Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1268) making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes.
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
May 5, 2005 • 11:56 AM
View full timeline
Introduced in House
May 4, 2005
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 109-73, by Mr. Cole (OK).
May 4, 2005
Rule provides for consideration of the conference report to H.R. 1268 with 1 hour of general debate.
May 4, 2005 • 6:01 PM
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 35.
May 4, 2005
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H2985-2995)
May 5, 2005 • 10:28 AM
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 258.
May 5, 2005 • 10:29 AM
On ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 224 - 196 (Roll no. 159). (consideration: CR H2995)
May 5, 2005 • 11:56 AM
Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H2985)
May 5, 2005 • 11:56 AM
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2985)
May 5, 2005 • 11:56 AM
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
May 5, 2005 • 11:56 AM
Voting History
1 vote recorded • Roll call available
Floor Debate
23 membersWhat members said about H.Res. 258 on the floor
MU
LMS
JK
JPM
DRO+18
Floor Debate
23 membersWhat members said about H.Res. 258 on the floor
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…
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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that supporting…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that supporting our young men and
women in uniform is a priority for each and every Member of this House. Whether we are Democrats or Republicans, whether we have agreed with the Bush administration's reasons for going to war in Iraq or opposed them, we all want the United States to be successful in the Middle East.
We may disagree on how we overcome the challenges that lay before us, just as our Founding Fathers hoped and expected we would. But all of us here are patriots, and all of us come to the table with our best intentions in mind.
Our troops in uniform throughout Afghanistan and Iraq have consistently performed their duty with courage and great integrity. It is incumbent upon us here in the people's House to honor those sacrifices in the only real way we can, by providing leadership for this Nation that is as principled and as courageous as each of our fallen soldiers.
We have a responsibility to live up to their example and have the courage to perform our duty with integrity. We must insist on accountability and honesty in this government, and we, too, must always be accountable and honest.
But I fear that in this body, in this Congress, we have not risen to that challenge. Yesterday, while walking through the Senate halls, I saw a picture of Senator Harry Truman conducting a meeting of the Truman Commission, and under that picture there is a statement that says that the Truman Commission saved the taxpayers of the country millions of dollars during the Second World War by ferreting out waste and corruption in the American war effort. And let me remind my colleagues that Senator Truman was investigating his own administration.
The commission's purpose was to maximize every dollar we had to spend, to ferret out corruption and mismanagement, and to infuse a sense of accountability into the American war machine. By all accounts they were successful in their noble endeavor. Their good work saved many American lives by ensuring that our tax dollars were spent on where they needed to be spent, on winning the war. One more helmet, one more bullet, one more tank, it made the difference.
And yet we in this Congress do not have the courage to insist on the same level of accountability today that our forefathers saw fit to employ over 60 years ago.
When this same supplemental was brought before the House earlier this year, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) offered an amendment that would have established a select committee to follow up on a very disturbing report which had been released from the Inspector General's office. The report indicated that $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction was unaccounted for. And for those who are counting out there, that is 9,000 million dollars. We heard reports of payroll checks covering employees who did not exist and firms being compensated for providing security for flights that never took off. We even heard a report that a Pentagon contract for the development of bullet-proof armor was given to a former army researcher who never delivered a single piece of armor.
These types of incidents squander precious resources, waste time we do not have, and, worse, they place our American soldiers' lives at risk. But the majority in the House defeated our attempts to bring a measure of accountability into the process. And today, 9 months later, that $9 billion is still missing and none of those incidents I have just mentioned have been investigated, none of them.
And still today we have no Truman Commission of our own to speak of and no language in this conference report that will create one. The question I have for my colleagues today is, why not? Surely the leadership of the House understands that missing $9 billion of taxpayer money could benefit our troops had we the sense to go and look for it. And without any oversight commission to investigate and prevent the issues of taxpayer dollars by the Pentagon or some unscrupulous government contractors, how can we be sure that the $82 billion check we are cutting today on behalf of the American taxpayers will actually reach its destination or be used to protect our troops in the line of fire? After all, it is our young men and women in uniform who pay the price for the inability of this body to enforce any standard of accountability.
But this is not the only failure of accountability we see here today. All one had to do was open a newspaper this morning and read that Dr. Ahmed Chalabi, who was honored by sitting there with the first lady in the State of the Union Address, has been named the deputy prime minister of the country and the acting oil minister in the provisional government in Iraq. Do I have to remind this House that just months ago Dr. Chalabi was under intense scrutiny for feeding the U.S. Government bad intelligence, which ultimately led us to invade Iraq? Do I have to remind my colleagues that just months ago Dr. Chalabi was suspected of passing U.S. intelligence to the Iranian Government? Can anyone possibly explain how this man has been allowed to accept such a high- ranking position in the Iraqi provisional government?
We know what should be in the bill: language to create a modern version of the Truman Commission so we can ensure that men like Chalabi do not undermine the war and reconstruction effort, place American soldiers at risk, and rob American taxpayers blind as we continue to pump more and more money into Iraq.
But now I want to touch on what should not be in the bill. The majority believes in instituting a national identification card program for the country, which is in the legislation. Creating a national identification card is serious business and could have profound implications for all Americans. It should be debated on the floor openly with opportunity for ample discussion and amendment. Instead, the leadership has shoved this extreme measure down our throats as part of the supplemental, knowing full well that many Members would never support the measure in its current form but will be forced to vote for it because we want to support our troops. That is not accountability; that is arrogance.
How dare they hide behind our men and women in uniform as the brave souls risk their lives every day to protect us from danger. How could the leadership of this body use them to protect themselves and their agenda from debate, from democracy, and accountability? This is just the latest example of misuse of power.
Members should be aware that the rule contains a section that authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary to file a supplemental report on H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. Members may recall that during the markup of H.R. 748 in Committee on the Judiciary last month, five defeated Democrat amendments were included in the committee report with descriptions that blatantly and grossly mischaracterized the amendments. While the rule will provide for a supplemental report to be filed, it does not require or direct the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to apologize to the authors of the amendments, nor are we sure that it will never happen again.
So just as the leadership concedes the issue and recognizes action must be taken, they are still not accepting the responsibility. I am sure we are supposed to be grateful for this small token, but it would mean much more if those responsible for maligning our colleagues here in the House would accept the responsibility for their actions and fix the report.
I am going to support the conference report because I am supportive of my troops abroad, but it has to be noted that our brave men and women are being used as a tool to cover for the underhanded attempt to institute a national ID card, but also for last week's misguided use of power that maligned several of our colleagues. At the same time, they have failed to infuse the much-needed accountability into the process. This is not the principled leadership we owe the men and women the bill is supposed to protect. This is not courageous. We can do better. We owe our fighting men and women at least that much.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to respond to the previous speaker and to remind him that the hijackers, many of them, had driver's licenses from the State of Virginia, and others had visas and passports. So I do not think this national ID card would have stopped them.
Also, if he is referring to Members on our side saying that we are not safer than we were on 9/11, I would report that was a government report saying that TSA has made us no safer than it was before.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield ten seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) to respond.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
(Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from my colleague if he is ready to yield back, then I will close.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule to instruct the enrolling clerk to make an important addition to the conference report.
This addition will establish a select committee to investigate the awarding and carrying out of war-related contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Nearly $9 billion of money spent on the Iraq reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to the Special Inspector General for the Iraqi Reconstruction. Ensuring vigilant oversight of taxpayer dollars should not be a partisan issue.
I want to stress that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the emergency supplemental report. A ``no'' vote will simply allow the House to create a much-needed select committee to investigate government contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from establishing this important select committee.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, again, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me take the time I have remaining to just say that we are not doing what the 9/11 Commission asked. They wanted us to negotiate with our States on whether they wanted to do this or not; and what we have done is impose upon the States, without any hearings or any discussion with them, from top down, an unfunded mandate requiring them to change their driver's license at our whim. So this is not that at all. We are, in fact, undoing what the 9/11 Commission said.
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, 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…
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 thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I expect this conference report to pass overwhelmingly. I am troubled, however, that the conferees failed to include the…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I expect this conference report to pass overwhelmingly. I am troubled, however, that the conferees failed to include the provision sponsored by Senator Byrd urging Congress to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the normal budget process.
Our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer unforeseen expenses; they are known, and they are anticipated. They should be in this budget. This bill is nearly $82 billion, bringing the total amount the President has received off-budget for Iraq and Afghanistan to nearly $300 billion in just 2 years.
We cannot keep digging ourselves into this deficit hole. Unless our policy changes, and I hope it does, these operations are going to be long-term. And even though no one at the White House or the Pentagon is willing to admit it, everyone in this House knows it. We have to get this spending back into the regular budget process so that it is paid for and does not bankrupt the Federal budget for decades to come. We should be paying these costs like grownups, not passing them on to our children and our grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, I am relieved that the conferees reinstated the President's ability to waive the restrictions on the economic aid for Palestine. I recently traveled to Israel and the Palestinian territory with our distinguished Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). It became clear to me that what we need out of any agreement is not just a separate state for the Palestinians, but an economically viable State, where Palestinians can make a decent living, feed their kids, and live with dignity.
The House bill would have made it all but impossible for the U.S. to help create that kind of confidence in the future. At least now the President has some flexibility to show that the U.S. is willing to invest in a secure and dignified future for Palestinians and Israelis alike.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this supplemental, because I cannot support any more money for the policy in Iraq. Over 138,000 troops are serving in Iraq, and I was there over the recess and had the privilege of meeting some of them. These men and women are in Iraq because of lies, because of deceit, and half-truths, and they deserve better than more of the same.
I cannot support ever-increasing funding for the war in Iraq without a clear understanding from this administration about when and how it will bring our own troops home. I am tired of the spin, I am tired of the lack of accountability, and I am tired of the lack of candor. I believe the time to stand up and call for that kind of clarity is now.
Every Member of Congress, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, loves this country, supports our troops, and is doing everything possible to help military families make it through difficult times. This is not in question.
Our policy in Iraq, Mr. Speaker, is what is in question, and I, for one, simply cannot support it.
Mr. Speaker, I expect this conference report to pass overwhelmingly, but there are a number of issues in this bill that I find troubling.
First, I am troubled that the conferees failed to include the provision sponsored by Senator Byrd urging Congress to fund our military, security and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the normal budget process.
Our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer unforeseen expenses; they are known and anticipated. They should be in the budget. This bill is nearly $12 billion, bringing the total amount the President has received off-budget from the Congress for Iraq and Afghanistan to nearly $300 billion in just two years.
Mr. Speaker, we can't keep digging ourselves into this deficit hole. Unless our policy changes--and I hope it does--these operations are going to be long term. And even though no one at the White House or the Pentagon is willing to admit it, everyone in this House knows it. We have to get this spending back into the regular budget process, back into the regular authorization and appropriations process, so that it is paid for and doesn't bankrupt the federal budget for decades to come.
We should be paying these costs like grown-ups--not passing them on to our children and grandchildren.
Second, I commend the conferees for providing funding to meet critical shortfalls in basic equipment for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, especially for the Army, the Marines,
and our National Guard and Reservists. I just hope this time the funding works and the shortfalls are met. This is not the first time the Congress has specifically provided funding above and beyond the President's request for body armor, up-armored Humvees, trucks, radios, and the like. But somehow, this equipment never gets to the men and women whose lives are on the line. So I thank the conferees for their work on this matter, and I just hope this time the equipment gets to where it's needed most.
Third, I strongly support the increased life insurance and death benefit payments for our troops, including our Guard and Reservists. But, Mr. Speaker, we could have done this over a year ago when my colleague from Arizona, Mr. Renzi, and I succeeded in doubling the death gratuity and restoring its tax exempt status. We would have done more, but we were told at that time, in no uncertain terms by the Pentagon, that increasing the benefit to $100,000 was unacceptable. So I am pleased to see this matter satisfactorily resolved.
Fourth, I am very disappointed that the conferees failed to include in the final conference report the Senate-approved amendment offered by Senator Durbin to close the pay-gap for Federal employees who are National Guard and Reserve members and are now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Representatives Lantos, Graves, Shays and I have introduced H.R. 838, the HOPE at HOME Act, which would help close the pay gap for all activated and deployed Guard and Reservists, including those who work for the Federal government. Senator Durbin's provision focused solely on Federal employees, which is the largest employer of National Guard and Reservists, and cost only $170 million over 5 years. Right, the Federal government praises those private sector employers that by their own choice do the right thing and make up the difference between a Guard or Reservist's civilian pay and their military pay. Rather than just praising others, I believe the Federal government should be a leader in closing the pay-gap, and I am angry that once again the Congress failed to take positive action on this matter.
Fifth, I am pleased that the conferees reinstated the president's ability to waive the restriction on the economic aid for Palestine. I recently had the privilege of traveling to Israel and the Palestinian territories with our distinguished Democratic Leader, Congresswoman Pelosi. It became clear to me that one of the most important things we need out of any peace agreement is not a separate state for the Palestinians, but an economically viable state. We need a Palestinian state where people can make a decent living, feed and care for their children, and live with dignity.
The House-passed bill would have made it all but impossible for the U.S. to help create that kind of confidence in the future. While the restrictions remain, at least now the president has the same flexibility to show that the United States is willing to invest in a secure and dignified future for Palestinians and Israelis alike.
And sixth, I strongly support the funding provided in this supplemental for the tsunami disaster relief and reconstruction, the international peacekeeping missions in Haiti and Darfur, Sudan, and for international food aid programs.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this supplemental for two major reasons. The first is that it still contains the Real ID Act. The conferees did not increase the funding levels for border security, as they were instructed to do under the House-passed motion to instruct. Instead, the conferees have chosen to impose these highly restrictive, punitive measures that will burden our states and, I believe, fail to have any meaningful effect on stemming illegal immigration, but will do great harm to those immigrants fleeing persecution, regardless of how they come to our shores seeking protection.
But most importantly, I cannot support this supplemental because I cannot support any more money for the policy in Iraq. Over 138,000 American troops currently serve in Iraq. I had the privilege of meeting some of them when I was in Iraq during the Easter recess.
These men and women are in Iraq because of lies, deceit and half- truths. They deserve better than just more of the same.
I can no longer support ever-increasing funding for the war in Iraq without a clear understanding from this Administration about when and how it will bring our own troops home. I am tired of the spin. I am tired of the lack of accountability. I am tired of the lack of candor. I believe the time to stand up and call for that kind of clarity is now. For others of my colleagues, that time may come 2 years from now, or 4 years from now, or 6 years from now, or maybe never--but for me, the time is now.
Every Member of Congress, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, loves this country, supports our troops, and is trying to do everything possible to help military families make it through this difficult time. This is not in question.
Our policy in Iraq, Mr. Speaker, is what is in question. And I, for one, can simply not support it.
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…
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.
Show 8 more
Mr. Speaker, I seek recognition on a question of personal privilege pursuant to rule IX of the rules of the House. I have placed at the desk the documentation on which this question is based. Mr.…
Mr. Speaker, I seek recognition on a question of personal privilege pursuant to rule IX of the rules of the House. I have placed at the desk the documentation on which this question is based.
Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
Have the corrections or the supplemental report to the committee report been filed yet?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the basis of my question of personal privilege concerns the manner in which amendments I offered during the Committee on the Judiciary's consideration of H.R. 748 on April 13, 2005, were characterized in the committee's report on that legislation, House Report 109-51.
Specifically, the report, in the section required under clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the rules of the House reporting the votes of the committee described my amendments in a manner that denigrated my ``rights, reputation, and conduct . . . in [my] representative capacity . . . '' within the meaning of clause 1 of rule IX.
The language in question appears on pages 45 and 46 of the committee report, and it mischaracterizes my amendments in a manner that does not reflect the actual content of the amendments nor the actual intent of those amendments. In fact, it uses legislation to describe my legislative actions that is pejorative and inflammatory and that is highly damaging to my reputation.
It is with great sadness and regret that I come to the floor today. I have never previously in my 12 years as a Member of this House, nor in my quarter century representing the people of New York, had the need to rise on a personal privilege. I have never had my reputation, or my legislative efforts, so terrible maligned in an official record of any legislative body in which I have served.
It is my hope that this is the last time I will ever need to claim the floor in a question of personal privilege. I would observe that the filing a few minutes ago of the supplemental report to the Committee on the Judiciary report is a tacit acknowledgment of the inaccuracy and untruthfulness of the original report and its reputation in the public domain, and renders much of what was said in its defense in the Committee on Rules and on the floor, as the saying goes, ``inoperative.''
I commend the chairman for correcting the record and hope that with this correction of the slanderous report language, this unfortunate chapter can be brought to a close.
While I would have hoped that this correction would have been accompanied by an apology and by an acknowledgment that this report was a violation of the tradition and norms of the House, that is, perhaps, in the regrettably poisonous atmosphere of the present day, unobtainable. I regret that things have reached such an unfortunate state.
This situation is especially sad because it involves the Committee on the Judiciary's official report on this bill, which contained false and misleading, indeed libelous, descriptions of the amendments I and my colleagues offered in committee in good faith, and with the intent of protecting children and families in terrible situations.
Those characterizations came in the section of the report, required by the rules, that simply requires an accurate report of all recorded votes.
There are many places in committee reports where commentary is appropriate. Both the majority and the minority have the opportunity in the report to make their cases, and very much to the credit of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) the Committee on the Judiciary reports also contain a transcript of the markup.
What has never been done, and I am not aware of the majority on any committee having so abused its power, is to distort the content of the amendments in the section reserved for reporting votes.
Every Member of this House sits on committees; every Member knows what a report looks like, and every Member of this House knows this was an aberration and that it was wrong.
I do not believe it is necessary to repeat the report language that gave rise to this point of personal privilege. The Chair has the offending language, and it has been plastered all over the Record, the press, and Web logs. I feel no need to repeat it. Enough damage has already been done.
To place this report, and the slanderous language it used in context, the last time the Committee on the Judiciary reported a version of the same bill, the report said: ``An amendment was offered by Mr. Nadler prohibiting H.R. 476 from applying `with respect to conduct by a grandparent or adult sibling of the minor.' '' Same amendment, same committee, different year.
Earlier versions of this bill have been reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on three prior occasions, going to 1998. In no case have any of my amendments been described in the inaccurate and pejorative fashion they were in this year's committee report.
The Committee on Rules described the same amendment in the following manner when it reported it to the floor: ``Adds to the exceptions to the offense of transporting minors for the purpose of obtaining an illegal abortion grandparents of the minor and members of the clergy.''
Even the Republican Study Committee, the voice of some of the most conservative of our colleagues, described the amendment this way: ``The amendment allows a grandparent of the minor or a clergy person to bring pregnant minors across State lines for abortions.'' These are factual descriptions of the amendment. They are nonargumentative factual descriptions as the rules call for.
In fact, neither the bill itself nor the amendments contained the offensive terms used in the committee report to describe my amendments. No member of the committee described my amendments in this libelous manner at any time during the debate. Nobody in the majority, none of the Republicans in opposing my amendments in committee debate said that they contained the material which the committee report libelously says they do. As the transcript clearly shows, the transcript contained in the committee's report appearing on page 58 to 120 will clearly show.
It is regrettable that even in filing the supplemental report, the majority felt the need to restate the slander, but this time in the section reserved for majority views. The majority, however, is entitled to its views, even if they are not factually based; and the appropriate place to express them is in debate and in documents reserved for expressing their views, such as the majority view section of the committee report.
The minority has a similar right in debate and in its dissenting views, and I would not expect the majority to tell us what views we should have or how to express them.
Not abusing the power the majority has over the contents and the filing of the report, which the minority does not get to see until it is filed, is really based on nothing more than the honor system. Unfortunately, in this system, the honor system failed.
This abuse of power of mischaracterizing and slandering the amendments and the Members who offered them in the section of the report reserved for simply reporting amendments and the votes thereon, could not be allowed to stand or there would have been no end to it.
This is not about party, nor is it about a bill, nor about an amendment, nor even about the underlying issue. It is about the ``rights, reputation and conduct of Members, delegates or the resident commissioner, individually, in their representative capacity only.''
When the majority abuses its power to attack the reputation of Member or Members, as it did in this case, the House must act to correct the injustice. The supplemental report filed by the majority is an important step in that direction, and I thank the chairman for agreeing to file the correction.
We have strayed far from the customary comity and fair play to which this House has long adhered. That is no way to represent our views to the voters of this country. The voters have every right to expect us to fight for our beliefs, to represent them vigorously, and to speak out in clear terms on the important issues of the day.
But, Mr. Speaker, there are limits. When Members of this House transgress those limits, we fail the people who sent us here and we fail the institution in which we are honored to serve. We are elected to 2-year terms. The office does not belong to us, but to the people. We are mere custodians of
the office. I hope that, in our conduct, we can prove ourselves good and responsible stewards of this public trust.
It is my sincere hope that now that the correction has been filed and the slander abated, this will be the last time any Member has the unpleasant duty of rising in this House to defend his or her reputation and the traditions of this institution. I hope that this single aberration will be remembered as just that: a single aberration.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
(Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. Speaker, not seeing the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for filing the corrected report, and I yield back the balance of my time.
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…
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…
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.
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 258 and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5…
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 258 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.
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 Wednesday the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule for consideration of the conference report on H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief Act, 2005. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and provides that the report shall be considered as read. Additionally, it authorizes the chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary to file a supplemental report to accompany
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
For the purpose of clarification, I want to quickly address the matter involving the supplemental report on H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion
Notification Act. The purpose of this supplemental report is to change the description of certain amendments considered during the committee markup and process. It is my understanding that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has already prepared the supplemental report and shared its contents with the committee's ranking minority member.
I further understand that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is prepared to file a supplemental report immediately after the adoption of this resolution and also to place it in the Congressional Record. This supplemental report will be part of the official legislative history of the bill and will amend the descriptions contained in the original report.
This supplemental report responds directly to the questions of privilege raised by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), both of which call for the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary ``to report to the House a supplement to House Report 109-51 that corrects the record by describing the five amendments with nonargumentative, objective captions.'' The text of the proposed supplemental report also includes additional dissenting views from the committee's ranking minority describing his disagreements with the interpretation of the amendments by the majority.
The filing of the supplemental report represents the regular order for correcting problems in earlier committee reports filed with the House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), my good friend.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to quickly respond to a couple of points that my good friend made. First, I would remind him that we did not pay for World War II or Korea or Vietnam out of current revenue. It is not unusual to finance wars in this particular fashion.
Second, as to the point on the embassy, I have been to Iraq four times and have met with our folks there and, frankly, I think they deserve the very best protection they can get as quick as we can get it. They are every bit as much at risk as people that wear the uniform of the United States. They are all volunteers. They have done a wonderful job representing our country. They deserve and need a safe place to operate out of. I am very glad that that particular measure was put back in during conference.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to respond to some of the points my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) made.
Not helping our soldiers? A blank check? This bill is anything but a blank check. Let me read a couple of things in here. Just running down operations and maintenance, Navy, $3.4 billion; operations and maintenance, Marine Corps. There is line after line of great specificity my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations was very careful in crafting a bill that will meet the needs of our personnel.
The immoral thing to do would be to commit 170,000 people to combat and not resupply them and not reequip them and not give them the things they need on a daily basis to not only be successful, but to provide for their own safety and security.
It is very legitimate to debate the war. Although I remind my good friend on the other side of the aisle, this body and the other body vote on a bipartisan basis to make the commitment in Iraq. I could read off name after name, including the distinguished nominee from the other body, of my friends on the other side of the aisle, a candidate for President last time, who voted in favor of this particular contest.
Having made that decision, once we place people on the line under fire and in danger, we owe it to them to provide them what they need. We can continue to debate policy. That is a very legitimate point, but I think it would it be the height of folly and irresponsibility to not fund people when they are in the field in action. Frankly, it would send the wrong signal to our adversaries, and more importantly, the wrong signal to our own men and women and their families. And not to support the rule, and certainly not to support the supplemental appropriations, I believe, would be a grave and terrible mistake for this country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
I certainly am prepared.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In closing, I would like to say that I believe we have had a good debate on the rule today. I believe the importance and timeliness of this legislation could not be more self-evident. This bill has been carefully crafted and worked in a way to ensure that our service men and women receive the best supplies and equipment when they go to war and that those supplies and equipment are replenished and replaced in a timely fashion.
Finally, I would ask Members to recall that this is a vote about our willingness to support our service men and women, not about other policy issues. The men and women serving our cause in Iraq ask for nothing more. In good conscience, we should give them nothing less.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could give my full congratulations. I appreciate the leadership of our members of the Appropriations Committee; but might I say, Mr. Speaker, that there are a lot of Achilles…
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could give my full congratulations. I appreciate the leadership of our members of the Appropriations Committee; but might I say, Mr. Speaker, that there are a lot of Achilles heels in this particular legislation.
I will quickly say that my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), talks about security.
And, frankly, this bill and the President's mark and budget cuts border security in half, cuts the ICE officers in half. So, really, there is no border security in this bill.
And then they try to patchwork immigration. Today I am going to introduce the Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act that really confronts the question that Americans are concerned about, getting in front of the immigration concern and not behind it.
The Real ID bill takes away Americans' rights, denies asylees the opportunity to come into this country where for years we have brought those that have been mutilated and raped. It is not a bill that confronts the values of America.
And then, of course, it is a back-door way to correct the abuse that was rendered in the Committee on the Judiciary characterizing Members' amendments that dealt with protecting children and providing rights to clergy and grandparents as having to do with a criminal act. There is no response to that, other than a back-door opportunity to clarify the Record.
Where is the apology? Why were these amendments mischaracterized in the first place? Particularly since the same amendments, dealing with clergy, dealing with taxicab drivers, dealing with grandparents and aunts and uncles, providing teenagers that opportunity to consult with them, were also in 2002, and never characterized as wrongly as they were characterized now.
This is a wool-over-your-eyes. Unfortunately, the tragedy in Iraq continues to grow, now almost 160 people killed in the last 4 days. When is the administration going to speak to the issue of a solution in Iraq. This bill does not answer the question.
Certainly we support our troops. We wish for them the best. These moneys are necessary, but they are clouded with a lot of baggage that does not help the American troops. This is a ``no'' on the rule, and this certainly is worthy of consideration of this appropriation that does not answer the concerns of Americans. While our soldiers are fighting, Rome is burning. This is a bad bill, and it is a bad rule.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Rule in H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, The Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief for 2005 purports to do and I thank the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for what Section 2 of the rule proposes to do. For Representative Nadler, Representative Scott, Ranking Member Conyers, and me, Section 2 of this rule represents an effort to appease aggrieved Members of Congress. The cure is not complete, and I plan to offer a point of personal privilege to highlight this unfortunate action by the majority next week.
Section 2 of H. Res. 258
Section 2 of the rule provides that ``The Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized, on behalf of the Committee, to file a supplemental report to accompany H.R. 748.'' While I thank the Gentleman from Wisconsin for his effort, unfortunately, this language is neither hortatory nor fully protective of the privileges offered by House Report 109-51.
Previous Question on Rule H. Res. 258
Mr. Speaker, we must include in the underlying conference report a concurrent resolution adding the Tierney-Leach accountability amendment.
The Tierney-Leach accountability amendment would create a Select Congressional Committee--based on the Truman Committee that existed from 1941 to 1948 during World War II--to investigate and study the awarding and carrying out of Government contracts to conduct military and reconstruction activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We must look to our history, Mr. Speaker, and look to the Truman Select Committee as a precedent for a select committee to investigate government contracting during wartime. In 1941, with the United States engaged in a major military build-up as part of World War II, Senator Harry Truman (D-MO) became aware of widespread stories of contractor mismanagement in military contracts. Senator Truman rightly called upon Congress to create a select committee to study and investigate contracting, which Congress did on March 1, 1941. From its creation in 1941 until it expired in 1948, the Truman Committee held 432 public hearings and 300 executive sessions, went on hundreds of fact-finding missions, and issued 51 reports. Throughout, the Truman Committee earned high marks for its thoroughness and efficiency and ensured that taxpayer dollars were being well-spent.
There is ample evidence of the necessity of a modern-day Truman Committee. Since 2003, numerous questions have arisen about U.S. government contracting in Iraq. From the start of our involvement in Iraq, questions have arisen about how contracts have been awarded, the size of those contracts, the quality of contractor work, and the use of taxpayers dollars.
Since 2003, there have been many examples of the misuse of American taxpayer dollars in Iraqi contracting. Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to the Special Inspector General for the Iraqi Reconstruction. In one case, the Inspector General raised the possibility that thousands of ``ghost employees'' were on an unnamed ministry's payroll. Furthermore, a government contractor defrauded the Coalition Provisional Authority of tens of millions of dollars in Iraq reconstruction funds and little is being done to try to recover the money, according to the reports of whistleblowers. For example, the firm was paid $15 million to provide security for civilian flights into Baghdad even though no planes flew during the term of the contract.
Ensuring vigilant oversight of taxpayer dollars should not be a partisan issue. Vigilant congressional oversight of large sums during wartime should not be a partisan issue. The Truman Committee was created at a time when Democrats controlled the White House, the House and the Senate. A Democratic Congress was demanding careful oversight of a Democratic Administration. Democrats are pleased that this select committee is being cosponsored by a Democrat and a Republican--Rep. Tierney and Rep. Leach.
We owe it to American taxpayers to oversee how taxpayer dollars are being spent. Billions are being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, according to CRS, this $81.3 billion supplemental appropriations bill being considered by the House is in addition to the $201 billion that the Department of Defense has received, since the 9/11 attacks, for soldiers deployed or supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. What is in question is how taxpayer dollars are being spent, whether taxpayers are getting their money's worth, and whether the high-quality equipment and services that warfighters deserve and require are being delivered. A new Truman Committee would allow us to get the facts on U.S. contracting in both military and reconstruction activities and to fix whatever problems exist.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I oppose the rule.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 258, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1268) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to…
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 258, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1268) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence, and for other purposes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am pleased to bring to the House for its consideration the conference report on H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror and Tsunami Relief.
The conference agreement includes a total of $82 billion. The vast majority of these funds are to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. For that reason, it is critical that we move this package quickly. It also provides needed assistance to the victims of the tsunami.
During our conference with the Senate, Chairman Cochran and I agreed that the final agreement should come in at or below the President's request and relatively free of extraneous items. The conference report before you has met both of these very critical parameters. We did our very best to keep the package clean, and by and large, we were successful with that. We have funded our foreign policy priorities while still preserving congressional prerogatives where appropriate.
With that said, the conference report provides a total of $75.9 billion for defense-related expenditures, roughly $921 million over the President's request. The additions over the request are for force protection, and increasing the survivability of troops in the field. In addition to the defense-related spending, the conference report provides a reduction of $1.5 billion in foreign assistance from the President's request. The conference agreement also includes $635 million for increased border security enforcement. This includes 500 additional border patrol agents and increased detention space.
We have also included $656 million for tsunami disaster relief. Finally, the bill includes much of the REAL ID Act of 2005, which was included in the House-passed version of the bill. The provisions on asylum, border infrastructure, and driver's license standards are included. Each of these provisions will greatly enhance the security of our borders. All of these provisions reflect agreements negotiated by relevant authorizing committees. I especially want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Chairman Davis and their staffs for getting this measure before the Congress in a timely fashion.
I urge my colleagues to support this much needed support for our troops.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.008
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), my colleague on the committee.
(Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for one of the most illuminating, but also one of the longest, statements I have ever heard him make on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the greatest subcommittee in the appropriations process.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to our majority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a great member of our committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) as I express my deep appreciation for his cooperation in this project.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).
Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that while I very strongly oppose my colleague from Wisconsin's motion to recommit, the gentleman was kind enough to share the recommittal motion with us before the fact, and I am very much appreciative of that.
The greatest difficulty I have with the motion is that at this moment our forces are on gas fumes, rather than real gasoline. It is very, very critical that we get this bill moving towards the President's desk and to the troops as quickly as possible.
I would like to speak for a moment about some of those things that the bill does that may be of great interest to the Members who are concerned especially about border security.
Within this package there are some 500 border patrol agents, added as a result of this measure as it goes to the President's desk. There are 218 immigration enforcement agents and criminal investigators. There are some 1,950 detention beds. The bill is designed to take every step that we possibly can on short order to secure our border.
At the same time, just yesterday the Subcommittee on Homeland Security marked up their 2006 bill to move further down this same pathway. We are moving very quickly to strengthen and secure our borders by way of this legislation, as well as regular order.
From there, Mr. Speaker, let me express my deepest appreciation to Members on both sides of the aisle who have worked very hard, their staffs, as well as the Members themselves, to make sure that this supplemental would arrive on time and ahead of schedule. Virtually nobody thought we would be here at this moment. The reason we are is because the Members recognize
how critical it is that we get this support to our troops immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleagues' patience as we work quickly on this bill. It is a very good bill. I urge my colleagues' support.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, when the House debated this legislation in March, it voted 420-2 to approve an amendment, which I authored, which reaffirms the U.S. commitment under the Convention Against Torture to…
Mr. Speaker, when the House debated this legislation in March, it voted 420-2 to approve an amendment, which I authored, which reaffirms the U.S. commitment under the Convention Against Torture to not engage in torture, and to not render or transfer people to countries where they are likely to face torture. The U.S. signed this treaty under President Reagan, and the Senate ratified it in 1994.
Despite our commitments under this treaty and the recent statements made by the Bush Administration emphasizing that the U.S. is emphatically and unambiguously against the use of torture, there have been repeated reports in the press indicating that the U.S. has been sending detainees to countries where they are likely to face torture, including to countries who have become notorious for their human rights violations.
The practice of extraordinary rendition is shrouded in secrecy. An unmarked plane arrives in the middle of the night carrying men wearing plain clothes and black hoods, to take custody of the prisoners, cut off their clothes, drug them on the spot, shackle them, and fly off into the night. President Bush signed a secret directive reported to speed up the process by eliminating the case by case evaluation. And while unofficial estimates put the number of renditions since 9/11 to be between 100 and 150, the actual number of renditions remains a secret.
The Administration maintains that it is in full compliance with the Convention Against Torture. Compliance, they say, is guaranteed by the dubious practice of asking countries known to torture prisoners for ``promises'' that they will not torture our prisoners. These so-called ``diplomatic assurances'' then provide the cover for sending a suspect to that country to undergo interrogation.
The list of countries where the detainees have been rendered includes Syria, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
So here is the sand on which the Administration stands--at the same time that we exhort the international community to isolate Syria for thumbing its nose at U.N. resolutions to get out of Lebanon, the United States has apparently been willing to accept Syrian promises that it will comply with the Convention Against Torture.
Here is what the State Department's annual human rights report says about Syria's methods of interrogation: ``administering electrical shocks, pulling out fingernails, forcing objects into the rectum, . . .'' And the list goes on.
How about Uzbekistan?--``suffocation, electric shock, rape, beatings, and boiling prisoners to death . . .'' And the list goes on.
The so-called ``diplomatic assurances'' that we have received from the torturers that they will not torture those we send them are not credible, and the Administration knows it. CIA Director Porter Goss basically acknowledged as much when he stated: ``But of course once they're out of our control, there's only so much we can do.'' Attorney General Alberto Gonzales confirmed this, when he said ``Once someone is rendered, we can't fully control what that country might do.''
Section 1031 of the conference report would prohibit the use of any funds included in this Supplemental appropriations bill to subject any person in custody or under the control of the United States to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. While the Conferees approved Senate language that is slightly different from that of the House-passed amendment, I am nevertheless supportive of this language. I support it because I read Section 1031 to clearly prohibit any appropriated funds from being spent to subject any person in U.S. custody or control to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by transferring, extraditing, or rendering such persons to countries where they are likely to face torture.
This is because such actions clearly would be prohibited under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, a treaty signed and ratified by the United States. Article 3 of the Convention clearly states that:
``No State Party shall expel, return (``refouler'') or
extradite a person to another State where there are
substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger
of being subjected to torture.''
Article 3 of the Convention further states that:
``For the purpose of determining whether there are such
grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account
all relevant considerations, including, where applicable, the
existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of
gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights.''
It would be my expectation that the funding limitation contained in Section 1031 would therefore prohibit funds from being used to transfer persons to any Nation where the person was likely to face torture, and that under Section 1031, funds could not be used for transfers or renditions in situations where the U.S. government had found there to be a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights. I would also note that in a September 2004 report to the United Nations General Assembly, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture expressed concern that reliance on diplomatic assurances is a ``practice that is increasingly undermining the principle of non- refoulement'' and observed that where torture is systematic, ``the principal of non-refoulement must be strictly observed and diplomatic assurances should not be resorted to.''
We take pride that even as our Nation fought for its survival against the Nazis and the Japanese Empire during World War II, that we did not ask our ``Greatest Generation'' to engage in torture or other war crimes. The legacy of the U.S. then, and now as we prosecute the War on Terror, is that we uphold our commitment to justice--even in the face of shadows of terror and war. The test of a Nation is found as much in how it wages war as in how it promotes the values of peace and democracy. That is what we must do today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Conference Report on H.R. 1268 and urge all my colleagues to support it. In addition to necessary funding for our troops, tsunami disaster relief,…
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Conference Report on H.R. 1268 and urge all my colleagues to support it.
In addition to necessary funding for our troops, tsunami disaster relief, and border security; this conference report also includes important provisions to bring long-overdue, common sense reform to drivers' licenses and state-issued identification cards, authored last year by the Government Reform Committee in response to a recommendation of the 9-11 Commission.
Mr. Speaker, I want to especially thank the Speaker and Majority Leader for making good on their promise to get this legislation to the floor signed into law quickly in the 109th Congress. I also want to thank my colleague from California, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for his strong support and for agreeing to include these provisions in H.R, 1268. Finally, I would like to thank my colleague from Wisconsin for his tireless work and support on this issue, Last year following passage of the 9-11 Commission Recommendations Implementation Act, he and I made a commitment to work together to ensure that the most important provisions not addressed in the final bill would be addressed early in the 109th Congress. That commitment is being fulfilled today.
Judging by the basic nature of these requirements as well as the actions taken by some States, it is quite obvious that not enacting these reforms does not come from a lack of ability, but from a lack of will. The federal government cannot continue to allow our security responsibilities to be compromised by the inaction of a few.
Our approach is very straightforward. Building upon guidelines and best practices established and accepted by State Motor Vehicle Administrators, the federal government's long-standing work on identity security, and actions taken by individual States to shore up their licensing process following the terrorist attacks; our legislation sets forth minimum document and issuance standards for federal acceptance of driver's licenses and state-issued personal identification cards. The legislation provides three years for States to come into compliance with these standards in order for the federal government to recognize their documents as proof of an individual's identity.
Let me make one thing perfectly clear. States that want their drivers' licenses to be used for federal identification purposes will be required to meet these standards. All of them. If they do not, the citizens of that State will not be able to use their driver's license to identify themselves for many purposes that they use them for today, such as boarding an airplane. The bill and the report make clear that the Secretary must determine the uses, in addition to those set forth in the bill, for which drivers licenses only from complying states will be accepted. Importantly, the final bill makes clear that the Secretary of Homeland Security will be responsible for ensuring that the certifications represent full compliance. This requirement ensures that the national security interests of the United States will be protected through enforcement of the requirements of the bill.
States will also be required to confirm the applicant's proof of legal presence in the United States. Currently, only 11 states lack such a requirement, meaning a majority of states have already recognized the need for tighter standards, but unnecessary and dangerous gaps in the system still exist. Importantly, States are still permitted to issue drivers' licenses to individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States or who cannot provide satisfactory proof of identity. The ability of States to have such a system is currently under challenge in court, and this legislation will provide them with express authority. The bill further provides that these licenses or identification cards must be clearly visually differentiated from other licenses and contain specific language regarding their validity for federal identification and other official purposes.
In addition, the legislation will require identity documents to expire at the same time as the expiration of lawful entry status--this will prevent individuals who have illegally entered or are unlawfully present in the United States from having valid identification documents. This loophole was highlighted on September 11th, as Nawaf al Hazmi and Hani Hanjour, the pilots of Flight 77, both obtained licenses and identification cards after the expiration of their visa authorization. We must correct this dangerous problem before we again give individuals who have overstayed their visas the tools they need to integrate into society and carry out criminal and terrorist acts.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that these actions are consistent with actions taken
by individual states to date. For example, Nevada and New Mexico do not accept, as proof of identity, a state-issued driver license or identification card from states that do not meet their own standards. The federal government has been delinquent in dealing with this issue, but we are correcting that problem today.
Fraud in identity documents is no longer just a problem of theft. As we continue to strengthen our intelligence function to better identify and track terrorists, those individuals will be forced to find ways to conceal their identity in order to avoid detection. We must be able to establish, as close to certainty as we can, that people are who they say they are, and in order to do so the federal government must have documents that it can trust. In fact, we would not be fulfilling our security role for the American people if we did not.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these important provisions and the passage of this conference report.
Show 11 more
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the wartime supplemental that includes urgent funding for our soldiers and sailors now prosecuting the global war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. This bill also…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the wartime supplemental that includes urgent funding for our soldiers and sailors now prosecuting the global war on terror in Afghanistan
and Iraq. This bill also has important additional funding for border security, and language important to South Texas shrimpers that will make it easier for them to hire workers for the coming season.
As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I know our soldiers can do anything. Yet that truth does not mean that the Congress should skimp on our financial obligations to our fighting men and women. They run out of money altogether at the end of this month, so I am pleased we are finalizing this bill today.
As a border Congressman, I am grateful that the conferees included desperately needed funding for border security. I have been relentless in talking to so many of you about my concerns related to spending on border security matters. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, for his work in getting negotiators to include this spending. While this is a good start, it still comes up short of both what we need and what the Intelligence Reform bill mandated we do.
The Intelligence Reform bill passed by Congress last year mandated 2,000 Border Patrol agents a year for the next 5 years. The President came to the table with only 210 in his budget; today we are adding another 500. That's still over 1,000 short of what this government agrees is the very least we should do to protect our border and stem the tide of releasing OTMs--illegal immigrants that are ``other than Mexican''--into the U.S. general population.
Given our border security is entirely budget driven, this is a rare victory for those of us who have been talking about the need to put our money where our mouth is when it comes to protecting our nation from terrorists that may be trying to enter the country through the loopholes in our border security policy. We are sending our young soldiers to fight and die in Iraq and Afghanistan and we justify that by saying we are fighting the war there so we will not have to fight it here.
We may very well be fighting a war over there and letting terrorists in our back door. As so many South Texans and my colleagues know, I have been lifting my voice about how border security is profoundly lacking. Currently, the United States does not have room to hold the large number of OTMs, caught by border law enforcement. While I know that most of these immigrants are merely seeking a better life, it is the few--the handful--that may be entering our country to do us harm. That is whom we need to worry about. So we are releasing, on their own recognizance, into the population of the United States very large numbers of OTMs.
What happens is our border patrol agents routinely call detention facilities and discover there is no room to hold OTMs. So, they process these immigrants, many times without even getting fingerprints or running them through our national databases to see if they are on watch lists, and release them into the general population with a notice to appear at a deportation hearing a few weeks later. Law enforcement officers then take the released OTMs to the local bus station by the vanload, where they head elsewhere in the U.S. The number that never appear for deportation is over 90 percent of those released, a number now probably over 75,000.
Already the number of OTMs captured and released is more, so far this year, than for all of last year. It is little wonder that private citizens are taking the law into their own hands to try to stem the tide of OTMs coming into our country. But private militias, operating without the color of law, are not the answer. We must secure our borders so private citizens do not feel the need to do so.
As a former law enforcement officer I know if we don't have the border officers to stop the OTMs crossing the border, if we don't have the room to hold the ones we catch, if we don't put our money where our mouth is, we continue to send a dangerous signal to those who may wish to do us harm. Until we send a signal that those who cross our borders illegally, until we send a signal that when we catch you we will hold you until you are deported, until we honestly face the amount of money it will take to deal with these things, OTMs will continue to flock to the U.S., quite possibly populating terror cells already operating in the United States.
Unfortunately, the Leadership decided to include many controversial provisions that members wouldn't otherwise support if they weren't linked to funding our troops. I do not agree with some of the so-called security provisions in this bill, mainly the stricter asylum laws and national standards for drivers' licenses. A country like ours that believes so greatly in freedom and the protection of the oppressed should be a safe haven for refugees that are being persecuted by their governments because of their race, religion or political beliefs, which is why we are fighting the war we fund in this bill.
I am also disappointed Congress has gone one step further in creating a national ID. Many would suggest that a drivers' license is the way terrorists are infiltrating our country. That is simply not the case. Standardizing a drivers' license would not have precluded the 9/11 terrorists from entering this country--immigration reform and better border security practices would have.
Today's bill is a start in putting our money where our mouth is, but it is still insufficient to the monumental border security task before us and I ask our appropriators to ensure the necessary funding is included in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1268, to authorize emergency supplemental appropriations for our military. The vast majority of this $82 billion bill will go directly to support our troops in…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1268, to authorize emergency supplemental appropriations for our military. The vast majority of this $82 billion bill will go directly to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Congress has a responsibility to work with the President to protect the national security of our Nation. When our soldiers are sent in to war, it is the Congress' responsibility to make sure that all resources necessary are provided to carry out their missions.
I stand behind our brave men and women who have performed admirably in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have made tremendous sacrifices on behalf of their country and have served longer deployments than expected.
This bill provides important new benefits for our troops and their families. The legislation: increases the military death gratuity; increases subsidized life insurance benefits; creates a new insurance benefit for soldiers who have suffered traumatic injuries, such as the loss of a limb; extends the Basic Allowance for Housing for dependents of soldiers who die while on active duty; and provides additional funding for add-on vehicle armor kits, night-vision equipment, and radio jammers that disrupt remote-control bombs and mines.
The conference report also contains important measures to strengthen our domestic border security, by providing funds for new border patrol agents, immigration and customs investigators, enforcement agents, and detention officers. The bill also provides additional foreign assistance for: tsunami reconstruction; humanitarian and peacekeeping programs in Darfur; democracy assistance in Belarus; and political and economic reforms in Ukraine to strengthen their new democracy and legal system.
I regret that the Administration has consistently failed to properly budget for our ongoing military and reconstruction operations in Iraq. Congress should not repeatedly rely on emergency spending bills to provide the critical funding, resources, and equipment for our troops in battle by using emergency supplemental appropriations bills.
The United States is only belatedly seeking international support for our reconstruction efforts in Iraq, and we have failed to broadly engage the international community.
Because of these failures, Americans have paid a heavy price. It is primarily American troops stationed in Iraq that face continuing attacks, and have lost life and limb. It is our taxpayers that are being asked to almost exclusively pay the cost to rebuild Iraq, and these costs are mounting every day. Iraq is already facing a difficult transition in establishing a democracy that operates under the rule of law and protects minority rights. The U.S. must show enough flexibility in working with our allies to effectively help Iraq during this critical transition period, so that other countries will pledge both troops and funds to alleviate the burden on our American soldiers and taxpayers. Ultimately, the best way that we can support our troops is to reach out more aggressively to the international community, establish order and security in Iraq, and help the interim Iraqi government assume more responsibility for its own affairs as they establish a democratic state.
I am also disappointed that the Republican leadership decided to insert extraneous provisions into this legislation, which go beyond the scope of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I voted against the ``REAL ID Act'' when it was considered by this House as a separate bill earlier this year. I am particularly concerned that this legislation repeals a number of provisions of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which enacted the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 bill established a negotiated rulemaking framework--allowing for critical input from governors, State legislators, State officials, and other stakeholders--which would provide the opportunity to develop effective national standards for driver's licenses. I am concerned that this legislation does not give the States adequate flexibility to implement the 9/11 bill, and that this legislation may also create serious unfunded mandates and administrative burdens for the States.
As the ranking member of the Helsinki Commission (Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe), which promotes human rights and rule of law in Europe, I am also concerned about many of the asylum law changes contained in the REAL ID Act, which again go beyond the scope of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. These provisions may have a harmful effect on true asylum seekers, trafficking victims, women and children who are victims of domestic violence, and others seeking protection against persecution. This legislation may create higher burdens for legitimate asylum seekers, restrict judicial discretion to grant asylum, and take away some of the rights of appeal for certain refugees and asylum seekers.
Over the past week I have heard from a number of groups in Maryland that provide legal and social services to immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees, and survivors of torture and slavery. These groups have reported to me that it is already extremely difficult for legitimate asylum seekers to prevail in their case, as they have often left their home country on short notice, and do not have documentation of their persecution. It can take months or years for a case to work its way through our legal system. During this period, the asylum seeker often has neither legal representation nor work documentation.
I hope that in the near future Congress will have the opportunity, in a more thoughtful manner, to consider comprehensive immigration reform measures.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both the chairman and the ranking member for this bill, especially for its Iraqi dollars, because this bill…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both the chairman and the ranking member for this bill, especially for its Iraqi dollars, because this bill analyzes microscopically the kinds of equipment that is needed there now, and then surgically targets those dollars in a vastly efficient manner for our troops.
The bill also deals with healing the wounds of both mind and body of those soldiers who are returning. The bill also deals with small businesses being able, through the H-2B process, to hire legal workers. And the bill also deals with enhanced technology for the tsunami situation that we saw so much, months ago.
I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for the legislation, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the $17 million included in the Supplemental that we are considering today, which will support the expansion of the U.S. Tsunami Warning Network. These funds will help NOAA to procure and deploy tsunami detection buoys in a system designed to provide continuous tsunami warning capability for both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of the United States. Detection is a critical part of a warning system which I hope will ultimately include a comprehensive approach to educating communities about, and preparing them for, tsunamis.
Comprising 70 percent of the Earth's surface area, our oceans support a growing source of protein for many developing countries, promising sources of medicines, and efficient transport of goods between continents and among nations. They also strongly influence our climate and weather and provide economic and unmeasurable quality of life
benefits. For proof of this, one only needs to know that the U.S. coasts support over 50 percent of the U.S. population and comprise only 17 percent of our land base.
When South Asia was struck by tsunami waves on December 26, the world's interest in tsunami detection and warning systems was heightened. The impact of these waves was felt around the world, and the tragedy of its immediate effect on Indian Ocean coastlines has painfully exposed our lack of ability to provide early warning and coastal community education and support. Many lifelong residents of Indian Ocean coastal towns fear the sea--the primary source of their livelihoods for generations. It is critical that individuals in high- risk areas are educated about and prepared for tsunamis before they strike. Coastal communities need assurance that technology exists and will be applied to increase warnings for such events and to prepare them for evacuation to avoid catastrophic loss of human life.
In contrast, developed nations use increasing technological sophistication to acquire from the sea its bounty--with little thought for the long-term sustainability of this activity. In time, without increased understanding of our ocean ecosystems and the impact of our harvest and extraction of its resources, developed nations may also come to fear the sea. The antidote to the disease of fear is understanding. New technologies have already led to enormous advances in our understanding of the coastal and marine environment. However, advanced sensors have been deployed only on relatively small scales, and the systems that are deployed have not been coordinated into an integrated system that will optimize our understanding of the oceans.
Since the U.S. hosted the Earth Observation Summit in July 2003, we have been working with our partner nations to adopt a comprehensive, coordinated and sustained Earth Observation System to collect and disseminate data, information and models for more effective and responsible use of our resources as well as to inform decision-makers about impending disasters. Most recently, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy made an integrated ocean observing system a top recommendation in its report, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century.
Our space exploration and our weather programs show that when our scientists and the Nation support a program and devote time, money and, most importantly, the human mind into these types of endeavors we are highly successful. The ocean, however, is often referred to as the last frontier, a place where we continue to find new organisms and species and where we still struggle to understand the profound implications for climate changes and more direct impacts of the oceans on our human habitats.
There is perhaps no more motivating event, no louder a voice for attention and understanding than having the ocean engulf human habitats. Our failure to fully develop and utilize our technology to understand our oceans has many more implications, including the potential for permanent damage to fragile and complex ecosystems that have generously provided us with food, medicines, recreation, and other benefits. We are now awake to the power of the ocean, and it is my hope that we will use this opportunity to move more quickly toward integrated data collection and dissemination systems, as well as intensive education of coastal communities, to ensure that we and future generations can look to the sea for inspiration, sustenance, and life-giving support.
I strongly support the inclusion of these funds to increase global monitoring capacity and public awareness about tsunamis and other disasters, particularly if they add to capacity of ocean monitoring as part of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS).
Mr. Speaker, in regards to what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just said, I am surprised at the new chairman. He is so lenient about getting time out of him. Usually our bill moves much…
Mr. Speaker, in regards to what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just said, I am surprised at the new chairman. He is so lenient about getting time out of him. Usually our bill moves much faster than this. I thought he learned.
Let me say the defense part of this and maybe the rest of it is probably the most bipartisan bill one could ever find. The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), and I have been traveling to these various bases. We found shortages every place we went, all kinds of problems that they brought to our attention that needed to be rectified. We found problems so severe that many of the units that were on their way to Iraq were C-4. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), my good friend, the hero from Vietnam, knows what I am talking about when I say C-4. I am talking about they are not ready to go to combat because the equipment is so bad.
As a matter of fact, the equipment was so bad at one base, and I think it was Fort Stewart where the troops did not have radios to train with, did not have small arms ammunition, did not have mortar ammunition to train with, and that means that when they get there, they are not at the cutting edge of where they should be. Now they get equipment when they get there, and that overcomes the C-4.
So the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and I, what we did was put $2.3 billion into the budget. We first checked, the staff checked, with the Army to make sure that that is where it ought to be put. The Army came back and supported us. Usually, they beat around the bush. The gentleman from California (Chairman
Lewis) knows what I mean. We talk to them, and because of other people over there, they do not want to admit that they need the money. This time they were very emphatic that they needed every cent and they needed it as soon as they could get it. So we added money for the types of things that they need.
Having said that, what I have said to the services because we are having such a problem, we see the recruiting problem, we are looking into that right now. The subcommittee I serve on, we realize and we have said for a long time, they are going to have a recruiting problem as this war gets unpopular; and we were trying to figure out how do we overcome that.
Most times I disagree with those bonuses because I feel so strongly that people ought to join the Armed Forces for the good of the country, but we have to give bonuses to send them over there. We put money in for those kinds of things. We increased the amount of money somebody gets when they are killed in action. We expanded it so that when they are killed in action, they are taken care of retroactively as well as prospectively. We take care of somebody who is wounded. We added money to it. Some veterans group called me and said they were not happy with the way we added that money. They felt like there ought to be more study, and I cannot disagree with that.
But when the four of us sat down, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens, we came to the conclusion that we just did not think we could wait. So we put money in to take care of people who were injured so severely as well as the ones that were killed. And I got so many letters from the people at home, and I have had 12 killed in my district, how pleased they were about what we are doing because it helped them get through a very difficult time.
What we have tried to do over the years is make sure that the people that were in the Armed Forces had what they needed, that the people in Iraq have what they need. Our subcommittee brought to the attention of the country that they were without a lot of equipment in Iraq. We are working right now. New trucks, we are trying to figure out how to put new trucks in that are encapsulated because we have taken care of the Humvees, but we need to take care of the trucks now. So we got some commercial trucks which were recommended which were $100,000 less, but it was so late, we could not get it in the bill. We are going to ask for reprogramming for that amount of money.
So this bill is taking care of equipment shortages, not all of them, but it is taking care of as many as we could possibly squeeze in. It is taking care of Reset. We forced the military to ask for Reset. The minute that this war is over and the money starts to dry up, Reset will be the first thing they do not do; so we have to do it now. And I have said to many of the industrial leaders in this country, the minute the war is over, there will not be any supplementals, there will be a lot less money to be spent, and we have got to spend this money now in the supplementals to make sure that that gets done. Armor modularity, there is some argument about that; but we think it ought to be done, and we have pushed this.
Many of the programs that the Army has today have come about because of the Defense Subcommittee, chaired by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and chaired by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). Many of the things that have happened have happened because we see it out in the field. We go out in the field, talk to the people, make sure that we are doing the right thing, and then we try to send defense in the right direction.
So I urge the Members to vote for this. The troops need it, and it helps dramatically for the amount of money that is needed by the Armed Forces.
Mr. Speaker, I want to comment briefly on the $82 billion spending bill that will be approved today for the ongoing U.S. military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will support this bill. I am…
Mr. Speaker, I want to comment briefly on the $82 billion spending bill that will be approved today for the ongoing U.S. military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I will support this bill. I am pleased it includes additional money for body armor and armored vehicles for our troops. It includes money to purchase bomb-jamming devices to protect our troops from roadside bombs. I also support the improved life insurance death benefits for military personnel and their families. And, I am hopeful that the additional funds that are in the bill to train and equip security forces in Iraq all Afghanistan will be expeditious and well spent. This money is critical if Afghan and Iraqi forces are to take over security duties from American troops, which will allow our men and women to finally come home. I have called for negotiating a timeline for the withdrawal of American troops with the new Iraqi government, hopefully to be completed within the year. But, for that to become a reality, well-equipped and competent security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan must be prepared to take our place. This bill will help achieve that goal.
I am also pleased that the final bill retained language inserted in the Senate directing the President to include future requests to fund the U.S. presence in Iraq in his regular budget. We have been in Iraq for more than two years and in Afghanistan for more than three years. The fact that we still have troops in Iraq should not come as a surprise to the budget writers at the White House and the Pentagon. It is not appropriate to continue funding these long-term, ongoing operations via supplemental appropriations bills, which are considered outside of the normal budget procedures and restrictions.
While I support the bill, I am outraged that, more than two years after the U. S. invaded Iraq, the Pentagon leadership has not gotten their act together to adequately protect our troops and to come up with a plan to get them home.
As columnist Mark Shields pointed out late last year, in the three years immediately after Pearl Harbor, the United States produced the following to win World War II: 296,429 aircraft, 102,3351 tanks, 87,620 warships, and 2,455,694 trucks. At the time, the U.S. population was 132 million and the size of our economy was less than $100 billion. Yet, approaching three years into the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the United States, with a population of almost 300 million and defense spending of $500 billion a year, under the failed leadership of the Pentagon, only 6,000 of the nearly 20,000 Humvees in Iraq are factory armored versions and more than 8,000 of the 9,128 medium and heavy trucks used in Iraq are without armor.
Despite repeated promises from the Pentagon leadership that the situation is getting better, a recent article in The New York Times showed that the emperor has no clothes. As the article details, one Marine Company has returned home to expose the reality of their tour in Iraq, ``one they say was punctuated not only by a lack of armor, but also by a shortage of men and planning that further hampered their efforts in battle, destroyed morale and ruined the careers of some of their most competent warriors.''
I have heard similar stories from the Oregon National Guard members I have talked to.
How did this happen?
Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against our country; Congress has provided the Pentagon with $1.6 trillion--$167 billion in supplemental appropriations bills for fiscal years 2001-2005; and $1.45 trillion in regular defense appropriations for fiscal years 2002-2005. Today's bill will add $75 billion or so to the Pentagon budget. Given that level of funding, it is hard to understand why our troops continue to suffer shortages of critical equipment.
It is hard to understand until you remember that Secretary Rumsfeld and the other civilian leaders at the Pentagon argued that our troops would be greeted in Iraq as liberators with flowers and candy, not the bullets and bombs that have led to more than 1,500 of our soldiers getting killed. Before, the invasion, the Pentagon planned to reduce our troop levels to 20,000-30,000 within a few weeks of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. The fact that 150,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq more than a year and a half after the war began shows how badly the Pentagon leadership miscalculated the post-war situation.
Those miscalculations also led the Pentagon to vastly underestimate the equipment that our troops would need to survive and succeed in Iraq. First, the Pentagon leadership did not even order the necessary equipment like body armor, armored Humvees and bomb jamming devices. For example, under the Pentagon's original war plan, the Pentagon planned to have only 235 armored Humvees in Iraq for the 20,000 troops who would remain after overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
Then, when it became clear that this equipment was necessary, the Pentagon did not procure it with any sense of urgency. As The New York Times article I mentioned above noted, ``The Army's procurement system, which also supplies the Marines, has come under fierce criticism for underperforming in the war, and to this day it has only one small contractor in Ohio armoring new Humvees.''
The performance of Secretary Rumsfeld and his senior leadership at the Pentagon has been a disgrace. Unfortunately, it is our troops who have had to pay the price.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose any rule that does not allow for consideration of an amendment to investigate…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose any rule that does not allow for consideration of an amendment to investigate the government contracts with regard to our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This supplemental that we are talking about under the rule is $82 billion in additional spending, bringing it to almost $300 billion for spending on combat operations, occupation and support for our military personnel.
Congress rightfully is trying to meet its operational and technical and equipment needs of our troops. But it also has to ensure that these funds are properly managed and that they are monitored, and in that regard, we have been largely silent in this Congress.
We should make no mistake about it, there is more than enough reasons to be careful and to scrutinize the procurement process. The Center for Strategic and International Studies made an analysis and said as little as 27 cents of every dollar spent on Iraqi reconstruction has actually filtered down to projects benefiting Iraqis.
Taxpayers for Common Sense cited a KPMG study. It said that the Commander's Emergency Response Program, which is a program designed to allow U.S. military officers to quickly fund small reconstruction projects, maintain little documentation on how tax dollars were spent: 42 cases worth, $13 billion, where there were no contracts on file; 142 cases totaling $40 million, where there was no proof that the work was even done.
These are only a few of the examples. We have a situation where it is reported by BBC News that Transparency International warns that post- war Iraq reconstruction is in danger of becoming the biggest corruption scandal in history. They said there is evidence of high levels of corruption in post-war Iraq, and it is critical of the United States' handling of reconstruction programs. And they said they favor a small number of large firms who they awarded public contracts, and they were all too secretive.
We have report after report of Halliburton and other corporations not having enough oversight. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Pentagon auditors are questioning $212 million that Halliburton company billed Washington to deliver fuel to Iraq saying that it may well constitute overbilling. This criticism continues to go on about sole- source contracts and other issues that ought to be explored.
We can have substantive differences about the merits of the way we are conducting military policy. But there ought to be unanimous agreement in this Congress ensuring our role that taxpayer dollars are effectively and judiciously spent.
We should establish a select committee. That is why the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and I filed a Truman Commission measure that should be included as an amendment to this bill. It would put a select committee to study, among other things, the bidding, the contracting, the auditing standards, and issuance of government contracts, the oversight procedures, and the forms of payment and safeguards against money laundering, the accountability of contractors and government officials involved in procurement, and the allocation of contracts to foreign companies and small businesses.
Yes, we modelled it after the original Truman Commission. In 1941, that Truman Committee saved about $15 billion in taxpayer money; 432 public hearings; 1,800 witnesses.
Mr. Speaker, the American people have a right to have oversight done by this body. It is our job to do it. It is demanded by it. We should craft a rule that protects this amendment and ensures the public resources are safeguarded.
The Truman Committee was also unanimously respected for its focus on fact-finding and its refusal to succumb to partisan considerations. Mr. Leach and I share that view and believe that congressional oversight of these huge sums should not be a partisan issue. Critics may say that there is no need to create
a select committee when Congress has standing committees to perform this role. Regrettably, those standing committees have not vigorously exercised their institutional oversight role. While Mr. Shays's Subcommittee on National Security has attempted to draw attention to this issue, the full Government Reform Committee has convened only four hearings on the Iraq contracting process.
Similarly, the House Armed Services Committee touched on this issue during a June 2004 Readiness Subcommittee hearing, however--beyond that--they have not pursued the issue. To that point, highlighting the need for such a select committee, the Ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton, has co-sponsored the bill from which this amendment is based.
Critics may disqualify this amendment on a technicality, suggesting it authorizes on an appropriations bill. To that, I would respectfully point out that there are other provisions of this bill--some of which strengthen the underlying text--that include authorizing language.
I would ask that this Committee craft a rule that protects this amendment and ensures that our ever-scarce public resources will be safeguarded.
Mr. Speaker, when H.R. 1268 was first considered on the floor in March, I reluctantly supported its passage. Now that the conference report has been returned to the House for this chamber's approval,…
Mr. Speaker, when H.R. 1268 was first considered on the floor in March, I reluctantly supported its passage. Now that the conference report has been returned to the House for this chamber's approval, I still find myself torn because I do not see how additional funding for the Iraq War effort will ultimately produce a positive outcome for the United States or for the people in Iraq. I want a successful exit strategy--not a permanent occupation in Iraq.
Despite my misgivings for the direction of our Iraq policy, or lack thereof, I do not believe our troops, who are fighting so bravely, should be penalized for the mistakes in judgment of our civilian military leadership at the White House and the Pentagon. As we speak, our ground forces scrounge for scrap metal to make the unarmored vehicles more safe against insurgent attack. The funds provided in this bill will enable our soldiers and Marines on the ground to uparmor their vehicles. There should be more outrage from the American public that they were deployed without adequate equipment from the beginning. But they are there. It is vital that our troops receive the equipment they need to defend themselves against attack.
I have been critical of our war planning from the outset. I voted against the authority that allowed the President to take action in Iraq. I continue to be frustrated that our war plan still contains no game plan on when we can begin to bring our troops home. I am pleased that the bill does contain provisions that require the administration to develop a set of performance indicators and measures for determining the stability and security in Iraq and report its findings to Congress. This requirement falls well short of the exit strategy we need to determine how long our commitment in Iraq will last.
The bill also funds tsunami relief, which is well overdue. The agreement appropriates $656 million in direct assistance to tsunami disaster relief for countries affected by last December's tragedy. The total includes $5 million to support environmental recovery activities; $10 million to create new economic opportunities for women; and $12.5 million to support initiatives that focus on the immediate and long- term needs of children.
The bill provides $400 million for humanitarian assistance in the Darfur region of Sudan and elsewhere in Africa, including funds for the temporary resettlement of refugees. It also funds $240 million for international humanitarian food assistance through the Food for Peace Program, much of which will go to the Darfur region. This assistance will provide some relief to those who are being victimized by the ethnic cleansing that is being waged against the black Muslim population by the Arab Muslim-dominated Sudanese government.
In a period when the President and this Congress proposes reductions in programs that support the development of local communities and neighborhoods, the bill provides
$592 million for a gold-plated embassy compound in Iraq. I find it very difficult to defend such spending when the budget priorities of this administration propose disinvesting in our cities, towns and our American workforce. Money for this project goes beyond providing office and working space for U.S. foreign service personnel. What we are proposing to build is not an embassy, but a compound, with stores and other amenities which will further distance our American embassy personnel from the Iraqi civilian and political population. We are constructing a fortress, not an embassy. I want a successful exit strategy--not a permanent occupation in Iraq.
Another key element of this agreement with which I take issue is the mandate imposed on states that requires certain identification standards on driver's licenses for federal identification purposes. The measure mandates that states meet certain requirements for determining the validity of persons applying for drivers' licenses. Although the bill provides authority for states to receive federal grants to comply, it is insufficient and amounts to an unfunded federal mandate.
The money contained in this bill will go a long way to saving lives, saving the lives of our land forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and reconstructing the lives of those who experienced the devastation of last year's tsunami. After weighing the alternatives, I reluctantly support the passage of this bill. I am not happy with the choices we are making today. I feel backed into a corner without much wiggle room, but the lives of our troops matter to me and they deserve the protection this bill is designed to deliver to them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the War Supplemental Appropriations Act but must voice my incredible misgivings for what the Republican majority has attached to legislation that should solely be…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the War Supplemental Appropriations Act but must voice my incredible misgivings for what the Republican majority has attached to legislation that should solely be about how we provide for our brave men and women in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is much in this bill to be proud of. Our military, despite the job of the civilian brass and this Congress, have been performing heroically. They have accomplished much more than we could have ever hoped for, and if any fault needs to be assigned it is to the policy makers, and not to those in uniform.
However, I am ashamed that this body has taken something as important as securing our troops, and attached a hastily considered immigration provision that will result in massive unfunded mandates being passed on to our states. I am ashamed that the conference committee removed language that would have created a Truman-style Commission to examine war profiteering, largely to ensure that this administration would not be embarrassed. Finally, I am ashamed that this Congress has turned its back on a promise made by our President to the Palestinian Authority to help improve the situation of the Palestinian people and further the cause of peace for all in the Middle East.
I am concerned that the immigration provisions will force our great nation to turn our back on the thousands of political and human rights asylum seekers who look toward America as their last and best hope. The Real ID Act will force the most vulnerable to have their torturers corroborate their tales of persecution.
I understand that we must protect our borders, and I understand that changes must be made to keep out those that seek to do us harm. But we should not hastily foreclose the dream and promise of America because of fear. We should not send back asylum seekers back to their torturers. Under these standards, Iraqis seeking to escape the rape rooms of Saddam Hussein would have been sent back to the Ba'athist prisons if they fled Iraq without the proper documentation.
I am also dismayed that rather than seeking to be responsible stewards of the public's trust, the Republican majority in charge of Congress once again decided to ignore its oversight responsibilities. It seems that rather than doing our oversight job as a separate and equal branch of government, the GOP leadership would rather save the Bush Administration and corporate CEOs some embarrassment.
I am old enough to remember the Truman Commission. I remember that Sen. Truman went against a Democratic administration, and saved our military and our tax payers billions of dollars in waste and fraud. I cannot understand why we do not do the same.
My friends on the other side of the aisle should be ashamed of the fact that Mr. Waxman and I have probably done more on this front from the minority, than has anyone with a gavel. Reconstructing Iraq and Afghanistan is too important not to get it right, but confronted yet again with evidence of massive fraud and egregious war profiteering, my Republican colleagues are again choosing to bury their heads in the sand, plug their ears, and turn out the lights on our duty.
Finally, this bill, by intention or not, has the potential of undoing all the progress that the Middle East Peace process has made since the death of Yasser Arafat. Mr. Speaker, the new president of the Palestinian Authority is in an almost untenable position. In order for Palestinian democracy to succeed over radical terrorism, President Abbas must be provided with the resources to open hospitals, create jobs, arm a police force, build jails, and take the fight to the terrorists.
President Bush recognized this. He made a statement asking for $200 million to support a nascent Middle Eastern democracy. Instead of allowing President Abbas to use American aid to build his security forces to take on terror, we instead set him up for failure. My friends, if you want to see Hamas win the upcoming municipal elections; if you want to see the peace process come to an abject halt; if you want to see more dead young Israelis and young Palestinians you should support this language.
It surprises me that the only thing that this Congress is capable of bucking and embarrassing this Administration on is the prospect of peace. I hope, for the sake of peace, we can correct this colossal error in judgment and that the President and the State Department speak out against Congress' ill-advised policy making on this most tragic conflict.
Mr. Speaker, on February 17, 2004, the national debt of the United States exceeded $7 trillion for the first time in our country's history. One year later, our national debt is $7.7 trillion. In the…
Mr. Speaker, on February 17, 2004, the national debt of the United States exceeded $7 trillion for the first time in our country's history. One year later, our national debt is $7.7 trillion. In the past year, our country has added $700 billion to our national debt.
The conference report for the FY06 budget resolution that is before us today would increase the statutory debt limit by $781 billion to a record $9 trillion. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. The out-of-control rise in our national debt over the last year and the rise in our debt envisioned in this conference report are further signs of the terrible fiscal position in which we now find ourselves.
In 2001, we had ten-year projected surpluses of $5.6 trillion [2002- 2011]. Now, over that same time period, we have likely ten-year deficits of $3.9 trillion. That's a $9.5 trillion reversal in our ten- year fiscal outlook.
Whether intentional or otherwise, our country's current fiscal policies are depriving the federal government of future revenue at a time when we ought to be preparing for an unprecedented demographic shift that will strain Social Security and Medicare. Our current fiscal irresponsibility will eventually land squarely on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren, who will be forced to pay back the debt we are accumulating today. The ``debt tax'' that we are imposing on our children and grandchildren cannot be repealed. It can only be reduced if we take responsible steps now to improve our situation.
Both parties need to work together in a bipartisan fashion to bring our budget back into balance so we can avoid the higher long-term interest rates and weakened dollar that are the inevitable consequences of rising deficits and a high national debt. We are witnessing on a daily basis the reaction of the global financial markets to our fiscal irresponsibility, and as we can see in this conference report, Congress has not yet gotten the message that deficits and debt matter.
For starters, Congress needs to reinstate PAYGO rules for the entire budget, including spending and revenue measures. Budget enforcement rules that apply to only certain parts of the budget will not have a significant impact on our rising deficits, as Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan mentioned in his recent testimony before the Budget Committee.
This fiscal year alone, interest on the national debt is expected to rise to $178 billion, and the administration projects that that figure will increase to $211 billion during the next fiscal year. To put that figure in perspective, projected interest on our national debt next year will be $75 billion more than projected spending on education, public health, health research, and veterans' benefits combined [$138 billion].
Further, the budget conference report before us today, which was filed only three hours before the House began to consider it, would require the House to cut Medicaid funding by as much as $15 billion over the next five years.
Just two days ago the House voted, by a vote of 348-72, to reject harmful cuts to the Medicaid program, and this conference report blatantly ignores the will of the House.
In addition to assuming an ever-larger share of our annual budgets, the interest on our debt, and the debt itself, are increasing our reliance on foreign borrowers, which will weaken our position in the world and increase the risk that another nation will be able to assert greater leverage over America. Over the last year, our country has borrowed nearly $400 billion [$389 billion] from foreign countries, and almost half [44%] of our publicly-held debt is held by foreign creditors [$1.96 trillion, out of $4.4 trillion of publicly held debt].
Finally, our deficits and debt threaten the Social Security and Medicare programs that have raised so many of our seniors out of poverty and helped sustain the strongest middle class in history. With a projected 75 year unfunded liability of $3.7 trillion, both parties in Congress need to work together to address Social Security's solvency problem, and this conference report does nothing to protect Social Security. In fact, it continues the practice of raiding the Social Security trust funds to pay for other expenses of the federal government.
It is time for Congress to stop playing games with our national debt, with Social Security, and with our kids and grandkids' futures and take a commonsense, bipartisan approach to solve our budget problems.
Mr. Speaker, I recently presented a joint statement with Senator Snowe regarding small business contracting and would like to submit it for the Record. Section 6022 of H.R. 1268, as adopted in the…
Mr. Speaker, I recently presented a joint statement with Senator Snowe regarding small business contracting and would like to submit it for the Record.
Section 6022 of H.R. 1268, as adopted in the Conference
Report, H. Rep. 109-72, contains certain provisions
concerning small business contracting at the Department of
Energy. These provisions were inserted as a substitute for
Section 6023 of the Senate version of H.R. 1268. Section
6023, among other things sought to amend the Small Business
Act to authorize counting of small business subcontracts at
the Department of Energy's large prime contractors for
purposes of reporting small business prime contracting
results. Because the substitute language was not adopted by
Congress through regular legislative proceedings in the
Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and
the House Committee on Small Business but was adopted anew
during the House-Senate conference, the committees of
jurisdiction take this opportunity to provide guidance
generally provided through their reports to Senators and
Representatives prior to their vote on the Conference Report,
and to affected Federal agencies prior to their
implementation of the Conference Report if adopted.
In subsections 6022 (a) and (b), the language chosen to
replace Section 6023 in the Conference Report directs the
Department of Energy and the Small Business Administration to
enter into a Memorandum of Understanding for reporting small
business prime contracts and subcontracts at the Department
of Energy. This replacement language does not change the
Small Business Act's clear distinction between prime
contracts and subcontracts, does not amend the statutory
small business prime contracting goal requirements which are
binding on the Department of Energy, and does not obviate
Congressional and regulatory policies against contract
bundling. This language does not repeal the President's
Executive Order 13360 directing the Department of Energy to
comply with its separate statutory prime contracting and
subcontracting goals for awards to small businesses owned by
service-disabled veterans. Any interpretation to the contrary
would be unreasonable and contrary to Congressional intent.
In subsection 6022(c), the replacement language mandates a
study of changes to management prime contracts at the
Department of Energy to encourage small business prime
contracting opportunities. The object of the study is to
examine the feasibility of establishing a procurement agency
relationship between the management prime contractors and the
Department of Energy in accordance with the requirements of
Federal procurement laws, Federal procurement regulations,
the ``Federal norm'' of government contracting as recognized
by the Comptroller General, and applicable judicial precedent
such as U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. United States, 940
F.2d 622 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Finally, in subsection 6022(d), the replacement language
imposes certain requirements upon the Department of Energy
concerning break-outs of services from large prime contracts
for awards to small businesses. First, the Secretary of
Energy is required to consider whether services performed
have been previously provided by a small business concern.
This requirement is for acquisition planning purposes only,
and shall not be construed as imposing a restriction of any
kind on the ability of the Department of Energy to break out
its large prime contracts for award to small businesses.
Congress recognizes that most of work currently contracted by
the Department of Energy to its large prime contractors has
never been historically performed by small businesses.
However, this does not waive the application of the Small
Business Act, the President's Executive Order 13360, or the
President's initiative against contract bundling to the
Department of Energy. Second, the Secretary of Energy is
required to consider whether small business concerns are
capable of performing under the contracts which are broken
out for award. This requirement is simply a restatement of
current statutory and regulatory requirements on contractor
responsibility. Subsection (d)(2) direct the Secretary of
Energy is required to--impose certain subcontracting
requirements. As the text plainly indicates, this provision
applies solely to small, business prime contracts which were
formerly small business subcontracts for services.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations (HR 1268), on substance and process. I am strongly supportive of our fighting men and women, and mourn the loss of…
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations (HR 1268), on substance and process. I am strongly supportive of our fighting men and women, and mourn the loss of nearly 1,600 Americans who have died in Iraq, four of whom resided in my congressional district.
On substance, this bill fails to provide an exit strategy for our troops in Iraq. Since Iraq held democratic elections in January, the US should have been implementing an aggressive exit strategy that includes a timetable for the training of Iraqi security forces, so US troops can return home. Moreover, with nearly $10 billion already appropriated but not spent for critical reconstruction projects in Iraq, like rebuilding electrical grids and establishing telecommunications networks, US policy objectives for Iraqi independence are jeopardized. On process, many of the items in this bill should be funded under the regular order in the annual appropriations cycle.
Unfortunately, the Republican Leadership has used this bill as a vehicle for passage of immigration measures that are divisive and harmful for our country, and couldn't be passed as stand-alone bills. Provisions commonly known as the ``REAL ID Act'' regarding national driver's license standards, asylum law and completion of a southern border fence have been controversial from day one, but were added to appease a vocal minority of anti-immigrant advocates. I and many others in Congress would like to have a rational debate on immigration reform, but we are denied
the opportunity when the leadership attaches non-germane immigration measures to a funding bill.
To better demonstrate how the process has been hijacked by a minority of the majority, many of the same provisions that constitute the REAL ID provisions in the supplemental being considered today were stripped from the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (PL 108-458) in conference because of their extreme nature.
One of the most egregious provisions in the REAL ID section of the supplemental is the blanket authority given to the Secretary of Homeland Security to expedite construction of the remaining three miles of the southern border fence in San Diego. All Americans should be concerned that the DHS Secretary has carte blanche authority to waive any and all laws in the name of border security. This provision is a dangerous attack against the civil rights of all Americans, when any law can be waived under the guise of border security. Blanket authority to complete the three mile border fence is especially ``in your face'' politics when, under current law, the DHS Secretary already has a national security waiver for the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. We must work harder to strike a balance between our national security and environmental protection, not simply ignore environmental laws.
Furthermore, the driver's license provisions of this bill touted in the name of national security are equally concerning. It is indeed ironic that these provisions would not have stopped the 9/11 hijackers from obtaining driver's licenses. The breach of our border security was a result of the hijackers having been issued legal visas to enter the US, which many of them used to apply for driver's licenses and identification cards. Even if the REAL ID provisions had been in place before the 9/11 attacks, the hijackers still would have been able to obtain a driver's license or state-issued ID. Again, a minority of the majority is playing on the fears of this nation to enact a flawed policy that does not actually address the problem it purports to fix.
For the record, I do not support illegal immigration, but I do support a regulated process for immigrants who enter the US legally, pay their taxes and play by the rules to earn US citizenship. No one can deny that comprehensive Immigration reform is a topic on the minds of our constituents--but such a critical policy debate should be conducted on its own merits.
Bill Text
2 versions available
[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 258 Engrossed in House (EH)]
In the House of Representatives, U.S.,
May 5, 2005.
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1268) making
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and
Tsunami Relief, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other
purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.
Sec. 2. The Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized, on
behalf of the Committee, to file a supplemental report to accompany H.R. 748.
Attest:
Clerk.