Providing for earmark reform.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 806, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3222) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 3222.

Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for a 3.5 percent pay raise for military personnel. It rejects the President's proposed increase in TRICARE copays and funds TRICARE by $1.9 billion, appropriates $2.6 billion to provide our military families with the immediate need for more counselors, teachers and child care providers. It also looks to the future.

The bill provides $938 billion above the President's request for advance construction funding for additional ships, provides an additional $980 million to purchase essential National Guard and Reserve equipment. We're looking beyond Iraq, trying to take care of any threat that may threaten this country in the future.

Conference Agreement Totals and OverView

The President requested $463.1 billion in total FY 2008 new budget authority for the Department of Defense and intelligence community programs that fall under the purview of the Defense Subcommittee. This is an increase of $43.3 billion over last year's enacted level--a 10.3 percent increase in nominal terms. The lion's share of the increase over FY 2007 (some 80 percent) was allocated to operation and maintenance and procurement programs.

The conference agreement meets the budget authority allocation of $459.6 billion for FY 2008. This figure is a little more than $3.5 billion below the President's budget request. Nonetheless, the conference agreement provides an increase for Defense of $39.7 billion over the FY 2007 enacted level, or about 9.5 percent in nominal growth.

The House bill shifted funding for certain programs between the FY 2008 base budget bill and the FY 2008 war supplemental in order to meet the budget authority allocation. However, because consideration of the FY 2008 supplemental has been delayed, some items deferred in the House bill have been restored to the base bill in the conference agreement to prevent production gaps and other consequences that might arise if funding were delayed until next May. This largely affected appropriations for the Department's operation and maintenance activities and ammunition procurement accounts. The House bill recommended an overall reduction to the operation and maintenance accounts of some $5.7 billion below the request. The conference agreement includes a total reduction of $2.8 billion. Nonetheless, the conference agreement fully funds home-station training, equipment maintenance, and other key military readiness programs covered in these accounts.

Meeting the allocation also required deferring consideration of several high profile programs until the FY 2008 war supplemental is taken up. These include:

The Air Force Reserve Basic Allowance for Housing shortfall

War-Related Special Pays--Hostile Fire Pay, Hardship Duty Pay, Foreign Language Proficiency Pay.

The ground forces' strategic reserve readiness and equipment rehabilitation.

Funding for additional Stryker vehicles ($1.1 billion).

The purchase of at least 10 C-17 cargo aircraft ($2.9 billion).

The purchase of additional Black Hawk MEDEVAC helicopters.

The Department's Global Train and Equip program.

Highlights

The conference agreement achieves a balance between preparing units for near-term deployments, supporting our military members and their families, and modernizing our forces to meet future threats. Highlights of the agreement are:

Supporting Our Troops and Their Families: First and foremost, the conference agreement recommends robust funding for programs important to the health, well-being, and readiness of our forces. In addition, the agreement proposes several initiatives that address issues raised by troops, their families, and Department of Defense officials in testimony before the Committee and visits to military bases in the United States and overseas.

The conference agreement includes funding of about $2.2 billion to cover the full cost of a 3.5 percent military pay raise, supported by both the House and Senate version of the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization bill.

Under their ``grow-the-force'' initiatives, the Army and Marine Corps propose to add 7,000 and 5,000 new troops, respectively. The personnel costs of these increases are fully covered in the conference agreement, as are the associated equipping and outfitting costs. For the Army the equipping costs for these new troops amount to more than $4 billion; for the Marines the costs exceed $2 billion.

Home-stationing training, optempo, and flying-hour costs are funded at robust levels. All told, the conference agreement provides for a 19 percent increase in funding for these activities over last year's level. Home station training dollars increase by 32 percent and 45 percent for Army and Marine Corps respectively.

The military services' force structure and basing infrastructure are in a state of transition. The Army, in particular, has been forced to manage significant changes in force structure (known as Army Modularity), base closures, and a global repositioning of forces, all while meeting the demands of war. Based on detailed information provided by the Army, the conference agreement includes a House initiative to assist the service in meeting this challenge. The conference agreement adds $615.7 million to the Army's facilities sus- tainment and restoration budget request to offset the growing infrastructure costs associated with the global repositioning of its forces. This funding, however, will only partially cover the Army's needs. It will be necessary to address additional infrastructure requirements of approximately $686 million in operation and maintenance costs and over a billion in military construction costs during consideration of the FY 2008 emergency supplemental request.

The conference agreement also includes a House initiative to directly respond to the needs of our military families. Total funding of $2.6 billion is recommended for the military's family advocacy programs, childcare centers, and dependent's education programs. This amount is an increase of $237 million over the Administration's request, with most of the increase allocated to DoD's family advocacy programs. This program provides counseling, education, and support to military families affected by the demands of war and episodes of child or spouse abuse.

The agreement includes several initiatives and additional funding to address health care issues raised over the past year, including improving the Department's electronic medical records and fostering better coordination between DoD and the Department of Veterans Affairs, enhancing preventative medicine programs, and advancing military medical research. Also, the conference agreement fully covers the $1.9 billion shortfall in health funding created by the disapproval of DoD's proposed fee and premium increases.

Preparing for the Future: The conference agreement provides robust funding for weapons systems purchases and research programs designed to meet future threats.

The conference agreement supports full funding, as requested, for the F-22 tactical fighter aircraft procurement programs.

The conference agreement includes increases above the President's request allocated for development programs that address so-called ``asymmetric'' threats from weapons of mass destruction and cruise missiles. Additional funding of $10 million is provided to pursue cruise missile defense, $20 million for chemical and biological defense research programs, $21 million to improve fissile material detection systems, and $50 million for the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction account to counter weapons proliferation and chemical/biological agents. Finally, the conferees agreed to add $100 million to improve U.S. space situational awareness in light of the Chinese anti-satellite missile test in January of this year.

To support the Army's evolution to a larger, more lethal, and more rapidly deployable force, the conference agreement recommends $3.4 billion for continued development of Future Combat Systems, a cut of slightly more than $200 million, $925 million for additional Stryker vehicles, and full funding for procurement of four Joint Cargo Aircraft.

Testimony before the committee revealed that our National Guard and Reserve forces continue to suffer from equipment shortfalls. To address this need the conference agreement recommends providing an additional $980 million to purchase Guard and Reserve equipment. These additional funds will enhance these forces' ability to meet overseas deployment demands, and respond to natural disasters here at home.

Economic Stability: Fostering economic stability in DoD's weapons modernization programs has been a consistent theme of the Committee. As such, the conference agreement includes a series of recommendations that will help stabilize certain programs by adding funds and/or adjusting procurement or development schedules.

The Navy's shipbuilding program has been beset by planning and resource instability for many years, resulting in ever-increasing costs to the American taxpayer. Clearly, at current production rates and price levels, the Navy will be unable to meet its force structure requirements in the future. The conferees respond by providing advance procurement funding for an additional five ships. To purchase these ships or to initiate planning and construction, the conference agreement provides an additional $938 million above the Navy's request for shipbuilding and sealift.

The success of the Department's Joint Strike Fighter, F-35, program is critical to our nation's ability to field a modern, capable fighter aircraft fleet for decades to come. To maintain stability in this program--and limit the potential for cost increases over time--the conference agreement recommends an increase of $200 million for F-35 production enhancements. These funds are to be used to outfit facilities with the latest in production line equipment and work-flow technology. In addition, the conference agreement recommends adding $480 million to continue development of an alternative engine for this aircraft, thereby ensuring a competitive base for engine production. The conference agreement reduces the JSF budget request by $266 million to account for payments the program will receive in fiscal year 2008 for double billing by the contractor. This reduction does not adversely affect the aircraft production schedule.

Accountability: The Committee's fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayer requires holding accountable organizations, officials, and programs that have performed poorly. The conference agreement focuses attention on the following issues:

Fiscal discipline: The conference agreement affirms several important House initiatives to improve DoD's fiscal discipline and Congressional oversight. (These are described in an appendix to this memorandum.)

Contracting Out: The conference report also includes recommendations to adequately manage and oversee the growth in and cost-effectiveness of contracting out. (These are described in an appendix to this memo.)

Basic research: The conference agreement includes a 35 percent cap on the amount of overhead charges that can be charged on a basic research grant or contract.

Summary of Recommendations by Title

Military personnel

The conference agreement provides $105.3 billion for military personnel pay and benefits accounts, a slight decrease of $111 million to the President's FY 2008 request, but an increase of $5.4 billion over the FY 2007 level.

The military personnel pay raise of 3.5 percent is funded at $2.2 billion. This rate is 0.5 percent greater than the President requested. Also, the conference agreement includes $2.4 billion for retention bonuses and recruiting incentives.

The conference agreement increases the Basic Allowance for Housing, BAH, 4.2 percent to $15 billion, which is $1.6 billion over the projected FY 2007 enacted level. This continues to ensure no out-of- pocket expenses for service personnel and supports the privatization of housing units for military families.

Army end-strength is increased by 7,000 in the conference agreement, to a total of 489,400, or $5.7 billion over the FY 2007 enacted budget amount. The conferees increase and fully fund Marine Corps end-strength by 5,000 to a total of 180,000.

The Navy and Air Force, on the other hand, will continue to reduce their manpower levels. Navy plans to cut 12,300 in 2007; Air Force intends to reduce their force by about 5,600. The conference agreement includes a mandated review of Air Force end-strength requirements.

The conference agreement assumes the Special Operations Command will grow to a level of about 54,250 personnel, up about 6,400 over FY 2007 levels. By FY 2013, the Command projects its end-strength to grow to about 59,000.

Operation and maintenance

The conference agreement provides a total of $140.1 billion for operation and maintenance accounts, a decrease of $2.8 billion from the request, but an increase of $12.8 billion or 10 percent over the FY 2007 baseline O&M enacted level.

The conference agreement makes significant reductions to the military services' O&M accounts, particularly the Army and Air Force, for the following reasons:

Unjustified growth over FY 2007 funding levels, beyond amounts necessary to fully fund all training, optempo, and maintenance activities.

Excessive buildups of spare parts inventories.

Excess cash in working capital funds, beyond levels necessary to ensure cash flow.

The conference agreement fully funds a 3 percent civilian pay raise, which is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2008.

Procurement and R&D

Procurement is funded at $98.2 billion, $1.4 billion below the request and the House bill. This is still an increase of 21 percent, the largest percentage increase of all the major accounts in the DoD budget. R&D is funded at a total of $77.3 billion, about $2.1 billion more than requested. Of note, the conference agreement provides funding for shipbuilding that totals $15 billion. This funding allows for the procurement of 5 ships and advance construction funding for an additional 5 ships above the President's request.

Funding of $3.9 billion is provided to fund the purchase of 20 F-22 aircraft, as requested. Additionally, the conference agreement recommends $2.7 billion for the procurement of 12 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and $2.0 billion for the procurement of 24 F/A-18E/F aircraft.

The conference agreement includes $99 million for modifications to the Air Force's combat search and rescue platform, the HH-60.

Funding for the Missile Defense Agency decreases to $8.6 billion from last year's level of $9.4 billion.

Defense Health Program

The Defense Health Program is funded at $23.5 billion, an increase of $0.9 billion above the President's request.

Major increases for this activity include: $70 million for the Wounded Warrior Assistance program; $138 million for peer reviewed breast cancer research; $80 million for prostate cancer research; and $10 million for ovarian cancer research.

HIV/AIDS research and prevention programs receive a total increase of $16 million in the conference agreement.

The conference agreement includes $50 million for the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program.

The conference agreement also includes $379 million to cover the ``efficiency wedge'' shortfall.

Special Operations Command

The conference agreement for the Special Operations Command is $5.5 billion, a slight increase to the President's request. This amount includes $3.3 billion for operation and maintenance, a reduction of $23 million from the President's request based on past obligations data and other reductions provided by the Command.

For procurement, the conferees recommend $1.8 billion, a decrease of $50 million from the request. This reduction includes a decrease of $23 million for equipment and modifications associated with one CV-22; the agreement provides that funding for one of the five mods requested can slip based on the ability of the contractor to outfit the aircraft. The conference agreement also includes a $19 million reduction for C-130 modifications associated with the 30 mm weapons program and problems

assimilating this weapon onto the C-130. Within the funding provided, an increase of $17 million is included for SPEAR body armor and eye protection.

Finally, for R&D the conference agreement includes $450 million, an increase of $5 million above the request. Within this amount, an increase of $5 million is provided for an ongoing Special OpslNavy joint program to improve UAV systems. This initiative is a high priority of the House Armed Services Committee.

Notable General Provisions

A provision is included allowing the Department of Defense general transfer authority of $3.7 billion. The Department requested transfer authority of $5 billion.

The conference agreement includes a general provision limiting the amount of reimbursable indirect costs on a basic research contract to not more than 35 percent of the total cost of the contract.

A new provision is included permitting a competitive expansion of domestic VIM/VAR steel production capacity.

A provision is retained from previous Defense Appropriations acts which prohibits the sale of F-22 fighters to foreign countries.

A provision is included appropriating $10 million for Fisher Houses.

Funds are provided to the joint U.S.-Israeli Arrow missile defense system in a general provision. Also, funds are added for a study of future Israeli missile defense requirements.

A new provision is included which prohibits the Department from initiating new programs through reprogramming requests, as proposed by the House.

Another new provision proposed by the House is included which establishes a separate ``major force program'' budget and program designation for DoD's space programs. This will improve the Committee's oversight of these activities.

The conference agreement includes two provisions restricting the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq and prohibiting torture as carried in the House bill. These provisions are consistent with existing law.

The conference agreement includes a provision restricting the payment of any award fees to contractors who fail to meet contractual requirements.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the esteemed minority leader, Mr. Boehner.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to our minority whip, Mr. Blunt.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield myself 6 minutes, and I'm going address the House in the well.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to start off by thanking my friends from New Jersey and South Carolina. They did put together a credible budget that adds up. We did, too.

Budgets are about priorities; they're about values; they're about what way you think the country should go on a fiscal ship. Let me walk through our budget and how it's different.

Number one, my friend from New Jersey and the chairman himself said that by calling our budget that makes today's tax policy a permanent tax cut, I want to thank them for saying that. By keeping tax rates where they are today, which is what we propose, a tax cut, then the opposite of that is a tax increase. They have proven my point. Their budget raises taxes.

Now, let me simply show you, Mr. Chairman. This red line is the baseline that the Democrats have chosen to adopt for their budget. This blue line is the baseline we've chosen on revenues to adopt for our budget. The blue line says, make the child tax credit permanent, repeal the marriage penalty forever, make the income tax rate not go up, keep the death tax repealed, keep the lowered tax rate on capital gains and dividends. What does the Democrat budget do? It raises taxes $683 billion on everybody, not just rich people.

What do we do on the alternative minimum tax? Here's what the Democratic budget proposes to do: It proposes to patch it for a year by swapping it out with another tax increase. Then, by 2009, about 30 million people are going to get hit by it; 2010, 31 million people. On and on and on. We propose to make sure no new people get hit by the alternative minimum tax, then we phase it out completely. That's point two of what our budget achieves.

Point three, and I think you're going to hear this a lot, we cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cutting here, cutting there. You hear this sort of legislative gobbledygook about function 920. Well, as we looked at the Democratic budget, we really couldn't find any savings, but we did, we found a sliver of savings in the budget. Where was that sliver of savings kept? Function 920.

What matters in a budget resolution are two numbers, the discretionary number, the 302(a) we call that, we do that, and the direction to the committees, we do that. We do it just like the Democrats did it. That's how we wrote our budget. But there's a difference. You may not be able to see this. For those who are watching on TV, you may have to zoom in. The CBO baseline is the red line. The Republican substitute is the blue line. Not a huge gap of difference in spending. We are simply saying let's not spend that money as fast, and by controlling the growth and the increase in spending, we can make sure we don't raise taxes on the American people. We can repeal the alternative minimum tax. That's the difference in values between the two of us.

Let me give it to you in a different way. What we Republicans are proposing to do is, instead of spending $15.82 trillion over the next 5 years, let's instead spend $15.32 trillion over the next 5 years. Don't spend 15.8, spend 15.3. What's the difference? We're not cutting the child tax credit in half. We're not bringing back the marriage tax penalty. We're not raising every single income tax payer's tax rates across the board. We're not raising the tax on pensions and 401(k)s by raising the tax on dividends and capital gains, and we're not going to keep taxing people when they die. At the end of the day, though, what are we doing for our children and our grandchildren? That's what we should be talking about in budgeting.

Budgets are moral documents. There is a moral imperative before this country, before this Congress, and that moral imperative is, what are we doing for future generations? In just one program, in just one program, the Medicare program, one of the most important programs in the history of the Federal Government, the Democrats' budget proposes to increase its debt by $11 trillion. The debt for Medicare right now stands at $34 trillion; that's the unfunded liability. What are the Democrats doing by doing nothing, by going 5 years with blinders on? $45 trillion. That breaks down to $395,000 per household, each household would owe to make Medicare whole.

What are we doing? We're reforming the program. We're making it work better. We're giving it changes that are needed so that we can make it sustainable, so we can save the program for the baby boomers.

We lower the Medicare debt and unfunded liability by $11 trillion to 23. The Democrats raise the debt to Medicare alone by $11 trillion; we reduced it by $11 trillion. At the end of the day, it's about priorities.

We also call for a 1-year moratorium on earmarks. We're simply saying, let's just take a time-out from pork for a year in Congress. What do we achieve with that? By not doing earmarks for 1 year and by saving that money in this budget, we can make sure we don't raise taxes on every household by $500 per child. We can make sure we don't return to the days of taxing people when they're married. Just those two things can be accomplished by saying ``no'' to earmarks for a year, having a time-out, saying let's have Democrats and Republicans from both parties from both the Senate and the House get together and figure out how to clean up this system and, in the meantime, save the money. So we don't tax people for having kids and we don't tax people for being married.

At the end of the day, you're going to hear all this rhetoric about cuts, about devastation, about how wrong it is and how immoral it is. We're simply saying, instead of spending $15.8 trillion, spend $15.3 trillion. We're still increasing spending, but let's not increase it as fast as Washington has been spending it so we can save that money, so we can make sure we don't raise taxes on Americans. That's what our budget does.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to simply say to my friend from Illinois, cutting military benefits? Where did that one come from? Not true, not even anywhere in our budget. You know what? Medicare goes up, spending goes up. Education? Spending increases. I don't know where these cuts are coming from that he's talking about, but that's not in our budget.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, our assistant minority whip, Mr. Cantor.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to make three points.

The gentleman's revenue chart makes our point. After the dot-com bubble, we went into recession and revenues went down. After the tax cuts, and his own chart makes the point clear, revenues went up.

Point number two, this budget, the Democratic budgets, has the single largest increase in the national debt in any given year in the history of the country.

Point number three, Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman just acknowledged more or less, their budget raises taxes. We don't believe we should be raising taxes at a time when people are paying a lot just to live in a time when we're about to go into recession.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, the vice-ranking member of the Budget Committee (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a senior member of the Budget Committee, (Mr. Hensarling).

Will the gentleman yield for a friendly point on that?

The gentleman is right. Earmarks proliferated under Republican watch. You're right about that. Both parties are guilty. That is why we should have a moratorium and clean the system up.

Will the gentleman yield on that point? This budget is a 1-year, for-the-rest-of-the-Congress moratorium.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield myself 1 minute simply to praise the majority leader before he leaves because he has been a man who has sincerely discussed and talked about the need to reform entitlements most of his career. And we need to talk to each other more often. I want to praise him for his leadership on entitlements.

I also want to say that this budget proposes to borrow more in one year from foreign governments than any has in history. Also, Mr. Chairman, let's take a look at the 2003 taxes.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Reclaiming my time, my point is the Democrats' budget, the Spratt budget, has the single largest increase in national debt in any given year, which comes from largely foreign governments these days.

My other point was I understand why my friends on the other side of the aisle are so dismissive of these tax cuts in 2003. Only three Democrats who are here today voted for them. All but three of them voted against them. They voted against reducing the marriage tax penalty. They voted against expanding the child tax credit. They voted against lowering tax rates across the board. They voted against lowering dividends and capital gains and repealing the death tax.

I simply would say that, as this chart shows you, even after all of those tax cuts, look what happened. Receipts went up. Four straight years of income tax receipts increased. Do you know why? People went to work. They got jobs. They paid taxes. Economic growth, even at those lower tax rates.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

I want to inquire of the time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to who has the right to close. There seems to be difficulties about that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Chairman, I will just take 30 seconds for myself.

I would simply say our budget does not have the veterans fee increases. That is in the President's budget. That is not in our budget.

Also, our budget does not cut Medicare and Medicaid by a half a trillion dollars. Under our budget, Medicare and Medicaid increases every year, one year after the other. We simply think it should not increase as fast as it is because we want to make it more solvent.

Third point, they say this is a new vision budget that they are proposing. All they are really doing is bringing us a CBO baseline and slapping another $280 billion on top of it. That's what their budget is. The problem is that the CBO baseline requires the largest tax increase in history. That's what we don't support.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the new Member from Georgia, Dr. Broun.

Mr. Chairman, may I just ask the chairman of the Budget Committee, are you the last person? You are going to close next, no more speakers on your side; is that right?

All right. I will address the House from the well for the remainder of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have left?

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

First of all, I would like to say thank you to a few people. I would like to take this moment to recognize the hard work of the minority staff of the Budget Committee.

I want to thank Austin Smythe, our new staff director; Chauncey Goss, Pat Knudson, Charlene Crawford, Tim Flynn, John Gray, Jim Herz, Charlotte Ivancic, Angela Kuck, Paul Restuccia, Jon Romito, Stephen Sepp and Clete Willems; and our interns, Sigurd Neubauer, Dustin Antonello, and Ryan Michaels.

I am very fortunate to have very bright, very talented, and very dedicated coworkers on the Budget Committee. I also want to thank the chairman for being a gentleman and for his staff for being professional as well.

I have a problem with the budget the chairman has brought to the floor. We have a different vision. It's good that we have these choices. We owe the American people a choice. We owe them two different visions to choose from in this country.

That's what's good about elections. Lately, the differences have been muddled. I'm glad we are making them more clear. What do we want to do with our budget?

We believe that we should do a few things. We should balance the budget, number one, and we shouldn't raise taxes. We think that it's really tough for people to afford just the cost of living today. You are filling up your gas pump at the highest prices you have ever paid before. You are paying health care costs the highest you have probably ever paid before. Food prices are up $70 a month for the average family these days.

The last thing the American taxpayer needs is a big tax increase, an average of $3,000 per family per year. That's what the Democrat budget has.

Now, the Democrats like to say they have this policy document in their budget. On page 48, it's the policy that we don't want these taxes to go up. Then they say, later on, but we are balancing the budget.

The first 27 pages are ones that matter in this budget, the numbers. They can't have it both ways. They can't look the American people in the eye and say we are balancing the budget and we are not raising taxes, because

the only way they balance the budget, you can bring out all these left- of-center experts that tell you otherwise, but according to the numbers, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the only way they balance the budget is by enacting the largest tax increase in American history.

So the question is, at this time of economic uncertainty, at this time of job loss, at this time where we possibly could go into a recession, at this time of high prices of living, can we afford the Democrats' tax hike? I would like to know. I would like to get e-mails and calls from people to know, can we afford this?

What is our vision? Our vision is to balance the budget without raising taxes. The key thing is we have got to save money. We are not even proposing to cut spending. We are saying instead of spending $15.832 trillion over the next 5 years, let's spend $15.32 trillion over the next 5 years. Instead of growing spending at 5.2 percent, let's grow it at 3.8 percent.

In that, we are saying let's put a down payment for reform on our children and grandchildren so we can make Medicare and Social Security more solvent, so we can say to the seniors of this country we want Social Security and Medicare to last for you and for our kids.

But we also say, this Congress is broken. Most people get that. We don't call earmarks congressional initiatives or investments; it's pork. If we just do away with the pork for 1 year, we can put a down payment on making sure we don't have our taxes increased. For 1 year, we can make sure we don't raise taxes on everybody who has children by $500 per child. We can make sure we are not going to tax people simply because they are married if Congress just says ``no'' for pork for a year.

So what's the question? Do we want pork or paychecks? More money in workers' paychecks or more pork up here in Washington?

I agree that earmarks are necessary and are a function of this branch of government. It's out of control. It's broken. It needs to be fixed.

Let's stop them for a year, fix this problem so that it has the integrity and the faith that the American people deserve. While we are doing that, let's balance the budget without raising taxes. That is what our budget does.

Yet you hear this same old thing in Washington every year. What they always say is, if you are doing anything other than spending as much as they want, you are cutting spending. If you are not throwing all this money at new programs, you are cutting spending, you are hurting the veterans, you are hurting children, you are hurting people, you are doing this, you are doing that. We are simply saying we need to control our spending in this town.

You see, Washington doesn't have a tax revenue problem. Plenty of money is coming in. Washington has a spending problem. We have got to get our handle on that spending.

By controlling that spending, by growing it at a slower pace, by putting a down payment on reform, by making Medicare more solvent, we can do those things while we balance the budget without raising taxes.

That's the choice. We can have their plan with the largest tax increase in history, more and more and more spending, more earmarks, more pork, less money in our paychecks, or we can have our plan: control spending, balance the budget, keep more money in your paychecks.

Because you know what? Paychecks aren't going as far as they used to. They don't cover as much groceries, as many gas tanks. They don't cover as much of health care bills as they used to. We believe it's the people's money; they believe it's Washington's money. That's the basic difference at the end of the day.

We believe people ought to keep more of their own money because it is their money. They believe it's Washington money, and they want more of it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I think it bears remembering that 8 short years ago the budget of this government was $236 billion in surplus. Since 2001, we have experienced, on the watch of this administration, the largest deficits, nominal deficits, in American history, and an accumulation of debt that's enough to blow the mind. The debt of this country was $5.7 trillion when Mr. Bush came to office. When he leaves office, it will be $10 trillion. So that explains why we are skeptical, if you will, and even more skeptical and dubious when we look at the substitute resolution that has been brought to the floor, about which the leader barely spoke until he got to the very end of his presentation a few minutes ago.

To find the real numbers in this resolution, the leader said that this is addressed to deal with a spending problem, not a revenue problem. So as we look through the spending side of the resolution, we have to go all the way to an obscure account called function 920 Allowances to find where the real action is.

Now, this function is typically an allowance function where we have things we haven't decided how to assign yet and put into allowances because we know it is a catch-all account until some decision is made as to how to treat it.

Typically, therefore, you find smaller amounts in this account; but in this particular case, in this particular resolution, $817 billion in additional cuts are called for.

If you look at the Republican resolution, initially it seems to be providing current services for just about every function. But then you get to function 920 and you see that what has been provided is taken back. And when you ask where these cuts are distributed, who bears the brunt of $817 billion in cuts over a 5-year period of time, there is no real answer because they're unallocated. We've heard them say they've added a billion dollars to veterans health care; but once they begin allocating the $817 billion, that billion dollars is likely to be wiped out.

The same can happen to defense and nondefense programs. We can't say, because $817 billion is left unresolved tucked away in this account called function 920. This is the first black hole in this budget.

This budget then goes on. You can do a little arithmetic and figure out that $405 billion is assigned to cuts in domestic discretionary spending, $417 billion is assigned to mandatory cuts. Mandatory cuts are entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; and if you look at the accounts here, you will find that basically it appears that the Ways and Means Committee is being directed to save $253 billion, is presumably out of Medicare; the Energy and Commerce Committee is being asked, told, directed to save that $116 billion out of Medicaid. These are not just small cuts, minor adjustments that you would normally find in function 920. These are emasculating cuts for programs that are critically important.

Then when we come to the reconciliation provisions, we find that the Republicans' substitute anticipates at least another $1.1 trillion in tax reduction. How that's allocated, we can't tell for sure; but the tax cuts have to be reconciled against the mandatory spending cuts. When you do that, what we find is the tax cuts equal $1.1 trillion; the mandatory spending cuts equal $412 as a $739 billion addition to the deficit. It worsens the deficit rather than improving the deficit. That's the second black hole in this particular budget.

Reconciliation actually works as a problem instead of improves it. We know that the other side intends to repeal the alternative minimum tax after 3 years. We know also that they intend to extend the tax cuts that were enacted in 2001 and 2003. The total of these would come to $2.5 trillion easily over a period of 5 to 10 years; and if that's the case, the third hole, the third hole that this resolution leaves is a big hole in the bottom of the budget.

So what we've got here is work that is not really a completed product. It is not a finished product because function 920 leaves $817 billion still to be distributed, still to be determined. By whom? Apparently by the appropriators or someone like this, but not today on the floor. When you vote for this today, it has tremendous consequences.

Let me just offer one illustration of what the consequence might be.

After the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, which are truly sizable, they are starkly large, there is a cut called for of $115 billion in savings by the Education and Labor Committee. Now, where would the Education and Labor Committee go to get such cuts? They would go to student loans.

We have just done something phenomenal. In last year's budget, we were able to make some rearrangements and reduce the interest rate over time and subsidize student loans from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. A phenomenal accomplishment. This indicates that the reduction in interest would be abolished, reversed, as one way of achieving that direction to save $115 billion.

We just passed a College Cost Reduction and Access Act. One of the things it did would take Pell Grants up to $5,400 over time. That, too, would have to be repealed in order to meet $115 billion.

So watch out for the black holes. Watch out for the things that won't easily appear as you read the language here. If anyone votes for this, we are voting, in effect, in my opinion, to go back to where we were over the last 7 years in a period of endless deficits and mountainous debts. This is not the way to go. This is not good work. This is not a finished product, and we should not support this as an amendment to the base bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader of the House, Mr. Hoyer, the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

We have heard throughout this debate the charge repeatedly that we are raising taxes by as much as any tax increase since the history of time. The charge won't really bear itself out. But let me just turn to third parties. Don't take it from me, let me turn to third parties who have a tremendous interest in the Federal budget and in the deficit in particular. None is more respected or more truly nonpartisan than the Concord Coalition, and here is what the Concord Coalition says:

``Allowing some of the tax cuts to expire would not be the result of Congress' raising taxes. It would be the result of sunsets that were included when those tax cuts were originally enacted to avoid the level of fiscal scrutiny that PAYGO is designed to ensure.''

Now, I have a chart here which is a replica of our famous eye chart to test your visual acuity. I am not sure whether you can see it, but the bottom line is instructive. We will reach surplus, starting from a CBO baseline, our budget will take us to surplus by the year 2012. That surplus will continue throughout time, 2012, 2013. And if you total that surplus up between 2012 and 2018, the total amount you get is $1.4 trillion.

Out of that $1.4 trillion in surpluses, a lot of money can be derived if we so choose to offset tax cuts. And toward that end, we have pledged ourselves as specifically and explicitly as we possibly can in the budget resolution before you in commitment to the middle-income tax relief. And anyone who has any doubt of this should come and read this paragraph in our budget resolution itself, not in the report, it is in the budget resolution itself, which says the following:

``It is the policy of this resolution to minimize the fiscal burdens on middle-income families and children and grandchildren, to provide immediate relief for tens of millions of middle-income families who would otherwise be subject to the AMT, the alternative minimum tax,'' and, by the way, we provide a 1-year patch. Talk about tax cuts, we have got a tax cut, and it is offset in our bill.

To extend the child tax credit we commit ourselves; to extend the marriage penalty relief, we commit ourselves; to eliminate estate taxes on all but a small fraction of estates, we are committed to that; to extend the research and experimentation tax credit, we are committed to that; to extend the deduction for State and local sales taxes; to extend the deduction for small business expenses; to enact a tax credit for schools.

This resolution assumes that the cost of enacting these policies is offset by reforms within the Internal Revenue Code that promote a fairer distribution of taxes across families and generations and economic efficiency and higher rates of tax compliance. And we

put money in the bill for program integrity, for the IRS to bear down and try to close the tax gap.

When you take what we can reap from doing that, it may not be as great as it would seem since the tax gap is estimated to be $500 billion, when you add to that the $1.4 trillion in surpluses per our projection of our budget, you have a lot to work with, not just for tax relief, but for other things as well. Debt retirement, the retirement of the baby boomers, all of these things will be demanding.

That is why we put this decision off until a later time. It is not pressing now. It doesn't have to be committed to now. The tax cuts don't expire until December 31, 2010. In the interim, nobody's taxes are going up because of what is done here on the House floor today, and nobody's taxes are going down, because it doesn't work that way.

Over time, we think that we have got a partial solution here. If we can simply adhere to the budget that we are proposing in House Concurrent Resolution 312, we believe that we can produce surpluses along this bottom line, a substantial portion of which can be used to offset tax cuts.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

I reserve the right to close. I have no further speakers.

Mr. Chairman, for purpose of closing, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, like Mr. Ryan, I want to express my heartfelt gratitude to the staff on both sides: Tom Kahn, Sarah Abernathy, Ellen Balis, Arthur Burris, Linda Bywaters, Barbara Chow, Marsha Douglass, Stephen Elmore, Chuck Fant, Jason Freihage, Jose Guillen, Jennifer Hanson- Kilbride, Dick Magee, Sheila McDowell, Diana Meredith, Gail Millar, Morna Miller, Namrata Mujumdar, Kimberly Overbeek, Kitty Richards, Diane Rogers, Scott Russell, Marcus Stephens, Naomi Stern, Lisa Venus, Greg Waring, Andrea Weathers, and interns Les Braswell and Tina Shah.

We have had a fast track on which to bring this resolution out of committee onto the floor to passage. Without their assistance, long nights, weekends, you name it, we certainly could not have done it. We certainly could not have done it without the presentation we put on the last 2 days. To them, I am deeply indebted for all of their help, both sides of the aisle, my staff in particular, which I think is one of the best committee staffs of any committee on the Hill in either House.

If I had a chart of my choice, I would have a counterpart to Mr. Ryan's chart, which said, can we afford the Democrats' tax? It would say, can our children afford the Republicans' debt tax? Because the legacy of this administration, 8 years, is nearly $5 trillion in additional debt, a phenomenal increase in debt that will have to be borne by our children.

When I say that our first objective in taking on this budget was to move it to balance, that's not some economic goal. That's not some green eyeshade objective. That's because I think we are morally wrong in leaving this mountain of debt to our children and our grandchildren.

If I had a chart, it would say just that, because I would assign the blame, the primary blame, to our Republican colleagues for the last 7 years.

We have brought to this floor a budget resolution, the base bill on which we will vote. After we vote on the Ryan amendment, we will vote on the base bill. I would ask for a vote against the Ryan amendment and for the base bill, H. Con. Res. 312, which is the Democratic-reported budget resolution.

We set as our first objective balancing the budget within a reasonably foreseeable period of time. The day we chose was 2012, and we hit that day. In fact, by our calculations, using CBO numbers, we will have a surplus that year under certain assumptions of $178 billion. That surplus will grow as time moves on; and by the year 2018, we will have accumulated $1.4 billion in surpluses. Now, I know they will be dissipated and used for other purposes, but I am suggesting here and have been suggesting that is one of the ways that we will pay for the tax cuts, particularly the middle-income tax cuts to which we have explicitly committed ourselves. That is one way we will make certain that they are cared for and extended.

Secondly, even though we are committed to balancing the budget, we are also morally committed to doing other things that shouldn't be held up or put aside while we try to bring our books in order, one of which is the education of our children. The President's budget basically flat funds education for the next 5 years.

I am proud to say that our budget provides $7.3 billion, $7.1 billion more than the President requested in his budget for the education of our children.

And watch out for education when they begin to, if you adopt the Ryan resolution, when they begin to distribute these undistributed, unallocated cuts, because education is right there in the bore sights.

Secondly, veterans health care. Of all of the promises government makes, the promises we make to our veterans ought to be upheld. And right now we have an increasing caseload. Therefore, we are proposing $3.6 billion over and above current services in order to pay for the additional case loads.

CHIP, children's health insurance. I am proud to claim a little paternity there. I was involved in 1997 when we created the program in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Now we are saying that we can balance our budget and still balance our priorities by seeing that our children, all of our children who don't have health insurance, can get health insurance. We provide for that. We provide for that in this budget resolution.

Finally, we provide for innovation, competitiveness, energy, research, things that will keep our economy on a competitive edge. For all of these reasons, we think we have brought to the

floor a good budget resolution which is worthy of the support of not just the Democrats on this side, but Republicans as well. It moves us toward balance, and it has balanced priorities. It is good for America and good for our economy.

I, therefore, request a vote in favor of the Spratt resolution, H. Con. Res. 312, which is the base bill and against the Ryan resolution which, if it were adopted, and I don't think it will be, but were it to be adopted, it would displace our bill. Vote for the base bill, H. Con. Res. 312, and vote to do these things that are so important to our economy, our country, our families, and our children. This is a good bill and I commend it to you for your support today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 806 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, this point of order is not about whether or not to consider the rule on, ultimately, the funding of our troops, and indeed, the entire government, under a continuing resolution. In fact, I would say that it is simply an effort to try to kill the conference report, and on a faulty premise at that.

Every single earmark in this conference report has been properly disclosed in conformance with House rules. The blanket waiver against consideration of conference did not include a waiver of either clause 9 of rule XXI or House Resolution 491.

This parliamentary ruse won't work. We must consider this conference report, which fully supports our men and women, provides for our wounded warriors by providing for them and for their families, addresses the severe equipment shortfalls facing the National Guard and Reserves, and fully funds a pay increase for all servicemembers. In addition, this measure provides the funds necessary to respond to the wildfires of 2007 and provide continued disaster response and relief efforts.

Voting ``no'' on this question of consideration will prevent consideration of a critical package that has strong House and Senate bipartisan support.

So despite whatever roadblock the other side tries to use to stop the bill, we will stand up for our troops. We must consider this rule. We must pass this conference report today.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues and dear friends on the other side of the aisle that it was the democratic process and the Democrat Party that brought us section 491, and we are in complete compliance with it.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say that this conference report is the standard conference report, the standard rule, and passed the Rules Committee 13-0. There were no dissenting votes from the Republicans at all about this rule. The report has been available since Tuesday. It meets all requirements for layover.

I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 806.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 806 provides for consideration of the conference report for H.R. 3222, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2008.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the important parts that I hope will answer some questions here. The rule is the standard conference report rule which waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

However, I want to point out that although the rule waives all points of order, the conference report does not violate either House Resolution 491 or clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI which require earmarks to be disclosed in the conference report and requiring conference reports to be in compliance with the PAYGO rule.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I visited the family of a critically injured soldier at Bethesda Naval Medical Center, and I was reminded once again of a sign that stood outside a VA hospital in my former district, a sign that read, ``The price of liberty is visible here.''

This Monday, we will pay tribute to our brave men and women in uniform and remember that they truly are our country's greatest heroes. We must, therefore, do all we can to make certain that they receive the care and benefits that they have earned and the respect and recognition they deserve, not just today, but every single day.

I am proud to bring to the floor the 2008 Department of Defense Appropriations legislation and a continuing resolution, the product of many months of hard work.

In that spirit, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a smart and compassionate way to strengthen America's security and provide what is necessary for our troops.

We do so by investing in the safety and protection of our service men and women both at home and abroad, while providing them with the tools that are necessary to defend our country. This bill also invests in quality health care for military personnel and works to expand our Armed Forces to meet ever-changing threats to our national security.

The bill also determines how we as a Nation will spend our considerable resources, both at home and abroad, in order to best protect our fellow Americans, our shared values, and our common interests.

This agreement between the House and Senate prioritizes the preparation and safety of our Nation's men and women in uniform and, thus, honors our commitment to our military. It is a definitive statement that we will properly equip our troops before they deploy, provide them with support as they serve in harm's way, and ensure their dignified treatment upon their return.

To accomplish that goal, this bill provides $459 billion for the Department of Defense, a $39.7 billion or a 9.5 percent increase from 2007. The money allows us to invest in equipment, in training, and cutting-edge weaponry. Most importantly, however, it restores balance to our ground forces that are badly overstretched by 5 years of war and multiple extended deployments.

Make no mistake, our commitment to our fighting men and women does not end on the battlefield. It is our responsibility to ensure that each one is properly covered upon their return home. And I am proud to say that this bill does exactly that, by adding $70 million to fund programs authorized under the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act and providing $23.5 billion for defense health programs, which I must stress, is nearly $1 billion more than the President's request. And it is long overdue. Far too many veterans are left without the treatment that they need or have to wait far too long.

The dual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed an unimaginable strain on our military that will take many years to repair. To help remedy this problem, the conference report helps grow the military, including 7,000 new members of the Army, 5,000 new marines, and 1,300 new Army Guard to begin to help repair this strain.

It also fully funds a 3.5 percent pay increase for all servicemembers, and

while that is not nearly enough when low-level Blackwater contractors make as much money as four-star generals, it is a step forward.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, six U.S. soldiers were killed in three separate attacks across Iraq. Those tragic losses brought the number of U.S. soldiers killed to more than 850 this year, making 2007 the deadliest year of the war in Iraq. Let me repeat that. This year, the fifth year of combat in Iraq, is deadlier than any of the years that preceded it.

I would be remiss if I did not mention a New York Times article on a secret Pentagon study that found, and I hope everybody absorbs this, a secret study found that 80 percent of the marines who died of upper- body wounds in Iraq could have survived if they had been deployed with better body armor.

I was so deeply troubled by reports like these that I asked the Department of Defense's inspector general to investigate the Pentagon's procurement of both vehicle and body armor. The first report issued in July was heartbreaking in its tales of a manufacturer that was unable to produce the number of MRAP vehicles that it had committed to in its contract with DOD; ultimately, without doubt, costing some soldiers their very lives.

As we await the second report from the Pentagon on body armor procurement practices, the former CEO of one of those body armor manufacturers, David Brooks, was indicted on multiple counts of fraud by the United States Attorneys in eastern New York. He is accused of having enriched himself to the tune of over $180 million at the expense of the safety of our Armed Forces. I await the report from the inspector general on how that contract was given. It is unconscionable.

I am relieved to say in light of these findings, the conference report fittingly directs $11.6 billion to the procurement of MRAP vehicles and increases funding for the body armor and other protective equipment which I hope will be closely monitored by this Congress which is trying so hard to keep up with some oversight that has been missing for over 6 years.

The conference report today also provides all of those deploying, deployed, and returning with the resources that they, their families, and our veterans need to sustain them through a time of war. But all of the body armor in the world, all of the MRAPs, cannot stop the violence in Iraq and prevent the casualties and deaths of our young men and women facing combat in Iraq.

It is my fervent hope and desire that we can bring our troops home before next year becomes the deadliest year in this tragic war.

As we face troubles abroad, Mr. Speaker, we here at home are constantly reminded of the toll that the war in Iraq is taking on our national security. The dire shortage of National Guard equipment was underscored these past few weeks as America watched with horror the wildfires devastating Southern California.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported in May that only half of California's National Guard equipment was available because much of it, almost a billion dollars' worth, had been left in Iraq.

In my home State of New York, the National Guard is operating with 40 percent of its equipment and only 35 percent of its trucks and authorized vehicles. Simply put, we cannot afford to continue shortchanging our domestic priorities.

To help put our priorities and Nation back in order, Mr. Speaker, today we will provide $500 million to respond to the California wildfires, along with allocating $2.9 billion to FEMA for continued disaster relief efforts and $3 billion for the ``Road Home'' program to assist people who are still searching for homes damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Additionally, we add $980 million for the National Guard and Reserve to replenish their equipment which has become so strained due to our conflicts abroad.

Mr. Speaker, let us honor the service of our troops, their families, and America's veterans by passing this conference report and fulfilling our commitment to those who sacrifice so much.

I hope my colleagues will use the upcoming Veterans Day to reflect on what kind of an America they wish to create for future generations. And it is my hope that we in Congress take the question very seriously in the coming months and years ahead.

I have faith in this body, just as I have faith in this Nation, that we will possess the wisdom to do what is right and the courage to right what is wrong. The future of our national security depends on it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, the majority whip, Mr. Clyburn.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 806 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 2. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the

bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military

construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and

for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by

the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees

immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of

rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader

prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees

otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees

instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the

Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional

legislative days after adoption of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I would submit for the Record an article from Congressional Quarterly Today, dated October 23, 2007, and a copy of page 289 from this bill.

[From CQ Today, Oct. 23, 2007]

Item in War Request Stokes Fears of Iran Strike

(By John M. Donnelly)

Some Democrats are worried that President Bush's funding

request to enable B-2 ``stealth'' bombers to carry a new

30,000-pound ``bunker buster'' bomb is a sign of plans for an

attack on Iran.

Buried in the $196.4 billion supplemental war spending

proposal that Bush submitted to Congress on Oct. 22 is a

request for $88 million to modify B-2 bombers so they can

drop a Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, a conventional

bomb still in development that is the most powerful weapon

designed to destroy targets deep underground.

A White House summary, accompanying the supplemental

spending proposal said the request for money to modify B-2s

to carry the bombs came in response to ``an urgent

operational need from theater commanders.'' The summary

provided no further details. The White House and the Air

Force, in response to queries, did not provide additional

clarification.

Previous statements by the Defense Department and the

program's contractors,

along with interviews with military experts, suggest the

weapon is meant for the kind of hardened targets found

chiefly in Iran, which Bush suspects developing nuclear

weapons capability, and North Korea, which already has tested

a nuclear device.

Bush has said repeatedly that he prefers to use diplomacy

to resolve tensions with Iran over its nuclear program. But

his request for funding to deliver the new bunker buster

comes amid a sharp escalation of tough White House rhetoric

about Iran's nuclear program in recent days.

On Oct. 18, Bush said a nuclear armed Iran could lead to

``World War III.'' Three days later, Vice President Dick

Cheney warned of ``serious consequences'' if Tehran continued

to enrich uranium.

Against that backdrop, the proposed funding for bunker

busters has some in Congress worried.

James P. Moran, D-Va., a senior member of the House

Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, said he did not believe

the MOP could be used in Iraq or Afghanistan and cited Iran

as the potential target for the bomb. He said he would oppose

the funding.

``That's a clear red flag,'' Moran said.

Jim McDermott, D-Wash., an outspoken critic of Bush's war

policies, said the funding request was the latest of many

signs that indicated Bush was contemplating an attack on

Iran. McDermott said such a scenario was his ``biggest fear

between now and the election.''

``We are not authorizing Bush to use a 30,000-pound bunker

buster,'' he said. ``They've been banging the drums the same

way as they did in 2002 with Iraq.''

Stealth Delivery

The Boeing Co., in conjunction with Elgin Air Force Base in

Florida, has been developing the Massive Ordnance Penetrator

for several years and first tested the bomb in March. The 15-

ton bomb would be dropped by B-52 or B-2 bombers.

In June, the Northrop Grumman Corp., maker of the B-2, won

a $2.5 million contract from the Air Force to retrofit the

bat-winged, stealth bombers so they could drop the new

weapon. The new funding, if approved, would significantly

expand that initiative.

The B-2 made its battlefield debut during the Kosovo War in

1999. It is optimal for use against sophisticated enemy air

defenses because its radar-evading surface is difficult to

detect.

In interviews Tuesday, military experts said the new weapon

was not designed for the kind of counterinsurgency campaign

being conducted by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. They

said the MOP could prove useful against other targets,

notably underground Iranian facilities that are said to be

producing nuclear weapons materials.

``A weapon like this is designed to deal with extremely

hard and buried targets such as you would find in Iran or

North Korea,'' said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with

the conservative military think tank, the Lexington

Institute, who is also a consultant for some defense

contractors.

``Clearly, in the case of North Korea, the likelihood of

military action is receding as the Pyongyang government

becomes more tractable,'' said Thompson, referring to recent

progress in diplomatic efforts to persuade North Korea to

dismantle its nuclear programs.

John Pike, an expert on defense and intelligence policy

with Globalsecurity.org, said the MOP could be used against

Iran's main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.

``It'll go through it like a hot knife through butter,''

Pike said. He noted that the B-2 would be the best aircraft

to deliver the bomb ``if you want it to be a surprise

party.''

It is not clear how quickly the new weapon could be ready

for delivery by a B-2 if the $88 million were enacted. A

spokesman for Northrop Grumman declined to provide a time

frame.

Not all Democratic lawmakers oppose the weapon. Non-nuclear

bunker busters have emerged in recent years as favorites of

Democrats concerned about Bush administration's earlier plans

to conduct research on nuclear models.

``We need to have this as a conventional weapon,'' said

Norm Dicks, D-Wash., a member of the House Defense

Appropriations Subcommittee. ``It adds to our deterrent.''

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Budget

R-1 Request House Senate Conference ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 68 SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE FLIGHT TRAINING............... 12,622 12,622 15,622 15,022

AT-68 for the Air National Guard........................ ........... ........... 3,000 2,400 70 B-2 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY BOMBER.......................... 244,019 289,219 292,019 297,819

AF Requested transfer for Radar Modernization Program... ........... 38,000 38,000 38,000

Small Diameter Bomb..................................... ........... 7,200 ........... 5,800

Massive Ordnance Penetrator for B-2..................... ........... ........... 10,000 10,000 71 PERSONNEL RECOVERY SYSTEMS.............................. 290,059 190,059 98,059 105,000

Contract award delay.................................... ........... -100,000 -192,000 -86,059

Transfer to Line 57, Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, ........... ........... ........... -99,000

only for H-60 upgrades................................. 72 ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT.......................... 101,649 103,149 103,649 103,249

Rapid Replacement of Mission Critical Logistics ........... 1,500 2,000 1,600

Electronic Components.................................. 76 COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS.................................... 53,412 53,412 65,412 64,412

Space Control Test Capabilities......................... ........... ........... 5,000 4,000

RAIDRS Block 20 (Air Force unfunded requirement)........ ........... ........... 7,000 7,000 77 SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS SYSTEMS....................... 187,804 197,604 187,804 197,604

Space Fence............................................. ........... 9,800 ........... 9,800 79 SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD............ 587,004 614,604 587,004 587,004

MCSB Upgrade............................................ ........... 27,600 ........... 0 80 ALTERNATIVE INFRARED SPACE SYSTEM (AIRSS)............... 230,887 75,887 75,000 75,887

Program Growth.......................................... ........... -155,000 -155,887 -155,000 82 ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT........................... 1,985 3,485 1,985 3,185

1-1000 Warhead Technology Demonstration................. ........... 1,500 ........... 1,200 84 AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT.................................... 10,623 12,623 10,623 12,223

Improvised Ordnance Detonator-Advanced Development...... ........... 2,000 ........... 1,600 86 LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS.................................... 12,649 13,649 12,649 13,649

ACES II Ejection Seat Improvement....................... ........... 1,000 ........... 1,000 88 INTEGRATED COMMAND & CONTROL APPLICATIONS (IC2A)........ 189 13,189 8,189 17,589

Program Engineering Interoperability Framework.......... ........... 2,000 ........... 1,600

Enterprise Services for Reach Back Capabilities (ESRBC). ........... 3,000 ........... 3,000

MEDSTARS Integration with Global Combat Support System.. ........... 2,000 ........... 1,600

Airborne Web Services (AWS) Spiral 5.................... ........... 1,000 ........... 800

Distributed Mission Interoperability Toolkit (DMIT)..... ........... 5,000 ........... 4,000

ASSET eWing and Data Fusion Technology Integration Base. ........... ........... 5,000 4,000

Global Awareness Presentation Services (GAPS)........... ........... ........... 3,000 2,400 89 INTELLIGENCE EQUIPMENT.................................. 1,469 1,469 5,969 5,069

Electronic Warfare Modeling, Simulation and Wireless ........... ........... 4,500 3,600

Testing Center......................................... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have made known in the course of hundreds of speeches the last few years my opposition to the war in Iraq, so I don't need to elaborate on that. I have a bill in H.R. 1234 that would bring our troops home and set in motion an international peacekeeping and security plan that would enable that to move in as our troops leave. I believe the best way to support the troops is to bring them home.

But I rise today to inject a note of caution into these proceedings about an item in this appropriation which could have enormous consequences for United States policy with respect to Iran.

It has been well reported that there is a provision in this bill that will enable the modification of B-2 Stealth bombers so that they can drop what is called a bunker buster or massive ordnance penetrators, as they are called, that would go to destroy deep underground targets. Every defense analyst who has been interviewed about this item has suggested that there is one reason and one reason only why this request was expedited by the administration, and that is to retrofit these B-2 bombers so they will be able to drop 30,000-pound bombs on Iran.

Now, I know there are Members of this House who would, perhaps, support a strike against Iran. I don't. I think diplomacy is the preferred path here.

But I think that if we are looking at this item that is number 70 on page 289, we cannot approve of this without thinking of the consequences of the administration's approach. Because if you drop 30,000-pound bombs, bunker busters, on nuclear research labs, this is, in effect, creating a humanitarian and ecological disaster. There is just no way to avoid it, because you are

talking about the release of radiation that's inevitable from dropping such a bomb.

Now, some could say, well, that's the idea. It cannot be the idea. We are talking about a war crime in motion here. This would have the effect of, perhaps, Chernobyl, which released radiation and ruined, poisoned land in Russia. It would have human health effects that would be catastrophic.

We have got to think about the implications of this particular item. I think it's really important that Congress reflect on it. That's why I oppose the bill.