[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 173 (Thursday, November 8, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H13311-H13329]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3222, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2008

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 806 and ask for its immediate consideration.

[[Page H13312]]

  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 806

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 3222) making appropriations for the Department of 
     Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and 
     for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

                             Point of Order

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 806 
under section 2 of H. Res. 491 because the resolution contains a waiver 
of all points of order against the conference report and its 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross). The gentleman from Arizona makes 
a point of order that the resolution violates section 2 of House 
Resolution 491.
  Such a point of order made under that resolution shall be disposed of 
by the question of consideration under the same terms as specified in 
clause 9(b) of rule XXI.
  The gentleman from Arizona and a Member opposed, the gentlewoman from 
New York, each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question of 
consideration.
  After that debate the Chair will put the question of consideration, 
to wit: ``Will the House now consider the resolution?''
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  H. Res. 491 says it shall not be in order to consider a conference 
report unless the joint explanatory statement includes a list of 
congressional earmarks that were air-dropped into it or that were not 
committed to the conference committee by either Chamber.
  It's unfortunate, just like the Labor-HHS bill, the majority has 
reported a rule that waives all points of order. Yet, I have to ask 
here: if we've done everything right, if we've done the transparency 
that we committed to earlier in the year, why are we waiving all points 
of order against the bill? Why are we doing this again, second time 
this week?
  We have these transparency rules that we hyped at the beginning of 
the year that we aren't going to have air-dropped earmarks into a 
conference report that can't be challenged; yet here again, here we go, 
waiving all points of order against the bill. That is why I am raising 
the point of order against the rule; it's the only option I have to 
highlight what is going on here.
  In a press conference in March, the Speaker of the House said: 
``Before Members vote on a bill, there should be appropriate time for 
people to be able to read it, that it be a matter of public record. And 
if there is an earmark that can stand the scrutiny, then that 
transparency will give the opportunity for it to be there.''
  The majority leader, in March, said: ``Let no one be mistaken, after 
the earmark explosion under Republican leadership, Democrats have led 
the way in bringing transparency and accountability to earmarks.'' It 
appears that we're not doing that now.
  The majority leader also said: ``This is a new day and a new 
Congress. The days of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil are 
over. This Congress embraces its constitutional responsibility to 
conduct real, meaningful oversight, as well as our values of openness 
and transparency.''
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that when you have a conference report 
and we finally get a look at it last night, less than 12 hours ago or 
so, and there are more than two dozen earmarks air-dropped into it, 
this is the first we've seen of them, we haven't seen any of them 
before this time, that is not the model of transparency. That is not 
openness. We have no ability to challenge those earmarks. None. We 
can't highlight them and say you vote up or down on this earmark.
  The joint explanatory statement says that there are 24 Defense 
earmarks that were not passed by either Chamber, costing $59 million. 
Let me give you just one example of what's in there. There is one of 
these earmarks, $3 million earmark in the Defense bill, remember, this 
is the Defense bill we're talking about, a $3 million earmark for a 
program, according to The Hill newspaper, intended to attract 
disadvantaged and minority children to the game of golf. This is the 
game of golf in a Defense bill. Is it any wonder, should anybody be 
surprised that this was an earmark that was air-dropped into the 
conference report when we don't have the ability in this Chamber to 
challenge it? This is the only opportunity we have, a procedural vote, 
as to whether to move forward on the rule. Now, that is not openness, 
that is not transparency.
  It's often brought up that the Republicans, when we were in charge, 
we did the same thing. We did, and we played the political price for 
it. We shouldn't have done it. It shouldn't excuse what's going on 
today. This is supposed to be a new day in Congress. This is business 
as usual. This is par for the course, to use a bad pun, to put a golf 
earmark in a Defense bill, and to hide it until the last day, until 
nobody can challenge it anymore.
  Now, we may think that that's cute here, but I can tell you people 
across the country have got to be incensed with it. And we felt the 
brunt of it, as Republicans, last year. I would suggest that, unless 
the majority party sees its way clear to change this practice, they're 
going to feel the brunt of it as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this point of order is not about whether or not to 
consider the rule on, ultimately, the funding of our troops, and 
indeed, the entire government, under a continuing resolution. In fact, 
I would say that it is simply an effort to try to kill the conference 
report, and on a faulty premise at that.
  Every single earmark in this conference report has been properly 
disclosed in conformance with House rules. The blanket waiver against 
consideration of conference did not include a waiver of either clause 9 
of rule XXI or House Resolution 491.
  This parliamentary ruse won't work. We must consider this conference 
report, which fully supports our men and women, provides for our 
wounded warriors by providing for them and for their families, 
addresses the severe equipment shortfalls facing the National Guard and 
Reserves, and fully funds a pay increase for all servicemembers. In 
addition, this measure provides the funds necessary to respond to the 
wildfires of 2007 and provide continued disaster response and relief 
efforts.
  Voting ``no'' on this question of consideration will prevent 
consideration of a critical package that has strong House and Senate 
bipartisan support.

                              {time}  1130

  So despite whatever roadblock the other side tries to use to stop the 
bill, we will stand up for our troops. We must consider this rule. We 
must pass this conference report today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. I would be glad to yield time to the gentlewoman if she 
would inform us as to why all points of order were waived against the 
bill itself. This is not a parliamentary ruse here. This is a response 
to a parliamentary ruse. The parliamentary ruse is air-dropping 
earmarks into a bill and then waiving all points of order against or 
waiving all points of order against that bill so all we can do here is 
raise a point of order against the rule itself. So the parliamentary 
ruse here was actually used by the majority party to hide these 
earmarks, in particular a $3 million earmark for golf in the Defense 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. I 
will be very happy to hear what the answer from the lady from New York 
is because I think the question before us is if the majority party 
wants to clean up this earmark process, or do they just want to say 
they are cleaning up the earmark process when it actually doesn't 
occur? If we are going to have these rules that enable you to raise 
points of order on earmarks that have been air-dropped in, we have 
earmarks air-dropped in which shouldn't happen in the first place. Some 
of these are clearly inappropriate. But yet all opportunity to raise 
them against the bill

[[Page H13313]]

has been waived. So why are you even doing this? It appears that they 
are not serious about really stopping or reforming earmarks; they 
simply want to act like they are. If we are serious, none of these 
earmarks that were air-dropped in should be allowed.
  Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining on my side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I certainly 
appreciate the gentleman from Arizona's leadership here. I did not 
realize until I came to the floor that somehow a 9 iron was a vital 
part of our national defense apparatus. I mean, this is clearly an 
outrage. The new majority who claim that they were going to clean up 
the earmark process and bring us unparalleled transparency and 
accountability have done neither, and their actions speak so much 
louder than their words. And so here we have air-dropped earmarks that 
were neither voted on by the House, by the Senate, appearing in the 
this bill in the dead of night with no accountability, no ability of a 
Member to come to the floor and challenge. It appears to be another 
callous effort to wrap pork in the American flag, to take our defense 
money meant for our war fighters and to hide pork in it. It is an 
outrage, and the majority ought to admit they have made no serious 
effort, no serious commitment whatsoever to bring accountability and 
transparency to the earmark process.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues and dear 
friends on the other side of the aisle that it was the democratic 
process and the Democrat Party that brought us section 491, and we are 
in complete compliance with it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am stunned at this debate. All of our colleagues are 
watching. Yeah, we brought you a rule that says transparency was a good 
idea. We still believe transparency is a good idea, but that rule is 
being waived here. We are not being allowed to debate air-dropped 
earmarks dropped into this legislation. We are not being allowed to 
follow the rule.
  Now, let's see if I understand this. It is okay for America if you 
adopt rules that require transparency, but it is also okay if you just 
waive the rules that require transparency, because after all, you said 
you were for transparency and adopted a rule for transparency and you 
just waived it. So there is no transparency. I believe it is vitally 
important that the American people know how their money is spent. I 
think they would want to know that we are spending millions of dollars 
in air-dropped earmarks for things that make no sense in the Defense 
bill, including golf training. I have yet to meet a soldier who didn't 
perhaps want to improve his golf game, but I have yet to meet a 
taxpayer who thought we ought to be funding that. You are either for 
transparency or not. I think it is simple and straightforward.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Let's get down to the bottom line about what this is about. At the 
beginning of the year, we were promised transparency. We were promised 
that if earmarks were dropped in to a conference report, if they 
weren't considered by either the House or the Senate, that we would 
have the opportunity to challenge those earmarks, that we would have 
the opportunity to shine a light on them, to actually see what they are 
about. We are not getting that opportunity because we have waived the 
rule. What good are rules if they are waived routinely?
  Let me say, this is not our rule on this side. We were glad to see 
it. But it is the majority's rule, and it is being waived. It is no 
surprise here when you look at the earmarks that are in, 24 earmarks, 
some of them are to private companies. These are sole-sourced 
contracts, single-source contracts, no-bid contracts to private 
companies and to universities. We have no opportunity to see what they 
are about. None. We just got the list 24 hours ago. We don't have the 
opportunity to challenge those.
  The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, many media 
outlets over the past couple of weeks have raised issues about these 
defense contracts, the ones that went through the House and the Senate, 
whether or not they are appropriate, whether they are linked to 
campaign contributions coming back, a whole host of questions are 
raised; yet we have no ability here, because the rules are waived, and 
we can't even challenge these.
  And then when you see an earmark for golf in the Defense bill, you 
have to say, you know, did they intend on hiding this? Would that 
withstand the scrutiny when it comes to the floor? We have the 
Woodstock earmark over in the Senate, the hippie museum that didn't 
withstand the scrutiny. We had one over here on this side this year 
that didn't withstand the scrutiny. I raised a couple of earmarks, one 
of which the sponsor came to the floor before I could get here to 
withdraw his own earmark. In another case, the majority party 
Appropriations Committee went to the Rules Committee and said remove 
these earmarks because there is questions about them. That is just on a 
few earmarks we were able to challenge.
  So there may well be those questions here, as well. Or, you have to 
wonder if this Caddyshack earmark would have made it through the 
scrutiny that would have come had we been able to challenge it in the 
House. Or would enough Members say, you know, maybe we shouldn't be 
funding golf in the Defense bill.
  Is it any wonder that an earmark for golf is hidden in the Defense 
bill? That is what we have to ask.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me say that this conference report is 
the standard conference report, the standard rule, and passed the Rules 
Committee 13-0. There were no dissenting votes from the Republicans at 
all about this rule. The report has been available since Tuesday. It 
meets all requirements for layover.
  I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider the 
rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 191, not voting 21, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1061]

                               YEAS--220

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell

[[Page H13314]]


     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     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
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--191

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     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
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Boren
     Boyda (KS)
     Braley (IA)
     Buyer
     Cantor
     Capuano
     Carson
     Cubin
     Giffords
     Hunter
     Jindal
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (VA)
     Oberstar
     Rothman
     Tauscher
     Waxman

                              {time}  1203

  Messrs. KIRK, HOEKSTRA, BRADY of Texas, BILIRAKIS, FRELINGHUYSEN, 
BACHUS, WHITFIELD and GILCHREST changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania and Mr. BROWN of South Carolina changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 
806.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 806 provides for consideration of 
the conference report for H.R. 3222, the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act, 2008.
  Mr. Speaker, this is one of the important parts that I hope will 
answer some questions here. The rule is the standard conference report 
rule which waives all points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration and provides that the conference report shall 
be considered as read.
  However, I want to point out that although the rule waives all points 
of order, the conference report does not violate either House 
Resolution 491 or clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI which require earmarks to 
be disclosed in the conference report and requiring conference reports 
to be in compliance with the PAYGO rule.
  Mr. Speaker, this morning I visited the family of a critically 
injured soldier at Bethesda Naval Medical Center, and I was reminded 
once again of a sign that stood outside a VA hospital in my former 
district, a sign that read, ``The price of liberty is visible here.''
  This Monday, we will pay tribute to our brave men and women in 
uniform and remember that they truly are our country's greatest heroes. 
We must, therefore, do all we can to make certain that they receive the 
care and benefits that they have earned and the respect and recognition 
they deserve, not just today, but every single day.
  I am proud to bring to the floor the 2008 Department of Defense 
Appropriations legislation and a continuing resolution, the product of 
many months of hard work.
  In that spirit, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a smart and 
compassionate way to strengthen America's security and provide what is 
necessary for our troops.
  We do so by investing in the safety and protection of our service men 
and women both at home and abroad, while providing them with the tools 
that are necessary to defend our country. This bill also invests in 
quality health care for military personnel and works to expand our 
Armed Forces to meet ever-changing threats to our national security.
  The bill also determines how we as a Nation will spend our 
considerable resources, both at home and abroad, in order to best 
protect our fellow Americans, our shared values, and our common 
interests.
  This agreement between the House and Senate prioritizes the 
preparation and safety of our Nation's men and women in uniform and, 
thus, honors our commitment to our military. It is a definitive 
statement that we will properly equip our troops before they deploy, 
provide them with support as they serve in harm's way, and ensure their 
dignified treatment upon their return.
  To accomplish that goal, this bill provides $459 billion for the 
Department of Defense, a $39.7 billion or a 9.5 percent increase from 
2007. The money allows us to invest in equipment, in training, and 
cutting-edge weaponry. Most importantly, however, it restores balance 
to our ground forces that are badly overstretched by 5 years of war and 
multiple extended deployments.
  Make no mistake, our commitment to our fighting men and women does 
not end on the battlefield. It is our responsibility to ensure that 
each one is properly covered upon their return home. And I am proud to 
say that this bill does exactly that, by adding $70 million to fund 
programs authorized under the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors 
Act and providing $23.5 billion for defense health programs, which I 
must stress, is nearly $1 billion more than the President's request. 
And it is long overdue. Far too many veterans are left without the 
treatment that they need or have to wait far too long.
  The dual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed an unimaginable 
strain on our military that will take many years to repair. To help 
remedy this problem, the conference report helps grow the military, 
including 7,000 new members of the Army, 5,000 new marines, and 1,300 
new Army Guard to begin to help repair this strain.
  It also fully funds a 3.5 percent pay increase for all 
servicemembers, and

[[Page H13315]]

while that is not nearly enough when low-level Blackwater contractors 
make as much money as four-star generals, it is a step forward.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, six U.S. soldiers were killed in 
three separate attacks across Iraq. Those tragic losses brought the 
number of U.S. soldiers killed to more than 850 this year, making 2007 
the deadliest year of the war in Iraq. Let me repeat that. This year, 
the fifth year of combat in Iraq, is deadlier than any of the years 
that preceded it.
  I would be remiss if I did not mention a New York Times article on a 
secret Pentagon study that found, and I hope everybody absorbs this, a 
secret study found that 80 percent of the marines who died of upper-
body wounds in Iraq could have survived if they had been deployed with 
better body armor.
  I was so deeply troubled by reports like these that I asked the 
Department of Defense's inspector general to investigate the Pentagon's 
procurement of both vehicle and body armor. The first report issued in 
July was heartbreaking in its tales of a manufacturer that was unable 
to produce the number of MRAP vehicles that it had committed to in its 
contract with DOD; ultimately, without doubt, costing some soldiers 
their very lives.
  As we await the second report from the Pentagon on body armor 
procurement practices, the former CEO of one of those body armor 
manufacturers, David Brooks, was indicted on multiple counts of fraud 
by the United States Attorneys in eastern New York. He is accused of 
having enriched himself to the tune of over $180 million at the expense 
of the safety of our Armed Forces. I await the report from the 
inspector general on how that contract was given. It is unconscionable.
  I am relieved to say in light of these findings, the conference 
report fittingly directs $11.6 billion to the procurement of MRAP 
vehicles and increases funding for the body armor and other protective 
equipment which I hope will be closely monitored by this Congress which 
is trying so hard to keep up with some oversight that has been missing 
for over 6 years.
  The conference report today also provides all of those deploying, 
deployed, and returning with the resources that they, their families, 
and our veterans need to sustain them through a time of war. But all of 
the body armor in the world, all of the MRAPs, cannot stop the violence 
in Iraq and prevent the casualties and deaths of our young men and 
women facing combat in Iraq.
  It is my fervent hope and desire that we can bring our troops home 
before next year becomes the deadliest year in this tragic war.
  As we face troubles abroad, Mr. Speaker, we here at home are 
constantly reminded of the toll that the war in Iraq is taking on our 
national security. The dire shortage of National Guard equipment was 
underscored these past few weeks as America watched with horror the 
wildfires devastating Southern California.
  The San Francisco Chronicle reported in May that only half of 
California's National Guard equipment was available because much of it, 
almost a billion dollars' worth, had been left in Iraq.
  In my home State of New York, the National Guard is operating with 40 
percent of its equipment and only 35 percent of its trucks and 
authorized vehicles. Simply put, we cannot afford to continue 
shortchanging our domestic priorities.
  To help put our priorities and Nation back in order, Mr. Speaker, 
today we will provide $500 million to respond to the California 
wildfires, along with allocating $2.9 billion to FEMA for continued 
disaster relief efforts and $3 billion for the ``Road Home'' program to 
assist people who are still searching for homes damaged by Hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita.
  Additionally, we add $980 million for the National Guard and Reserve 
to replenish their equipment which has become so strained due to our 
conflicts abroad.
  Mr. Speaker, let us honor the service of our troops, their families, 
and America's veterans by passing this conference report and fulfilling 
our commitment to those who sacrifice so much.
  I hope my colleagues will use the upcoming Veterans Day to reflect on 
what kind of an America they wish to create for future generations. And 
it is my hope that we in Congress take the question very seriously in 
the coming months and years ahead.
  I have faith in this body, just as I have faith in this Nation, that 
we will possess the wisdom to do what is right and the courage to right 
what is wrong. The future of our national security depends on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me this time, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I believe the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee stated 
that this rule was passed by a 13-0 vote. I was not able to be present 
at that rules meeting, and neither was Mr. Dreier. I believe Ms. Sutton 
was not either.

                              {time}  1215

  So it would not have been a 13-0 vote. That could not have been 
possible.
  Mr. Speaker, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, our 
Armed Forces have been deployed in two major theaters of operation. Too 
many of our noble servicemembers have given what Abraham Lincoln called 
the last full measure of devotion to the Nation. Many more of these 
brave men and women bear the physical and mental scars of battle which 
will last their lifetimes.
  As a Congress, we must continue to work to ensure that our military 
has all the equipment and training necessary to successfully and safely 
complete their missions.
  I commend the members of the conference committee for working in a 
bipartisan manner to meet the needs of our military and veterans in the 
conference report on the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 
2008. The $459 billion in the bill will provide the necessary resources 
to our Armed Forces and continue the investments that we have made to 
make certain that the American military is the finest in the world.
  The conference report provides $23.5 billion, over $2.2 billion above 
the fiscal 2007 level, for Defense health programs. The bill improves 
the Pentagon's electronic medical records and enables better 
coordination between DOD and the VA. It also enhances preventative 
medicine programs and increases investments in medical research. I'd 
like to highlight that $138 million has been allocated for breast 
cancer research and $80 million for prostate cancer research.
  To support our soldiers' families, the bill provides $2.6 billion for 
family advocacy and other programs to support families affected by the 
rigors of war.
  The conference report also gives all of our military personnel a much 
deserved pay raise, as was mentioned by the distinguished chairman, 3.5 
percent, and fully funds the efforts to increase our Armed Forces, 
including equipping and training costs for 7,000 new members of the 
Army and 5,000 new marines.
  The bill also protects our soldiers in combat by providing $11.6 
billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles and increases 
funding for body armor and other protective equipment.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the majority has yet to send the 
President any appropriations bill this year to sign into law. This is 
the longest Congress has taken to finish even one appropriation bill in 
over 20 years. Because the majority has failed to complete its work on 
these important appropriations bills, funding for the Federal 
Government is set to expire on November 16. This conference report will 
extend the current continuing resolution through December 14 so that 
the government can continue to remain open.
  The CR, the continuing resolution, also provides $6.4 billion in 
emergency spending, including $2.9 billion for FEMA's disaster relief 
fund, $500 million for fighting wildfires, and $3 billion for the gulf 
coast Road Home hurricane rebuilding program. It also increases funding 
to prepare for the 2010 census, as well as another $2.9 billion to 
bring VA funding up to the President's fiscal year 2008 request.
  Obviously, I support this important piece of legislation that the 
rule brings to the floor today, but I think that it

[[Page H13316]]

falls short on one major issue, providing a bridge fund for our troops 
in theater.
  Without a bridge fund, the Department of Defense will be forced to 
make some very difficult decisions: Will they cut funding for the 
troops in theater to carry out the worthwhile projects and funding 
increases in this bill, or will they send funding to troops and put 
major projects in this bill on hold? The Department of Defense should 
not have to make such decisions, Mr. Speaker. This conference report 
should fund both the important projects in the bill and provide our 
troops in the theater with funding.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina, the majority whip, Mr. Clyburn.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Let me thank Congresswoman Slaughter for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the floor today to speak about an 
issue that seems to have occupied the time of some of my colleagues 
this morning and that led to a particular story in one of the 
publications here on the Hill this morning.
  It has a headline that is about one of the earmarks in this bill, and 
let me point to it. It very clearly states, I think it's on page 78, 
that a $3 million request is being made for the First Tee program. It's 
found on page 78.
  Now, in accordance with the rules of the House, this request was made 
by me and my name is attached to it because I'm very, very proud of it.
  What I'm not proud of, however, is the headline that has been 
published this morning saying that a ``South Carolina Golf Center Nabs 
a $3 Million Earmark.'' That is utterly untrue.
  This $3 million request is so that we can put on military bases the 
program called First Tee. This program will be there for the children 
of the men and women, many of whom find themselves in harm's way, so 
their children that they leave back here on military bases all over 
this country, some on military bases in foreign countries, their 
children will have the opportunity to participate in a nationwide 
character-building program which happens to use as one of its core 
components the game of golf, a game that has been made very, very 
popular by a young man of color, who has made this a sport that young, 
low-income children and children of color have finally become enamored 
of.
  I just want to make sure that these children who live on these 
military bases will have the same access to this program that they have 
to softball, to swimming pools, to basketball that we fund in the 
appropriations bills every year. We put these programs on these 
military installations, and we say, softball, swimming, basketball, 
reserved for you all.
  So I just want to say that I cannot prevent headline writers. I used 
to be in this business. I was in the newspaper business, and I know why 
we write headlines.
  Not one dime of this request will go to any civilian facility in 
South Carolina or anywhere else in the United States of America. Every 
single dime of this is to be spent on defense facilities to the benefit 
of those children whose mothers and fathers are off defending our way 
of life, so that their children can have the same kind of opportunities 
that our children have.
  And I find it a little bit insulting that we say we are going to 
reserve this kind of activity for the elite and not make it available 
to the children of the men and women who are preserving our way of 
life.
  There's something about this. We know who is fighting this war. 
Rural, low-income families are carrying the burden of this war, and I 
think we've got a responsibility here to say to their children, we're 
going to treat you the same way we treat the kids downtown. And the 
kids in downtown, in Sumter, in my hometown, if they can have a First 
Tee program, I want those kids at Shaw Air Force Base 10 miles away to 
have that same kind of program. I want those kids at Charleston Air 
Force Base, while their families are off, that's where they're all 
leaving from, that base, to go off to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. 
They're leaving their children there. I want their children to have the 
same opportunities on that base as kids have downtown Charleston.
  And for us to single this out and write a headline like this, not one 
dime goes to this center, and they know it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege 
to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in 
support of the rule and this conference report.
  I want to commend Chairman Murtha and Ranking Member Young for the 
great work they do together each and every year on behalf of our young 
soldiers and their families, and the great staff that works in a 
nonpartisan manner for all of those soldiers and families.
  The challenge laid before our subcommittee every year, and this year 
is no exception, is to strike the appropriate balance between present 
and future needs.
  Clearly, we must provide the necessary funding to support our 
courageous young warfighters, troops in and out of the current fight, 
and their families and do it as soon as possible.
  In this regard, I'm pleased, as others have mentioned, that we fully 
fund a pay raise for our troops. We also provide an additional $2.5 
billion for family support activities, more counselors, teachers, day 
care providers, better housing.
  This bill also contains significant increases in many Defense health 
accounts and provides funding to improve military mental health and 
post-traumatic stress syndrome programs.
  It includes new efforts on preventative medicine in the Department of 
Defense and extra medical research. It contains $1.9 billion to erase 
the shortfall in the military's TRICARE medical program. It fully funds 
flying hours and home training.
  But, Mr. Speaker, our committee has also applied its best judgment as 
to how we look to the future and how our Nation will confront 
adversaries in future conflicts.
  This bill provides, as others have said, nearly a billion new dollars 
to upgrade the equipment of our National Guard and Reserves for both 
military and home State civil operations.
  This bill fully funds the end strength increases for the Army and the 
Marines.
  It moves the F-22 Raptor program forward and retains important 
language that bars its foreign sale.
  The bill advances the Joint Strike Fighter program and directs 
production of a second engine.
  Mr. Chairman, if I'd written this bill, I might have written some 
sections differently. For example, I wonder if we've gotten it right 
with respect to the future combat systems, the Army's signature 
modernization program. That's the Army's future, and we need greater 
investments in that area.
  And lastly, Mr. Speaker, I join with many others in being very 
concerned that this conference report does not include a bridge fund to 
support our deployed warfighters. I understand that the House may bring 
a freestanding bridge fund to the floor next week.
  However, I believe it's a mistake to attempt to pass a downsized, 
stand-alone bridge fund wrapped in so much red tape and conditionality 
so as to force the President to veto. While this may serve some ends, 
it slows the process of getting needed support for those who are 
literally on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  But all in all, this is an excellent package, worthy of our support. 
Again, I congratulate Chairman Murtha and Mr. Young for all they do 
each and every year, and I support the rule and I support the 
conference report.

                              {time}  1230

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Meek).
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for allowing 
me to have 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am in support of the rule, and I encourage all of the 
Members to do so. As a sitting 5-year member on the Armed Services 
Committee, having an opportunity to look not only over this bill but 
being a part of the voting for Defense bills or Defense appropriations 
bills in the past, I am proud of it.
  We have the responsibility here in Congress not only to make sure 
they

[[Page H13317]]

have up-armor, bullets, what have you, meals, the things they need in 
the field, but we also have to make sure that their families are okay 
too. I asked for a couple of minutes because I couldn't help but 
witness the passion that the whip had when he came to the floor about 
making sure that military families have the same opportunities as those 
who are not in the military.
  I think it's important for us to realize, Members, that there are 
some individuals that are privileged, there are some people that have 
the opportunity to be with their sons and daughters, but we also have 
people who are in harm's way. In a time of war, we have to make sure 
that life doesn't stop for those families that are left behind.
  I just want to add, so that we start looking at this issue, not to 
make it a debate, because it was debated earlier today, but this bill 
is doing some of the great things as it relates to the MRAP vehicles we 
have in Iraq. I was just in Fallujah a couple of months ago. It was my 
third trip to Iraq. I am proud to see some of the work that is starting 
to take place there as it relates to the equipment getting to the men 
and women. But I can say that this issue of making sure that families 
have what they need when we have men and women in harm's way is not a 
new issue.
  I can tell you a former Member of the House, Mr. DeLay, had a $1 
million FY03 Labor-HHS appropriations to the First Tee program, and 
these are for civilians. The program also received $2 million in FY04 
Labor-HHS appropriations bill, and $1 million in the State-Justice 
appropriations bill. I think it's important that Members realize that 
when we look at these military families, they have to have the same 
kind of attention and appreciation that we give our men and women in 
harm's way.
  I have my son here on the floor with me today; he is out of school. 
As Members know, we play golf together. But, guess what? I am here to 
play golf with him. The First Tee program has instructors to be able to 
work with young people when their mothers or their fathers are not 
there to play that role. So let's make sure that we do the right thing.
  Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for bringing the rule to the 
floor. I want to thank those who are in support of the rule, but I 
think it's very, very important that I expect to vote in an affirmative 
for the rule, to make sure that we do for military families what we do 
for men and women in harm's way.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to 
my friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  Mr. WICKER. I thank my friend from Florida for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I support the bill. As Mr. 
Frelinghuysen stated, if I had been writing it line for line, it 
wouldn't be quite the way it is, but it is a good bill and worthy of 
our support.
  I support the rule also. I hope that it can be amended to make it 
even better, and here is why. This is the Defense appropriations bill. 
It will be acted on today, it will be acted on perhaps tomorrow by the 
Senate and on the President's desk. There is another bill that very 
much needs to be on the President's desk by Veterans Day, which is 
November 11. I suppose we will be celebrating it on Monday, November 
12, this year because we don't have the Federal holidays on Sunday. 
That's the bill making appropriations for Military Construction and 
Veterans Affairs. That bill is ready to go and also ready to be sent to 
the President of the United States.
  The House passed its version of the MilCon-VA bill on June 15 of this 
year by a vote of 409-2. The Senate passed its version of MilCon-VA on 
September 6, over 2 months ago, by a vote of 92-1 in favor of the bill. 
For over 2 months, we have stood ready to conference this bill to send 
it on to the President and send vital funds for infrastructure, for our 
troops and for their families, and also for our heroes who have served 
in the past.
  As we all know, this is the latest the Congress has gone without 
sending a single appropriation bill to the President in the past 20 
years.
  Now, what this amendment that the gentleman from Florida will do, if 
he is allowed to offer the amendment, is simply to instruct the Speaker 
to appoint conferees immediately for the MilCon-VA bill. It will do 
nothing to the Defense bill whatsoever, but it is a way for us to 
proceed immediately on legislation, which all of our veterans service 
organizations say is important, which is a good bill, and which should 
be sent to the President by Veterans Day.
  I will be joining Mr. Diaz-Balart and others in voting against the 
previous question, not because there is anything wrong with the Defense 
bill, but in order for this amendment to be added and simply allow 
MilCon-VA to proceed also.
  Now, as we say sometimes in the rural south, there is more than one 
way to skin a cat. If Members feel that defeating the previous question 
is not what they want to do and requiring the Speaker to appoint 
conferees immediately, there is another way to move the MilCon-VA 
immediately and have it sent to the Senate this very day, and that is 
some legislation which I introduced last night. It's H.R. 4104, and 
here is what it does. It contains the exact language that was signed by 
the conferees with regard to MilCon-VA. It is a stand-alone bill with 
the conference language on MilCon-VA, and it could be adopted this 
afternoon by unanimous consent. It could be adopted under a suspension 
of the rules, sent to the Senate immediately, and sent on to the 
President for his signature before Veterans Day.
  What a way to honor our veterans. What a way to honor and pay tribute 
to the families that will benefit from the MilCon projects and to the 
troops that need that vital infrastructure.
  Defeating the previous question and amending the resolution, I 
support. But if Members feel they cannot go along with that, I urge 
them to look at this bill, H.R. 4104. We already have over 100 
cosponsors. As I say, it is identical to the bipartisan MilCon-VA 
conference agreement that Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obey and I and Mr. Lewis 
worked out as a conference agreement with Members of the Senate. It is 
the exact language that was passed as an attachment to the Labor-HHS 
bill.
  You know, this should not be a partisan issue. I strongly disagreed 
on the floor of this House with my friend Mr. Obey and the leadership 
of this House with the strategy of linking MilCon-VA with the Labor-HHS 
appropriation bill. I stated that I thought it would slow things down, 
and, indeed, it did slow things down. The strategy didn't work. The 
Senate delinked those two bills yesterday afternoon, and now we are 
really not sure where we are.
  H.R. 4101 is the best way and the quickest way for this House and for 
the Senate to simply send that legislation on to the President. He 
could be signing it tomorrow afternoon.
  So I call on my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. I 
like Mr. Diaz-Balart's strategy. Frankly, I like my strategy a little 
better because it's cleaner. Let's pass a stand-alone MilCon-VA 
conference report, the exact language that every one of us has already 
agreed to, send it on to the President and honor our troops by Veterans 
Day.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I would submit for the Record an article 
from Congressional Quarterly Today, dated October 23, 2007, and a copy 
of page 289 from this bill.

                     [From CQ Today, Oct. 23, 2007]

            Item in War Request Stokes Fears of Iran Strike

                         (By John M. Donnelly)

       Some Democrats are worried that President Bush's funding 
     request to enable B-2 ``stealth'' bombers to carry a new 
     30,000-pound ``bunker buster'' bomb is a sign of plans for an 
     attack on Iran.
       Buried in the $196.4 billion supplemental war spending 
     proposal that Bush submitted to Congress on Oct. 22 is a 
     request for $88 million to modify B-2 bombers so they can 
     drop a Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, a conventional 
     bomb still in development that is the most powerful weapon 
     designed to destroy targets deep underground.
       A White House summary, accompanying the supplemental 
     spending proposal said the request for money to modify B-2s 
     to carry the bombs came in response to ``an urgent 
     operational need from theater commanders.'' The summary 
     provided no further details. The White House and the Air 
     Force, in response to queries, did not provide additional 
     clarification.
       Previous statements by the Defense Department and the 
     program's contractors,

[[Page H13318]]

     along with interviews with military experts, suggest the 
     weapon is meant for the kind of hardened targets found 
     chiefly in Iran, which Bush suspects developing nuclear 
     weapons capability, and North Korea, which already has tested 
     a nuclear device.
       Bush has said repeatedly that he prefers to use diplomacy 
     to resolve tensions with Iran over its nuclear program. But 
     his request for funding to deliver the new bunker buster 
     comes amid a sharp escalation of tough White House rhetoric 
     about Iran's nuclear program in recent days.
       On Oct. 18, Bush said a nuclear armed Iran could lead to 
     ``World War III.'' Three days later, Vice President Dick 
     Cheney warned of ``serious consequences'' if Tehran continued 
     to enrich uranium.
       Against that backdrop, the proposed funding for bunker 
     busters has some in Congress worried.
       James P. Moran, D-Va., a senior member of the House 
     Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, said he did not believe 
     the MOP could be used in Iraq or Afghanistan and cited Iran 
     as the potential target for the bomb. He said he would oppose 
     the funding.
       ``That's a clear red flag,'' Moran said.
       Jim McDermott, D-Wash., an outspoken critic of Bush's war 
     policies, said the funding request was the latest of many 
     signs that indicated Bush was contemplating an attack on 
     Iran. McDermott said such a scenario was his ``biggest fear 
     between now and the election.''
       ``We are not authorizing Bush to use a 30,000-pound bunker 
     buster,'' he said. ``They've been banging the drums the same 
     way as they did in 2002 with Iraq.''


                            Stealth Delivery

       The Boeing Co., in conjunction with Elgin Air Force Base in 
     Florida, has been developing the Massive Ordnance Penetrator 
     for several years and first tested the bomb in March. The 15-
     ton bomb would be dropped by B-52 or B-2 bombers.
       In June, the Northrop Grumman Corp., maker of the B-2, won 
     a $2.5 million contract from the Air Force to retrofit the 
     bat-winged, stealth bombers so they could drop the new 
     weapon. The new funding, if approved, would significantly 
     expand that initiative.
       The B-2 made its battlefield debut during the Kosovo War in 
     1999. It is optimal for use against sophisticated enemy air 
     defenses because its radar-evading surface is difficult to 
     detect.
       In interviews Tuesday, military experts said the new weapon 
     was not designed for the kind of counterinsurgency campaign 
     being conducted by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. They 
     said the MOP could prove useful against other targets, 
     notably underground Iranian facilities that are said to be 
     producing nuclear weapons materials.
       ``A weapon like this is designed to deal with extremely 
     hard and buried targets such as you would find in Iran or 
     North Korea,'' said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with 
     the conservative military think tank, the Lexington 
     Institute, who is also a consultant for some defense 
     contractors.
       ``Clearly, in the case of North Korea, the likelihood of 
     military action is receding as the Pyongyang government 
     becomes more tractable,'' said Thompson, referring to recent 
     progress in diplomatic efforts to persuade North Korea to 
     dismantle its nuclear programs.
       John Pike, an expert on defense and intelligence policy 
     with Globalsecurity.org, said the MOP could be used against 
     Iran's main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.
       ``It'll go through it like a hot knife through butter,'' 
     Pike said. He noted that the B-2 would be the best aircraft 
     to deliver the bomb ``if you want it to be a surprise 
     party.''
       It is not clear how quickly the new weapon could be ready 
     for delivery by a B-2 if the $88 million were enacted. A 
     spokesman for Northrop Grumman declined to provide a time 
     frame.
       Not all Democratic lawmakers oppose the weapon. Non-nuclear 
     bunker busters have emerged in recent years as favorites of 
     Democrats concerned about Bush administration's earlier plans 
     to conduct research on nuclear models.
       ``We need to have this as a conventional weapon,'' said 
     Norm Dicks, D-Wash., a member of the House Defense 
     Appropriations Subcommittee. ``It adds to our deterrent.''

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Budget
                             R-1                                Request       House        Senate     Conference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
68  SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE FLIGHT TRAINING...............       12,622       12,622       15,622       15,022
    AT-68 for the Air National Guard........................  ...........  ...........        3,000        2,400
70  B-2 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY BOMBER..........................      244,019      289,219      292,019      297,819
    AF Requested transfer for Radar Modernization Program...  ...........       38,000       38,000       38,000
    Small Diameter Bomb.....................................  ...........        7,200  ...........        5,800
    Massive Ordnance Penetrator for B-2.....................  ...........  ...........       10,000       10,000
71  PERSONNEL RECOVERY SYSTEMS..............................      290,059      190,059       98,059      105,000
    Contract award delay....................................  ...........     -100,000     -192,000      -86,059
    Transfer to Line 57, Aircraft Procurement, Air Force,     ...........  ...........  ...........      -99,000
     only for H-60 upgrades.................................
72  ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT..........................      101,649      103,149      103,649      103,249
    Rapid Replacement of Mission Critical Logistics           ...........        1,500        2,000        1,600
     Electronic Components..................................
76  COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS....................................       53,412       53,412       65,412       64,412
    Space Control Test Capabilities.........................  ...........  ...........        5,000        4,000
    RAIDRS Block 20 (Air Force unfunded requirement)........  ...........  ...........        7,000        7,000
77  SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS SYSTEMS.......................      187,804      197,604      187,804      197,604
    Space Fence.............................................  ...........        9,800  ...........        9,800
79  SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD............      587,004      614,604      587,004      587,004
    MCSB Upgrade............................................  ...........       27,600  ...........            0
80  ALTERNATIVE INFRARED SPACE SYSTEM (AIRSS)...............      230,887       75,887       75,000       75,887
    Program Growth..........................................  ...........     -155,000     -155,887     -155,000
82  ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT...........................        1,985        3,485        1,985        3,185
    1-1000 Warhead Technology Demonstration.................  ...........        1,500  ...........        1,200
84  AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT....................................       10,623       12,623       10,623       12,223
    Improvised Ordnance Detonator-Advanced Development......  ...........        2,000  ...........        1,600
86  LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS....................................       12,649       13,649       12,649       13,649
    ACES II Ejection Seat Improvement.......................  ...........        1,000  ...........        1,000
88  INTEGRATED COMMAND & CONTROL APPLICATIONS (IC2A)........          189       13,189        8,189       17,589
    Program Engineering Interoperability Framework..........  ...........        2,000  ...........        1,600
    Enterprise Services for Reach Back Capabilities (ESRBC).  ...........        3,000  ...........        3,000
    MEDSTARS Integration with Global Combat Support System..  ...........        2,000  ...........        1,600
    Airborne Web Services (AWS) Spiral 5....................  ...........        1,000  ...........          800
    Distributed Mission Interoperability Toolkit (DMIT).....  ...........        5,000  ...........        4,000
    ASSET eWing and Data Fusion Technology Integration Base.  ...........  ...........        5,000        4,000
    Global Awareness Presentation Services (GAPS)...........  ...........  ...........        3,000        2,400
89  INTELLIGENCE EQUIPMENT..................................        1,469        1,469        5,969        5,069
    Electronic Warfare Modeling, Simulation and Wireless      ...........  ...........        4,500        3,600
     Testing Center.........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  I have made known in the course of hundreds of speeches the last few 
years my opposition to the war in Iraq, so I don't need to elaborate on 
that. I have a bill in H.R. 1234 that would bring our troops home and 
set in motion an international peacekeeping and security plan that 
would enable that to move in as our troops leave. I believe the best 
way to support the troops is to bring them home.
  But I rise today to inject a note of caution into these proceedings 
about an item in this appropriation which could have enormous 
consequences for United States policy with respect to Iran.
  It has been well reported that there is a provision in this bill that 
will enable the modification of B-2 Stealth bombers so that they can 
drop what is called a bunker buster or massive ordnance penetrators, as 
they are called, that would go to destroy deep underground targets. 
Every defense analyst who has been interviewed about this item has 
suggested that there is one reason and one reason only why this request 
was expedited by the administration, and that is to retrofit these B-2 
bombers so they will be able to drop 30,000-pound bombs on Iran.
  Now, I know there are Members of this House who would, perhaps, 
support a strike against Iran. I don't. I think diplomacy is the 
preferred path here.
  But I think that if we are looking at this item that is number 70 on 
page 289, we cannot approve of this without thinking of the 
consequences of the administration's approach. Because if you drop 
30,000-pound bombs, bunker busters, on nuclear research labs, this is, 
in effect, creating a humanitarian and ecological disaster. There is 
just no way to avoid it, because you are

[[Page H13319]]

talking about the release of radiation that's inevitable from dropping 
such a bomb.
  Now, some could say, well, that's the idea. It cannot be the idea. We 
are talking about a war crime in motion here. This would have the 
effect of, perhaps, Chernobyl, which released radiation and ruined, 
poisoned land in Russia. It would have human health effects that would 
be catastrophic.
  We have got to think about the implications of this particular item. 
I think it's really important that Congress reflect on it. That's why I 
oppose the bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for 
a ``no'' vote on the previous question, so that we can amend this rule 
and move toward passing a conference report on the bipartisan Military 
Construction-Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act.
  As Mr. Wicker explained just a few minutes ago, the House passed the 
veterans and military funding bill on June 15 by a vote of 409-2, with 
the Senate following suit and naming conferees on September 6. 
Unfortunately, the majority leadership in the House has refused to move 
the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. They 
have even refused to name conferees.
  Why has the majority decided to hold off on moving this bill that has 
such a bipartisan support? Well, according to several publications, 
including Roll Call, the majority intends to hold off sending 
appropriations bills to the President so that they can use an upcoming 
anticipated veto of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill to serve as, and 
I quote, an extension of their successful public relations campaign on 
the SCHIP program.
  Unfortunately, that evidently political move failed yesterday when 
the Senate removed the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 
Appropriations Act from the Labor-HHS bill.

                              {time}  1245

  Recently, Republican Leader Boehner took a step toward naming House 
Republican conferees. Now the Speaker of the House must follow suit and 
take the steps necessary to ensure that work can begin on writing the 
final veterans funding bill that can be enacted into law.
  Every day that the majority chooses not to act on this bill, our 
Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million. Our veterans, Mr. Speaker, 
deserve better than partisan gamesmanship holding their funding back.
  I urge my colleagues to move this important legislation, to allow it 
to move, and oppose the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I ask unanimous consent to insert the text 
of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote 
on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous 
question and on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time and 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

 Amendment to H. Res. 806 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the 
     bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and 
     for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by 
     the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees 
     immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of 
     rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader 
     prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees 
     otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees 
     instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the 
     Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional 
     legislative days after adoption of this resolution.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 196, not voting 19, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1062]

                               YEAS--217

     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)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     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 (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin

[[Page H13320]]


     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     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
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--196

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     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
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Boren
     Braley (IA)
     Buyer
     Carson
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Giffords
     Hunter
     Jindal
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (VA)
     Oberstar
     Rothman
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 
there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. CARNEY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. MARKEY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226, 
noes 184, not voting 22, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1063]

                               AYES--226

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Castor
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kingston
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     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
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--184

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     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
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

[[Page H13321]]



                             NOT VOTING--22

     Ackerman
     Boren
     Braley (IA)
     Buyer
     Carson
     Chandler
     Cubin
     Giffords
     Green, Al
     Hunter
     Jindal
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Miller (FL)
     Murphy (CT)
     Oberstar
     Rothman
     Simpson
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1317

  So the resolution 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. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I was unavoidably delayed 
and missed the vote on H. Res. 806, the Rule providing for 
consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3222, making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2008, and for other purposes (rollcall 1063). Had I been 
present I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 1063.


                          Personal Explanation

   Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 1062 and 
1063, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no'' on both votes.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 806, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3222) making appropriations for 
the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2008, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 806, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
November 6, 2007, at page H12814.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) 
and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.


                             General Leave

  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
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. 3222.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for a 3.5 percent pay 
raise for military personnel. It rejects the President's proposed 
increase in TRICARE copays and funds TRICARE by $1.9 billion, 
appropriates $2.6 billion to provide our military families with the 
immediate need for more counselors, teachers and child care providers. 
It also looks to the future.
  The bill provides $938 billion above the President's request for 
advance construction funding for additional ships, provides an 
additional $980 million to purchase essential National Guard and 
Reserve equipment. We're looking beyond Iraq, trying to take care of 
any threat that may threaten this country in the future.


                Conference Agreement Totals and OverView

  The President requested $463.1 billion in total FY 2008 new budget 
authority for the Department of Defense and intelligence community 
programs that fall under the purview of the Defense Subcommittee. This 
is an increase of $43.3 billion over last year's enacted level--a 10.3 
percent increase in nominal terms. The lion's share of the increase 
over FY 2007 (some 80 percent) was allocated to operation and 
maintenance and procurement programs.
  The conference agreement meets the budget authority allocation of 
$459.6 billion for FY 2008. This figure is a little more than $3.5 
billion below the President's budget request. Nonetheless, the 
conference agreement provides an increase for Defense of $39.7 billion 
over the FY 2007 enacted level, or about 9.5 percent in nominal growth.
  The House bill shifted funding for certain programs between the FY 
2008 base budget bill and the FY 2008 war supplemental in order to meet 
the budget authority allocation. However, because consideration of the 
FY 2008 supplemental has been delayed, some items deferred in the House 
bill have been restored to the base bill in the conference agreement to 
prevent production gaps and other consequences that might arise if 
funding were delayed until next May. This largely affected 
appropriations for the Department's operation and maintenance 
activities and ammunition procurement accounts. The House bill 
recommended an overall reduction to the operation and maintenance 
accounts of some $5.7 billion below the request. The conference 
agreement includes a total reduction of $2.8 billion. Nonetheless, the 
conference agreement fully funds home-station training, equipment 
maintenance, and other key military readiness programs covered in these 
accounts.
  Meeting the allocation also required deferring consideration of 
several high profile programs until the FY 2008 war supplemental is 
taken up. These include:
  The Air Force Reserve Basic Allowance for Housing shortfall
  War-Related Special Pays--Hostile Fire Pay, Hardship Duty Pay, 
Foreign Language Proficiency Pay.
  The ground forces' strategic reserve readiness and equipment 
rehabilitation.
  Funding for additional Stryker vehicles ($1.1 billion).
  The purchase of at least 10 C-17 cargo aircraft ($2.9 billion).
  The purchase of additional Black Hawk MEDEVAC helicopters.
  The Department's Global Train and Equip program.


                               Highlights

  The conference agreement achieves a balance between preparing units 
for near-term deployments, supporting our military members and their 
families, and modernizing our forces to meet future threats. Highlights 
of the agreement are:
  Supporting Our Troops and Their Families: First and foremost, the 
conference agreement recommends robust funding for programs important 
to the health, well-being, and readiness of our forces. In addition, 
the agreement proposes several initiatives that address issues raised 
by troops, their families, and Department of Defense officials in 
testimony before the Committee and visits to military bases in the 
United States and overseas.
  The conference agreement includes funding of about $2.2 billion to 
cover the full cost of a 3.5 percent military pay raise, supported by 
both the House and Senate version of the Fiscal Year 2008 National 
Defense Authorization bill.
  Under their ``grow-the-force'' initiatives, the Army and Marine Corps 
propose to add 7,000 and 5,000 new troops, respectively. The personnel 
costs of these increases are fully covered in the conference agreement, 
as are the associated equipping and outfitting costs. For the Army the 
equipping costs for these new troops amount to more than $4 billion; 
for the Marines the costs exceed $2 billion.
  Home-stationing training, optempo, and flying-hour costs are funded 
at robust levels. All told, the conference agreement provides for a 19 
percent increase in funding for these activities over last year's 
level. Home station training dollars increase by 32 percent and 45 
percent for Army and Marine Corps respectively.
  The military services' force structure and basing infrastructure are 
in a state of transition. The Army, in particular, has been forced to 
manage significant changes in force structure (known as Army 
Modularity), base closures, and a global repositioning of forces, all 
while meeting the demands of war. Based on detailed information 
provided by the Army, the conference agreement includes a House 
initiative to assist the service in meeting this challenge. The 
conference agreement adds $615.7 million to the Army's facilities sus- 
tainment and restoration budget request to offset the growing 
infrastructure costs associated with the global repositioning of its 
forces. This funding, however, will only partially cover the Army's 
needs. It will be necessary to address additional infrastructure 
requirements of approximately $686 million in operation and maintenance 
costs and over a billion in military construction costs during 
consideration of the FY 2008 emergency supplemental request.
  The conference agreement also includes a House initiative to directly 
respond to the needs of our military families. Total funding of $2.6 
billion is recommended for the military's family advocacy programs, 
childcare centers, and dependent's education programs. This amount is 
an increase of $237 million over the Administration's request, with 
most of the increase allocated to DoD's family advocacy programs. This 
program provides counseling, education, and support to military 
families affected by the demands of war and episodes of child or spouse 
abuse.
  The agreement includes several initiatives and additional funding to 
address health care issues raised over the past year, including 
improving the Department's electronic medical records and fostering 
better coordination between DoD and the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
enhancing preventative medicine programs, and advancing military 
medical research. Also, the conference agreement fully covers the $1.9 
billion shortfall in health funding created by the disapproval of DoD's 
proposed fee and premium increases.

[[Page H13322]]

  Preparing for the Future: The conference agreement provides robust 
funding for weapons systems purchases and research programs designed to 
meet future threats.
  The conference agreement supports full funding, as requested, for the 
F-22 tactical fighter aircraft procurement programs.
  The conference agreement includes increases above the President's 
request allocated for development programs that address so-called 
``asymmetric'' threats from weapons of mass destruction and cruise 
missiles. Additional funding of $10 million is provided to pursue 
cruise missile defense, $20 million for chemical and biological defense 
research programs, $21 million to improve fissile material detection 
systems, and $50 million for the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction 
account to counter weapons proliferation and chemical/biological 
agents. Finally, the conferees agreed to add $100 million to improve 
U.S. space situational awareness in light of the Chinese anti-satellite 
missile test in January of this year.
  To support the Army's evolution to a larger, more lethal, and more 
rapidly deployable force, the conference agreement recommends $3.4 
billion for continued development of Future Combat Systems, a cut of 
slightly more than $200 million, $925 million for additional Stryker 
vehicles, and full funding for procurement of four Joint Cargo 
Aircraft.
  Testimony before the committee revealed that our National Guard and 
Reserve forces continue to suffer from equipment shortfalls. To address 
this need the conference agreement recommends providing an additional 
$980 million to purchase Guard and Reserve equipment. These additional 
funds will enhance these forces' ability to meet overseas deployment 
demands, and respond to natural disasters here at home.
  Economic Stability: Fostering economic stability in DoD's weapons 
modernization programs has been a consistent theme of the Committee. As 
such, the conference agreement includes a series of recommendations 
that will help stabilize certain programs by adding funds and/or 
adjusting procurement or development schedules.
  The Navy's shipbuilding program has been beset by planning and 
resource instability for many years, resulting in ever-increasing costs 
to the American taxpayer. Clearly, at current production rates and 
price levels, the Navy will be unable to meet its force structure 
requirements in the future. The conferees respond by providing advance 
procurement funding for an additional five ships. To purchase these 
ships or to initiate planning and construction, the conference 
agreement provides an additional $938 million above the Navy's request 
for shipbuilding and sealift.
  The success of the Department's Joint Strike Fighter, F-35, program 
is critical to our nation's ability to field a modern, capable fighter 
aircraft fleet for decades to come. To maintain stability in this 
program--and limit the potential for cost increases over time--the 
conference agreement recommends an increase of $200 million for F-35 
production enhancements. These funds are to be used to outfit 
facilities with the latest in production line equipment and work-flow 
technology. In addition, the conference agreement recommends adding 
$480 million to continue development of an alternative engine for this 
aircraft, thereby ensuring a competitive base for engine production. 
The conference agreement reduces the JSF budget request by $266 million 
to account for payments the program will receive in fiscal year 2008 
for double billing by the contractor. This reduction does not adversely 
affect the aircraft production schedule.
  Accountability: The Committee's fiduciary responsibility to the 
American taxpayer requires holding accountable organizations, 
officials, and programs that have performed poorly. The conference 
agreement focuses attention on the following issues:
  Fiscal discipline: The conference agreement affirms several important 
House initiatives to improve DoD's fiscal discipline and Congressional 
oversight. (These are described in an appendix to this memorandum.)
  Contracting Out: The conference report also includes recommendations 
to adequately manage and oversee the growth in and cost-effectiveness 
of contracting out. (These are described in an appendix to this memo.)
  Basic research: The conference agreement includes a 35 percent cap on 
the amount of overhead charges that can be charged on a basic research 
grant or contract.


                  Summary of Recommendations by Title

     Military personnel
  The conference agreement provides $105.3 billion for military 
personnel pay and benefits accounts, a slight decrease of $111 million 
to the President's FY 2008 request, but an increase of $5.4 billion 
over the FY 2007 level.
  The military personnel pay raise of 3.5 percent is funded at $2.2 
billion. This rate is 0.5 percent greater than the President requested. 
Also, the conference agreement includes $2.4 billion for retention 
bonuses and recruiting incentives.
  The conference agreement increases the Basic Allowance for Housing, 
BAH, 4.2 percent to $15 billion, which is $1.6 billion over the 
projected FY 2007 enacted level. This continues to ensure no out-of-
pocket expenses for service personnel and supports the privatization of 
housing units for military families.
  Army end-strength is increased by 7,000 in the conference agreement, 
to a total of 489,400, or $5.7 billion over the FY 2007 enacted budget 
amount. The conferees increase and fully fund Marine Corps end-strength 
by 5,000 to a total of 180,000.
  The Navy and Air Force, on the other hand, will continue to reduce 
their manpower levels. Navy plans to cut 12,300 in 2007; Air Force 
intends to reduce their force by about 5,600. The conference agreement 
includes a mandated review of Air Force end-strength requirements.
  The conference agreement assumes the Special Operations Command will 
grow to a level of about 54,250 personnel, up about 6,400 over FY 2007 
levels. By FY 2013, the Command projects its end-strength to grow to 
about 59,000.
     Operation and maintenance
  The conference agreement provides a total of $140.1 billion for 
operation and maintenance accounts, a decrease of $2.8 billion from the 
request, but an increase of $12.8 billion or 10 percent over the FY 
2007 baseline O&M enacted level.
  The conference agreement makes significant reductions to the military 
services' O&M accounts, particularly the Army and Air Force, for the 
following reasons:
  Unjustified growth over FY 2007 funding levels, beyond amounts 
necessary to fully fund all training, optempo, and maintenance 
activities.
  Excessive buildups of spare parts inventories.
  Excess cash in working capital funds, beyond levels necessary to 
ensure cash flow.
  The conference agreement fully funds a 3 percent civilian pay raise, 
which is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2008.
     Procurement and R&D
  Procurement is funded at $98.2 billion, $1.4 billion below the 
request and the House bill. This is still an increase of 21 percent, 
the largest percentage increase of all the major accounts in the DoD 
budget. R&D is funded at a total of $77.3 billion, about $2.1 billion 
more than requested. Of note, the conference agreement provides funding 
for shipbuilding that totals $15 billion. This funding allows for the 
procurement of 5 ships and advance construction funding for an 
additional 5 ships above the President's request.
  Funding of $3.9 billion is provided to fund the purchase of 20 F-22 
aircraft, as requested. Additionally, the conference agreement 
recommends $2.7 billion for the procurement of 12 F-35 Joint Strike 
Fighter aircraft and $2.0 billion for the procurement of 24 F/A-18E/F 
aircraft.
  The conference agreement includes $99 million for modifications to 
the Air Force's combat search and rescue platform, the HH-60.
  Funding for the Missile Defense Agency decreases to $8.6 billion from 
last year's level of $9.4 billion.
     Defense Health Program
  The Defense Health Program is funded at $23.5 billion, an increase of 
$0.9 billion above the President's request.
  Major increases for this activity include: $70 million for the 
Wounded Warrior Assistance program; $138 million for peer reviewed 
breast cancer research; $80 million for prostate cancer research; and 
$10 million for ovarian cancer research.
  HIV/AIDS research and prevention programs receive a total increase of 
$16 million in the conference agreement.
  The conference agreement includes $50 million for the Congressionally 
Directed Medical Research Program.
  The conference agreement also includes $379 million to cover the 
``efficiency wedge'' shortfall.
     Special Operations Command
  The conference agreement for the Special Operations Command is $5.5 
billion, a slight increase to the President's request. This amount 
includes $3.3 billion for operation and maintenance, a reduction of $23 
million from the President's request based on past obligations data and 
other reductions provided by the Command.
  For procurement, the conferees recommend $1.8 billion, a decrease of 
$50 million from the request. This reduction includes a decrease of $23 
million for equipment and modifications associated with one CV-22; the 
agreement provides that funding for one of the five mods requested can 
slip based on the ability of the contractor to outfit the aircraft. The 
conference agreement also includes a $19 million reduction for C-130 
modifications associated with the 30 mm weapons program and problems

[[Page H13323]]

assimilating this weapon onto the C-130. Within the funding provided, 
an increase of $17 million is included for SPEAR body armor and eye 
protection.
  Finally, for R&D the conference agreement includes $450 million, an 
increase of $5 million above the request. Within this amount, an 
increase of $5 million is provided for an ongoing Special OpslNavy 
joint program to improve UAV systems. This initiative is a high 
priority of the House Armed Services Committee.


                       Notable General Provisions

  A provision is included allowing the Department of Defense general 
transfer authority of $3.7 billion. The Department requested transfer 
authority of $5 billion.
  The conference agreement includes a general provision limiting the 
amount of reimbursable indirect costs on a basic research contract to 
not more than 35 percent of the total cost of the contract.
  A new provision is included permitting a competitive expansion of 
domestic VIM/VAR steel production capacity.
  A provision is retained from previous Defense Appropriations acts 
which prohibits the sale of F-22 fighters to foreign countries.
  A provision is included appropriating $10 million for Fisher Houses.
  Funds are provided to the joint U.S.-Israeli Arrow missile defense 
system in a general provision. Also, funds are added for a study of 
future Israeli missile defense requirements.
  A new provision is included which prohibits the Department from 
initiating new programs through reprogramming requests, as proposed by 
the House.
  Another new provision proposed by the House is included which 
establishes a separate ``major force program'' budget and program 
designation for DoD's space programs. This will improve the Committee's 
oversight of these activities.
  The conference agreement includes two provisions restricting the 
establishment of permanent bases in Iraq and prohibiting torture as 
carried in the House bill. These provisions are consistent with 
existing law.
  The conference agreement includes a provision restricting the payment 
of any award fees to contractors who fail to meet contractual 
requirements.

     SELECTED WEAPONS SYSTEMS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FY 2008
                              [$ Millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       2008 Request     2008 Conference
              Program              -------------------------------------
                                      (Qty)      $$      (Qty)      $$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Black Hawk helicopter........      (42)      705      (42)      705
Army Apache helicopter............      (36)      712      (36)      712
Armed Reconnaissance helicopter...      (37)      468      (12)      176
Navy MH-60R (Black Hawk var.).....      (27)      998      (27)      998
Navy MH-60S (Black Hawk var.).....      (18)      503      (18)      503
Navy F/A-18 E/F fighter a/c.......      (24)    2,104      (24)    2,089
Navy EA-18G a/c...................      (18)    1,319      (18)    1,317
Air Force C-17 airlift a/c........  ........      261  ........      261
Air Force F-22 fighter a/c........      (20)    3,153      (20)    3,153
Air Force C-130J cargo a/c........       (9)      686       (9)      686
Navy KC-130J tanker a/c...........       (4)      258       (4)      254
Joint Strike Fighter (R&D)........  ........    3,488  ........    3,910
Joint Strike Fighter (Procurement)      (12)    2,411      (12)    2,411
V-22 airlift a/c..................      (26)    2,693      (26)    2,670
Air Force Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
    Global Hawk                          (5)      514       (5)      514
    Predator......................      (24)      278      (24)      278
    Reaper........................       (4)       58       (4)       58
CVN-21 Aircraft Carrier...........       (1)    2,848       (1)    2,828
DDG-1000 Destroyer................  ........    2,954  ........    2,927
Littoral Combat Ship..............       (3)      910       (1)      339
LPD-17 amphibious ship............       (1)    1,399       (2)    1,392
LPD-17 amphibious ship (AP).......  ........        0  ........       50
Virginia Class submarine..........       (1)    2,499       (1)    3,087
T-AKE auxiliary ship..............       (1)      456       (1)      456
T-AKE auxiliary ship (AP).........  ........        0       (3)      300
LHA(R) amphibious ship............       (1)    1,377  ........    1,375
Army Future Combat System (R&D)...  ........    3,563  ........    3,357
Army Stryker armored vehicle......     (127)    1,039     (104)      925
Army Joint Cargo Aircraft.........       (4)      157       (4)      157
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle.       (5)    1,167       (4)    1,102
Missile warning satellites:
    Space-based Infrared satellite  ........    1,066  ........      985
    Alternative Infrared Space      ........      231  ........       75
     System.......................
Communications satellites:
    Transformational satellite....  ........      964  ........      814
    Advanced EHF..................  ........      604  ........      729
    Wideband Gapfiller............       (1)      345       (1)      345
Global Positioning System:
    GPS III.......................  ........      587  ........      487
    GPS Extension.................  ........       81  ........       35
    GPS User Equipment............  ........       93  ........      156
Missile Defense:
    Missile Defense Agency........  ........    8,796  ........    8,611
    Patriot missiles and MEADS....     (108)      845     (108)      845
                                             ---------          --------
      Total.......................              9,641              9,456
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                appendix

  Sections in the committee report regarding fiscal management and 
contracting out agreed to in the Conference Report.
     Fiscal Management
  For some time now, the Committee has expressed considerable concern 
over an erosion of DoD's fiscal discipline. That erosion is reflected 
primarily in the Department's use of emergency supplemental funding to 
cover what were once considered to be base budget costs, particularly 
weapons modernization and force structure costs. The conference 
agreement begins restoring traditional funding criteria to these 
respective appropriations matters. Recommendations in the conference 
agreement focus on non-incremental war costs and preparing for future 
threats by funding enduring personnel benefits, force structure 
initiatives (such as Army modularity and ``Grow-the-Force'' programs), 
infrastructure improvements, home-station training, and weapons 
modernization programs. Deliberations on the fiscal year 2008 war 
supplemental, however, will be tailored to funding those programs and 
incremental costs that are arguably related to the war efforts. 
Satisfying these criteria requires the shifting of funds between the 
base bill and supplemental requests.
  To ensure that sound budgetary and fiscal procedures are 
reinvigorated, the conference agreement recommends a general provision 
(GP 8106) that requires the Department to include all funding for both 
non-war and war-related activities in the President's fiscal year 2009 
annual Defense budget request.
  PPBS. For over 40 years, the Department of Defense followed the 
Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS) as the process for 
assessing and prioritizing requirements and allocating resources. The 
PPBS process established long-range national security planning 
objectives, analyzed the costs and benefits of alternative programs 
that would meet those objectives, and translated programs into budget 
proposals. The improvements that PPBS offered over previous budgeting 
processes were that: (1) It emphasized objectives, focusing less on 
changes from the prior-year budget and more on long-term objectives, 
and (2) it linked planning and budgeting. PPBS instilled a process that 
clearly defined a procedure for distributing available resources 
equitably among competing programs.
  Beginning in 2003, the PPBS process has been significantly altered, 
splintering planning into two phases and requiring that the program and 
budget reviews occur simultaneously. The process changes were ill-
conceived and have had significant and lasting adverse implications. 
Today, sequential steps to plan adequately or refine a plan into 
budget-level detail do not exist. Further, simultaneous program and 
budget review eliminated the inherent discipline in the process which 
forced resource allocation decisions to occur deliberatively, resulting 
in unnecessary confusion and wasted effort.
  Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
institute a process for assessing and prioritizing requirements and 
allocating resources which is supportive of thorough, deliberative 
program and budget review and more fully utilize the efforts of the 
dedicated and talented DoD civil servants. The conference agreement 
includes several directions to address the budget execution process 
within the Department, as discussed below.
  Re-baselining. The conference agreement directs the Department to 
cease the reallocation of funds through a re-baselining procedure, and 
further directs the Department to comply fully with the reprogramming 
procedures contained in the Statement of Managers.
  Base for Reprogramming Actions.--In the House report it was noted 
that the Department was not able to provide in a timely manner the Base 
for Reprogramming Actions report, or DD form 1414, for the current 
fiscal year. The conference agreement includes a provision (GP 8006) 
that requires the Department to submit the DD 1414 within 60 days after 
the enactment of the Act. In addition, the provision prohibits the 
Department from executing any reprogramming or transfer of funds for 
any purpose other than originally appropriated until the aforementioned 
report is submitted to the Committees of Appropriations of the Senate 
and the House of Representatives.
  New starts.--The conference agreement includes a general provision, 
proposed by the House, that prohibits the initiation of a new start 
program through a reprogramming of funds unless such program must be 
undertaken immediately in the interest of national security and only 
after written notification by the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
  General transfer authority (GTA).--The conference agreement includes 
a general provision, consistent with previous appropriations Acts, 
providing for the transfer of funds for higher priority items, based on 
unforeseen military requirements than those for which originally 
appropriated. This authority has been included annually to respond to 
unanticipated requirements that were not known at the time the budget 
was developed and after which time appropriations were enacted. This 
authority has grown significantly over the past several years, from 
$2,000,000,000 in fiscal years 1997 through 2001, rising precipitously 
in fiscal year 2005 to $6,185,000,000. In fiscal year 2007, the GTA was 
$4,500,000,000 and the Department has requested $5,000,000,000 in GTA 
for fiscal year 2008. While the waging of war certainly has increased 
the need for flexibility in executing the Department's resources, the 
Committee fears that the Department has come to rely on reprogramming 
and transfer authority in lieu of a thoughtful and deliberative budget 
formulation and fiscal management process. In an effort to restore 
fiscal

[[Page H13324]]

management to the Department, while allowing for the flexibility in 
executing appropriations for a nation at war, the conference agreement 
recommends for fiscal year 2008 general transfer authority of 
$3,700,000,000.
  Reprogrammings for operation and maintenance accounts.--Beginning in 
fiscal year 2008, the conference agreement imposes new accountability 
and reprogramming guidelines for programs, projects and activities 
within the Operation and Maintenance appropriations.
     Contacted Services and Acquisition Management
  A year ago, the Committee expressed concern about the increasing 
costs of operating our military forces. To gain better insight about 
the factors generating an increase in operation and maintenance costs, 
the Committee directed, in House Report 109-504, that the GAO prepare a 
comprehensive analysis of contracting out services, as well as other 
factors that may be driving up costs. GAO found that between the years 
2000 to 2005, the cost of O&M service contracts increased more than 73 
percent. Over the same period, DoD civilian pay costs increased 28 
percent, and total DoD pay costs went up by 34 percent. However, 
despite the growing and seemingly unconstrained reliance on contractors 
to accomplish DoD's mission, no system of accountability for contract 
service cost or performance has been established.

  Increased contractor oversight.--The conference agreement includes 
the House directive that the Department provide more robust staffing of 
contractor management and oversight personnel. Additional funds for DoD 
civilian personnel to provide enhanced contract-service management and 
oversight are approved, as shown below:


               Contract-service Management and Oversight

                            [$ in millions]

                                              Conference recommendation
Defense Contract Audit Agency.....................................+10.0
Defense Contract Management Command...............................+14.0
Defense Inspector General.........................................+24.0
Reimbursable GSA Assistance...........................................-

  Minimum Standards for Contracted Security Service Personnel.--DoD 
relies heavily on contracted security, both in the theaters of 
operation as well as at home. The Committee is particularly concerned 
that the oversight and administration of contracted security services 
is woefully inadequate. This lack of oversight seemingly has resulted 
in few, if any, operational standards and rules of engagement to which 
contracted security organizations and individuals must adhere. As such, 
the conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to develop, no later than 
90 days after the passage of this Act, uniform minimum personnel 
standards for all contract personnel operating under contracts, 
subcontracts or task orders performing work that includes private 
security functions. The standards, at a minimum, must include 
determinations about contractors using personnel with criminal 
histories, must determine the eligibility of all private contract 
personnel to possess and carry firearms, and determine what assessments 
of medical and mental fitness of contracted security personnel must be 
undertaken. The Secretary of Defense should develop a mechanism for 
contract accountability that specifies consequences for noncompliance 
with the personnel standards, including fines, denial of contractual 
obligations or contract rescission. Finally, the Secretary is directed 
to establish a clear set of rules of engagement for all contracted 
security personnel operating in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of 
operation. The Secretary shall submit the prescribed standards to the 
congressional defense committees once the 90-day period referenced 
above is completed.
  Improving the Acquisition Workforce.--The conference agreement 
directs the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics to submit, within 90 days of enactment of this Act, a report 
to the congressional defense committees analyzing the current 
acquisition workforce personnel needs and the tools to recruit and 
retain a workforce best positioned to provide appropriate contract 
management and oversight of contractor performance.
  Improvements in contract management need not take years to implement; 
rather, with intent leadership and executive attention, considerable 
efficiencies can be achieved in the near-term. Accordingly, the 
conference agreement reduces the Department's funding requests for 
contracted services by two percent, recognizing contract service 
efficiencies and savings with enhanced oversight.
  And lastly, I would like to thank my staff for their contributions: 
David Morrison, John Blazey, Ann Reese, Kevin Jones, Leslie Albright, 
Sarah Young, Kris Mallard, Paul Terry, Greg Lankler, Tim Prince, Paul 
Juola, Adam Harris, Linda Pagelsen, Sherry Young, Brooke Boyer, Linda 
Muir, John Shank, and Jennifer Miller.

[[Page H13325]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08NO07.001



[[Page H13326]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08NO07.002



[[Page H13327]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08NO07.003



[[Page H13328]]

  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I think this is a very 
good bill.
  As has been mentioned during the debate on the rule, maybe someone 
else might have written it a little bit differently. I don't think any 
legislation is ever totally perfect, but this is a good package. It's a 
good bipartisan package. The subcommittee worked hard; had many, many 
hearings; required the military to justify the requests; and we have 
come up with a pretty good bill.
  Chairman Murtha has chaired this subcommittee before we became the 
majority, then I chaired the subcommittee for 6 years, now he is 
chairman again. We have always worked this bill together in the best 
interests of the United States of America and the troops who provide 
our defense and that support us.
  Mr. Murtha mentioned the pay raise. Yes, we did give a pay raise. We 
wish we could have given more. But the 3.5 percent was more than was 
requested in the budget request.
  We are also providing funding for increasing the size of our 
military. And I don't think anyone would deny the fact that our 
military is tired. They are being used and deployed a lot. And so I 
think it is appropriate that we increase the size of military, 
especially the Army and the Marine Corps.
  Some other things were mentioned by the Members speaking on the rule, 
so I'm not going to repeat them, but I will submit for the Record a 
written statement.
  But there are two points that I want to make: one is, as Mr. Murtha 
suggested briefly, the growth in shipbuilding. Do you remember 
President Ronald Reagan thought that the United States should have a 
600-ship Navy to guarantee that we had free access to the international 
waters of this planet of ours? If we don't take the direction that this 
subcommittee recommends, we would be below 300 ships in our Navy, and 
that is not big enough.
  And so we provide the LPD-17 that was requested by the 
administration. We provide advance funding, which is in addition to the 
request, advance funding for a second LPD-17, which the Navy strongly 
supports. But one of the Navy's premier programs is the Littoral Combat 
Ship, the LCS. We provided for four ships; the other body did not have 
the same number. We prevailed, and the funding for up to four ships 
that the Navy really feels they need for naval superiority are in this 
bill.
  Now the last point that I want to make, Mr. Speaker. So many times in 
our hearings soldiers who would fight on the ground, marines who would 
invade on the beaches have told us over and over again that they will 
go anywhere that their country sends them, they will fight any fight 
that their country asks them to fight, but when they do, if there is an 
aircraft overhead, they want that aircraft to be an American airplane 
manned by an American crew.
  Our air superiority weapon today is the F-15, a very, very good 
aircraft, but very old. The F-15 is older than some of the Members in 
this Chamber. The F-15 is now suffering some metal fatigue. And as you 
know, the F-15 fleet has been grounded because one of our planes 
basically came apart in midair in Missouri. And so we provide funding 
for the F-22, which is the follow-on to the F-15, an aircraft that will 
guarantee America's air superiority. So it's important that we fund 
this package of fighter aircraft. It is important that if we send a 
soldier or marine or any member of our military services to war, that 
the air over head will be controlled by the United States of America 
and not by an enemy. And so this bill goes a long way towards 
accomplishing air superiority.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on Defense 
appropriations for fiscal year 2008.
  This agreement totals over $459 billion, and is $3.5 billion below 
the President's request. However, it is almost $40 billion above the 
fiscal year 2007 level. It contains $11.6 billion in emergency funding 
for additional MRAP vehicles for use by the Army and Marines in Iraq 
and Afghanistan.
  This conference report provides for a number of Presidential and 
Congressional priorities, including: $6 billion in equipment to 
increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps; restoration of the $1.9 
billion cut in the Defense Health program associated with proposed 
increases in insurance co-payments that have not been authorized by 
Congress; an additional $980 million in equipment for the National 
Guard and Reserve, which is important for disaster response throughout 
the country, including the Gulf Coast; full funding for the 
Congressionally proposed 3.5 percent pay increase for the military; 
$4.1 billion for continued development of the Joint Strike Fighter and 
$3.1 billion to procure twenty F-22 aircraft; the F-22 program becomes 
even more important with the revelation that some F-15s are 
experiencing metal fatigue; procurement and advance procurement for 10 
ships for the  Navy, including initial funding for the next-generation 
aircraft carrier.

   There is one item not in this conference agreement that I wish we 
were addressing today. For the past 3 years we have provided a Bridge 
Fund to allow the Defense Department to finance war on terror 
operations until enactment of a supplemental appropriations bill in the 
spring. Last year's bridge totaled $70 billion for 6 months of war 
operations and was broadly supported by both sides of the aisle. This 
conference report contains no such funding.
  When this Defense conference report is enacted into law, Defense 
spending will drop out of the continuing resolution. So will funding 
under the fiscal year 2007 Bridge Fund. Without this authority, the 
Department of Defense will be forced to use base funds to support the 
operations of the global war on terror. By mid to late January, the 
Army will run out of money.
  We need to move quickly in the next few weeks to address this 
shortfall. Our troops in the field need our support, no matter what 
position we take on the war.
  I know there are many on the other side of the aisle that do not want 
to support war on terror funding. Ironically, by voting for this 
conference report without a Bridge Fund, everyone voting for this bill 
will be effectively voting to support war operations. The question is 
whether we do so by forcing the Department to use base funds in this 
bill, or by enacting a Bridge Fund, or by allowing current rates to 
continue until enactment of a supplemental appropriations bill.
  Aside from that, however, I want to reiterate my support for this 
conference  report. I appreciate the cooperation and courtesy shown by 
my Chairman, Mr. Murtha, throughout this process.

  I also want to thank the members of the Defense subcommittee for 
their contributions to this conference report, especially those on the 
Republican side of the aisle. Mr. Hobson, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. 
Tiahrt, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Kingston, and the ranking member of the full 
committee, Mr. Lewis, all made important contributions to this 
legislation.
   Mr. Speaker, again I want to say that I strongly support this 
legislation, and urge its adoption by the House.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, while I support the efforts of 
Democratic leadership to fund vital programs like the Veterans 
Administration and health care for our serving military, I cannot 
support the FY08 Defense Appropriations bill. This final draft provides 
too much money for the wrong priorities and enables the administration 
to continue its tragically misguided Iraq policy.
  I made a pledge to vote against any further funding for the Iraq war 
unless it is used for immediate troop redeployment. I will honor this 
pledge, and I will continue to fight against funding for major weapons 
systems that have little to do with current security threats.
  Programs like the Future Combat System's fighting vehicles and the 
National Missile Defense system would be justifiable if the major 
threat to our security was a modern version of the Soviet Union. It is 
not. I applaud the Democratic cuts to the funding levels requested by 
the President, though we must do better.
  Continuing to pour billions of dollars into these programs is a waste 
of money and a threat to our readiness. We must invest in personnel and 
systems that confront the real and looming threats of terrorists and 
rogue states.
  This bill contains glimmers of hope that we are moving in the right 
direction on defense spending. But I will not vote for a bill that 
funds a Cold War-era military and approves any additional funding for 
the war in Iraq.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, given the many challenges faced by our 
Nation--and our military--I'm pleased that the House moved the Defense 
Appropriations Conference Report so quickly.
  Chairman Murtha is doing some very heavy lifting for the Nation, and 
I thank him for his work as well.
  This bill contains a significant investment for south Texas, which 
contributes notably to the Nation's military readiness.
  As the House point man on readiness matters in our military, I have 
been deeply concerned that the Iraq conflict has eroded the

[[Page H13329]]

readiness of the U.S. Armed Forces, perhaps for a generation.
  At a time when we need to be more ready than before, this is a 
tremendous cause for alarm, as we are prosecuting two separate wars.
  Today's bill addresses many of our current needs associated with:
  A pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United 
States,
  Beefing up today's ground forces--our boots on the ground overseas,
  Addressing the many failings of this administration and the last 
Congress in ensuring our military is ready for any challenge we need to 
meet, such as finally providing oversight of contractors in Iraq and 
Afghanistan,
  Equipping our National Guard to help offset some of the equipment 
lost to active duty needs in Iraq, and
  Providing assistance for the men and women who are hospitalized at 
Walter Reed Army Medical Center, which was the center of tremendous 
shortcomings earlier this year.
  I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his hard work on the 
bill--as well as the rest of the leadership in the House--for their 
deep and abiding respect of the U.S. Armed Forces and the unique 
challenges they face at this moment in time.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 400, 
nays 15, not voting 17, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1064]

                               YEAS--400

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--15

     Baldwin
     Blumenauer
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     McDermott
     Paul
     Payne
     Stark
     Welch (VT)
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Boren
     Braley (IA)
     Buyer
     Carson
     Cubin
     Feeney
     Giffords
     Goode
     Hunter
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Miller (FL)
     Oberstar
     Rothman

                              {time}  1350

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1064, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1064, adoption of 
the conference report to accompany H.R. 3222, Defense Appropriations, I 
was unavoidably detained and missed the vote. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________