Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005

Mr. Speaker, this conference report includes some items that I strongly support, and other things that I think should not have been included. On balance, I will vote for it because I think it would unrealistic and irresponsible to do otherwise.

Funding for Military Activities

Most of the money appropriated by this legislation is for our ongoing military activities, especially in Iraq. Passage of this conference report will bring the total cost of operations in Iraq to well over $200 billion--and by now, two years after President Bush prematurely announced the end of major military activities in Iraq, I think even those who have been uncritical supporters of the Administration should be deeply concerned about the escalating costs, not just in money but in casualties.

The time has come--in fact, it is long since past--for the Administration to be candid about the costs not just of the war in Iraq but of the Administration's overall foreign policy. This should be the last time that the Administration or the Congress pays those costs through a supplemental appropriation bill instead of the regular budgetary and appropriation process. The American people deserve to know in advance what they will be asked to pay to support the Administration's policies.

Nonetheless, Congress must not fail to supply our troops. Funds in this conference report will pay for more resources, including body armor and military equipment, needed to safeguard their lives. The conference report also includes important provisions to raise the military death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000 and to include a new insurance benefit of up to $100,000 for soldiers who have suffered traumatic injuries. The report also increases funding for body armor for the Army and Marines, add-on vehicle armor kits, night-vision equipment, and electronic roadside-bomb jammers--and includes funding for contract linguists for the Army.

Further, there is an imperative need for this funding. The Defense Department reports that

operating funds for the Army are nearing exhaustion and that it will be necessary to transfer more than $1 billion from other accounts to continue essential activities at home and abroad until these supplemental funds are available.

In short, the choice before us today is to vote for this supplemental or, by voting against it, to in effect require an immediate halt to military operations not just in Iraq but elsewhere.

And while I remain convinced it was an error to rush into war in Iraq, I am equally convinced it would be just as much an error to rush to withdraw.

We do need a strategy to get us out--which is why I'm pleased that the conferees included language directing the Secretary of Defense to provide Congress with a report that identifies security, economic, and Iraqi security force training-performance standards and goals, accompanied by a timetable for achieving these goals.

But an immediate departure is neither good strategy nor would it mean peace for Iraq.

I recently returned from my second trip to Iraq--this time as a Member of the House Armed Services Committee. As a critic of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq, I did not go there to confirm my opposition to the war, but rather, to gain knowledge based on face-to- face conversations with our military leaders, the Iraqi leadership, an extraordinary group of Iraqi women, and most important for me, with our troops on the ground.

I am convinced that there can be no successful exit strategy without first doing what is needed to enable the new Iraqi government to take up the burden of providing security. That will take time and money, and in the meantime we must maintain our efforts. As the former head of American forces in northern Iraq, Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, said recently, ``We don't want a rush to failure.''

So, for me, the need to support the military funding in this conference report--however unpleasant--is clear.

Other Funds

The conference report also provides funding for tsunami disaster relief as well as for assistance in Darfur, food aid to Sudan and Liberia, and for peacekeeping programs, most of which are for Sudan. Importantly, the bill appropriates the president's request of $200 million for economic development in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Immigration Provisions

Other parts of the conference report are problematical, particularly the inclusion of provisions like those in the ``REAL ID Act,'' legislation that I opposed when the House passed it in February. I believe these provisions will not strengthen national security, but will create undue difficulties for asylum seekers and excessively expand the powers of the Secretary of Homeland Security. This is a controversial issue that should have been addressed separately, not incorporated into this legislation.

An editorial in today's Rocky Mountain News says this part of the conference report ``has much more to do with immigration than security'' and is just ``one piece of a policy, poorly thought out and scarcely debated at all, and likely to have unintended consequences.'' I think that is an accurate description.

The Conference report also includes a provision that would revise the H-2B visa program, under which people can come into the country legally for seasonal non-agricultural work.

Several industries in Colorado are heavily dependent on the H-2B visa program to provide seasonal employees--some in the summer and some in the winter. While most of these companies try hard to find Americans to fill these jobs, they have not been fully successful. And the current limit on the numbers of visas has made it difficult for many of them to find the people they need. So, they have been asking Congress to revise the program.

However, while I am pleased that the report attempts to provide relief to companies struggling to find eligible employees, the specific provisions have some problems and may detrimentally affect some of the companies that have employed people entering under the H-2B program. This is particularly true for companies whose busy season is in the winter, such as the ski industry. They would actually be detrimentally affected by this provision because they do not rehire the same workers every year, and thus do not benefit from the provisions in the conference report that will exempt previously hired workers from the overall limit on the number of visas.

I wrote to conferees to urge a solution to the H-2B visa problem that would be equitable for both the winter and summer industries. Regrettably, the conference report does not fully meet that test. Still, it does make a good start to addressing the H-2B visa problem. I hope that we will be able to build on this foundation in the future so as to protect the interests of both summer and winter industries.

State Regulation of Hunting and Fishing

The conference report also includes, as Section 6063, provisions to reaffirm the authority of the States and Territories to regulate hunting and fishing.

This part of the conference report is identical to the text of H.R. 731, which I introduced in the House, and to S. 339, introduced in the Senate by Senator Reid of Nevada. I applaud Senator Reid's leadership in having this included when the Senate considered this supplemental appropriations bill and I am glad that it was accepted by the conferees. It will do two things--

(1) Declare as Congressional policy that it is in the public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and non-residents; and

(2) Provide that courts should not use Congressional silence as a reason to impose any commerce-clause barrier to a State's or tribe's regulation of hunting or fishing.

Its purpose is to reaffirm the authority of States and Territories to regulate hunting and fishing by resolving questions that have arisen in the wake of a recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that held that some Arizona limits on non-resident hunting permits had constitutional defects.

Ideally, of course, legislation of this sort should be handled through the regular authorization process, and I had hoped that the Resources Committee would have taken it up by now. However, State fish and wildlife agencies will soon be considering regulations for coming seasons, and it is important that questions about their authority be resolved without unnecessary delay.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new about a State's having different rules for resident and nonresident hunters or anglers. Colorado draws that distinction in several ways, and many other States do so as well.

And while there have been challenges to the validity of such rules, until recently the Federal courts have upheld the right of the States to make such distinctions. For example, in 1987 the Federal district court for Colorado, in the case of Terk v. Ruch (reported at 655 F. Supp. 205), rejected a challenge to Colorado's regulations that allocated to Coloradans 90% of the available permits for hunting bighorn sheep and mountain goats. But a recent Court of Appeals decision marked a change--something that definitely is new.

In that case (Conservation Force v. Manning, 301 F.3rd 985; 9th Cir. 2002), the Federal appeals court for the 9th Circuit held that Arizona's 10% cap on nonresident hunting of bull elk throughout the State and of antlered deer north of the Colorado River had enough of an effect on interstate commerce that it could run afoul of what lawyers and judges call the ``dormant commerce clause'' of the Constitution.

Having reached that conclusion, the appeals court determined that the Arizona regulation discriminated against interstate commerce--meaning the ``dormant commerce clause'' did apply and that the regulation was subject to strict scrutiny, and could be upheld only if it served legitimate State purposes and the State could show that those interests could not be adequately served by reasonable non-discriminatory alternatives.

The appeals court went on to find that the regulations did further Arizona's legitimate interests in conserving its population of game and maintaining recreational opportunities for its citizens, but it remanded the case so a lower court could determine whether the State could meet the burden of showing that reasonable non-discriminatory alternatives would not be adequate.

Because of the decision's potential implications for their own laws and regulations, it was a source of concern to many States in addition to Arizona. In fact, 22 other States joined in supporting Arizona's request for the decision to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Colorado was one of those States, and Senator Ken Salazar, who was then Colorado's Attorney General, joined in signing a brief in support of Arizona's petition for Supreme Court review.

Regrettably, the Supreme Court denied that petition. So, for now, the 9th Circuit's decision stands. Its immediate effect is on States whose Federal courts are within that circuit--namely those in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington as well those of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas. But it could have an effect on the thinking of Federal courts across the country.

The purpose of this part of the conference report is to forestall that outcome, and so far as possible to return to the state of affairs prevailing before the 9th circuit's decision. It is intended to speak directly to the ``dormant commerce clause'' basis for the 9th Circuit's decision in Conservation Force v. Manning.

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that lawyers and judges use that term to refer to the judicially established doctrine that the commerce clause is not only a ``positive'' grant of power to Congress, but also a ``negative'' constraint upon the States in the absence of any Congressional action--in other words, that it restricts the powers of the States to affect interstate commerce in a situation where Congress has been silent.

Section 6036(b)(1) would end the perceived silence of Congress by affirmatively stating that State regulation of fishing and hunting-- including State regulation that treats residents and non-residents differently--is in the public interest. This is intended to preclude future application of the ``dormant commerce clause'' doctrine with regard to such regulations. And Section 6036(b)(2) would make it clear that even when Congress might have been silent about the subject, that silence is not to be construed as imposing a commerce-clause barrier to a State's regulation of hunting or fishing within its borders.

These provisions are neither a Federal mandate for State action nor a Congressional delegation of authority to any State. Instead, they are intended to reaffirm State authority and make clear that the ``dormant commerce clause''--that is, Congressional inaction--is not to be construed as an obstacle to a State's regulating hunting or fishing, even in ways that some might claim adversely affect interstate commerce by treating residents differently from nonresidents.

It's also important to note that this part of the conference report is not intended to affect any Federal law already on the books or to limit any authority of any Indian Tribe.

Section 6036(c) is intended to prevent any misunderstanding on these points.

Section 6036(c)(1) specifies that the bill will not ``limit the applicability or effect of any Federal law related to the protection or management of fish or wildlife or to the regulation of commerce.''

Thus, to take just a few examples for purposes of illustration, this part of the conference report will not affect implementation of the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Lacey Act, the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, or the provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act dealing with subsistence.

Section 6036(c)(2) similarly provides that the bill is not to be read as limiting the authority of the Federal government to temporarily or permanently prohibit hunting or fishing on any portion of the Federal lands--as has been done with various National Park System units and in some other parts of the Federal lands for various reasons, including public safety as well as the protection of fish or wildlife.

And Section 6036(c)(3) explicitly provides that the bill will not alter any of the rights of any Indian Tribe.

These provisions are narrow in scope but of national importance because it addresses a matter of great concern to hunters, anglers, and wildlife managers in many States. I think they deserve broad support.

conclusion

In conclusion, while this conference report is far from perfect, I think it deserves to pass and I will vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the chairman of the full committee on this, his maiden effort, to bring a major supplemental appropriation to the floor as chairman, and I congratulate him for the leadership that he has shown in bringing this so swiftly to this floor.

I do rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 1268. Before I address the funding that is the responsibility of my subcommittee, I want to briefly acknowledge a critically important part of this bill, border security funding. The securing of our Nation's borders to prevent the hemorrhaging flow of illegal immigration through my State of Arizona has got to be a top priority for the Federal Government. The people I represent living on the border are frustrated with the illegal immigration system, and we must address gaps in border security now. Arizona and other border States can no longer serve as the back door for this country's broken immigration system. By adding the funding that we do in this bill, we are taking a step in the right direction to ensure our northern and southern borders are protected.

Regarding the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Subcommittee chapter of this legislation, the conference report includes $2.53 billion in funding for programs under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Subcommittee, which I chair. While this overall level is $1.4 billion less than requested, let me say once again I strongly support the objectives of the President that he seeks to achieve with this request for Afghanistan, the Middle East, and the tsunami-devastated areas of Asia. I believe that this conference agreement provides the financial support necessary to help the United States achieve these objectives.

The major elements of the conference agreement that differ from the House-passed levels are additional funds for Afghanistan reconstruction, the Solidarity Initiative, and support for Ukraine. The $739 million proposed by the House for Afghanistan reconstruction represented the highest priority projects that could be implemented and executed during 2005. The Senate provided $1.3 billion, the administration's request. And the conference level is $1.086 billion, or $347 million over what the House had recommended. This increase over the House level supports some 2006 requirements, which is, I believe, a cost-effective approach to the 2006 budget process.

The House provided no funding for the administration's $400 million Solidarity Initiative. The Senate provide a total of $225.5 million, $200 million in the Solidarity Fund and $25.5 million in the Global War on Terror Partners Fund. The conference agreement provides a total of $230 million, merging the two funds into one appropriation, and places these funds within Peacekeeping Operations appropriations. This arrangement provides for regular order congressional review of the Department's plans for these funds.

The conference agreement provides $60 million for Ukraine, and these funds will support the government of Ukraine's highest priorities for political and economic reform, including anti-corruption initiatives and support for the upcoming parliamentary elections.

I think my colleagues recognize that we are faced with unique opportunities in the Middle East and Afghanistan. This agreement will provide the financial resources necessary to promote democracy and provide the State Department with programs and projects to support these positive influences.

Let me say that the funds we are providing in the foreign assistance chapter must be considered an investment in security both in the region and on American soil. However, Congress has the responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently and transparently, and we take that responsibility seriously with reporting requirements, and we will continue vigorous oversight of these programs.

The greatest weight all of us must bear is the knowledge that these decisions we make directly put the lives of Americans at risk. I firmly believe the bill before us today will help build stability and freedom in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and parts of Asia. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the fiscal year 2005 emergency supplemental conference report on H.R. 1268.

I rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 1268, a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2005.

Before I address the funding in my subcommittee, I wanted to briefly acknowledge a critically important part of this bill--border security funding. The securing of our nation's borders to prevent the hemorrhaging flow of illegal immigration through my state of Arizona must be a top priority for the federal government. The people I represent living on the border are frustrated with the illegal immigration system, and we must address gaps in border security now. Arizona and other border states can no longer serve as the backdoor for this country's broken immigration system. By adding this funding we are taking a step in the right direction to ensure our northern and southern borders are protected.

I am pleased that my colleagues on the conference committee agreed to provide $635 million for Border Security to hire an additional 500 Border Patrol Agents, 50 additional criminal investigators, 168 Immigration Enforcement Agents and Deportation Officers, and to fund 1,950 additional detention beds.

The bill also includes my amendment to strengthen the REAL ID Act to address the technology, equipment, and personnel needs improving security within the U.S., requiring Department of Homeland Security to carry out an improved ground surveillance program, and requiring DHS to improve interagency communication.

Regarding the Foreign Operations Subcommittee chapter, the conference agreement includes $2.532 billion, in funding for programs under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Operations subcommittee of which I am Chairman. This amount is $685 million over the House level, $251 million less than the Senate level, and $1.4 billion less than the Administration's request.

While this overall level is $1.4 billion less than requested, let me say once again that I strongly support the objectives the President seeks to achieve with this request for Afghanistan, the Middle East, and the tsunami devastated areas of Asia. I believe that, with the understanding that we need to reduce our federal deficit, this conference agreement provides the financial support necessary to help the United States achieve these objectives.

The major elements of the conference agreement that differ from the House passed-level are: additional funds for Afghanistan reconstruction, the Solidarity Initiative, and support for Ukraine.

The $739 million proposed by the House for Afghanistan reconstruction, represented the highest priority projects that could be implemented and executed during 2005. The Senate provided $1.3 billion, the Administration's request. The conference level is $1.086 billion, $347 million over the House recommendation. The increase over the House level supports some 2006 requirements--a cost effective approach to the 2006 budget process--such as $101.4 million for two additional power plants, $8.4 million for a water pipeline, $72 million for additional roads and infrastructure, and $43 million for economic governance.

The House provided no funding for the Administration's $400 million ``Solidarity Initiative.'' The Solidarity Initiative request of $400 million for two $200 million Funds to be used by the Secretary of State, as she determines, was to offset the costs of those countries that have dedicated troops to the Global War on Terror as well as economic support to other nations that have provided support. The Senate provided a total of $225.5 million--$200 million in the Solidarity Fund and $25.5 million in the Global War on Terror Partners Fund. The conference agreement provides a total of $230 million, merging the two Funds into one appropriation and places these funds within the Peacekeeping Operations appropriations. This arrangement provides for regular order Congressional review of the Department's plans for these funds. This will provide sufficient oversight of a substantial amount of money for the Global War on Terror.

The House provided $33.7 million for support to Ukraine. The Senate provided the Administration's request of $60 million. The conference agreement provides $60 million for Ukraine. These funds will support the government of Ukraine's highest priorities for political and economic reform, including anti-corruption initiatives and support for the upcoming parliamentary elections.

I think my colleagues recognize that we are faced with unique opportunities in the Middle East and Afghanistan. U.S. leadership can have positive, democratic influence in the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Belarus, and Ukraine. This agreement will provide the financial resources necessary to promote democracy and provide State Department with programs and projects to support these positive influences.

Finally, the conference agreement provides $656 million for assistance to the victims of the tsunami and earthquakes of last December and March.

Let me say that the funds we are providing in the foreign assistance chapter must be considered an investment in security both in the region and on American soil. However, Congress has a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently and transparently, and I know my colleagues take that responsibility seriously. We have included financial reporting requirements for all funds in the Foreign Operations chapter. For Afghanistan counternarcotics and West Bank Gaza programs, we have included additional auditing requirements. As Chairman, I pledge to continue vigorous oversight of these programs.

The greatest weight all of us must bear is the knowledge that decisions we make as Members of Congress directly puts the lives of Americans at risk. Already, men and women from probably every district represented today have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan. I firmly believe the bill before us today will help to build stability and freedom in Afghanistan, the Middle East and parts of Asia.

Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on passage of the fiscal year 2005 emergency supplemental conference report on H.R. 1268.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill before us today makes clear that we have now spent $284 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan since the war began. The money that has been spent in Afghanistan is certainly legitimate and justified. After all, that country harbored the people who attacked us on 9/11. The problem is, however, that $165 billion has now been spent to deal with a country that did not attack us. We have spent some $240 billion on this entire endeavor since the President first landed in his jumpsuit on that carrier and addressed the country under the banner ``Mission Accomplished.'' There has been quite a bit of that mission left since it supposedly was over. We have now been involved in Iraq longer than we were involved in World War I, and respectable and responsible experts have told me that they expect that we will be involved for at least another 5 years.

This whole operation has been brought to us by the same people who erroneously told us that we had to go to war because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and it was implied that they had, or were close to having, nuclear capability. That was all demonstrated not to be true. This has been brought to us by the same people who believed the assertions that our troops would be welcomed with open arms. It has been brought to us by the same people who thought they were so smart that they knew more than General Shinseki when the good general warned us that we would need substantially more troops and boots on the ground than we were scheduled to have if the postwar occupation was to go well.

And it has been brought to us by the same people who provided to our troops insufficient armor for Humvees, insufficient body armor and insufficient jammers to prevent our troops from having their faces and their legs and their arms blown off by remotely detonated bombs and mines.

I want to make quite clear I will support this bill because I feel that I have no choice but to participate in cleaning up the mess which somebody else left. But I do not relish it. I believe that the entire operation in Iraq has been accompanied by incredibly naive romanticism on the part of the White House and on the part of the civilian leadership in the Pentagon, and that has left the people fighting the war to bear the brunt of the miscalculations that have been made by the civilian leadership of our government. We have lost the lives of 1,500 American service men and women. We have seen more than 11,000 be injured. And this bill understates, in my view, the amount of money that will be needed eventually to restore the readiness of the U.S. Armed Forces and to minimize their casualties.

The second thing this bill does is to demonstrate once again how we, on both sides of the aisle, have had to work doubly hard to overcome the resistance of the White House in adequately funding homeland security operations. They have been especially resistant to providing the adequate funding along the borders, especially the Canadian border. And it has taken a bipartisan effort on the part of a wide variety of people in this Congress in order to overcome that resistance. This bill falls far short of the funding that is necessary to provide a secure set of borders for the United States. The new bill that is going to be offered by the gentleman from Kentucky will help fill that gap, but that is forced to play catch-up because we have met a steady resistance effort on the part of the White House.

Lastly, I simply want to say that while I am certainly no expert on the subject, I note that there is being attached to this bill a provision which many experts in the field feel has the potential to construct a nationwide database that could be very harmful in terms of people's efforts to engage in identity theft. I hope that proves not to be the case.

I would simply make the point that certainly no one on our committee on either side of the aisle has the expertise that you would hope would be found in the authorization committees, and I wish that that provision had been dealt with on a separate bill rather than solving an internal problem within the Republican Caucus by having it attached to an unrelated bill, and I want to make one point about that.

We are being lectured almost daily by the majority that we should not add ungermane riders to appropriation bills. I want to serve notice that if the majority feels free to add unrelated authorization bills such as this to a must-pass bill, that then I feel fully within my rights in offering whatever authorization legislation we feel appropriate on this side of the aisle and asking that it be attached to appropriation bills. If sauce is going to be okay for the goose, then it ought to be good for the gander.

So we will see in the coming months what the attitude of the majority is when we seek to add what we feel are legitimate efforts to strengthen appropriation bills by adding various pieces of so-called legislation to appropriation bills.

So since the majority has chosen to proceed down that path, I hope they raise no objection when we seek to follow it. With that, Mr. Speaker, again, I repeat I intend to vote for this bill with all of my misgivings.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee, the gentleman who has long been trying to extend debate in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), distinguished minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire how much time each side has remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for purposes of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller.)

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I take this time to explain the motion to recommit that I will offer at the end of this debate. Here is what it does:

The Senate bill contains funding for a total of 150,000 border patrol agents, 250 immigration investigators, and 168 immigration enforcement agents, and detention officers and their associated training and support cast.

This conference agreement falls short of the Senate bill in 3 areas. It only contains funds for 500 border patrol agents, not the 150,000 called for in the Senate bill. It only contains funding for 50 immigration investigators, not the 250 called for in the Senate bill.

Last, it also contains no funding for unmanned border aerial vehicles.

The motion to recommit is simple. It would take us to the levels contained in the Senate bill for border patrol agents by adding funding for 550 additional border patrol agents and for 200 immigration investigators.

It would also fund unmanned border aerial vehicles that have been used successfully in a test in Arizona to assist in surveillance. Former DHS Deputy Secretary Lloyd testified that the vehicles provided ``invaluable'' service.

Since border patrol agents are trained at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico, funding is included like the Senate bill to purchase and operate modular classrooms for these additional agents.

This motion, in short, would provide an additional $284.4 million to immigration and customs enforcement to do this as was in the Senate bill. Need I remind anyone that the Intelligence Reform Bill, which became law last December, called for 2,000 additional border patrol agents a year and 800 additional immigration investigators? The President requested no funding for that supplemental request.

I would note that on March 30 the administration announced it would add more than 500 agents in Arizona, but those are not new agents. 135 of them or so will come from other southwest and southern border patrol locations, and the remainder are simply new trainees who will replace agents retiring or leaving the border patrol across the country.

So I would simply urge House Members to vote for this motion. It ought not be at all controversial. It is practical if you want to put your money where your press releases have been with respect to border patrol.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request 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 yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, in this form, I am.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise sadly to oppose the emergency supplemental because of the horrific and ill-advised immigration provisions and the lack of oversight that has been given to the provisions in this section. I hope we will have an opportunity to address this in a comprehensive manner.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today very conflicted over a piece of vital legislation for which this entire body should really be in solidarity. The Conference Report on H.R. 1268 provides for emergency FY2005 funds for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, tsunami relief efforts, foreign assistance programs and domestic homeland security priorities. However, this legislation also includes an insidious section with provisions of H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act, which has nothing to do with what should be the real intent of this Emergency Supplemental. Instead of being united on issues of national security and international relations, we are put in a divisive situation with the provisions of the REAL ID Act.

The issues of importance addressed by this Emergency Supplemental do not give rise to a need to include provisions from H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act--legislation for which Congress

has not held a legislative hearing, markup, nor full debate in the House. Just last year, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle attempted to force these provisions in the context of the 9/11 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, H.R. 10.

The sponsor of the REAL ID Act's driver's license provisions would have gone far beyond the scope of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. The 9/11 Commission did not suggest that the standards should be federally mandated without state participation, that a database should be created to share personal identification information, that undocumented immigrants should be prevented from getting licenses or that non-citizens should get an identifiably different driver's license.

Finally, none of the REAL ID Act sponsor's provisions have been reviewed by the Congress or the Commission. There have been no hearings or debates on these significant changes to existing law. The immigration provisions that have been forced into this supplemental include numerous provisions restricting the grant of asylum `` protection, imposing onerous new driver's license requirements on the States, making it easier to deport legal immigrants, waiving all Federal laws concerning the construction of fences and barriers anywhere within the United States, and denying immigrants long-standing habeas corpus rights.

The USA PATRIOT Act, for which we in the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the Judiciary are only now holding hearings in piecemeal form, already barred terrorists from receiving asylum protection in the United States. None of the people associated with recent attacks, or plans for terrorist attacks in the U.S., were here under grants of asylum. Instead, these changes will make it harder for people legitimately fleeing persecution to prove their asylum claims and gain protection here. Bona fide refugees who cannot meet the higher standards will be returned to countries where they were persecuted, possibly to face terror, torture and death.

The forced provisions will set a dangerous legal precedent by requiring the government to waive all federal, state and local laws to build barriers and fences to deter illegal entry into the United States. This waiver would require violating laws that protect sacred Native American burial sites, important environmental regions, and the wages of laborers. Yet this policy is unnecessary. In the 9-11 Act, we passed language to develop and implement a comprehensive plan for the systematic surveillance of the Southwest border by remotely piloted aircraft and other electronic means. We can preserve our legal rights and regimes and still secure our Nation.

The great majority of this Emergency Supplemental, a sum of $75.9 billion goes towards U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In this Conference Report's military spending total of $75.9 billion includes $37.1 billion for military operations and maintenance spending, $17.4 billion for personnel, and $17.4 billion for new weapons procurement. I am very pleased to say that this Conference Report increases the military death gratuity to $100,000, from $12,420, and increases subsidized life insurance benefits to $400,000, from $250,000, for families of soldiers who died or were killed while on active duty beginning from Oct. 7, 2001. I can not describe how fundamental it is that we take care of our armed forces and their loved ones. This Conference Report addresses some of the concerns that Democrats have had about the fact that the families of soldiers who were killed while on active duty were not being given the necessary funds to provide for themselves. In addition, this Conference Report provides $308 million more than requested for add-on vehicle armor kits; large increases for new trucks; added funds for night-vision equipment; and $60 million in unrequested funds for radio jammers to disrupt attempts by Iraqi insurgents to explode remote-control bombs and mines. As with the increase in death benefits, Democrats in this body have been advocating for increased funds to provide the necessary armor and equipment to protect our troops. While I am supportive of our troops and their families, I am disappointed that this war continues with no end in sight. How long will it be before our brave men and women of the Armed Forces can come home and embrace their families? This is the question Democrats have been asking for months and we still don't have a real answer. Again, while I support funding our soldiers and their families to ensure that their safety and financial needs are met, I am deeply disappointed that we still do not have a proper exit strategy in Iraq.

As I stated there are many provisions of this Emergency Supplemental in which this body can be united in agreement. One such issue is the tsunami relief provided in this Emergency Supplemental. The Conference Report before us today appropriates $907 million in direct assistance for tsunami disaster relief for countries affected by the Dec. 26, 2004, earthquake and tsunami. In addition, this measure also provides $226 million to reimburse the U.S. military for expenses incurred in providing emergency relief to the tsunami victims, and $25 million to build and deploy 35 new tsunami-detection buoys in the Pacific, Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico to provide warning to communities of approaching tsunamis. I had the opportunity to see the damage caused by the tsunami when I visited Sri Lanka with my colleagues led by Mr. Crowley shortly after the tsunami disaster. I had the opportunity to visit with USAID personnel who were there trying to aid the Sri Lankan people in rebuilding their Nation. I have to say the attitude of our American personel and the smiles they brought to the face of the Sri Lankan people would make every member of this Congress very proud. We talk about public diplomacy with the international world and I firmly believe that the funds appropriated here along with the work of our personnel on the ground help make a great case for the goodness of our Nation.

I am also similarly pleased that about $400 million in this Conference Report will go towards humanitarian assistance in Darfur, Sudan. I recently had the opportunity to visit refugee camps in neighboring Chad where thousands of Sudanese in Darfur have fled to escape the conflict. Needless to say, I was able to confirm from eyewitness accounts that the conflict in Darfur is indeed even more shocking and deeply disturbing in its viciousness than has been reported to us. We as a Nation must stand against such brutality and the funds in this Emergency Supplemental will help to ease the suffering of those involved in this conflict. In addition, this Conference Report includes $920 million for all peacekeeping programs, many of which are in Sudan. However, while I have always been a strong advocate for peacekeeping operations, I am disappointed that the total money appropriated is $70 million less than the president's request. We must continue to support such operations because the alternative can only be to the detriment of the international community, including our own Nation.

Again, I am in general support of the goals proposed by H.R. 1268, but I am troubled by the implications of the Supplemental Appropriations measure that this body is poised to pass that relate to immigration policy. The underlying legislation proposes to fund important needs that pertain to Operation Iraqi Freedom; Operation Enduring Freedom, in Afghanistan; Army and Marine Corps restructuring; recapitalization and replacement of equipment; and replenishment of cash balances in certain working capital funds. In truth, this Emergency Supplemental funds many needed priorities, but it is the one issue of the REAL ID Act, which is not a priority, that poisons this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our distinguished ranking member, the lead Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations for his leadership for his very important motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into talking about the bill, I want to commend both the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and our distinguished ranking members on the Committee on Appropriations and Subcommittee on Defense. Over the years, they have worked very hard and provided great leadership for our men and women in uniform and for the security of our country.

There is much about this bill that I support. I have some concerns which I will express but none of that diminishes the regard and appreciation I have for the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, for the fourth time since the President ordered the invasion of Iraq 2 years ago, Congress has been asked to provide funds for the war outside the regular budget. With nearly 140,000 troops in dire need of equipment and supplies, this legislation will be overwhelmingly approved and I will support it.

A willingness to provide our troops the support they need, however, should not be mistaken for support for the repeated failures in judgment that first put our troops in harm's way and that keeps them there today.

Two years ago this week on May 1, 2003, President Bush stood on an aircraft carrier under a banner that proclaimed ``Mission Accomplished.'' Considering the events that followed and what has been disclosed since then, if the President were to stand under a

banner today it would have to read ``Credibility Demolished.''

We are in the war's third year. Daily headlines are grim reminders of how far we are from a stable and secure Iraq, and the President has yet to provide a plan to get us to that place. We are fast approaching sadly 1,600 U.S. military deaths and thousands of more have suffered grievous and lasting wounds.

I have had the privilege to pay my respects to troops in theater and in hospitals in Europe and in the United States. Whatever our disagreement about the policy which brought us into the war, whatever our disagreement on the lack of planning to end it, it never diminishes the regard that we have for our men and women in uniform. We respect them and we appreciate their courage, their patriotism and the sacrifice they are willing to make for our country. And on any opportunity that many of us have, we express that to them personally.

The President's rationale for the invasion was discredited long ago. Iraq remains unsafe. I talked about credibility in terms of the lack of planning. There is also a lack of credibility in budgeting. Although appropriations for Iraq approaches $200 billion, the President's budget requests no money for the war on the grounds that the cost is unknowable. Instead, the President chooses to include a figure for the war's cost, zero, that everyone knows to be wrong.

Here we are today on Thursday talking about a supplemental with a set amount in it of emergency funding for our troops, and we passed the budget last Thursday. It was not one week ago we did not know what the cost would be and now we do this week.

This is simply not an honest way to do our budgeting.

Our troops need relief and their equipment needs repair and replacement. The risk assessment released by the Joint Chiefs of Staff this week shows the strain on our military is real and unsustainable. And it is clear that the figure in the supplemental is really not enough to meet to meet the measure that the chairman mentioned.

Providing money alone as this bill will do is not enough. A way out must be provided as well. We must focus on quality rather than quantity when training Iraqi security forces, accelerate Iraq's reconstruction in ways that give Iraqis a major stake in rebuilding their country, and step up regional diplomatic efforts to heal the strife on which the insurgency thrives.

I was pleased to be part of the bipartisan delegation that visited Iraq during Holy Week, and I can tell you that firsthand that we have a long way to go to reaching those goals.

Our experience in Iraq strongly suggest that if we do not take these steps and soon, about training the security forces, accelerating Iraq's reconstruction, and stepping up regional diplomacy or as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) would say, Iraq-atize, internationalize and energize, if we do not do this and soon, Americans may wonder for years to come if the end will ever be in sight.

The funds provided for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the relief of those devastated by the tsunami, to aid those suffering in Darfur and elsewhere, and to promote Middle East peace are necessary and important.

Were conferees able to focus solely on these issues, their final product would have been much stronger. However, since this bill is must-pass legislation, House Republicans demanded the inclusion of controversial immigration provisions. These provisions would be much better considered as part of a comprehensive immigration reform effort. These provisions will make asylum harder to obtain for those seeking a haven from persecution and place a huge unfunded responsibility on the States to verify information used to support a driver's license application.

This is an unfunded mandate. This is an unfunded mandate and it is not part of the Contract With America, no unfunded mandates.

Since this is a conference report, we cannot have a ruling from the Chair that will allow us to discuss some specifics about the unfunded mandate, the driver's license application that is in the bill. It sounds like a good idea. But if you are at the desk at the Department of Motor Vehicles and you have now become an immigration officer because you have to prove the citizenship, or at least the legality of somebody being in the country, it is a big burden, it is costly, and it is unfunded.

We have given a mandate without the money and really without the consideration that this provision should have been given.

In addition, we unwisely vest in the Secretary of Homeland Security the power to weigh Federal and State environmental and labor laws. This in the name of securing our borders. Securing our borders should be a national priority, which makes it all the more inexplicable that the President did not request in his budget the extra border patrol agents and detention beds authorized by Congress last year in response to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Bipartisan efforts in the Senate do more for border security in this bill and were rebuffed by House Republicans in favor of provisions that trample on the rights of individuals and States, and may result in the diminishment of the safety of the American people.

I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for offering his motion to recommit to fund border security at the Senate levels. He also had this as a motion to instruct when the conferees were named, to add $1 billion so that we could have the border security that was recommended by the 9/11 Commission. But that was rejected.

So we talk a great deal about securing the border, but we are not putting the resources there to do the job. Thank heavens Senator Byrd prevailed with part of the money in the Senate. We can do more. We should have done more. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has been a champion on this issue year in and year out as far as this discussion has been going.

Again, border security, border security, border security, and then we can talk about a comprehensive immigration policy.

I hope that all of our colleagues will give an overwhelming support of this body to the Obey motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, for many reasons, this is not an easy bill to support. The legitimate emergency needs to which it responds, particularly the needs of our men and women in uniform overseas, are real and must be addressed.

A much better job, though, must be done to create conditions to allow large numbers of them to come home and to come home soon.

Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support the gentleman from Wisconsin's motion to recommit.