legislation undermines the authority of the President, our 
Commander in Chief. Members are also rightly concerned about how this 
legislation places military decisions in the hands of politicians 
rather than the military commanders in the field.
  As I have said many times before, this legislation ought to focus on 
our troops. It ought to focus on providing those in harm's way with the 
resources they need to complete their mission successfully. It ought to 
respect, not micromanage, our combatant commanders in whom we place the 
ultimate responsibility for prosecuting military actions.
  My colleagues know that I have great respect for my friend, Mr. 
Murtha, but I strongly disagree with his assertion that we ought to 
have 535 Members and Senators micromanaging the war in Iraq. With all 
due respect, that is not our job.
  Let me again remind my colleagues, we are not generals, we are not 
the Secretary of State, and we most certainly are not the Commander in 
Chief. It is tragically ironic that the House is considering this 
conference report the same day that General David Petraeus met with 
Members in closed session on the current situation in Iraq.
  It was on January 26 of this year, just 3 months ago, that the Senate 
voted 81-0 to confirm General Petraeus to be the top military commander 
in Iraq. One would have thought that Members and Senators would trust 
his judgment following such an extraordinary vote of confidence over 3 
months ago. Senator Reid, who supported the General's confirmation, now 
says, and I quote, ``I don't believe him.''
  Recent history reminds us that the enemy we face in Iraq, in 
Afghanistan and other countries that harbor terrorists will stop at 
nothing to seek opportunities to attack the United States and our 
allies. Have we not learned anything from the original World Trade 
Center bombing in 1993, the Khobar Towers bombing, the attack on USS 
Cole or 9/11 itself?
  Al Qaeda will view this legislation as the first sign of the United 
States backing down from its commitment to the war on terror. It will 
view the withdrawal provisions contained in this conference report as 
America signaling retreat and surrender. Indeed, al Qaeda will view 
this as a day that the House of Representatives threw in the towel, 
waved the white flag and signaled retreat and surrender in Iraq.
  Our failure to learn the lessons of history, our failure to lead 
today, will result in devastating consequences, including an even 
greater loss of lives, and even more resources needed to fight 
tomorrow. Just as we have only one top General in Iraq, one Secretary 
of State and one Commander in Chief, we only have one Speaker of the 
House at a time.
  Speaker Pelosi and I have been friends and have served as colleagues 
on the Appropriations Committee for many years. The Speaker played an 
important role in supporting the development of unmanned aerial 
vehicles, a critical and successful military capability that is a key 
element to the war on terror. She and I worked on that in the 
Intelligence Committee together years ago. It is puzzling to me that 
the Speaker would not only openly question the judgment of General 
Petraeus, Secretary Rice, and our Commander in Chief, but that she 
would also willingly work to undermine their efforts to secure a 
successful outcome in Iraq.
  My colleagues, it is absolutely essential that America, the last 
remaining superpower on Earth, continue to be the voice for peace and 
freedom in our shrinking world. Our success is critical. Walking away 
will further signal to Syria, Iran, Afghanistan and others that the 
United States is no longer committed to a successful outcome in Iraq.
  In closing, I ask Speaker Pelosi and my friends in the majority to 
weigh the implications of supporting this conference report. Even as I 
hold hope that the Speaker might have a road-to-Damascus conversion, I 
ask her to weigh the enormous consequences of putting our troops in 
peril. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this emergency supplemental.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the Chair of the Foreign 
Operations appropriations subcommittee.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
on H.R. 1591 and commend Chairman Obey for your efforts to protect our 
troops, respect the wishes of the American people, and preserve our 
Nation's interest in this bill.
  Our troops have served with honor and courage. However, they should 
be deployed only when battle ready and with a clear and achievable 
mission. Neither is the case today in Iraq. Recent reports indicate the 
troop surge is not working. The number of casualties rose again in 
March, and this bloody trend continues.
  We have heard from this administration that it is not willing to 
negotiate on Iraq. Frankly, their unwillingness to compromise has led 
us to this point, and the right of the American people to be heard is 
nonnegotiable. No amount of American blood or treasure can help Iraq if 
the Iraqis don't help themselves.

[[Page H4148]]

  The Maliki government must exhibit the political will to confront 
extremists, to give all segments of society a stake in Iraq's future, 
and to put Iraqi revenues towards the hard task of reconstruction. That 
is why this bill asks the President to certify that the Iraqis are 
doing their part in meeting critical benchmarks.
  In addition, I am pleased the conference report includes nearly $200 
million in increased funding for Afghanistan, $80.3 million for Jordan, 
$45 million for Liberia, $769 million for Lebanon, much needed 
assistance for Sudan and Somalia, increased funding for disaster and 
refugee aid to Iraq, increased accountability through funding expanded 
mandates for the special Inspector General and the State and USAID IG 
operations.
  While this bill provides most of the funding requested by the 
President, it puts in place safeguards and oversight to stop waste, 
fraud and abuse with U.S. taxpayer dollars in Iraq.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
ranking member on Homeland Security, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise, regrettably, today in 
opposition to the supplemental conference report before us, the first 
time I have risen in opposition to an appropriations conference report 
in more than 12 years. The Democratic side of the aisle and many of 
their liberal newspaper editors are intent on substituting their 
judgment for that of our professional, trained, experienced military 
leaders.
  I am reminded of a quote that I want to read to you, it's very brief, 
that speaks to this subject. I will tell you the author in just a 
moment. ``It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command 
forces, and our most gifted and brilliant citizens to edit newspapers. 
In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor geniuses 
plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to 
inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I am readily willing to 
yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I will, in 
turn, do my best for the cause by writing editorials after the fact.'' 
Signed, Robert E. Lee.
  This Congress is made up of 535 lawyers, doctors and teachers, some 
with military experience, some without. It is not, however, made up of 
535 military commanders who possess the ability to manage a war against 
al Qaeda. Yet that is what this conference report does. It enables over 
just half of 535 politicians to micromanage the war in Iraq against al 
Qaeda.
  Sadly, though, this is not the only reason to vote against this 
conference report. It's also full of billions of dollars in spending 
categorized as an emergency which undermines the true needs of our 
troops and gulf coast hurricane recovery efforts. Specifically for 
Homeland Security, the supplemental contains two categories of 
emergency funding, hurricane recovery and the global war on terrorism.
  Speaking to the hurricane recovery portion, this is a true 2007 
emergency. FEMA needs these funds now to continue our commitment to the 
devastated gulf coast region and to ensure the disaster relief fund 
does not run dry in the middle of what experts are predicting will be 
an active hurricane season.
  I can only hope that in an effort to keep the overall exorbitant 
spending of the bill down, the majority has not shortchanged the true 
needs of this account.
  The global war on terrorism, part of this funding bill, is another 
story. While it contains many worthy and important items such as 
nuclear and explosive detection systems and additional aircraft for the 
northern border, things I have supported in the past and continue to 
support, they are in no way a 2007 emergency. In every instance, these 
items could and should be addressed in the regular 2008 appropriations 
bill. By including them in this 2007 emergency, the majority is simply 
trying to look strong on security and buy down requirements to free up 
funds in 2008 for additional spending.

                              {time}  2015

  While I support homeland security spending, I support it in a 
fiscally responsible way.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I have two such compelling reasons 
to vote against a bill: taking away authority to manage our war against 
al Qaeda from the military commanders, and carelessly adding billions 
of dollars in non-emergency spending. These are the very reasons we 
will be back here addressing these matters again in a couple of weeks 
after the President vetoes the bill.
  We should address these issues now, and stop the political 
gamesmanship that harms both our troops and the gulf coast recovery 
effort. This bill is nothing short of a cut-and-run in the fight 
against al Qaeda. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not cut and run. It's think and 
succeed. It's a good policy to try.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight this House will adopt this reasonable conference 
report that fully funds our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and that 
responds to the will of the American people, who are demanding, 
demanding, that our Nation change course. I urge all of our Members 
here, on both sides of the aisle, to support this bill.
  After the Senate passes this conference report and it is sent to the 
White House, I urge and implore the President to sign this bill, even 
though he seems determined to veto this legislation, thereby defying 
the will of the American people, 70 percent of whom disapprove of his 
handling of the war in Iraq.
  I know there is not a Member in this body who does not pray for our 
success in Iraq and for the safe return of our brave servicemen and 
women who serve us there. However, we cannot ignore the facts. After 
the loss of more than 3,300 American soldiers and nearly 25,000 
injured, and after the expenditure of more than $400 billion, which 
will be after the end of this fiscal year some $600 billion, on a war 
now in its fifth year, even President Bush and Secretary of Defense 
Gates acknowledge that our efforts are not succeeding.
  The Defense Department has concluded that the situation in Iraq is 
``properly descriptive of a civil war.'' The Army Chief of Staff has 
issued warnings about the effect of the war on America's overall 
military readiness. And the Iraq Government has failed to meet 
political goals, such as reversing debaathification, drafting a plan 
for national reconciliation and disbanding militias, all of which are 
essential if we are to reach a political solution, as General Petraeus 
says is necessary.
  In fact, last week, six ministers loyal to Muqtada al Sadr withdrew 
from the Iraqi Government, imperiling the chances of political 
resolution, which General Petraeus, as I said, says is imperative 
because, quoting again General Petraeus, ``There is no military 
solution to a problem like that in Iraq.'' General Petraeus: ``There is 
no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq.''
  Meanwhile, the violence in Iraq continues. In just the last 2 weeks, 
a suicide attack inside the Iraqi Parliament killed eight, and 
spectacular car bombs, which occur almost daily, have killed hundreds.
  Thus, Mr. Speaker, the question before the Members again today is 
this: Will we change direction in Iraq, or will we continue to stay the 
course with a failing policy? That is the question before this House 
tonight.
  The answer, I think, is clear. After 4 years of rubber-stamping this 
administration's failed policy, not a service to the American people, 
this Congress must insist on accountability and a new direction. As the 
Speaker has said, more blank checks from this Congress would constitute 
an abdication of our responsibility and of our duty.
  In short, this conference report protects our troops, requiring 
deployments to adhere to existing Defense Department standards. Mr. 
Murtha has not adopted these standards, nor has Mr. Obey, nor have any 
of us on this side of the aisle. These are Defense Department standards 
for training, acquiring equipment and armor, while allowing the 
President to waive those standards that are the Defense Department 
standards if, in his judgment, national security requires it. How much

[[Page H4149]]

more responsible a position can we take?
  The conference report holds the Iraqi Government accountable. I think 
that reflects the sentiments of the American people, who believe that 
the Iraqis need to step up and take responsibility. What Secretary 
Gates said was if we do not have a consequence of not taking 
responsibility, they will not do it.
  In fact, even if Mr. Maliki wants to do it, he will not be able to 
get the disparate factions in Iraq to do it, unless they feel a 
necessity to do it. We've seen that here in this Congress. That's 
democracy at work. So this is an assistance to the Iraqi Government to 
bring people together, because it says if you don't, there is a 
consequence. The American public supports that alternative.
  And it includes a responsible strategy for a phased redeployment of 
U.S. forces and refocuses, refocuses our efforts on fighting al Qaeda 
and the Taliban in Afghanistan. There is nobody in this Congress who 
does not want to nor is not committed to confronting and defeating 
terrorism. No one should be misled by the false claims of those who 
argue that we must follow the same failing stay-the-course strategy. 
This bill does not constitute capitulation or micromanaging this war.
  This may sound harsh, but had somebody told Custer that you are not 
supporting the troops unless you leave them here, they would have been 
wrong. As retired General Paul Eaton, who was in charge of training the 
Iraqi military in 2003 and 2004 recently stated, ``This bill gives 
General Petraeus great leverage for moving the Iraqi Government down 
the more disciplined path laid out by the Iraq Study Group. The real 
audience for the timeline language is Prime Minister Maliki,'' as I 
have said, ``and the elected Government of Iraq.'' So concluded Paul 
Eaton, the general in charge of training Iraqis in 2003 and 2004.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people want and deserve a Congress that 
holds the Iraqis accountable for making progress. The American people 
are paying a steep price; our children are paying a steep price for 
this war. They haven't been given the bill yet, but they will be. And 
our young men and women, and not so young men and women, are paying 
with their lives, with their limbs, and with their health.
  The American people want and deserve, as I have said, a Congress that 
holds the Iraqis accountable, that holds the administration accountable 
for implementing a policy designed to succeed. This conference report 
gives us that opportunity.
  I urge all of my colleagues, on every side of the aisle, from 
whatever party, support this conference report. I urge the President, 
when we pass this conference report, when the Senate passes it and we 
send it to the President, sign this conference report. It fully funds 
our troops, it does not micromanage the war, it tells the Iraqis we 
expect accountability; because if they take accountability, our troops 
will be safer, our country will be better off and Iraq will be on the 
path to democracy that we hope for her and pray for her.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
ranking member on Military Construction of Appropriations, the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I served as a conferee on this bill Monday 
afternoon, and I was disappointed at what I saw. Everyone in the room 
knew then, as they know now, that President Bush will veto this 
legislation because it contains dangerous timelines for withdrawal in 
Iraq, undercutting our chances for success and making a political 
statement at a time when we should be working in a bipartisan manner to 
give our troops the resources they need to succeed.
  Many of us heard General Petraeus this afternoon. I think most 
Members are highly impressed with his command of the situation and his 
candor. We ought to be willing to give him and his new strategy a 
chance. Instead, the bill before us tonight would guarantee failure.
  This is a futile exercise and a waste of valuable time. It ensures 
further delay in getting the equipment, supplies and support to the 
troops. Because Congress has not provided this funding already, our 
military leaders must shuffle existing funds. Spending on new equipment 
will be postponed and repair work will be slowed on equipment needed 
elsewhere around the world, and the Pentagon will have to curtail 
training for National Guard and Reserve units. This will hamper their 
capabilities and their readiness.
  The veto will come quickly, and, when it does, I hope the majority 
will not engage in further attempts to micromanage the war. Let's craft 
a responsible, focused supplemental package that funds the military and 
demonstrates to our soldiers that we support their efforts to complete 
the mission.
  Contrary to what some in the Democratic leadership say, the war is 
not lost. Let's not legislate as if it is.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank our chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. We are legislators. The President 
has a job and we who represent the people have a job. It funds the war, 
a war that the other side started, and the speech that they are giving 
tonight is the same speech they gave 4 years ago.
  It's time to change course. This bill funds veterans who have been 
wounded severely, children who need health care, and all the 
emergencies that this country needs to address and has not been taking 
care of the last decade.
  Pass the bill.
  Mr. President, sign the bill. It's the best bill. The Senate and 
House have agreed, and we don't care that the President has said, 
before we even passed it out of the first Chamber, that he would veto 
it. We have to pass this bill, bring our troops home, and have a plan 
for success.
  This is a good conference report. Americans, speak out. If the 
President does veto the bill, there is something to be paid. The troops 
need our help and our support, and I thank Chairman Obey and Chairman 
Murtha for their leadership. Vote for the conference report.
  ``Few will have the greatness to bend history itself; but each of us 
can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all 
those acts will be written the history of this generation.'' Sen. 
Robert F. Kennedy.
  This vote will affect us today, it will affect our children tomorrow, 
it will affect our grand children of the next generation. Unlike some 
of our colleagues, I refuse to legislate any bill, much less this bill, 
merely because the President has issued a veto threat. Our brand of 
government has lasted for more than 230 years because of the separation 
of powers. The President needs the money, and Congress controls the 
power of the purse.
  We have the opportunity to change course, confront crises, and 
continue the legacy of not only the Democratic Party but of America 
with this vote today.
  As of April 23, 2007, there have been 3,333 U.S. Military Deaths 
Confirmed by the Department of Defense. There have been at least 20,000 
women and men who have been wounded, and untold numbers of women and 
men who have been affected by traumatic brain injuries that we are just 
discovering, and will suffer for decades from post traumatic stress 
disorder.
  The Democrats have worked to compromise with the Administration. 
While I, like many of my colleagues, hoped that we would retain the 
House language with regard to the troop deployment provisions, I 
understand that honesty and compromise are the hallmarks of this august 
body.
  Make no mistake about it; this vote is a vote to support our troops 
and will bring an end to the war in the near future. The military 
options for Iraq are exhausted; we need to pursue diplomatic solutions 
so that the Iraqis and other countries in the Middle East can be real 
shareholders in the fate of Iraq.
  This supplemental enforces the President's own benchmarks that the 
Iraqis protect and end their civil war. This bill has the military's 
own standards for readiness and deployment. This bill provides more 
than the President requested for military procurement, construction, 
health care, and readiness.
  I am proud that the Committee supported my request for increased 
funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, to remove 
the matching funds for many of the grants and loans going to the 
rebuilding of states affected by Hurricane Katrina, in particular the 
city of New Orleans.
  $450 million for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)/Counseling: 
African American male Vietnam and Iraq theater veterans have higher 
rates of PTSD than Whites. Rates of current PTSD are 28% among 
Hispanics, 21% among African Americans, and 14 percent

[[Page H4150]]

among Whites. African Americans have greater exposure to war stresses 
and had more predisposing factors than Whites, which appeared to 
account for their higher rate of PTSD.
  $450 million for Traumatic Brain Injury care and research: Traumatic 
brain injury (TBI) is caused by a blow or jolt to the head or a 
penetrating head injury that disrupts the function of the brain.
  $20 million to address the problems at Walter Reed: When the federal 
base-closing commission recommended shutting down Walter Reed Army 
Medical Center in Washington, it was noted through a number of reports 
that most of the patients and communities affected were African-
American.
  $100 million to allow the VA to contract with private mental 
healthcare providers to offer veterans, including Guard and reserve 
members, quality and timely care: African Americans are more likely to 
be victims of serious violent crime than are non-Hispanic whites.
  Food Assistance (PL 480 Title II): Adds $450 million, which is $100 
million above the President's request, to support food aid in Sudan/
Eastern Chad, Southern Africa, and the Horn of Africa.
  Agricultural Assistance: Adds $3.7 billion. According to the National 
Farmers Union, over 80 percent of U.S. counties were designated as 
disaster areas in 2005, and 60 percent were declared in 2006, making 
this assistance essential if farmers are to maintain their livelihoods 
in the coming year.
  Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): The Supplemental 
adds $400 million to partially restore cuts to the program.
  Pandemic Flu Preparedness: Adds $1 billion to purchase vaccines 
needed to protect us from a global pandemic.
  State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP): As amended in 
Committee, the proposal adds $750 million for SCHIP to ensure continued 
healthcare coverage for children in 14 states that face a budget 
shortfall in the program.
  Foreign Aid: $40 million in security assistance is added for Liberia. 
This provision was added only because of the CBC.
  After far too long, the bill will address the outstanding needs of 
our working women and men by increasing the minimum wage of Americans.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to address 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the former chairman of the Defense 
Subcommittee and former chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first I want to make the point as 
strongly as I can that I want our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan 
and anyplace else in the world where they are in harm's way as soon as 
we can possibly do it without risking the security of our own Nation 
and the security of our own people.
  Mr. Murtha and I have been partners in this business for many, many 
years, and he and I have both stood by the bedside of too many wounded 
troops and have attended too many funerals, and we want this over.
  As a matter of fact, the legislation before us, the appropriations 
part of this defense bill is a good package. Mr. Murtha and I met prior 
to him submitting this to the full Appropriations Committee and we 
agreed. Basically I told Mr. Murtha that these are about the same 
numbers that I would have recommended if I were still the chairman. But 
we did agree to disagree on the issue of the restrictive language on 
the conduct of the battlefield.
  My memory takes me back, as we discuss this legislation now, to 
October of 1983, where terrorists attacked the Marine barracks in 
Beirut. The Marines there on a peacekeeping mission and 241 of our 
troops were killed. In February of 1993, the World Trade Center was 
bombed, as Chairman Lewis noted in his comments. Six lives were lost.

                              {time}  2030

  In June of 1996, Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, where our airmen were 
being housed, was bombed. Nineteen American lives were lost. August of 
1998, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists 
again. Two hundred fifty-nine lives were lost. October of 2000, the USS 
Cole off the shore of Yemen was bombed by terrorists. Again, 17 
American lives lost, and almost every crewman on the ship injured.
  But all this time nothing happened except a lot of rhetoric. Well, we 
talked a lot. We were going to hunt them down. And you can run, but you 
can't hide.
  But finally, after September 11, the people of America were so 
incensed by what they saw with the airplanes flying into the two World 
Trade Centers, the airplane flying into the ground in Pennsylvania, in 
or near Mr. Murtha's district, and the airplane flying into the 
Pentagon right across the river, killing some 3,000 innocent people. 
The people of America were incensed. They demanded action. The 
President of the United States promised action, and the Congress 
provided action. And subsequently, our troops are in Afghanistan and 
are in Iraq. And it is essential that we provide whatever they need to 
carry out their mission and to protect themselves while they are 
carrying out the mission.
  But now, what about leaving today or tomorrow or March or July, as 
some of these restrictions provide?
  One of our great successes was Desert Storm. In Desert Storm, we 
attacked Saddam Hussein's armies successfully, and we annihilated, 
basically, his army. At least they ran away. They ran for cover. They 
surrendered. A lot of them lost the battle because the United States 
was aggressive and our coalition partners.
  But here's where we made a mistake. Once we had Saddam's armies 
defeated, we left. We left before there was anything else there to 
provide a reasonable, logical government for the people of Iraq.
  And what happened? Saddam responded in a vicious attack upon his own 
Iraqi citizens to continue the genocide that he began in earlier years. 
After we left from Desert Storm, he killed thousands of Shia Iraqis.
  What General Petraeus and our American troops are trying to do is to 
give the Iraqi government that has been elected by the people, 
Constitution approved by the people, a parliament elected under the new 
Constitution by the people; General Petraeus said that the Iraqi 
security forces were growing in number, were growing in capability. 
Even the Sunnis are starting to join up with these security forces in 
Iraq to show a Sunni-Shia coming together. Not much, but a little bit.
  But to let this government exist so that we didn't have another 
situation where we left, we didn't leave anybody in charge, and the bad 
guys took over again.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, you know, it's hard for me to even 
sit here and hear the other side talk about this, because they are 
missing the point. This is about our soldiers. If you care about our 
soldiers, you say you care about our soldiers, you will vote for this 
supplemental.
  This supplemental has over $4 billion more than what the President 
asked for in everything. I'll tell you what this supplemental is about. 
It's about those soldiers that I visited in Landstuhl, Germany. On 
three different occasions, every time we went over to Iraq and over to 
Afghanistan we'd make a stop to come back.
  You want to know what this supplemental is about? It's about those 
sons and daughters, 19 and 20 years old, who will never walk again with 
their legs because they have been cut off.
  You talk about the President wants to veto this. Let's send it to 
him. Let him veto it. If he vetoes this bill that's got the money in it 
for the body armor that he sent troops into battlefield without, let 
him veto this. If he vetoes this bill, it will be like sending a dagger 
right in the heart of our soldiers.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. 
Kingston of Georgia, a member of the committee.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, Winston Churchill said, ``The United 
States of America always does the right thing after it has exhausted 
all the other alternatives.''
  And what we are doing here tonight, through the Democrat Party, is 
exhausting all the other alternatives.
  This bill is wrong for a number of reasons. First of all, the 
Democrat leadership promised to cut out the pork and nondefense 
spending and give us a clean bill. But this bill contains minimum wage 
legislation, children's health care appropriations, $31 million for 
milk subsidies, $460 million for food aid, much of that not even going 
to the

[[Page H4151]]

Middle East, $40 million for grain storage, $37 million for new 
computers for the FSA in Kansas City, $4 million for the Office of 
Women's Health, and $15 million for livestock subsidies.
  What does this have to do with Iraq? Not a thing.
  And yet some of this stuff may have a lot of merit and get bipartisan 
support. But why not bring it up on the proper pieces of legislation, 
not on a military aid bill?
  It's interesting, one of the Democrat Senators actually justified the 
nonmilitary spending saying, ``But the Republicans did it.'' And I 
agree with her. She's right. We did it. And that's why we are in the 
minority. The American people are tired of these kind of shenanigans.
  Let's pull these items out and have a debate on their own merits, not 
on the backs of soldiers in Iraq.
  Let's talk about Iraq. The Constitution, article I, section 2, says, 
and I quote, ``The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army 
and Navy of the United States and of the militia of the several States 
when called into the actual service of the United States.''
  In other words, the President, as Commander in Chief, runs wars, not 
535 arm chair generals on Capitol Hill.
  But this legislation, or surrender document, usurps the President's 
constitutional prerogative. For this reason alone we should reject it.
  And finally, let's talk about the gist of this surrender. Putting a 
timeline on a war is great if the enemy agrees with it. But for some 
reason, they never do. Never in the history of war has a country won by 
announcing their surrender date to the world. It's odd, it's reckless, 
and it won't work.
  We should not micromanage this war. We should do as Winston Churchill 
said and do the right thing.
  And I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy.
  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with 
a heavy heart. This week, nine of my fellow paratroopers from the 82nd 
Airborne Division were killed in Iraq. Nine more heroes killed, nine 
more paratroopers returning home in coffins draped in the American 
flag.
  Mr. Speaker, Daniel Webster's words that are etched in the marble 
above implore each of us in this room, and I quote, ``To see whether we 
also, in our day and generation, may not perform something worthy to be 
remembered.''
  Mr. Speaker, I know the task is daunting, but let this Congress be 
remembered for leading our country in a new direction in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I was deployed to Iraq in 2003 and 2004. Nineteen of my 
fellow paratroopers I served with never made it home from the streets 
of Baghdad. I carry their names with me every single day to remind 
myself of the solemn responsibility we face each time the Speaker bangs 
down her gavel.
  Nineteen men, including Specialist Chad Keith from Indiana. Nineteen 
guys who never made it home to their families. Specialist James Lambert 
III, from North Carolina. Nineteen all Americans who paid the ultimate 
sacrifice. Private Kyle Gilbert from Vermont. Nineteen men who are 
missed. Private First Class Marc Seidan from New Jersey. Nineteen men. 
Now we have nine more paratroopers to add to this list.
  Mr. Speaker, how many more suicide bombs must kill American soldiers 
before this President offers a time line for our troops to come home?
  How many more military leaders must declare the war will not be won 
militarily before this President demands that the Iraqis stand up and 
fight for their country?
  How many more terrorists will President Bush's foreign policy breed 
before he focuses on developing a new strategy, a real strategy for 
fighting and beating al Qaeda?
  Mr. Speaker, this bill says enough is enough. No more shortchanging 
our troops. No more open ended commitment in Iraq. No more refereeing a 
religious civil war.
  Mr. Speaker, on the fourth anniversary of the war, I led this body in 
a moment of silence. Now my fellow Democrats offer a time line to bring 
our troops home.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who 
are about to vote ``no'' on this bill, will you stand with us next year 
to offer a time line on the war's fifth anniversary?
  How about a time line on the sixth? How about a time line on the 
10th? Because that's what voting ``no'' does. It says no to the tough 
questions. No to accountability and no to providing our troops on the 
ground with a clear mission.
  Mr. Speaker, I may be hopeful, but I am not naive. I hear Vice 
President Cheney taunt patriotic Americans who are concerned with the 
direction of our country. I see the President using his veto to hold 
our troops hostage to further his failed strategy in Iraq. I read the 
Bush Republicans' attacks questioning my patriotism and support for my 
fellow soldiers. But, Mr. Speaker, we have all heard these attacks 
before.
  The American people know that President Bush and his allies are sadly 
out of touch. The American people know that supporting the troops means 
demanding accountability. The American people know we need a change.
  Mr. Speaker, one of my fellow soldiers lost his brother in the World 
Trade Center on September 11 of 2001. This soldier is now in Iraq 
serving on his second deployment. And last week he sent me a message, 
unsolicited. It said, and I quote, ``Never did I think I would disagree 
with our foreign policy 5 years after my brother was murdered. Our 
latest mission here is to secure the Iraqi people. I signed up to 
secure the American people.''
  My fellow colleagues, this bill, this vote helps us secure the 
American people. For too long the American people have been craving 
leadership, craving accountability, and craving a new direction in 
Iraq. Let's give this to them today.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
ranking member on the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, when the new majority came into 
power, they talked about being fiscally conservative. They talked about 
bringing fiscal responsibility back to the people's House. Well, that's 
not what we see here today, and that's not what we have seen for the 
last 4 months.
  Last session, Mr. Speaker, we brought a bill that said if we are 
going to do emergency spending bills, let's clean these up. Let's not 
put pork barrel, unnecessary spending in emergency spending. We 
actually defined what an emergency is.

                              {time}  2045

  And then we set aside a reserve fund, $6.4 billion, to say we are 
setting this aside for emergency spending, and if we go over this 
amount, we have to scrutinize every dollar to make sure that it is 
truly an emergency.
  What did the new majority do? To their credit, they carried these 
rules over into this session of Congress. Thankfully, they said, you 
know what? Let's not pork up emergency spending bills. Let's make sure 
that if it's really an emergency, it will get funded as an emergency. 
If it's not, it won't.
  What happened the first time the pressure hit? They waived the rules. 
They waived the rules completely. And now the new budget resolution the 
majority is proposing gets rid of these proposals altogether. No more 
checks on emergency spending. All it takes is to waive the rules, stamp 
it as an emergency, and we can spend as much as we want. It's outside 
the budget caps. It gets added onto the deficit. And that's what is 
happening right here tonight.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, this bill right here violates the majority's 
own PAYGO rules by $5.8 billion. That's right. They are violating their 
own PAYGO that they put into place just a few months ago by $5.8 
billion. They are adding $21 billion of nonemergency spending that were 
unrequested, that have nothing to do with the war on terror. And they 
have added $11 billion of congressional add-ons that have nothing to do 
with the war on terror, that were not requested.
  The majority came out with their first spending bill, adding $6 
billion on top of the deficit. Now they are adding $21 billion on top 
of the deficit with this unrequested, nonemergency spending. And in 
their budget resolution they are bringing to the floor, another $25 
billion next year.

[[Page H4152]]

  Fiscal responsibility is the last thing you could say to describe 
this bill. I urge rejection of this motion.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply say in response to the previous speaker, 
last session your party couldn't even pass a budget. Last session your 
party couldn't complete action on a single domestic appropriation bill.
  You may not like the decisions we have made, but at least we have 
made them. And we have had to spend the first 30 days of this session 
finishing the work that you could never manage to get around to. So I 
suggest you look to your own house before you start criticizing 
somebody who has at least gotten the work done that you couldn't get 
done last year.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding.
  It has been so interesting to listen to the debate this evening. I am 
reminded of my school teacher grandmother and an admonition that she 
would regularly give us to us, which was ``Your actions speak louder 
than your words.'' And she would remind us of this time and time and 
time again.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, quite frankly, I think that what we 
are seeing is the actions of a majority who are doing their best to 
ensure, to ensure, that our men and women in uniform do not have the 
funding that they need.
  I represent a lot of these military men and women, and I have heard 
from them. I am hearing from a lot of the military men and women and 
their families, and they feel like the modified withdrawal dates in 
this legislative disaster are nothing more than a vote of no confidence 
for our troops. They feel that this legislation will embolden our 
enemies and send a message to the rest of the world that they believe 
that they are more qualified to prosecute a war than the men and women 
we are sending to the frontlines. That is something, Mr. Speaker, that 
they do disagree with.
  Our military leadership deserves the opportunity to fight this war 
with the funding and the support that they need to accomplish their 
goals. They deserve the ability and the opportunity to win. Yet the 
leadership in this House continues to try their best to micromanage the 
war and our troops without the funding that they need.
  Despite what the majority leader in the other body and his supporters 
in the House believe, this war is not lost. Yet this dead-on-arrival 
supplemental bill will only exacerbate the problem and put our troops 
in harm's way.
  I think that we should show our respect for the men and women in 
uniform by respecting the job they do. We should do our job: Send the 
funding to the troops.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to our Republican whip, Mr. Blunt.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding as this 
debate comes to an end.
  The legislation we have debated here tonight was at one point 
supposed to be an emergency supplemental spending bill for our troops, 
dispatched to them with urgency, resolution, and purpose. It was 
supposed to provide money and resources for our fighting men and women 
on the frontlines so that they had the tools and equipment they needed 
to finish the task at hand.
  Instead the majority turned this important funding package into an 
exercise in political theater, along the way, disregarding the 
testimony of our military commanders, the wishes of many in their own 
caucus, and basic and numerous dictates of our Constitution and our 
history.
  The result has been a final conference report, though we know it 
really won't be a final conference report. It has been a conference 
report that imposes artificial deadlines, ties the hands of our 
commanders in the field, and demotes those tasked with managing an 
active military engagement to the rank of administrative assistant, 
forced to check new boxes before exercising the authority they have 
today to execute their mission.
  And it would spend billions of dollars on things that should have 
been debated at another time. Some of those things have merit. Some of 
those things I agree with. Some of them I don't. But they shouldn't 
have been debated as part of this bill.
  Those who attended today's briefing with General Petraeus benefited 
from a clear and sober assessment of our chances for achieving success 
in Iraq and the consequences we can expect by declaring defeat. But not 
a single person in that room today, with knowledge of our progress on 
the ground, believes this war was lost or that our presence there was 
without merit. Unfortunately, too many in this Chamber seem convinced 
of the inevitability of defeat.
  However this vote turns out, I am hopeful that tonight's roll call 
will end this effort to undercut our mission by undermining the 
authority of our commanders in the field. Republicans are willing, and 
have been willing, to work with the majority on this bill. But we will 
not waver on our insistence that an emergency troop support bill passed 
by Congress actually be focused on supporting the troops. The 
legislation before us tonight fails to meet that most basic standard.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill and ask my colleagues to join me 
tonight in standing up for the interests of our men and women in harm's 
way. And hopefully, very soon, we can join together in crafting a bill 
that will be considered quickly, as this one should have been, passed 
quickly, with help to the frontlines as soon as possible.
  It's time for the political theater to end and the real work to 
begin.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I simply want to take this time to thank the staff on both sides of 
the aisle. They worked overtime for many days and many nights, and I 
appreciate it very much, especially the committee staff director, Rob 
Nabors.
  I would also simply say that we have heard twice now from the 
minority that this bill endorses failure. Not at all. What we have seen 
the last 4 years is a failure of intelligence. We have seen a failure 
of the administration to listen to career military. We have seen a 
failure to plan for the occupation of Iraq. We have seen a failure on 
the part of the administration to give the Congress accurate 
information. We have seen a failure to focus on al Qaeda and 
Afghanistan rather than being diverted to Iraq. We have seen a failure 
to understand the nature of the civil war in Iraq. And as a result, we 
have seen a tremendous collapse of American influence in the world. It 
is tragic.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote for the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Murtha.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, apparently a number of people have not read 
this bill. I know my friend Bill Young has read it.
  We have $1.5 billion to cover the full cost of housing allowances for 
the troops. If you vote against this, you are voting against housing 
allowances. We have a total of $2.3 billion in this bill to cover the 
full cost of fielding an additional 36,000 Army troops and 9,000 
Marines. If you've read this bill, you'll realize we added $2 billion 
to address the training and equipment shortfalls in the forces not 
deployed. One billion dollars is dedicated to purchase Army National 
Guard equipment. If you vote against it, you're voting against $1 
billion for the National Guard. You're voting against an additional 
$750 million for Afghanistan. You're voting against $2.4 billion with a 
joint IED task force. In procurement you're voting against the very 
thing that the military wants most, and that is the new vehicle with 
the V shape which is resistant to IEDs.
  Now, let me talk a little bit about IEDs. In the last 4 months, we 
have lost more troops than any other period during this war. And I am 
sorry to hear from a friend of mine's wife who called me and said there 
was a joke on one of the shows last night by a Republican Presidential 
candidate who said that he brought an IED back and he put it under this 
guy's desk. That individual owes an apology to every troop that serves 
in Iraq.
  When we go to the hospital, all of us, we see burn victims. We see 
victims that are wounded badly. And many of us don't get an opportunity 
to see the families.

[[Page H4153]]

  I went to Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, and Fort Stewart. These folks are 
burned out. The truancy rate is up in the schools. The achievement is 
down in the schools where our troops' children go. One soldier said to 
me, a first sergeant, a woman, she says, I hate to tell my children I'm 
going back to Iraq.
  They're going back the third and fourth time.

                              {time}  2100

  A general said to me, ``I can only take 9 months.'' And we're sending 
them back to 18; I hear rumors that they are going to extend them to 18 
months.
  We have an accountability bill, this is called the ``Iraq 
accountability bill.'' This war has been so mismanaged that we have the 
responsibility to force the White House to be accountable. The policy 
is not set by the military, the policy is set by the White House, and 
we have to hold the White House accountable for the mistakes that they 
have made.
  We will have appropriated $1.2 trillion for the Defense Department in 
1 year. We are spending nearly $10 billion a month in Afghanistan and 
Iraq. We have 126,000 contractors. And it took us 2 months, the 
committee that funds every cent that is spent in Iraq and Afghanistan 
had to spend 2 months to find out there were 126,000 contractors. And 
we told this to the Secretary of Defense. When one of the Members of 
Congress said, and one of them is making $300,000 a year, one of the 
contractors, he said, ``That's more than I make.'' Imagine, we've got a 
contractor making more than the Secretary of Defense makes. We have a 
contractor that I saw, when I talked to the Cavalry Division that was 
in Iraq, here is a guy pumping gas, this is what a soldier told me, he 
gets $25,000 a year, and right beside him was a guy pumping gas for 
$80,000 a year. This is what I call accountability.
  We have to hold the White House responsible for accountability. Why 
do they have 126,000 contractors? Because we don't have enough troops. 
Why are they extending the troops to 18 months, possibly?
  And finally, they realized they couldn't send them back before they 
had a year at home. They had to be trained and they had to be equipped. 
That is what we say in this bill, we say you've got to be trained and 
equipped.
  I had General Pace come up after the last hearing. I said, General, 
you've got to tell me you're not sending any troops back there 
untrained and ill-equipped. And I don't know that this conversation 
made the difference, but a short time later they announced they are 
going to extend people, and they are not going to send anybody back 
unless they had a year at home. It is absolutely essential.
  I talked to some of the wives at Fort Bragg. I got one story from the 
hospitals about how the service was there, they were able to get 
service anytime they wanted, within a week they were able to get 
service. Then I talked to the wives, the officers' wives, I said, after 
talking to them for a while, how many of you got service in a week? No 
hands went up. How many did it take over a month? Half the hands went 
up. We've got to take care of the people at home.
  Let me tell you something, I get fatigued in going to the hospitals. 
The caregivers that care for them every day, think what they go 
through. A nurse called me and said you've got to put some money in the 
bill, and we did, to take care of caregivers to give them some relief. 
These caregivers see it every day. So we put $6 million in for 
Landstuhl program. We put $1 million in for Walter Reed, for Brooke's 
and for Bethesda. They are burned out. The troops are burned out. What 
we are trying to do in this bill is hold the White House accountable 
for the policy mistakes that they made.
  We went into Iraq without weapons of mass destruction. I believed it. 
When I went there the first time, I saw a line drawn around Baghdad. 
They told me they were going to use biological weapons. I believed 
that. It took me 6 or 7 months to realize we had made a mistake. We 
went to Afghanistan, it was the right place to go.
  I am inspired by these troops, I am inspired by their families; but 
they are burned out and they are bearing as much as they can bear. When 
we sit here, and one of the previous speakers said ``we.'' I hear this 
all the time, ``we're fighting,'' ``we're fighting terrorists.'' We are 
not fighting terrorism, we are sitting here in an air conditioned place 
while they are out there in dust.
  And let me tell you about the policy in this latest deployment. I 
worried. I didn't say anything in public, but I worried. When you send 
37 different elements out by themselves among the Iraqis, when you've 
got interpreters who you don't trust, you are going to expect the kind 
of disasters you just saw. That's the thing that worries me when you 
don't have enough troops. And one general said to me, he said, ``If 
you're there more than 9 months, you start making mistakes.'' Imagine 
what he's saying? He said, ``I question myself after 9 months.'' A 
psychologist told us, who came before the committee, he said 3 months 
in heavy combat, 3 months of going out every day and having IEDs, 
imagine a Presidential candidate making jokes about IEDs when these 
kids are blown apart? It's outrageous.
  Let me tell you something, we owe a great deal of gratitude to these 
families and these young people who are doing the fighting. It's not 
``we'' doing the fighting, it's ``them'' doing the fighting. They 
deserve accountability from the Congress of the United States, and we 
are going to demand that from this accountability bill.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this Defense 
Supplemental conference report.
  Earlier, when the House considered the Defense Supplemental bill 
itself, I voted for it to ensure that America's soldiers get the 
equipment and resources they need and the top-quality health care they 
may require when they come home.
  And I think the conference report is an improvement on that House 
bill.
  As I said when the House debated the initial bill and again during 
debate on the motion to instruct conferees, I did not believe it was a 
good idea for the bill to include a date certain for withdrawing U.S. 
combat troops from Iraq. So I'm glad that language has been made more 
flexible in the conference report. It includes a goal of March 2008 for 
completing the redeployment of U.S. combat troops, and allows 
sufficient troops to remain to protect U.S. military and civilians in 
Iraq, conduct counterterrorism operations, and train Iraqi Security 
Forces. I remain convinced that we should steer clear of arbitrary 
public deadlines for military actions and focus instead on realistic 
diplomatic and political goals. Our military needs flexibility to be 
able to link movements of U.S. troops to the realities of the situation 
on the ground, and successful diplomacy requires such flexibility as 
well.
  My vote for the conference report is not a vote to support the Bush 
administration's policy in Iraq. We are 4 years into a war the Bush 
administration assured us would be short and decisive. The 
administration's misjudgments, lack of planning and poor leadership 
have made a bad situation worse--and the tactic of increasing troops 
for a temporary ``surge'' is no substitute for what is needed, namely, 
a strategy for containing civil war and a wider regional war.
  But whatever may be said about the wisdom of invading Iraq 4 years 
ago--and I am one who believed it was a mistake to do so--the fact is 
that we are still deeply engaged in Iraq. So long as our troops are in 
the field, we must provide them what they need. Beyond supplying our 
soldiers, however, we must extricate them from what objective defense 
experts have characterized as an emerging civil war.
  Disengaging from that civil war is the purpose of the provisions in 
the conference report designed to hold the president accountable to the 
benchmarks set by his own administration and the Iraqi Government--
including enactment of a hydro-carbon law; conducting of provincial and 
local elections; reform of current laws governing the de-Baathification 
process; amendment of the Constitution of Iraq; and allocation of Iraqi 
revenues for reconstruction projects.
  I strongly support that approach because I am convinced that holding 
the president and the Iraqi Government accountable for achieving these 
benchmarks will provide us with the leverage necessary to pressure the 
Iraqi Government to forge the political solution we all know is 
required. In fact, Defense Secretary Gates has acknowledged that this 
provision in the House-passed bill has been helpful by showing the 
Iraqis that American patience is limited.
  This conference report is an important step toward what I think must 
be our goal--a responsible end to the war in Iraq, based on a strategy 
of phased withdrawal of troops, accelerated diplomacy and redeployment 
that is based on Iraqi stability and not arbitrary deadlines.
  The conference report fully funds our troops, providing $4 billion 
more for the troops than

[[Page H4154]]

the president requested. It honors our veterans, providing $1.8 billion 
more for our veterans' unmet health care needs, including additional 
funds for treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic 
Brain Injury care and research. It strengthens our military, providing 
$2 billion more to create a Strategic Readiness Reserve and address the 
serious readiness crisis our military is facing.
  It also protects our troops by limiting deployment schedules and 
setting minimum readiness standards--based on current Defense 
Department standards--for U.S. troops deploying to the region. The 
president could waive these requirements but only by certifying in 
writing to Congress that waiving them would be in the interest of 
national security.
  The conference report also provides $52.5 billion for military 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and provides $9.7 billion for the 
Afghan and Iraqi Security Forces to help them assume greater 
responsibility for their nations' security.
  And the conference report includes $3.1 billion to fully fund the 
Pentagon's FY07 request for the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure 
Commission's recommendations, which is vitally important for Ft. Carson 
as it prepares to expand and for other military installations in 
Colorado.
  On the non-military side, the conference report includes critically 
important funding for farmers and ranchers in southeastern Colorado who 
were recently hit hard by winter storms. Thousands of cattle were 
killed in storms worse than the October 1997 storm that killed 
approximately 30,000 cattle and cost farmers and ranchers an estimated 
$28 million. The struggles that family agriculture producers and small 
counties face are significant and are having a negative impact on the 
livelihood of hundreds of farmers and ranchers and their communities. 
So I am pleased that the Colorado delegation was successful in 
persuading the conferees to include financial assistance for farmers 
and ranchers, including for those affected by Colorado's recent 
blizzards.
  Mr. Speaker, many of us who voted against authorizing the President 
to rush to war in Iraq were worried that while it would be easy to 
eliminate the Saddam Hussein regime, the aftermath would be neither 
easy nor quick. Sadly, our fears have proven to be justified. And now, 
as the Pentagon has finally admitted in its most recent quarterly 
report, the situation in Iraq is ``properly descriptive of a civil 
war.''
  Insisting on keeping our troops in the middle of that kind of 
internecine war is not a recipe for victory; it is only a prescription 
for quagmire. And as a new Foreign Relations Council report notes, we 
bear responsibility for developments within Iraq, but are increasingly 
without the ability to shape those developments in a positive 
direction.
  We need to be scaling back our military mission in Iraq. We need to 
make the U.S. military footprint lighter--not in order to hasten defeat 
or failure in Iraq, but to salvage a critical measure of security and 
stability in a region of the world that we can ill afford to abandon.
  But as we do so, we must work to avoid a collapse in the region--not 
only because we have a moral obligation to the people of Iraq, but also 
because our national security has been so badly compromised by the Bush 
administration's failures there. The President's decision to take the 
nation to war has made our country less safe. We need to change course 
and chart a path that enhances our national security and sets the right 
priorities for the war on terrorism and struggle against extremists.
  This conference report begins to chart this path, and I will support 
it. I hope the president will reconsider his stated intention of 
vetoing it.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
the conference report to accompany H.R. 1591.
  As I have said on previous occasions, Congress has every right to 
limit the use of appropriated funds. In this instance, I disagree with 
the manner in which my Democratic colleagues have chosen to do so.
  The Iraqi government needs to understand our patience is not 
unlimited. Indeed, establishing benchmarks could well have a useful 
purpose in the effort to have the Iraqis take more decisive steps 
towards autonomy. Making these benchmarks public and tying them to a 
specific date by which we must begin to withdraw our troops, however, 
is a mistake. It sends the wrong message to our troops, and it gives 
the enemy invaluable information.
  Along with many of my colleagues, I want our troops to leave Iraq as 
quickly as possible. Setting a public date by which this must happen, 
however, will ultimately create more problems than it solves.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, the way to support the troops is to give them 
what they need on the battlefield, and what they need when they return 
home from their service to reset--or rest and fix the force for future 
missions.
  This government must be accountable to our troops and their families, 
the only people actually carrying the burden for these wars today . . . 
along with our children, for whom we are leaving the cost.
  Today's bill provides much needed money for troops in Iraq and 
Afghanistan . . . policy that requires accountability from the 
Administration . . . and funding to heal the readiness of our troops.
  It is not the best bill we could get, but you never have a perfect 
bill.
  But the predicament we are in now demands we support this bill.
  We have so many emergencies on our doorstep now . . . mostly because 
the last Congress refused to see the negative impact operations in Iraq 
had on our military readiness, leaving us vulnerable as a nation . . . 
and leaving important national business undone.
  Support for the troops is entirely about giving them what they need 
to fight the battles we've committed them to fight . . . and this 
legislation does just, with one eye on the future . . . something 
previous Congresses failed to do.
  I wish the Congress would have put more energy into readiness 
oversight over the past 5 years to prevent the current situation . . . 
but all we can do today is go forward.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting our troops--and this 
funding for them.
  Today's bill addresses many of these readiness concerns, with 
additions above the President's request to support our troops, 
including:
  $2 billion more to address the current readiness crisis of our 
stateside troops, including ensuring that they are better equipped and 
trained;
  $1.1 billion more for military housing allowances;
  $3 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles for 
troops in Iraq ($1.2 billion above the President's request);
  $1.6 billion for body armor;
  $9.7 billion to train and equip Afghan and Iraqi security forces.
  It also fully funds the BRAC accounts so communities like the Coastal 
Bend of Texas--and others adversely affected by base closure 
decisions--can plan appropriately for that eventuality.
  So many Americans are coming home alive--yet traumatized in their 
minds or bodies--to an extent we have never seen before. The scandalous 
treatment of heroes at Walter Reed--and the fact that it took a 
newspaper story to change it--is testament to the gigantic challenges 
facing military and veterans' health care.
  The Supplemental includes funding for new initiatives to enhance 
medical services for active duty forces and mobilized personnel, and 
their family members (appropriating $2.1 billion more than the 
President requested.) These initiatives include:
  $900 million for Traumatic Brain Injury care and research and PTSD 
treatment and research;
  $20 million for facility improvement at Walter Reed.
  The bill includes $1.8 billion over the President's request to 
address the health care needs of veterans returning from Iraq and 
Afghanistan and the backlog in maintaining VA health care facilities, 
including:
  $30 million for at least one new Level I polytrauma center;
  $9.4 million in operations costs for new polytrauma residential 
transitional rehab programs;
  $10 million for additional transition caseworkers;
  $10 million for blind rehab programs;
  $100 million for enhancements to mental health services;
  $20 million for substance abuse treatment;
  $8 million for polytrauma clinic support teams;
  $25 million for prosthetics;
  $228.9 million in additional funds to treat veterans from both wars.
  This bill is an excellent starting point for this new Congress to 
begin the long overdue oversight of the defense department. We are far 
ahead of the past Congresses in giving our troops the true support they 
need--with appropriate funding and acknowledgment of the strain and 
burden of Iraq.
  While the ideal situation for Congress is for the authorizing 
committee to determine policy, that's coming very soon. I am grateful 
to Chairman Murtha for the extraordinary lengths we've gone to in this 
bill to protect our soldiers by certifying their readiness, protecting 
the military readiness of the United States.
  While this bill is not perfect, it is an extraordinary first step.
  As the Readiness Subcommittee Chair, let me offer the House some 
perspective on the current state of our readiness:
  In the National Intelligence Estimate declassified on Feb. 2, the 
U.S. intelligence services note that--absent a remarkable reversal of 
fortunes in Iraq--they find that ``the overall security situation will 
continue to deteriorate at rates comparable to the latter part of 
2006.'' Further, the NIE determines: ``even if the violence is 
diminished . . . Iraqi leaders will be

[[Page H4155]]

hard pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in the time 
frame of this estimate''--which is 12-18 months.
  The NIE goes on to say that if the U.S. were to leave Iraq, a 
greater, wider civil war would erupt, saying: ``the ISF [Iraqi Security 
Forces] would be unlikely to survive as a non-sectarian national 
institution, and neighboring countries might intervene openly in the 
conflict.''
  Now, common sense tells me that will be the case whenever we leave . 
. . today, manana, this summer, next year . . . or 50 years from now. 
Whenever we leave Iraq, the unclassified intelligence estimate guides 
us on what we can expect. Our choice is in how long we remain . . . and 
how many more brave and patriotic volunteers--who carry the battle for 
this Nation--are lost in Iraq.
  Today we have a chance to begin that change--in the purest way we can 
support the troops . . . men and women, and their families, who are 
alone in carrying the burden for the Iraq war.
  The readiness of our next deployers--our ability to be prepared for 
current and future threats--is diminished due to the war in Iraq. We've 
worn out our force and their equipment, and that has huge implications 
for our ability to handle the threats to come.
  The GAO has looked at this . . . and come away saying the Army itself 
``cannot determine the extent to which the existing inventory reflects 
what the Army needs'' . . . and GAO notes that: ``until these strategic 
and management challenges are addressed, the Army will face uncertain 
risks should new conflicts occur.''
  GAO also reports that all services ``have drawn heavily from their 
prepositioned stocks to support [the ongoing wars]'' . . . and ``these 
sustained military operations are taking a toll on the condition and 
readiness of military equipment and the Army and Marine Corps face a 
number of long-term challenges that will affect the timing and cost of 
equipment repair and replacement.''
  GAO concludes: ``the Army's decisions today have profound future 
implications for the entire department and potentially affect our 
ability to respond to a conflict.''
  Last year, Congress established a Commission on the National Guard 
and Reserves, which has also reported back to us. They tell us point 
blank: ``DoD's failure to appropriately consider National Guard needs 
and funding requirements has produced a National Guard that is not 
fully ready to meet current and emerging missions.''
  The Commission says more pointedly: ``The lack of sufficient and 
ready equipment is a problem common to active and reserve components.
  In particular, the equipment readiness of the Army National Guard is 
unacceptable and has reduced the capability of the U.S. to respond to 
current and additional major contingencies, foreign and domestic.''
  Army Chief of Staff Schoomaker told the Commission: despite the 
readiness of troops overseas, ``88 percent of the forces that are back 
here in the U.S. are very poorly equipped today in the Army National 
Guard.''
  The Commission also noted that state governors ``have become 
increasingly concerned about whether their National Guard forces would 
be available to respond to emergencies here at home.''
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I must again make the difficult decision to 
vote ``present'' on the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and 
Iraq Accountability Act.
  I support the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
  I can't in good conscience vote to fund President Bush's War in Iraq. 
This senseless conflict has already taken the lives of more than 3300 
American and tens of thousands of Iraqis. It has undermined the United 
States' prestige in the world, led to the outbreak of a Shiite-Sunni 
civil war, and cost us $379 billion. Those funds--and the tens of 
billions of dollars for the war in today's legislation--would be better 
spent on education, healthcare and other unmet domestic priorities.
  Nor can I can vote, however, against a Democratic majority intent on 
taking America's Iraq policy in a new direction. I applaud Speaker 
Pelosi and the Democratic leadership for working toward the withdrawal 
of American troops from Iraq. My Republican colleagues voting against 
today's legislation are doing a disservice to both our troops and our 
security by supporting an open-ended commitment in Iraq. I cannot join 
their opposition to holding President Bush accountable.
  My ``present'' vote is therefore an expression of strong opposition 
to the war's continuation for even one more day and strong support for 
the Democratic Congress' attempt to get an arrogant and stubborn 
President to change course in Iraq.
  I urge the President to reconsider both his threat to veto this bill 
and his insistence on keeping our troops in harm's way. It is long past 
time for Bush to end a war he should never have begun.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today 
to oppose this Conference Report. Our ultimate goal should be to bring 
our troops home in the fastest and safest way possible. Unfortunately, 
this Conference Report does not achieve that goal. I will continue to 
work with my colleagues to provide for a fully-funded withdrawal and to 
bring our troops home for the holidays.
  Let me make myself very clear. I will not stop, I will not rest and I 
will not back down in my fight until every last American soldier is 
home safely with their families.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, by calling for a withdrawal date from 
Iraq, today the House is making a compromise that marks another stage 
in the unfortunate struggle with the President to end the war. Yet 
despite our hard work and the desire of the American people, this bill 
faces a veto from a President who is out of touch both with what the 
American people and the Iraqi people want: winding down the presence of 
American troops who are stuck in the midst of a civil war.
  This is not the precise legislation I would have written, but it is a 
fair compromise that reflects the mindset of Americans who voted for a 
new direction in Iraq. The U.S. spends $8 billion a month on the war, 
and Oregon has already lost 54 brave men and women in Iraq. I have 
opposed the war from the start, and this bill hastens the day when we 
bring the tragedy of the Iraq War to a close. I urge support for it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
rescission of $683 million of highway contract authority that is 
included in the Conference Report on H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop 
Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, 2007.
  The Conference Report provides an additional $683 million for the 
Federal Highway Administration's (``FHWA'') Emergency Relief Program. 
Section 4952 of the Conference Report designates this appropriation as 
an emergency requirement, for which no offset is required.
  Despite the fact that no offset is required, the Conference Report 
rescinds $683 million in unobligated balances of highway funds that 
have been apportioned to the States. This rescission is highly 
gratuitous, as it is neither required nor effective as an offset for 
the supplemental appropriation to the Emergency Relief Program.
  Rather than offsetting the supplemental appropriation for the 
Emergency Relief Program, the $683 million rescission of highway 
contract authority offsets other spending under the FY 2007 
discretionary budget authority cap.
  A similar provision was included in the Senate-passed version of the 
bill. The Senate amendment provided an emergency supplemental 
appropriation of $389 million for the FHWA's Emergency Relief Program, 
and rescinded $389 million in highway contract authority.
  On April 23, 2007, I wrote to the conferees, strongly objecting to 
this unnecessary rescission of highway contract authority, and urged 
them to strike the rescission in conference. Instead, the conferees 
increased both the appropriation and the rescission to $683 million.
  Madam Speaker, the rescission of highway contract authority is the 
exclusive jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure. This rescission violates clause 2 of Rule XXI of the 
Rules of the House.
  Programmatically, I am concerned because of the effect these types of 
rescissions have on the Federal-aid Highway Program and, specifically, 
the ability to ensure that our nation's transportation system provides 
modal choices.
  In recent years, the Appropriations Committees have increasingly 
relied on highway contract authority rescissions to finance non-highway 
spending in appropriations acts. In addition, more than a dozen states 
have chosen to apply such rescissions disproportionately to cut 
contract authority for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 
Improvement (CMAQ) program, the Bridge program, and transportation 
enhancement funds.
  I am particularly concerned with the treatment of the CMAQ program 
under these types of rescissions. The CMAQ program provides funding for 
projects and programs that reduce transportation-related emissions in 
areas that do not meet Clean Air Act air quality standards (i.e., 
nonattainment and maintenance areas).
  Although CMAQ funds represent only about 4-5 percent of highway 
apportionments each year, CMAQ funds have accounted for about 20 
percent of total highway funds rescinded in recent years. In FY 2006 
states rescinded $881 million in CMAQ funds. Almost one of every four 
dollars rescinded by the States in FY 2006 came from the CMAQ program.
  Comparing the treatment of CMAQ to other highway programs further 
illustrates the disproportionate cuts of these rescissions. In FY 2006, 
rescissions as a percentage of the total amount made available for 
programs are:
  CMAQ--55 percent.
  Interstate Maintenance--12 percent.
  National Highway System--7 percent.

[[Page H4156]]

  The Transportation Enhancements program has also received 
disproportionate contract authority cuts under the rescissions. The 
Transportation Enhancements program provides funds for bike paths, 
pedestrian walkways, historic preservation, and other activities that 
expand transportation choices and enhance the transportation 
experience.
  In FY 2006, states rescinded $602 million in Transportation 
Enhancements funds, 15 percent of all rescissions in that year. Texas 
alone rescinded $223 million of Transportation Enhancements funding and 
the Texas Department of Transportation stated that it would not fund 
any transportation enhancement projects in that fiscal year. Texas' 
actions, which are facilitated by these contract authority rescissions, 
are directly contrary to our federal efforts to develop a balanced, 
multimodal surface transportation system.
  During consideration of the FY 2004 Transportation-Treasury-HUD 
Appropriations bill, the Committee faced a similar effort to cut 
transportation enhancements funding. The bill, as reported by the 
Appropriations Committee, included a provision that would have 
prohibited funds from being used for the ten percent set aside for 
transportation enhancements under the Surface Transportation Program. 
Subcommittee Chairman Petri and I offered an amendment to strike the 
anti-enhancements provision from the bill and the House overwhelmingly 
passed the amendment by a recorded vote of 327-90. This vote 
illustrates the tremendous support that exists among Members of 
Congress for transportation enhancements, the type of program that is 
disproportionately harmed by highway contract authority rescissions 
such as the one included in the Conference Report before us today.
  Therefore, for both policy and procedural reasons, I oppose the 
rescission of highway contract authority as a means to offset non-
highway spending elsewhere in the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that this House will have an opportunity to 
reconsider this decision in a future Supplemental Appropriations bill 
and I would like to make clear that, with the urgent climate change 
issues that our nation faces, I strongly oppose efforts to allow the 
continued raid of CMAQ and Enhancements funding.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I extend my strong support ``The Small 
Business and Work Opportunity Act of 2007'' as included in the 
Conference Report to H.R. 1591. I am glad that both chambers of 
Congress, in passing this Conference Report, have spoken to the fact 
that an increase in the Federal minimum wage enjoys broad bipartisan, 
bicameral support, as does the approximately $5 billion in small 
business tax relief also included in the agreement.
  Passage of the Conference Report is an important step in achieving an 
important goal--ensuring an increase in the Federal minimum wage for 
hardworking American taxpayers. The minimum wage has not increased in 
more than nine years--the longest period in the history of the law. 
During that time, Members of Congress have received a $31,600 pay 
raise. More astounding is the fact that an average CEO earns more 
before lunchtime in one day than a minimum wage earner earns all year.
  Raising the minimum wage to from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over two 
years would benefit 13 million Americans including 7.7 million women, 
3.4 million parents, and 4.7 million people of color, and provide an 
additional $4,400/year for a family of three, equaling 15 months of 
groceries, or over two years of health care. It is wrong to have 
millions of Americans working full-time and still living in poverty, 
and at $5.15 an hour, a full-time minimum wage worker makes $6,000 less 
than the poverty level for a family of three.
  Americans overwhelmingly support increasing the Federal minimum wage. 
An Associated Press poll conducted in January showed almost 80% of 
those polled supported the $2.10 increase. In fact, the House of 
Representatives overwhelmingly supports increasing the minimum wage, 
and passed H.R. 2 with 315 votes in favor. The President has also been 
supportive of the increase. I hope that combining the tax provisions of 
this bill with a Federal minimum wage increase will encourage the 
President's quick action on signing these provisions into law without 
further delay.
  The ``Small Business and Work Opportunity Act of 2007'' as included 
in the Conference Report to H.R. 1591 expands and extends the Work 
Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC), which serves as an incentive to 
encourage employers to hire individuals from targeted groups which 
typically experience barriers to work. The WOTC provision in the 
Conference Report offers additional incentives to hire disabled 
veterans. The Conference Report also extends and expands the increased 
expensing amounts for small businesses, allowing them to invest in new 
technology and equipment. And as a complement to the minimum wage 
increase, the tax provisions of the Conference Report allow restaurants 
to continue claiming the full tip credit despite any increase in the 
Federal minimum wage. Finally, the Conference Report provides a 
permanent waiver of the individual and corporate AMT limitations to 
ensure that small businesses are fully able to claim the WOTC and the 
credit for Social Security taxes paid with respect to cash tips.
  The Conference Report contains provisions that continue the Federal 
government's commitment to the still-recovering areas hit by Hurricane 
Katrina. It would extend the placed-in-service date as applies to 
special credits designed to encourage development of low-income 
housing. The extension of this deadline helps accelerate the use of the 
credits by eliminating the reallocation process that otherwise would be 
used. The Conference Report also modifies a tax-exempt bond financing 
program to allow funds to be used to refinance existing mortgages on 
homes that were damaged by the hurricanes in the area.
  Finally, the tax provisions of the ``Small Business and Work 
Opportunity Tax Act'' as included in the Conference Report to H.R. 1591 
are fiscally responsible and fully offset in a revenue-neutral package. 
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Baucus and I have asked the 
nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public 
a technical explanation of the bill. The technical explanation 
expresses the Committee's understanding and legislative intent behind 
this important legislation. It is available on the Joint Committee's 
website at www.house.gov/jct.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, due to medical reasons, I 
will be unable to vote on the conference report on H.R. 1591, the U.S. 
Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq 
Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007. However, if I had been in 
Washington, D.C. for the vote, I would have opposed this measure.
  I believe that Congress is making a mistake with these attempts to 
substitute the judgment of military commanders in theater with the 
micromanaging of politicians in Washington.
  Furthermore, I do not believe that setting artificial timetables for 
withdrawal of our forces from Iraq is in the best interests of our 
country or our military. While there have been mistakes made in Iraq, I 
believe that enacting this bill into law would have dangerous 
consequences for our Nation, Iraq, and the Middle East.
  The Iraqi government continues to need our strong support as they 
rebuild their country, and this legislation would turn our backs on 
that country in its time of need.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report on H.R. 1591, the Supporting Our Troops and Veterans' Health 
Care Act.
  This legislation will support our troops and veterans, hold the Bush 
Administration and Iraqi government accountable and begin withdrawing 
our troops from Iraq by October 2007 or sooner. It will also provide 
emergency funding for critical programs that have suffered from years 
of neglect.
  This supplemental appropriations bill provides emergency funding for 
critical programs that have long been underfunded by the Republicans. 
It includes $650 million to correct the funding shortfall in the State 
Children's Health Insurance program so that hundreds of thousands of 
children will not lose their health care. It provides $6.9 billion for 
Gulf Coast hurricane relief and recovery. The bill also adds $400 
million to LIHEAP (Low Income Heating Assistance), as well as providing 
$1.8 billion to remedy the unconscionable state of our military and 
veterans' health care systems. All of these issues are emergencies in 
their own right and rise to the level of inclusion in this emergency 
supplemental spending bill.
  The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability 
Act requires the Iraqi government to meet the security, political and 
economic benchmarks established by the President in his address of 
January 10th, including improvements in the performance of the Iraqi 
security forces, a greater commitment by the Iraqi government to 
national reconciliation, and reductions in the levels of sectarian 
violence in Iraq.
  In the bill, the President must determine that substantial progress 
is being made on security, political, and reconstruction benchmarks by 
July 2007. If the President cannot certify progress, redeployment must 
start by July with a goal of being completed within 180 days. If the 
President can certify progress by July 2007, redeployment must begin by 
October 1, with goal of completion within 180 days.
  The bill ensures that our troops have the tools and resources they 
need to do the job they have been asked to do. It prohibits the 
deployment of troops who are not full trained, equipped and protected 
according to current Department of Defense standards. The President can 
only deploy unprepared troops if he certifies, in writing, to Congress, 
that deploying those troops is in the national interest. He must make 
similar certifications to lengthen troop deployments beyond DoD 
standards or to send troops back into battle who have not had enough 
time between deployments. The bill also provides funding so the 
Veterans Administration can meet the obligations of a new

[[Page H4157]]

generation of veterans, particularly by ensuring that they will have 
the medical care they need.
  I have been an outspoken opponent of military action against Iraq 
since the day the administration started beating the war drums. My 
preference would have been to vote for a stronger bill with a binding 
date certain for ending the war. I would have preferred not to include 
waivers to allow the President to send less than fully equipped and 
rested troops into battle. I have additional concerns about the section 
of the bill that allows an unspecified number of U.S. troops to remain 
in Iraq after the March 2008 deadline to train Iraqis and fight 
terrorism.
  However, I support this legislation in spite of these deficiencies 
because I believe it is an affirmative step towards our ultimate goal 
of ending the war. This bill is not everything that I would have liked, 
but it represents a critical turning point. No longer will this body 
uncritically hand over billions of dollars for the President to wage an 
endless war. Congress has a Constitutional responsibility to provide 
accountability--a responsibility that was shirked for the first 6 years 
of the Bush presidency while Republicans controlled Congress. Today, we 
have followed through on that critical duty. We will send a bill to the 
President that would definitively change our course in Iraq. Mr. Bush 
should make the right decision and support our plan for change that is 
overwhelmingly endorsed by the American people. If he follows through 
on his veto threat, he will be the one who has failed to provide our 
troops and our veterans with the resources they need. He will be the 
one who has rejected his own benchmarks to measure success in Iraq. He 
will be the one responsible for the ongoing loss of American life in 
Iraq.
  The President and most Congressional Republicans ask that we continue 
to fund this war with ``no strings attached.'' But the United States 
cannot afford an open-ended commitment to a war without end. It is the 
responsibility of this Congress to devise a means to end the U.S. 
combat role in Iraq so that we can reclaim our position of leadership 
in the world and direct our resources back towards urgent needs here at 
home. I believe that this bill moves us towards these goals in an 
effective and responsible way.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important 
legislation. This supplemental appropriations conference report 
contains vitally important funding for critical priorities and unmet 
needs. For example, this bill includes $1.7 billion more than the 
President requested for military health care, including funds to 
correct the scandalous conditions at Walter Reed and other military 
hospitals. It includes another $1.7 billion for veterans' health care, 
$2.5 billion for improving the readiness of our stateside troops and 
$1.4 billion for military housing allowances. A nation at war simply 
must provide necessary funds to support our troops.
  In addition, this legislation includes $3.1 billion for military 
construction to implement the BRAC mandates that impact Fort Bragg in 
my Congressional District and military communities all across the 
country. It is important to note that the former Republican 
Congressional Majority failed to pass the military construction 
appropriations and imperiled these priority projects. This legislation 
corrects that failure.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation will assert some measure of oversight 
and accountability to a war policy that has been tragically mismanaged 
by this administration for too long. We need a new direction to rebuild 
our military and refocus on the true threat to America from al Qaeda 
and the Islamist jihadists who attacked us on 9/11. We must deploy our 
military might to eliminate Osama bin Laden and the true ``grave and 
gathering threat'' to America.
  We must pass this legislation to send a wake-up call to the President 
that ``Stay The Course'' is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an 
acceptable policy. I urge my colleagues to support a new direction and 
vote for the conference report.
  Should the President veto this bill, as he has indicated, I believe 
he should then meet with Congressional Leadership to work together and 
forge a consensus on these vitally important matters.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the conference report on 
the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act.
  For more than 3 years, when the President came to Congress to ask for 
funding for Iraq, the Republican leadership's only question was, ``How 
much?''
  When the President wanted to extend the tours of duty for troops 
already deployed and imposed stop-loss orders, the Republican 
leadership's only question was, ``How soon?''
  And when the President decided to send more troops to Iraq in one of 
the failed surges, the Republicans only asked, ``How many?''
  Madam Speaker, today we end the era of Congressional fealty to the 
President's failed policies in Iraq.
  Today we stop writing blank checks for this war.
  We vote today for a new direction in Iraq.
  My constituents know that we can't win this war militarily. They know 
that it's time to start bringing our troops home.
  It's time for the President to stop the rhetoric and work with us to 
end this war.
  Support the troops. Bring them home.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the 
conference report on H.R. 1591 will be followed by a 5-minute vote on 
H. Res. 320.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 208, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 265]

                               YEAS--218

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--208

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder

[[Page H4158]]


     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNulty
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Emerson
     Stark
       

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Costa
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Lampson
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  2127

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska and Mr. PAUL changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 265, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________