[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.''
____________________