Common Sense Budget Act of 2006

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 877 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and insert tabular and extraneous material into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the House report for H.R. 5631, the Department of Defense appropriations bill for the fiscal year 2007. Mr. Speaker, when the Rules Committee met, it granted an open rule, providing 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. For the purposes of amendment, the bill shall be read by paragraph. Additionally, this rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill which fail to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, and it authorizes the Chair to accord priority and recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. It provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 5631 and the underlying resolution. In past debates on defense appropriations, I have spoken of the four challenges I believe we must successfully address if we are to ensure the security of our country in the 21st Century. These challenges are, first, addressing the equipment and readiness needs created by the 1990s procurement holiday; second, transforming and adapting our forces to use the opportunities and meet the challenges posed by the new technologies of the information age; third, increasing the size and changing the force structure of our forces in order to have more available manpower for deployment and for combat operations; and, fourth, doing those things necessary to win the war on terror and succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, the rule and the underlying legislation do much to meet these four challenges. The bill itself provides $427.4 billion to meet the needs of our military. That is $19.1 billion more than last year.

Speaking broadly, the bill provides $84.9 billion for military personnel, $120.5 billion for operations and maintenance, $81.5 billion for procurement, $75.3 billion for research and development and $50 billion towards the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The procurement sections of the underlying bill do much to bring on line new weapons and replace worn-out equipment. I am particularly pleased to note the $11 billion for naval shipbuilding and conversion, the $2.9 billion for 42 F/A-22 aircraft and the $500 million above the President's request for National Guard equipment needs. In addition, in light of developments in North Korea, the $9 billion for ballistic missile defense is clearly a prudent expenditure. Additional funds are available to replace equipment lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On the personnel front, the end strength for the National Guard is funded at its full projected strength of 350,000. Moreover, all personnel receive a 2.2 percent across-the-board raise that the administration requested.

Mr. Speaker, we have a long way to go before we make up for the neglect of our military in the 1990s when we reduced our end strength levels and failed to replace and update weapons systems and bring on new weapons. The changing nature of technology poses real threats and opportunities. Moreover, our forces are involved in a tough fight against a vicious enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq. They require our continued support.

No one bill in and of itself can address all these challenges. However, the Appropriations Committee has brought us a bill that makes significant progress in all these areas.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill, carefully crafted by the chairman, Mr. Young of Florida, and the ranking member, Mr. Sabo of Minnesota. Their professionalism and cooperation in devising ways to meet the needs of our men and women in uniform is something to which we should all aspire. I particularly want to recognize Mr. Sabo, who is leaving Congress after the completion of his current term, for his distinguished career of service to his district, his State and our country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just briefly to offer a different perspective, if I may.

I would argue that we don't spend too much on defense, we spend far too little. Frankly, by historical measures, we spend less now than at any time since 1940. In 1960, at the height of the Cold War, we were spending roughly 50 percent of the entire Federal budget, roughly 9 percent of our gross national product on defense. By 1980, that was down to 33 percent of the Federal budget and 6 percent of the gross national product. Today, it is about 17 or 18 percent of the total budget, only about 4 percent, actually slightly less than that, of the gross national product.

I would argue we steadily decreased our expenditure even in a time of danger, and frankly that is a tribute to the professionalism and the skill of our military and the focus on trying to deliver the best service as reasonably priced as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I too have no additional speakers. I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, today in closing I again want to draw attention of the Members to the strength of the underlying legislation, H.R. 5631. This legislation accomplishes much in terms of funding our current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global war on terror, while setting the military on the path of further transformation to meet the new challenges of the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, it must also be noted that this legislation would not have been possible without much hard work on the part of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Ranking Member Murtha), the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), and all the members on both sides of the aisle of the defense appropriations subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee. The appropriators have given us a genuinely excellent and bipartisan bill. It does not shrink from making the hard decisions regarding the funding of the current and the future force. This is never an easy task, and it is even harder during a time of war.

Mr. Speaker, now is the time for Members to vote on the rule and the underlying legislation.

I readily admit that no bill, including this legislation, is perfect. That is the reason why we reauthorize and appropriate for the Department of Defense on an annual basis. Moreover, we deal with ongoing contingencies through emergency supplemental appropriations when and as required. This legislation takes critical steps toward fulfilling the current and future needs. It is a building block toward creating a stronger military tomorrow and an essential element in funding our troops in the field today.

Therefore, I once again urge my colleagues to support the rule and underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill, and from the outset I want to commend Chairman Young of Florida and the ranking member, Mr. Murtha of Pennsylvania, for their leadership on this bipartisan bill and for all they do each and every day for our military and their families.

As my colleagues have noted, H.R. 5631 includes over $427 billion in discretionary funding, including an additional $50 billion provided in what is called the very critical Bridge Fund to support ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 90 percent of this funding will go to the Army and Marine units that are taking the fight directly to our enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, our committee's allocation is $4 billion below the President's request. This presented the committee with some significant challenges. We looked carefully at programs in the President's budget, and we made selected reductions. We also recommended less funding for programs encountering technological problems and developmental delays. With many competing challenges facing our military as we prosecute the global war on terror, this was not an easy task; but we believe we made appropriate choices to allow us to deter our enemies and yet enhance the high-intensity combat capability of our forces.

Mr. Speaker, as we consider this important legislation, we must remain mindful that our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, mind you all volunteers, regular military, Guard, and Reserve, are literally on the battlefield as we speak, brave men and women fighting a new kind of war where everybody literally is on the front line. As we all know, the Army and Marines are carrying the brunt of the battle in Iraq and Afghanistan, with an unprecedented level of partnership by their Guard and Reserve components, and young men and women from the Air Force and Navy stand with them. Their service and dedication on the battlefields of these countries are making our Nation safer from terrorists who seek to do us and other freedom-loving nations harm.

Make no mistake, our success in Iraq is hugely important. Our enemies in Iraq are thinking enemies; they are adaptable and would like nothing better than to see us withdraw prematurely, set arbitrary dates for withdrawal, and then come back after our departure to reinstall another despot or regime even more oppressive, more fanatical, and more horrendous and more dangerous than the last.

The bottom line is that we should never forget that the soldiers we support through this appropriations bill have freed nearly 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan from killer regimes where protest and dissent were answered by killing fields and genocide, where women were denied basic freedoms, education, health care, and the vote.

Of course, the loss of any young soldier is heartbreaking; so are the deaths of innocent civilians killed by roadside and vehicle-borne bombs, or suicide bombers. We are dealing with Saddam loyalists, jihadists, imported terrorists, and domestic criminals who play by no rules and do not hesitate to bomb Iraqi weddings, mosques, funerals, and gatherings of children, school children as a common tactic.

Since we are engaged in the global war on terrorism with Afghanistan and Iraq being countries of conflict and violence, our soldiers and marines and others in the military need every possible advantage. This legislation provides our fighting men and women with the resources they need to be more deployable, more agile, more flexible, more interoperable, and more lethal in the execution of their missions. It provides for better training, better equipment, better weapons.

Of course, our bill supports the troops by providing a pay increase, enhanced life insurance coverage, and housing allowances. Mr. Speaker, I also welcome increased funding for research and development in this bill. Our bill exceeds the President's budget by $2.2 billion so we can speed important new technology from the drawing board to the laboratory, to the test bed, and into the arsenal of our warfighters.

My colleagues, the global war on terror will not be short. It will require deep and enduring commitment. And looking down the road, we face many potential threats and we cannot know what lies ahead, but this appropriations bill will give us the resources to do the job and to support our young men and women who do that job of liberty each and every day.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, passage of H. Res. 877 will allow the House to consider the fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill under an open rule. I would like to thank subcommittee Chair Young and my good friend Ranking Member Murtha for their hard work to craft a responsible bill for consideration by this House. It provides robust support to our troops stationed in Iraq and elsewhere around the globe. In particular, I would highlight the increased funding to test new jammers for IEDs and additional funds for troop body armor and Humvees.

Importantly, the bill also focuses significant resources toward rebuilding our military. This includes addressing the strain placed on our National Guard. Wisely, the committee provided funding to maintain the Guard's current force size. In addition, they provided critical resources to ensure these men and women have equipment necessary to accomplish their mission.

I appreciate the committee's intense focus to mitigate the effect Iraq has had on eroding our military readiness.

I would like to highlight a few provisions which I feel are particularly forward-thinking. Many Members, including myself, felt that the House missed an opportunity last week to engage in substantive debate with regard to our policies toward Iraq. For that reason, I am very pleased that this bill contains a real policy proposal. It clearly states that it is not the intent of the United States to build permanent bases in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, intentions matter. For too long this House has passed on opportunities to clarify our intentions in Iraq. Not only is such a statement in the best interest of our troops, but it is critical if we are to defeat the insurgency in Iraq. I would like to commend Mr. Murtha for his leadership in bringing this issue to the House for consideration.

This bill also begins to bring funding for the Iraq war into the regular budget process. Since the start of the war, the majority leadership has been engaged in a shell game. We pass budget resolutions that pretend we are not at war, and in doing so, we ignore the idea of shared sacrifice.

Only a select few are paying for the costs of this war, the men and women

in uniform and their families, and those who rely on critical domestic programs which have been cut to finance the war.

Let us admit we have lost the principle of shared sacrifice. This bill will be a first step toward again embracing that idea. Commend the subcommittee for returning to this path.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, the bill made in order under this rule reaffirms our ironclad support for our men and women in uniform in two fundamental ways. This legislation upholds our part of a solemn pact to provide our Armed Forces with everything they require, and it fulfills our duty to act responsibly in our Nation's interests. I commend the committee for achieving both goals in one bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I would like to inquire of the gentleman whether he has any additional speakers.

I am prepared to close. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill is critical to our warfighters, to our national security, and to our long- term strategic interests. It reaffirms the unwavering commitment all Members have for Armed Forces now more than ever.

Once again, I thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha for their hard work in crafting an excellent bill that will allow our Nation to achieve these goals.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding. I am here to speak on the rule, because I know that there will be a great deal of pressure to fill up the agenda for speakers on the bill itself.

I am here to record what I call a fury footnote, F-U-R-Y. I am furious at the kind of Neanderthal, backward, primitive thinking reflected in the bill in one statement. There is one section of the bill which says, ``National Defense Education Act, $10 million.'' Ten million dollars, and they call it a National Defense Education Act; $10 million for scholarships for science and engineering students.

Here is a report that recently came out. I don't know whether it went to all of the offices of all of the Members of Congress. Maybe because I am on the Education and Workforce Committee, I got five copies. It is called ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.''

The report is published by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine.

The impetus for this book, the oversight for this book, the push for this book came from our own STEM Caucus, Senate and House Members together pushing to get a realistic evaluation of where we are in terms of education for engineering and science in order to keep our economic advantage in the world and remain leaders, and that means leaders also in the area of the military as well.

The National Defense Education Act was one of the first efforts of that kind put forth by the government in 1957 and 1958 as a result of the reaction to Sputnik. Some of you are not old enough to remember Sputnik. When the Russians put Sputnik up, it said they had a rocket capability which frightened us, because that rocket capability that you had to have to go into the upper atmosphere was enough, of course, for an intercontinental ballistic missile also. So we got busy, and the National Defense Education Act followed that.

The National Defense Education Act in 1958 dollars was given about half a billion dollars, $500 million. It did not limit itself to a few scholarships to science and engineering students. It provided money for laboratories in high schools, money for libraries, purchase of science books. It went right across the board, in 1958, when we were really not into large amounts of expenditures for domestic programs.

What flowed from the National Defense Education Act was later on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Higher Education Assistance Act which took its place, but still there is a deficit.

The deficit was indicated when I first came to Congress by a report called ``A Nation at Risk.'' A Nation at Risk was commissioned by President Ronald Reagan. ``A Nation at Risk'' made the same recommendations being made now all these years later in this ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.''

The fact that there are people in the Defense Department who see $10 million as being significant, that there are people on the Appropriations Committee, the fact that we have that kind of backward, Neanderthal, primitive thinking about education and its role in our military defense is appalling.

I suppose I should not be furious and angry, I should be weeping that such a great Nation with such great minds would place education on such a low level.

We need to go across the board, and we need to appropriate billions for a new National Defense Education Act or

a National Homeland Security Mobilization Act, which reaches beyond just the military and understands that in addition to scientists, we need some people who know how to interpret the Arabic language. We need some people who know how to interpret other Middle Eastern languages, we need people who understand cultures that we are at war with.

Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to pause and take a hard look at our conception of what it means to defend our country in terms of education.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule as well as the underlying legislation.

We are a Nation engaged in a global war on terror, and it is critical that during this time we focus our spending on what we need to defeat our terrorist enemies. This bill does that. We have learned an awful lot during this conflict as to the vulnerability of our forces, and this bill addresses those vulnerabilities.

This bill allocates $1.5 billion to test and field new jammers to counter improvised explosive devices, which have been such a deadly threat to our troops.

We also provide an additional $725 million for other force protection equipment, such as body armor for our troops in the field.

This bill also fully funds the President's request for a 2.2 percent pay increase for the members of our armed services, a pay increase that is well, well deserved.

This bill also restores $557 million to the Army Reserve and National Guard above the requested amount to reflect newly authorized troop levels. Our troops need to know that the Congress of the United States is working hard to recognize their needs and to address them forcefully.

This bill also allocates $50 billion for ongoing operations in Iraq and in Afghanistan in hopes of avoiding future supplemental appropriation bills. We are at war, and it only makes sense to appropriate funds under regular order to pay for the cost of the war.

Mr. Speaker, the news today is that North Korea is threatening to launch a new ballistic missile which has the capability to reach our shores. It validates the inclusion of $9 billion in this bill for our missile defense shield.

Back in the days of the Cold War, people used to call President Ronald Reagan ``crazy,'' or they called him a ``warmonger'' for even advocating missile defense. Well, today he doesn't look so crazy. Actually, today he looks visionary, and we need to do everything that we can to defend our citizens from terrorist states and rogue nations like North Korea who threaten world peace and stability.

The news today that our missile defense is on high alert in case of a launch is very good news, and the American people should know that we recognize threats to our security, and we will do all that we can to protect our Nation.

Also, Mr. Speaker, earmarks and various Member projects have come under question and scrutiny recently. This bill does the responsible thing by limiting those projects to $5 billion, $2.7 billion less than last year's bill. And for those projects that remain in the bill, every Member who advocates for a project or asked for an earmark should not be afraid to stand up on this floor to defend it.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about one of those projects that I asked for in this bill which is centered at Selfridge Air National Guard Base in my district. As our Nation seeks alternatives for everyday energy needs, we also need alternatives for the military.

This bill provides $2 million for the second phase of a project to turn waste into fuel and electricity. NextEnergy, a nonprofit alternative fuel research cooperative in the great State of Michigan, is working with the U.S. Army on this important project. This fuel would help run a generator that would produce high-quality electric energy that every military unit needs. This is a very important project to support our troops.

Mr. Speaker, this is a reasonable rule to manage an outstanding bill. It has the right priorities. And we need to make sure that our military remains the best trained, the best supported, the best equipped and the most lethal fighting force that the world has ever seen.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.