Air Transportation Employees Assistance Act

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. 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).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

Mr. Chairman, I could not hear the unanimous consent request.

Maybe the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of a colloquy.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky, chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

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 rules state in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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 rules state in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties.

Mr. Chairman, I would insist on the comments being directed to the point of order rather than to the issue.

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 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 offer amendment No. 7.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would provide development assistance loans to Haiti. The amendment would require the United States to use its voice, vote, and influence to urge the Inter-American Development Bank to immediately resume lending to Haiti and disburse all previously approved loans.

There is no money being requested in this amendment. It is simply language. The Inter-American Development Bank is denying Haiti any access to loans for development assistance. Haiti has already had $145.9 million in development

loans approved by the IDB. These loans include $50 million for rural road development, $22.5 million for reorganization of the health sector, $54 million for potable water and sanitation, and $19.4 million for basic education programs.

Haiti could also qualify for an additional $317 million in new loans for development projects as well as a $50 million investment sector loan. However, the IDB is refusing to consider Haiti for any additional loans and has not even disbursed the loans that have been approved. The IDB effectively is denying Haiti access to critical development assistance.

This bill contains $1.7 billion to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. The bill provides funds for health care services for 13 million Iraqis and finances repair or construction of 25,000 schools, 20,000 houses, and 3,000 miles of roads in Iraq. This bill also contains $105 million for Colombia, $300 million for reconstruction in Afghanistan, and $1 billion each for Israel, Jordan and Turkey.

Furthermore, the bill contains $85 million for the Eastern European countries of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia, and Bulgaria.

The bill even includes funds for the Centers for Disease Control and assistance to America's airline industry. The Haiti amendment will not increase the cost of this bill to the American taxpayers; it will simply instruct the IDB to resume normal lending to Haiti and disburse the loans that have already been approved.

Haiti is one of the most impoverished nations in the western hemisphere. It is more impoverished than Israel, Jordan, Turkey, and most of Eastern Europe. The Haiti amendment would allow Haiti to build roads and infrastructure and provide basic education and health care services to the Haitian people. Haiti deserves to be included in this bill.

It may be ruled out of order, and the Members on the other side of the aisle are not even listening. Haiti is not important. It is just another little black country in this western hemisphere. The members of the Congressional Black Caucus have done everything. We have pleaded. We are watching people starve and die right next door to us.

This Congress does not give a darn about Haiti. It would be very simple to waive the rules and include the language in this bill. It does not cost a dime. That would say to IDB just move the money that has already been approved. It may not be done, but it is wrong and it is immoral for us to sit and watch the children dying, the infrastructure in total disrepair, and to do nothing even though the loans have already been approved to Haiti for the past 5 or 6 years. It can be ruled out of order, but I will not go away on this issue; and this Congress ought to be ashamed of itself.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I think the point was well made earlier today when our ranking member talked about the way we have been treated; and while the chairman and the majority party have waived points of order, have waived the rules so that they could have their amendments so they could do whatever it is they want to do on this bill, they basically closed us out.

Then of course the point that was made by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) that they have waived the rules when they have wanted to, are points that are well made. On the point of order, while it could be considered legislating on an appropriation, it is not that it has not been done, it is not that it will cost any money, it is not that it will cost anything except the will of this body to say to the IDB, go ahead and disburse the money that has already been appropriated. It is not too much to ask of the other side of the aisle. On the point of order, I believe if the chairman was of the mind to do so, he could do so.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

I certainly do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida can insist on whatever he wants to insist on; I choose to speak on the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, the chairman is exercising his right to make this point of order. He has not been doing it this way all evening. I would dare say that he has indeed waived the rules when he found it convenient to do so. This would not be a precedent this evening.

This particular amendment that I am addressing would simply point out all of the funding that is being done in this supplemental appropriation, and it would raise the question of why if we are building schools and providing universal health care, if we are doing it in Afghanistan and Iraq, doing it in other countries that are not even associated with the war, why not do it right here at home in America?

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an entitled amendment that would eliminate conflicts of interest, and would ensure that senior level executives in the administration could not use the conflict with Iraq to obtain financial benefits for companies with which they have been affiliated. Specifically, the amendment prohibits senior level officials in the administration from being present at or participating in any negotiations of contracts with companies in which they were senior managers or members of the board of directors within the last 4 years.

There has been a considerable amount of suspicion about the motives of this administration in pursuing a war with Iraq. Many Americans have expressed concerns that our country initiated military action in order to secure control of Iraqi oil fields and other Iraqi resources. While these suspicions are based on rumors and allegations, we in Congress should not do anything that would contribute to doubts about the sincerity of our country's motives.

Prior to the 2000 election, Vice President Dick Cheney spent 5 years as the chief executive of the Houston-based energy services company Halliburton. On March 24, 2003 Kellogg, Brown & Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, announced that it was awarded a contract by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to put out fires and make emergency repairs in Iraq's oil infrastructure. Prior to the onset of hostilities, Halliburton was one of the several company the administration invited to bid on up to $900 million in contracts to rebuild roads and bridges and other facilities in Iraq.

Although Halliburton declined to bid for a primary contract for reconstruction work in Iraq, the company's officials have indicated their interest and they are going to do it another way. They want to do it through subcontracting. Halliburton contracts and subcontracts in Iraq would create the appearance that the Vice President may be using his position to increase his former company's profit in time of war.

My amendment would protect the individuals who are advising the President on matters of war and peace from conflicts of interest. It would also help to eliminate the appearance of conflicts of interest at a time when the administration's decisions are affecting millions of lives around the world.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure this will be ruled out of order, and it may be embarrassing to some folks. It is a mild amendment. It does not prevent any company from getting a contract. It would simply take the person out of the room who is an adviser to the President who may be in the President's cabinet, who may be in a strategic position to help influence contracting. They would have to recuse themselves from those particular meetings.

Now, if we had the will and if we were interested about our image, and if we were interested in allaying the allegations and the fears that something is going on in the back room, we would indeed adopt this amendment.

I want to tell Members that there are too many people who believe that there are committees and advisory committees that are serving people in very key places and that on these committees we have folks who are looking for contracts who represent the defense industry. We have cronies and associates who are well placed.

This amendment would go a long way in improving our image and sending a message to the American people that we are not divvying up the spoils of this war in Iraq, and it would certainly say to our young men and women who are fighting for what they believe is protecting the freedoms of American people, it would say to them that they are not fighting so that someone could end up with some contracts.

Point of Order