Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1268) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot help before I begin to join with my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), to say that we absolutely cannot strike those vital funds for peacekeeping.

But, Mr. Chairman, I rise today, as well as to support those peacekeeping dollars, to say that many of the efforts in this legislation, the work that has been done by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), I can appreciate in this emergency supplemental, even though as I have spoken to my good friend and leader, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), on this issue, it is important that we have an announced success strategy for leaving Iraq. Remember what I said, a success strategy, and I have not yet heard that from the administration.

But I rise today to comment that the legislation fails to contain important provisions that would provide what is truly needed by our government and that would ensure that the $81.3 billion in this bill is really spent wisely. I think we could have done better.

I am very disturbed as the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims that we have now forced into this bill as a self-operating part of the rule that H.R. 418 would be included in the engrossment of the underlying bill, H.R. 1268.

I opposed the Republican leadership's position to attach the REAL ID Act to this emergency supplemental. This is anti-immigrant legislation that will not make us safer. Rather, it scapegoats asylum seekers and other immigrants.

Last year, Congress passed new driver's license standards in the 9/11 intelligence reform bill with bipartisan support, and I do support that. It was a good bill, and the intelligence reform bill was supported in a bipartisan manner. But we do not need to undo the careful compromise and thought processes by imposing anti-immigrant policies onto States' driver's licenses and identification processes.

Where is the money? This is an unfunded mandate. What is a State going to do if they are not able to implement these new procedures because they do not have the money?

The bill is being attached here in an effort to force the Senate to pass these ill-conceived policies. We have had no hearings on this REAL ID legislation, and I oppose the inclusion of this bill if the underlying legislation is passed and engrossed as set forth in H. Res. 151.

H.R. 418 includes numerous provisions limiting the rights of refugees, imposing onerous new driver's license requirements on the States, making it easier to deport legal immigrants, legal immigrants, waiving all Federal laws concerning the construction of fences and barriers where we have been told by Homeland Security experts they will not make us safer anywhere in the United States, and denying immigrants long-standing habeas corpus rights.

I believe those who are criminals need to be incarcerated, but there are immigrants who are standing in line trying to achieve citizenship. If reenacted into this legislation, it will yet again threaten to close America's doors to religious minorities escaping religious persecution and women fleeing sex trafficking, rape and forced abortions.

In the wake of the 9/11 tragedy, and even after the PATRIOT Act, this legislation would further target immigrants for crimes they have not committed and sins for which they are not responsible. At some point we have to treat terrorism as a problem that requires an ``intelligence'' response, as opposed to an excuse to scapegoat immigrants.

An emergency supplemental that purports to aid tsunami victims, our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is no place for the provisions of the REAL ID Act. I support spending the necessary dollars to keep our troops in Iraq safe, to provide relief to victims of the tsunami in Southeast Asia and Africa, and to provide security in Afghanistan; but this is a poison pill.

I look forward to supporting the Jackson amendment. I will offer an amendment to stop the devastating lack of funding on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement section of DHS. But we need to take this REAL ID out of it so we can have a good bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of some of the efforts funded in this emergency supplemental, H.R. 1268, although the legislation fails to contain important provisions that would both provide what is truly needed by our government and that would ensure that the $81.3 billion proposed in this bill is spent wisely. Of particular concern to me as Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, is the forced inclusion of H.R. 418 in the engrossment of the underlying bill, H.R. 1268.

I oppose the Republican leadership's decision to attach the REAL ID Act to this Emergency Supplemental. This anti-immigrant legislation will not make us safer--rather, it scapegoats asylum-seekers and other immigrants.

Last year, Congress passed new driver's license standards in the 9/11 Intelligence Reform bill with bipartisan support. We do not need to undo that careful compromise by imposing anti-immigrant policies onto States' driver's license and identification processes.

This bill is being attached here in an effort to force the Senate to pass these ill-conceived policies. We have had no hearings on this bill, and I oppose the inclusion of this bill if the underlying legislation is passed and engrossed as set forth in the Rule, H. Res. 151.

H.R. 418 includes numerous provisions limiting the rights of refugees, 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.

If re-enacted into this legislation it will yet again threaten to close America's doors to religious minorities escaping religious persecution; and women fleeing sex trafficking, rape, and forced abortions.

In the wake of the 9/11 tragedy, and even after the PATRIOT Act, this legislation would further target immigrants for crimes they have not committed and sins for which they are not responsible. At some point, we have to treat terrorism as a problem that requires an ``intelligence'' response, as opposed to an excuse to scapegoat immigrants. An emergency supplemental that purports to aid tsumani victims, our troops in Iraq, and Afghanistan is no place for the provisions of REAL ID. Inclusion in this fashion amounts to a forced acceptance of its provisions much like a contract of adhesion.

Mr. Chairman, I support spending the necessary dollars to keep our troops in Iraq safe, to provide relief to victims of the tsunamis in southeast Asia and Africa, and to provide security for Afghanistan. However, the legislation before us today stands to use the public's fear of terrorism to radically change asylum law for ALL asylees, not just those with some connection to terrorism or relating to the issues contained in the underlying legislation. For these reasons, I oppose this legislation in its present form. I will, however, support the Jackson Amendment on Africa and I as well, will offer an amendment to stop the devastating lack of funding of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement section of DHS, a real crucial part of the Nation's Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I want to rise as well to support the gentlewoman from New York's amendment dealing with the efforts the UNFPA is engaged in because we got a chance to see firsthand in visiting Sri Lanka the work that has been done.

It is true that many children were lost. It is true that 15,000, at the time that we were there, women were expecting; and it is certainly true that they lost a large infrastructure of health care, particularly the women's hospital that we were able to visit. The women's maternity hospital was completely destroyed, and so these dollars will be crucial in helping to ensure good health care, good intervention, and safe deliveries.

I want to commend all of the leadership that is focused on this particularly narrow issue, though it may seem. It is vital that we provide the support, and I would like to encourage our colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me acknowledge the full committee and the members of the appropriate subcommittee dealing with Homeland Security and, as well, the full committee chairman's just recent statement on this issue.

But Mr. Chairman, I would hope that if a point of order is in order, I would hope that that point of order could be waived. And let me share with you why. This amendment is a very narrow amendment, very limited in its request. But it is documented and based upon testimony given by the very principals who are entrusted with the responsibility of Homeland Security.

Former outgoing DHS Deputy Secretary James Loy indicated that in testimony to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, that ICE, the Immigration, Customs and Enforcement, needed an additional 300 million in order to finish the fiscal year 2004. This is an emergency.

Officer Callahan came before the Judiciary Committee just a few days ago on March 10 and indicated that in 5 days we might see the closing of the operations of ICE. That is the internal enforcement agency that deals with protecting the homeland internally.

Now, I have stood on the floor of this House over and over again, and I have said that immigration does not equate to terrorism. There are hard working individuals who are undocumented in this country who clearly have come here for economic reasons.

But we also know that coming across the southern border there are what we call OTMs, Other Than Mexicans, and they come across the border. They are not detained. They are given a document to retain to come back to court for a court date, and they are released on their own recognizance.

And do you realize that many of them, some who are coming from countries that have terrorist activities and attitudes toward the United States, and they are able to come up through the southern border, cross into the United States with absolutely no punitive measures whatsoever. Why? Because we are shortened at the border and we are shortened in terms of immigration enforcement inside the country, and there are no detention beds.

And so I rise today to be able to submit an amendment to ask for $40 million, that is all, to be able to carry this entity for a few more days and to be able to respond to the need for more Immigration, Customs and Enforcement Officers.

Immigration Enforcement Agent Randy Callahan testified on ICE's financial difficulties, and I realize that there is still a need to be able to fix the financial problems at ICE. But fixing the financial problems, which I understand the agency is proceeding under the new Secretary of Homeland Security, does not in any way give reason to deny extra funds for an organization that is entrusted with the security of this Nation. We can find common ground on security and immigration. This happens to be one, to provide the resources for this agency in order for it to avoid closing its doors.

His description of the problems ICE is having financially confirm the concern that I have had for some time. We do not have enough officers. We do not have enough training, and certainly we do not have enough staff in order to do their job.

Training programs have been postponed. They have halted training for approximately 2000 former Detention Enforcement Officers who are reclassified and combined with the Immigration Agent position called Immigration Enforcement Agent.

Do you realize, Mr. Chairman, that these officers are still carrying the old IDs and old ID cards and old badges? Why? Because we do not have enough money to give them new badges and new cards. Can we not include them in this emergency supplemental? This is an emergency.

You have officers who are carrying incorrect identification and officers who have not been trained who have been transferred into Homeland Security who are now supposed to be Immigration, Customs Enforcement Officers.

Tragically, one of our officers lost his life in the Atlanta courthouse killings, a man who had served for a good number of years. We owe officers who are willing to put their life on the line, no matter what way they have lost it, to be able to provide them with the resources necessary.

ICE has approximately 900 agents who have not yet been trained. Without this training, ICE cannot use these officers for any type of law enforcement function except transportation officer and possibly some computer work. And as I said to you, they have no badges, and they have no ID cards.

There is no money for uniforms, so un-uniformed Immigration Enforcement Agents are not able to order replacement uniforms. In fact, the uniforms being used nationwide right now still have Immigration Naturalization Service patches on them despite the fact that the INS no longer exists. Lack of funds appears to be causing detention facilities problems in San Diego, California and other places.

Let me just simply say we have the documentation, Mr. Chairman. I rise to ask my colleagues to support this amendment to ICE, and I also will add that I support the Palestinian money and the Sudan money. But I hope that we will know that we have to secure the homeland by providing extra dollars to respond to the needs of our own staff here in the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, I have learned of a budget

crisis in the Homeland Security Department's Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE. At a hearing last week on Interior Immigration Enforcement Resources, Immigration Enforcement Agent Randy Callahan testified on ICE's financial difficulties. His description of the problems ICE is having financially confirms the concern I have had for some time now.

For instance, training programs have been postponed. This has halted training for approximately 2,000 former Detention Enforcement Officers who were reclassified and combined with Immigration Agent into a position called, ``Immigration Enforcement Agent,'' IEA. ICE has approximately 900 agents who have not been trained yet. Without this training, ICE cannot use these officers for any type of law enforcement function, except transportation officer and possibly some computer work.

There is no money for uniforms, so uniformed Immigration Enforcement Agents are not able to order replacement uniforms. In fact, the uniforms being used nationwide right now still have Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, patches on them despite the fact that INS no longer exists.

Lack of funds appears to be causing a detention facility in San Diego, CA, to release detainees from custody. Apparently, ICE management told its employees that the office had to reduce its adult detentions from several hundred to around 100. Additional funding is needed nationwide to maintain the approximately 17,000 detention beds currently in use.

ICE's financial problems have resulted in a hiring freeze since last March and severe spending restrictions. In September, ICE ordered its offices to refrain from nonessential spending such as travel, temporary duty assignments, equipment and supply purchases, and permanent change- of-station moves.

ICE is a bureau in financial crisis. They do not have enough money to hold people in custody, buy new uniforms and equipment for employees, or even issue badges and credentials with the correct department on them. Emergency funds are essential to correct this problem.

Former DHS Deputy Secretary James Loy said recently that ICE needs $280 million to finish out the year. It is not feasible to address that entire need with the emergency supplemental, H.R. 1268. My amendment, therefore, just seeks $40 million, which can be offset in the Coast Guard allotment.

For the reasons stated above, Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues accept the Jackson-Lee amendment to fund the Immigration and Customs Enforcement needs. It is a shame that this amendment could not get a waiver of the point of order for the crisis in our Department of Homeland Security.

Point of Order

Will the gentleman yield for just a moment?

Mr. Chairman, my understanding of an emergency supplemental is to deal with emergency funding situations in the government. I realize that the present language speaks directly to Coast Guard, which is part of now the Department of Homeland Security. This amendment amends that section and asks and has a viable offset and asks simply to allow $40 million of that amount to be able to be utilized for the underfunded ICE agents that do not have uniforms, that do not have badges, that do not have IDs.

Frankly, I believe if we are to do our work in Iraq, whether we agree or disagree with the war in Iraq, we do know that it is represented to us by the administration to be a war on terror. How can we fight the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq and not fight the war on terror in this country within our boundaries?

The Immigration Customs and Enforcement helps us do that. It separates out those who intend to do us harm from those who are here who may be undocumented but are here simply for economic reasons.

We need to be able to thwart those who may come across the border to do us harm and are not caught at the border. We need to be able to have the agency well equipped to protect us by securing those individuals and detaining them. Without those resources they cannot even continue.

Do not take my word. Take the word of Admiral Loy, who indicated that they needed more dollars to finish out the fiscal year in question.

I would ask my colleague, and I would also ask at this moment, that if he pursues his point of order, whether or not we will have the opportunity, whether in conference or as we continue the appropriations process, to focus on the lack of funding for the Immigration and Enforcement Officers, Immigration, Customs and Enforcement Officers, the Border Patrol, which I think you are aware of, and the detention beds.

I would like very much to yield to the chairman, and on this issue I think we are all in common agreement about the need to secure our homeland.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Yesterday I went before the Committee on Rules and offered four amendments to this supplemental appropriations bill. I rarely offer more than one amendment on an appropriation bill, and I understand these amendments will be subject to a point of order. However, the issues that these amendments address need to be raised.

First I want to say thanks to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for putting together this bill and for their hard work. I am pleased that this bill increases the military death benefits and subsidized life insurance benefits for families of soldiers who have died while on active duty. However, there is still more that needs to be done for our troops and their families.

While the troops who are deployed face the horrors of war abroad, far too many of their families face tremendous struggles to make ends meet here at home.

As a symbol of our appreciation for their bravery and sacrifice, I believe Congress should grant a one-time $1,500 bonus to our servicemen and women deployed under Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. This is the same amendment I offered on the last Iraq supplemental bill.

Not since Vietnam has such a large number of our troops had such long deployments, especially our National Guard and Reservists, who make up approximately 40 percent of the fighting force in Iraq. Forty-nine percent of the married Guard members and Reservists who report to duty have lost more than $1,000 a month from their civilian jobs. According to USA Cares, requests have been coming in from military families. Twenty-four percent of them are asking for help to pay the utility bills, 30 percent are asking for help for housing, and 70 percent request money for food.

As Members of Congress, we may have differing ideas about U.S. involvement in Iraq, but we can all agree that our servicemen and women deserve our severe recognition for their courageous effort. In the coming years, thousands of our young men and women will not see their families. A record number of Reservists and Guardsmen and women will put their private sector jobs and opportunities on hold, and thousands of children from every part of America will pray for their parents' safe return. Give our troops the $1,500 bonus they deserve.

The second amendment I would have offered ensures that the U.S. citizens who were prisoners of war in the first Gulf War, 1991, receive the court-awarded compensation that is due to them. Currently, this administration is fighting former American prisoners of war in court, trying to prevent them from collecting nearly $1 billion from frozen Iraqi assets that a Federal judge awarded them as compensation for torture at the hands of Saddam Hussein's regime. Many of these POWs were tortured in the same prison, Abu Ghraib, where American soldiers allegedly abused Iraqis. Those Iraqi victims, according to this administration, deserve compensation from the United States. Why then are our own brave men and women not being compensated for their suffering using the Iraqi assets that the U.S. has already frozen? These Americans must now fight its own government for compensation legally due them.

It is imperative that we make sure our 1991 Gulf War POWs are fully compensated. My proposal would ensure that any money expended under this Act, our American troops who were victims of torture and hostage taking, receive the compensation courts have already awarded them from frozen

Iraqi assets. It does not take an act of Congress to do this. All it does take is a compassionate President to release those assets.

Lastly, I also went to the Committee on Rules to offer two amendments that deal with the domestic helicopter industry. The first allows for $15 million in assistance to small domestic helicopter manufacturers who produce helicopters with not less than 60 percent U.S. content so they can compete with foreign-owned and foreign-subsidized helicopter manufacturers. The second amendment reinstates the Buy American provision requiring at least 50 percent American content in government purchases of civilian aircraft. Over the past 20 years, the helicopter industry in the United States has dwindled due to competition from the foreign helicopter industry which receives government funding for product development. It has become increasingly difficult for the U.S. helicopter industry to compete against its heavily subsidized foreign competition. The end result is a blow to the U.S. economy and our workers.

In my district Enstrom Helicopter Corporation recently lost a bid to Eurocopter, a company owned by a French-German conglomerate. The Department of Homeland Security awarded a $75 million contract to Eurocopter to build 55 helicopters for the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol. This contract came at the expense of American companies and American workers. This contract not only hurt the workers in my district but also 44 other States that supply parts and services to the helicopter industry. My amendment would provide financial support for the U.S. helicopter industry to try to level the playing field, while also reinstating the Buy American provisions.

I have been informed that these amendments will not be made in order; therefore, I will not offer them. I submit for the Record an article from the ``LA Times'' dated February 15.

[From the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 15, 2005]

White House Turns Tables on Former American POWs

(By David G. Savage)

Washington--The latest chapter in the legal history of

torture is being written by American pilots who were beaten

and abused by Iraqis during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. And it

has taken a strange twist.

The Bush administration is fighting the former prisoners of

war in court, trying to prevent them from collecting nearly

$1 billion from Iraq that a federal judge awarded them as

compensation for their torture at the hands of Saddam

Hussein's regime.

The rationale: Today's Iraqis are good guys, and they need

the money.

The case abounds with ironies. It pits the U.S. government

squarely against its own war heroes and the Geneva

Convention.

Many of the pilots were tortured in the same Iraqi prison,

Abu Ghraib, where American soldiers abused Iraqis 15 months

ago. Those Iraqi victims, Defense Secretary Donald H.

Rumsfeld has said, deserve compensation from the United

States.

But the American victims of Iraqi torturers are not

entitled to similar payments from Iraq, the U.S. government

says.

``It seems so strange to have our own country fighting us

on this,'' said retired Air Force Col. David W. Eberly, the

senior officer among the former POWs.

The case, now being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court,

tests whether ``state sponsors of terrorism'' can be sued in

the U.S. courts for torture, murder or hostage-taking. The

court is expected to decide in the next two months whether to

hear the appeal.

Congress opened the door to such claims in 1996, when it

lifted the shield of sovereign immunity--which basically

prohibits lawsuits against foreign governments--for any

nation that supports terrorism. At that time, Iraq was one of

seven nations identified by the State Department as

sponsoring terrorist activity. The 17 Gulf War POWs looked to

have a very strong case when they first filed suit in 2002.

They had been undeniably tortured by a tyrannical regime, one

that had $1.7 billion of its assets frozen by the U.S.

government.

The picture changed, however, when the United States

invaded Iraq and toppled Hussein from power nearly two years

ago. On July 21, 2003, two weeks after the Gulf War POWs won

their court case in U.S. District Court, the Bush

administration intervened to argue that their claims should

be dismissed.

``No amount of money can truly compensate these brave men

and women for the suffering that they went through at the

hands of this very brutal regime and at the hands of Saddam

Hussein,'' White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan told

reporters when asked about the case in November 2003.

Government lawyers have insisted, literally, on ``no amount

of money'' going to the Gulf War POWs. ``These resources are

required for the urgent national security needs of rebuilding

Iraq,'' McClellan said.

The case also tests a key provision of the Geneva

Convention, the international law that governs the treatment

of prisoners of war. The United States and other signers

pledged never to ``absolve'' a state of ``any liability'' for

the torture of POWs.

Former military lawyers and a bipartisan group of lawmakers

have been among those who have urged the Supreme Court to

take up the case and to strengthen the law against torturers

and tyrannical regimes.

``Our government is on the wrong side of this issue,'' said

Jeffrey F. Addicott, a former Army lawyer and director of the

Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University in San

Antonio. ``A lot of Americans would scratch their heads and

ask why is our government taking the side of Iraq against our

POWs.''

The POWs' journey through the court system began with the

events of Jan. 17, 1991--the first day of the Gulf War. In

response to Hussein's invasion of Kuwait five months earlier,

the United States, as head of a United Nations coalition,

launched an air attack on Iraq, determined to drive Iraqi

forces from the oil-rich Gulf state. On the first day of the

fighting, a jet piloted by Marine Corps Lt. Col. Clifford

Acree was downed over Iraq by a surface-to-air missile. He

suffered a neck injury ejecting from the plane and was soon

taken prisoner by the Iraqis. Blindfolded and handcuffed, he

was beaten until he lost consciousness. His nose was broken,

his skull was fractured, and he was threatened with having

his fingers cut off. He lost 30 pounds during his 47 days of

captivity.

Eberly was shot down two days later and lost 45 pounds

during his ordeal. He and several other U.S. service members

were near starvation when they were freed. Other POWs had

their eardrums ruptured and were urinated on during their

captivity at Abu Ghraib.

All the while, their families thought they were dead

because the Iraqis did not notify the U.S. government of

their capture.

In April 2002, the Washington law firm of Steptoe & Johnson

filed suit on behalf of the 17 former POWs and 37 of their

family members. The suit, Acree vs. Republic of Iraq, sought

monetary damages for the ``acts of torture committed against

them and for pain, suffering and severe mental distress of

their families.''

Usually, foreign states have a sovereign immunity that

shields them from being sued. But in the Anti-Terrorism Act

of 1996, Congress authorized U.S. courts to award ``money

damages . . . against a foreign state for personal injury or

death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial

killing, aircraft sabotage [or] hostage taking.''

This provision was ``designed to hold terrorist nations

accountable for the torture of Americans and to deter rogue

nations from engaging in such actions in the future,'' Sens.

Susan Collins (R-Maine) and George Allen (R-Va.) said last

year in a letter to Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft that urged him

to support the POWs' claim.

The case came before U.S. District Judge Richard W.

Roberts. There was no trial; Hussein's regime ignored the

suit, and the U.S. State Department chose to take no part in

the case.

On July 7, 2003, the judge handed down a long opinion that

described the abuse suffered by the Gulf War POWs, and he

awarded them $653 million in compensatory damages. He also

assessed $306 million in punitive damages against Iraq.

Lawyers for the POWs asked him to put a hold on some of

Iraq's frozen assets.

No sooner had the POWs celebrated their victory than they

came up against a new roadblock: Bush administration lawyers

argued that the case should be thrown out of court on the

grounds that Bush had voided any such claims against Iraq,

which was now under U.S. occupation. The administration

lawyers based their argument on language in an emergency

bill, passed shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq,

approving the expenditure of $80 billion for military

operations and reconstruction efforts. One clause in the

legislation authorized the president to suspend the sanctions

against Iraq that had been imposed as punishment for the

invasion of Kuwait more than a decade earlier.

The president's lawyers said this clause also allowed Bush

to remove Iraq from the State Department's list of state

sponsors of terrorism and to set aside pending monetary

judgments against Iraq.

When the POWs' case went before the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia Circuit, the three-judge panel

ruled unanimously for the Bush administration and threw out

the lawsuit.

``The United States possesses weighty foreign policy

interests that are clearly threatened by the entry of

judgment for [the POWs] in this case,'' the appeals court

said.

The administration also succeeding in killing a

congressional resolution supporting the POWs' suit. ``U.S.

courts no longer have jurisdiction to hear cases such as

those filed by the Gulf War POWs,'' then-Deputy Secretary of

State Richard L. Armitage said in a letter to lawmakers.

``Moreover, the president has ordered the vesting of blocked

Iraqi assets for use by the Iraqi people and for

reconstruction.''

Already frustrated by the turn of events, the former POWs

were startled when Rumsfeld said he favored awarding

compensation to the Iraqi prisoners who were abused by the

U.S. military at Abu Ghraib.

``I am seeking a way to provide appropriate compensation to

those detainees who suffered grievous and brutal abuse and

cruelty

at the hands of a few members of the U.S. military. It is the

right thing to do,'' Rumsfeld told a Senate committee last

year.

By contrast, the government's lawyers have refused to even

discuss a settlement in the POWs' case, say lawyers for the

Gulf War veterans. ``They were willing to settle this for

pennies on the dollar,'' said Addicott, the former Army

lawyer.

The last hope for the POWs rests with the Supreme Court.

Their lawyers petitioned the high court last month to hear

the case. Significantly, it has been renamed Acree vs. Iraq

and the United States.

The POWs say the justices should decide the ``important and

recurring question [of] whether U.S. citizens who are victims

of state-sponsored terrorism [may] seek redress against

terrorist states in federal court.''

This week, Justice Department lawyers are expected to file

a brief urging the court to turn away the appeal.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the ranking member of the defense appropriations subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee.

(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes 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. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Chairman, how many speakers does the gentleman have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I am the last remaining speaker on my side. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes and 50 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make four points. Information is the lifeblood of democracy. If the public does not get sufficient information, they cannot perform their duties in a citizen-based democracy. If this Congress does not get adequate information, it cannot make the right choices in providing checks and balances to any administration.

We have gotten precious little information about the administration's plans for war before the war. We have gotten precious little information about their plans during the war, and we certainly are getting precious little information from them now.

The full cost of this war is being revealed a little bit at a time on the installment plan, and information that the Congress has asked for has not been forthcoming. Example, section 9012 of the 2005 DOD appropriations bill requires, it does not request, it requires the administration as a condition of getting the previous money, it required the administration to give the Congress its best estimate of what our costs would be in the Iraqi war over the next 5 years. They were supposed to have that information by January 1. Last time I looked, we are past January 1. Still no information.

I have already referred previously to the information we have seen in the papers about the activities, the under-the-table classified activities that DOD appears to be engaged in without informing the Congress about those activities. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) referred to oversight responsibilities. I think this Congress has done a miserable job in meeting its oversight responsibilities on this war. There are notable exceptions. But I do not believe that we have insisted on the information that we need to have in order to meet our responsibilities fully and well. I certainly do not think that we have measured up to our obligation to protect taxpayers' money.

We tried in full committee to win support for the creation of a Truman-like committee to conduct ongoing investigations of profiteering in Iraq by contractors. We were turned down.

We asked the Committee on Rules to make a similar amendment in order. We were turned down.

This article demonstrates why we need that committee. This appeared in the Washington Post this morning. ``Pentagon audit questions Halliburton costs in Iraq. Pentagon auditors found more than $100 million in questionable costs in one section of a massive no-bid Halliburton Company contract for delivering fuel to Iraq according to a summary of their reports released yesterday. The audit summary written in October 2004 but withheld from public release covers one out of 10 sections from a $2.5 billion contract under which Halliburton was tapped to deliver fuel, fight oil well fires, repair oil well facilities in Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion in the spring of 2003.'' And then it goes on to tell the story.

This article alone demonstrates why we need that kind of a committee.

Now, Harry Truman during World War II when he was a member of the Senate conducted over 400 hearings. He issued almost 50 reports. That was a Democratic Congress investigating a Democratic administration and no harm was done to the country in the process. But a lot of taxpayers' money was protected and a lot of embarrassments were avoided. That is what ought to happen now, but we are being stonewalled by the majority and by the White House on this issue. I hope that changes.

I would also like to simply say with respect to my comments earlier about the Department of Defense appearing to undertake covert activities which in the past have been within the purview of the CIA, I want to read the concluding paragraph from an editorial in the Minnesota Daily which reads as follows:

Human intelligence is a risky business. When missions go

awry, the consequences can be far-reaching. Congressional

oversight assures that spymasters remain accountable for

their foul-ups. It might indeed be necessary to give the

Pentagon more control over human intelligence but that is a

decision Congress should make, not Rumsfeld.

And that is my point. I do not know whether the activities that are being

discussed in the newspapers are wise or not. I have my doubts about some of them. But it seems to me that in the end this is a judgment that needs to be made by elected officials, not an independent agency that feels it is too powerful to listen to anybody else in government.

Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this bill, but I want to make it quite clear, this is the last time we are going to be supporting a bill like this if we do not have adequate oversight and we do not have adequate information on the part of the administration.

I think it is fair to give the administration and the majority parties notice that this is the last time as far as I am concerned unless we get better information. I would urge support for the bill and simply note that it appears that many, many Members of this body who voted to go to war in Iraq are now planning to vote not to pay for the war which they agreed to support in the first place. I find that position most interesting indeed.

Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) have more than one speaker remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman's amendment. As the gentleman has made quite clear, this is his second choice. He would prefer to offer an amendment which directly establishes a Truman-like committee to investigate profiteering in Iraq. The fact is that the majority has chosen to use the technicalities of the rules to prevent that from happening. Given the fact that they have done that, the gentleman's only choice is to proceed in the manner he has proceeded in the amendment he has just offered.

It seems to me that the purpose of the amendment is clear. The purpose is to see to it that a committee is formed which will have as its sole responsibility the reviewing of the use and misuse of taxpayer funds in Iraq. This bill seems to me to be a perfectly appropriate vehicle to accomplish the end that the gentleman seeks. This bill appropriates over $80 billion of taxpayer money. I think the taxpayers, many of whom have substantial doubt, not just about the war but about the conduct of some of the contractors during and after the war, I think the taxpayers would like to know that if we are going into their pockets for an additional $80 billion today, at least we are doing the utmost possible to see to it that that $80 billion is spent in accordance with the law and is spent in accordance with good judgment.

I, for the life of me, do not understand what the problem is with the gentleman's efforts. It seems to me if this Congress is looking for ways to achieve the maximum support for the administration's policy, they would certainly support efforts to see to it that that policy is being conducted in such a manner that embarrassment is not eventually brought to the President, to this Congress and to our effort in the country and in the region.

So while this certainly is not our preferred solution, it is far better than doing nothing and I would urge support for the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, if the previous speaker is going to describe something I did in committee, I wish he would get his facts straight. The fact is, contrary to what the gentleman said, when the majority brought its recommendations to the full committee with respect to the provision in the bill which raised life insurance benefits from $250,000 to $400,000, with respect to that provision, the committee had applied it retroactively only to those persons who died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Contrary to what the gentleman said, my amendment did not restrict what the committee was doing, it expanded what the committee was doing. We added coverage for what was estimated to be 2,400 additional American service people who died but were not in Iraq or Afghanistan. We did that, for instance, on the theory that if you are a member of the Reserve, you are called up to go to Iraq, but you are killed in a training accident before you can get there, that you are just as dead, your family is just as much in need as would be the case with someone who went to Iraq and then died in an accident.

Now, the gentleman is the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I respect his responsibilities. I hope he respects ours. I would simply say that what the committee has tried to do is to take a vehicle which is going to spend $80 billion of the taxpayers'

money, and use that as an opportunity to expand benefits to deserving servicemen and women. I make no apology whatsoever for doing that.

Dick Bolling, who was my mentor when I came here and chaired the Committee on Rules, used to talk disdainfully of people who looked at this House through the prism of what he called ``dung hill politics''; in other words, focusing on jurisdiction of different committees, forgetting that we have a larger responsibility to the body as a whole and to the country as a whole.

Now, I make no apology for the fact that the Committee on Appropriations might have stepped on a few toes in expanding benefits for deserving servicemen and women. I am glad they did. I hope the toes did not hurt too much. But the fact is if the gentleman has objections to what the administration has suggested then I would suggest the majority party needs to get its act together rather than risking these expanded benefits by doing what they almost did in the Committee on Rules today, which is to make these two sections of the bill subject to a point of order which could have lost those benefits for deserving servicemen and women.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

With all due respect, the gentleman just misquoted.

Reclaiming my time, with all the due respect, the gentleman misquoted and mischaracterized my amendment in committee. The gentleman described it as an amendment limiting benefits when in fact it expanded them, and I do not appreciate that.

That is what we tried to do.

Reclaiming my time, let me simply say I appreciate that. My only point is if the gentleman is going to come to the floor and characterize what I did please do so accurately. What the gentleman said, he may not have meant to but what he said was my amendment limited--I believe the word used was ``restricted.'' We did not. We expanded it.

Reclaiming my time, with all due respect, the effect of my amendment as scored by CBO was to add $95 million in costs.

What we did was to provide $95 million in additional benefits to persons who had died who were not living in Iraq and Afghanistan. That was the effect of my amendment. The gentleman may be talking about restrictions that the committee action took.

My amendment expanded. It did not restrict, and the gentleman needs to reread it if he does not understand that.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Let me simply say that I find it ironic, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the gentleman for yielding, because the entire history of the development of this expanded benefit demonstrates that both the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and this gentleman from Wisconsin were aiming to expand benefits, not to contract them.

When I first drafted my first proposal we were told that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs itself was concerned that we might have gone too far in providing benefits to people because, for instance, the example used to me was we do not want to pay someone who was killed in a drunken driving accident because he had five martinis at a bar. We want to make sure that this

occurred in the line of duty. So that is the way we drafted the amendment. But the overall effect of the amendment was to add benefits for 2,400 people who had died, who had not been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that was estimated to cost $95 million.

How an expansion of benefits can be described as a restriction is beyond me. It certainly does not fit my definition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, it is with great pride that I bring before the House H.R. 1268, a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2005. This is my first appropriations measure as the new Appropriations Committee chairman. I am especially proud of the extraordinary effort put forth by the committee's members and staff to report a bill that will better permit our troops to prosecute the war on terrorism and will do so with a price tag less than that requested by the President.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the House pay special attention to three of my colleagues who have come back from the private sector to help serve this committee. Frank Cushing is my staff director, and David LesStrang and Jeff Shockey are my deputy staff directors for the Committee. I really appreciate their willingness to make great sacrifice to come back.

Six of the committee's 10 subcommittees participated in the development of this measure which provides $81.27 billion in urgent and emergency spending. The lion's share of that amount, some $76.8 billion, is for defense-related expenditures. This funding represents an increase for defense needs of $1.8 billion above the President's request, which I hasten to note is entirely for enhanced support for deployed, soon-to-be deployed, or returning troops in order to assist in force protection and to increase the survivability of the troops in the field.

To provide these important resources for our troops, we reduced other, nonessential DOD requests by some $600

million as well as nearly $1 billion in foreign assistance-related programs that were either not well justified or did not meet the strict definition we applied for emergency spending. In addition, another $1 billion of extremely important and time-sensitive non-emergency foreign assistance approved by the committee was completely offset by a rescission of funds originally appropriated in fiscal year 2003.

With my colleagues' indulgence, I would like to take a few moments to give the House a flavor of the urgent procurement needs that the committee has included in the measure for our troops. Those include up- armored Humvees and other new Humvees, medium and heavy trucks, night vision devices, handheld stand-off mine detection systems, jammers, improved high-frequency radios, Strykers to replace combat losses, add- on armor kits, small-arms modifications and ammunition, body armor for both the Army and Marine Corps, and medical supplies.

In addition to our providing these necessary resources for our troops, the committee was compelled to fully fund the Army's modularity program at this time because of the urgency to address the significant challenges the Army now faces in mitigating stress on the current active duty combat force. To meet this problem, the Army will not only create 10 additional combat brigades; all of the current combat brigades will be redesigned to enhance their ability to deploy more rapidly and operate more independently on the battlefield. I might add that our determination to procure additional equipment beyond the President's request will allow forthcoming troop rotations to receive much of their equipment prior to deployment, clearly an obvious benefit to the success of our troops.

Beyond the requirements of our defense community, the bill provides $656 million to meet the human needs resulting from last December's horrific tsunami. In addition, the bill includes $592 million for the construction of the U.S. embassy compound in Baghdad. While that money for the embassy is a reduction of some $66 million, or 10 percent, from the President's request, construction of the embassy compound has been deemed urgent because of the imminent security threats to some 4,000 U.S. personnel in Iraq. Thus far, 45 personnel with the U.S. mission in Iraq have been killed, including two American citizens who were killed by a rocket attack on our diplomatic compound the day of the Iraqi elections. Providing the funds now will greatly reduce the amount of time our personnel remain in harm's way.

Despite the additional needs we have recommended on behalf of our troops, the committee's bill is $614 million less than that requested by the President. This reduction comes largely as a result of reductions in proposed foreign assistance spending.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this measure is responsible both in how we have responded to the needs to provide for adequate resources in making this fight against terrorism and also in how we have carefully scrubbed each and every program so that we can say with utmost assurance that this is a fiscally sound piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, as I close my remarks, I wish to express my deep appreciation for my ranking member from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), as well as to each and every member of the committee. I have already expressed my feelings about our staff on both sides of the aisle. All of them have worked so diligently to prepare effectively this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned at the outset, I am very proud of this measure I bring to you, my first measure as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. I certainly urge the Members to adopt this bill.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MR05.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MR05.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MR05.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MR05.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MR05.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MR05.006

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate my colleague yielding. I know he will continue with his statement. I want the body to know that I very much share his concern. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I have discussed this issue. He expresses his concern very clearly; as did the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). It has been my privilege to work with the gentleman for years, and I know of his commitment to the Department and our work. Indeed the Administration does owe us the courtesy of adequate and appropriate response time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

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

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and HUD.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would take a moment to suggest to the gentleman that he may not be aware of it because he does not serve on those subcommittees, but there were at least six hearings in a variety of subcommittees and other meetings regarding this matter before we got organized.

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

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

At this point I see none on the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers. I will make closing remarks on the general debate.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Having no additional speakers under general debate, I would just like to close by saying that the discussion we have had thus far on this very important measure has been very healthy.

The fundamental thrust of this supplemental is to support the troops in Iraq and in the Middle East. We do have funds that involve the terrible tragedy, the tsunami. The discussion will lead to amendments that will round out this debate. I expect it will be a very efficient, hopefully very speedy, debate.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on 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 it changes existing law.

The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect.

I ask a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment in no small part because essentially the Tierney amendment would be changing the rules of the House. That is above the purview of the Committee on Appropriations, at least of this chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. Because of that, I would oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to extend this conversation for too much longer. I think it is an amendment that we can accept. I think it is the amendment that takes out $1 million and puts $1 million back in. I am very happy with that.

Of course.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of title I be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I do so in order to have a very brief discussion with the gentleman who is chairman of the authorizing committee. I think many of you in the House know that I spent a lot of years in my life making an honest living in the life and health insurance business so I know a little bit about this subject.

The gentleman is raising a number of questions that are very legitimate questions. I do not think there is a conflict here. I just wanted the gentleman to know that it is my intention to examine these serious questions between now and the time we go to conference. I am absolutely certain we can at least clear the air on any remaining problems between now and then.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Reclaiming my time, let us not describe what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) did. We will be here for hours. Either we do this my way or we do not.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman can then, in this complex field, understand when he used the term ``restrict'' that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) might be a bit disconcerted.

Does the gentleman see what I am saying?

Reclaiming my time, it would be my intention for us to have serious discussions including the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and his staff and our people so that we know that the air is cleared.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) point. In the meantime, I believe we will have some work to do in the weeks ahead and I look forward to working with the gentleman and with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and others to solve this problem.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order so we can accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, reluctantly I make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation on budget totals for fiscal year 2005 on July 22, 2004. The amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the committee allocations and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the act. I ask for the ruling of the Chair.

I have asked for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply say it is our intention to pursue the questions the gentlewoman is asking. It may very well be in conference on the supplemental that it is appropriate, but frankly in some ways we take from Peter to pay Paul. We can pursue this is regular order, and I prefer to use the supplemental process for those emergencies that we cannot deal with in regular order. Because of that, I am not pursuing the recommendations at this time. We will follow through, however, on the questions that the gentlewoman is asking.

Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, while I am very empathetic to the gentleman's concern, for I have many a grandchild myself, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation 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.'' In this case, the amendment addresses funds in other acts, and so I have to reluctantly ask the Chair to rule.

Mr. Chairman, in that event, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 151 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 151.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, on March 14, the Committee on Rules met and granted an open rule on House Resolution 151, with 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. This rule accords priority of recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record and provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Additionally, this rule attaches the text of H.R. 418, as passed, to the base text of the bill. H.R. 418 previously passed the House by a bipartisan vote of 261 to 161 on February 10 of this year.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to be able to manage this rule. This rule provides for an emergency supplemental funding package to sustain our troops in the ongoing war on terror. Most of these funds are directed towards operations in Iraq. Just last week, I returned from Iraq where I personally received numerous briefings regarding our readiness and our operational capabilities. I heard from our commanders, military personnel, and diplomats on the ground in Iraq. My colleagues and I also had the opportunity to meet with senior and provincial Iraqi political leaders.

Their collective message was clear, compelling, and optimistic. First, things are getting better. Second, our soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen believe in their mission. Third, continued congressional support, both moral and financial, is absolutely essential to bring our operations to a successful conclusion. The bulk of H.R. 1268 moves us closer to that objective.

This supplemental appropriations package is the fifth supplemental since September 11 that focuses on meeting the challenges imposed on us by the ongoing global war on terrorism.

Specifically, this supplemental provides for the replenishing of those accounts that the military has exhausted during sustained operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas of the world. Additionally, it provides important funding to assist in our efforts to address the disastrous results of the recent tsunami in South Asia and the Indian Ocean. Finally, there are important measures dedicated to improving the benefits due to our soldiers and meeting the diplomatic costs that our efforts have necessitated.

Important obligations are met in this legislation. Specifically, this bill provides saving $76.8 billion for total defense expenditures, a full $1.8 billion over the President's request, funding other important military shortfalls identified by committees of the Congress. The vast majority of these dollars will directly support our servicemen in the area of operations. These include purchases such as an additional 47,000 sets of body armor, 1,700 new armored Humvees and $408 million to harden the facilities that protect our servicemen from indirect fire.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Appropriations also addressed several other issues inside the supplemental that are essential to successfully prosecuting our global war on terror. Among them are the inclusion of Army modularity reform and the construction of a new American embassy in Baghdad.

Specifically, with respect to Army modularity, the committee took some important steps to ensure that our troops who will deploy in the near future are able to leverage more combat power from their current formations by adding a brigade at the division level. This ultimately supports the Army's attempt to transform the service to make it lighter, faster, more efficient and to reorient itself to its core competencies. Put simply, Army modularity, the movement to new brigade formations, will put more soldiers in the fight and allow us to use our combat personnel much more efficiently.

With respect to the embassy in Baghdad, the committee took a close look at the State Department's request and reduced it by 10 percent. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the embassy, I am aware that many Members have concerns about its high cost. However, let me be clear about the need for this extraordinary expenditure.

Having visited the Baghdad embassy twice before, it is clear to me that a new facility is required. This is not an optional item. The United States should not occupy one of Saddam Hussein's palaces indefinitely, for to do so only reinforces the impression in parts of the Arab world that the United States is an occupying power.

More importantly, Iraq is a very dangerous diplomatic post. Indeed, it is so dangerous that essentially every State Department employee based in Baghdad is a volunteer. Like our soldiers, these brave career civil servants need and deserve the best security we can provide them while they perform their vital functions. A new, secure embassy is indispensable to achieving this objective.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1268 takes a number of important steps forward in addressing the needs of our military. Today, we are likely to debate several amendments that would have a gutting effect on this underlying legislation. I would strongly urge Members to closely examine such amendments and reject them.

Our debate today is not over the war. The President and the Congress have already made that decision. Our focus should be to give our forces the resources they need to successfully complete their dangerous and challenging mission.

The bill we have before us today is an excellent and timely piece of legislation with strong bipartisan input and support. Therefore, I urge the support for the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, just for an informational point, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) makes an excellent point about sections 1113 and 1114. I want to inform the gentlewoman that at the conclusion I will be offering an amendment to protect those sections from points of order.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just make a couple of quick points. I was not in Congress when the decision, on a bipartisan basis, was made to give the President the authority to commence hostilities in Iraq, but I do think it was the right decision, and I do think that it has been vindicated frankly by things that have happened recently not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East.

Regardless of that, I think my friend makes a good point, and I appreciate his support for this particular piece of legislation. I know it is very difficult. But the real question here is not the

war, as I tried to mention in my opening comments. That is a decision that has already been made by Congress. The real question on this particular piece of legislation on this rule is are we going to provide people the resources they need to get the job done that we asked them to do. I think it is very important that we do that on a bipartisan basis. I think that will be a very powerful message in Iraq and a very powerful message around the Middle East.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments just to go through some of the specific provisions of this particular legislation because I think the vote that we are getting ready to cast is so exceptionally important.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the defense portion of this particular appropriation, it includes a total of $76.8 billion for total defense expenditures. That is again $1.8 billion over what the administration requested. The additions over the request are in support of deployed and soon to be deployed or returning troops and to assist in force protection and to increase the survivability of troops in the field.

Within the total Defense fund, $3.1 billion is provided for activities under the jurisdiction of the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. The following table summarizes, which I will submit for the Record, the committee's addition to the request within the Defense Subcommittee.

So we have an extensive addition that I think actually improves the administration's original request. In addition to the Defense expenditures, we have included other moneys for foreign operations. The committee has added $1.7 billion in net foreign assistance funds within the Foreign Operations,

Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee. Within these funds, the committee has identified $1.7 billion in urgent or critical items funded in the bill as an emergency that are directly related to the War on Terror or aiding recovery to the tsunami victims. The committee also provides $1 billion of important items that further U.S. global interests but has offset this spending with a corresponding rescission of $1 billion in previously appropriated assistance to Turkey. These funds were provided in the first Iraq supplemental of 2 years ago and require a positive vote of the Turkish Parliament to be expended. There is widespread agreement that this will not take place anytime soon.

Within the $1.7 billion of emergency assistance, there is $594 million to the counternarcotics effort and for police training in Afghanistan; $400 million is requested to train Afghan police, and $194 million and $66 million below the request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment intends to protect sections 1113 and 1114 against points of order. The Committee on Rules last night exposed these provisions at the request of the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, who has since asked the Committee on Rules to protect the provisions.

The amendment is necessary to protect the important Military Death Gratuity Benefits contained in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this particular amendment to the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to say that I believe we have had an excellent debate on the rule. What is clear to me is the importance and timeliness of this legislation. With that said, I would again encourage Members to listen carefully to the following debate and to support the underlying legislation.

Additionally, I would encourage Members to be cautious when it comes to considering the amendments. This bill has been carefully crafted and worked out in a way to ensure that our servicemen receive the best equipment when they go forward into war.

Finally, I would ask the Members to remember that this is not a vote about the wisdom of the war in Iraq. The President and the Congress made that decision years ago. This vote is about giving those we have asked to execute our policy in Iraq the tools they need to do their job. The men and women serving our cause in Iraq ask for nothing more. In good conscience we should give them nothing less.

To close, I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.