Waiving Points of Order Against Conference Report on H.R. 5631, Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 5631, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007 -- (House of Representatives - September 26, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us makes in order a conference report for the fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill. It will be the first conference agreement to pass both Chambers, and it would do so on time. That should be commended.
However, the majority leadership has yet to come to an agreement on much else. As a result, the conferees were forced to include a continuing resolution that will keep the Federal Government open for business through November 17.
Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement itself is a responsible effort to support our troops in the field. Thanks to the effort of Subcommittee Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha, we will continue to invest in modernizing our military. But, just as important, we will fund the training and equipment our troops need to complete their mission, wherever they are stationed.
No one disagrees that the war in Iraq has placed a significant strain on our Armed Forces. An article in yesterday's New York Times describes the situation starkly:
``Other than the 17 brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan, only two or three combat brigades in the entire army, perhaps 7,000 to 10,000 troops, are fully trained and sufficiently equipped to respond quickly to crises, said a senior army general.''
[From the New York Times, Sept. 25, 2006]
Unit Makes Do as Army Strives To Plug Gaps
(By David S. Cloud)
FORT STEWART, GA.--The pressures that the conflict in Iraq is putting on the Army are apparent amid the towering pine trees of southeast Georgia, where the Third Infantry Division is preparing for the likelihood that it will go back to Iraq for a third tour.
Col. Tom James, who commands the division's Second Brigade, acknowledged that his unit's equipment levels had fallen so low that it now had no tanks or other armored vehicles to use in training and that his soldiers were rated as largely untrained in attack and defense.
The rest of the division, which helped lead the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and conducted the first probes into Baghdad, is moving back to full strength after many months of being a shell of its former self.
But at a time when Pentagon officials are saying the Army is stretched so thin that it may be forced to go back on its pledge to limit National Guard deployment overseas, the division's situation is symptomatic of how the shortages are playing out on the ground.
The enormous strains on equipment and personnel, because of longer-than-expected deployments, have left active Army units with little combat power in reserve. The Second Brigade, for example, has only half of the roughly 3,500 soldiers it is supposed to have. The unit trains on computer simulators, meant to recreate the experience of firing a tank's main gun or driving in a convoy under attack.
``It's a good tool before you get the equipment you need,'' Colonel James said. But a few years ago, he said, having a combat brigade in a mechanized infantry division at such a low state of readiness would have been ``unheard of.''
Other than the 17 brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan, only two or three combat brigades in the entire Army--perhaps 7,000 to 10,000 troops--are fully trained and sufficiently equipped to respond quickly to crises, said a senior Army general.
Most other units of the active-duty Army, which is growing to 42 brigades, are resting or being refitted at their home bases. But even that cycle, which is supposed to take two years, is being compressed to a year or less because of the need to prepare units quickly to return to Iraq.
After coming from Iraq in 2003, the Third Infantry Division was sent back in 2005. Then, within weeks of returning home last January, it was told by the Army that one of its four brigades had to be ready to go back again, this time in only 11 months. The three other brigades would have to be ready by mid-2007, Army planners said.
Yet almost all of the division's equipment had been left in Iraq for their replacements, and thousands of its soldiers left the Army or were reassigned shortly after coming home, leaving the division largely hollow. Most senior officers were replaced in June.
In addition to preparing for Iraq, the Army assigned the division other missions it had to be ready to execute, including responding to hurricanes and other natural disasters and deploying to Korea if conflict broke out there.
Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, who took command in June, says officials at Army headquarters ask him every month how ready his division is to handle a crisis in Korea. The answer, General Lynch says, is that he is getting there.
Since this summer, 1,000 soldiers a month have been arriving at Fort Stewart, 400 of them just out of basic training. As a result, the First and Third Brigades are now at or near their authorized troop strength, but many of the soldiers are raw.
The two brigades started receiving tanks and other equipment to begin training in the field only in the last month, leaving the division only partly able to respond immediately if called to Korea, General Lynch said.
``I'm confident two of the four brigade combat teams would say, `O.K., let's go,' '' General Lynch said in an interview. ``The Second and Fourth Brigades would say, `O.K., boss, but we've got no equipment. What are we going to use?' So we'd have to figure out where we're going to draw their equipment.''
Meanwhile, the division is also preparing for deployment to Iraq on an abbreviated timeline.
The brief time at home does not sit well with some soldiers. Specialist George Patterson, who reenlisted after returning from Iraq in January, said last week that he was surprised to learn he could end up being home with his wife and daughter for only a year.
``I knew I would be going back,'' Specialist Patterson said. ``Did I think I would leave and go back in the same year? No. It kind of stinks.''
Instead of allowing more than a year to prepare to deploy, the First Brigade training schedule has been squeezed into only a few months, so the brigade can be ready to deploy as ordered by early December. Though the unit has not yet been formally designated for Iraq, most soldiers say there is little doubt they are headed there early next year.
Some combat-skills training not likely to be used in Iraq has been shortened substantially, said Col. John Charlton, the brigade commander. ``It's about taking all the requirements and compressing them, which is a challenge,'' he said.
The timetable also leaves officers and their soldiers less time to form close relationships that can be vital, several officers said.
And soldiers have less time to learn their weapons systems. Many of the major weapons systems, like artillery and even tanks, are unlikely to be used frequently in a counterinsurgency fight like Iraq.
The division has only a few dozen fully armored Humvees for training because most of the vehicles are in use in Iraq. Nor does it have all the tanks and trucks it is supposed to have when at full strength.
``There is enough equipment, and I would almost say just enough equipment,'' said Lt. Col. Sean Morrissey, the division's logistics officer. ``We're accustomed to, `I need 100 trucks. Where's my hundred trucks?' Well, we're nowhere near that.''
Last week, in training areas deep in the Fort Stewart woods, First Brigade soldiers were still learning to use other systems important in Iraq, like unmanned aerial vehicles, which are used for conducting surveillance.
Standing at a training airfield with three of the aircraft nearby, Sgt. Mark Melbourne, the senior noncommissioned officer for the brigade's unmanned aerial vehicles platoon, said only 6 of the brigade's 15 operators had qualified so far in operating the aircraft from a ground station.
All of them are supposed to be qualified by next month, but the training has been slowed by frequent rain, Sergeant Melbourne said.
This week, the First Brigade began a full-scale mission rehearsal for Iraq.
Normally, armored units preparing for Iraq are sent to Fort Irwin, Calif., for such training, but transporting a brigade's worth of equipment and soldiers there takes a month, which the schedule would not permit.
So the trainers and Arabic-speaking role players, who will simulate conditions the unit is likely to encounter in Iraq, were brought here to conduct the three-week exercise in a Georgia pine forest, rather than in the California desert.
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased that the conferees recognize this growing crisis in the military and took steps to mitigate it. Specifically, the conference agreement provides $20 billion in additional funds to ensure that the needs of the Army and the Marine Corps for fiscal year 2007 are fully funded.
This agreement also includes forward-thinking provisions. Ranking Member Murtha included language in the House bill prohibiting permanent U.S. bases in Iraq. I was pleased to join many of my colleagues in supporting that language. I appreciate that conferees preserved and strengthened this policy in the final agreement. Quite simply, intentions matter. And clarity in the United States' intentions is needed more so in Iraq than anywhere else.
There are many other smart provisions included in this agreement. The bill includes a 2.2 percent pay increase for all members of the Armed Forces. It increases mental health and posttraumatic stress syndrome research, and it provides funds for the replacement of National Guard and Reserve equipment lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But, finally, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this agreement for the simple fact that it is on time. Conferees worked together over several weeks to produce a very balanced conference agreement. It should be a model for the work Congress still has to do.
With only a few days remaining in this fiscal year, not a single appropriations bill has been signed into law. This is not new. In the last 5 years, only six of the 68 appropriations bills were finished on time. Some may try to shift blame to the other Chamber, but the majority has no one to blame but itself.
Again, I turn to another article in yesterday's New York Times, which summarizes the situation quite clearly:
``While Republicans prefer to blame Democrats for the backlog, intramural fights and sharp differences between House and Senate Republicans have been chief impediments to major legislation.''
[From the International Herald Tribune, Sept. 25, 2006]
Congress Winds Down, With Much Business Unfinished
(By Carl Hulse)
WASHINGTON.--A Congress derided as do-nothing has a week to do something, and the prospects are cloudy.
Procrastination, power struggles and partisanship have left Congress with substantial work to finish before taking a break at the end of the week for the midterm elections. The fast-approaching recess and the Republican focus on national security legislation make it inevitable that much of the remainder will fall by the wayside.
At best, it appears that only two of the 11 required spending bills will pass, and not one has been approved so far, forcing a stopgap measure to keep the federal government open. No budget was enacted. A popular package of business and education tax credits is teetering. A lobbying overhaul, once a top priority in view of corruption scandals, is dead. The drive for broad immigration changes has derailed.
An offshore oil drilling bill, painted as an answer to high gas prices, is stalled. Plans to cut the estate tax and raise the minimum wage have foundered, and an important nuclear pact with India sought by the White House is not on track to clear Congress. New problems surfaced over the weekend for the annual military authorization bill.
And numerous other initiatives await a planned lame-duck session in mid-November or a future Congress.
``It is disappointing where we are, and I think Republicans need to be upfront about this,'' said Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia and a member of the House leadership. ``We have not accomplished what we need to accomplish.''
Given the practical and political realities, Republicans have chosen to concentrate on legislation emphasizing their security credentials, like the bill governing interrogations and trials of terrorism detainees, a National Security Agency surveillance program and spending on the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security.
``With obstruction from the Democrats at an all-time high, we have focused on four security issues in an effort to enact some solid, substantive accomplishments,'' said Eric Ueland, chief of staff to Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, who is stepping down at the end of this session.
While Republicans prefer to blame Democrats for the backlog, intramural fights and sharp differences between House and Senate Republicans have been chief impediments to major legislation. The fissures over terrorism detainees and how far to go in changing immigration law are merely the latest and most public examples of serious policy differences among Republicans.
Circumstances have changed in Washington from the days when Republicans were famous for party discipline. President George W. Bush, weakened by his sliding popularity, has been unable to hold sway over Congress.
The Republican leadership in the House and the Senate is in transition and lacks the muscle of the former House majority leader, Tom DeLay. Republican lawmakers, many facing their most serious electoral opposition in years, are fending for themselves.
``We have no central core of political authority driving things in Washington,'' said James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University. ``Individuals and expressions of individual will by committees, and also by strong people like John McCain, have dominated, and the result is internal fighting.''
Democrats have made no secret of their intention to try to brand this Congress as worse than lackluster.
``When we say this is the most do-nothing Congress in the history of our country, this isn't just flippant,'' said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader. ``This is true.'' Besides denouncing the legislative output, Democrats are mounting an effort to chastise Republicans as failing to conduct sufficient oversight of the Iraq war.
Republican leaders dispute the notion that this has been an unproductive session, pointing to legislation on bankruptcy, class action, highway spending, energy policy and pensions, as well as to two Supreme Court confirmations. And they say they already plan to be back Nov. 13 to finish whatever remains at the end of the week.
Democrats have been happy throughout the year to stand almost united in both the House and the Senate against many of the Republican initiatives, forcing the majority to find enough votes to pass legislation from its own membership. That has often forced major concessions from the leadership. In other cases, Republicans in the House and the Senate have simply been unable to find common ground.
``In the 26 years I have been here,'' said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, ``I don't think I have ever seen so much tension between the House and the Senate, and it is all among Republicans.''
The immigration measure was a notable example as House Republicans refused to entertain the bipartisan Senate bill that took a comprehensive approach to the flood of illegal immigrants. A push for a formal budget plan collapsed because of differences over spending between House and Senate Republicans.
A House-Senate Republican feud over the handling of a pension measure, which ultimately passed, left a collection of tax breaks in limbo despite nearly unanimous support in Congress. Those tax benefits included a deduction for college tuition costs and a research and development tax credit for businesses. The leadership has been reluctant to bring the benefits to a vote independently because they could be used to help advance more contentious legislation, like the cut in the estate tax sought by Republicans.
A new struggle between rank-and-file Republicans and the leadership threatens to engulf the must-pass spending measure for domestic security. Lawmakers were insisting that a provision allowing Americans to bring back cheaper prescription drugs from Canada be added to the bill even though House leaders and the pharmaceutical industry oppose the Plan.
Mr. Speaker, the 109th Congress has had fewer voting days than almost any other Congress in history. We have lost precious weeks on politics as we debated bills that would never become law; and, as a result, Congress will leave Washington this week with many of the American people's priorities unfinished. There will be no lobbying reform, no comprehensive immigration reform. Congress will have ignored the millions of seniors stuck in the prescription drug benefit doughnut hole.
As I said last year when I also managed a prior continuing resolution, this Congress needs new and better priorities. Until then, delays will continue and deadlines will be missed and we will end up here every year with last-minute solutions to keep the Federal Government open for business.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, the conference report made in order under this rule affirms our support for the men and women of the United States military. I commend the conferees for their work, especially Subcommittee Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha. They made great progress in a short time by working together. I would challenge the rest of my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I will proceed to closing.
Mr. Speaker, we had a very spirited debate here today, and those in the Chamber here understand that many important things are happening in this world and in this country. We are dealing here also with this conference report, and this conference report made under this rule is a fair and responsible agreement. It does state clearly our support to the troops and our military.
As Congress considers the remaining appropriation bills later this year, I would urge my colleagues to follow this example, Democrats and Republicans working together to craft a responsible bill providing for the national defense. This agreement and this working together is all the evidence we need that national security is not a political issue, it is an American issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
http://thomas.loc.gov/