C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to reserve my time at this point.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, the former vice chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to point out, and I agree strongly with Mr. Murtha's statement about torture. I don't think Americans want to be known as a Nation that do torture. But we have put prohibitions on torture in our Defense appropriations bills almost from the beginning of the war, and so we have made it very clear that we are opposed to the use of torture. We just wish the other side would go by the same rules. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hunter.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. In its current form, I am.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is a simple forthwith motion. That means a vote for this motion will allow the House to immediately vote tonight on a bill that can pass the Congress and be signed into law. That means that our troops in harm's way will get the funding they need before Congress leaves town for a 2- week Thanksgiving recess. The motion would amend the bill to strike the provisions which have nothing to do with providing for our troops and are nothing more than political gamesmanship. The motion would strip the provisions that give our enemies a complete blueprint and timeline for troop withdrawal. The motion would strip the provisions in the bill which signal to our troops and our enemies that Congress will not provide any more funding for our troops, except for withdrawal. The motion would strip the provisions in the bill that substitute politicians' judgments on troop deployment for the judgment of our military commanders in the field. At the same time, we leave intact the $50 billion in critical funding included in the bill. We leave intact the prohibition on torture, which has been adopted previously by this Congress and Congresses before. But we strip the new provisions which could give terrorists killing our soldiers and our citizens constitutional protections under our legal system. We modify provisions to more clearly express Congress's commitment to our troops and to bringing them home safely in victory as soon as possible. We leave intact a new requirement that the President submit to the Congress within the next 3 months a comprehensive, long-term strategy to achieve stability in the Middle East over the next 5 years. As events of the last few months have shown, the situation on the ground has, and we all hope will, continue to improve dramatically. Congress has and will continue to debate the proper course of the war, as it should. However, we should not and cannot vote to hold troop funding hostage to that debate. The only ones hurt by that are our troops and their families. As we go home to enjoy the holidays with our families, how can any of us look our soldiers' families in the eye and explain to them that we are withholding their funding so that we can score political points. That is just wrong. Our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen and their families deserve more from all of us. I urge adoption of this motion. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I think this is a very good bill. As has been mentioned during the debate on the rule, maybe someone else might have written it a little bit differently. I don't think any legislation is ever totally perfect, but this is a good package. It's a good bipartisan package. The subcommittee worked hard; had many, many hearings; required the military to justify the requests; and we have come up with a pretty good bill. Chairman Murtha has chaired this subcommittee before we became the majority, then I chaired the subcommittee for 6 years, now he is chairman again. We have always worked this bill together in the best interests of the United States of America and the troops who provide our defense and that support us. Mr. Murtha mentioned the pay raise. Yes, we did give a pay raise. We wish we could have given more. But the 3.5 percent was more than was requested in the budget request. We are also providing funding for increasing the size of our military. And I don't think anyone would deny the fact that our military is tired. They are being used and deployed a lot. And so I think it is appropriate that we increase the size of military, especially the Army and the Marine Corps. Some other things were mentioned by the Members speaking on the rule, so I'm not going to repeat them, but I will submit for the Record a written statement. But there are two points that I want to make: one is, as Mr. Murtha suggested briefly, the growth in shipbuilding. Do you remember President Ronald Reagan thought that the United States should have a 600-ship Navy to guarantee that we had free access to the international waters of this planet of ours? If we don't take the direction that this subcommittee recommends, we would be below 300 ships in our Navy, and that is not big enough. And so we provide the LPD-17 that was requested by the administration. We provide advance funding, which is in addition to the request, advance funding for a second LPD-17, which the Navy strongly supports. But one of the Navy's premier programs is the Littoral Combat Ship, the LCS. We provided for four ships; the other body did not have the same number. We prevailed, and the funding for up to four ships that the Navy really feels they need for naval superiority are in this bill. Now the last point that I want to make, Mr. Speaker. So many times in our hearings soldiers who would fight on the ground, marines who would invade on the beaches have told us over and over again that they will go anywhere that their country sends them, they will fight any fight that their country asks them to fight, but when they do, if there is an aircraft overhead, they want that aircraft to be an American airplane manned by an American crew. Our air superiority weapon today is the F-15, a very, very good aircraft, but very old. The F-15 is older than some of the Members in this Chamber. The F-15 is now suffering some metal fatigue. And as you know, the F-15 fleet has been grounded because one of our planes basically came apart in midair in Missouri. And so we provide funding for the F-22, which is the follow-on to the F-15, an aircraft that will guarantee America's air superiority. So it's important that we fund this package of fighter aircraft. It is important that if we send a soldier or marine or any member of our military services to war, that the air over head will be controlled by the United States of America and not by an enemy. And so this bill goes a long way towards accomplishing air superiority. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on Defense appropriations for fiscal year 2008. This agreement totals over $459 billion, and is $3.5 billion below the President's request. However, it is almost $40 billion above the fiscal year 2007 level. It contains $11.6 billion in emergency funding for additional MRAP vehicles for use by the Army and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan. This conference report provides for a number of Presidential and Congressional priorities, including: $6 billion in equipment to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps; restoration of the $1.9 billion cut in the Defense Health program associated with proposed increases in insurance co-payments that have not been authorized by Congress; an additional $980 million in equipment for the National Guard and Reserve, which is important for disaster response throughout the country, including the Gulf Coast; full funding for the Congressionally proposed 3.5 percent pay increase for the military; $4.1 billion for continued development of the Joint Strike Fighter and $3.1 billion to procure twenty F-22 aircraft; the F-22 program becomes even more important with the revelation that some F-15s are experiencing metal fatigue; procurement and advance procurement for 10 ships for the Navy, including initial funding for the next-generation aircraft carrier. There is one item not in this conference agreement that I wish we were addressing today. For the past 3 years we have provided a Bridge Fund to allow the Defense Department to finance war on terror operations until enactment of a supplemental appropriations bill in the spring. Last year's bridge totaled $70 billion for 6 months of war operations and was broadly supported by both sides of the aisle. This conference report contains no such funding. When this Defense conference report is enacted into law, Defense spending will drop out of the continuing resolution. So will funding under the fiscal year 2007 Bridge Fund. Without this authority, the Department of Defense will be forced to use base funds to support the operations of the global war on terror. By mid to late January, the Army will run out of money. We need to move quickly in the next few weeks to address this shortfall. Our troops in the field need our support, no matter what position we take on the war. I know there are many on the other side of the aisle that do not want to support war on terror funding. Ironically, by voting for this conference report without a Bridge Fund, everyone voting for this bill will be effectively voting to support war operations. The question is whether we do so by forcing the Department to use base funds in this bill, or by enacting a Bridge Fund, or by allowing current rates to continue until enactment of a supplemental appropriations bill. Aside from that, however, I want to reiterate my support for this conference report. I appreciate the cooperation and courtesy shown by my Chairman, Mr. Murtha, throughout this process. I also want to thank the members of the Defense subcommittee for their contributions to this conference report, especially those on the Republican side of the aisle. Mr. Hobson, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Kingston, and the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Lewis, all made important contributions to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, again I want to say that I strongly support this legislation, and urge its adoption by the House.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating the people of St. Pete Beach, FL, as they celebrate the city's 50th anniversary this weekend. It is an honor to represent this beautiful beach community that is home to one of our Nation's finest beaches and picture perfect sunsets. The residents there take tremendous pride in their city, which has just the right combination of parks, shops and cultural offerings. St. Pete Beach is a barrier island with a permanent population of just over 10,000. It was incorporated in 1957 with the consolidation of the towns of Pass-a-Grille, Don Cesar, Belle Vista and St. Petersburg Beach. Today it is a popular tourist destination when its population doubles during the winter months. Visitors flock to St. Pete Beach to enjoy its 38 acres of public parks and 39 acres of public beaches. This is also a fiercely patriotic city as flags fly on homes throughout the community. The people there have also led a seven-city effort to collect items to send our troops serving overseas. They want our soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and coastguardsmen to know they are loved and appreciated. Madam Speaker, as the city prepares for its festivities this weekend, let me commend Mayor Ward Friszolowski, Vice Mayor Michael Finnerty, Commissioners Linda Cheney, Ed Ruttencutter and Harry Metz, and all the city's employees for their dedication to governing and managing one of our Nation's finest hometowns and vacation destinations. St. Pete Beach reminds us of all that is right in Florida and why it is such a great place to live, to work and to play.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, I rise to applaud Chairman Obey for the statements that he has made since the beginning of this session of Congress that we are going to pass all of the appropriations bills individually, separately, and send them to the President, individually and separately. I think that is a great idea. As a former chairman of this Appropriations Committee, I wish I could have done the same thing. I understand the frustration that Chairman Obey has in not being able to move the bills the way that he wants to move them. I experienced the same frustration. Mr. Obey is right. We did have omnibus bills during the time that we were the majority party. The reason we had the omnibus bills is because our partners in the Senate refused to pass their bills. Now, Chairman Obey has said so many times that we just didn't do our job. In the House, we did our job. In the House we passed our appropriations bills just like Chairman Obey did this year, but it takes two Houses to approve a bill and to send it to the White House. The frustration is that without appropriations bills, the government shuts down. It's pure and simple. Article I of the Constitution of the United States, section 9, says that the administration can't spend any money that has not first been appropriated by Congress. So in order to meet that constitutional responsibility, we have had, on occasion, the need to create an omnibus appropriations bill because the Senate refused to pass their bills. Now, I will concede that during our chairmanship the Senate was a Republican Senate. It was controlled by the Republicans. Today, the United States Senate still refuses to pass all of their appropriations bills, and today the Senate is controlled by the Democrats. So it just seems like the Senate is the Senate, no matter who controls them politically. But in the case that we are debating today, there is absolutely no good government reason to combine these three bills. Combining these bills will slow them down. It has been suggested by some of the speakers we ought to move ahead. The Defense appropriations subcommittee was scheduled to conference tomorrow morning to send the bill to the Senate and to the White House. I understand the Labor-HHS Subcommittee was also scheduled to conference tomorrow. These bills could have been conferenced and, by the way, the Military Construction Veterans' Affairs Committee was also prepared to conference, and the President said that he would sign that bill, he would sign the Defense bill. He expressed his concern about the Labor-H bill. I voted for all three of them. I voted for the Defense bill, I voted for the Military Construction Veterans Affairs bill, and I also voted for the Labor-HHS bill. I think we ought to handle these bills individually to speed up the process, not to slow it down. By combining these three bills, we all know that it will slow down the process. How long would it slow it down? I don't know, but I do know this, that there is already talk about conducting the appropriations process on these bills on a continuing resolution if it gets slowed down too much. That's not good. We have done CRs, and we know that, and we know the reason for them. But there is no good reason to put these bills on a CR. They are ready to conference. They are ready to come back to the House and go to the Senate and go to the White House. They are ready. There would be no delay. It's just not right because there is no good government reason to do this. It's just not right to do it. I suggest that we should join in supporting Chairman Obey when he says that these bills should be done individually, separately and sent to the President in that fashion, individually and separately. I support this motion because, if this motion does not pass, and if we appoint Labor-HHS conferees to conference the Defense bill, I mean, they are all very, very talented members, and they all have great knowledge, but, you know, none of them sat through the hearings. None of them sat through the justifications. None of them sat through the markups. So to have the Labor-HHS members who are outstanding members on both sides of the aisle, to have them conferencing a large bill as complicated as the Defense bill, that's just not right. It's really interesting that the bills that the leadership would add to the Labor- HHS bill make up 80 percent of the dollars to be appropriated. The Labor-HHS bill, which becomes the vehicle, is only 20 percent of the appropriations. This is not right. I'm not going to suggest why the majority leadership made this decision. But I'm going to say, emphatically and without fear of contradiction, there is no good government reason for combining these three bills, because they are ready to be conferenced and sent to the President without any delay whatsoever. And I thank the gentleman for yielding and for the good job that he does in his role on the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, Kenneth P. Pruitt, Jr. was known to his family and friends as ``KP.'' he had great wit, a sharp intellect, and demonstrated a sincere kindness to everyone who came across his path. That life was cut too short when Kenneth died on August 15, 2007, in Tallahassee, Florida, at the young age of 29. Kenneth was the son of our Florida Senate President Ken Pruitt and Dianne Peters of Tampa. Kenneth had an exceptional capacity for understanding computer systems and software from a very young age. He used this talent in the marketplace and in the public sector. Kenneth served as a network administrator at the State of Florida's Department of Revenue where he worked in the Child Support Enforcement Division. At the time of his death, Kenneth was working in the Information Technology department at Tallahassee HealthCare. He was also rich in friends and family. He is survived by his daughter Chloe, age four, step-mother Aileen Pruitt of Port St. Lucie; siblings Steven, Mark, Ashley, and Michelle; step-father Ron Peters of Tampa; and sister Samantha. He is also survived by his grandparents Jeannette Dufresne of New Port Richey, Robert and Fay Pruitt of Inverness, and many other friends and family members. In honor of his memory, the Indian River Community College established the ``Kenneth P. Pruitt, Jr. Scholarship'' in order to provide assistance to students wishing to follow in Kenneth's footsteps and make a career in the field of computer technology. In this way, the spirit of this bright and talented young man will carry on to inspire others.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Chairman Murtha has just raised an issue that reminded me in talking about earmarks and good programs. One of the best programs this Congress ever created in the health field was the National Bone Marrow Donor Program, which has saved thousands of lives, a proven system. It was created by this subcommittee with an earmark many years ago, and it saved thousands of lives.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman caught my attention when he said St. Petersburg, Florida, if that's where that company is located. I assume that it is because when I submitted the request in full transparency, I said it was from St. Petersburg, Florida. This is a program that is important to the military. This is a defense-related issue. What this program is, is providing water for our troops in the field where there is no water. We have reverse osmosis. To do that, you have got to have some kind of liquid. We have desalinization. To do that you, have got to have saltwater. But how about getting water where there is none present? How about getting water out of the atmosphere? Because there is water in the atmosphere. And this company has proved they can do it. And this company's product is being tested at Aberdeen Proving Grounds by the United States Army. Now, I suggest to the gentleman, do we really want to deny our troops the opportunity to have a system that provides water from the air? And it works. It is working in Aberdeen. Do you really want to deny troops the opportunity to have a portable unit that will provide water for troops that are deployed in outrageous places where there is no water? If that is what you want to do, then you should vote for this amendment. I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Let me give you the type of question you are asking. Last year, I was chairman of this subcommittee. Last year, we had a request through the administration for a supplemental of $70 billion. We asked the administration, what would you like to include in that $70 billion? What did you need? We didn't get an answer. We didn't get an answer, so after repeated requests we had to go to the services who were fighting the war and say to them, what do you need? And we identified those items and we put them in that $70 billion supplemental, which most of us voted for. So I was responsible for and got credit for a $70 billion earmark. Everything is not black and white in this world. And so I say to the gentleman, I appreciate his tenacity, but I would like to have an opportunity to debate with you the many good things that have been done to defend our Nation and support our troops that have been done created by the Congress, not requested by any administration. One of the very best earmarks that I can give you an example of off the top of my head is the Predator, the Predator that the Iraqi terrorists really hate because it hunts them down and it kills them. The Predator was a congressional earmark. The administration, the Defense Department didn't ask for it, didn't give us any support. We said we need this capability, and we got the capability. And it is one of the best things we have going for us in the war against terror. So I hope that begins to give the gentleman a little bit of a response about our responsibility in providing things that our military needs and our national defense needs. And I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I say to the gentleman I certainly agree with what it is that he's attempting to do, but it is subject to a point of order. But I can assure the gentleman that during the conference that we will address this very important issue.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I do not rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, as he has announced that he intends to withdraw it because of a previous agreement. I take this time to advise the chairman of the subcommittee that under the unanimous consent agreement, a number of amendments were listed. I advise the chairman that some of those amendments will not be offered. Other amendments we will be able to accept. Others will go to a vote, and there are several that will be subject to a point of order. But in order to facilitate the evening and allow the House to conclude action on this bill, I just took this time to state that. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), the ranking member on the Military Construction Subcommittee.