Congratulating the University of Tennessee women's basketball team for winning the 2007 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Championship.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for his exceptional leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor. I also acknowledge the leadership of Mr. Murtha and Mr. Skelton for all that they are doing to make our country safer and to support our troops.

Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq is the greatest ethical challenge facing our Nation. This is so because our troops are being sent into battle without the training, equipment. And the strategic plan for success because the administration is not honoring our commitment to our veterans and because the Iraqi war has strained our military, and therefore weakened our ability to fight the war on terrorism.

By placing an unacceptable strain on our military, this war is undermining our ability to protect the American people. Instead of making the American people safer, the war in Iraq has weakened our ability to protect our Nation from the threat posed by international terrorism, I repeat.

As Major General Petraeus said, right now we are not prepared. We are not prepared for the threat this Nation faces here at home. And, because in this business you cannot be half ready or half prepared, you are either ready or you are not.

We have put our citizens at greater risk. We have put their lives at greater risk, their property, our economy, our way of life, and that is just unacceptable.

Instead of strengthening our hand, the President's policies in Iraq have weakened our reputation in the world and diminished our ability to lead the international effort against terrorism, which again is the real threat.

With U.S. focus on Iraq, the war in Afghanistan has intensified because of the resurgence of the Taliban and al Qaeda in the absence of the fullest effort on our part there.

As Major General John Baptiste said, Here is the bottom line. Americans must come to grips with the fact that our military alone cannot establish a democracy. We cannot sustain the current operational tempo without seriously damaging the Army and the Marine Corps. Our troops have been asked to carry the burden of an ill-conceived mission. End of quote, Major General John Baptiste.

Our troops have done everything that they have been asked to do and excellently. We salute them for their courage, their patriotism, and the sacrifices they and their families are making. Instead of being honored as the heroes they are when they come home, our wounded veterans are being forced to cope with a system that is not equipped to care for them. Preparation was not made.

Americans have been shocked by the revelations of the appalling care at Walter Reed. As Senator Max Cleland, a great patriot, a decorated Army veteran, said, Walter Reed is the ugly face of the Iraq war. It is a face that the American people need to see because this administration from the beginning never planned to deal with casualties, never planned for the consequences of this war.

Last fall, the American people voted for a new direction in Iraq. They made it clear that our troops must be given all they need to do their jobs but that our troops must be brought home responsibly, safely and soon.

The President responded to this clear call for winding down the war in Iraq with a policy of escalation in Iraq that has been tried three times previously and failed and, additionally, has burdened our already strained military.

The problems addressed in this bill are problems of the President's own making. From the start of the war, the President has failed to recognize and to request in his budget the funds needed by our troops serving in Iraq, as has been indicated by the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey.

This is the seventh emergency appropriations bill that Congress has had to pass to make up for the President's failure, seven emergencies. What is the surprise? Why aren't they understanding the cost of this war in lives and health, in reputation, in dollars, and the readiness of our military?

Furthermore, the President's budgets have failed to provide adequately for the medical needs of our troops wounded in Iraq and for other veterans. This bill supports our troops, honors our commitments to our veterans, rebuilds our military, and holds the Iraqi government accountable. It winds down the war by providing for the responsible redeployment of our combat forces based on benchmarks endorsed by the Iraqi government and by President Bush. They are his own benchmarks.

Oddly, though, even though they are the President's own benchmarks, holding the administration accountable to benchmarks has been criticized by the administration. They are criticizing their own benchmarks. Yet both Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and retired Major General Paul Eaton, formerly in charge of training of Iraqi security forces, have noted the value of timelines in persuading Iraqis to make the political compromises needed to end the violence.

Secretary Gates noted, we are all familiar with this, it bears repeating, ``The strong feelings expressed in Congress about the timetables probably has had a positive impact . . . in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment.''

General Eaton said, ``This bill gives General Petraeus great leverage for moving the Iraqi government down the more disciplined path laid out by the Iraq Study Group.''

My colleagues, the war in Iraq has lasted longer than World War II and resulted in the lowest level of American military readiness since the Vietnam War. It has cost thousands of American lives, tens of thousands, scores of thousands of Iraqi lives, plus tens of thousands of our soldiers to suffer grievous injuries, and will cost well over $1 trillion if the war ended today.

The sacrifices borne by our troops and their families demand more than the blank check the President is asking for, for a war without end. The sacrifices demand a plan for bringing the war to an end. This bill contains that plan and provides the President for every dollar he asked for the troops, and, indeed, thank you, Mr. Murtha, much more.

I urge my colleagues to support it. I urge the President to sign the bill so that we can focus on winning the war against terrorism, which is the real threat to the American people. That is our responsibility, and we fully intend to honor it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. We are legislators. The President has a job and we who represent the people have a job. It funds the war, a war that the other side started, and the speech that they are giving tonight is the same speech they gave 4 years ago.

It's time to change course. This bill funds veterans who have been wounded severely, children who need health care, and all the emergencies that this country needs to address and has not been taking care of the last decade.

Pass the bill.

Mr. President, sign the bill. It's the best bill. The Senate and House have agreed, and we don't care that the President has said, before we even passed it out of the first Chamber, that he would veto it. We have to pass this bill, bring our troops home, and have a plan for success.

This is a good conference report. Americans, speak out. If the President does veto the bill, there is something to be paid. The troops need our help and our support, and I thank Chairman Obey and Chairman Murtha for their leadership. Vote for the conference report.

``Few will have the greatness to bend history itself; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation.'' Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.

This vote will affect us today, it will affect our children tomorrow, it will affect our grand children of the next generation. Unlike some of our colleagues, I refuse to legislate any bill, much less this bill, merely because the President has issued a veto threat. Our brand of government has lasted for more than 230 years because of the separation of powers. The President needs the money, and Congress controls the power of the purse.

We have the opportunity to change course, confront crises, and continue the legacy of not only the Democratic Party but of America with this vote today.

As of April 23, 2007, there have been 3,333 U.S. Military Deaths Confirmed by the Department of Defense. There have been at least 20,000 women and men who have been wounded, and untold numbers of women and men who have been affected by traumatic brain injuries that we are just discovering, and will suffer for decades from post traumatic stress disorder.

The Democrats have worked to compromise with the Administration. While I, like many of my colleagues, hoped that we would retain the House language with regard to the troop deployment provisions, I understand that honesty and compromise are the hallmarks of this august body.

Make no mistake about it; this vote is a vote to support our troops and will bring an end to the war in the near future. The military options for Iraq are exhausted; we need to pursue diplomatic solutions so that the Iraqis and other countries in the Middle East can be real shareholders in the fate of Iraq.

This supplemental enforces the President's own benchmarks that the Iraqis protect and end their civil war. This bill has the military's own standards for readiness and deployment. This bill provides more than the President requested for military procurement, construction, health care, and readiness.

I am proud that the Committee supported my request for increased funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, to remove the matching funds for many of the grants and loans going to the rebuilding of states affected by Hurricane Katrina, in particular the city of New Orleans.

$450 million for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)/Counseling: African American male Vietnam and Iraq theater veterans have higher rates of PTSD than Whites. Rates of current PTSD are 28% among Hispanics, 21% among African Americans, and 14 percent

among Whites. African Americans have greater exposure to war stresses and had more predisposing factors than Whites, which appeared to account for their higher rate of PTSD.

$450 million for Traumatic Brain Injury care and research: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is caused by a blow or jolt to the head or a penetrating head injury that disrupts the function of the brain.

$20 million to address the problems at Walter Reed: When the federal base-closing commission recommended shutting down Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, it was noted through a number of reports that most of the patients and communities affected were African- American.

$100 million to allow the VA to contract with private mental healthcare providers to offer veterans, including Guard and reserve members, quality and timely care: African Americans are more likely to be victims of serious violent crime than are non-Hispanic whites.

Food Assistance (PL 480 Title II): Adds $450 million, which is $100 million above the President's request, to support food aid in Sudan/ Eastern Chad, Southern Africa, and the Horn of Africa.

Agricultural Assistance: Adds $3.7 billion. According to the National Farmers Union, over 80 percent of U.S. counties were designated as disaster areas in 2005, and 60 percent were declared in 2006, making this assistance essential if farmers are to maintain their livelihoods in the coming year.

Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): The Supplemental adds $400 million to partially restore cuts to the program.

Pandemic Flu Preparedness: Adds $1 billion to purchase vaccines needed to protect us from a global pandemic.

State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP): As amended in Committee, the proposal adds $750 million for SCHIP to ensure continued healthcare coverage for children in 14 states that face a budget shortfall in the program.

Foreign Aid: $40 million in security assistance is added for Liberia. This provision was added only because of the CBC.

After far too long, the bill will address the outstanding needs of our working women and men by increasing the minimum wage of Americans.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rescission of $683 million of highway contract authority that is included in the Conference Report on H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, 2007.

The Conference Report provides an additional $683 million for the Federal Highway Administration's (``FHWA'') Emergency Relief Program. Section 4952 of the Conference Report designates this appropriation as an emergency requirement, for which no offset is required.

Despite the fact that no offset is required, the Conference Report rescinds $683 million in unobligated balances of highway funds that have been apportioned to the States. This rescission is highly gratuitous, as it is neither required nor effective as an offset for the supplemental appropriation to the Emergency Relief Program.

Rather than offsetting the supplemental appropriation for the Emergency Relief Program, the $683 million rescission of highway contract authority offsets other spending under the FY 2007 discretionary budget authority cap.

A similar provision was included in the Senate-passed version of the bill. The Senate amendment provided an emergency supplemental appropriation of $389 million for the FHWA's Emergency Relief Program, and rescinded $389 million in highway contract authority.

On April 23, 2007, I wrote to the conferees, strongly objecting to this unnecessary rescission of highway contract authority, and urged them to strike the rescission in conference. Instead, the conferees increased both the appropriation and the rescission to $683 million.

Madam Speaker, the rescission of highway contract authority is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. This rescission violates clause 2 of Rule XXI of the Rules of the House.

Programmatically, I am concerned because of the effect these types of rescissions have on the Federal-aid Highway Program and, specifically, the ability to ensure that our nation's transportation system provides modal choices.

In recent years, the Appropriations Committees have increasingly relied on highway contract authority rescissions to finance non-highway spending in appropriations acts. In addition, more than a dozen states have chosen to apply such rescissions disproportionately to cut contract authority for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program, the Bridge program, and transportation enhancement funds.

I am particularly concerned with the treatment of the CMAQ program under these types of rescissions. The CMAQ program provides funding for projects and programs that reduce transportation-related emissions in areas that do not meet Clean Air Act air quality standards (i.e., nonattainment and maintenance areas).

Although CMAQ funds represent only about 4-5 percent of highway apportionments each year, CMAQ funds have accounted for about 20 percent of total highway funds rescinded in recent years. In FY 2006 states rescinded $881 million in CMAQ funds. Almost one of every four dollars rescinded by the States in FY 2006 came from the CMAQ program.

Comparing the treatment of CMAQ to other highway programs further illustrates the disproportionate cuts of these rescissions. In FY 2006, rescissions as a percentage of the total amount made available for programs are:

CMAQ--55 percent.

Interstate Maintenance--12 percent.

National Highway System--7 percent.

The Transportation Enhancements program has also received disproportionate contract authority cuts under the rescissions. The Transportation Enhancements program provides funds for bike paths, pedestrian walkways, historic preservation, and other activities that expand transportation choices and enhance the transportation experience.

In FY 2006, states rescinded $602 million in Transportation Enhancements funds, 15 percent of all rescissions in that year. Texas alone rescinded $223 million of Transportation Enhancements funding and the Texas Department of Transportation stated that it would not fund any transportation enhancement projects in that fiscal year. Texas' actions, which are facilitated by these contract authority rescissions, are directly contrary to our federal efforts to develop a balanced, multimodal surface transportation system.

During consideration of the FY 2004 Transportation-Treasury-HUD Appropriations bill, the Committee faced a similar effort to cut transportation enhancements funding. The bill, as reported by the Appropriations Committee, included a provision that would have prohibited funds from being used for the ten percent set aside for transportation enhancements under the Surface Transportation Program. Subcommittee Chairman Petri and I offered an amendment to strike the anti-enhancements provision from the bill and the House overwhelmingly passed the amendment by a recorded vote of 327-90. This vote illustrates the tremendous support that exists among Members of Congress for transportation enhancements, the type of program that is disproportionately harmed by highway contract authority rescissions such as the one included in the Conference Report before us today.

Therefore, for both policy and procedural reasons, I oppose the rescission of highway contract authority as a means to offset non- highway spending elsewhere in the budget.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this House will have an opportunity to reconsider this decision in a future Supplemental Appropriations bill and I would like to make clear that, with the urgent climate change issues that our nation faces, I strongly oppose efforts to allow the continued raid of CMAQ and Enhancements funding.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Republican leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we know that this conference report before us will be vetoed by the President because of the Iraqi withdrawal language and the many unrelated and costly spending items that have absolutely nothing to do with the global war on terror or recovery efforts in the gulf coast.

It is no secret that many Members of the House and Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, have strong reservations about the manner in which this legislation undermines the authority of the President, our Commander in Chief. Members are also rightly concerned about how this legislation places military decisions in the hands of politicians rather than the military commanders in the field.

As I have said many times before, this legislation ought to focus on our troops. It ought to focus on providing those in harm's way with the resources they need to complete their mission successfully. It ought to respect, not micromanage, our combatant commanders in whom we place the ultimate responsibility for prosecuting military actions.

My colleagues know that I have great respect for my friend, Mr. Murtha, but I strongly disagree with his assertion that we ought to have 535 Members and Senators micromanaging the war in Iraq. With all due respect, that is not our job.

Let me again remind my colleagues, we are not generals, we are not the Secretary of State, and we most certainly are not the Commander in Chief. It is tragically ironic that the House is considering this conference report the same day that General David Petraeus met with Members in closed session on the current situation in Iraq.

It was on January 26 of this year, just 3 months ago, that the Senate voted 81-0 to confirm General Petraeus to be the top military commander in Iraq. One would have thought that Members and Senators would trust his judgment following such an extraordinary vote of confidence over 3 months ago. Senator Reid, who supported the General's confirmation, now says, and I quote, ``I don't believe him.''

Recent history reminds us that the enemy we face in Iraq, in Afghanistan and other countries that harbor terrorists will stop at nothing to seek opportunities to attack the United States and our allies. Have we not learned anything from the original World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the Khobar Towers bombing, the attack on USS Cole or 9/11 itself?

Al Qaeda will view this legislation as the first sign of the United States backing down from its commitment to the war on terror. It will view the withdrawal provisions contained in this conference report as America signaling retreat and surrender. Indeed, al Qaeda will view this as a day that the House of Representatives threw in the towel, waved the white flag and signaled retreat and surrender in Iraq.

Our failure to learn the lessons of history, our failure to lead today, will result in devastating consequences, including an even greater loss of lives, and even more resources needed to fight tomorrow. Just as we have only one top General in Iraq, one Secretary of State and one Commander in Chief, we only have one Speaker of the House at a time.

Speaker Pelosi and I have been friends and have served as colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for many years. The Speaker played an important role in supporting the development of unmanned aerial vehicles, a critical and successful military capability that is a key element to the war on terror. She and I worked on that in the Intelligence Committee together years ago. It is puzzling to me that the Speaker would not only openly question the judgment of General Petraeus, Secretary Rice, and our Commander in Chief, but that she would also willingly work to undermine their efforts to secure a successful outcome in Iraq.

My colleagues, it is absolutely essential that America, the last remaining superpower on Earth, continue to be the voice for peace and freedom in our shrinking world. Our success is critical. Walking away will further signal to Syria, Iran, Afghanistan and others that the United States is no longer committed to a successful outcome in Iraq.

In closing, I ask Speaker Pelosi and my friends in the majority to weigh the implications of supporting this conference report. Even as I hold hope that the Speaker might have a road-to-Damascus conversion, I ask her to weigh the enormous consequences of putting our troops in peril. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this emergency supplemental.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member on Homeland Security, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member on Military Construction of Appropriations, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the former chairman of the Defense Subcommittee and former chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Kingston of Georgia, a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member on the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to our Republican whip, Mr. Blunt.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report on H.R. 1591, the Supporting Our Troops and Veterans' Health Care Act.

This legislation will support our troops and veterans, hold the Bush Administration and Iraqi government accountable and begin withdrawing our troops from Iraq by October 2007 or sooner. It will also provide emergency funding for critical programs that have suffered from years of neglect.

This supplemental appropriations bill provides emergency funding for critical programs that have long been underfunded by the Republicans. It includes $650 million to correct the funding shortfall in the State Children's Health Insurance program so that hundreds of thousands of children will not lose their health care. It provides $6.9 billion for Gulf Coast hurricane relief and recovery. The bill also adds $400 million to LIHEAP (Low Income Heating Assistance), as well as providing $1.8 billion to remedy the unconscionable state of our military and veterans' health care systems. All of these issues are emergencies in their own right and rise to the level of inclusion in this emergency supplemental spending bill.

The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act requires the Iraqi government to meet the security, political and economic benchmarks established by the President in his address of January 10th, including improvements in the performance of the Iraqi security forces, a greater commitment by the Iraqi government to national reconciliation, and reductions in the levels of sectarian violence in Iraq.

In the bill, the President must determine that substantial progress is being made on security, political, and reconstruction benchmarks by July 2007. If the President cannot certify progress, redeployment must start by July with a goal of being completed within 180 days. If the President can certify progress by July 2007, redeployment must begin by October 1, with goal of completion within 180 days.

The bill ensures that our troops have the tools and resources they need to do the job they have been asked to do. It prohibits the deployment of troops who are not full trained, equipped and protected according to current Department of Defense standards. The President can only deploy unprepared troops if he certifies, in writing, to Congress, that deploying those troops is in the national interest. He must make similar certifications to lengthen troop deployments beyond DoD standards or to send troops back into battle who have not had enough time between deployments. The bill also provides funding so the Veterans Administration can meet the obligations of a new

generation of veterans, particularly by ensuring that they will have the medical care they need.

I have been an outspoken opponent of military action against Iraq since the day the administration started beating the war drums. My preference would have been to vote for a stronger bill with a binding date certain for ending the war. I would have preferred not to include waivers to allow the President to send less than fully equipped and rested troops into battle. I have additional concerns about the section of the bill that allows an unspecified number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq after the March 2008 deadline to train Iraqis and fight terrorism.

However, I support this legislation in spite of these deficiencies because I believe it is an affirmative step towards our ultimate goal of ending the war. This bill is not everything that I would have liked, but it represents a critical turning point. No longer will this body uncritically hand over billions of dollars for the President to wage an endless war. Congress has a Constitutional responsibility to provide accountability--a responsibility that was shirked for the first 6 years of the Bush presidency while Republicans controlled Congress. Today, we have followed through on that critical duty. We will send a bill to the President that would definitively change our course in Iraq. Mr. Bush should make the right decision and support our plan for change that is overwhelmingly endorsed by the American people. If he follows through on his veto threat, he will be the one who has failed to provide our troops and our veterans with the resources they need. He will be the one who has rejected his own benchmarks to measure success in Iraq. He will be the one responsible for the ongoing loss of American life in Iraq.

The President and most Congressional Republicans ask that we continue to fund this war with ``no strings attached.'' But the United States cannot afford an open-ended commitment to a war without end. It is the responsibility of this Congress to devise a means to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq so that we can reclaim our position of leadership in the world and direct our resources back towards urgent needs here at home. I believe that this bill moves us towards these goals in an effective and responsible way.

Mr. Speaker, what are we doing? What in the world are we doing? The President asked for funding for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to meet our commitments to bring freedom to those people and to protect the American people, and here we are with a bill that has some $25 billion worth of spending over and above what the President asked for. And if that is not bad enough, we handcuff our generals and we handcuff our troops and we go about this backhanded way of trying to end the war in a backhanded way because the votes are not there to do it in a straight-up fashion.

Mr. Speaker, we are sent here by the American people. We have grave responsibilities to them and to our allies around the world, and I understand that there are deeply held differences over what is going on in Iraq. But all of us understand what we heard today from General Petraeus. All of us understand what we have heard over the last few months coming out of Iraq.

The real battle in Iraq today is not with the Iraqis. The real battle in Iraq today is with al Qaeda that has made this the central front in their war with us. And let us remember, we did not start the war with al Qaeda; they did.

It is al Qaeda that has made Iraq the central front in their war with us, and if we are not willing to take on al Qaeda in Iraq today, when will we? When will we stand up to radical Islam that is spreading all over the world, endangering our allies and endangering our citizens? When will we stand up and fight? We did not do it like other world leaders for some 20 years because America, like the rest of the world, looked up, looked away, and just hoped the problem would go away. It is not just going to go away.

People who are raised to believe that killing Americans and our allies and killing freedom and hating freedom is the answer to get to Allah is not just going to go away. And so we can look up and we can walk out, we can walk out of Iraq, just like we did in Lebanon, just like we did in Vietnam, just like we did in Somalia, and we will leave chaos in our wake.

Now, if dealing with al Qaeda is not enough of a reason to finish the job that we have in Iraq, what about the issue of the Iranians? The Iranians are trying to spew their hate all over the Middle East and elsewhere. You see Iranians who are bringing new devices into Baghdad to kill Americans and our allies. It is Iranians who are bringing funds and doing training to stir up sectarian violence in Baghdad. Are we just going to look the other way again?

I say to my colleagues, and I have said this before, every generation of Americans has had their obligation. Every generation of Americans has had their obligation to stand up and to protect our country, not for just today but for tomorrow and for the next generation.

After looking away for 20 years during the 1980s and 1990s, what was America to do after 3,000 of our citizens died on 9/11? Just all hope it goes away, hope they do not care anymore?

I say to my colleagues that we have a solemn obligation to the American people to finish the job that we started. And while Iraq may not have started out as the central front in our war with al Qaeda, it may not have started out with a fight against the Iranians, all of us in this Chamber today know, all of us know that this is the central front in our war with al Qaeda, and this is the battleground with Iran. You all know it. You know it as well as I do.

And the question is, are we going to stand up and fulfill our obligation to the American people? Are we going to fulfill our obligation to the Iraqis who are struggling to create a government of the people, by the people and for the people?

I think they are on clear notice that they have got a job to do on their own, but if we step out today, we are ensuring that they will fail. We are ensuring that we will leave chaos in our wake. We will embolden our enemies, and it is our kids and their kids who will pay a very, very steep price.

This is not the right thing to do, in my opinion. I respect those who have opinions that are otherwise, but as I stand here as a Member of Congress, we need to think seriously about what we are doing, think seriously about the message that we are sending to our enemies around the world and ask ourselves, is this what our forefathers would have done? Is this the message that we want to send to the world? I would suggest to all of you it is not. We should vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I extend my strong support ``The Small Business and Work Opportunity Act of 2007'' as included in the Conference Report to H.R. 1591. I am glad that both chambers of Congress, in passing this Conference Report, have spoken to the fact that an increase in the Federal minimum wage enjoys broad bipartisan, bicameral support, as does the approximately $5 billion in small business tax relief also included in the agreement.

Passage of the Conference Report is an important step in achieving an important goal--ensuring an increase in the Federal minimum wage for hardworking American taxpayers. The minimum wage has not increased in more than nine years--the longest period in the history of the law. During that time, Members of Congress have received a $31,600 pay raise. More astounding is the fact that an average CEO earns more before lunchtime in one day than a minimum wage earner earns all year.

Raising the minimum wage to from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over two years would benefit 13 million Americans including 7.7 million women, 3.4 million parents, and 4.7 million people of color, and provide an additional $4,400/year for a family of three, equaling 15 months of groceries, or over two years of health care. It is wrong to have millions of Americans working full-time and still living in poverty, and at $5.15 an hour, a full-time minimum wage worker makes $6,000 less than the poverty level for a family of three.

Americans overwhelmingly support increasing the Federal minimum wage. An Associated Press poll conducted in January showed almost 80% of those polled supported the $2.10 increase. In fact, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly supports increasing the minimum wage, and passed H.R. 2 with 315 votes in favor. The President has also been supportive of the increase. I hope that combining the tax provisions of this bill with a Federal minimum wage increase will encourage the President's quick action on signing these provisions into law without further delay.

The ``Small Business and Work Opportunity Act of 2007'' as included in the Conference Report to H.R. 1591 expands and extends the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC), which serves as an incentive to encourage employers to hire individuals from targeted groups which typically experience barriers to work. The WOTC provision in the Conference Report offers additional incentives to hire disabled veterans. The Conference Report also extends and expands the increased expensing amounts for small businesses, allowing them to invest in new technology and equipment. And as a complement to the minimum wage increase, the tax provisions of the Conference Report allow restaurants to continue claiming the full tip credit despite any increase in the Federal minimum wage. Finally, the Conference Report provides a permanent waiver of the individual and corporate AMT limitations to ensure that small businesses are fully able to claim the WOTC and the credit for Social Security taxes paid with respect to cash tips.

The Conference Report contains provisions that continue the Federal government's commitment to the still-recovering areas hit by Hurricane Katrina. It would extend the placed-in-service date as applies to special credits designed to encourage development of low-income housing. The extension of this deadline helps accelerate the use of the credits by eliminating the reallocation process that otherwise would be used. The Conference Report also modifies a tax-exempt bond financing program to allow funds to be used to refinance existing mortgages on homes that were damaged by the hurricanes in the area.

Finally, the tax provisions of the ``Small Business and Work Opportunity Tax Act'' as included in the Conference Report to H.R. 1591 are fiscally responsible and fully offset in a revenue-neutral package. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Baucus and I have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of the bill. The technical explanation expresses the Committee's understanding and legislative intent behind this important legislation. It is available on the Joint Committee's website at www.house.gov/jct.

Mr. Speaker, first I want to make the point as strongly as I can that I want our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and anyplace else in the world where they are in harm's way as soon as we can possibly do it without risking the security of our own Nation and the security of our own people.

Mr. Murtha and I have been partners in this business for many, many years, and he and I have both stood by the bedside of too many wounded troops and have attended too many funerals, and we want this over.

As a matter of fact, the legislation before us, the appropriations part of this defense bill is a good package. Mr. Murtha and I met prior to him submitting this to the full Appropriations Committee and we agreed. Basically I told Mr. Murtha that these are about the same numbers that I would have recommended if I were still the chairman. But we did agree to disagree on the issue of the restrictive language on the conduct of the battlefield.

My memory takes me back, as we discuss this legislation now, to October of 1983, where terrorists attacked the Marine barracks in Beirut. The Marines there on a peacekeeping mission and 241 of our troops were killed. In February of 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed, as Chairman Lewis noted in his comments. Six lives were lost.

In June of 1996, Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, where our airmen were being housed, was bombed. Nineteen American lives were lost. August of 1998, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists again. Two hundred fifty-nine lives were lost. October of 2000, the USS Cole off the shore of Yemen was bombed by terrorists. Again, 17 American lives lost, and almost every crewman on the ship injured.

But all this time nothing happened except a lot of rhetoric. Well, we talked a lot. We were going to hunt them down. And you can run, but you can't hide.

But finally, after September 11, the people of America were so incensed by what they saw with the airplanes flying into the two World Trade Centers, the airplane flying into the ground in Pennsylvania, in or near Mr. Murtha's district, and the airplane flying into the Pentagon right across the river, killing some 3,000 innocent people. The people of America were incensed. They demanded action. The President of the United States promised action, and the Congress provided action. And subsequently, our troops are in Afghanistan and are in Iraq. And it is essential that we provide whatever they need to carry out their mission and to protect themselves while they are carrying out the mission.

But now, what about leaving today or tomorrow or March or July, as some of these restrictions provide?

One of our great successes was Desert Storm. In Desert Storm, we attacked Saddam Hussein's armies successfully, and we annihilated, basically, his army. At least they ran away. They ran for cover. They surrendered. A lot of them lost the battle because the United States was aggressive and our coalition partners.

But here's where we made a mistake. Once we had Saddam's armies defeated, we left. We left before there was anything else there to provide a reasonable, logical government for the people of Iraq.

And what happened? Saddam responded in a vicious attack upon his own Iraqi citizens to continue the genocide that he began in earlier years. After we left from Desert Storm, he killed thousands of Shia Iraqis.

What General Petraeus and our American troops are trying to do is to give the Iraqi government that has been elected by the people, Constitution approved by the people, a parliament elected under the new Constitution by the people; General Petraeus said that the Iraqi security forces were growing in number, were growing in capability. Even the Sunnis are starting to join up with these security forces in Iraq to show a Sunni-Shia coming together. Not much, but a little bit.

But to let this government exist so that we didn't have another situation where we left, we didn't leave anybody in charge, and the bad guys took over again.