Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
It has been so interesting to listen to the debate this evening. I am reminded of my school teacher grandmother and an admonition that she would regularly give us to us, which was "Your actions speak louder than your words." And she would remind us of this time and time and time again.
And, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, quite frankly, I think that what we are seeing is the actions of a majority who are doing their best to ensure, to ensure, that our men and women in uniform do not have the funding that they need.
I represent a lot of these military men and women, and I have heard from them. I am hearing from a lot of the military men and women and their families, and they feel like the modified withdrawal dates in this legislative disaster are nothing more than a vote of no confidence for our troops. They feel that this legislation will embolden our enemies and send a message to the rest of the world that they believe that they are more qualified to prosecute a war than the men and women we are sending to the frontlines. That is something, Mr. Speaker, that they do disagree with.
Our military leadership deserves the opportunity to fight this war with the funding and the support that they need to accomplish their goals. They deserve the ability and the opportunity to win. Yet the leadership in this House continues to try their best to micromanage the war and our troops without the funding that they need.
Despite what the majority leader in the other body and his supporters in the House believe, this war is not lost. Yet this dead-on-arrival supplemental bill will only exacerbate the problem and put our troops in harm's way.
I think that we should show our respect for the men and women in uniform by respecting the job they do. We should do our job: Send the funding to the troops.
Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to our Republican whip, Mr. Blunt.
Mr. Blunt: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding as this debate comes to an end.
The legislation we have debated here tonight was at one point supposed to be an emergency supplemental spending bill for our troops, dispatched to them with urgency, resolution, and purpose. It was supposed to provide money and resources for our fighting men and women on the frontlines so that they had the tools and equipment they needed to finish the task at hand.
Instead the majority turned this important funding package into an exercise in political theater, along the way, disregarding the testimony of our military commanders, the wishes of many in their own caucus, and basic and numerous dictates of our Constitution and our history.
The result has been a final conference report, though we know it really won't be a final conference report. It has been a conference report that imposes artificial deadlines, ties the hands of our commanders in the field, and demotes those tasked with managing an active military engagement to the rank of administrative assistant, forced to check new boxes before exercising the authority they have today to execute their mission.
And it would spend billions of dollars on things that should have been debated at another time. Some of those things have merit. Some of those things I agree with. Some of them I don't. But they shouldn't have been debated as part of this bill.
Those who attended today's briefing with General Petraeus benefited from a clear and sober assessment of our chances for achieving success in Iraq and the consequences we can expect by declaring defeat. But not a single person in that room today, with knowledge of our progress on the ground, believes this war was lost or that our presence there was without merit. Unfortunately, too many in this Chamber seem convinced of the inevitability of defeat.
However this vote turns out, I am hopeful that tonight's roll call will end this effort to undercut our mission by undermining the authority of our commanders in the field. Republicans are willing, and have been willing, to work with the majority on this bill. But we will not waver on our insistence that an emergency troop support bill passed by Congress actually be focused on supporting the troops. The legislation before us tonight fails to meet that most basic standard.
I urge a "no" vote on this bill and ask my colleagues to join me tonight in standing up for the interests of our men and women in harm's way. And hopefully, very soon, we can join together in crafting a bill that will be considered quickly, as this one should have been, passed quickly, with help to the frontlines as soon as possible.
It's time for the political theater to end and the real work to begin.
Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I simply want to take this time to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle. They worked overtime for many days and many nights, and I appreciate it very much, especially the committee staff director, Rob Nabors.
I would also simply say that we have heard twice now from the minority that this bill endorses failure. Not at all. What we have seen the last 4 years is a failure of intelligence. We have seen a failure of the administration to listen to career military. We have seen a failure to plan for the occupation of Iraq. We have seen a failure on the part of the administration to give the Congress accurate information. We have seen a failure to focus on al Qaeda and Afghanistan rather than being diverted to Iraq. We have seen a failure to understand the nature of the civil war in Iraq. And as a result, we have seen a tremendous collapse of American influence in the world. It is tragic.
I urge an "aye" vote for the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Murtha.
Mr. Murtha: Mr. Speaker, apparently a number of people have not read this bill. I know my friend Bill Young has read it.
We have $1.5 billion to cover the full cost of housing allowances for the troops. If you vote against this, you are voting against housing allowances. We have a total of $2.3 billion in this bill to cover the full cost of fielding an additional 36,000 Army troops and 9,000 Marines. If you've read this bill, you'll realize we added $2 billion to address the training and equipment shortfalls in the forces not deployed. One billion dollars is dedicated to purchase Army National Guard equipment. If you vote against it, you're voting against $1 billion for the National Guard. You're voting against an additional $750 million for Afghanistan. You're voting against $2.4 billion with a joint IED task force. In procurement you're voting against the very thing that the military wants most, and that is the new vehicle with the V shape which is resistant to IEDs.
Now, let me talk a little bit about IEDs. In the last 4 months, we have lost more troops than any other period during this war. And I am sorry to hear from a friend of mine's wife who called me and said there was a joke on one of the shows last night by a Republican Presidential candidate who said that he brought an IED back and he put it under this guy's desk. That individual owes an apology to every troop that serves in Iraq.
When we go to the hospital, all of us, we see burn victims. We see victims that are wounded badly. And many of us don't get an opportunity to see the families.
I went to Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, and Fort Stewart. These folks are burned out. The truancy rate is up in the schools. The achievement is down in the schools where our troops' children go. One soldier said to me, a first sergeant, a woman, she says, I hate to tell my children I'm going back to Iraq.
They're going back the third and fourth time.
A general said to me, "I can only take 9 months." And we're sending them back to 18; I hear rumors that they are going to extend them to 18 months.
We have an accountability bill, this is called the "Iraq accountability bill." This war has been so mismanaged that we have the responsibility to force the White House to be accountable. The policy is not set by the military, the policy is set by the White House, and we have to hold the White House accountable for the mistakes that they have made.
We will have appropriated $1.2 trillion for the Defense Department in 1 year. We are spending nearly $10 billion a month in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have 126,000 contractors. And it took us 2 months, the committee that funds every cent that is spent in Iraq and Afghanistan had to spend 2 months to find out there were 126,000 contractors. And we told this to the Secretary of Defense. When one of the Members of Congress said, and one of them is making $300,000 a year, one of the contractors, he said, "That's more than I make." Imagine, we've got a contractor making more than the Secretary of Defense makes. We have a contractor that I saw, when I talked to the Cavalry Division that was in Iraq, here is a guy pumping gas, this is what a soldier told me, he gets $25,000 a year, and right beside him was a guy pumping gas for $80,000 a year. This is what I call accountability.
We have to hold the White House responsible for accountability. Why do they have 126,000 contractors? Because we don't have enough troops. Why are they extending the troops to 18 months, possibly?
And finally, they realized they couldn't send them back before they had a year at home. They had to be trained and they had to be equipped. That is what we say in this bill, we say you've got to be trained and equipped.
I had General Pace come up after the last hearing. I said, General, you've got to tell me you're not sending any troops back there untrained and ill-equipped. And I don't know that this conversation made the difference, but a short time later they announced they are going to extend people, and they are not going to send anybody back unless they had a year at home. It is absolutely essential.
I talked to some of the wives at Fort Bragg. I got one story from the hospitals about how the service was there, they were able to get service anytime they wanted, within a week they were able to get service. Then I talked to the wives, the officers' wives, I said, after talking to them for a while, how many of you got service in a week? No hands went up. How many did it take over a month? Half the hands went up. We've got to take care of the people at home.
Let me tell you something, I get fatigued in going to the hospitals. The caregivers that care for them every day, think what they go through. A nurse called me and said you've got to put some money in the bill, and we did, to take care of caregivers to give them some relief. These caregivers see it every day. So we put $6 million in for Landstuhl program. We put $1 million in for Walter Reed, for Brooke's and for Bethesda. They are burned out. The troops are burned out. What we are trying to do in this bill is hold the White House accountable for the policy mistakes that they made.
We went into Iraq without weapons of mass destruction. I believed it. When I went there the first time, I saw a line drawn around Baghdad. They told me they were going to use biological weapons. I believed that. It took me 6 or 7 months to realize we had made a mistake. We went to Afghanistan, it was the right place to go.
I am inspired by these troops, I am inspired by their families; but they are burned out and they are bearing as much as they can bear. When we sit here, and one of the previous speakers said "we." I hear this all the time, "we're fighting," "we're fighting terrorists." We are not fighting terrorism, we are sitting here in an air conditioned place while they are out there in dust.
And let me tell you about the policy in this latest deployment. I worried. I didn't say anything in public, but I worried. When you send 37 different elements out by themselves among the Iraqis, when you've got interpreters who you don't trust, you are going to expect the kind of disasters you just saw. That's the thing that worries me when you don't have enough troops. And one general said to me, he said, "If you're there more than 9 months, you start making mistakes." Imagine what he's saying? He said, "I question myself after 9 months." A psychologist told us, who came before the committee, he said 3 months in heavy combat, 3 months of going out every day and having IEDs, imagine a Presidential candidate making jokes about IEDs when these kids are blown apart? It's outrageous.
Let me tell you something, we owe a great deal of gratitude to these families and these young people who are doing the fighting. It's not "we" doing the fighting, it's "them" doing the fighting. They deserve accountability from the Congress of the United States, and we are going to demand that from this accountability bill.
Mr. Udall of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this Defense Supplemental conference report.
Earlier, when the House considered the Defense Supplemental bill itself, I voted for it to ensure that America's soldiers get the equipment and resources they need and the top-quality health care they may require when they come home.
And I think the conference report is an improvement on that House bill.
As I said when the House debated the initial bill and again during debate on the motion to instruct conferees, I did not believe it was a good idea for the bill to include a date certain for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq. So I'm glad that language has been made more flexible in the conference report. It includes a goal of March 2008 for completing the redeployment of U.S. combat troops, and allows sufficient troops to remain to protect U.S. military and civilians in Iraq, conduct counterterrorism operations, and train Iraqi Security Forces. I remain convinced that we should steer clear of arbitrary public deadlines for military actions and focus instead on realistic diplomatic and political goals. Our military needs flexibility to be able to link movements of U.S. troops to the realities of the situation on the ground, and successful diplomacy requires such flexibility as well.
My vote for the conference report is not a vote to support the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. We are 4 years into a war the Bush administration assured us would be short and decisive. The administration's misjudgments, lack of planning and poor leadership have made a bad situation worse--and the tactic of increasing troops for a temporary "surge" is no substitute for what is needed, namely, a strategy for containing civil war and a wider regional war.
But whatever may be said about the wisdom of invading Iraq 4 years ago--and I am one who believed it was a mistake to do so--the fact is that we are still deeply engaged in Iraq. So long as our troops are in the field, we must provide them what they need. Beyond supplying our soldiers, however, we must extricate them from what objective defense experts have characterized as an emerging civil war.
Disengaging from that civil war is the purpose of the provisions in the conference report designed to hold the president accountable to the benchmarks set by his own administration and the Iraqi Government-- including enactment of a hydro-carbon law; conducting of provincial and local elections; reform of current laws governing the de-Baathification process; amendment of the Constitution of Iraq; and allocation of Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects.
I strongly support that approach because I am convinced that holding the president and the Iraqi Government accountable for achieving these benchmarks will provide us with the leverage necessary to pressure the Iraqi Government to forge the political solution we all know is required. In fact, Defense Secretary Gates has acknowledged that this provision in the House-passed bill has been helpful by showing the Iraqis that American patience is limited.
This conference report is an important step toward what I think must be our goal--a responsible end to the war in Iraq, based on a strategy of phased withdrawal of troops, accelerated diplomacy and redeployment that is based on Iraqi stability and not arbitrary deadlines.
The conference report fully funds our troops, providing $4 billion more for the troops than the president requested. It honors our veterans, providing $1.8 billion more for our veterans' unmet health care needs, including additional funds for treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury care and research. It strengthens our military, providing $2 billion more to create a Strategic Readiness Reserve and address the serious readiness crisis our military is facing.
It also protects our troops by limiting deployment schedules and setting minimum readiness standards--based on current Defense Department standards--for U.S. troops deploying to the region. The president could waive these requirements but only by certifying in writing to Congress that waiving them would be in the interest of national security.
The conference report also provides $52.5 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and provides $9.7 billion for the Afghan and Iraqi Security Forces to help them assume greater responsibility for their nations' security.
And the conference report includes $3.1 billion to fully fund the Pentagon's FY07 request for the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission's recommendations, which is vitally important for Ft. Carson as it prepares to expand and for other military installations in Colorado.
On the non-military side, the conference report includes critically important funding for farmers and ranchers in southeastern Colorado who were recently hit hard by winter storms. Thousands of cattle were killed in storms worse than the October 1997 storm that killed approximately 30,000 cattle and cost farmers and ranchers an estimated $28 million. The struggles that family agriculture producers and small counties face are significant and are having a negative impact on the livelihood of hundreds of farmers and ranchers and their communities. So I am pleased that the Colorado delegation was successful in persuading the conferees to include financial assistance for farmers and ranchers, including for those affected by Colorado's recent blizzards.
Mr. Speaker, many of us who voted against authorizing the President to rush to war in Iraq were worried that while it would be easy to eliminate the Saddam Hussein regime, the aftermath would be neither easy nor quick. Sadly, our fears have proven to be justified. And now, as the Pentagon has finally admitted in its most recent quarterly report, the situation in Iraq is "properly descriptive of a civil war."
Insisting on keeping our troops in the middle of that kind of internecine war is not a recipe for victory; it is only a prescription for quagmire. And as a new Foreign Relations Council report notes, we bear responsibility for developments within Iraq, but are increasingly without the ability to shape those developments in a positive direction.
We need to be scaling back our military mission in Iraq. We need to make the U.S. military footprint lighter--not in order to hasten defeat or failure in Iraq, but to salvage a critical measure of security and stability in a region of the world that we can ill afford to abandon.
But as we do so, we must work to avoid a collapse in the region--not only because we have a moral obligation to the people of Iraq, but also because our national security has been so badly compromised by the Bush administration's failures there. The President's decision to take the nation to war has made our country less safe. We need to change course and chart a path that enhances our national security and sets the right priorities for the war on terrorism and struggle against extremists.
This conference report begins to chart this path, and I will support it. I hope the president will reconsider his stated intention of vetoing it.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference report to accompany H.R. 1591.
As I have said on previous occasions, Congress has every right to limit the use of appropriated funds. In this instance, I disagree with the manner in which my Democratic colleagues have chosen to do so.
The Iraqi government needs to understand our patience is not unlimited. Indeed, establishing benchmarks could well have a useful purpose in the effort to have the Iraqis take more decisive steps towards autonomy. Making these benchmarks public and tying them to a specific date by which we must begin to withdraw our troops, however, is a mistake. It sends the wrong message to our troops, and it gives the enemy invaluable information.
Along with many of my colleagues, I want our troops to leave Iraq as quickly as possible. Setting a public date by which this must happen, however, will ultimately create more problems than it solves.
Mr. Ortiz: Mr. Speaker, the way to support the troops is to give them what they need on the battlefield, and what they need when they return home from their service to reset--or rest and fix the force for future missions.
This government must be accountable to our troops and their families, the only people actually carrying the burden for these wars today … along with our children, for whom we are leaving the cost.
Today's bill provides much needed money for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan … policy that requires accountability from the Administration … and funding to heal the readiness of our troops.
It is not the best bill we could get, but you never have a perfect bill.
But the predicament we are in now demands we support this bill.
We have so many emergencies on our doorstep now … mostly because the last Congress refused to see the negative impact operations in Iraq had on our military readiness, leaving us vulnerable as a nation … and leaving important national business undone.
Support for the troops is entirely about giving them what they need to fight the battles we've committed them to fight … and this legislation does just, with one eye on the future … something previous Congresses failed to do.
I wish the Congress would have put more energy into readiness oversight over the past 5 years to prevent the current situation … but all we can do today is go forward.
I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting our troops--and this funding for them.
Today's bill addresses many of these readiness concerns, with additions above the President's request to support our troops, including:
It also fully funds the BRAC accounts so communities like the Coastal Bend of Texas--and others adversely affected by base closure decisions--can plan appropriately for that eventuality.
So many Americans are coming home alive--yet traumatized in their minds or bodies--to an extent we have never seen before. The scandalous treatment of heroes at Walter Reed--and the fact that it took a newspaper story to change it--is testament to the gigantic challenges facing military and veterans' health care.
The Supplemental includes funding for new initiatives to enhance medical services for active duty forces and mobilized personnel, and their family members (appropriating $2.1 billion more than the President requested.) These initiatives include:
The bill includes $1.8 billion over the President's request to address the health care needs of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and the backlog in maintaining VA health care facilities, including:
This bill is an excellent starting point for this new Congress to begin the long overdue oversight of the defense department. We are far ahead of the past Congresses in giving our troops the true support they need--with appropriate funding and acknowledgment of the strain and burden of Iraq.
While the ideal situation for Congress is for the authorizing committee to determine policy, that's coming very soon. I am grateful to Chairman Murtha for the extraordinary lengths we've gone to in this bill to protect our soldiers by certifying their readiness, protecting the military readiness of the United States.
While this bill is not perfect, it is an extraordinary first step.
As the Readiness Subcommittee Chair, let me offer the House some perspective on the current state of our readiness:
In the National Intelligence Estimate declassified on Feb. 2, the U.S. intelligence services note that--absent a remarkable reversal of fortunes in Iraq--they find that "the overall security situation will continue to deteriorate at rates comparable to the latter part of 2006." Further, the NIE determines: "even if the violence is diminished … Iraqi leaders will be hard pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in the time frame of this estimate"--which is 12-18 months.
The NIE goes on to say that if the U.S. were to leave Iraq, a greater, wider civil war would erupt, saying: "the ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] would be unlikely to survive as a non-sectarian national institution, and neighboring countries might intervene openly in the conflict."
Now, common sense tells me that will be the case whenever we leave . . . today, manana, this summer, next year … or 50 years from now. Whenever we leave Iraq, the unclassified intelligence estimate guides us on what we can expect. Our choice is in how long we remain … and how many more brave and patriotic volunteers--who carry the battle for this Nation--are lost in Iraq.
Today we have a chance to begin that change--in the purest way we can support the troops … men and women, and their families, who are alone in carrying the burden for the Iraq war.
The readiness of our next deployers--our ability to be prepared for current and future threats--is diminished due to the war in Iraq. We've worn out our force and their equipment, and that has huge implications for our ability to handle the threats to come.
The GAO has looked at this … and come away saying the Army itself "cannot determine the extent to which the existing inventory reflects what the Army needs" … and GAO notes that: "until these strategic and management challenges are addressed, the Army will face uncertain risks should new conflicts occur."
GAO also reports that all services "have drawn heavily from their prepositioned stocks to support [the ongoing wars]" … and "these sustained military operations are taking a toll on the condition and readiness of military equipment and the Army and Marine Corps face a number of long-term challenges that will affect the timing and cost of equipment repair and replacement."
GAO concludes: "the Army's decisions today have profound future implications for the entire department and potentially affect our ability to respond to a conflict."
Last year, Congress established a Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, which has also reported back to us. They tell us point blank: "DoD's failure to appropriately consider National Guard needs and funding requirements has produced a National Guard that is not fully ready to meet current and emerging missions."
The Commission says more pointedly: "The lack of sufficient and ready equipment is a problem common to active and reserve components.
In particular, the equipment readiness of the Army National Guard is unacceptable and has reduced the capability of the U.S. to respond to current and additional major contingencies, foreign and domestic."
Army Chief of Staff Schoomaker told the Commission: despite the readiness of troops overseas, "88 percent of the forces that are back here in the U.S. are very poorly equipped today in the Army National Guard."
The Commission also noted that state governors "have become increasingly concerned about whether their National Guard forces would be available to respond to emergencies here at home."
Mr. Stark: Mr. Speaker, I must again make the difficult decision to vote "present" on the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act.
I support the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
I can't in good conscience vote to fund President Bush's War in Iraq. This senseless conflict has already taken the lives of more than 3300 American and tens of thousands of Iraqis. It has undermined the United States' prestige in the world, led to the outbreak of a Shiite-Sunni civil war, and cost us $379 billion. Those funds--and the tens of billions of dollars for the war in today's legislation--would be better spent on education, healthcare and other unmet domestic priorities.
Nor can I can vote, however, against a Democratic majority intent on taking America's Iraq policy in a new direction. I applaud Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership for working toward the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. My Republican colleagues voting against today's legislation are doing a disservice to both our troops and our security by supporting an open-ended commitment in Iraq. I cannot join their opposition to holding President Bush accountable.
My "present" vote is therefore an expression of strong opposition to the war's continuation for even one more day and strong support for the Democratic Congress' attempt to get an arrogant and stubborn President to change course in Iraq.
I urge the President to reconsider both his threat to veto this bill and his insistence on keeping our troops in harm's way. It is long past time for Bush to end a war he should never have begun.
Ms. Woolsey: Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to oppose this Conference Report. Our ultimate goal should be to bring our troops home in the fastest and safest way possible. Unfortunately, this Conference Report does not achieve that goal. I will continue to work with my colleagues to provide for a fully-funded withdrawal and to bring our troops home for the holidays.
Let me make myself very clear. I will not stop, I will not rest and I will not back down in my fight until every last American soldier is home safely with their families.
Mr. Blumenauer: Mr. Speaker, by calling for a withdrawal date from Iraq, today the House is making a compromise that marks another stage in the unfortunate struggle with the President to end the war. Yet despite our hard work and the desire of the American people, this bill faces a veto from a President who is out of touch both with what the American people and the Iraqi people want: winding down the presence of American troops who are stuck in the midst of a civil war.
This is not the precise legislation I would have written, but it is a fair compromise that reflects the mindset of Americans who voted for a new direction in Iraq. The U.S. spends $8 billion a month on the war, and Oregon has already lost 54 brave men and women in Iraq. I have opposed the war from the start, and this bill hastens the day when we bring the tragedy of the Iraq War to a close. I urge support for it.
Mr. Oberstar: Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rescission of $683 million of highway contract authority that is included in the Conference Report on H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, 2007.
The Conference Report provides an additional $683 million for the Federal Highway Administration's ("FHWA") Emergency Relief Program. Section 4952 of the Conference Report designates this appropriation as an emergency requirement, for which no offset is required.
Despite the fact that no offset is required, the Conference Report rescinds $683 million in unobligated balances of highway funds that have been apportioned to the States. This rescission is highly gratuitous, as it is neither required nor effective as an offset for the supplemental appropriation to the Emergency Relief Program.
Rather than offsetting the supplemental appropriation for the Emergency Relief Program, the $683 million rescission of highway contract authority offsets other spending under the FY 2007 discretionary budget authority cap.
A similar provision was included in the Senate-passed version of the bill. The Senate amendment provided an emergency supplemental appropriation of $389 million for the FHWA's Emergency Relief Program, and rescinded $389 million in highway contract authority.
On April 23, 2007, I wrote to the conferees, strongly objecting to this unnecessary rescission of highway contract authority, and urged them to strike the rescission in conference. Instead, the conferees increased both the appropriation and the rescission to $683 million.
Madam Speaker, the rescission of highway contract authority is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. This rescission violates clause 2 of Rule XXI of the Rules of the House.
Programmatically, I am concerned because of the effect these types of rescissions have on the Federal-aid Highway Program and, specifically, the ability to ensure that our nation's transportation system provides modal choices.
In recent years, the Appropriations Committees have increasingly relied on highway contract authority rescissions to finance non-highway spending in appropriations acts. In addition, more than a dozen states have chosen to apply such rescissions disproportionately to cut contract authority for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program, the Bridge program, and transportation enhancement funds.
I am particularly concerned with the treatment of the CMAQ program under these types of rescissions. The CMAQ program provides funding for projects and programs that reduce transportation-related emissions in areas that do not meet Clean Air Act air quality standards (i.e., nonattainment and maintenance areas).
Although CMAQ funds represent only about 4-5 percent of highway apportionments each year, CMAQ funds have accounted for about 20 percent of total highway funds rescinded in recent years. In FY 2006 states rescinded $881 million in CMAQ funds. Almost one of every four dollars rescinded by the States in FY 2006 came from the CMAQ program.
Comparing the treatment of CMAQ to other highway programs further illustrates the disproportionate cuts of these rescissions. In FY 2006, rescissions as a percentage of the total amount made available for programs are:
The Transportation Enhancements program has also received disproportionate contract authority cuts under the rescissions. The Transportation Enhancements program provides funds for bike paths, pedestrian walkways, historic preservation, and other activities that expand transportation choices and enhance the transportation experience.
In FY 2006, states rescinded $602 million in Transportation Enhancements funds, 15 percent of all rescissions in that year. Texas alone rescinded $223 million of Transportation Enhancements funding and the Texas Department of Transportation stated that it would not fund any transportation enhancement projects in that fiscal year. Texas' actions, which are facilitated by these contract authority rescissions, are directly contrary to our federal efforts to develop a balanced, multimodal surface transportation system.
During consideration of the FY 2004 Transportation-Treasury-HUD Appropriations bill, the Committee faced a similar effort to cut transportation enhancements funding. The bill, as reported by the Appropriations Committee, included a provision that would have prohibited funds from being used for the ten percent set aside for transportation enhancements under the Surface Transportation Program. Subcommittee Chairman Petri and I offered an amendment to strike the anti-enhancements provision from the bill and the House overwhelmingly passed the amendment by a recorded vote of 327-90. This vote illustrates the tremendous support that exists among Members of Congress for transportation enhancements, the type of program that is disproportionately harmed by highway contract authority rescissions such as the one included in the Conference Report before us today.
Therefore, for both policy and procedural reasons, I oppose the rescission of highway contract authority as a means to offset non- highway spending elsewhere in the budget.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this House will have an opportunity to reconsider this decision in a future Supplemental Appropriations bill and I would like to make clear that, with the urgent climate change issues that our nation faces, I strongly oppose efforts to allow the continued raid of CMAQ and Enhancements funding.
Mr. Rangel: Mr. Speaker, I extend my strong support "The Small Business and Work Opportunity Act of 2007" as included in the Conference Report to H.R. 1591. I am glad that both chambers of Congress, in passing this Conference Report, have spoken to the fact that an increase in the Federal minimum wage enjoys broad bipartisan, bicameral support, as does the approximately $5 billion in small business tax relief also included in the agreement.
Passage of the Conference Report is an important step in achieving an important goal--ensuring an increase in the Federal minimum wage for hardworking American taxpayers. The minimum wage has not increased in more than nine years--the longest period in the history of the law. During that time, Members of Congress have received a $31,600 pay raise. More astounding is the fact that an average CEO earns more before lunchtime in one day than a minimum wage earner earns all year.
Raising the minimum wage to from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over two years would benefit 13 million Americans including 7.7 million women, 3.4 million parents, and 4.7 million people of color, and provide an additional $4,400/year for a family of three, equaling 15 months of groceries, or over two years of health care. It is wrong to have millions of Americans working full-time and still living in poverty, and at $5.15 an hour, a full-time minimum wage worker makes $6,000 less than the poverty level for a family of three.
Americans overwhelmingly support increasing the Federal minimum wage. An Associated Press poll conducted in January showed almost 80% of those polled supported the $2.10 increase. In fact, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly supports increasing the minimum wage, and passed H.R. 2 with 315 votes in favor. The President has also been supportive of the increase. I hope that combining the tax provisions of this bill with a Federal minimum wage increase will encourage the President's quick action on signing these provisions into law without further delay.
The "Small Business and Work Opportunity Act of 2007" as included in the Conference Report to H.R. 1591 expands and extends the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC), which serves as an incentive to encourage employers to hire individuals from targeted groups which typically experience barriers to work. The WOTC provision in the Conference Report offers additional incentives to hire disabled veterans. The Conference Report also extends and expands the increased expensing amounts for small businesses, allowing them to invest in new technology and equipment. And as a complement to the minimum wage increase, the tax provisions of the Conference Report allow restaurants to continue claiming the full tip credit despite any increase in the Federal minimum wage. Finally, the Conference Report provides a permanent waiver of the individual and corporate AMT limitations to ensure that small businesses are fully able to claim the WOTC and the credit for Social Security taxes paid with respect to cash tips.
The Conference Report contains provisions that continue the Federal government's commitment to the still-recovering areas hit by Hurricane Katrina. It would extend the placed-in-service date as applies to special credits designed to encourage development of low-income housing. The extension of this deadline helps accelerate the use of the credits by eliminating the reallocation process that otherwise would be used. The Conference Report also modifies a tax-exempt bond financing program to allow funds to be used to refinance existing mortgages on homes that were damaged by the hurricanes in the area.
Finally, the tax provisions of the "Small Business and Work Opportunity Tax Act" as included in the Conference Report to H.R. 1591 are fiscally responsible and fully offset in a revenue-neutral package. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Baucus and I have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of the bill. The technical explanation expresses the Committee's understanding and legislative intent behind this important legislation. It is available on the Joint Committee's website at www.house.gov/jct.
Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, due to medical reasons, I will be unable to vote on the conference report on H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007. However, if I had been in Washington, D.C. for the vote, I would have opposed this measure.
I believe that Congress is making a mistake with these attempts to substitute the judgment of military commanders in theater with the micromanaging of politicians in Washington.
Furthermore, I do not believe that setting artificial timetables for withdrawal of our forces from Iraq is in the best interests of our country or our military. While there have been mistakes made in Iraq, I believe that enacting this bill into law would have dangerous consequences for our Nation, Iraq, and the Middle East.
The Iraqi government continues to need our strong support as they rebuild their country, and this legislation would turn our backs on that country in its time of need.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report on H.R. 1591, the Supporting Our Troops and Veterans' Health Care Act.
This legislation will support our troops and veterans, hold the Bush Administration and Iraqi government accountable and begin withdrawing our troops from Iraq by October 2007 or sooner. It will also provide emergency funding for critical programs that have suffered from years of neglect.
This supplemental appropriations bill provides emergency funding for critical programs that have long been underfunded by the Republicans. It includes $650 million to correct the funding shortfall in the State Children's Health Insurance program so that hundreds of thousands of children will not lose their health care. It provides $6.9 billion for Gulf Coast hurricane relief and recovery. The bill also adds $400 million to LIHEAP (Low Income Heating Assistance), as well as providing $1.8 billion to remedy the unconscionable state of our military and veterans' health care systems. All of these issues are emergencies in their own right and rise to the level of inclusion in this emergency supplemental spending bill.
The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act requires the Iraqi government to meet the security, political and economic benchmarks established by the President in his address of January 10th, including improvements in the performance of the Iraqi security forces, a greater commitment by the Iraqi government to national reconciliation, and reductions in the levels of sectarian violence in Iraq.
In the bill, the President must determine that substantial progress is being made on security, political, and reconstruction benchmarks by July 2007. If the President cannot certify progress, redeployment must start by July with a goal of being completed within 180 days. If the President can certify progress by July 2007, redeployment must begin by October 1, with goal of completion within 180 days.
The bill ensures that our troops have the tools and resources they need to do the job they have been asked to do. It prohibits the deployment of troops who are not full trained, equipped and protected according to current Department of Defense standards. The President can only deploy unprepared troops if he certifies, in writing, to Congress, that deploying those troops is in the national interest. He must make similar certifications to lengthen troop deployments beyond DoD standards or to send troops back into battle who have not had enough time between deployments. The bill also provides funding so the Veterans Administration can meet the obligations of a new generation of veterans, particularly by ensuring that they will have the medical care they need.
I have been an outspoken opponent of military action against Iraq since the day the administration started beating the war drums. My preference would have been to vote for a stronger bill with a binding date certain for ending the war. I would have preferred not to include waivers to allow the President to send less than fully equipped and rested troops into battle. I have additional concerns about the section of the bill that allows an unspecified number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq after the March 2008 deadline to train Iraqis and fight terrorism.
However, I support this legislation in spite of these deficiencies because I believe it is an affirmative step towards our ultimate goal of ending the war. This bill is not everything that I would have liked, but it represents a critical turning point. No longer will this body uncritically hand over billions of dollars for the President to wage an endless war. Congress has a Constitutional responsibility to provide accountability--a responsibility that was shirked for the first 6 years of the Bush presidency while Republicans controlled Congress. Today, we have followed through on that critical duty. We will send a bill to the President that would definitively change our course in Iraq. Mr. Bush should make the right decision and support our plan for change that is overwhelmingly endorsed by the American people. If he follows through on his veto threat, he will be the one who has failed to provide our troops and our veterans with the resources they need. He will be the one who has rejected his own benchmarks to measure success in Iraq. He will be the one responsible for the ongoing loss of American life in Iraq.
The President and most Congressional Republicans ask that we continue to fund this war with "no strings attached." But the United States cannot afford an open-ended commitment to a war without end. It is the responsibility of this Congress to devise a means to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq so that we can reclaim our position of leadership in the world and direct our resources back towards urgent needs here at home. I believe that this bill moves us towards these goals in an effective and responsible way.
Mr. Etheridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important legislation. This supplemental appropriations conference report contains vitally important funding for critical priorities and unmet needs. For example, this bill includes $1.7 billion more than the President requested for military health care, including funds to correct the scandalous conditions at Walter Reed and other military hospitals. It includes another $1.7 billion for veterans' health care, $2.5 billion for improving the readiness of our stateside troops and $1.4 billion for military housing allowances. A nation at war simply must provide necessary funds to support our troops.
In addition, this legislation includes $3.1 billion for military construction to implement the BRAC mandates that impact Fort Bragg in my Congressional District and military communities all across the country. It is important to note that the former Republican Congressional Majority failed to pass the military construction appropriations and imperiled these priority projects. This legislation corrects that failure.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will assert some measure of oversight and accountability to a war policy that has been tragically mismanaged by this administration for too long. We need a new direction to rebuild our military and refocus on the true threat to America from al Qaeda and the Islamist jihadists who attacked us on 9/11. We must deploy our military might to eliminate Osama bin Laden and the true "grave and gathering threat" to America.
We must pass this legislation to send a wake-up call to the President that "Stay The Course" is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable policy. I urge my colleagues to support a new direction and vote for the conference report.
Should the President veto this bill, as he has indicated, I believe he should then meet with Congressional Leadership to work together and forge a consensus on these vitally important matters.
Mrs. Capps: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the conference report on the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act.
For more than 3 years, when the President came to Congress to ask for funding for Iraq, the Republican leadership's only question was, "How much?"
When the President wanted to extend the tours of duty for troops already deployed and imposed stop-loss orders, the Republican leadership's only question was, "How soon?"
And when the President decided to send more troops to Iraq in one of the failed surges, the Republicans only asked, "How many?"
Madam Speaker, today we end the era of Congressional fealty to the President's failed policies in Iraq.
Today we stop writing blank checks for this war.
We vote today for a new direction in Iraq.
My constituents know that we can't win this war militarily. They know that it's time to start bringing our troops home.
It's time for the President to stop the rhetoric and work with us to end this war.
Support the troops. Bring them home.
The Speaker pro tempore: Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The Speaker pro tempore: The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the conference report on H.R. 1591 will be followed by a 5-minute vote on H. Res. 320.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, nays 208, answered "present" 2, not voting 5, as follows:
| Roll No. 265 - Conference Report on H.R. 1591 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yeas--218 | ||||
| Abercrombie | Ackerman | Allen | Altmire | Andrews |
| Arcuri | Baca | Baird | Baldwin | Bean |
| Becerra | Berkley | Berman | Berry | Bishop (GA) |
| Bishop (NY) | Blumenauer | Boswell | Boucher | Boyd (FL) |
| Boyda (KS) | Brady (PA) | Braley (IA) | Brown, Corrine | Butterfield |
| Capps | Capuano | Cardoza | Carnahan | Carney |
| Carson | Castor | Chandler | Clarke | Clay |
| Cleaver | Clyburn | Cohen | Conyers | Cooper |
| Costello | Courtney | Cramer | Crowley | Cuellar |
| Cummings | Davis (AL) | Davis (CA) | Davis (IL) | DeFazio |
| DeGette | Delahunt | DeLauro | Dicks | Dingell |
| Doggett | Donnelly | Doyle | Edwards | Ellison |
| Ellsworth | Emanuel | Engel | Eshoo | Etheridge |
| Farr | Fattah | Filner | Frank (MA) | Giffords |
| Gilchrest | Gillibrand | Gonzalez | Gordon | Green, Al |
| Green, Gene | Grijalva | Gutierrez | Hall (NY) | Hare |
| Harman | Hastings (FL) | Herseth Sandlin | Higgins | Hill |
| Hinchey | Hinojosa | Hirono | Hodes | Holden |
| Holt | Honda | Hooley | Hoyer | Inslee |
| Israel | Jackson (IL) | Jackson-Lee (TX) | Jefferson | Johnson (GA) |
| Johnson, E. B. | Jones (NC) | Jones (OH) | Kagen | Kanjorski |
| Kaptur | Kennedy | Kildee | Kilpatrick | Kind |
| Klein (FL) | Langevin | Lantos | Larsen (WA) | Larson (CT) |
| Levin | Lipinski | Loebsack | Lofgren, Zoe | Lowey |
| Lynch | Mahoney (FL) | Maloney (NY) | Markey | Matsui |
| McCarthy (NY) | McCollum (MN) | McDermott | McGovern | McIntyre |
| McNerney | Meehan | Meek (FL) | Meeks (NY) | Melancon |
| Miller (NC) | Miller, George | Mitchell | Mollohan | Moore (KS) |
| Moore (WI) | Moran (VA) | Murphy (CT) | Murphy, Patrick | Murtha |
| Nadler | Napolitano | Neal (MA) | Oberstar | Obey |
| Olver | Ortiz | Pallone | Pascrell | Pastor |
| Payne | Pelosi | Perlmutter | Peterson (MN) | Pomeroy |
| Price (NC) | Rahall | Rangel | Reyes | Rodriguez |
| Ross | Rothman | Roybal-Allard | Ruppersberger | Rush |
| Ryan (OH) | Salazar | Sanchez, Linda T. | Sanchez, Loretta | Sarbanes |
| Schakowsky | Schiff | Schwartz | Scott (GA) | Scott (VA) |
| Serrano | Sestak | Shea-Porter | Sherman | Shuler |
| Sires | Skelton | Slaughter | Smith (WA) | Snyder |
| Solis | Space | Spratt | Stupak | Sutton |
| Tanner | Tauscher | Thompson (CA) | Thompson (MS) | Tierney |
| Towns | Udall (CO) | Udall (NM) | Van Hollen | Velazquez |
| Visclosky | Walz (MN) | Wasserman Schultz | Watson | Watt |
| Waxman | Weiner | Welch (VT) | Wexler | Wilson (OH) |
| Wu | Wynn | Yarmuth | ||
| Nays--208 | ||||
| Aderholt | Akin | Alexander | Bachmann | Bachus |
| Baker | Barrett (SC) | Barrow | Bartlett (MD) | Barton (TX) |
| Biggert | Bilbray | Bilirakis | Bishop (UT) | Blackburn |
| Blunt | Boehner | Bonner | Bono | Boozman |
| Boren | Boustany | Brady (TX) | Brown (SC) | Brown-Waite, Ginny |
| Buchanan | Burgess | Burton (IN) | Buyer | Calvert |
| Camp (MI) | Campbell (CA) | Cannon | Cantor | Capito |
| Carter | Castle | Chabot | Coble | Cole (OK) |
| Conaway | Crenshaw | Culberson | Davis (KY) | Davis, David |
| Davis, Lincoln | Davis, Tom | Deal (GA) | Dent | Diaz-Balart, L. |
| Diaz-Balart, M. | Doolittle | Drake | Dreier | Duncan |
| Ehlers | English (PA) | Everett | Fallin | Feeney |
| Ferguson | Flake | Forbes | Fortenberry | Fossella |
| Foxx | Franks (AZ) | Frelinghuysen | Gallegly | Garrett (NJ) |
| Gerlach | Gillmor | Gingrey | Gohmert | Goode |
| Goodlatte | Granger | Graves | Hall (TX) | Hastert |
| Hastings (WA) | Hayes | Heller | Hensarling | Herger |
| Hobson | Hoekstra | Hulshof | Hunter | Inglis (SC) |
| Issa | Jindal | Johnson (IL) | Johnson, Sam | Jordan |
| Keller | King (IA) | King (NY) | Kingston | Kirk |
| Kline (MN) | Knollenberg | Kucinich | Kuhl (NY) | LaHood |
| Lamborn | Latham | LaTourette | Lee | Lewis (CA) |
| Lewis (GA) | Lewis (KY) | Linder | LoBiondo | Lucas |
| Lungren, Daniel E. | Mack | Manzullo | Marchant | Marshall |
| Matheson | McCarthy (CA) | McCaul (TX) | McCotter | McCrery |
| McHenry | McHugh | McKeon | McMorris Rodgers | McNulty |
| Mica | Michaud | Miller (FL) | Miller (MI) | Miller, Gary |
| Moran (KS) | Murphy, Tim | Musgrave | Myrick | Neugebauer |
| Nunes | Paul | Pearce | Pence | Peterson (PA) |
| Petri | Pickering | Pitts | Platts | Poe |
| Porter | Price (GA) | Pryce (OH) | Putnam | Radanovich |
| Ramstad | Regula | Rehberg | Reichert | Renzi |
| Reynolds | Rogers (AL) | Rogers (KY) | Rogers (MI) | Rohrabacher |
| Ros-Lehtinen | Roskam | Royce | Ryan (WI) | Sali |
| Saxton | Schmidt | Sensenbrenner | Sessions | Shadegg |
| Shays | Shimkus | Shuster | Simpson | Smith (NE) |
| Smith (NJ) | Smith (TX) | Souder | Stearns | Sullivan |
| Tancredo | Taylor | Terry | Thornberry | Tiahrt |
| Tiberi | Turner | Upton | Walberg | Walden (OR) |
| Walsh (NY) | Wamp | Waters | Weldon (FL) | Weller |
| Whitfield | Wicker | Wilson (NM) | Wilson (SC) | Wolf |
| Woolsey | Young (AK) | Young (FL) | ||
| Answered "Present"--2 | ||||
| Emerson | Stark | |||
| Not Voting--5 | ||||
| Costa | Cubin | Davis, Jo Ann | Lampson | Westmoreland |
Mr. Young of Alaska and Mr. Paul changed their vote from "yea" to "nay."
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. Costa: Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 265, had I been present, I would have voted "yea."
