Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1197, I call from the Speaker's table 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 ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I offer the motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman may be reciting the PAYGO rule as he wishes it were, but that's not the way it is.

The legislation before the House fully complies with the PAYGO rule. That rule deals with direct spending and revenues.

As to revenues, the revenue effects of this package reduce the deficit, rather than increasing it. As to spending, none of the spending in this package falls into the direct spending category, which is basically defined as spending outside the appropriations process.

Even though not technically required to do so, the Medicaid provisions and the expansion of veterans' education benefits fully meet the PAYGO standard. Both sets of provisions contain offsets to ensure that they do not increase the deficit over the 5- and 10-year periods used by the PAYGO rule.

The rest of the bill consists mostly of emergency appropriations for defense and other security-related needs, largely for things requested by the President. And the other major spending item, relating to extended unemployment compensation benefits, is temporary in nature and responds to current hardships created by the economic downturn.

So I believe that we ought to abide by the House rules as they are, not as some Members wish they were.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the pending legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a tough problem before the House today. We have a war which the majority of this House despises. We have a war that we do not have the power to end so long as the President is as obstreperous as he has been on the subject. That means that we have to find a way to try to manage this problem in a way that sends a clear message to the public that they are the only ones who can, in fact, muster the power to change direction on this war by electing a President who will get us out of this war. It also means we have to manage it in such a way that we set the table for the new President to give him at least a few months to think through how he is going to proceed to extricate us from this war and to get his ducks in a row on Iraqi policy. Therefore, we are taking the Senate bill and we are asking the House to consider three amendments and work their will on it.

The first amendment is very simple. It's an up-or-down vote on providing the funding to pay for the equipment and to pay for the salaries for the troops as long as they are going to be in the war situation. That money will be estimated to run out by June of 2009.

The second amendment would simply be an up-or-down vote on the conditions that the House believes should appropriately be attached to the spending of that money, many of which the House has seen before. Those conditions will, among other things, require that virtually every unit sent to the war be fully combat ready. They will provide that no one who works for the United States may engage in interrogation techniques that are at variance with the Army Field Manual. In plain language, no torture. The conditions will also say that there shall be no long-term security agreements entered into with Iraq without submission of those agreements to the United States Senate for their consideration. It will establish a timetable for extricating ourselves from combat by setting a goal, not a firm date but a goal, of 18 months from the date of enactment.

Also, we have added two conditions which would have the effect of requiring Iraq to provide a dollar-for-dollar match for any of the redevelopment and reconstruction activities that are being carried out by the United States Government. The effect of that would be the functional equivalent of turning 50 percent of what we provide to Iraq into loans. We've done it this way because we have faith that the loans would ever be repaid, and this way we guarantee that the Iraqis, who are now about to develop very large surpluses in their own budget--they will have to meet these costs up front on an equal basis before the United States proceeds to expend its own money. And it would also require that the American military be provided gasoline in Iraq at the same subsidized price as the Iraqis are being subsidized. We don't see why the United States troops who are defending that country ought to have to pay a premium.

Then we will have a third amendment, again up or down, on the other administration requests. Those include food aid. We've increased the international food aid recommended by the President by $745 million. Anybody who has read the newspapers or watched television for the last 2 weeks understands why that is a moral necessity. We have also included the administration request for the Louisiana levies exactly as they have requested it as fiscal 2009 money. We have responded to a request from the Bureau of Prisons to provide $178 million so that they do not have to lay off prison guards and other personnel in the U.S. prison system. The Secretary of Commerce has requested that we provide additional funding because they run into technology problems at the U.S. Census Bureau; so we have responded to that with a $210 million appropriation. We have also added $2.2 billion in military construction funds above the President's request to fully fund the administration's 2008 BRAC requests. We have also included $210 million for military child care centers, which the President from that rostrum told the country he was for but neglected to ask the money for in his budget this year.

There are no Members' projects whatsoever in this bill. In the military construction portion of the bill, for instance, there are 121 facilities that are provided for; 111 of those were specifically asked for by the White House, and the others were identified by the committee as top service priorities after testimony from the military services.

There's only one proposal that could be really considered a specific project earmark, and that is one hospital which the Assistant Secretary of Defense asked to be included in the recommendations, and we're providing planning funds for that facility.

In addition, the other items in that third amendment to be considered would deal with the following:

If we're going to fight the war, we happen to believe that we ought to provide a ``thank you'' to the people who have fought it, especially because there has been no sense of shared sacrifice in this country. The only people who have been asked to sacrifice are military families again and again and again. So what we are doing is including the Webb bill, which would provide for the equivalent of a full-boat 4-year education at a public university for persons who have spent 36 months on active duty, and the benefits are scaled down in accordance with time served. It's long past time that we do that.

We have also included emergency funding for unemployment compensation so that for persons who have exhausted their unemployment benefits, they will have an additional 13 weeks available to them.

We have also in this amendment recommended delaying the administration's rules changes in Medicaid that have been so controversial, and we include two contractor reforms which the House had already passed.

The main difference, Mr. Speaker, between this bill and the administration's bill is that we pay for everything in the bill except the unemployment compensation provision and the President pays for virtually none of his requests.

Now I prefer to pay for the entire war if we are going to have it. I don't think we ought to have it. But if we were going to have it, I thought we ought to pay for the whole thing. So did Mr. Murtha and Mr. McGovern. So we introduced legislation to pay for the whole war with the war surtax. We lost that argument. That is not in this bill.

I felt that if we weren't going to pay for the war up front, then there should be no requirement to provide an offset to provide the additional GI Bill expanded benefits, which are the equivalent of only about 6 percent of the cost of this war so far. But I lost that argument, too.

And so this bill does pay for the expansion of GI benefits. And it pays for that in probably the best way possible, by asking the most fortunate citizens in our society, those who individually make $500,000 or more a year, or as a couple who make $1 million or more a year, we are asking them to help out in the form of a patriot premium by, in essence, asking them to pay a one-half of 1 percent surtax in order to finance the GI Bill expansion.

As I look at this bill, what we are doing is we are asking people who, on average, have gotten a $126,000 annual tax cut to take a tiny portion of that

tax cut to help us make life better for the persons who have been doing the most in order to preserve the way of life which has enabled those people to do so well in life. And I make no apology for it.

Ninety-nine percent of the appropriated dollars in the bill--99 percent of the appropriated dollars in this bill--are being requested by the administration.

This war, Mr. Speaker, has screwed up our economy. This war has injected chaos in the lives of military families all across the country. We make no apology in trying to use this vehicle to respond to the needs of the two groups in society who have been hit the hardest by this war; one being those who have lost their jobs because of the turmoil we have had in the economy because of the war and other factors, and second, the military families whom we believe ought to be treated about as well as the GIs were when they came back from World War II. This war has now lasted longer than World War II. And we think we have an obligation to respond to what is actually out there on the ground in communities all across the country.

We can debate our political philosophies. We can debate our economic theories. We can behave like little budgeteers, arguing about this comma and that comma, this offset and that offset. But in the end, we are dealing with the lives of human beings. We are dealing with the lives of families. We are dealing with people who have sacrificed incredibly much with their family members being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan once, twice, three times. Kids are not seeing their parents.

I represent a city of 37,000 people. We have had almost 35,000 casualties in this country. It is as if 4,000 people in my hometown were killed, and virtually every other person in that hometown wound up in a VA hospital. That is the human toll that has been paid so far just by Americans on this war.

So this is a process which will give Members the opportunity to vote up or down on the major pieces that comprise this legislation.

And I urge the House to move forward.

I, myself, will be intending to vote against the first amendment. I will be voting for the second and the third amendment. I hope that every Member here today exercises his conscience. That is what they are supposed to do.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California. Those are some of the nicest words he has ever said about me, and I appreciate them deeply.

Let me also say that I think his speech simply bears out that because they can find no real substantive fault with the legislation, they have to fall back on whining about process.

I would suggest that the gentleman from California is the last person I will take lectures from when it comes to talking about an open appropriations process. I was not chairman when the Appropriations Committee when, after the conference was closed and the work was done and the names are on the conference report, I was not the chairman of the committee who allowed 30 pages of unrelated new language not seen by anybody to be inserted in that conference report which insulated the pharmaceutical industry from suit if their products damaged their customers.

I was not the chairman of the committee when the committee, after the conference was closed, and after it was finished, inserted anonymously, anonymously, in the dead of night, language which changed the definition of organic foods on the agriculture bill and led to nicely enriched profits for certain people in this society.

All I can say is that the gentleman may not like the fact that we couldn't finish discussions as fast as we wanted to on this bill. He says he has only been able to see the text for the last day or so. Let me simply suggest that at least the text he reads is the text that will be in the bill after we vote on the bill, which is more than you can say for what happened under his stewardship on several locations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 additional minute.

Let me simply make the point, there is virtually nothing in this bill that hasn't been around here for months. This is not new material. The President's war request has been around here for months, as the gentleman himself has indicated.

The unemployment compensation provision that we are providing in this bill already passed the House on one occasion. The Webb bill has been around for months, and it has the support, and, in fact, the sponsorship of the majority of the House and wide bipartisan support in the Senate as well.

I would suggest, I think the question is, the Pentagon is saying you've got to get the money to the troops, because they're about to run out of money and won't get paid. Yet our friends on the other side are asking us to follow a process which would have taken a much longer period of time.

You can't have it both ways. This is a fair process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself another minute.

I am personally opposed to the first amendment which we are presenting to the House. But out of courtesy to the minority, who support it, and out of courtesy to the White House, who supports it, we are allowing that to come to a vote. Our party has not even whipped on that question. We told Members, vote your conscience. I don't see how you could be more fair than that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from South Dakota.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I just cannot allow the impression to continue that somehow we have violated House rules or committee rules by this procedure. The fact is that despite some Members having not been around here long enough to remember, the House used to often proceed in this way, moving amendments back and forth between the Senate and the House as a device by which to reach agreement on legislation. That happened routinely during the old abortion debates back in the seventies when amendments offered by Mr. Magnuson and Mr. Flood were bounced back and forth between the Houses.

The fact is also that I offered, and my staff director specifically offered, to have the minority staff participate in every discussion related to appropriation items. We pointed out, we were not drafting, in our committee, the unemployment insurance issues. That was drafted by the authorizing committee. And we were not drafting the language with respect to Medicaid rules. That was done by the Energy and Commerce Committee.

But we offered to have the minority staff participate in all of the staff meetings that were going on with respect to anything over which the Appropriations Committee had direct jurisdiction. If they chose not to exercise that right, that's their responsibility, not ours.

I would also point out that my understanding is that in the 109th and 110th Congress, fully 12 percent of legislation that was passed was passed using this process of moving amendments back and forth between the Senate and the House. So this may be an unusual procedure, but it is far from unprecedented.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished majority caucus chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is yielded 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I cannot believe what I just heard.

The gentleman just indicated that somehow we're adding $72 billion to a bill ``that has nothing whatsoever to do with the welfare of soldiers.'' I would point out by far the largest item that we are adding to this bill, $51 billion over 10 years, is devoted to help those very same soldiers so that the people who fought, when they come home, get treated the same way that the GIs did at the end of World War II. That isn't on the backs of the soldiers. That's trying to enhance their lives. It's trying to enable Reservists and Guard members and regular forces who have had their lives disrupted, who have gone to Iraq two and three times. We're trying to say, Okay, you can stay home for a while. Get yourself a college education.

The GI Bill paid back this country $7 for every dollar it cost.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

The GI Bill paid back to this society $7 for every dollar that it cost. There are unfortunately some people in this House who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Fortunately, the people who support this third amendment today will not be among them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, Just Imagine! The mortal sin that we're accused of committing on this side of the aisle is believing that we ought to provide some additional economic assistance to people

who have been hit the hardest by economic dislocation and have been unemployed until their benefits have expired and haven't been able to find a job.

It's suggested that we're doing this ``on the backs'' of our fighting men and women who return home. I'd suggest it's just the opposite. When a man or a woman returns home from Iraq, when we find out that in addition to their having their reentry problem, they also, some of them, may have post-trauma stress reaction, they find out in addition to what they have to worry about for themselves, they also have to worry about the fact that their sister or their brother-in-law is now unemployed, adding to the burden on that family.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

I think those GIs recognize this is supposed to be a seamless society. We're supposed to help take care of the people who are in the most trouble, and I don't apologize for using some of the money that we use for veterans benefits. I don't apologize for getting that money from some of the people in this society who have had the least stress in their lives.

It seems to me that that's what the Judeo-Christian ethic is all about, and we plead fully guilty on this side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield myself 30 seconds, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I would like the gentleman from Texas to point out a single piece of Member pork in this bill.

Yes.

Name one.

Can you name one or can't you? The fact is there's not a single piece of Member pork in this bill. You ought to know.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

And through the Chair, I would invite the Member to name a specific piece of congressional pork in this bill. He cannot because there is none. He's at least had enough time to read the bill to know that.

The only possible piece of pork in this bill is one which we inserted at the request of the Deputy Secretary of Defense for a military hospital in Guam that came here at the request of the Secretary of Defense's office.

You can find no Member's pork in this package, and you know it as well as I do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to answer the gentleman's question.

The gentleman wants to know why do we have money in this bill for the census? Simple. It's because the Secretary of Commerce asked us to put it in because they've had a huge technical screw-up in the Department of the Census. The last time I looked, the Secretary of Commerce was appointed by the President of the United States, Mr. George W. Bush.

He wants to know why we have money in this bill for prisons. Simple. We've been told by the Bureau of Prisons--last time I looked, it's run by the Bush Administration--that if we didn't provide this money, because of cost overruns they're going to have to fire guards and lay off people in Federal prisons. Anybody interested in law and order I don't think is going to be happy about that.

So it seems to me it is responsible to respond to emergencies on both the domestic side and on the international side.

I'm sorry that the gentleman doesn't seem to be aware of the fact that we have, in writing, requests from both of those agencies, but that happens to be the fact. And that's the answer.

We got requests in writing from the agencies.

They testified before the committees. I don't know if you were there or not, but they testified.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

I yield myself 10 seconds.

Once again, when they can't argue about the substance, they whine about process. That's not going to impress very many people. It certainly didn't in Mississippi yesterday.

With that, I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of

the House, the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

Could I inquire of the gentleman from California how many speakers he has remaining.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas.

I want to make sure the gentleman's rights are protected. You indicated to me that you wanted the minority leader to close debate on your side?

How many speakers does the gentleman have remaining?

I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you.

I guess by default I am the last remaining speaker. The majority leader is otherwise occupied and so I would ask the gentleman to proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want Members to understand this bill was not written in the Speaker's office or any other leadership office. Virtually every appropriation issue of this bill was

written in the Appropriations Committee. We did not, obviously, write language that has previously passed the House under the control of other committees. The Energy and Commerce Committee produced the language, for instance, on the Medicaid rules. And the authorizing committee produced the language on unemployment compensation. That's normal.

In fact, the Speaker herself was joking the other day and teasing me, indicating that there were three items that she had wanted in the bill that the committee had turned down. So I would suggest this is not quite the dictatorship that the myth-makers on the other side of the aisle are trying to portray.

Having said that, let me explain what it is we are doing here today, since the minority leader was courteous enough to ask. What we are trying to do is to recognize a sad fact, which is that as long as George Bush is President of the United States, we are not going to be able to shut down the war. So what we are trying to do is proceed in the most responsible possible manner in order to assure that the next President, whoever he or she is, has at least 3 or 4 months to think through how he or she would get us out of this god-awful mess in Iraq, which I regard to be the most misguided foreign policy decision in my lifetime.

What we are trying to do is to recognize that we do not have a majority in the United States Senate to shut down this war. And so we are looking at ways to provide Members with an opportunity to speak out on whether they want to see that war funding go ahead or not, a straight up-or-down vote. No coercion, at least on this side of the aisle, no whipping that question on this side of the aisle. Members were told, ``Vote your conscience.''

We are also trying to do two other things. We are trying, once again, to attach conditions to the use of this money. Now I myself will vote against the first amendment because I have no guarantee that the conditions in the second amendment will survive Senate action. If they did, I would be perfectly comfortable with the first amendment because I think the first amendment is a straight effort to do what I just described a minute ago.

But the reason we want to pursue the second amendment is because we think it is about time that the Iraqis, now that they are generating oil surpluses and budget surpluses, we believe it is about time that they begin to assume the costs of their own reconstruction, at least 50 percent of it. This is why we have a 50-50, dollar-for-dollar match requirement which we are imposing on the Iraqis if we are to be expected to spend any more money in reconstructing Iraq. We think that's eminently sensible.

We also think it is about time that Iraq quit overcharging the U.S. military for the price of gasoline. There is no reason why we should be paying through the nose at a much higher price than Iraqis are paying for gasoline.

And then thirdly, we are asking the President of the United States to remember that the United States of America still exists, too, and that there are some problems that we need to address here. In fact, the administration itself has recognized some of them because the administration sent down a reprogramming request to deal with the problem of the Bureau of Prisons. They sent down a reprogramming request to deal with the census. We didn't think we ought to fix those problems by cutting even more deeply into local law enforcement funding, because those budgets have already been cut far too much. So we rejected the way that the administration wanted to pay for those items. And instead we have included them in this bill fully, fully paid for.

We also have the temerity to believe that if we are going to fight this war, then we ought to also provide a thank you note, a healthy thank you note, for the people who fought the war on our behalf. That is why we are insistent that we pass the expansion of the GI Bill so that you can take people whose lives have been turned upside-down for years, military families from the east coast to the west coast, their lives have been disrupted for years. We want to say ``we want to at least partially compensate you by giving you the opportunity for a full, 4-year college education at any State university in your State.'' And we have provisions that will even expand beyond that if they go to other schools that also participate in helping finance their education. We make no apology for including that.

We have heard from at least three speakers on that side of the aisle that we are providing $51 billion for that on the backs of the soldiers.

It isn't on their backs. It's an effort to help them. I would point out in the previous GI Bill in World War II, this country got a return of $7 for every dollar that it invested in the GI Bill. We recognize the value of doing that again. We recognize the moral obligation of doing that again, and we make no apology in going forward with it.

We also make no apology for recognizing that when we have millions of Americans unemployed, that there is no harm done by providing to those who have been unemployed the longest and have exhausted their benefits, with 13 weeks of additional assistance as those people look for jobs. This Congress sits here in a comfortable room making $160,000 a year, nickel nursing about our efforts to provide a few additional benefits to people who have been unemployed that long.

If we don't vote for that provision, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. I ask each and every Member to vote your conscience. I am not going to tell you how to vote on any of the amendments. I will be voting against the first, for the second and the third.

But I urge us to get on with it. This is the only way that we can get the problem dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, following is an explanation of the amendments of the House of Representatives (relating to supplemental appropriations for fiscal years 2008 and 2009) to the amendment of the Senate to H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2008.

In this statement, the provisions of the House amendments to the Senate amendment are generally referred to as ``the amended bill''.

House Amendment 1 strikes lines 1 through 3 on page 60 of the Senate amendment and inserts language providing supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2008, and additional supplemental funds for fiscal year 2009 for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

House Amendment 2 inserts after line 3 on page 60 of the Senate amendment language regarding policy for operations in Iraq and reforms relating to war profiteering and contractors.

House Amendment 3 strikes line 1 on page 1 of the Senate amendment and all that follows through line 21 on page 59, and inserts language providing supplemental appropriations for military construction, international affairs, and other security-related and domestic needs, as well as language providing for improved veterans education benefits, temporary extended unemployment compensation, and a moratorium on certain Medicaid regulations, and establishing a surtax on high income taxpayers to offset the cost of the veterans benefit provision.

The texts of the amendments are printed in the Rules Committee report (H. Rpt. 110-636) to accompany House Resolution 1197.

Unless otherwise noted, all appropriations in the amendments are designated as emergency requirements and necessary to meet emergency needs pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) of section 204 of S. Con. Res. 21, the congressional budget resolution for fiscal year 2008.

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

I thank the distinguished gentleman.

I rise in opposition to one more dollar being spent on the war in Iraq but many, many dollars spent on the brave men and women. I thank the leadership and I thank this committee for allowing us to spend dollars because of a responsibility to our troops with the GI Bill.

I also offer to my constituents, but also to this body, that we have an emergency, as well, with our summer jobs program. And I hope that we will find a way to fund a summer jobs program for our youth.

Let me say that there is not a tax burden in this bill, and I thank our leadership for understanding PAYGO. This is nothing more than an opportunity for those who make over $1 million to experience the burden, if you will, of the sacrifice this Nation is making on behalf of our troops. The moneys that are expended, only $500 for those making over $1 million and more, will be given to our troops with the GI Bill of Rights.

Where do we stand? I stand with the flag on behalf of the American troops. This is a great bill. Vote against the funding for the war and vote for the redeployment of our troops, a better domestic plan, and yes, an opportunity to pass the GI Bill of Rights, the GI Bill for our young men and women.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the continued funding of the Iraq war. While I offer my support for Amendments No. 2 and No. 3, I must oppose amendment No. 1. While amendments 2 and 3 contain provisions beneficial to the American people, designed to improve our economy and protect our young men and women, amendment 1 continues a disastrous policy of providing unrestricted funding to continue the Bush administration's war in Iraq.

Last night, I offered three amendments to this legislation in the rules committee. My first amendment would have added three sense of Congress paragraphs: ``(1) The war in Iraq should end as safely and quickly as possible and our troops should be brought home; (2) the performance of United States military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan should be commended, their courage and sacrifice have been exceptional, and when they come home, their service should be recognized appropriately, including through the observance of a national day of celebration; and (3) the primary purpose of funds made available by this Act should be to transition the mission of United States Armed Forces in Iraq and undertake their redeployment, and not to extend or prolong the war.''

This amendment is borne from my deeply held belief that we must commend our military for their exemplary performance and success in Iraq. As lawmakers continue to debate U.S. policy in Iraq, our heroic young men and women continue to willingly sacrifice life and limb on the battlefield. Our troops in Iraq did everything we asked them to do. We sent them overseas to fight an army; they are now caught in the midst of an insurgent civil war and continuing political upheaval. The United States will not and should not permanently prop up the Iraqi government and military. U.S. military involvement in Iraq will come to an end, and, when U.S. forces leave, the responsibility for securing their nation will fall to Iraqis themselves. However, whether or not my colleagues agree that the time has come to withdraw our American forces from Iraq, I believe that all of us in Congress should be of one accord that our troops deserve our sincere thanks and congratulations.

I very strongly believe that our Nation has a moral obligation to ensure that our veterans are treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve. One reason we are the greatest Nation in the world is because of the brave young men and women fighting for us in Iraq and Afghanistan. They deserve honor, they deserve dignity, and they deserve to know that a grateful Nation cares about them.

The second amendment that I offered explicitly states that the goals laid out by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, AUMF, have all been achieved by our troops in Iraq.

As my amendment describes, the brave men and women of our military have done everything we asked them to do. The United States Armed Forces successfully toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein and captured the key cities of Iraq in only 21 days. Because of the skill and dedication of the members of the Armed Forces, the entire world has now been assured that Iraq does not possess weapons

of mass destruction that could threaten the United States or any member nation of the international community. The Armed Forces performed magnificently in conducting military operations designed to ensure that the people of Iraq would enjoy the benefits of a democratically-elected government governing a country that is capable of sustaining itself economically and politically and defending itself militarily. In June 2004, the Armed Forces facilitated the transfer of sovereignty from the Coalition Provisional Authority to the interim Government of Iraq, which governed Iraq until December 2005 when national elections were held in which more than 8 million Iraqi men and women voted in elections that were free and fair.

While our troops have achieved the objectives for which they were sent to Iraq, they are now caught in the midst of a sectarian conflict. Unfortunately, there is no military solution to Iraq's ongoing political and sectarian conflicts. This is a war without end. Though President Bush continues to rely on a strategy that seeks to stabilize and reconcile Iraq by force, only the Iraqi government can secure a lasting peace. Thus far, the Iraqi government has demonstrated an inability or an unwillingness to deliver on the political benchmarks that they themselves agreed were essential to achieving national reconciliation, which was the rationale and stated objective of the recent troop surge. Continuing to put the lives of our soldiers and our national treasury in the hands of what by most informed accounts--even by members of the Bush Administration--is an ineffective central Iraqi government is irresponsible and contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the American people.

The third amendment that I offered would provide funds for summer youth employment and training activities under the Workforce Investment Act. Unfortunately, many of our youth have to help out their families in these troubling economic times. Many of the youth who could obtain skills and training in their summer jobs state that they would either be sitting around watching television or getting into trouble if they were not in their communities working.

For more than 30 years, beginning in the 1960s, the Federal Government saw the enormous benefit of providing summer jobs to millions of disadvantaged youth across America. But since 2000, the Summer Youth Employment and Training Program, SYETP, has lost its direct funding, and is now effectively buried among 10 competing programs within the Workforce Investment Act, WIA. With unemployment soaring and the summer heat approaching, there is an urgent need to bring back summer jobs for youth. We need to be cognizant of the fact that many families count on their children working during the summer to raise money for college.

Families are facing a foreclosure crisis, the rising cost of gas, and health care; this amendment provides more money for workforce preparedness among our youth. When we invest in our youth and foster a sense of responsibility it will last a lifetime, aiding not only them, but their families, and our communities. This amendment would give our youth the skills and training they need to enter the workforce, and the money they and their families need to make it in these tough economic times.

However, the legislation we are considering today contains many important provisions, but, unfortunately, the first amendment continues funding for a war that I strongly oppose. I oppose amendment No. 1 because I stand with the American taxpayers who have paid over $600 billion to finance the misadventure in Iraq. I stand with the 4076 fallen heroes who stand even taller in death because they gave the last full measure of devotion to their country. Last May, I was proud to vote for H.R. 1591, a supplemental spending bill that would have provided funds for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, which included a timetable for the redeployment of U.S. troops. Though this bill passed the House by a clear majority, the President opted to veto this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I must oppose Amendment No. 1. This amendment provides a total of $162.9 billion for the Department of Defense for FY 2008 and FY 2009, funds that are handed over without any strings. The amendment does not withhold funding for the Iraq war, a war that so many of my colleagues in Congress oppose, and which only 32 percent of Americans now support. The amendment does not require that war funds can only be used for the responsible redeployment of American troops home from Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I voted against the 2002 Iraq War Resolution. I am proud of that vote. I have consistently voted against the Administration's practice of submitting a request for war funding through an emergency supplemental rather than the regular appropriations process which would subject the funding request to more rigorous scrutiny and require it to be balanced against other pressing national priorities. I cannot support legislation that provides the President with the resources to prolong his ill-advised war effort unrestrained.

I rise today in strong support of Amendment No. 2. This amendment lays out a responsible U.S. policy toward Iraq, requiring that troops begin redeployment from Iraq within 30 days, with a goal of completing the withdrawal of combat troops by December 2009. As a Member of both the Out of Iraq and the Progressive Caucuses, I am proud to vote for legislation that, like other measures passed by this Congress, begins the process of withdrawing U.S. men and women from Iraq.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, this legislation specifically requires that any agreement between the United States and the Government of Iraq committing future U.S. forces must be specifically authorized by Congress. The governments of Iraq and the United States announced their intention to forge a strategic framework agreement, a long-term, bilateral pact, to be completed by July 31, 2008. This negotiated agreement is to be based on the Declaration of Principles for a Long- Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America, signed November 26, 2007, by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and President Bush.

Under the Declaration of Principles, the parties will negotiate a security agreement, under which the United States will support the Iraqi government and Security Forces in providing security and stability and fighting al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The Declaration of Principles envisions an agreement setting forth a wide- ranging set of commitments, which will cover issues including politics, economics, and security. In hearings before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, administration officials have indicated that the President intends to negotiate this agreement as an executive agreement, not subject to Congressional approval. It is essential that any agreement which commits future U.S. troops to the defense of Iraq is outside the purview of existing authorizations, and such an agreement must be submitted to the Congress for approval. This legislation also prohibits the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, amendment No. 2 requires that the Iraqi government step up and pay its share of Iraqi reconstruction efforts. I am concerned that the United States has paid and continues to pay a disproportionate amount for Iraq reconstruction, especially when the Iraqi government reportedly has a $25-30 billion budget surplus this year. To date the United States has appropriated more than $45 billion for Iraq reconstruction.

American funded reconstruction programs have included: the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces.

Iraq is a resource-rich nation. Though still facing problems including a lack of technology, damage from previous mismanagement, the effects of looting, and water intrusion, Iraqi oil production is currently at around 2 million barrels per day. The price of oil has skyrocketed to over $100 a barrel and Iraqi oil exports are generating an estimated $56.4 billion this year alone, according to the GAO, yet it is U.S. taxpayers who continue to foot the bill for Iraqi reconstruction. The government of Iraq is stashing its money in global banks, including a reported $30 billion in the U.S., instead of investing this money in the development of crucial Iraqi infrastructure. This legislation requires the Iraqi government to take responsibility for the future of its own nation.

There are a number of other key provisions in this amendment. It requires the President to reach an agreement with Iraq to subsidize fuel costs for U.S. Armed Forces operating in Iraq so that our military pays what Iraqis pay. It requires that troop's meet the Pentagon's definition of combat ready before they are deployed to Iraq; Prohibits troops from being deployed longer than Pentagon guidelines recommend; and requires that troops spend adequate time at home between deployments. This legislation makes substantial strides toward cleaning up contracting in Iraq, expanding current law to make all contractors working in war zones subject to prosecution for offenses that would otherwise be in violation of U.S. law; extending the statute of limitations for fraud cases during wartime; and amending the federal criminal code to prohibit profiteering and fraud involving contractors overseas. In addition, it prohibits interrogation techniques not authorized in the Army Field Manual, a provision necessary in eliminating torture.

Amendment No. 3

Mr. Speaker, the third amendment to H.R. 2642 provides over $21.2 billion for much needed domestic programs and foreign aid. By extending unemployment benefits, expanded veterans' education benefits, and placing a moratorium on the Bush Administrations' seven Medicaid regulations; this amendment gets us closer to where the Economic Stimulus package should have taken us.

This amendment will provide increased funds for food aid, military hospitals, and the reconstruction of the Louisiana levees.

International Food Aid

As many of you know, we are facing an international food crisis. According to the International Monetary Fund, IMF, global food

prices have increased an average of 43 percent. In fact since March 2007, wheat has increased by 146 percent, soybean has increased by 71 percent, corn by 41 percent, and rice prices have increased by 29 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Many factors have played into this crisis. In China, India, and other emerging markets experiencing rapid economic growth, consumers are increasing their demand for food, oil, and energy supplies. Rising energy costs have directly raised the cost of agricultural production. Adverse weather-related events have lowered crop yields, particularly affecting wheat harvests. Depreciation of the U.S. dollar accounts for part of the increase in U.S. food prices, while increased production of biofuel has raised the price of corn.

Sadly, approximately 1 billion people--or one sixth of the world's population--subsist on less than $1 per day. Of this population, 162 million survive on less than $0.50 per day. Overall, increased food prices particularly affect developing countries, and the poorest people within those countries, where populations spend a larger proportional share of income on basic food commodities.

That is why I, along with other Hunger Caucus members, hosted a forum on the Food Crisis and what it is doing to our children. We met with leaders of the international aid community to come up with pragmatic solutions to the global hunger crisis, both in the short term and the long term.

In my district I submitted an appropriations request for the Houston Food Bank to expand their collection and distribution of food to the good people of Houston. We each have to do our part, not only in our district by supporting much needed programs and organizations, but across this great Nation and the rest of the world.

This amendment would give $9.9 billion, $496 million above the President's request, for the State Department, USAID and International Food Assistance. It is simply unacceptable in this day and age that children are going hungry. We have millions of dollars to bail out Bear Stearns, let's find that same money to help our families and our children.

Expanded GI Benefits for Veterans Education

As champion for veterans, I am especially pleased to see the expansion of education benefits to veterans under the GI bill.

Extended Unemployment Compensation

The number of Americans looking for work has grown by 800,000 over the last year, and the number of American jobs has declined by 260,000 since the beginning of 2008. This supplemental would extend unemployment benefits for workers who have exhausted their benefits by up to 13 weeks in every State as well as an additional 13 weeks in States with high unemployment.

Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act of 2008 (H.R. 5613)

The Bush Administration sought to cut services and payments to American families by adding seven different Medicaid regulations to the stimulus. This amendment places a much needed moratorium on those regulations, giving back to our seniors, families, and those with disabilities as well as cut payments to safety net providers.

Refugee Assistance

$675 million, $454 million above the President's request, to address the refugee crisis in Iraq and elsewhere.

Merida

This amendment would give $461.5 million, $88.5 million below the President's request, for the initiative to provide counternarcotics and law enforcement assistance in Mexico, $400 million, and Central America, $61.5 million.

Military Construction

The $4.6 billion for military construction, $2.2 billion over the President's request, including $939 million for BRAC, over $210 million for the military child care centers that the President announced in the State of the Union but never funded, and $992 million for military hospitals, to prevent the types of problems that faced Walter Reed.

Bureau of Prisons

This $178 million urgently needed to meet rising incarceration costs and growing inmate population. The administration would have paid for these costs with cuts to State and local law enforcement funding.

Cleaning up Contracting (H.R. 3928 & H.R. 5712)

Increases accountability and transparency in federal contracting by requiring companies that receive more than 80 percent of their revenue from the federal government to disclose the names and salaries of their top officers, and requires federal contractors to report violations of federal criminal law and over-payments on contracts over $5 million.

I very much appreciate your recognizing me to respond to my friend, David Obey.

I am going to speak just a little bit out of order, for two of my colleagues on the floor, David Obey, the chairman of the committee, and my colleague, Mr. Murtha, the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, have shared with me, I thought, over some years, the traditional order of this House. I've seen how the committee system works, especially in the Appropriations Committee, making certain that all Members, Democrats and Republicans, had an opportunity to provide input. And now to have us move so far away from that traditional order by way of this process today is a great disappointment to me.

I can't help but wonder if maybe there is some lack of commitment to regular order that I had never perceived before. For example, my colleague from San Diego, the chairman of the VA Subcommittee, if he had been given an opportunity, could have marked up and had hearings and otherwise on the VA portions some time ago.

This supplemental came from the President well over a year ago. We have had plenty of time to exercise the process in the way that maximizes Members' involvement, remembering that those Members are elected to represent their people at home.

And so the procedure we are going through today has undermined that representative process.

I think many of my colleagues, particularly those who serve with me on the Appropriations Committee, know that I have a great deal of respect for the senior Senator from West Virginia, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Robert Byrd. While he and I may disagree on issues from time to time, it is fair to say that we both share a deeply held love and respect for this institution.

Senator Byrd also reveres the established traditions and precedents of the committee he leads. He understands that we will only truly know what is in the supplemental if it is exposed to the light of day through the regular order committee process. No one, not even the Senate majority leader, is going to tell Senator Byrd to abdicate his devotion to regular order or his responsibility as chairman of his beloved Appropriations Committee.

Unfortunately, the adherence to regular order has now been completely abandoned on the House side of the Capitol. Both Chairman Obey and Speaker Pelosi, the sole authors of the House supplemental before us today, have dismissed as ``a nonissue'' those bipartisan voices calling for full committee consideration of this critically important legislation.

In conversations with both Republicans and Democrats in the House, it is widely felt that the Democrat leadership has unfairly and wrongly circumvented the House Appropriations Committee process.

Further, the House majority has chosen to proceed under a closed rule, eliminating any and all amendments on the House floor, and is intent on bypassing a conference committee with the Senate. In effect, the Democrat leadership has eliminated every conceivable opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to represent the views of their own constituents.

I find this sadly ironic, for it was Nancy Pelosi in 2006 who outlined the new Democrat majority's governing philosophy. And I will quote her: ``Bills should come to the House floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute. Bills should be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee markups.''

As the body knows full well, we have had not an open process, let alone full and fair debate. Nor have we had any amendment process. Nor have we had any hearings whatsoever. So, I ask the Speaker, what has changed?

In an October 20, 2006 press release, then-minority leader Nancy Pelosi wrote in a letter to then-Speaker Hastert, ``The voice of every American has a right to be heard. No Member of Congress should be silenced on the floor.''

My colleagues know that I have expressed grave concerns about Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey being the sole authors of this legislation without any input from other Members with considerable expertise in these subject matters. I am not alone in expressing this concern.

Last week, my dear friend and colleague, Marcy Kaptur, voiced her displeasure with Chairman Obey and her own leadership. She said, ``Leadership, by keeping the supplemental too close to the vest and not going through a committee markup, has failed to engage the broader membership. It does disenfranchise the voice of people who don't come from leadership locations.''

I just happen to be the ranking member on this full committee. I saw the text and the heart of this proposal only yesterday in the early part of the afternoon. They have had it for months in the works, but have chosen to ignore entirely the minority in this connection. My colleagues know that I have expressed grave concern about this process before.

The House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, has said that it is disingenuous for Republicans to speak out over the Iraq war supplemental bypassing the Appropriations Committee process. He suggested that the House Republicans, while in the majority, had engaged in similar practices. This argument would be convenient if it were, in fact, true. However, we all know that facts are stubborn things.

According to the April 29 edition of the Politico, ``There have been about three dozen emergency spending bills in the past 20 years, and a handful has passed without input from the Appropriations Committee, including billions in Hurricane Katrina aid and post-September 11 funds. But none of the Iraq war funding bills has bypassed the appropriations panel in the process.''

Have there been occasions where supplemental spending bills have not been

considered by the full committee? Sure there have. But on those rare instances, such as the aftermath of September 11 and so on, there was bipartisan consensus on the need to act quickly. And we did so by working together.

In no circumstance, to my knowledge, did either the Republican majority or the Democrat minority that preceded it ever deny either the opposition party or even members of its own party a seat at the table in writing such critical legislation.

Yet here we stand today, debating the merits of a bill that only a handful of Members have even seen. Very, very few Members know what is in this legislation.

I ask you, anybody in this room, have any of you, besides David Obey, had a chance to really read this bill and know what's in it in detail? You're going to be asked to vote on it anyway, regardless of that lack of input.

Members of the House, Republicans and Democrats, deserve to have their voice heard. By the end of the day, not one Member will have an opportunity to offer an amendment or propose any alternative ideas to this body for a vote.

What are Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey afraid of?

This is the fifth time since January 2007 that this majority has brought a supplemental appropriations bill to the House floor under a closed rule, violating the entire tradition of the appropriations process.

In order for the people's voices to be heard, it is fundamental that the representatives' voices are heard. What is happening here is that we are beginning to lay a pattern to destroy the representative process that allows the people to be heard through the people they send here to represent them in the first place.

Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey have effectively said to virtually every Democrat and Republican serving this great body: ``Your voice is irrelevant, and your input is not welcome.'' Again, what are Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey afraid of?

I believe this practice of circumventing our traditional committee process and ignoring the voices of rank and file Members and their constituents is detrimental to the health of the legislative process. It puts in place a process wherein a handful of powerful legislators become ``the Great Deciders'' of what should or should not be included in this almost $250 billion spending bill. This is not the ``House of the Few Great Deciders.'' It is the ``People's House.'' It is the House of Representatives. We fail to recognize this at our great peril.

On May 24, 2002, my friend and my chairman, Mr. Obey, said, and I quote, ``What a shame, when the legislative process is corrupted to polarize a product that should have been used to forge national unity.''

These words are particularly true today as Chairman Obey and Speaker Pelosi put partisan interests ahead of the interests of the Members of the House and ahead of the people of this country. We can do better. And ladies and gentlemen, we must do better.

We can do better, and, ladies and gentlemen, we must do better. Vote ``no'' on this package and send it back to where it belongs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Florida, Bill Young.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from New York, Jim Walsh.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize my colleague from Virginia, Frank Wolf, for 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

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

May I inquire of the Chair how much time is left on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, one of the delights of this process, preparing for this bill, has been to go back through the process of the past and look at some of the protestations and expressions of concern by my colleague, now the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee. I love this quote particularly. He says, ``Now this bill is going nowhere. It's going to be vetoed.'' Which bill are we talking about? This one or that one?

The American people know that once again Congress is putting partisan political considerations ahead of the needs of the American people. What we ought to do is to stop these political games and go forward with the regular process.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the minority whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize for 2 minutes the former chairman of the Veterans' Committee, Steve Buyer of Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, I would yield myself 10 seconds.

The chairman of the committee could have raised this 6 months ago since the bill has been around for a full year, but he chose to use political rhetoric today rather than really carry out his responsibilities.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, could you give us the time, please, on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly yield 1 minute to my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, Mr. Wamp from Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Kingston from Georgia.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of keeping this wonderful dialogue going on, I yield the gentleman from Georgia 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the Republican Policy chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

(Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

As of this moment, we have one additional speaker. I may take 10 seconds to close or something like that.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the minority leader of the Republican side of the aisle, my colleague, John Boehner, for 1 minute.

No. I indicated I was recognizing him for 1 minute. I may have a few seconds myself at the end.

I will just have a few seconds. I will reserve the balance of my time.

I will have a few seconds, but at the end of it, if you are at the end.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed in many ways this discussion today. But most particularly, I have enjoyed having a chance to review the comments, sometimes even the lectures, of my colleague, the chairman of the committee, over the years. It wasn't that long ago that I had the chance to be the chairman myself. And earlier today, I used a quote from the then-ranking member of the committee in which he, in part, said, ``The American people know that, once again, Congress is putting partisan political considerations ahead of the needs of the American people.''

He protested so much. In that same conversation, Mr. Obey went on to say, ``In my view, the quickest way to end this political nonsense is to vote `no' on this bill so that we can send the President a bill which is respectable, responsible and can be signed.''

I must say that serving in the ranking member position at this point in time, I couldn't more heartily adopt the words of my colleague when he formerly had a position like mine.

In the meantime, this bill goes forward. The chairman knows full well that the bill that was written in the corner of this building by a couple of hands is going nowhere. It is very likely to be vetoed. In turn, he is repeating that very process he was protesting against so strongly not so long ago.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, first I want to say on behalf of all of my colleagues our thoughts and prayers are with our good friend and distinguished ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Congressman Jim McCrery. Mr. McCrery is not with us today, and he and his family mourn the untimely passing of Jim's sister. Our thoughts are with Congressman McCrery and his entire family.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here in support of extending unemployment benefits, and I have sponsored legislation to accomplish that goal. All Republican members of the Ways and Means Committee supported extending benefits when our committee considered this legislation in April. But today I rise in opposition to the legislation that's before the House today which includes a radical departure from long-standing Federal policy when it comes to the balance between work and extended benefits. And I am especially opposed to the cynical election-year maneuvering reflected in how the House is considering this important issue today.

Federal law since 1981 has required at least 20 weeks of work before collecting Federal-extended benefits. The temporary program created in 2002 continued this commonsense policy. I believe requiring at least 20 weeks of work to qualify for Federal extended unemployment benefits is perfectly fair, but the majority of Democrats do not. So the legislation before us today makes a radical departure from 27 years of Federal policy by striking the commonsense 20-week work requirement.

Ironically, nearly every Democratic Member in the House supported this same requirement as part of the temporary program Congress created in 2002. Yet today, without a single hearing on this topic, this legislation would strike that sensible long-standing requirement.

So under this legislation, some individuals will receive 12 months of total unemployment benefits after having worked for as little as 2 weeks in some cases before being laid off. Does the majority think that this is fair to taxpayers to pay 12 months of unemployment benefits in exchange for less than 1 month of work?

Since the 1930s, unemployment benefits have been paid to those strongly attached to the workforce. That's the logic behind expecting at least 20 weeks of work before layoff for those who go on to collect Federal-extended benefits. It is not too much to expect someone who has worked for at least 20 weeks to collect up to 12 months of unemployment benefits.

What makes this worse, this legislation is being considered under rules that prevent any opportunities for amendments, that prevent any opportunities for substitutes or other avenues to correct what we believe is a serious error in this radical approach.

The way this bill is being considered is under a process usually reserved for naming post offices and honoring sports teams. In the past 2 years, this House has named 87 post offices using this process, and today by using this same process, House majority leaders trivialize the important issue of extending unemployment benefits to those who are hurting. And it didn't have to be this way.

Every Republican on the Ways and Means Committee supported extending unemployment benefits in some fashion 2 months ago. And I suspect almost every Member of this House shares that view today. The only disagreement involves whether there should be a minimum work requirement, among other important details.

But 2 months, again that's 2 months after this so-called emergency legislation was considered in the Ways and Means Committee, here we are 2 months later with the Majority's flawed take-it-or-leave-it approach.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize many workers are hurting. I continue to support extending help to those who need it most. Unfortunately, the bill before us insists on paying extended unemployment benefits even to those who have worked for only a fraction of the time they will collect benefits.

This radical policy is a departure from current law, a 27-year-old bipartisan policy, and that's simply not right. And the way this legislation is being considered is an affront to all Americans. This bill was brought directly to the floor without as much as a hearing in committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here from the Executive Office of the President stating the President's position. The administration strongly opposes this legislation, H.R. 5479, and they state that if it were presented to the President, the senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.

I place it into the Record at this time.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, June 11, 2008.

Statement of Administration Policy--H.R. 5749--Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008--(Rep. McDermott (D) Washington

and 36 cosponsors)

The Administration is deeply committed to continually

fostering an environment where every American who wants a job

has a job. The Administration believes the best way to help

workers is to create an environment that encourages job

creation and to promote effective job training. To accomplish

these goals, the Administration urges Congress to create more

opportunities for

American exporters by passing the pending free trade

agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, make

permanent the President's tax cuts that will expire over the

next two years, and reform and reauthorize the Trade

Adjustment Assistance program and the Workforce Investment

Act. The Administration looks forward to continuing to work

with Congress to enact these important measures. However, the

Administration strongly opposes H.R. 5749. If H.R. 5749 were

presented to the President, his senior advisors would

recommend that he veto the bill.

This legislation raises several concerns. First, although

the unemployment rate has recently risen, it remains below

the levels historically relied on to justify a federally

financed extension of unemployment benefits. The last

initiation of temporary extended benefits was in 2002 amidst

the unprecedented events surrounding September 11, 2001.

Other than that special case, extensions have generally been

granted only when the unemployment rate was notably higher

than it is today, at or above 7 percent.

Second, this bill would allow the payment of up to 13 extra

weeks of benefits in every State, even though some of those

States have unemployment rates as low as 2.6 percent. At

present, a majority of States have unemployment rates at or

below 5 percent, and it is fiscally irresponsible to provide

extra benefits in States with low unemployment rates. In

States with higher unemployment rates, the Federal-State

extended benefits program already can provide up to 13

additional weeks of benefits to workers who have exhausted

their regular unemployment insurance benefits. As many

economists have noted, the counterproductive result of a

broad extension of benefits would be that recipients may

remain unemployed for slightly longer than they would have

otherwise.

Third, this bill does not contain an important provision

found in previous Federal extensions and the permanent

Federal-State extended benefits law that assures the benefit

extension is paid only to individuals who have demonstrated a

serious attachment to the labor force. Since 1981,

individuals must have 20 weeks of full-time employment to

qualify for extended unemployment benefits. Under this bill,

individuals who have worked as little as two weeks could

qualify for up to 52 weeks of total unemployment benefits.

This violates the longstanding requirement that extended

benefits should be for Americans with meaningful work

histories.

Fourth, for purposes of determining whether a State is

considered a ``high unemployment'' State in which an extra 13

weeks of benefits is payable (for a total of 26 weeks of

additional benefits), this proposal would use a total

unemployment rate of 6 percent as the trigger for State

eligibility. This is, historically, a relatively low number

for justifying a full year or more of unemployment benefits.

As an alternative to these ill-targeted and costly

measures, the Administration could support legislation that

would offer a 13-week extension of Federally financed

unemployment benefits to high-unemployment States alone.

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill so that it can be brought back under a rule that allows the House to work its will and provides an opportunity to include a commonsense work requirement that does not pay a full year of benefits to someone who may have worked for as little as 2 weeks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would note that most House Republicans and the administration have stated that we all support an extension of unemployment benefits. In fact, the letter we just placed in the Record says the administration would sign into law a 13-week extension that is targeted, providing the extended benefits that we all would like to see.

Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to yield to my good friend from Michigan, I would note that, again, the legislation before us is a radical change which eliminates the 20-week work requirement to qualify for a full 12 months of unemployment benefits, and that's why it's important we debate it, and that's why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from the State of Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I would note the previous speaker referred to 6 percent as being ruthless. That's actually the formula in the majority Democrats' bill. So it was interesting that he criticized his own bill.

I would also note to my good friend from Washington (Mr. McDermott) that Illinois is actually a State in which someone can work 2 weeks and actually, under the legislation that's before us, obtain 39 weeks of unemployment benefits.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Brady.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting as we debate this legislation that some have criticized targeted help for those who we would like to provide extended unemployment benefits for, and of course, the bill before us actually targets the final 13 weeks of a year's worth of unemployment benefits with a 6 percent trigger, and it's also interesting that a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee from Michigan, Mr. Levin, labels that 6 percent trigger for that targeted approach ``ruthless,'' a description that he uses to describe his own legislation. I would not use that word.

Before further debating the legislation which eliminates the 20-week work requirement for extended unemployment benefits, Mr. Speaker, can you tell us how much time we have remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, the Iraq War has now entered its sixth year. During this time more than 4,000 soldiers have died, almost 30,000 have been injured, and tens of thousands more will suffer mental scars for years to come. The stress of multiple deployments has strained our military, and our military families. Many of our brightest young officers are leaving the military for careers that allow them to have a family, something that is difficult if not impossible when they are being asked to return to Iraq every 12 months. In addition, the economic cost of this war has been nothing short of staggering. The United States has already spent more than five hundred billion dollars in Iraq, or about $5000 for every household in America. Our children and our grandchildren will be paying off this debt for years to come.

After all the lives lost and money spent, this President has still failed to articulate what our mission in Iraq is, and what strategic goals he still hopes to accomplish. That is why I have introduced legislation that would require the President to have our troops out of Iraq before he leaves office, and also why I do not support giving the Pentagon another $162 billion it can use to wage this war for another year after the next President is sworn in.

While I do not support further funding for this war beyond the President's term in office, I do support the provisions that have been attached conditioning this funding to a timeline for withdrawal, prohibiting the use of torture, holding contractors operating in Iraq responsible for fraud and other criminal activity, stopping the construction of permanent military bases in Iraq, and requiring the President to submit any long term security agreement he reaches with the Government of Iraq to Congress for approval. For too long this President has been given a blank check with which to pursue his Iraq policies, and I am glad that the House of Representatives will once again attempt to hold him accountable for his mismanagement of this war.

It must be pointed out that this vote is not a vote against the troops. Those who are serving our country in Iraq are performing admirably under difficult circumstances. Congress has already provided funds for the Department of Defense and war operations for Fiscal Year 2008. This vote won't endanger the troops' safety in any way, but it does send a signal to the President that he should begin the process of bringing them home.

I also support the decision to include in this legislation funding for other important Democratic priorities that will help boost our economy. Overall, these measures make up only a small fraction of the total cost of the bill, but they are targeted to make a big impact here at home. Not only will they give much needed assistance to the unemployed, veterans, and other vulnerable people, but these provisions will play an important role in stimulating the lagging economy.

For example, the supplemental package includes a bill I introduced that will place a temporary moratorium on seven regulations recently issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). These regulations, if allowed to stay in place, would reduce or eliminate payments for services provided to vulnerable Americans and the institutions that serve them: children with disabilities, people with mental illness, those with multiple care needs, people attempting to transition from an institution to a community living environment, and people with disabilities who need these critical services, such as rehabilitation services and case management, in order to remain in their community. In Michigan, the rehabilitation rule would cut rehabilitation services for 15,000 children with special needs, eliminate habilitation services for another 29,000 developmentally disabled adults and children living in the community, and eliminate access to critical community services and resources for 23,600 adults and 5,100 children who are in supported independent living arrangements or group homes.

The supplemental will also contain legislation I cosponsored to extend Unemployment Compensation, a provision that will greatly help the residents of Michigan's 15th Congressional District which I have the honor of serving. The National Employment Law Project projects that from May 2008 through March 2009, more than 162,000 workers will exhaust their benefits in Michigan, and that currently over 64,000 have already exhausted this benefit. By including this legislation in today's supplemental package Congress will be helping 226,590 workers in Michigan who desperately need the extra boost, while also giving a much needed boost to the economy.

This bill will also provide expanded G.I. Benefits for Veterans Education, restoring the promise of a 4 year college education to those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. As a veteran of World War II, I know how instrumental the original G.I. Bill was in expanding economic opportunity, growing the middle class, and creating a strong and vibrant post-war economy. The President and some of his Republican colleagues, including Senator McCain, are opposed to providing increased educational opportunities to today's generation of veterans because they fear it will discourage men and women currently serving from reenlisting. I find it highly disturbing that the President and his colleagues would withhold these much needed benefits to those who have served our country so admirably, and I would advise them that the quickest way to fix our military's retention problem would be to put an end to the misguided Iraq war that has so seriously damaged morale.

Another provision that I strongly support provides $675 million to assist refugees, with the bulk of that money going to address the growing humanitarian crisis in Iraq. I asked the President to include $1.5 billion in his budget for increased U.S. spending in the region, increased U.S. contributions to United Nations appeals for Iraqi refugees, and increased bilateral assistance for our allies, such as Jordan, that are struggling to deal with huge numbers of Iraqi refugees within their borders. Unfortunately this request was denied, and I am very pleased that I was able to work with my Democratic colleagues to see to it that some of these funds were made available in the Supplemental.

No matter what we do here today, the President has made it clear that he intends to keep 160,000 troops in Iraq as long as he is in office. While I am disappointed that it appears the President has no interest in ending the war on his watch, I am pleased the Democratic Congress has gone on record as being opposed to that plan, and has put in place the kind of timelines and restrictions required for us to begin to bring our troops home. I also think it is wholly appropriate to include funding for domestic priorities in an emergency supplemental spending bill. Just as the President's mishandling of the Iraq war has caused a crisis in the Middle East, his mismanagement of the economy has created a crisis here at home for millions of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for a particular provision in the Supplemental Appropriations legislation, H.R. 2642.

Included in this bill is legislation that I introduced with Representative Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania. The ``Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act of 2008'' is a simple, straightforward bill that would place a temporary moratorium on seven regulations recently issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

The Committee on Energy and Commerce recently reported the bill with unanimous support. The House then passed it with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 349 to 62.

These Medicaid regulations in question, if allowed to stay in place, would reduce or eliminate payments for services provided to vulnerable Americans and the institutions that serve them. They would affect children with disabilities, people with mental illness, those with multiple care needs, people attempting to transition from an institution to a community living environment, and people with disabilities who need services, such as rehabilitation services and case management in order to remain in their community. The regulations would also eliminate funding for school-based outreach and enrollment, and funding that helps safety net providers care for indigent and under-insured patients in our communities.

In my home State of Michigan, the rehabilitation rule would cut services for 15,000 children with special needs, eliminate services for another 29,000 developmentally disabled adults and children and eliminate access to critical community services and resources for 23,600 adults and 5,100 children who are in supported independent living arrangements or group homes.

The Administration's arguments for supporting these regulations simply do not hold water. These regulations go beyond any justifiable point to curb abuses in the system. Rather, they represent a misguided effort to shift costs to States and prohibit Federal support for legitimate expenditures on behalf of Medicaid beneficiaries.

More than 2,000 organizations representing beneficiaries, providers, schools, and States have written to lend their support to this initiative, from ``A'', such as the American Hospital Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, to ``Z,'' the Zion Lutheran Elementary School in Nebraska. The chorus of support has been overwhelming.

I would also like to take a moment to commend Chairman Pallone and Ranking Members Barton and Deal who worked to prepare the bill for rapid action in Committee and the House floor.

I also wish to thank Chairman Obey for including the Medicaid legislation in the supplemental appropriations bill.