|
Off-site Links GET TO KNOW WHO REPRESENTS YOU |
A New Wiki with Data on Lawmakers. |
Who is Receiving Federal Loans & Grants? |
Who's Giving Money to Your Elected Officials? |
Who's Giving Money to Your State Elected Officials? |
Does Your Opinion Match the Polls? |
|
Legislation News & Report (TM) TheWeekInCongress.com (TM) Managing America: War on Terror |
|||||||||||||||
|
TheWeekInCongress.com (TM) Week Ending March 23, 2006
HR 1591 U.S. Readiness, Veterans’ Health and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007
This bill is a response to the President’s request for additional funding for the war on terror. It emphasizes training, equipment and downtime for US troops, increases funds to fight terror in Afghanistan, increases healthcare for injured troops returning home and sets a timeline for US participation in the civil war in Iraq.
The bill contains numerous other spending unrelated to the wars but such add-ons, also known as earmarks, are the result of party leaders negotiating with House members to gain their vote for the bill. Other add-ons are what might be called catch up spending for projects and programs that the Democrats could not get included in spending bills last year due to their status then as the minority. The bill also incorporates earlier House-passed legislation, the Minimum wage increase bill, HR 2, and the small business tax break bill HR 976.
To accomplish this bill and to get the necessary votes the Leadership created a rule of debate for the bill that waives several issues that would stall or even prohibit parts of the bill being considered. The rules suspended include those making the committee report for the bill available for three days prior to debate, allowing for a bill that exceeds allocation levels and creates a new entitlement authority, allowing for budget oriented legislation that was not reported by the Budget Committee and prohibiting consideration of bills that would cause new budget authority or outlays to exceed, or revenues to fall below, the levels set in the budget resolution.
The original bill required that the President must ask Congress before engaging in fighting in Iran but that provision was removed.
MANAGING THE TROOPS AND PUTTING CONDITIONS ON THE WAR The department of Defense is required to determine if a unit is ‘fully mission capable’ before deployment to Iraq and the President may waive that provision through a support to Congress showing national security reasons for sending a less prepared unit.
Defense is also required to follow policy and avoid extending troop deployment beyond 365 in Iraq for Army and 210 days for Marines. The President may also waive that requirement for national security reasons. The same amount of days allowed to be deployed are required for down time after a troop returns from way. The President may waive that provision too for national security reasons.
BENCHMARKS FOR THE IRAQIS TO MEET The President must certify by July 1, 2007 that Iraq is making meaningful and substantial progress in meeting political and military benchmarks including the militia disarmament program and fair sharing of oil revenues. If the certification can not be made the troops must be immediately redeployed with all returning home by December 2007.
By October 1, 2007 the President must certify that the Iraqis nave achieved the political and military benchmarks or the troops must be withdrawn by March 2008.
Should the President certify both of the above benchmarks redeployment must begin by March 1, 2008 and completed by August 2008.
Permanent US military bases in Iraq are prohibited, funds for torture in violation of UN rules is prohibited, funds to Iraq Security Forces and those in Afghanistan are limited until the Secretary of Defense submits readiness assessments of those forces and a report of costs is submitted.
CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT The bill withholds ten percent of Defense funds until Defense better manages contractors. The overall contractor budget is reduced by $815 million. Poor contractor behavior prohibits and awards.
In Iraq and Afghanistan the Inspector General positions and authority is extended with the emphasis on minimizing wasteful sole-source and cost-reimbursement contracts for agencies spending more than $1 billion on private contracts. Congress must now receive justification for non-competitive contracts as well as quarterly reports on contractor costing in excess of $1 million that are unjustified, unsupported and unreasonable
HOMELAND SECURITY Aviation security in enhanced with an additional $1.25 billion including $1 billion for explosive detection systems at high priority airports, $90 million to test and deploy advanced checkpoint explosive detection and $160 million to increase air cargo screening on passenger aircraft.
Port, transit and border security gets an added $1.25 billion to include entry radiation detection, prevention and response capabilities at ports and transit systems and container and northern border security.
Nuclear security provides $83 million to accelerate deploying radiation detection equipment to scan shipping containers headed to the US at high priority seaports and to secure nuclear material in the former Soviet Union.
Homeland Security may no longer preempt State or local chemical security laws or regulations if they are more stringent than federal regulations.
GULF COAST RECOVERY $1.3 billion goes to complete repair and storm damage reduction projects in New Orleans area and damage reduction projects in Mississippi. FEMA gets an additional $910 million to cover waiving the requirement that state and local governments provide matching funds for disaster aid. $140 million helps farmers and ranchers affected by the hurricanes. Loans would be forgiven that would normally not be forgiven for Katrina and Rita related Community Disaster Loans. FEMA is also funded to continue to pay utility bills for storm victims through February 7, 2008 and block grants are further extended as will as educational and housing voucher aid.
The fishing industry on the Gulf Coast finds relief at $120 million and colleges and universities will get $30 million along with $25 million to small business recovery. (salmon fishing on the west coast receives $60 million. Aquaculture losses due to viral infections is helped with $5 million)
Hurricane relief FEMA oversight to prevent waste and abuse is pumped up with $4 million. HUD oversight is improved with $10 million, Coast Guard engineering changes must undergo independent technical review and Homeland Security Contracting prohibits financial conflicts of interest for contractors responsible for system integration.
MISCELLANEOUS The minimum wage provisions and small business tax provisions passé earlier this year are included in the bill (Bill HR here) $450 million is expended for food aid to Sudan and Eastern Chad, Africa; Afghanistan, Southern Africa and the Horn of Africa.
Agricultural assistance is upped by $3.7 billion for a scaled down agriculture disaster program that only helps farmers who have met their responsibility to purchase crop insurance. Other programs that would benefit from Congress’s largesse at the moment include peanut farmers for storage facilities, dairy farmers for milk loss ($260 million), Citrus loss protections ($100 million). Spinach growers still reeling from the e-coli scare will benefit as will livestock breeders. Farmers suffering from recent freezes gain $20 million to help.
Secure rural schools and community self determination will receive $400 million.
Wildfire suppression is given $500 million in emergency reserve accounts to be used when existing funds are depleted.
NASA gains from funds for mitigating Gulf Coast damages to the tune of $35 million.
Low income home energy cuts are restored partially with $400 million.
$1 billion would be used to manufacture and buy vaccines needed to prevent a global pandemic.
Liberia and Jordan will receive security assistance funds of $40 million and $100 million respectively. On the Mexican border the US will spend and additional $10 million for the ongoing mitigation of pollution of the Rio Grande from US and Mexican influences and flood control on the river.
In Washington the DC Capitol Plant will undergo asbestos removal at $50 million and the House of Representatives itself will spend $16 million to upgrade security. $6.4 million will be spent for the House of Representative’s Salaries and Expenses Account for business continuity and disaster recovery expenses.
A copy of the bill text indexed for researching can be read here.
Sponsor: Rep. David Obey (D-) Vote: The Measure passed the House 218 to 212 March 23, 2007. (RC 186)
Cost to the taxpayers: $124.3 billion. Earmark Certification: Bill contains earmarks by definition going to private recipients, largely agriculture interests. Most is considered overdue emergency spending. ## All Rights Reserved. © 2007 TheWeekInCongress.com(TM) No reproduction, language translation or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)
MORE INFORMATION
SOME SPENDING DATA AFGHANISTAN Increases funding for the war in Afghanistan as well as State department efforts in that country.
DEFENSE HEALTH CARE $2.8 billion. $450 million for Post traumatic Stress Disorder counseling; $50 million for traumatic Brain Injury care and research; $730 million to prevent healthcare fee increases paid by the troops; $20 million for problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (No funds can be used to close the facility) and $14.8 for burn care.
VETERANS HEALTH CARE Increases funding by $1.7 billion. $550 million for maintenance backlog at VA health care facilities; $250 million for personnel to service increase in returning GIs; $226 million for treatment; $100 million for private mental healthcare contracting; $62 million to speed up claims processing by veterans.
OTHER DEFENSE SPENDING BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE $3.1 billion HOUSING $1.4 billion to eliminate shortfall READINESS $2.5 billion additional for Strategic Reserve Readiness fund for proper training and equipment INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE MILITARY $2.3 billion for the full cost of fielding an additional 36,000 Army and 9,000 marines and adds $729 million for related construction. MINE RESISTANT AMBUSH PROTECTED VEHICLES $1.4 billion FAMILY ADVOCACY PROGRAM $17 million to combat domestic violence AIRCRAFT PROTECTION Adds $198 million for marine Corps air survivability and $706 million for infrared countermeasures for Air Force. $3.8 billion for Iraq security forces, $5.9 billion for Afghan Security forces, $2.4 billion for joint EID defeat fund, working capitol and coalition partner support funds would total $1.95 billion.
MINORITY VIEWS MINORITY VIEWS SUBMITTED BY MR. LEWISThere is no question that if Chairman Obey was permitted to write this bill on his own, it would be a much better product. Instead, the House is being asked to consider a spending bill that reflects the priorities of Speaker Pelosi and a deeply divided Democratic Caucus. It attempts to bridge these widening divisions over the War in Iraq by delivering billions of dollars in unrelated and unauthorized spending under an emergency designation. This legislation ought to focus on our troops. It ought to focus on providing those in harm's way with the resources they need to complete their mission successfully. It ought to respect--not micromanage--our combatant commanders in whom we place the ultimate responsibility of prosecuting military actions. Instead, this legislation continues the majority's `slow bleed' strategy by tying the hands of our Commander-in-Chief during a time of war; places military decisions in the hands of politicians; and attempts to buy votes for its passage--on the left and on the right--by literally promising something to everyone. If the majority's goal is to end the war or withdraw our troops, then that should be addressed in separate legislation. The majority cannot have it both ways, pretending on the one hand to support our troops while, on the other hand, undercutting their ability to complete their mission. Men and women of good conscience can disagree about the war in Iraq. But on one thing we must all agree--our men and women in uniform must continue to receive our unqualified support and the resources they need to complete their mission successfully. All Members should consider carefully the consequences of their actions regarding this legislation. Enactment of this measure in its present form will signal to insurgents and terrorists that the United States doesn't have the political will to continue supporting this fledgling Iraqi democracy. Al Qaeda and other enemies of freedom will simply lay in wait until our troops are withdrawn. And, with the collapse of this fragile democracy, our efforts--and the sacrifices of our troops--will have been for nothing. The fight in Iraq is also critical to the future of Israel. A failure in Iraq will further destabilize the region, posing a direct threat to Israel. We must not let that occur to our friend and ally. There should be no carrot big enough to force Members into choosing between their principled support of our troops in the field and funding for the many unrelated, parochial items sprinkled throughout this bill. Republican Members of this committee--and in the House--are simply not going to abandon our principles--and troops in the field--for the promise of pork back in our districts. To their credit, many Democrats continue to express grave reservations about this approach--and this legislation. Last year, Congress sent to the President a clean supplemental spending bill for our troops. This Congress would be better served by sending a clean bill, free of extraneous spending and unrelated legislative provisions, in order to continue funding for our troops who stand in harm's way. However, as a result of the extraneous spending included in this bill, as well as the unrelated authorizing provisions, it will take months to complete work on a final bill that the President can sign. In the meantime, our troops will face the uncertainty that stems from not understanding whether the majority party is committed to providing the resources necessary in a timely fashion for them to complete their mission successfully. LEWIS-YOUNG AMENDMENTDuring full Committee consideration of this measure, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Young offered an amendment to strike Sections 1901-1904 and insert the text of H.R. 511. In addition to striking the provisions that tie the President's hands in an unprecedented and likely unconstitutional manner, the amendment pledged the faithful support of Congress to the members of the United States Armed Forces serving in harm's way by specifically stating that `Congress will not cut off or restrict funding for units and members of the Armed Forces that the Commander-in-Chief has deployed in harm's way in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.' Sadly, Committee Democrats voted in lockstep (37-27) to reject the Lewis-Young language, replacing it with feel good platitudes in lieu of an iron-clad guarantee of financial support. Their vote creates the dangerous precedent of tying the President's hands during a time of war, and sends an ominous message to our men and women in uniform. YOUNG AMENDMENTOn behalf of those Members of Congress who advocate an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, Mr. Young offered an amendment that would have funded the immediate withdrawal of our military forces from Iraq. The amendment was defeated unanimously (0-64), drawing the votes of several members who have long advocated for this immediate withdrawal. It is unfathomable that the majority, on one hand, unanimously rejects the immediate withdrawal of troops; proceeds to vote against a declaration that Congress will not cut off funding for those same troops; and then supports legislation that requires troops to begin withdrawing by the arbitrary deadline of March 1, 2008 at the latest. Members of the majority party are mandating a withdrawal from Iraq using a legislative sleight of hand, but won't admit to it with a direct vote on the matter. CONSTITUTIONAL IMPACTWhile the bill proposes egregious micromanagement with respect to Iraq, there is an even more disturbing consequence with respect to its impact on the U.S. Constitution. The delineation of powers between the Executive and the Legislative branches is quite clear--and is even reflected in an amendment adopted by the Appropriations Committee during consideration of the bill. Specifically, that amendment identifies the President as Commander-in-Chief. Sadly, the majority included text in the bill that restricts the manner in which the Commander-in-Chief is permitted to deploy the Armed Forces of the United States. If Congress wishes to end military operations in Iraq, its only constitutional recourse is to cut off funding--a notion the Appropriations Committee unanimously rejected. EXTRANEOUS SPENDINGTo make matters worse, this bill proposes more than $22 billion in emergency spending items that are completely unrelated to the troops, veterans' health, and Iraq. The majority has gone on a shopping spree, including many items designated as emergencies, to entice the support of Members while simultaneously making room for additional spending under the fiscal year 2008 spending caps. What does a $25 million bail out for spinach producers, $60 million for the salmon fishing industry, or $5 million for aquaculture have to do with our troops, veterans' health or Iraq, as the short title of the bill suggests. The bill includes nearly $1 billion in emergency funding for activities related to avian influenza. This is a fiscally irresponsible attempt to off-load $1 billion in spending that ought to be considered in the regular FY08 appropriations process. In FY06, Congress provided $5.6 billion in emergency funding for this purpose, and included additional funding in the FY07 omnibus appropriations bill. Today, half-way through FY07, more than $2.6 billion of that money remains unspent. The Department of Health and Human Services requested the funds this bill designates as an emergency in the FY08 Labor-HHS bill--without an emergency designation. The bill also includes $750 million for the State Children's Health Insurance Program--a mandatory program under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee. If there is a shortfall in some states that are unable to live within their means, it should be addressed by the committee of jurisdiction--not in a supplemental spending bill that purports to be for our troops, veterans' health, and Iraq. Additionally, the supplemental includes over $7 billion for programs under the jurisdiction of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, almost $3.5 billion over the President's request. While almost two-thirds is for disaster relief, the remaining $2.5 billion was added to address so-called FY07 emergencies. Many of the majority's funding increases are for worthy and important items such as nuclear and explosive detection systems and additional aircraft for the northern border. However, they should in no way be considered an FY07 emergency. In every instance these items could, and should be, addressed in the regular FY08 appropriations process. By including them as an FY07 emergency, the majority is simply trying to look strong on security and buy down requirements to free up funds in FY08 for additional spending. As we have demonstrated through our past action, while we certainly support Homeland Security spending, we support such spending within the confines of the Budget Resolution without the emergency designation when no true emergency exists. The agriculture-related provisions in the supplemental, which are far too numerous and costly to mention individually, were developed without any opportunity for input from the Ranking Minority Member nor from any of the other Republican Members of the Agriculture Subcommittee. Some of the more egregious examples include $5 million for aquaculture and $25 million for spinach producers. Clearly, this type of spending does not have a place in a wartime emergency supplemental bill. Furthermore, this legislation includes authorization language to increase the minimum wage. Again, why can't the committees of jurisdiction in the House and Senate meet in open conference to resolve the differences between these two bills? What place has this provision in a wartime supplemental? Quite simply, it is included at the behest of the Democrat leadership for no other reason than to act as a sweetener, to appeal to those who, for varying reasons, believe the Iraq policy included in this spending bill is misguided and wrong. Lastly, the bill includes an entire title on contracting `reform.' To our knowledge, there is no crisis in contracting--nothing that would suggest that this legislation is an emergency. Perhaps the reforms are necessary, perhaps not. That is a question better addressed by the authorizing committees of jurisdiction rather than the Appropriations Committee. What is certain is that this issue ought to be considered in regular order, not by `airdropping' it into this supplemental spending bill. CONCLUSIONIt is clear that Chairman Obey has been asked to carry egregious spending and legislative provisions by Speaker Pelosi and the majority leadership without regard for the constitutional prerogatives of the Commander-in-Chief, without regard for the strategic and tactical expertise of our combatant commanders in the field, and without regard for the morale of our troops who faithfully execute their duly authorized mission. It is in the best interest of our troops to send a clean bill to the President--a bill that provides the financial resources necessary for our troops and for our veterans. The President has stated unequivocally that he will veto this legislation, a decision that we in the minority strongly endorse. JERRY LEWIS.
## All Rights Reserved. © 2007 TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM) No reproduction, language translation or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)
|
|
||||||||||||||
