Expressing the sense of Congress that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 should be repealed.
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
January 7, 2003
View full timeline
Introduced in House
January 7, 2003
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
January 7, 2003
Floor Debate
22 membersWhat members said about H.Con.Res. 2 on the floor
PAD
MW
JPM
JK
CWB+17
Floor Debate
22 membersWhat members said about H.Con.Res. 2 on the floor
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that is long overdue. Those who are here would recall that in the aftermath of 9-11 when this House was rushing to approve a $15…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that is long overdue. Those who are here would recall that in the aftermath of 9-11 when this House was rushing to approve a $15 billion package to help the airlines that we were told that there was not room or time, because it was so urgent to be done before the end of the week, to include the employees; but the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the then-minority leader, and Speaker Hastert engaged in a colloquy where assurances were made that in the very near future in, and this was in September of 2001, that we would consider a bill for employee relief including financial assistance, ability to retain health insurance, training for those in the airline industry.
Since that time 150,000 airline industry employees have been laid off or furloughed, and we are told now by the industry that even if this package is approved, there is a high likelihood that we will see another 70,000 layoffs. Boeing is looking at 30,000 layoffs; and then there are a whole lot of associated industries, travel agents and others, who have been devastated. So this legislation would begin to redress that oversight by this Congress.
The interesting thing about this amendment is it is not in order under the bill, I am going to hear shortly, but this amendment, we would not have to borrow the money to pay for it. We have to borrow the money to send to Pakistan. We have to borrow the money to send to Turkey. We have to borrow for every other function of this bill. We have to borrow the money to build 6,000 schools in Iraq. We have to borrow the money to begin to provide universal health care in Iraq. But to provide extended unemployment benefits to 150,000, headed to more than 200,000, airline employees, we would not have to borrow a penny because the money is already on deposit in the unemployment trust fund.
It is true that the administration does not want to spend the $20- some-odd billion balance in that fund and does not want to extend this benefit to airline employees who have exhausted their unemployment; but the fact is we would not have to borrow the money to do it and it helps Americans. We are borrowing money to help people all around the world. Can we not do something for the airline employees?
The Senate has acted on this issue, and hopefully we will come to a conference agreement that will provide for this long-overdue benefit; but if the House would send a message tonight, if the committee would accept this and waive a point of order against it, again, not having to appropriate funds, only to authorize expenditure of funds from the trust fund, we would begin to help these people who have been sorely hurt by 9-11 and now by this war in Iraq.
Mr. Chairman, if I could speak to the point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I did last evening go to the Committee on Rules. There was a Republican member who was a principal sponsor of this legislation who was supposed to come to the Committee on Rules and ask for a waiver. He did not, but in his stead I asked the committee to protect this or, even better, to open up this section of the bill which goes to aviation and allow it to be amended outside of the rules of the appropriations process since this section of the bill was written totally, basically, behind closed doors. Unfortunately, apparently the Committee on Rules saw fit not to do that.
Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that this amendment would be accepted as noncontroversial. It would, at the end of a bill, insert a new section which basically simply recognizes the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of Article I, section 8. This has been reviewed by and edited by the Parliamentarian's Office and I understand that in its current form, it is in order. I had a previous version which was not in order.
It is very simple, and I will read it. Often we debate things that are too long to read, but this says, ``None of the funds in this Act may be used to initiate or launch military actions except as authorized by Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.''
Now, what does that mean? That means that we already have an outstanding authorization for these activities, which I opposed, which was not a declaration of war, but Congress did pass an authorization under the War Powers Act for current activities in the Middle East and any activities that might be pertinent to that. We have another outstanding authorization for anyone who has engaged in, aided, or abetted, or harbored those involved in 9/11. I think that pretty well covers any potential terrorist threat or harboring of terrorists or fugitives responsible for those sorts of actions around the world between those two resolutions.
So this simply says before the administration might use any of the $75 billion in this bill, which we are borrowing and delegating to them for a number of purposes, to engage in a military action outside of those two authorizations dealing with another part of the world or another country, that it would have to be compliant with the Constitution of the United States of America. I believe this is extraordinarily noncontroversial, and I would give the chairman an opportunity to accept it and save 2 minutes;
I probably have 2 minutes left. But he is not jumping to his feet, so I will keep talking for another 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I find it hard to believe that this House, the people's House, would not feel that in borrowing and transmitting huge amounts of funds to the administration, would not want to protect its constitutional prerogatives and make certain that those funds were not used beyond the purposes of the already existing authorizations. So I would be puzzled if this House would reject this amendment, and I would wonder what they know that I do not know, or what plans to use this money in ways that are not already authorized by law might be out there; and that would cause me grave concern, particularly when I sometimes listen to the Secretary of Defense, who was then contradicted by the Secretary of State.
Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mr. Chairman, I had prior proposed legislation which would have required this House to fulfill its constitutional duties for this particular action, and some 30-some odd people saw fit to put their names on that. This amendment simply refers to the funds in this bill and future actions that are not authorized. So this is actually even more limited in its scope, but it does go directly to the obligations and duties of this House under Article I, section 8.
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Chairman, it is very clear what we are saying here. Military actions except as authorized, none of the funds may be used to initiate a launch. This is beyond those already authorized. I had other language which went to that; the Parliamentarian stripped it out. But this is clearly saying we have already authorized the current actions, we authorized them under the 9/11 resolution, Afghanistan and other actions. Those are authorized. This would be future actions outside the scope of the Iraq war, outside the scope of the Afghanistan war and/or the war on terrorism, whatever those might be, and Secretary Rumsfeld has an active mind.
Mr. Chairman, I will take part of the time to respond to the chairman, since he did not give me time.
Mr. Chairman, I resent the broad-scale implications about the ``proven linkage'' between Saddam Hussein. They have been able to put Saddam Hussein in the same sentence with al Qaeda; but the CIA, DIA and others have not been able to find or prove a single link, except for the group that he did not control up in the northern part of the country behind the Kurds, who have now been eradicated.
But there are proven links to the Saudis, there are proven links to the Pakistani intelligence service, there are proven links to others who in fact will receive assistance under this bill.
That aside, and we will not get back into that debate again here tonight, but I believe the gentleman mischaracterizes my amendment. This was raised in light of Secretary Rumsfeld threatening to take action against Syria. We have heard that ``real men go to Tehran'' and other things from this administration. I am concerned what adventures they might have in mind in terms of further preemptive wars.
I was trying to make the statement that before we fight any more preemptive wars, that we would live up to our authority under article 1, section 8, which we failed, and we failed the troops and the American people in the Congress in the matter of this current action, although it was authorized under other auspices by this Congress.
My other amendment is really simple. I know it will be opposed, but here it is.
This Congress authorized that we would make the American people safe by setting up National Guard weapons of mass destruction civil support teams in every State of the United States and the territories. Guess what, we have not delivered on that. We do not have enough money. We have been told there are budget constraints. We cannot afford a National Guard weapons of mass destruction civil support team in 17 States, including my own and that of the ranking member of the committee and a number of other States. We cannot afford it; yet we can send $1 billion unsolicited to Turkey.
As I said earlier on the floor tonight, the ambassador of Turkey said these funds were not solicited; they were a unilateral action on the part of the United States of America; essentially a gift or bribe, however we want to characterize it.
Would the American people not be better served by just reducing that by 20 percent? So 20 percent of the $1 billion that we are going to borrow and send to Turkey would be spent here in the United States of America for the National Guard to prevent destruction by weapons of mass destruction.
Now, I know we are going to hear, this would be an insult to the Turks and others. But is it not an insult to the American people that we are not making them as safe as we could? If Members want to talk about patriotism, damn it, protect our people here at home. If Members want to cast aspersions on me, I want this money to be spent in the United States of America. They want to send it to Turkey, plain and simple.
We are going to vote up or down on this. It is real simple. They will get up and say, oh, the Turks, the Turks. We either fund under the law what we said we would or what we were mandated to do, which we say we do not have the money to do, or we do not. This is the simple way to do it. The Turks would still get $800 million that they did not ask for.
Announcement by the Chairman pro tempore
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an issue that some of us started to talk about last week. Mr. Speaker, last week 11 Members came to the floor to speak about the deep cuts in the President's…
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an issue that some of us started to talk about last week. Mr. Speaker, last week 11 Members came to the floor to speak about the deep cuts in the President's budget. After we made our presentations on the floor, we were inundated with calls by veterans from all over America. They called us, they wrote us, and they are asking Members to join us. They want us to make a special appeal to our Republican friends, to the President, not to cut veterans services.
We are back here tonight. I have more Democratic Members who have joined me. They have come to the floor this evening to appeal to our Republican colleagues and to the President not to cut the veterans budget.
The budget is supposed to outline the Federal Government's priorities for the next year. Apparently, some of our colleagues have decided that their priorities are massive deficits, huge tax cuts that benefit only the most privileged, and drastic cuts to government programs that millions of people depend on. While the Republican budget did not include a dime in funding for the war in Iraq, it did cut the Department of Veterans Affairs by $25 billion.
Mr. Speaker, on the same day that the President of the United States sent our soldiers into war, the Republicans in Congress pushed through a budget that slashed the very programs that our soldiers will count on when they return from their mission. This is unacceptable. I believe that we must live up to our duty and support the men and women who fought throughout our Nation's history to protect our freedom.
However, it seems that many of our colleagues have forgotten the promises we made to our veterans when we sent them to war. This budget, the President's budget, has slashed government spending so that veterans are being impacted in the most unusual and negative way.
The cuts that the veterans are being forced to take are simply unkind and unfair. For example, in January of 2003, Mr. Bush cut off access to the VA health care system for approximately 174,000 veterans. Specifically, the President announced that new VA care would no longer be available to so-called ``Priority 8'' veterans who are not already enrolled in the VA system; that simply means veterans who earn about $24,000.
It is ironic that the President announced this cut on the same day he did a photo op at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, touting veterans care for vets of the Afghanistan conflict.
It is also ironic that the President was touting care for the veterans of the Afghanistan conflict when we are still, in our districts on a daily basis, responding to the cries of veterans who served in the Vietnam-era War and who served in the Persian Gulf War, veterans who still are not able to access their benefits. We are still dealing with veterans who have been inflicted with all of the diseases that come from the exposure to Agent Orange and other kinds of exposures.
In July of 2002, the President had the Veterans Affairs Department direct all VA regional directors to stop, stop, all marketing activities to enroll new vets in the VA system. This was an effort to curb VA expenditures by not letting the public know about available services. According to several major veterans groups, the President's budget last year fell $1.5 billion short of the inadequate funding that was exhibited in that budget.
this year's budget
So it should not come as a surprise when our President or his party short-changes our veterans, yet again. History has shown that they will.
But Republicans decided that what they have done over the past couple of years was not enough. So when they drew up the Fiscal Year 2004 budget they called for even greater cuts to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The budget will cut $844 million from health programs next year.
In addition, the budget called for increased co-payments for pharmaceutical drugs and primary care that veterans need--something that used to be provided for free.
And mandatory spending would be cut by 463 million--this year alone. This means that the Montgomery GI Bill education benefits, vocational rehabilitation, and subsidies for VA home loans will be cut.
The Republicans even cut funding for headstones, markers and flag for deceased veterans.
Nor does the Republican's budget provide additional funding for the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act which is a comprehensive effort to eliminate chronic homelessness among veterans within a decade.
I would like to share with you two quotes that I think highlight the anger that many veterans felt after they saw the Republican Veterans' budget.
The first is from John Keaveney of New Directions, Inc, a veterans group located in Los Angeles. He says: ``To propose cuts in VA nurses, doctors, hospitals and other important services to veterans at a time of war feels to many veterans like an act of treason. . . . It seems inexcusable at a time like this to virtually tear up the agreement America has had with veterans for more than 100 years which is to care for those who have borne the brunt of battle.''
And the other is from Dwight Radcliff of US Vets also located in Los Angeles. He said: ``. . . the men and women who fought for this country are still struggling to obtain the benefits and services to which they are entitled. In being pro-active, it is imperative that during this time of war, we begin to prepare to address the needs of those who are currently in service as well as the forgotten heroes who still sleep in the streets. It is extremely unfair to tell those who have waited so long and also those who will return shortly that their effort for this country was unappreciated.''
Mr. Speaker, I call on the President and the Republican leadership to restore the funding to the Department of Veterans' Affairs and to restore our veterans' confidence in their government which they so bravely defended.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to call on some of my colleagues who are here to make their presentations this evening. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for her comments, and I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), who has been spending every waking moment trying to get these cuts restored to veterans of his district. And the State of Ohio can be very proud of him; he helped to organize this time on the floor last week and tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio for all of the work he is doing on this issue, and I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. I now yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas, and I now yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) to close.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a communication from New Directions, signed by Mr. John Keaveney, who is head of this New Directions organization, a fine organization rehabilitating veterans in the greater Los Angeles area; a communication from Mr. Dwight Radcliff from United States Veterans Initiative, another organization providing drug rehabilitation services, providing job training services for our veterans from the Vietnam era and from the Persian Gulf; and a communication from the National Veterans Foundation that is signed by Shad Meshad.
United States
Veterans Initiative, Inc.,
Inglewood, CA, March 27, 2003.
Maxine Waters,
Member of Congress, 35th Congressional District, California.
Dear Congresswoman Waters: I have reviewed the findings of
Congressman Lane Evans, ranking Democratic member of the
House Veterans' Affairs committee regarding the budget
adopted by the house budget committee which results in
drastic reductions in funding for veterans benefits and
services. As the director of the largest veterans-specific
program in the country, I am appalled that this
administration would consider decreasing the amount of
funding available to the Department of Veterans Affairs and
the special programs and services provided by community based
organizations such as ours.
United States Veterans Initiative provides outreach,
housing, employment assistance, case management, counseling,
legal assistance, and food services to over 2500 homeless
veterans per year at our Inglewood site. At our other sites
across the country, we provide services to an additional 3000
veterans annually. The majority of the veterans that we serve
are Vietnam Veterans. Today, over thirty years after the war
in Vietnam, the men and women who fought for this country are
still struggling to obtain the benefits and services to which
they are entitled. In being proactive, it is imperative that
during this time of war, we begin to prepare to address the
needs of those who are currently in service as well as the
forgotten heroes who still sleep in the streets of this
country each night. It is extremely unfair to tell those who
have waited so long and also those who will return shortly
that their effort for this country was unappreciated. This is
our time to fight for them.
As our congressional representative I am requesting that
you strongly oppose any effort to cut funding for the
Department of Veterans Affairs. Without this crucial funding,
those veterans that are in desperate need of benefits and
assistance will not be able to access the needed resources
such as medical, psychiatric, housing, and employment.
Sincerely,
Dwight Radcliff,
Los Angeles Services Director,
United States Veterans Initiative.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentlewoman…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to add $34 million to the Office of Domestic Preparedness for assistance to State and local first responders. I would have preferred to increase those funds by $61 million, but the Committee on Rules last night would not allow even that modest sum to go to our first responders.
This amendment is very simple. It adds $34 million for our first responders, and it strikes $61 million in military and security assistance for Colombia to pay for the increase. This supplemental contains more military aid for Colombia, in total $105 million, than the amount for first responders in 49 of the 50 States. At a time when our country faces an increased risk of terrorist attack, at a time when every dollar is needed to support the men and women who daily protect our communities from terrorism and other threats, this bill makes it clear they would be better off as a military or police officer in Bogota, Colombia, than Worcester, Massachusetts, Miami, Florida, or even New York City.
President Bush asked this Congress to refrain from attaching items not directly related to the emergency at hand. This bill is supposed to focus on Iraq and the region surrounding Iraq and on our own homeland security. So why is military aid for Colombia in this bill?
Scarcely 6 weeks ago, Congress passed an appropriations bill that contained over $500 million in military security and economic aid for Colombia. Have they already run out of that money? No. Most of it is not even in the pipeline yet. When this House returns from the April recess, the Subcommittee on Defense and the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations will begin work on the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bills. The President has asked for more than $700 million in military security and economic aid for Colombia in those bills. I submit that Colombia is very well taken care of in the regular authorization and appropriations process.
If this House approves this amendment, the supplemental will still include $44 million in military and security assistance for Colombia. My amendment does not touch additional funds for hostage search and rescue missions in Colombia. This amendment does not touch funds to strengthen security for President Uribe, and it does not touch at least $25 million in other military assistance in this bill, funds which could be used for bomb detection, for extending the Colombian Government's control over zones of conflict, or for other purposes.
This amendment is a very modest increase for the men and women who are our front-line security right here at home, and a very modest reduction in military funds for Colombia.
Most of my colleagues know that I have grave concerns about our policy in Colombia. I am even more deeply concerned that we never seem to get an opportunity to debate that policy except when money is being slipped in through the back door in supplemental appropriation bills that are focused on other critical issues like the war in Iraq.
Members may disagree with me on our policy on Colombia, but they cannot disagree that these funds are needed more at home right now than they are needed in Colombia.
I just returned from 1 week in Colombia, and I saw first hand what the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights in Bogota just reported to the Human Rights Commission in Geneva. Violence and human rights crimes by the paramilitary guerillas are on the increase. Human rights
abuses and crimes by official government military and security forces are on the increase, and the links between the Colombian armed forces and the paramilitaries remain unchanged.
Mr. Chairman, the U.S. has more troops on the ground in Colombia than ever before, and Americans are dying in Colombia and our involvement is becoming increasingly directed in counterinsurgency efforts. These are serious matters. They deserve serious and full debate before we further escalate our involvement.
I know that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations is concerned that terrorist groups like al Qaeda rely in part on drug money to finance their operations. Every Member of this House is concerned about that. But al Qaeda's drug money comes from South Asian poppy fields, not Colombia. In Colombia, drug money permeates all sectors of society. It helps finance Colombia's 40-year-old civil war. And let me suggest that one of the best ways to deal with the drug problem in America is by making certain that we have enough law enforcement officers on our own city streets.
So I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, support our police, our firefighters and our public safety officers at home, to pass this amendment for their own hometown.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I repeat, this amendment supports first responders. It does not touch $44 million of military aid in Colombia. A few weeks ago this Congress approved $500 million in military aid to Colombia, most of which is not even in the pipeline yet, and we can handle the rest of Colombia's needs and have this debate through the regular appropriations process.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), another cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I need to repeat this, because I think we need to deal with facts here. Not one dime of search and rescue money is touched by my amendment. So we can disagree on policy, but we should stick to the facts.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let we repeat again, we just approved a few weeks ago $500 million in military assistance to Colombia. Most of that is not even in the pipeline yet. Mr. Chairman, $44 million remains in the supplemental bill that is untouched. The President has requested an additional $700 million for this Congress to consider in the foreign ops and defense provisions bill. We are introducing this amendment because we care very much about our hometown security in the United States of America which is being shortchanged.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I feel I need to repeat this one more time. This Congress just a few weeks ago approved $500 million for Colombia. Most of that is not even in the pipeline yet. In the supplemental, we do not touch $44 million. The President has requested an additional $700 million in mostly military aid. We are throwing more money at Colombia than Colombia can absorb. But in my city of Worcester, Massachusetts, they are laying off 20 police officers and 20 firefighters, and that is happening all over my State and all over this country. That means more drugs and more crime, and that is unacceptable.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the reason to support this amendment is simple: States and local governments are being forced to lay off critical first responders: police, firefighters, and emergency medical workers. The amount of funding in the committee-passed bill remains inadequate to meet these needs. Our amendment will help provide a modest increase for these men and women who carry the burden of protecting our hometowns from terrorism and other threats.
The costs of the Iraq conflict are steep and the needs of our own domestic security are critical. This supplemental request will likely not be the last to pay for war-related expenses. Many of us in Congress also share a deep concern about the costs of rebuilding Iraq and providing for its government in transition.
At this time, with the Nation at war, our priority must remain with these efforts. While the war with Iraq justifies emergency supplemental appropriations to support our troops overseas and to protect our security here at home, there is no such emergency with respect to Colombia that would justify deviating further from the regular order of the authorization and appropriations schedule, especially when our first responders remain in real need of additional funds.
As I have said over and over in this debate, we are throwing more money at Colombia than Colombia can absorb. But in all of our communities, even those that have risen in opposition to this amendment, there is a real need with our local law enforcement community among our first responders for additional funds so they can meet the security needs of their communities.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment in no way puts any of the efforts against counterterrorism or narcotics in Colombia at risk. What this amendment does, it strengthens our war against drugs and strengthens our war against crime and strengthens our security right here at home by providing more assistance to our local police officers.
As I have said before, in my home city of Worcester, Massachusetts, 20 police officers are about to be laid off, 20 firefighters are about to be laid off. That does not enhance the security of our community.
That is not unique. It is happening all over this country. We have an opportunity to respond to that crisis. This is the time to do it. This is a good amendment, this is a reasonable amendment, this is a modest amendment; and I would urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the McGovern-Skelton-DeLauro amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to talk about this amendment which does affect both the defense chapter of this supplemental as well as the foreign assistance…
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
I want to talk about this amendment which does affect both the defense chapter of this supplemental as well as the foreign assistance chapter. The supplemental bill before the House today has the same level as the President's request for funding for Colombia in the Foreign Assistance Chapter. It includes $37 million foreign military financing and $34 million from the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. The McGovern amendment would cut $27 million from the Andean Counterdrug Initiative and $34 million from the funds in the Department of Defense Chapter. It leaves in the foreign military financing assistance and $7 million of the Andean Counterdrug Initiative.
Let me begin by saying about my opposition to the amendment that the funding in supplemental legislation for Colombia is subject to all of the restrictions and conditions that exist under current law. These funds are not exempt from those conditions. The funds are subject to human rights certifications. They are subject to coca spraying conditions, conditions on the use of U.S. helicopters, the rules of engagement, and there is more. In fact, let me emphasize to my colleagues that there is no provision in the foreign assistance legislation that is subject to more conditions than these funds, with the possible exception of those funds provided for the West Bank and Gaza.
I apparently do not need to remind the subcommittee that Colombia is South America's oldest democracy, but it is a country that is torn by decades of civil strife. It has endemic violence, corruption, deep socioeconomic inequities, weak institutions, and a serious economic recession, all exacerbated by the illicit drug production and trafficking. Drug profits play the motivating factor in inciting the terrorism that is killing 3,500 Colombian citizens every year. It is in the national interest of the United States to promote better stability in Colombia by helping it address these longstanding problems and confronting the socially corrosive drug industry.
But for the first time since becoming chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, I have some good news to share with my colleagues. Our eradication efforts with President Uribe's administration and with his assistance are making a difference in Colombia.
The last half of 2002 and the first half of 2003 marks a turning point in the struggle by the United States and Colombia against narcotrafficking and terrorism. We have made significant progress; but as a result, the narcoterrorist groups have become desperate.
President Uribe and his senior administration officials, in office only since August of 2002, have demonstrated the will and the ability to fight narcotrafficking and terrorism at their roots. Therefore, the terrorists are now targeting him and other officials for assassination. Funding in this supplemental will provide much-needed security upgrades for official facilities and training for Colombian security personnel to reduce the threat of assassinations.
I would urge my colleagues to recognize the situation in Colombia, to recognize that U.S. national interest in a stable Colombia is important, to recognize that we are making a difference. Reducing U.S. support at this time would send the wrong message to the FARC and to the paramilitaries.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the McGovern amendment.
(Mrs. LOWEY was given permission to include a statement at this point in the Record.)
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, the distinguished chairman of the full committee.
I understand that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) does intend to withdraw this amendment at the conclusion of this debate, but I do not think the remarks that were made with regard to Pakistan should stand without some comment, without some kind of rebuttal. I do understand and I do desire, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) have spoken so eloquently about the conflict in South Asia between Pakistan and India, I desire as much as they do to have a satisfactory resolution to this conflict, to see that Kashmir no longer divides these two countries and provides a source of conflict of two nuclear superpowers on the Asian subcontinent.
But this is not about an amendment about favoring Pakistan over India. This is an amendment about Pakistan, and Pakistan is one of the most critical front-line states in this global war against terrorism. It has paid a very high price, including the lives of its soldiers because of its decision to side with the United States in the fight against the al Qaeda and terrorism. Their cooperation on terrorism has been excellent. Our nations have coordinated to apprehend nearly 500 suspected al Qaeda and Taliban operatives, including the operational commander, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the September 11 conspirator, Ramzi bin al-Sheibh.
Mr. Chairman, this is not blood money. Some have talked about that with relation to some of the other countries for which money is being provided. This is not money to get their support in the war against Iraq. This is funds to help Pakistan help us prosecute the war against terrorism. The $175 million in foreign military financing in the committee's recommendations is going to increase Pakistan's capability to apprehend and disable terrorists hiding and operating on its own territory. In the regular 2003 appropriation bill, we included money for fixed and rotary wing transport, including C-130s and Cobra/Huey helicopters. This supplemental provides urgent items needed to counter al Qaeda and Taliban pockets in the border area with Afghanistan. Key equipment identified for counterterror operations during the most recent bilateral defense consultation discussions last fall include ground radars and communications equipment. Surveillance systems are needed for the border, and communications can improve with interoperability between our forces and those of Pakistan. The supplemental will also provide for procurement of 10 OH-58 D helicopter reconnaissance systems to interdict the terrorists and to provide for drug interdiction.
Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by repeating what I said a moment ago. This is not about giving something to Pakistan because they have been supportive of us. This money is being given to help prosecute the war against terrorism. That is our war, and Pakistan is deeply engaged in that war, as has been evidenced by the seizures of people that we have made along the border. We need their continued involvement, and we need their support; and this amendment ought not to be adopted.
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I think they summarize precisely my point, which is really this is not about India. It is about Pakistan and having them continue to be involved in the war against terrorism. And I agree with him that India remains a great democracy in the region.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we have been through this debate earlier today. We had a definitive vote on the issue of whether or not we should eliminate these funds for Turkey.
The case, I think, was made very effectively here on the floor of the House of Representatives about the importance of Turkey in this fight against Iraq, in this fight to protect our soldiers who are operating in northern Iraq.
One of the points I did not get to make today, however, is about the fragility of the Turkish economy. It is very fragile. They have been battered for years by the oil sanctions. They have been battered by the costs of the number of refugees who have come in from Iraq into Turkey. They have been battered by the loss of tourism. They have been battered by the world recession. This is a country that has a huge amount, over $75 billion of public debt.
There is no one that thinks that this $8 billion of loan guarantees that the funds we are talking about would buy for them can save them on its own; but it can buy them time until we can get past this conflict, until we can begin to make the economic reforms with the new government in that country, until we can get an agreement with the IMF and with the World Bank, until we can restructure some of those loans that they have.
But that cannot happen, Mr. Chairman, unless we have these funds made available to Turkey. Taking 20 percent of it out means at least a reduction of $2 billion in those loan guarantees. This is important money. It is important for the security of our troops who are operating in northern Iraq, it is important for the resupply of them, it is important for the supply of the humanitarian assistance going into northern Iraq, and it is important to maintain
the coalition that we find so important in fighting this struggle.
I would urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment as soundly as they defeated the previous amendment. We ought not to be reducing this money that is very important to maintaining our relationship with Turkey and maintaining Turkey's involvement in the war against terrorism and the war against Iraq.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further debate on the pending amendment offered by the…
Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further debate on the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and any amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself as the opponent.
Mr. Chairman, if under his reservation the gentleman would continue to yield, I will do my best to make that work on my side.
If the gentleman would continue to yield, as to our Members so they can make some plans for the evening, while we will still continue and intend to complete this bill sometime tonight, I would ask the Chair that we not have any votes prior to 8 p.m., roll votes until 8, so Members can have time for dinner or whatever.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
(Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. Chairman, I would advise the Chair that I have only one remaining speaker to close, so I will reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman has concluded his time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), who will close.
(Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed this amendment and find that it is constructive and we are prepared to accept it.
Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part: An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.
The amendment imposes additional duties, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part: an appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.
Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed into
law. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI; and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I yield to the gentleman from Missouri, the very distinguished majority whip.
I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
I wish to talk about this, Mr. Chairman. Are we talking 5 minutes on each of the 5 amendments, or 5 minutes total on the 5 amendments?
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) be limited to 20 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) as the proponent and myself as the opponent.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment directly amends existing law. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I am not exactly sure what the gentleman has in mind when he offers it, but I think I know what the effect would be. The effect would be if the U.S. troops managed to take Baghdad, but that they have not finished the operation in Basra, that they might not be able to move from Baghdad to Basra as a new military operation.
I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand what the gentleman is saying, but oftentimes what one intends in a very simple amendment is not really the effect.
Now, if the gentleman is talking about no further military action without a declaration of war, and I think that is what he is talking about, because Article I, section 8 refers to declaring war, let me make the point that the United States has not declared war since World War II. Korea was a massive war, but there was no declaration of war. Vietnam was a massive war, but there was no declaration of war. We worked on resolutions passed by the Congress to authorize the President to take whatever steps necessary to protect American interests or whatever the purpose was at the time.
So what I am suggesting is that this is a mischievous amendment for those who are opposed to this war in Iraq. They certainly have a right to oppose the war, and I wish we did not have to go to war as well. But I know that if we do not take care of the problem before it gets out of control, then it becomes out of control.
Now, I want to say something about those who are opposed to the war, and again they have the right to be opposed to the war, although I do not think that they are supporting our troops very effectively.
I wanted to tell the gentleman that since the wounded soldiers have started coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq, something that my wife and I do on a regular basis is visit these soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen in the military hospitals at every opportunity, especially if they have no family there with them. We have been doing that quite actively very recently.
I want to tell the gentleman a story about a young soldier who, when we entered his room, began to cry. Soldiers usually do not cry, but this soldier cried. My wife went over and hugged him and tried to console him. She did not do too well, although she normally does.
I went and talked to him, and asked, Are you in pain? He said, No, I am not
in pain. I said, The injury could be repaired? He said, Yes, they told me they could fix the injury. I asked, Well, why are you crying? He said, I am crying because I am watching the television, and I am watching the people out there on the streets objecting to my colleagues and myself being in harm's way.
He was crying because of the antiwar protestors. Again, they have the right to protest, but they offended this soldier, who had been wounded defending their right to do it. Now, I am not suggesting that this amendment is anything like that; but I am suggesting that it does lend credence to those who would like to portray the United States as being totally wrong in what we are doing.
I want to say to the gentleman, whatever his position is on this war, if we do not fight the terrorists there is no doubt what would happen. We have already proved that al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein are in bed together. That has already been proved in this military action. But if we do not prevent another September 11, another destruction of two main towers in New York or the Pentagon with the loss of thousands of lives, if we do not do something now to prevent it and it happens again, none of us will be able to excuse our way out of it for not having done what was necessary to keep it from happening again.
I am determined to do everything that I can do, and I hope that all of my colleagues in the House will as well. I heard their speeches after September 11, stating that they would do everything possible to prevent these events from ever happening again, and to rid the world of the threat of terrorism and those who support terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitute legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part: An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.
The amendment imposes additional duties and I ask for a ruling.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further debate on the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) be limited to 20 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself as the opponent.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is opposed, correct?
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that half of my time be delegated to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Show 8 more
Mr. Speaker, let me first of all thank the gentlewoman from California. I know that many of my colleagues are aware of her long years of work on the issue of veterans, and I am delighted to be able…
Mr. Speaker, let me first of all thank the gentlewoman from California. I know that many of my colleagues are aware of her long years of work on the issue of veterans, and I am delighted to be able to join my colleagues. With the sound of my voice, I will be hopefully as potent and as brief as I possibly can be, but one cannot look into the midst of this storm of water and not come to the floor to speak about those who are actually putting their lives on the line and sacrificing so that I might be here today to acknowledge the truth of their predicament.
Mr. Speaker, I come from a State that is noted as one of the States with the largest number of veterans in the Nation. I happen to come from Harris County, which has the largest number of veterans in the State of Texas. In the State of Texas we have almost 2 million veterans. Those that are 65 and older number about 65,000. We have about 100,000 women veterans. In Harris County, where I live, we have about 250,000 veterans. As I speak today, the hospital which is in my district, the Veterans Hospital, is de-enrolling, or closing the door to veterans who are seeking health care.
One of the most disturbing aspects of this is that there are reports that severely disabled veterans have to wait months, and in some cases more than a year, for basic health care and specialized services. A few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, we passed a budget resolution of shame. And the reason why it was a budget resolution of shame is because it required the Department of Veterans Affairs to cut $14 million from the lives of our veterans. We did that, Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that young men and women are now on the front lines of Iraq.
It is very clear, Mr. Speaker, that many of us did not vote for the war resolution in October, and we have persisted to press the case of peace; but at the same time we have acknowledged those who fight for us, fight for us because they believe in freedom. And so, Mr. Speaker, I have joined my colleagues today to say that the motion to instruct was not enough. Even though today we have added back the $14 million, what we must do as colleagues is to insist that we never come to this floor to commit an act of shame again.
I know it will happen again, because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep asking over and over again for these cuts, in light of or in support of a $726 billion tax cut. But as I close, Mr. Speaker, let me make a personal commitment. As I join my colleagues today, with this voice that is broken but a spirit that is strong, we will not allow a vote of shame to continue unexposed. We will continue to reinforce the values of this Nation; we will continue to support those young men and women, as we have through the years, my relatives and uncles in World War II, those in the Korean War, and Vietnam War and others. We will continue to stand on their side. There will be not one veteran who will have the dishonor to be dishonored if any of us are able to stand. We stand with the veterans and stand with the reinforcement of their resources, and we stand with those who fight for us in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, as we debate the emergency supplemental request from the President to fund the war, the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution, and the appropriations' bills, and as Iraq war escalates and casualties mount, it is only fitting that we honor our nation's veterans. Their sacrifices on behalf of our civil liberties have too often been overlooked and forgotten.
It is astonishing that as we ask for even more sacrifices from our men and women in the Armed Forces, that this Congress would seek to cut veterans' benefits. America owes our nation's veterans so much.
There are more than 25.3 million veterans in our nation; family members and survivors of veterans total about 41 million. One-third of veterans live in 1 of 5 states: California, Florida, Texas, New York, and Pennsylvania.
The increasing average age of veterans means additional demands for medical services. As we know, the Department of Veterans Affairs operates the nation's largest health care system, with 172 hospitals, 137 nursing homes, 43 domiciliaries, 206 readjustment counseling centers, home health-care programs, and nearly 900 outpatient clinics.
So, as the need for services for our veterans increases it is disturbing that this Congress would consider cutting veterans benefits.
We must be committed to investing resources to improve the efficiency, quality and breadth of the VA medical care system, and to ensure that care is accessible to more veterans. I am particularly concerned about our nation's African-American veterans--African- Americans comprise a substantial percentage of our enlisted men and women. African-Americans comprise 20% of the enlisted in the Armed Forces.
They should be provided with the highest standard of care. African- Americans have served in the Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam Conflict, the Persian Gulf War, and now many African-Americans are on the frontlines in Iraq.
I have met with many veterans from Texas and what they want is so reasonable: They want our nation to honor the promises we made to our veterans to provide them with decent livelihoods for their sacrifices to our nation. We should not cut benefits to veterans, in order to provide tax cuts to the wealthy.
Many veterans who served in the Gulf War suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse. Our nation owes an obligation to veterans who incur injury, disease, or aggravating existing conditions while in service to the country. Not only must we provide health care to our nation's veterans but we must ensure that veterans have adequate access to education, housing, and other benefits.
Access to priority health care for our nation's service-connected disabled veterans have been seriously eroded over the years due to insufficient health care funding. The veterans health care system is in crisis.
Continued budget shortfalls, combined with rising costs for medical care and increased demand for VA health care, have resulted in unprecedented waiting times for routine and specialty care nationwide.
According to the VA, in December 2002, nearly 236,000 veterans are either waiting for their first appointment or waiting at least six months for care. Additionally, the VA reports that many of its facilities have reached capacity with closed enrollment at some hospitals and clinics.
But most disturbing are reports of severely disabled veterans having to wait months, and, in some cases, more than a year, for basic health care and specialized services.
I was honored to be joined by many veterans' groups, who supported legislation that I introduced, H. Con. Res. 2, to re-examine the issue of sending our troops to Iraq in a pre-emptive strike. Veterans who have served in foreign wars know the risks, the hazards, and the dangers of combat.
African-Americans have a rich history of serving in the Armed Forces. Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the University of Michigan affirmative action case. I have to note that the Armed Forces are a model of integration--the Armed Forces were one of the first areas of our society to be integrated.
In Houston, Texas, Dr. Michael Ellis DeBakey is an internationally recognized pioneer of modern medicine. He is an ingenious medical inventor and innovator, a gifted and dedicated teacher, a premier surgeon, and an international medical statesman. I have introduced legislation supported by veterans to re-
name the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the Michael E. DeBakey Department of Veterans Medical Center.
Last week, I received disturbing news. Corporal Brian Kennedy, a Houston native, lost his life on the battlefields. I want to pay a special tribute to this young man and his family. He bravely put his life on the line for the liberties we enjoy in this country. I salute Brian for the service and the sacrifice he made to our country. Our prayers go out to Brian, his family, and the troops stationed in Iraq.
The Origins of Veterans' Day:
In 1921, an unknown World War I American soldier was buried in Arlington National Cemetery. This site, on a hillside overlooking the Potomac River and the city of Washington, became the focal point of reverence for America's veterans.
Our troops embody the ideals of our country: Courage, valor and a sense of pride in country.
Dr. Martin Luther King once said, ``There ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.'' Our men and women on the frontlines in Iraq truly deserve our support.
Our veterans and our active duty troops deserve our highest respect and our commitment as a nation to providing them the best in care and services--they have given us so much as a nation, that it is our moral obligation to return to them the benefits they have given to us. We call on our armed forces to protect us both here and abroad.
Madam Speaker, the President has the wrong plan on the economy. We need to focus on job creation and not on elimination of the tax on dividends. The President's plan only helps the wealthy and not…
Madam Speaker, the President has the wrong plan on the economy. We need to focus on job creation and not on elimination of the tax on dividends. The President's plan only helps the wealthy and not middle-class and low-income Americans.
Fifty-five percent of Americans believe that President Bush is not paying enough attention to the economy. The economy has lost 1.7 million jobs over the last two years and there are now 8.6 million Americans out of work. The plan unveiled by the President is simply more huge tax breaks for the few that will not stimulate growth and create jobs.
As millions of people are out of work and the economy continues in a weak and jobless recovery, we must have a strong and immediate economic program that gives workers and families money immediately.
The centerpiece of the President's plan--the complete elimination of all taxes on stock dividends--will primarily benefit the wealthy rather than putting money into the hands of working class families.
The Congressional Budget Office concluded last year that ``tax cuts that are targeted toward lower-income households are likely to generate more stimulus dollar for dollar of revenue loss--that is, be more cost- effective and have more bang for the buck--than those concentrated among higher-income households.''
Ending the dividends tax will not provide the economy with a short- term stimulus. The Bush plan calls for a 10-year, $600 billion tax cut package. The President's plan simply favors the wealthy. The Democrats have offered a $136 billion plan for families and businesses and tax cuts that would take effect this year.
Projections indicate that the President's plan would boost budget deficits even higher. A study by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution show that a typical taxpayer with taxable annual income of $30,000 to $40,000 would receive a tax cut of $42 in 2003. For a family, this does not amount to much. However, those with taxable incomes of more than $1 million would receive on average $27,097.
The Democratic plan provides $55 billion in tax relief for working families, including a one-time rebate of $300 for individuals and $600 for married couples. It also includes $32 billion in business tax cuts; small businesses could write off up to $50,000 in investments; and cash-strapped state governments would be provided with $31 billion which could be used for homeland security, roads and bridges, Medicaid and aid to the unemployed.
Unemployment is at its highest levels in a decade. Nearly 6 percent of Americans are unemployed and daily we hear about corporations laying off tens of thousands of employees. Our trade deficit stands at 14 percent.
The President's economic stimulus package and a war against Iraq would push the federal budget deficit into record levels--as high as $350 billion.
Tax cuts cost and we are already operating under deficits--and the President has not clearly outlined who will pay for these tax cuts to the wealthy.
Iraq
I am pleased that the United States, in seeking United Nations support for a new Security Council Resolution regarding Iraq, chose the path of multilateralism in dealing with Iraq and the potential threat of any weapons of mass destruction that it may possess.
Through strong diplomacy, we have placed weapons inspectors back on the ground, armed with greater investigative power and new technology that enables them to be more effective at their difficult task.
To date, it appears that Iraqi officials are granting access to all sites visited including presidential palaces and other sensitive locations. Now that we have re-established a system that contains all of the components that we deemed necessary in the latest resolution, it is important that we give this program a change to succeed.
The policy of the government appears confused at this point--still determined to effect regime change even as we profess to be choosing the path of peace. This is troubling because the Congress still retains the obligation to declare war should it become necessary, and the UN Security Council has been vested with the authority to evaluate the level of Iraqi cooperation prior to authorizing the use of force.
All preparations seem to be for war, and not for peace. The military buildup in the region does not appear to be countered by an equally aggressive diplomatic agenda to solve the crisis.
When our military openly speaks of planning for a war to begin in mid to late February, our foreign policy appears to be directed solely by the weather conditions in Iraq instead of serious consideration of what war will do to the region as well as to the economic and military security of our own country.
This is tantamount to holding a finger up to the wind to decide which route to take. The lives of our brave members of the armed forces are far too precious to risk based on planning that makes the weather the primary consideration on whether or not to wage war.
And now in recent weeks there has been an increasingly tense war of words between the North Korean Defense Ministry and U.S. government officials.
By all accounts, North Korea poses a more immediate threat to its neighbors and the United States than does Iraq. North Korea undisputedly has a deadly nuclear arsenal and has unabashedly pledged to reactive its nuclear weapons program.
When confronted recently with the possibility of sanctions to force its compliance with its previous non-proliferation agreement, North Korea responded by stating that sanctions are war, and that in war it would be merciless.
Today's threats are not the same as they were only months ago. Today's new threats pose new challenges to our Nation--challenges that our Congress is duty-bound to meet.
Congress is obligated to examine the new challenges that face our country and the world and to make crucial decisions based upon all of the information available. Making a truly informed decision with respect to the threats we may face today demands that we reconsider the decision we made months ago when our world was a different place.
On January 7, 2003 I introduced legislation that would repeal the Use of Force Against Iraq Resolution that was signed into law last October. Public Law 107-243 was enacted into law on October 16, 2002 prior to the deployment of United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq, and at a time when the current nuclear crisis in North Korea had not reached its present level of dangerous tension.
This legislation, H. Con. Res. 2, seeks to repeal Public Law 107-243 in order to ensure that Congress is afforded the opportunity to reexamine the threat posed by Iraq, which would include taking the time to review fully and accurately the findings of the international weapons inspectors prior to the engagement of military forces.
Passage of H. Con. Res. 2 would also provide Congress the time to consider any exit strategy that must be developed prior to deploying troops, as well as the serious domestic impact that possible war with Iraq would involve.
The domestic considerations include the impact on our already struggling economy and the high numbers of troops needed over an indefinite period of time. Such concerns raise the issue of our security at the most basic level when, for example, some municipalities are already losing nearly 10% of their police forces due to officers who have been activated with the reserves of the armed forces.
Iraq has allowed international weapons inspectors to re-enter the country in order to identify and destroy weapons of mass destruction and development capabilities. Weapons inspectors have also begun to interview Iraqi scientists who have been key to the development of the privy to the country's military.
Taking the time to deliberate more intelligently in no way diminishes the valor of our troops. To the contrary, because we love and support our young men and women who are willing to give their lives to defend their nation, they deserve our fullest efforts to keep them out of harm's way.
When President Bush addressed the UN last Fall, he warned that it risks irrelevancy if it did not stand up and take decisive action with regard to Iraq. Now that it has, we risk rendering it irrelevant when we appear ready to act on our own conclusions--conclusions that have yet to be supported by substantive evidence.
If the Administration has credible evidence of illegal weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it should immediately share this information with the weapons inspectors so it can be substantiated once and for all. And here at home, the Administration should own up and tell the truth to the American people regarding the level of threat we are actually facing.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding and for organizing this chance for us to come to the floor and speak tonight. Once a year in my district a group of people gather in the…
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding and for organizing this chance for us to come to the floor and speak tonight.
Once a year in my district a group of people gather in the middle of a dusty field and they line up trucks and tents on either side of the field, and over the course of a weekend veterans from all over our area come to this field to receive counseling, health care services, clean clothes, a shower, a meal. This is called a Veterans Stand Down. Most of the veterans who come to the stand down are homeless or living on the street, battered by a mental illness.
Once a month in my district and in districts across the country, veterans look at the calendar as it heads toward the end of the month, and they look at their checkbook and they see nothing left in their checking account because the meager pensions and benefits that we pay veterans have run out before the end of the month.
Once a day in my district and in districts around this country, veterans call health clinics and health care facilities and hear that the waiting list for an appointment is a month, 3 months, 6 months, 7 months to see a doctor that they were promised they would be able to see when they agreed to serve their country.
A few months ago, this Congress debated the use of force in Iraq. I am one who as a matter of deep personal conviction feels that the use of force in Iraq was justified and I voted ``yes.'' I feel equal conviction tonight of a sense of shame that my country is disregarding the needs of men and women who served our country in the past and who serve it today.
Governing is choosing. And this body has already made a choice, which it is not too late to reverse, about honoring the men and women who have worn the uniform of this country. Veterans benefits and services are already insufficient to meet the needs of the veterans of this country. They are not good enough today to do what needs to be done. But just to restore this level of services for the next 10 years, we would need $28 billion more than the majority has provided in the budget that it rammed through this Chamber just a few days ago. So we are going to do $28 billion less in health care, in education, in disability benefits, in counseling, in housing, in burial benefits; $28 billion dollars less than we are doing right now over the course of the next 10 years.
Now, there are only four ways that we can deal with this problem. The first way we can say is, that is just too bad. That is the way it is going to be. And despite all of the ceremonies they will attend at home, despite all of the speeches they will make this Memorial Day, that is the position that a majority of this House took when it voted to cut veterans benefits by $28 billion.
The second choice we could take is to find the $28 billion somewhere else, cut waste, fraud and abuse and come up with the money. Well, it was the majority's budget resolution that could have found that $28 billion in waste, fraud and abuse. I remember the Committee on the Budget chairman came to the floor and stacked up reports from the General Accounting Office that purported to show waste, fraud and abuse and expressed his frustration that we were not cutting that. With all due respect, he was expressing frustration with himself because they wrote the resolution and they wrote the budget that could have cut $28 billion from somewhere else in the budget other than in veterans benefits, and they chose not to do.
The third way to restore these cuts is to borrow the money from our children, which is what the majority chooses to do when it has a higher priority. That is the way they propose to pay for the war in Iraq. I support the effort in Iraq. I voted for it. I certainly support paying for it, but I do not think we should borrow the money from our children to pay for it. I do not think that is a very justifiable response; but when it comes to higher priorities for the majority, that is what they do.
And the fourth way to pay for restoring these benefits is to choose veterans benefits over tax cuts. We are here tonight to say no vets cuts for tax cuts. No cuts in veterans services that are used to finance yet another drain on the Federal Treasury so the favored supporters of the majority can enjoy yet another tax break at the expense of the rest of the budget.
President Kennedy said, governing is choosing. Every Member of this House has a choice to make when it comes to veterans services. You can choose to let this $28 billion in cuts stay in the budget and explain to your constituents why the American Legion, why the Disabled American Veterans, why veterans groups around this country oppose that budget. My colleagues can make that choice. Or my colleagues can choose to identify some other area in the budget that could be cut to pay for this. But it is a little late for that because the budget has already been passed. The third choice is to advocate borrowing more money to cover these benefits, which I think is an irresponsible fiscal position. Or just a few more on the majority side could join the 215 of us who voted to choose veterans benefits over tax cuts, who resolved to say we do not want veterans cuts to pay for tax cuts; and we believe that is the right choice.
So when we all go home, Mr. Speaker, to the American Legion and the VFW for the Memorial Day services this year and tell the veterans how much we appreciate what they have done, I would say to you that with all due respect talk is cheap. And the $28 billion in cuts that are in the majority's budget are an affront and an insult to the people who have worn the uniform of this country. It is not too late to reverse this mistake.
The right thing to do is to repeal a part of the President's tax cut, to choose veterans benefits over this endless stream of worship at the idolatrous alter of tax cuts the majority seems to be engaged in.
So the next time there is a Veterans Stand Down in my district, I want to see doctors and nurses and counselors and therapists there to help the vets. And I want to see the pensions increased and broadened and enriched so veterans can make it to the end of the month and pay their bills. And I want to see the 90-day waiting list cut back to 9 days or 9 hours by hiring more nurses and clinicians and doctors at VA health care facilities across this country.
Governing is choosing. We choose not simply to honor the veterans of this country with our hollow words, a false honor indeed. We choose to honor the veterans of this country with our actions and our votes and to fulfill the promises we have made to them.
I would urge the majority, redress this wrong that you have committed in your budget. Fix this budget. Restore these veterans cuts and take it out of the tax cut you so unwisely passed.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from California for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight talking about something that is close to all of our hearts. I happen to be the youngest son…
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from California for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight talking about something that is close
to all of our hearts. I happen to be the youngest son in a family of nine children. My oldest brother was a World War II veteran. My brother-in-law, who is now deceased, lost his leg by stepping on a land mine in Germany during World War II, worked his final years in a Wal- Mart, walking around on an artificial limb; much of the time it was sore. And I just stand here tonight, and I think that we are able to enjoy the kind of freedoms that we all enjoy because of the sacrifices of those who have gone before us, who have suffered immensely.
I think of the mothers who grieved. I think of my own mother. Some of my earliest memories as a child were of my mother weeping as she worried about whether or not my brother was safe as he participated in that great war. We ought to honor those who went before us, who have fought for us, who have sacrificed their time and have lost their health, and that is not what we are doing.
It is almost beyond belief to me that we, at this time when we have young Americans engaged in a battle, even now risking their lives, that we would be so callous, so callous in our decision-making here in this Chamber that we would pass a budget, and I used the word ``we.'' It certainly did not include most of my Democratic colleagues, but a budget was passed in this House by the majority party, supported by the administration, that cuts benefits, health care benefits and other benefits, to our Nation's veterans by $28 billion. Think of that, $28 billion at the same time that the President and majority party is pushing to pass a $726 billion tax cut, and most of that money is going to go to the richest people in this country.
The President has a choice to make. He can either fully fund veterans health care and veterans benefits, or he can ask for his complete $726 billion tax cut. It is a fairly clear choice. We have a unified budget. There is only so much money. If we use the resources we have for this big tax cut, there is going to be an insufficient amount of resources to take care of our other needs, including the needs of our veterans.
I have talked on this House floor before about the outrageous things that are being done: increasing the cost of prescription drugs. It went from $2 to $7 a prescription. Now the President is saying we want to charge veterans, many of them, $15 a prescription. Many veterans in my district get 10 or more prescriptions a month. If we take 10 times 15, that is $150 a month. A lot of these veterans are living on fixed incomes. This is simply outrageous.
And then they created an entirely new priority group of veterans. They call them priority group 8. These are high-income veterans. Of course, you can be one of those priority group 8 veterans and make as little as $24,000 a year. Now, maybe a lot of my colleagues do not want people watching to know that those of us in this Chamber make about $150,000 or so a year. So maybe a $15 copay would not hurt us. It would not hurt me. I could pay $15 if I was going to have to take medication. I can do that. I make $150,000 a year. But what about the veteran who makes $24,000 a year? And we have the gall to suggest that they are high income and so they just can no longer enroll in the VA health care system. They are priority group 8.
And then others who may make a little more than that are priority group 7. Those veterans, those men and women who have honorably served our country, are being told, well, you are in priority group 7 so you can enroll in the VA health care system and continue to participate, but in order to do so you have to pay an annual enrollment fee of $250. And then if you go for a doctor visit, we will increase the cost of that.
It is as if we are singling out our veterans for a disproportionate share of the burden for caring for this country. I just find it amazing, amazing that at a time when nearly all of us in here find that we want to associate with the military, we want to show our support for our fighting men and women, that we would take these actions that would be so harmful to our veterans.
I have talked before about the gag order. I mean, it is unbelievable that the VA decides that too many veterans are coming in for health care. We just do not have the resources to provide that health care, with having long waiting lists and many veterans waiting 6 months or more just to see a doctor. In order to correct that, we should just say we need more money. We need more resources. But the VA has a different approach. They say, well, in order to correct that problem, we will just limit information that is being given to veterans so that fewer veterans will understand what they are entitled to and fewer will come in for services. That is how we are going to solve this problem.
It is almost unbelievable. When is it going to stop? When are we going to have our actions match our words? A couple of Fridays ago, about 3 a.m. in the morning, 3 a.m. in the morning, when most of the country was asleep, we were here in this Chamber and we voted a resolution of thankfulness and support for our fighting men and women who are currently risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world. Within minutes of casting that vote, we cast another vote for the budget. And in that budget we voted to cut veterans benefits and health care by $28 billion.
With one hand we saluted the veterans and said thanks, thanks to our servicemen and women. And with the other hand we took our voting card, and we put it in this little gizmo on the back of our chairs here and cast a vote to cut veterans benefits by $28 billion. In my judgment that is sheer hypocrisy. How can we justify those two actions? How can we say on the one hand we honor and appreciate the service of our military men and women and on the other hand cast a vote that cuts benefits to those who have already served?
I think the veterans in this country are coming to understand what is going on. I think they are coming to realize that they have to listen not only to the words but they have to watch the actions of those of us who serve in this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, I will finish by telling my colleagues this. Talk is cheap. And we do a lot of talking in this Chamber. Talk is cheap, but health care for veterans costs money. And unless we are willing to spend the money, our words are empty.
Mr. Chairman, first I think it is important that we review why we are in Colombia. Colombia is in our hemisphere and we cannot let it be overtaken by the narcoterrorists. Violence there in Colombia…
Mr. Chairman, first I think it is important that we review why we are in Colombia. Colombia is in our hemisphere and we cannot let it be overtaken by the narcoterrorists.
Violence there in Colombia is primarily because of U.S. and European drug addiction. Violence in the U.S., 20,000 deaths a year, far exceeds the terrorist deaths we have in the United States.
Colombia is an important trading partner. Colombia is a model of democracy, the oldest in South America. Colombia is an energy supplier to the U.S., a supply that has been basically blocked by the narcoterrorist attacks.
Now, the fundamental question. If we have all of these compelling reasons to be in Colombia, more than probably any other Nation where we have troops at this point, the question comes, why are we cutting it and what are we cutting? The gentleman from Massachusetts, who I consider a friend, we do not agree on this subject, but I know he has been down there as I have many times. We have looked at it. We do not agree on some fundamental facts. He sees the glass half empty, I see it half full. We have been making progress on human rights, we have been making progress on controlling the terrorism, and we need to make more aggressive progress and keep it up.
His amendment proposes to cut the funding that provides the intelligence base with which to do the rest of the operations. He did not cut the funding to protect President Uribe, which is critical. The man is under daily attack. They are trying to kill him like they killed his father, like they threatened his family. But we are going to cut the intelligence in this bill to protect Uribe.
We say that we want the Colombian units to go out and eradicate the drugs, but we want to cut with this amendment the money that would enable us to identify where the drugs are. We say we want to help the Colombians tackle the problem, but we are cutting with this amendment the military assistance from SOUTHCOM to help train those Colombian units. That is the $34 million he has in particular targeted, the money that goes to SOUTHCOM.
Now, General Hill from SOUTHCOM said that the terrorist threat coming from Colombia through the narcoterrorists is greater than the other terrorist threats. What does he mean precisely by that? Did he mean al Qaeda? No, he did not mean al Qaeda. There may be future ties to the money, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, that the greatest funding of the al Qaeda has come from Asian heroin. However, Hamas, the Russian Mafia, and others have started to interconnect with the narcoterrorists.
Let us be blunt here. I have spent the last 2 years doing hearings on our north and south border. We have better control over Middle Eastern illegal immigrants right now, with the possible exception of at Detroit and Buffalo, than we do of our south border. We are completely vulnerable right now to terrorist attacks coming from Hispanic attacks, coming from the south, particularly the FARC and Mexican Mafia-type groups who are directed at us.
As we are more effective in Colombia, as we cut off this multibillion-dollar industry of selling narcotics to the United States, those groups are going to fight back. As they have developed with our money, with our drug users' in the United States money, as they have developed the shoulder packs with which to attack, as they have had the ability to shoot down our helicopters to go off and take down military forces in Colombia, as they bring that to our soil, we better be focused on Colombia. We better be going after those terrorist groups as well.
I strongly oppose this amendment which would cripple our operations.
The following is a letter to other Members of Congress sent online today by Chairman Tom Davis and me:
April 3, 2003.
Dear Colleague: We strongly encourage you to oppose the
McGovern Amendment to cut vitally needed assistance to
Colombia and the Andean region. In a time of war, withdrawing
American aid to help end political instability and conflict
in our own hemisphere is shortsighted and against our
national interests for several reasons:
Colombian Instability Directly Threatens U.S. National
Security: Political violence and instability in Colombia
threatens the security of the United States as much as the
instability in Iraq for which America is now engaged in war.
Three Americans have been held hostage in Colombia since
January by the FARC, which the State Department has
designated as a foreign terrorist organization. Other major
groups fighting against the democratically elected Government
of Colombia have also been designated as terrorist
organizations. Public reports recently revealed that Osama
bin Laden had visited the tri-border region in South America
to
meet with terrorists. The supplemental funding is directed to
a serious and proven national security threat in America's
own hemisphere.
Drug Eradication Efforts Are Succeeding: Nearly 20,000
Americans die each year of drug-induced causes--substantially
more than the toll terrorism has taken in the United States
to date. Last month, official estimates from both the CIA and
the United Nations indicated that the coca crop in Colombia
had declined substantially for the first time in years--as a
direct result of U.S.-funded drug control programs. Our
efforts have finally reached a turning point, and it would be
foolhardy to cut off the program just as it is beginning to
succeed.
Domestic Preparedness Funding Is Currently Available:
Currently appropriated funding is already available for
assistance in first responders and has not yet been
obligated.
Plan Colombia Aids Human Rights: The State Department's
annual Human Rights report this week examined violations of
human rights on all sides of the complex conflict in
Colombia. American assistance through Plan Colombia addresses
human rights issues by providing $230 million in aid to
directly improve human rights and administration of justice,
preserve the environment, and foster economic development.
Further, by bolstering political stability and the
acceleration of peace in Colombia American assistance aims to
end the root conflicts driving human rights violations. To
withdraw aid from Colombia will cause more, not less,
violence and more, not less, violations of human rights.
We strongly encourage you to oppose the McGovern Amendment.
Sincerely,
Tom Davis,
Chairman.
Mark E. Souder,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and
Human Resources.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Florida for a time request. I yield to the gentleman from Florida. Reserving the right to object, as I said earlier, we…
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Florida for a time request.
I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Reserving the right to object, as I said earlier, we have over 40 amendments left to go. I understand this is an important amendment. We just had over an hour on an amendment from the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) that was considered important. If we provide 40 minutes' time for this amendment, I do not want the expectation to be that we will do that for every other amendment. I would hope that we understand that this is the last amendment we would ask significant time for, and Members can expect us to ask unanimous consent in order to hold each future amendment to considerably less time than this.
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, in light of the recent colloquy, let me simply say that I am getting whiplash from trying to follow the lead of the majority party and the White House on the issue that was just under discussion.
We had before us earlier in the week this bill to essentially pay for the first downpayment on the Iraq war. We were trying to get additional money in the bill for homeland security so that we could protect ourselves at home from the retaliation that was likely to come from that involvement in the war.
The House Republican leadership would not see its way fit to allow us to even debate that amendment and come to a vote on the House floor; and yet they arbitrarily ordered the Committee on Appropriations to include the $3.5 billion bailout for the airline industry that was just discussed a moment ago. Then, after that happened, then the White House issued a statement saying that, in fact, the package before the House for airline bailout was too generous.
I am having a little difficulty following the lead of the majority and the lead of the White House because they seem to be working at cross purposes, and I am further confounded by the fact that this House is willing to consider a huge expenditure of funds like this with no hearings and to have it dealt with by a committee that has no special understanding of the problem; and it seems to me that a much better way, well, it just seems to me that we ought to be asking a fundamental question.
It seems to me we ought to be asking the question of whether or not we have a viable airline industry in this country. In my view, we have a bunch of let's-pretend capitalists who have to come to the government for a bailout every time something happens in the economy.
Now, they are essential to our national welfare and to our economic well-being. So I think we obviously need to keep the airline industry functioning, but I do not know how many times an airline has to go bankrupt before it is bankrupt. I do not know how many times they have to come to the taxpayers for additional money before we decide that a better way is to simply regulate them as a necessary public utility or as a public utility providing necessary service to the country, and that is what I really believe in the long term we ought to do.
But I also must protest the slap dash way that this issue has wound up on the appropriation bill because I find it quaint that the House Republican leadership would demand the House go one way while the White House seems to indicate it wants to go another way. It is pretty hard to follow that kind of leadership, and I admire the gentleman from Florida for being a good soldier and responding to the instructions of his leadership; but I would have a difficult time trying to explain this to any taxpayer, any of my constituents.
I would just hope that in the future we can do a better job of managing a problem like this, and I wish we could get to discuss the fundamentals on this issue rather than simply throwing more money at the problem.
We were told that we cannot throw more money at homeland security, and yet we are providing billions of dollars to the airline industry without doing one whit to help the employees of those same airlines.
I find that quaint. It is always the corporate part of the industry that gets the attention of Congress; and the working stiff sort of gets left in the caboose, if I can change transportation modes.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to simply point out to the House that there are still, as near as I can count, 14 amendments remaining. If we are going to debate 14 amendments, Members can calculate for themselves how long we will be here.
That is all I have to say.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Rothman
Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I know that there are a number of people on this side of the aisle who want to participate in debate on this amendment. So I would ask whether the time arrangements could be adjusted so we would be guaranteed some time on this side of the aisle.
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, if you follow the logic of the last speaker, what you are saying is that we should provide in this bill $3.25 billion to the airline industry,
which we do not owe, but that we should not provide the funds in the bill to reimburse the volunteers for services, for which we do owe. I find that that makes no sense whatsoever.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) is absolutely right. This is an obligation which government has. We should not blame the recipients, we should not blame the participants in this program for the screw-ups of the agency on their bookkeeping balances.
The fact is that this is totally defensible at a time when we are trying to encourage volunteerism, at a time when we are trying to encourage a sense of self-sacrifice. It would be a strange message indeed to say that we are not going to meet our obligations to the volunteers under this program.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of the amendment at the desk put forth by myself and the gentleman from New…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in strong support of the amendment at the desk put forth by myself and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
India has been a strong ally in the war on terrorism, and has also felt the pain of terrorist attacks, as we have felt those same pains here in the United States. The most recent attack on India was last weekend, resulting in the brutal murder of 24 Hindus known as Pandits. The 24 murdered included women and children. This act of terrorism occurred in the Indian state of Jammu-Kashmir.
As we all know, last year Pakistani Islamic militants entered the Indian Parliament and opened fire, killing some of our colleagues in the Indian Parliament. I happened to be in India only 2 weeks after this horrific attack, and I can tell Members that I saw the bullets holes and blood-stained ground where militants killed our colleagues.
Even in the face of these facts, within the supplemental, Pakistan will receive $175 million for border security for their support on the international war against terrorism. They support the United States in our war against terrorism in Afghanistan and central Asia, but they are supporting the militias and terrorists who are crossing into India territory in Jammu-Kashmir every day and carrying out attacks on Indian civilians.
One hundred seventy-five million dollars for Pakistan is an award of support, when the true record shows that in spite of our substantial assistance to Pakistan, if President Bush and Prime Minister Blair pushed for a vote at the U.N. Security Council for the war on Iraq, the best we could have hoped for from Pakistan is they would have abstained.
While Pakistan has worked with the United States of late, they have continually also served as a destabilizing force in central Asia, including testing nuclear weaponry, threatening her neighbors, and funding and supporting terrorists who have crossed the border from Pakistan into India to perpetrate terrorist acts against Indian citizens.
Pakistan has made efforts to combat al Qaeda, and some members of that organization have been apprehended with their assistance. But other terrorist organizations allowed to operate within Pakistan's borders continue to spread extremist ideology and a visceral hatred of the United States.
Today I am asking that we limit foreign military financing aid to Pakistan to $100 million, in large part due to the failure of Pakistan to meet its commitments to combat terrorism. Last June General Musharraf pledged that he would halt all movement of Islamic militant infiltration into Kashmir and crack down on Pakistani supporters of militant organizations in the Kashmir region. While the general appeared to keep his word initially, last week's brutal attack on women and children demonstrates that his pledge has been forgotten.
Leaders of Pakistani terrorist organizations, organizations which have been designated as foreign terrorist organizations by our State Department, and who were previously arrested because of their terrorist activities, have since been released. The United States should not have two definitions of terrorism.
Terrorist organizations operating freely inside Pakistan, often with the tacit support of elements of the Pakistani Government, are focused on harming the United States and represent a grave threat to our national security interests.
I ask Members, is this the type of partner we want fighting with us in the war on terrorism, a country that is ruled by someone who came to power not by being elected but by seizing it, someone who has not clamped down on radical Islamic terrorism on his own soil, someone who has greatly contributed to the destabilization of that area of our globe through his testing of weapons of mass destruction and his refusal to rule out a first strike? It seems we are putting our immediate interests in front of our values.
India is the largest democracy in the world, and as the oldest democracy, we need to assist them so they can be free of terrorism, just as all nations want to be free of terrorism. This is a broad goal, but by not providing India with any funding or support in this bill, when they are affected by terrorism every day through cross-border incursions, I fear we are sending the message to other countries it is okay to support terrorists as long as they are not attacking the United States yet. Is this the message that we want to send to the world?
Today we have the opportunity to show the world that we will not look the other way while one nation allows terrorist acts to be committed on another sovereign nation.
Congress has a crucial responsibility to play in ensuring that U.S. funding is provided to countries fully committed to the war on terror. If we provide Pakistan with hundreds of millions of dollars, we must demand accountability and concrete actions that that country is doing all it can to eradicate terrorist organizations within its borders. We are providing $175 million for a partner that has been at best less than helpful and a destabilizing force in south Asia. I urge Members to limit Pakistan's foreign military assistance aid to $100 million from this account until we see real reforms in Pakistan, and pass these savings on to the homeland security account.
I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for sponsoring this.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. Chairman, I want to say I appreciate the discussion. At this time I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 132) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v.…
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 132) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment and should be overturned, and for other purposes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 132.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we will consider House Resolution 132, which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' recent ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment and urges the Attorney General to appeal its decision.
We are here today because the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit continues to get it wrong.
On February 28, 2003, as our country continued preparations for what is now an impending war to defend the values upon which our great Nation is founded, the Ninth Circuit refused to rehear the case of Newdow v. U.S. Congress. In Newdow, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the voluntary, voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by public school students violates the first amendment because it includes the phrase ``one Nation under God.'' In addition, on February 28, the three-judge panel amended its June 2002 ruling and held that the Elk Grove, California, school district policy of opening each school day with the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag ``impermissibly coerces a religious act'' on the part of those students who choose not to recite the Pledge and, thus, violates the Establishment Clause of the first amendment.
This second preposterous ruling by the most-often reversed appellate court in the Nation impels us to come to the House floor again to voice our profound disagreement. House Resolution 132 expresses the sense of the House that the phrase ``one Nation, under God'' should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance and that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v. U.S. Congress is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment.
It also urges the Attorney General of the United States to repeal the Ninth Circuit's ruling and urges the President to nominate and the Senate to confirm Federal circuit court judges who will interpret the Constitution consistent with the Constitution's text. House Resolution 132 also encourages school districts across the Nation to continue reciting the Pledge daily and praises the Elk Grove School District for its defense of the Pledge of Allegiance against this specious constitutional challenge.
Since the Pledge of Allegiance is not a prayer nor a statement of religious faith, the recitation of the Pledge is not a religious exercise. Rather, it is a patriotic exercise in which one expresses support for the United States of America and pledges allegiance to the flag, the principles for which the flag stands, and to the Nation. To conclude otherwise is to ignore clear precedent from the Supreme Court.
If this latest ruling is allowed to stand, schoolchildren at every public school in nine States, a total of 9,600,000 students, will be prohibited from reciting the pledge. Furthermore, the constitutionality of the voluntary recitation by public school students of numerous historical and founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address has been placed into serious doubt. When one considers how this decision distorts Establishment Clause jurisprudence, the importance of appointing judges who will interpret the Constitution consistent with its text becomes clear.
Congress has consistently supported the Pledge of Allegiance by starting each session of the House with its recitation. The House reaffirmed its support for the Pledge when, on June 27, 2002, it adopted House Resolution 459, which I introduced, by a vote of 416 to three. The House should do the same with House Resolution 132 today.
I am proud to serve as an original cosponsor of this measure, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), who represents the area that includes the Elk Grove Unified School District, which is the district from which this case arose.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) to get back to debating the Pledge of Allegiance and the Newdow ruling.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).
Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers and am prepared to yield back if the gentleman from Massachusetts will do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Show 11 more
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, and commend her for taking this time in a special order on such a timely matter, while our troops are in the deserts of Afghanistan and Iraq…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, and commend her for taking this time in a special order on such a timely matter, while our troops are in the deserts of Afghanistan and Iraq fighting for their lives and while this administration is attempting to cut the budget of the VA.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my opposition to cuts in benefits due our Nation's veterans. I urge my Republican colleagues to reconsider the drastic cuts made to the Department of Veterans Affairs. I oppose these cuts, this mistreatment, and believe our Nation's heroes deserve better. I sincerely urge my colleagues and all Americans to consider just what a vote to reduce the budget to our veterans, both on and off the battlefield, really means.
Today, I submit, there is politics and then there is the presumption of politics; there is patriotism, and then there is the presumption of patriotism; there is support for our troops, and there is the presumption of support for our troops, all the contradictions involving the politics of war and peace.
The notion of who is a true patriot and who is not and the welfare of our troops in combat all have been played out recently in this very Chamber. For my part, I have opposed the war, supported our troops in combat, and now stand to support our troops upon their return.
For those who follow my votes, they may be confused. Do not be, because certainly I am not. Recently, on March 20, 2003, I placed into the Congressional Record a statement that noted my long-standing opposition to the war in Iraq. Yet, with the fighting having begun, I offer my support and prayers for the men and women who, out of duty to their Nation, find themselves in harm's way.
On top of this budget, the current administration has also submitted a budget to pay for the war we are currently engaged in. That supplemental budget request is for $75 billion to fight the war in Iraq for 6 months. With the prospect of a long and arduous campaign and occupation of Iraq, the costs will likely soar even higher.
We have 2.3 million disabled veterans who demand our patriotism, just as we demanded theirs in time of war. I echo the appeal of honor and dignity made on March 17, 2003, by some of the veterans groups in response to the GOP budget.
I quote: ``Is there no honor left in the hallowed halls of our government that you choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our Nation's heroes and rob our programs, health care, and disability compensation to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy? You will be reducing benefits and services for disabled vets at a time when thousands of our service members are in harm's way, fighting terrorists around the world, and thousands more of our sons and daughters are preparing for war against Iraq.''
Needless to say, the shooting war started in earnest 2 days later.
I submit to Members, there is politics and then there is the presumption of politics; there is patriotism, and then there is the presumption of patriotism; and there is support for our troops, both on and off the battlefield, and there is the presumption of support for our troops.
In a world where the cost of everything, even our Federal budget, is increasing at breakneck speed, does it make sense to cut benefits to the very people who we promised to take care of if they stood at a post and took care of us in some foreign land, often under an obscure objective that only our highest leaders know about and understand?
In today's world, with the threat of international terrorism in our own backyard, war has come to us all. However, for those men and women who stand up, swear an oath of allegiance to defend our Nation at all costs, and do the bidding of Congress and our President, we are now being asked to turn our backs on them.
How can Congress, in the span of a few days, vote support for the troops fighting in Iraq and then seriously consider revoking by nearly a billion dollars the benefits we promised our warriors past, present, and future for the sacrifices they have sworn and continue to swear to make for the good of our Nation. This is an insult. This is an abomination. We know it. America knows it, and our veterans know it.
It is more patriotic to send our troops into battle with our congressional blessing but upon their return tell them their sacrifices are not deserving of benefits this Nation has traditionally offered those who risk injury, emotional stability and even their lives to keep this Nation secure.
I urge Congress to reject any reduction in benefits to our fighting men and women and support the Democratic alternative. At a time of war and sacrifice by the men and women of our Armed Forces, Congress cannot and must not let these cuts stand. The alternative offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the House Committee on the Budget, provides for $1.1 billion in additional discretionary spending in FY 2004 and $17 billion more over the course of 10 years to the Veterans department budget.
If we want their full measure on the battle fields, they deserve a full measure of benefits upon their return. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues that we have some very serious questions to answer on behalf of the American people. I want to pay special tribute to the hard work of the gentlewoman from…
Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues that we have some very serious questions to answer on behalf of the American people. I want to pay special tribute to the hard work of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the Democratic leadership on trying to answer these questions for a broad and diverse range of Americans.
Earlier today I called out the specific jobs of beauticians, waitresses, bus drivers, teachers, mechanics, sort of the people in this Nation that do the heavy lifting. There are many other professions, jobs, that really turn the engine of this Nation.
As we are on the very day of the State of the Union, I think it is extremely important as the President speaks tonight that he not speak to the Members of the United States Congress, but he speak to these Americans
who create the engine of our economy. So I hope my words are taken in the manner in which they are offered, because in all of our districts we are finding deep and continuing pain, hurting families, individuals who have lost their jobs with no opportunities for further employment.
Right now we know nearly 6 percent of Americans are unemployed. In the African American community in particular, 17 percent are unemployed. I call that, Mr. Speaker, a crisis.
The Nation's health care system is in need of great reform. Just this last Saturday night I spoke to a group of physicians, private physicians and those who work in our public hospitals. Might I note to one of my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), I would thank him for generating 270 names, bipartisan names, on the question of addressing the Medicare crisis and ensuring that physicians and nurses and others who deal with our health care are provided the amount of payments that will allow them to keep their doors open.
The continuing resolution that we just passed, but more appropriately, the appropriations that we need to pass, has to address the fact that more than malpractice issues, our physicians are closing their doors. They are deenrolling and not enrolling individuals because their payments are not there.
I hope that the very first item that we will deal with as we come back to deal with the 108th Congress will be the idea of freezing or increasing the Medicare payments that are necessary to keep the doors of physicians open. My commitment to our local physicians in Houston, Harris County, is that I will continue to fight for those dollars for physicians, nurses, hospitals, nursing homes, home health services, and other health care providers. That is a key.
One of the other things we need to fight for is full funding of Medicaid, and also the changing of the formula so Texas is not disadvantaged. Right now, our State legislature and the Governor are dealing with a $10 billion deficit. I hope the President will announce that he has discovered that the dividend discount tax cut helps no one; that he would much rather help the State of Texas, the State of Illinois, Ohio, New York; that he would much rather agree with the Democratic plan to provide block grants of monies to States that will help them in Medicaid funding, that will help them in education funding, and that will help them with special projects, education funding, that will put people to work.
I believe we can always reform. I believe the President can reform his message to address the working people of America.
Let me also say that there has been great concern. I have just filed House Concurrent Resolution 2, which repeals or asks the Congress for a sense of Congress resolution to repeal the October resolution on the Iraqi war.
Mr. Speaker, that vote was a vote of conscience. I challenge no Member in this House as to how they voted. But what I will say is that the Constitution is near and dear to me and many Members of Congress; in fact, all of us. Clearly, we have the right to declare war.
When we debated that resolution, Mr. Speaker, we viewed the words of the President as suggesting that we were under imminent attack, and that there was a nexus between Saddam Hussein, Iraq, and terrorism. Whatever might have occurred, we have more facts now, Mr. Speaker. We do understand, as I close, that there are more indications that we should look for a political resolution. The U.N. inspectors want more time. They need more time to look for nuclear weapons. North Korea is on our very horizon.
Mr. Speaker, people are hurting, and I believe the United States can do better than what we have done. I believe the President can cause us to reach to our higher angels by providing for the working people of America; and saying to the world that we stand on the side of peace; and saying to this Congress, come with me, rise to a new debate, discern and design a better policy about Iraq and North Korea, and then we can spend our dollars on building this Nation again, building jobs, and building peace.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. Chairman, thousands of our Nation's troops woke up today with the express task of defending our country against Saddam Hussein's reign of terror in order to…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, thousands of our Nation's troops woke up today with the express task of defending our country against Saddam Hussein's reign of terror in order to protect the safety and freedom of his people, neighboring countries and other nations like ours across the globe.
Our Nation's founders tasked Congress with the authority and power to wage war and the responsibility to fund these efforts. The bill before us today appropriates additional money to fund the work of our men and women fighting in this war. This bill provides critical dollars for efforts to protect and defend the homeland security of the United States. It provides vital resources to first responders, law enforcement officials, and public health workers across the Nation who have developed safety plans to counter the increased national threat posed by terrorism.
The President asked that we keep this a clean bill. Unfortunately this emergency wartime supplemental appropriations bill also seeks to fund an extraneous program entirely unrelated to national defense, homeland security or counterterrorism efforts. Included in this supplemental is a $64 million deficiency appropriation for the Corporation for National and Community Service in order to make the corporation's AmeriCorps trust fund solvent.
The $64 million shortfall was incurred because of poor tracking procedures at the corporation and a recent decision by the Office of Management and Budget to change the way the corporation has been determining the amounts of funds available in the National Service Trust.
The funding was put into the defense supplemental at the 11th hour without the knowledge of the Speaker, the majority leader, the majority whip or the authorizing committee. I chair the subcommittee which has responsibility for oversight for the corporation. It said that this $64 million, if not appropriated in this supplemental, kids in the AmeriCorps program will suffer. We had an oversight hearing this week. That is not what the chairman of the Corporation for National Community Service told us this week. He said they have plenty of time to work through this with the authorizing committee to explain exactly what the accounting problems are, what the accounting issues have been, and most importantly, what they will put in place to make sure that this does not happen again. It is time for us to continue holding the corporation accountable for its performance.
I am pleased that they have now had a couple of years of clean audits. That is significant progress after the mismanagement of the corporation through much of the 1990s. But this latest example of where what the corporation is trying to do in managing its dollars and managing the resources and the commitments that it makes to young people across the Nation reinforces the need that the corporation needs oversight and that it has to get its books in order.
We have the time to make sure that we fully understand what is happening here and how the corporation intends to fix it. We do not at this point in time have to allocate $64 million to the trust fund on this supplemental bill.
The President wanted a clean bill. He said, let us focus on national security. Let us focus on the war. And let us focus on homeland security. That is what the President came to Congress with. That is what he said. This is not the bill. It gives $64 million. They may need it, but they have testified that they can get this money sometime in the future and make sure that they do not deprive any of our young people of the grant and the scholarships that they have earned through the AmeriCorps program.
We are working through a reauthorizations process. We want to get this program reauthorized. We want to reform it. This is one of the elements that should be part of a reform package and should not be dealt with in this supplemental package. Let us make sure that we do it right. Let us make sure that the corporation does it right before we give them $64 million through this supplemental. In the past they have shown that they have not been able to manage the corporation well. They have made improvements, but before we at the 11th hour sneak something into a supplemental bill, before we give them $64 million dollars, let us make sure that they get it right. Let us make sure that they are managing this agency in the way that we expect our dollars to be allocated.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and vote for this money when we determine that this is absolutely essential.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, not only for yielding to me, but for organizing this opportunity for us to come to the floor. Last Friday, I spoke to a group of veterans in my district. They…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, not only for yielding to me, but for organizing this opportunity for us to come to the floor.
Last Friday, I spoke to a group of veterans in my district. They were mostly World War II and Korean War veterans, and of course, I thanked them profusely for their service to our country. And they appreciated it, but what they wanted to know and where most of the questions were was, what is happening to our benefits? I told them about the President's budget proposal, and they did not appreciate that.
We have all been making a lot of speeches lately and offering resolutions, and they are eloquent and they are flowery, and yes, they are heartfelt speeches and resolutions, expressing support for our troops; and I am not denying the sincerity or even the importance of making those supportive gestures. Speeches and resolutions do not provide health care, and they do not provide education, and they do not provide pensions, and they do not provide burial benefits.
Budgets are a statement of values and priorities, and what the veterans are finding out is that they are not a priority in the President's budget and they are not a priority of the Republican leadership. And not only that, despite all the sacrifices that they have made and, as we speak, the sacrifices that are being made, they are being asked to sacrifice yet again in the form of a $28 billion cut in benefits and in health care.
What we know when it comes to dollars and cents is that veterans across Illinois are going to suffer from President Bush's proposed budget. A report that was released by the Democratic staff of the Committee on Government Reform concluded that the changes, that is, the $28 billion in cuts, would cause over 65,000 Illinois veterans, including an estimated 36,000 veterans enrolled at VA facilities in the Chicago area, to be denied VA health care or to drop out of the VA system while increasing costs for thousands more.
First, President Bush would halt enrollment to Priority 8 veterans, denying them access to VA care. The report found that as a result of this proposed suspension, 173,000 veterans nationwide would be denied care, including 7,160 in Illinois, of which 4,000 are in the Chicago area.
Second, President Bush would require the VA to charge all Priority 7 and Priority 8 veterans currently in the system a $250 annual enrollment fee in order to receive service. As a result of the fee, the VA estimates that 55 percent of enrolled Priority 7 and 8 veterans would be forced to drop out of the VA system nationwide, including 32,000 veterans in the Chicago area.
Finally, a third set of provisions would increase copayments for Priority 7 and 8 veterans who do stay enrolled in the VA program. The copayments for primary care payments would increase by 33 percent from $15 per visit to $20 per visit. The copayments for prescription drugs would more than double, increasing from $7 to $15 for 30-day prescriptions. On average, the report concluded, veterans would have to pay a $97 a year increase in copayments, plus the new enrollment fee of $250. However, many veterans can see an increase of almost $600 a year.
I did not support the Republican budget resolution and instead supported the Democratic substitute which would have restored funding for mandatory veterans benefits, including compensation for service- connected disabilities, burial benefits, pensions for permanently disabled, low-income veterans, education benefits, rehabilitation benefits and housing loan programs. Unfortunately, for our veterans and our soldiers currently in the U.S. Armed Forces, the Democratic substitute was voted down.
While our veterans suffer, the administration continues to cut taxes that only favor the rich. While our veterans endure hardship, the administration continues to send our men and women into battle with no guarantees of a safe and healthy life for them and their families when they return home.
Speeches and resolutions are fine, but they are woefully insufficient. Our veterans, those who have served in the past and the veterans of the future, who are risking their lives right now, as we speak, deserve better. It is time for the Republican leadership to put its money where its mouth is.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I come from a State that has a long tradition in supporting religious freedom. In fact, it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote the…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I come from a State that has a long tradition in supporting religious freedom. In fact, it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Virginia statute for religious freedom which precedes the first amendment to our Constitution.
House Resolution 132 is totally gratuitous, as it will do nothing to change the underlying law. This is because we are dealing with constitutional issues that cannot be altered by resolution. If the judicial branch ultimately finds the Pledge or the motto to be constitutional, then nothing needs to be done; on the other hand, if the Court ultimately finds it to be unconstitutional, then no law that we pass can change that.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the reasoning of the majority opinion in the case was sound. In the case, the appellate court applied three different tests which have been applied in the last 50 years in Supreme Court jurisprudence in evaluating establishment clause cases. One test was whether the phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge constitutes an endorsement of religion. The majority opinion says that it was an endorsement of one view of religion, monotheism, and therefore was an unconstitutional endorsement.
Another test was whether individuals were coerced into being exposed to a religious message, and the majority concluded that the Pledge was unconstitutional because young children who are compelled to attend school ``may not be placed in the dilemma of either participating in a religious ceremony or protesting.''
Finally, the court applied the Lemon test, part of which holds that a law violates the Establishment Clause if it has no secular or nonreligious purpose. For example, cases involving a moment of public silence in public schools, some of those laws have been upheld if the law allows silent prayer as one of many activities which can be done in silence; but courts have stricken laws in which a moment of silent prayer is added to existing moments of silence because that law has no secular purpose.
The court concluded, if the 1954 law, which added ``under God'' to the existing Pledge, had no secular purpose, it was, therefore, unconstitutional.
It is interesting to note the reasoning of the dissent in the Newdow case. The important operative language in the dissent was the following: ``Legal world abstractions and ruminations aside, when all is said and done, the danger that `under God' in our Pledge of Allegiance will tend to bring about a theocracy or suppress someone's belief is so minuscule to be de minimis. The danger that the phrase represents to our first amendment's freedoms is picayune at best.''
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, our actions in enacting H. Res. 132 may cause the courts to review the sentiments behind ``one Nation, under God'' because, if the courts look at the importance we apparently affix to the phrase by passing yet another resolution before the judicial branch has even entered final judgment, this attention diminishes the argument that the phrase has de minimis meaning and increases the constitutional vulnerability of the use of that phrase in the Pledge. While one Federal appeals court rejected a call to rehear the controversial ruling that struck down the recitation of the Pledge due to its religious content, the fact remains that this issue is still alive and well; and every resolution we pass chips away at the de minimis argument.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the court may look at this very resolution, understand the Lemon test, and find that today's exercise has no secular purpose and, therefore, adds to the constitutional vulnerability of the Pledge.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, to quote from an editorial that appeared in the Christian Century, a nondenominational Protestant weekly, puts this matter in perspective: ``To the extent `under God' has real religious meaning, then it is unconstitutional. The phrase is constitutional to the extent that it is religiously innocuous. Given that choice, I side with the Ninth Circuit. The government should not link religion and patriotism.''
Mr. Speaker, for those reasons I believe we should reject this resolution.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. Chairman, under current Transportation Security Administration restrictions, no general aviation aircraft can fly within 15 miles of the Washington Monument.…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, under current Transportation Security Administration restrictions, no general aviation aircraft can fly within 15 miles of the Washington Monument. So why, then, does New York City, the other target of the worst terrorist attack in the history of the United States, not have the very same safeguard being provided to it by the Transportation Security Administration against general aviation aircraft within 15 miles of New York City?
Before I continue, I want to make it clear to my colleagues that I am not talking about commercial aircraft, the 737s, 767s, and so forth that so many Americans depend on each day for travel into our Nation's major airports. What I am talking about are the smaller private aircraft that primarily operate out of smaller, general aviation airports such as Teterboro Airport in my congressional district in New Jersey. Those airports do not have the same Transportation Security Administration security procedures that the major airports have.
While these general aviation aircraft by themselves, because of their size, may not seem to be able to inflict a great deal of damage even if they were diverted into a building, if they were filled with chemical or biological agents they could potentially cause a tragedy greater than the one we had on September 11.
The restrictions that I am calling for, which would be the same restrictions that are now in place for Washington, D.C., would keep general aviation aircraft from flying within 15 miles of New York City, the other major target of al Qaeda. That would mean that no general aviation aircraft would be able to fly over Times Square, fly over the Empire State Building, over Giants Stadium in New Jersey, or over the Continental Arena.
There would be exemptions provided, and if one was provided to a general aviation aircraft, that aircraft, and by the way, these exemptions are available here in Washington, D.C., it simply requires those general aviation aircraft first to fly into what is called a gateway airport outside of the 15-mile restricted zone. There, the plane, pilot, passengers, and luggage would be inspected by Transportation Security Administration officials before these general aviation aircraft would be allowed to continue on to Teterboro or these other airports within 15 miles of Manhattan, such as JFK or LaGuardia. Again, these same restrictions are now in place for Washington, D.C., but not New York City.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to stand with me and support my call for Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and the Bush administration to immediately put into effect these new restrictions and protect the people of the New York metropolitan area, just as they have chosen to protect the people of Washington, D.C.
Government's number one responsibility is to protect the people. Security is the reason why general aviation aircraft are restricted in coming into airports within 15 miles of Washington, D.C. My amendment would seek the same restriction for general aviation aircraft which would seek to fly in without first being inspected outside the 15-mile zone flying into New York City.
Mr. Chairman, I regret that the Chair will rule that this amendment is not in order to be voted on tonight, so I will, for this evening, be withdrawing my amendment. But let it be clear, Mr. Chairman, I will continue to press my case and to press for the Transportation Security Administration and the Bush administration and the Department of Transportation to protect the people of the New York metropolitan area by enacting the same restrictions that they have deemed necessary over Washington, D.C.
Point of Order
As the Chair and my distinguished chairman may have heard earlier that I have withdrawn my amendment on the basis that the gentleman may very well be correct on that point of order, and I simply wanted to restate my intention to pursue this issue notwithstanding its order this evening.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I rise in opposition because it is wrong in its principles, it is wrong on the stated findings, it is wrong on its facts. Let me just go through…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I rise in opposition because it is wrong in its principles, it is wrong on the stated findings, it is wrong on its facts. Let me just go through them.
First of all, people may very well, everybody has the freedom to disagree with a court decision. All of us have the right to get up and say that. I do not think it is the role of Congress to say that a court decision is wrong. If we disagree as a body with a court decision, then pass a law if it is a question of statutory interpretation, or propose a constitutional amendment if it is a question of constitutional interpretation. That is our role.
The role of the judiciary is, to quote Chief Justice Marshall, to say what the law is. They say what the law is, and we say what the law should be. It is not our role to tell the court it is wrong; it is our role to change the law if we think so. To pass a resolution which has no power except perhaps the power to intimidate judges is wrong and a violation of our constitutional role.
Secondly, this states as fact that recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, including the phrase ``one Nation under God,'' is a patriotic act, not an act or statement of religious faith or belief. It certainly is a patriotic act, but it certainly is a statement of religious faith and belief when you say ``one Nation under God.''
The only way you can get around that conclusion is to say, as the dissenting opinion in the court said, that the phrase ``under God'' is minor, it is de minimis, it does not mean anything. But that is a sacrilege. Since when is God minor? Are we really going to say in this Chamber that God is minor; that belief in God is a minor question, so minor as to not to be worthy of notice?
That is the only ground on which we could say that asking schoolchildren, in the context of a group recitation of a pledge in a classroom, is not a prayer and an affirmation of belief and a religious conviction. To say that God is minor and ``under God'' means nothing, I do not think we want to say that. I certainly hope we do not want to say that. Yet, if we say it means something, then the Pledge of Allegiance with that phrase in it is a statement of a religious belief, or at least a statement of a belief in God.
There are religions in this country, Shintoism, Hinduism, that do not believe in one God. There are people who are atheists. It is factually a wrong statement. It says, as a statement of fact, that the court's ruling in this case is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment. That is demonstrably wrong, and the Supreme Court will say so.
First, the Supreme Court for the last 40 years in its jurisprudence on school prayers has said that we cannot ask schoolchildren to recite a prayer or a belief in God in the classroom setting, even if we allow the dissenters to walk out of the room; but that is exactly what asking them to say the Pledge of Allegiance with that phrase ``under God'' is. It is exactly consistent with the Supreme Court's last 40 years of jurisprudence and rulings on the school prayer cases. It is, in effect, the school prayer, that as long as you ask schoolchildren to say ``one Nation under God.'' It has all the same pros and cons; and many disagree with the Supreme Court's decisions, but those were its decisions.
In the name of religious liberty, in the name of the separation of powers, in the name of religion, to say that God is not minor, we ought not to pass this resolution and let the Supreme Court uphold or overturn the Court of Appeals decision in Newdow. After that we can worry about a constitutional amendment, which I would propose, and some Members may want to propose. But at this point it is not our function to be correcting a court.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for taking the leadership on behalf of veterans. As a veteran who has served in the 101st and 82nd Airborne Division in 1966 to 1968,…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for taking the leadership on behalf of veterans.
As a veteran who has served in the 101st and 82nd Airborne Division in 1966 to 1968, I am outraged, I am outraged regarding the 2004 budget adopted by this House committee, $28.8 billion cuts in veterans programs over 10 years; $14.6 million in veterans benefits cut in mandatory veterans program; $14.2 billion cuts in discretionary veterans health care. I speak on behalf of the 2.3 million disabled veterans including more than 1.2 million members of Disabled Veterans of America.
Is there no honor left in the halls of government? Is there no honor left in the halls of government that you would choose to dishonor the sacrifice of our Nation's heroes and rob them of their programs, health care and disability compensation? During this time of war it is crucial to let our soldiers know that they will be taken care of once they return home. I state once they return home that they will be taken care of. Unfortunately, I am ashamed by what the Republican Congress and President Bush have done to our veterans lately.
Since the troops have been deployed to the Persian Gulf, veterans benefits have been shipped away. Shame on you. Shame on you. They are fighting and dying for us. They are fighting and dying for us. And what are we doing? We are pulling the rug out from underneath them. The Republican budget resolution that passed last week cuts $449 million from veterans health care programs. What kind of message does it send to the hundreds and thousands of American men and women in uniform currently risking their lives overseas? Is this the kind of message that we want to send to our young soldiers fighting for freedom and democracy?
Remember that we enjoy today the freedoms because of the sacrifices that many of our veterans made who have served this country, our country before. Is this the best way that we can do for the families of those who have died for this country?
Just recently, Corporal Jorge Gonzalez, a U.S. Marine from my district in Rialto that I happened to visit the
parents this week was killed in Iraq. His heroism is found in the battle field and at home. This occurs daily through this land and the homes of families of American men and women who are serving us, like those of my legislative field representative's husband who is now serving in Iraq. Our men and women in uniform should not have to come back and learn that the government they fought for refused to take care of them, and I state, refused to take care of them.
During the time of war, we all say to our troops, we support you, our thoughts and prayers are with you. And we do, and we do. We display the American flag on our cars, in our homes, and clothing with pride. While this display of patriotism is important, I say we have to do more than that.
We have a moral obligation to provide veterans with benefits and services that they have earned, and I state that they have earned through their honorable service to this country. We have a moral obligation to provide them with prescription drugs and access to care. Is that too much to ask? I ask, is that too much to ask?
I am here to tell the administration and my fellow Members of Congress not to forget those men and women who have served this country. Remember, the freedoms we have today are because the men and women were willing to step up and fight for those freedoms, the freedoms we enjoy every day. Let us not forget them. Let us not forget them. Let us restore the benefits to our veterans. Let them know we will take care of them today and tomorrow, and I state today and tomorrow. I say God bless America. Let us restore our veterans. God bless our veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 132 expressing the sense of the House that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress is inconsistent with the…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 132 expressing the sense of the House that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment.
It is clear that the ninth circuit's amended Newdow ruling contradicts any reasonable interpretation of the first amendment. In a long line of cases, the Supreme Court has interpreted the establishment clause as prohibiting not only compelled participation in religious activity in public schools, but even voluntary religious devotional activity if, under the circumstances, children feel coerced to participate.
These cases, however, were based upon the fact that the activity at issue involved compelled participation in prayers and devotional exercises, as in the cases of School District of Abington Township v. Schemp and Engle v. Vitale; or the practice of graduation prayers at issue in Lee v. Weisman.
In fact, the questionable activity in these cases occurred either just before or just after the recitation of the Pledge. In its review of these cases, however, the court not only failed to question the practice of the voluntary recitation of the Pledge by schoolchildren, but instead explicitly limited its holding to the prayer or devotional exercise.
To have applied these cases to the facts in the Newdow case was incorrect because the Pledge is clearly not a religious statement or prayer; thus, its recitation is not a religious exercise. It is a historical fact that our Nation's founding principles were based upon the Founding Fathers' deeply held religious views. The Pledge of Allegiance simply refers to this fact.
The reasoning and holding of the ninth circuit in Newdow turns historical fact, as well as Supreme Court precedent, on its head. Either the judges were incapable or were unwilling to make this distinction.
Those who do not share the beliefs expressed in the Pledge or those who do not wish to pledge allegiance to the flag have a right to refrain from its recitation. This was recognized by the Supreme Court in the 1943 case of West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnett, in which the mandatory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance was held unconstitutional under the first amendment's free speech clause.
Indeed, it is a cornerstone of the religious faith that the Founding Fathers held dear that no man can force another to say or believe that which their conscience will not allow. I would hope that no court would issue a ruling that tramples upon this right. However, the ninth circuit in Newdow simply ignored Supreme Court precedent and essentially gave those who do not wish to recite the Pledge, and who possess the right to refrain from reciting the Pledge, a heckler's veto over those who do wish to recite the Pledge.
This ruling also places the ninth circuit in direct conflict with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals which, in Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District, held that a school district's policy allowing for the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools does not violate the establishment clause of the first amendment.
I believe that this clearly incorrect first amendment interpretation, as well as the split in the circuits created by the Newdow ruling, warrants an appeal by the Attorney General and Supreme Court review.
I urge my colleagues to approve this resolution so, during this time of international conflict in which our young men and women may be hours away from going to war to fight for those values based upon which our Founding Fathers gave birth to this very Nation, our youngest Americans, our children, may pledge their allegiance to those same values.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for offering this amendment, which I support. As was said, the amendment would strike $75 million of the $175 million in the foreign…
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for offering this amendment, which I support.
As was said, the amendment would strike $75 million of the $175 million in the foreign military finance funding for Pakistan in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, although Pakistan has provided assistance to the United States in our fight against terrorism and in our efforts against al Qaeda, I cannot support military aid to Pakistan. Since a military coup stages by President Musharraf in 1999, Pakistan has been run by a military dictatorship. As a result of the coup, democracy sanctions were put in place that barred any U.S. military assistance to Pakistan. However, just 1 month ago,
under waiver authority that was granted to President Bush by Congress, he waived this coup-related sanction to allow $50 million in military assistance to Pakistan for their antiterrorism measures. Given the current military dictatorship and given that Pakistan just weeks ago received a significant sum of money in military aid, I support striking $75 million in military assistance in this bill and perhaps either returning it to the FMF fund or to reallocate this amendment to first providers or towards other priority homeland security needs.
In addition, it is encouraging that the Bush administration is starting to publicly acknowledge Pakistan's role in transferring nuclear equipment to North Korea. I would like to thank the Bush administration for imposing both contracting and licensing sanctions on the Khan Research Laboratories nuclear firm in Pakistan. They are no longer authorized to export to the United States. And I am encouraged by this first step on the part of the administration to both publicly recognize Pakistan's role in supporting North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program and to impose punitive sanctions accordingly.
Normally, because of Pakistan's nuclear transfer to North Korea, Symington sanctions barring U.S. military assistance to Pakistan would be automatic. However, Symington sanctions have been waived by the President, and military assistance continues to flow to Pakistan. I am disappointed that the administration continues to support military assistance to Pakistan when it is clear that Pakistan exchanged equipment with North Korea most likely for missiles to challenge India.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I cannot argue against the fact that Pakistan has been a friend of the U.S. in fighting against global terrorism. However, the case is much different when we look at Pakistan's own backyard of Kashmir. Terrorism and violence by Islamic militants in Kashmir have escalated to a devastating degree, and I am very concerned that military assistance to Pakistan will be used to perpetuate the terrorist acts in Kashmir and elsewhere throughout India.
Mr. Chairman, based on the history of our laws in place that prevent the U.S. from providing military assistance to Pakistan in certain situations, such as military dictatorship or transfer of nuclear equipment to other countries, and for all the related reasons that I have just detailed, as has the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), striking $75 million in military assistance to Pakistan from this bill today is more than justified; and most importantly, it is important to recognize that any dollars that would be cut can be redirected to our own homeland security or to our own first responders and that really should be a priority rather than giving this money to Pakistan.
I support the amendment, and I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley); and I would hope that the administration would pay more heed to these issues of Pakistan's anti-democratic policies and its transfer of nuclear technology.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. Chairman, my amendment today, the reason that I come to the floor today is that I object to the airline provisions being added to this bill because it is a…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment today, the reason that I come to the floor today is that I object to the airline provisions being added to this bill because it is a supplemental appropriation bill; and within an appropriation bill, we simply cannot do the things that we need to do long term for the airlines. All we do is ensure that they will be back 6 months later for a similar appropriation.
On an appropriation bill we cannot deal with tax relief, for example, and $25 for every $100 ticket is taxes and fees to the Federal Government. We cannot deal with that on an appropriation bill.
We cannot deal with regulatory relief as well. There are higher antitrust standards that apply to airlines that do not to other industries. We need to look at that. There are limits as far as access to equity capital that apply to the airlines that do not to other industries. Those we cannot deal with in a supplemental appropriation bill.
The reason for bringing this forward is to ensure that we simply do not appropriate an amount that ensures that we have the airlines come back and simply need the same thing 6 months, 8 months, a year from now; and that is surely what we will have if we go through with this.
We are turning the airlines into folks that want to compete under a regular business model into folks that simply will hire more lobbyists and rely on the generosity of taxpayers and appropriators forevermore. We are creating, unless we change this process, an Amtrak in the air where we simply, through appropriation, keep an industry going.
We cannot do that and for that purpose, I have agreed to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) to talk about what we might do in the future.
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I thank the gentleman for this colloquy and discussion.
We simply cannot deal with the tremendous issues that we have to deal with in terms of tax relief, regulatory reform and to decide, as the gentleman from Missouri appropriately put it, what obligations the airlines actually have and what obligations should we, as general taxpayers or society, bear in terms of security costs; but we cannot have those discussions on appropriations measures.
We cannot wait in between bailouts every year or so to decide how much each airline gets to enact a formula. That is why we need to enter into these discussions in between, when the crisis is not right at hand; and with that understanding, I will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I thank the gentleman from Michigan for bringing forward this amendment. For myself I am not sure this is a proper way to spend AmeriCorps funding, but certainly it is not the proper place as part of this bill. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) correctly pointed out, for moving forward we need to have a vehicle where you can actually reform, where you can actually make changes, where you can actually do good things moving ahead. You cannot do that as part of the supplemental. Just like it was with the airline money. You cannot reform. You cannot do what you need to do as part of an emergency war supplemental.
What kind of message are we sending to our constituents and taxpayers across the country when we say that AmeriCorps funding, $64 million, needs to be part of a war supplemental? That just breeds the cynicism that it ought to. We should not be doing this. The amendment is justified. I would urge support of it and I thank the gentleman for bringing it forward.
Bill Text
Latest available legislative text
[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 2 Introduced in House (IH)]
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. CON. RES. 2
Expressing the sense of Congress that the Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 should be repealed.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 7, 2003
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas (for herself, Mr. Kucinich, Ms. Lee, Mr. Davis
of Illinois, and Ms. Watson) submitted the following concurrent
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International
Relations
_______________________________________________________________________
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress that the Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 should be repealed.
Whereas the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of
2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498), enacted into law on October
16, 2002, authorizes the President to use United States Armed Forces
against Iraq to defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and to enforce all relevant
United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;
Whereas since the enactment of Public Law 107-243, Iraq has allowed
international weapons inspectors to re-enter Iraq in order to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities;
Whereas since the enactment of Public Law 107-243, actions by North Korea
relating to its nuclear weapons capabilities pose a more immediate
threat to its neighbors and to the United States; and
Whereas in light of these circumstances, Congress should reexamine the threat
posed by Iraq, including by allowing time to review fully and accurately
the findings of the international weapons inspectors: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),
That it is the sense of Congress that the Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116
Stat. 1498) should be repealed.
<all>