Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4939) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, 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.
March 15, 2006 • 12:01 PM
View full timeline
Introduced in House
March 14, 2006
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 109-391, by Mr. Cole (OK).
March 14, 2006
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4939 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be read by paragraph. Bill is open to amendments.
March 14, 2006 • 9:24 PM
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 155.
March 14, 2006
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H980-991)
March 15, 2006 • 10:21 AM
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 725.
March 15, 2006 • 10:23 AM
On ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 224 - 192 (Roll no. 40). (consideration: CR H987; text: CR H987-989)
March 15, 2006 • 11:50 AM
Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 218 - 200 (Roll no. 41).(text: CR H980)
March 15, 2006 • 12:01 PM
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 218 - 200 (Roll no. 41). (text: CR H980)
March 15, 2006 • 12:01 PM
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
March 15, 2006 • 12:01 PM
Voting History
2 votes recorded • Roll call available
Floor Debate
21 membersWhat members said about H.Res. 725 on the floor
WJJ
KB
DB
JK
NML+16
Floor Debate
21 membersWhat members said about H.Res. 725 on the floor
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise to offer the first of two amendments to H.R. 4939, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, today, I rise to offer the first of two amendments to H.R. 4939, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror and the Hurricane Recovery Act of 2006, that will add more funds to the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG funds, to meet the housing and rebuilding needs of Louisiana, Texas and other places.
The first amendment, number 6, printed in the Congressional Record, will take $2 billion from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, and add it to the Community Development Block Grant funds, making that total request $6.2 billion.
This amendment keeps the total hurricane supplemental request at $19.1 billion. The proposed $2 billion decrease in FEMA funding brings that total to $7.755 billion.
Mr. Chairman, information recently given to us by the Appropriations Committee indicates that FEMA will not run out of its current funds until the second week of July. Moreover, with FEMA's weekly spend rate of $500 million, the first proposed appropriation of $9.55 billion, less my amendment, would fund FEMA through the end of October.
Mr. Chairman, I am certain that between now and October we will be able to amply try and figure out what FEMA really needs and provide the resources it needs at that time.
Mr. Chairman, the administration has asked Louisiana repeatedly to submit a housing plan, and we did that. This chart shows what Louisiana's housing needs are. We had severe destruction of our housing infrastructure in our State, and we have more than 100,000 housing units destroyed. This will cost over $100,000 billion to get this whole matter straightened out, along with other project losses back home.
What we are saying here is that we have a plan which we submitted to the White House, and we have had this plan looked at very closely. The agreement is that Louisiana has submitted a very solid plan for $4.2 billion for unmet needs in its housing reconstruction. Without housing, our city cannot rebuild. Without housing, there is no chance to bring our city back. And so we are saying today, Mr. Chairman, that without full funding we cannot meet the crucial needs to help our citizens rebuild their lives.
There is a move being made now to take the money out of the $4.2 billion to apply to Texas and perhaps some other places, and we say we need all of the $4.2 billion. We also have the $2 billion for Texas. We do not argue they do not need more help, but we do not need to have our money raided to take care of Texas or any other place.
By increasing the CDBG funding, we will allow the needs of Louisiana, Texas and other States to be met without short-changing the administration's commitment to Louisiana.
Mr. Chairman, you know firsthand the monumental housing crisis in Louisiana. Today, thousands of people are being evicted from hotels around the gulf region by FEMA with nowhere to turn. Thus, I implore my colleagues to support this amendment so that we can help these hard- working, earnest taxpayers in the gulf coast rebuild their lives and realign their futures.
Louisiana needs the full $4.2 billion to do that. Support my amendment to make Louisiana, Texas and the rest of the gulf coast region whole. I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman has said, but he recognizes in his comments that there is $3.7 billion left unobligated of the money we have already authorized for FEMA. Everyone knows here that FEMA has not been a very good steward so far of the money we have provided to it. This is a way for FEMA to tighten its belt and to provide the folks the housing support they need back home; take care of Louisiana and Texas at the same time; and not hurt the FEMA programs, because everyone knows, as we have documented throughout our hearings and the rest, that FEMA has done a horrible job of managing the money. And even if it needs more, as the gentleman has said, there is $3.7 billion of the money we have already authorized, which is unobligated, which FEMA can have access to if they can prove a need for it. So I would move adoption of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer another amendment to meet the same objective for preserving the $4.2 billion for Louisiana, at the same time meeting the housing needs that have been expressed by the State of Texas of another $2 billion.
We get out there different under this amendment, as opposed to taking the money under the FEMA allocation which we have heard objection to, this adds money to the current asked for, requested appropriations of $1.9 billion to the $19.1 billion that is being asked for here, to add to that amount $1.9 billion.
The $1.9 billion, therefore, does not come out of the FEMA funds as the gentleman has objected to. If his argument are well taken, the FEMA fund stays intact. We do not touch it whatsoever. But out of the $3.7 billion, that is unobligated of the money that has already been appropriated for this purpose by this House, we take another $1.9 billion and provide that to Texas. The hope is that the HUD will provide that to Texas, take care of Texas' needs.
So we don't invade the FEMA money under this amendment. We simply add to the amount that came out of committee of $19.1 billion another $1.9 billion to provide the money that Texas needs to get this job done.
We have demonstrated a need for this project back home. We have taken great pains to provide a good plan. Our State has submitted it. It has been vetted by the White House folks. Here the plan is in my hand. It is a wonderful plan that is thoroughly vetted. It is technically perfect, I believe. It states the case well. We have made the case for our needs. We have not exaggerated them.
We have horrible needs back home. 220-something housing units destroyed back home that we need to have fixed up. And we cannot get our city back unless we have our housing infrastructure built back up. So we are urging this House, if it does not want to take the money from existing FEMA programs, take it from the $3.7 billion that is unauthorized, and appropriate, of the $3.7 billion, $1.9 billion to take care of this urgent need in our area.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
I am saying that $3.7 billion unobligated of the money the House has already appropriated for disaster relief. I am saying out of the $3.7 billion, we should take $1.9 billion and add to the Community Development Block Grant appropriation. Yes, sir, that is what I am saying. So it is not coming up with the money that the House hasn't already approved. It is simply carving out of what is left, the $3.7 billion that is already left unallocated and unobligated, and obligating it to this purpose.
In this way, we hope to take care of both Texas and Louisiana's needs. And without shortchanging Louisiana, what we have demonstrated through some painstaking processes that money is needed to bring back housing in our State.
Yes, sir.
It is not like the last amendment, except it is not take it from FEMA, which you objected to saying FEMA needed the money. We are now saying we aren't taking it from FEMA, we still have to take it from unobligated funds, to meet the needs of both Texas and Louisiana.
Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I take issue with the remarks that have been made with respect to the devastating effect that this amendment would have on the recovery in the gulf coast region.
I understood somewhat the argument made earlier that to take money from FEMA would invade the public assistance projects. This money is, however, unobligated to any project in the gulf region. It is money that the Congress has simply appropriated which is unobligated. Consequently, we do not know what, if anything, FEMA is going to use the money for. So we argue here that Texas has already demonstrated a need for $2 billion, according to their calculations. We are saying that ought to be recognized and taken care of, but we have also demonstrated, we think, in our State, a need for $4.2 billion.
Here is the difference. It is true that Louisiana received $6.2 billion recently, and Mississippi received some number, 5.2 or whatever billion dollars as well. We, however, suffered 85 percent of the damage in this area. Mississippi suffered 15 percent of the damage. And nonetheless, we got a 54 percent share of the CDBG funds. Mississippi got 46 percent of the CDBG funds.
So we are saying we were well shortchanged of where we should have been. This is to make up for that, to fix the problems, to try to correct it. So we argue that of the $3.7 billion unobligated, it does not hurt one smidgeon of work that anyone has in mind for FEMA. This is not FEMA's money right now. It is not allocated for any purpose at all. It is available to be used for whatever good purpose we can find. I can tell you, this is a tremendously good purpose for our area. We need the money very substantially.
The President and his people have determined that we need $4.2 billion. Our plan which we do have here, which we have submitted to the White House, which they have vetted carefully, shows we need $4.2 billion. We simply are fearful that our money would not be vetted for this purpose, which the President wanted designated solely for Louisiana, which, under this bill, it is not.
And we recognize the needs of Texas. We want to help Texas. But at the same time, we do not want to hurt our own purposes. I urge adoption of the amendment.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I appreciate Chairman Lewis and the hard-working members of the Appropriations…
Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, I appreciate Chairman Lewis and the hard-working members of the Appropriations Committee who are doing a difficult job trying to balance the needs of our war on terror as well as disaster recovery in the gulf coast.
This amendment seeks to do a simple thing, to require that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development use the most accurate and timely data for making decisions on where the unmet needs are in the gulf coast for housing. What this says in effect is that the director shall apply the most timely and accurate data available relating to all damages from such hurricanes and the total number of relocated evacuees. In other words, rather than use the FEMA numbers, which are slow, often inaccurate and, in fact, do not track the evacuees from Katrina to other States, nor because Hurricane Rita occurred after Hurricane Katrina, many of the needs in Texas are still being applied for and have not yet registered. So, without this amendment, the HUD Secretary would be making important decisions on housing and repair and renovation without having a true, accurate picture of where the needs truly are.
I know that in Texas we have more than 75,000 homes that have been destroyed or damaged in Hurricane Rita, much of which are not yet in the system. The last decision that the HUD Secretary made, 98 percent of the money went to Louisiana and Mississippi, 1 percent to Texas. Yet Hurricane Rita actually landed a higher wind speed than Hurricane Katrina, wiped out much of East Texas, did billions of dollars of damage, and yet our people are still waiting for help in housing, repair and renovation. So this is simply an amendment to require accurate and timely data and should this not be allowed today.
I hope perhaps we can work with you, because I think we all want the Secretary to use the best picture of these very complicated hurricane issues.
Madam Chairman, I yield back my time.
Point of Order
Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, I thank Chairman Lewis for your work on disaster relief.
The point of this amendment is to recognize that the money for disaster assistance ought to go with the victims. The fact of the matter is Hurricane Katrina caused tremendous devastation. I know that Texas is now hosting over 400,000 evacuees and educating nearly 40,000 students. We know other States are also opening their hearts and communities to these Katrina evacuees.
This amendment says that $2 billion from our Community Development Block Grant funds shall be made available for the victims of Hurricane Katrina who are living outside their home State. What we want to do is make sure that they have the housing, the social services, the workforce employment services, all those needs that go with them.
This amendment simply says that, as we have spent billions of dollars responding to Hurricane Katrina, that we not forget the victims of Hurricane Katrina who are in other States and who those communities are bearing the brunt of the expenses of hosting them and, in truth, as newspaper articles and studies reported today across the Nation show, that at the pace of recovery in Louisiana, these States, like Texas, will be host to our Katrina neighbors for many months, perhaps many years. It is important that we not punish the States and communities that open their hearts to these victims, that we not send them a bill that says, thank you for your generosity; here, pay for it, raise your taxes, bear the burden; we have no interest in you.
This amendment makes sure that the dollars follow the victims, the evacuees of Hurricane Katrina, and that we not punish the generosity of the surrounding States who did so much for our Katrina evacuees.
I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The purpose of this amendment is to request $2 billion for Texas to help specifically 400,000 of the Hurricane Katrina evacuees who are in our communities, to assist the educational costs of the nearly 40,000 students who we are educating today, and in addition to Hurricane Katrina, help pay for the increased public safety and law enforcement costs that have emerged since being host to our Katrina neighbors.
For health care and mental health: $126 million. Services that have not been compensated again for their help.
For critical infrastructure repairs: $408 million. Because most of the Nation does not know that Hurricane Rita caused tremendous devastation, landed, as I have said before, at a higher wind speed than Hurricane Katrina, created more damage to the electrical grid than Hurricane Katrina, did more damage to the refinery capacity than Katrina, and did almost $1 billion of damage to our timber industry, which is our number one industry in most of the 22 counties directly affected by Rita.
This request, headed by our Governor, Rick Perry, of Texas, made on behalf of the entire Texas congressional delegation, also asks for $54 million for transportation, repair of our roads and bridges from Hurricane Rita, $59 million for navigation waterway repairs. That is because Hurricane Rita caused a damage to our waterways that will require dredging and a great deal of repair.
For our agriculture forestry and rural disaster assistance, $170 million,
because much of Texas that opened their hearts to Katrina are the rural communities that abut Louisiana. They were the ones who opened their shelters for the Katrina victims, opened them a second time for the evacuation of the Houston and gulf coast area, and then on the third big hit actually Hurricane Rita devastated their communities. These are small rural communities and should be commended for all that they have done. This $170 million helps them recover and rebuild their agriculture economy.
For social services, $125 million, mainly for the folks from Katrina but also for some of our dislocated Rita folks.
And then $186 million for community redevelopment, because our recovery is complicated by our Katrina guests. As you know, we have moved them out of hotels into the available housing units; and because Texas had over 75,000 homes damaged or destroyed by Rita, we both no longer have houses for our own families and no housing for the work recovery crews to allow us to get back on our feet.
This also requests $400 million to help pay for our schools who are educating our Katrina neighbors.
Again, we are thrilled to have them. We know if the situation were reversed their hearts and homes would be open to us, but we also know that should that occur that there would be a heavy burden on those other States. We want to make sure that our communities, many of them small, many of them without big budgets, who have done exactly the right thing, exactly the right thing with Katrina and are struggling to recover from their own hurricane, to make sure they are not left behind.
Madam Chairman, I concede the point of order at this time.
Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer out of order Brady of Texas amendment No. 1, which would normally come at the end of the bill.
Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
While I recognize the difficulty in making in order these amendments because of the way the bill has been written, and rightly so, the purpose of this amendment is to recognize that we ought not stick our schools with the bill for educating our Katrina students.
Again, we have 47 States that are now educating students who fled Hurricane Katrina. Our State, our communities are educating almost 40,000 of them. These schools were the first ones to open their doors both as shelters, and then to try to provide some normalcy for these families who had nothing to go back to. The schools and the teachers, if you could have been there in Texas or in the other States to see what these schools did to embrace these families, you would know the importance that education has played in bringing some structure to these families from Louisiana and Mississippi.
Unfortunately, in our earlier funding, while we recognized the need to reimburse these schools, the number of students, almost 158,000 of them, this body was not able to provide the minimum funding for them. It looks like for this school year, we will come in somewhere less than $4,000, around $4,000, yet the minimal expense is $6,000 as authorized by Congress.
What this amendment does is, basically it does not cut money from any area, but simply reserves $400 million from Community Development Block Grant, it reserves that in abeyance until $400 million is provided to all the States that are housing our Katrina students.
I will tell you again, every State has done a remarkable job. I am very proud of Texas, very proud of southeast Texas and east Texas and these schools and what they have done. I just think it is wrong when they have very little money as it is to require them to perhaps raise taxes or take money from other vital programs in order to do the right thing for our Louisiana and Mississippi neighbors. We ought not treat schools and communities, I think, with such disdain.
This amendment is designed to raise the profile of our schools, to say thank you for the work that you are doing, and to attempt to provide some minimal reimbursement across the country for these schools for the work they are doing for our Katrina students.
Again, I appreciate the work this Appropriations Committee has done to help provide reimbursement for schools. We are hoping to get for this school year that full funding to help them.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Madam Chairman, while I may not agree, I concede the point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. Chairman, I have discussed at length with the chairman of the subcommittee from Arizona and the chairman of the full committee the problems that we faced with…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have discussed at length with the chairman of the subcommittee from Arizona and the chairman of the full committee the problems that we faced with Plan Colombia.
In the last 5 or 6 years, there have been 23 aircraft lost that are vitally important to the drug interdiction problem that we are facing. This chart shows you where the drugs are coming from and where they are going according to our intelligence agencies. And once drugs, heroin and cocaine, get beyond Colombia, 65 percent of them, almost two-thirds of them, work their way into the United States onto the streets, into the schools, into the playgrounds of this country.
President Uribe just came out up here recently and told us without the additional assets that are asked for in this amendment, he will not be able to do the job in dealing with the drug problem that we face here in America. So we have to decide as a Congress are we going to continue to fight the war against drugs or are we going to start acquiescing? Are we going to start caving in?
According to President Uribe, they need 23 aircraft. We have talked to the appropriators, and I really appreciate Mr. Kolbe for working on this, and Mr. Lewis, the chairman. We have decided on a compromise right now. I hope that will help President Uribe. It is not going to solve the problem, but at least it is a step in the right direction.
What it does is provides three DC-3s, which will be able to surveil the area and help us interdict these drugs that are getting beyond Colombia and up into the United States. They have been doing a good job without all the assets they need, and with these additional DC-3s, which have all the technology that is necessary to police this area, it should help a great deal.
Make no mistake about it. We still need the Hueys. We still need the Blackhawks. Something like 70 percent of the aircraft they have used in this area have been destroyed in the last 5 or 6 years, and they need help down there. And President Uribe himself came all the way to the United States to make a plea for this help.
I have talked to the Speaker about it as well as the leaders of the Committee on Appropriations. And I hope my colleagues on the Democrat side as well will see fit to support this. We have a war against drugs. I have some colleagues who serve with me on the Government Reform Committee that told me in Baltimore there is an 80 percent increase in the amount of heroin usage in the minority community. If we are going to deal with that problem, we have to provide the resources for President Uribe and the Colombian national police and the Colombian military to deal with this problem.
In addition to that, we have other problems in South America and Central America that need to be dealt with which this equipment will also help us with. And we also have the problem with possible terrorists coming in. This surveillance effort will help in that regard as well.
I have a lot more things I would like to say, but I understand my time is about expired. I hope you will accept this amendment and I really appreciate you working with us.
Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Hyde, chairman Davis, Congressman Souder, Congressman Chabot and the staff of the International Relations Committee for their exceptional work on crafting this critically important amendment.
Colombian President Alvaro Uribe is a key ally in the War on Drugs and a strong ally in Latin America. Last year, under his leadership and with U.S. and international support, Colombia succeeded in destroying 170,000 hectares of illegal coca (aerial and manual eradication), thus removing a potential 150 metric tons of cocaine with a street value of over $15 billion. Colombia's police and military forces captured or shared in the capture of another 223 metric tons of cocaine and cocaine base.
Despite these many successes, experience has taught us that if the cocaine and heroin make it to the coasts of Colombia, it has a 65 percent chance of getting into the United States. This is due, in part, to the reduction in assets monitoring the trafficking routes. We have excellent intelligence, we know where the smugglers are going but we lack the assets in theater to properly intercept the drugs headed our way.
Since 2000, we have witnessed--and thanks to aggressive oversight efforts by this Congress exposed--a nearly 70 percent reduction in military Marine Patrol Aircraft (MPA) used to interdict these deadly drugs after they reach the Colombian coast.
Furthermore, more than 23 aircraft including fixed wing spray planes and helicopters of the Colombian National Police (CNP) have been lost in action. The losses include both Black Hawk and Huey 2 helicopters used by the police anti-drug units in support of high altitude eradication of the opium corp. In 2003 alone, nearly 25 percent of the aircraft used in spray operations were lost, and they have not been replaced as of yet.
We cannot continue to enjoy even modest success at interdicting and destroying these drugs unless we make up these losses.
The Burton Amendment will restore critical anti-narcotic air and surface assets in the Colombian Navy and National police. The Amendment provides for $99.4 million in counter-drug emergency assistance to help replace some of the 23 Colombian National Police (CNP) aircraft lost in the fight against narco-terrorism since 2000. The money will also would provide three (3) new aircraft to serve as Marine Patrol Aircraft (MPA) for the Colombian Navy's drug interdiction efforts. In addition, the proposal will cover the operational and maintenance expenses for two year for these new aircraft.
I know that many of my colleagues are concerned about the cost of this amendment and the fact that we've asked for the funds to be considered as emergency spending.
I would respectfully remind those of my colleagues who oppose this amendment that the streets of America are awash in drugs. Because many of our own military maritime and air interdiction assets were removed from the Caribbean basin to deal with the challenges of homeland security after 9/11, we have left critical gaps in our drug interdiction net. The end result is that today the Central American Transit Zone is being exploited by drug-traffickers like never before.
We ignore this problem at our own peril, as the very routes being used to ship dangers narcotics to our shores could just as easily be used to smuggle in terrorists or weapons of mass destruction. Although there is no solid evidence yet of Central and South America traffickers and Al-Qaeda, many law enforcement officials have commented on the positive benefits to both groups from such a linkage. I believe it is not a question of if Al-Qaeda will try to exploit this glaring hole in our security net but when. The emergency is now and it is very real.
Spending this modest sum now to consolidate the major gains of the Plan Colombia program and strengthen our homeland security effort will save us far more money in comparison to the potential cost of cleaning up the mess should we allow Plan Colombia to ultimately fail, or al- Qaeda to exploit this situation to kill thousands more innocent Americans.
I respectfully ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman from New York is going to withdraw his amendment, and I will not take more than a few seconds here. I…
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman from New York is going to withdraw his amendment, and I will not take more than a few seconds here. I want to make only one point to other Members here.
What the gentleman is proposing is certainly something that is humanitarian, and we certainly agree with his efforts to try to do everything we can to restore order to the very troubled nation of Haiti. But I think it is important to understand that knowing these elections were coming in the 2006 appropriations bill, the foreign assistance amount included in there is $194 million. In addition, the President is requesting in FY 2007 $163 million.
Almost none of the $194 million in the FY 2006 bill has been obligated, so there is no possibility that we are going to need these additional funds. In other words, this is not an emergency at this point. If additional funds are needed, we could easily add them in to the 2007 bill, but we have almost all of the $194 million appropriated in 2006 that are still available for obligations to help this country get on its feet.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I am prepared, as the gentleman from Connecticut has already indicated, to accept this amendment.
The Community Action Program, to which this is directed, has been a proven and effective way to build community-based democracy in Iraq and linkages between community and provincial governance, and I think it has worked very well. The experience that we have had in Iraq has really been very much in favor of what we have been trying to do there.
These funds ensure the continuation of that Community Action Program through the fiscal year 2006, and I commit to the gentleman that we are going to consider further appropriations for this proven program in the regular appropriations bill for 2007.
For that reason, I am happy to accept this amendment and hope that we can move forward.
I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Yes. If there is a scenario in which funding for activities in the foreign operations appropriations bill are funded for a period of time under a continuing resolution, I believe the funds would be available, on a pro-rated basis, to continue the CAP program until regular appropriations were enacted.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Indiana has indicated, this amendment he has offered here does represent a compromise that we have worked out so I do rise to say that we support this amendment. Let me say I do agree with my colleague, the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from New York, in many of comments that she made. It is correct that when President Uribe, for whom I have the greatest respect and believe he has been one of the truly great leaders of Colombia in recent decades, I think when President Uribe came to visit with us, he did not give us any indication that this was the money that he was seeking, that he needed additional funds for.
However, having said that, I believe this is an important aspect of our efforts to interdict drugs coming to Central America and Mexico, and then on into the United States. For us it is the frontline of our war against drugs, and for that reason I do think that this amount which represents a reasonable compromise and does not damage our other programs from which the funds are taken in Iraq, for that reason, I think it is one that can be supported.
Mr. Chairman, I would support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this amendment, and I know some of my colleagues may question why that would be the case, but I think there is a very good and sound reason for that, and I hope the gentleman from Massachusetts will listen to this.
As Members will know, our committee has supported $290 million for the African Union for the AMIS fund. That is the African Military in Sudan support fund. $123 million, that is in this bill. I have been to the Darfur region twice in the last 18 months, and I have seen the very difficult conditions under which this African Union force is working, and I have been pushing the State Department to come up with a strategy as to what would be the future for the A.U. fund.
So, with all of the support that the subcommittee has shown so far for this effort, why are we opposing this additional funding?
Well, the Members may come from both sides of the aisle to the floor and claim that this funding is critical to saving lives in Darfur, but the simple fact is that this will not do that. It does nothing of the kind. In fact, it could actually be counterproductive.
Let me explain why I say that.
There is now an agreement between all the parties, the African Union, the administration and the United Nations, that the African Union force we call AMIS, A-M-I-S, should transition to a United Nations force. Just this last Friday, the African Union announced its support for such a transition and extended the mandate of the AMIS force until the end of this fiscal year. I have their communique in my hand here suggesting that it will be extended and then there would be a transition to a United Nations force. The administration's request, which is fully funded in the bill before us, will fulfill the U.S. contribution to maintain the AMIS force until that time.
If we were to adopt these additional funds, we are basically saying that we do not agree with the idea that this force should be transitioned to a United Nations force. We are saying we want to add additional funds to keep it an African Union fund and not transition it to a United Nations force.
That, Mr. Chairman, would be a mistake. Because there is no question the African Union has made it clear they cannot expand the force. They are willing to extend it for the time being until it can be transitioned to the United Nations force, but they have no capability and no intention of expanding the force. So to put these additional moneys in here to expand the force simply says that we are opposed to transitioning it to a United Nations force where we could have the proper size and the proper forces attached to this.
So that is why I say this amendment actually would be counterproductive to what the gentleman from Massachusetts seeks to do. It is for that reason that I cannot support the message that we would send with this amendment.
If the situation in Darfur is not resolved by the end of the year, this force should be transitioned to the United Nations force where we have seen over and over again it has the capability of dealing with this kind of peacekeeping operation, from Bosnia to other places around the world.
So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. They will not be voting against the AMIS, the African Military in Sudan, the A.U. force, that is there. They will instead, by rejecting this amendment, they will be voting for a coordinated effort to truly bring stability to the troubled region of Darfur; and, for that reason, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the victory of Rene Preval in the first round of elections in Haiti does open a window of opportunity to rescue this country from its…
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the victory of Rene Preval in the first round of elections in Haiti does open a window of opportunity to rescue this country from its failed state status. Now is the time for the United States to tangibly demonstrate that it stands with the Haitian people in their quest for democracy and stability.
Mr. Chairman, I was disappointed that the administration's supplemental request did not contain funding for Haiti, because I do think we have limited time to make a difference by providing assistance to ensure that the second round of elections, which are just weeks away, are free, fair and transparent. This money will help fund quick impact programs to promote reconciliation and stabilization and to expand our participation in the U.N. civilian police training and vetting program.
I appreciate the comments of my chairman and his willingness to make sure that we have adequate funding for Haiti, but I think this amendment does send an important signal to the Haitian people that the U.S. is committed to help them as they pull their country out of chaos.
The United States must show that we care about more than elections, that we care about what comes afterwards as well. So I am very pleased that the chairman addressed this issue.
I am pleased that Mr. Engel is withdrawing the amendment, and I look forward to working with the chairman and working with Mr. Engel to ensure that we are supportive and that Haiti gets the money that it deserves to try to get it on the right track and move that country ahead. It is an embarrassment to the region, it is an embarrassment to the world, that Haiti has not been able to get this support it needs. So, working together, I am hopeful that we can take positive action to get Haiti on the right track.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, and I understand and I am pleased that the chairman is going to accept it, because ICAP is one of the few overwhelming success stories with respect to Iraq reconstruction.
Since 2003, ICAP has worked with communities in all of Iraq's 18 governorates to empower ordinary Iraqis to determine, implement and monitor reconstruction and development in their communities.
We all talk about how Iraqis need to run their own country, choose their own government, fight their own battles, make their own priorities. ICAP is aimed at accomplishing just this goal.
Its implementing partners have trained more than 620 Iraqi staff members. In turn, they have trained over 17,000 community action group members. And ICAP partners do not contract with multi-national corporations to get their work done. Only Iraqi contractors carry out ICAP projects. So, as we move forward, ICAP can be an excellent complement to the new provincial reconstruction teams being established throughout Iraq.
The gentleman's amendment would ensure that ICAP does not run out of funding this summer, as it certainly will if no further resources are provided. So it would be a shame to end this program prematurely. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
With great respect for my colleague, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment though I think he raises a valid concern. I just returned from Colombia, and I think there is a real need to boost the Colombian government's interdiction efforts. I think, in fact, I think that greater focus on interdiction may well be more effective than our current emphasis on eradication. However, I think the responsibility for funding this program lies first and foremost with the Colombian government.
The President of Colombia was in Washington just a few weeks ago and met with Chairman Kolbe and me. He did not indicate to us any pressing need for this assistance. In fact, I believe the State Department is seeking to reprogram funds away from Colombian aviation programs and the Colombian national police to finance the demobilization programs.
That said, I do agree that the gentleman raises an important point. I think it is time that we look at a different mix for funding for Colombia, one that boosts spending on alternate development and interdiction programs and reduces funding for eradication programs which I think are ineffective at best. However, I think this amendment is better considered in the context of FY 2007 appropriations process where a more comprehensive discussion of the Colombia program can take place, and I think that is what is really needed here.
There is no emergency requirement for the funding. It does not belong in the supplemental. Therefore, I do urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, more than a year and a half ago, the House and Senate voted unanimously to condemn the genocide in Darfur, and yet every day more people die, and the slow genocide persists unabated.
It is beyond imagination that the collective might and concerted will of the nations of the world cannot find a way to end this daily toll of human misery. Mr. Chairman, I hope and pray that Sudan will allow the U.N. peacekeeping mission to move forward so we can end this devastation. While we wait, however, we must find ways to make the African Union mission more effective.
I would note to my colleagues that the problem in Sudan has not generally been a lack of resources. With bipartisan support, often under Democratic initiative, the Congress has provided over $1.3 billion in assistance for Darfur and southern Sudan. This assistance has been and continues to be needed, and we are committed to providing it.
The primary problem, in my opinion, has been a lack of political will from the government of Sudan, from the international community and, to some extent, from the United States. Until we address these issues of political will, I am afraid we will be forced to rely on solutions that treat the symptoms without curing the disease.
I support this amendment because it seeks to make a bad situation better. I thank the gentleman for offering it.
I also want to acknowledge the leadership of members of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, specifically Representatives Jackson and Kilpatrick of Michigan and especially Chairman Kolbe, who have worked diligently to bring attention and focus to the situation in Darfur.
For those reasons, I will support the amendment.
Show 8 more
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. Chairman, this $7.8 million State Department amendment that I offer tonight on behalf of myself, Mr. Ortiz, and Mr. Reyes empowers you, Mr. Chairman, and you,…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this $7.8 million State Department amendment that I offer tonight on behalf of myself, Mr. Ortiz, and Mr. Reyes empowers you, Mr. Chairman, and you, Mr. Wolf, as our important subcommittee chairman, and the conferees to address a serious threat to the lives and livelihood of tens of thousands of Texans who call home an area along the southernmost tip of our country that encompasses three congressional districts.
Consistent with the rule under which this bill is being considered, these dollars would simply go to the State Department. But I believe in conference you would be able to clarify, consistent with tonight's debate, that it is designed to upgrade the Federal levees along the Rio Grande that are under the exclusive control of the International Boundary and Water Commission, an agency within the State Department.
Exactly 1,018 days ago, the administration received what was really an alarming report from within its own State Department that our Federal levees along the Rio Grande are up to 9 feet deficient in height, geologically flawed, structurally unsound, and would overtop along some 38 river miles. We know that the time to make repairs is when the sun is shining, not when the flood is coming. The kind of wall that we need along our borders, along our southern border, is a wall to hold in a swollen Rio Grande river. A levee.
What do the levees' weaknesses reported by the State Department mean if you live in the Rio Grande Valley? Well, this is an aerial photo of much of that area. It includes the poorest SMSA, statistical metropolitan area, in the United States: Mission, McAllen, Pharr, and Hidalgo. Hardworking people, small businesses, mission hospital, nursing homes, schools, Balboa Acres neighborhood, along with many others. That is what they look like today on an aerial photo.
What happens if the levees' break? That is what they will look like. They are going to be underwater. And the best way to reach these places is going to be by boat. If the Federal levees are not maintained adequately, and they have not been maintained adequately according to the State Department itself, we will lose 80 percent of our fresh water supply in McAllen, Texas. We will lose two-thirds of the sewer system, which will become unworkable.
That is what we call an emergency, as in emergency supplemental appropriations, in south Texas. We believe that the need is urgent, and that is why some 39 local governments across our three congressional districts, Chambers of Commerce and economic development corporations have pled with the administration to respond to this need.
Last year, under the leadership of Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan, the State Department appropriations bill that this Congress passed called on the President for additional funding. Afterwards, Chairman Wolf and Mr. Mollohan wrote Secretary of State Rice a letter asking for support for rehabilitating these levees, recognizing how many people would suffer if they were not rehabilitated, and noting from their letter, that ``this impacts the safety of the citizens of the Valley.''
Of course, the Valley levees are not the only levees in the country that have problems. I know, Mr. Lewis, that your own State of California has concerns in Sacramento. I would say to you that our situation is unique and different in several particulars. This flooded area, with deficient levees, are exclusively Federal levees that only the Federal Government can remedy because they are along an international border under the control of the State Department.
Second, we are in a hurricane area, a high hurricane area. Last year, we ran out of names we had so many hurricanes, and this year promises another severe hurricane season. But for the fate of nature, the hurricane that hit New Orleans could just as easily have tacked west instead of tacking east and caused just the scenario that is displayed here tonight on this aerial photo.
What I propose, Mr. Chairman, is to add about half a percent, less than the increase that the chairman just agreed to for the last amendment, about half a percent to the $1.3 billion in the State Department, and ask that you clarify in conference that it is to meet a need that I know you are aware exists, and I believe you are trying to respond to. And I believe the State Department recognized and wanted that in this emergency appropriations bill, but somewhere in the bureaucratic process this was not included.
I know that there is more work we will be doing together. I appreciate the meeting that was held today with representatives from south Texas concerning this problem with Mr. Wolf's staff and the meeting we will have tomorrow with the International Boundary and Water Commission. We have our request coming up in the regular appropriations process. But without an emergency appropriation, I believe that the Federal Government really is not meeting its responsibility, a responsibility to the lives and livelihoods of the good hardworking people along the Texas Rio Grande Valley.
That is all this amendment is trying to do, knowing that it could be this summer in hurricane season, it could be next year or the year after. Every day, every month we delay, a thousand days has been enough, and that we need to move forward in addressing this concern now. I thank you.
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
I respect the subcommittee chairman's comments. I do not think he or the Appropriations Committee or the chairman of the full committee are the problem. They recognized this problem last year when they asked the State Department to take additional action. The State Department took additional action, and I believe they asked to be included in this emergency appropriations bill.
We need help in the regular appropriations cycle. We will need that help not just this year but every year for probably the next 10 years. It is a modest amount. All we are asking for is $7.8 million to add to the $2.2 million that was appropriated last year, the $10 million a year that this part of the State Department has been saying since 2003 that they need to avert disaster.
So tonight I would ask all of my colleagues to join with us in meeting an emergency with an emergency appropriation, and then we will strive to work together in a positive, bipartisan way to address what I know the committee recognizes to be a real, genuine, urgent problem.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I bring forward today will provide for $465 million for levees in South Louisiana. Currently, there is $1.363 billion, $1 million…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I bring forward today will provide for $465 million for levees in South Louisiana. Currently, there is $1.363 billion, $1 million added to the $1,363,000,000 in the bill for flood control and hurricane protection.
Part of the problems during the storms is the over-topping of levees, inadequate levees. We have a situation in south Louisiana that was understood by the White House, and the President made his announcement to send more money down to the Congress.
That total amount did not end up getting into the bill. My amendment would increase the amount of funding to $465 billion, and this amendment would provide $35 million for additional hurricane protection for coastal restoration in an area in south central Louisiana that went under during Rita that was not included in the original monies.
We have areas that are in St. Charles Parish, Plaquemines Parish, Jefferson Parish, St. Bernard Parish, Terrebonne Parish, and Lafourche Parish. These areas need to be taken care of, particularly since these areas are the first areas that will take the brunt of a storm in the Gulf of Mexico and southern Louisiana.
This is a working coast. This is the Louisiana coast. Oil and gas from Louisiana accounts for 30 percent of the energy consumed in this country. Thirty percent of the fish that come from the oceans that this country consumes come from Louisiana's coastal areas and the Gulf of Mexico. Forty-two percent of the commodities exported from this country come through New Orleans and the river bounded by Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parish.
Mr. Chairman, I bring this amendment today because the people of south Louisiana need these important levees to protect them.
In particular, the Morganza to the Gulf project, the people in this area where the Morganza to the Gulf project will be built have taxed themselves and started the projects. They are waiting on a WRDA. If we can get a WRDA bill out of the Senate and conferenced and passed, then these folks have started, and this bill would allow them to have that money to move this project forward to protect their areas of south Louisiana.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Chairman, I understand what you are saying. We have been 5 to 6 years without a WRDA bill. The Morganza to the Gulf project has been in that stalled WRDA bill. There are now 80 Members of the Senate that have signed on to letters saying in this session their intention is to pass a WRDA bill.
If authorization is included with the passage of a WRDA bill, in essence, this funding will be ready to go. These people have authorization on portions, as you have explained, and now they can move forward and continue the process of building these levees that they have so much wanted to build for the last 5 to 10 years.
Mr. Chairman, I understand. This is something that I must put to a vote. We are in an emergency situation. We have been. This Congress' actions, where we are at the seventh month, makes it even more critical and more of the need.
Mr. Chairman, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer an amendment out of order.
Madam Chairman, I rise today with an amendment that deals with an area that was completely left out during the disaster assistance to date, and that is agriculture and fisheries. The gentleman from Texas talked about Texas and the damage to its agriculture, to its forestries, to its fisheries, to its housing stock. He mentioned 70,000 homes devastated or damaged in Texas. Katrina left 268,000 homes devastated or damaged in Louisiana.
I am not trying to make a comparison, I am just trying to make the point that the devastation in Louisiana was beyond description, beyond what anyone could comprehend without physically being on the ground and seeing what has happened in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Alabama.
But we have got another problem in Louisiana. We have over $2 billion worth of forestry, fisheries and agriculture that have been destroyed and damaged. The infrastructure is gone. These numbers are based on estimates of damage from the LSU Ag Center, and I have a list of those crops and such, if any of the Members would wish to review it.
While many in Congress and the administration continue to put out figures where assistance has been provided, we have had roughly $87 billion that has been appropriated. Of that $87 billion, I dare to venture that 50 percent, or maybe even less, has hit the area, at least in Louisiana. And that $87 billion that continues to be touted as spent on damage for the hurricanes, Rita and Katrina, somewhere between Washington and Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas and, for that matter, Florida, with Wilma, the money has not reached the people that everyone believes it was intended to reach. There are a lot of contractors making a lot of money, and there is a lot of people that have had contracts with companies that had not even started that are getting contracts.
So no direct assistance has been provided to agriculture, forestry, fisheries in Louisiana and, to my knowledge, other than oysters getting some funding, they have been shortchanged.
The bankers at Christmas were asking the farmers in Louisiana what might the Congress do and the administration do to help them. For, you see, these farmers were meeting with their bankers, who were telling them that they can't loan them the money unless they know that they are going to have some help from their government. So with that, we will be folding up rural Louisiana, the agriculture community, the fisheries community, and the forestry community, those items that drive the economies in south Louisiana.
I had asked for a waiver yesterday. And, Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, I didn't receive it. But I felt compelled to come to the floor, as I did earlier. I believe that this Congress does not comprehend the extensive enormity of the disaster, as I keep hearing from Members.
I would like to again invite every Member of this Congress that has not put a foot in Louisiana or Mississippi to come to see, to understand, to talk to the people that have been devastated.
They are in Texas, too. They are in Alabama and Florida. But the devastation that we have experienced is crippling to our State.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. Chairman, we are on the floor tonight to discuss a supplemental emergency appropriation, supplemental meaning that we are adding to something to complete it or…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we are on the floor tonight to discuss a supplemental emergency appropriation, supplemental meaning that we are adding to something to complete it or to bring it to fruition. An emergency, just ran out and grabbed the dictionary, meaning an unexpected serious occurrence or situation urgently requiring prompt action.
Well, unfortunately, the language in the bill in this area of additional foreign aid is not an unexpected situation or emergent. That is just not my opinion. That is actually the opinion of the committee itself.
The language that we seek to strike is approximately $15 million in additional foreign aid, $5 million to expand public diplomacy information programs relating to Iran, and $10 million in democracy funds for the promotion of democracy, governance, human rights, independent media, and the rule of law in Iran.
Iran is certainly not an ally of this Nation that we are here tonight to seek assistance of $15 million. Again, not my opinion, that it is not an ally of this country. This administration itself called Iran part of the Axis of Evil. Iran, who wants to wipe Israel off the map of the world; Iran, who wants to assist Hamas in any way they possibly can; Iran, who neglects and fails to listen to the world's heed and continues to expand its nuclear program. And yet tonight we have a supplemental program of approximately $15 million to assist that nation.
Again, I say that this is not my opinion, that this is not an emergency situation. The committee in its report says that it is disappointed in the Department of State's failure to provide adequate and timely justification of the emergency nature of these funds.
If the State Department then cannot supply us and cannot supply the committee with the very information that it needs to say that this truly is an emergency situation, why then is this House considering providing an additional $15 million to support Iran?
The rest of the supplemental obviously has worthwhile programs in it. We are trying to assist our men and women overseas who find themselves in harm's way as we speak here tonight with military assistance. We are trying to assist those people down in the gulf coast to rebuild their lives with Katrina aid.
But, at the same time, we have articles such as this added to this Christmas tree list, if you will, of programs to the supplemental bill that do not meet the criteria of an emergency situation.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would say that we should strike the language in the bill that would delete $5 million for public diplomacy and $10 million for economic support fund for Iran.
Point of Order
Mr. Chairman, if I may have a colloquy with the chairman?
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have come to the floor tonight to address the issue of an emergency supplemental in which we are spending upwards of $15 million more in essence on what I call foreign aid. I am here tonight on this particular amendment to strike approximately $5 million of that foreign aid.
As I stated before and as people look to this program and what we do here tonight, one must wonder what makes this situation an emergency. Well, the committee itself raised that same question when they said, ``The committee is disappointed in the Department of State's failure to provide adequate and timely justification for the emergency nature of these funds.''
What are these funds going to? These funds are going to the country of Iran. An ally of ours? Not by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, Iran has been called by this administration part of the Axis of Evil. Iran is a country that wishes to wipe Israel off the face of the map. In fact, the President of Iran has even said that they wish to wipe the United States off the face of the map.
So one wonders who at the State Department was looking at this situation in the past and did not know that there was a need for funds in this particular area, either in the past budget which we have already gone through or in the budget process that we are going through as we speak now. Apparently no one knew at the State Department that Iran is a problem country that we have to deal with and needed additional funding for, and so they come to us at the last minute with a supplemental emergency appropriation.
With all of the problems that we have today in this country, now is not the time to be adding more to our Nation's debt for foreign aid. Other portions of this bill certainly have merit to them. Portions, for example, for aid to our soldiers. Our men and women who find themselves in harm's way as we speak here tonight need the additional dollars and cents to get the job down there.
We have heard also the issues with regard to the folks down in the gulf coast, and there is additional funding for that program as well, to assist those people in New Orleans and elsewhere as far as their needed relief.
But do we need to spend additional emergency funds tonight for foreign aid in essence for diplomatic and consulate programs for Iran, not by any stretch of the imagination an ally of this country?
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest we should not. This is not a program that
we will be putting on the burdens of today's taxpayers. No, we will be putting this burden on our children and our children's children. Why is that? It is because we are already in deficit spending in this Nation, and the emergency supplemental we are debating tonight will simply add to that debt and add to that burden.
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, to strike this additional foreign aid which is not an emergency by any stretch of the imagination.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the gentlewoman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana. The amendment…
Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the gentlewoman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana.
The amendment seeks to add $430 million for armoring levees in addition to the $170 million already contained in the bill. The supplemental bill before us provides the request of $170 million to armor the most critical portions of the hurricane protection system that are judged by the Corps of Engineers to be the most critical to providing near-term protection to the citizens of New Orleans.
The funding, as provided, is not geographically specific and can be used across the entire hurricane protection system to armor the areas identified by the Corps as the most vital. This funding is sufficient to address the most essential armoring requirements as identified by the Corps of Engineers.
According to the Corps, only 16 percent of the requested $170 million can be expended in 2006. Given that the Corps will only be able to expend a very limited amount of the $170 million this fiscal year, the provision of additional funding will not result in more near-term protection for the region.
Activities that occur predominately in fiscal year 2007 and beyond do not qualify for emergency funding in this supplemental. They should be addressed in the regular order of our fiscal year 2007 energy and water bill.
The amendment also seeks to add an additional $35 million to accelerate the study phase of the Morganza to the Gulf project. I would like to point out that the study was funded at $11 million in 2006 through both the regular bill and the supplemental funding. The study is ongoing, and it is funded for activities through this fiscal year.
The construction activities require additional authorization. This study does not rise to the level of an emergency. I urge my colleagues to work
with me to pursue this in regular order.
I must mention to my colleague that I have these kind of problems in northern California, that I can similarly put in this emergency supplemental. But, frankly, they are more logical for regular order.
So, with that, I would ask my colleague to consider withdrawing his amendment. Failing that, I am afraid I must oppose the amendment and ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on its adoption.
I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. I must say to the gentleman that I do have similar questions that are very much like this in northern California, critical circumstances; and it just is not appropriate in the portion of this emergency bill. Because of that, I would have to oppose the gentleman's request.
On the amendment that we are considering, Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
It has been withdrawn.
Madam Chairman, reluctantly I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.
Madam Chairman, let me express my appreciation to the gentleman for his cooperation.
In the meantime, I must make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.
Madam Chairman, because the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) is so cooperative and such a great friend, I hate to have to exercise my procedural responsibilities here, but, Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides appropriations for an unauthorized program and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part, an appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.
Madam Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for an earmark that is not authorized. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program, and thereby violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part:
``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
Madam Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for an earmark that is not authorized. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill, and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part:
``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
This amendment states a legislative condition, and I am asking for a ruling of the Chair.
Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
I must say that the gentleman came over to this side to chat with me about this circumstance a while ago, and as I was listening, people keep buzzing other things in my ear. I thought he was making jest about the gentleman from Michigan, but he was talking about another gentleman who thinks he is more Irish than we are who may be elsewhere.
In the meantime, I told the gentleman that my mother's name is O'Farrell, and I am as disconcerted as he is. So I must say to the gentleman that I truly am sorry that you and I are not there together.
If the gentleman will yield, I am happy to do that, but also, if you wanted to take up the other amendment, I would be glad to stand in for the other gentleman who is not here.
Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. Chairman, I rise, and I will be very brief, in support of the…
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Chairman, I rise, and I will be very brief, in support of the gentlewoman, the ranking Democrat on the House Administration Committee, which has jurisdiction over elections, who I understand will be offering an amendment which I offered in committee dealing with the challenges to the five-state region struck by Katrina and by Rita as it relates to the administration of elections.
As we know, New Orleans has an election coming up within the next 30 days. Other jurisdictions have elections. I tried to offer $5 million in the committee through the EAC. I want to say that the gentlewoman, I appreciate her leadership on this issue. I support her amendment. I hope it is made in order. I hope it is not objected to. And I hope that we can see it adopted.
I want to tell the gentlewoman as well that Mr. Knollenberg and I have been discussing this, because FEMA has said that they cannot spend, under the Stafford Act, certain expenditures which are required to administer the elections, particularly in New Orleans, because that is upon us, but in other jurisdictions as well. They did pay for the loss of machines. They did pay for the loss of ballot boxes and other paraphernalia necessary, but they have said under the Stafford Act they cannot pay for the election expenses in either Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana. The gentlewoman's amendment speaks to that and I would certainly be in support of it.
Mr. Chairman, I plan to vote for the emergency supplemental appropriations bill that we are considering today.
H.R. 4939 will pay for supplies and materiel that our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan desperately need to carry out their mission.
The supplemental will also provide much needed resources to Gulf-Area States that were ravaged by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
However, this bill is not perfect.
I am disappointed that the appropriations committee did not address a problem that has come to light in recent weeks with respect to voting in States that suffered the brunt of hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
On August 29, 2005, residents in Gulf Coast States endured one of the most devastating
natural disasters in our nation's history. Tens of thousands of voters were displaced.
One month later, hurricane Rita caused additional widespread damage to voting infrastructure in Gulf-Area States.
An extraordinary amount of the Gulf region's election infrastructure--voting machines, polling places, and voting materials-- were destroyed or severely damaged by the destruction wrought by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
In Louisiana alone, over 250 polling places in the State's coastal parishes were destroyed.
To make matters worse, tens of thousands of people were forced to temporarily resettle in cities and towns throughout the United States while their communities are rebuilt.
Many if not most of these displaced people have every intention of returning to their communities as soon as conditions allow.
In the meantime, they are determined to maintain as many ties to their communities as they can.
Understandably, they would like to participate in elections that will be held this year in their communities.
Unfortunately, FEMA has proven ineffective at delivering assistance to election officials in hurricane-stricken States who are busy mounting what may be the most extensive and expensive voter outreach, education, and absentee voting program in the Nation's history.
According to FEMA's narrow reading of the ``Robert T. Stafford Act,'' the agency is only empowered to make reimbursements to States to replace destroyed voting machines, but not for outreach to displaced voters.
In other words, FEMA can pay to replace damaged or destroyed voting machines, but it cannot pay to help States plan and execute the voter outreach and voter absentee programs that will be crucial to maintaining electoral continuity in 2006.
As a consequence, of the roughly $3.8 million in claims that the State of Louisiana has so far submitted for reimbursement, for example, only $1.2 million have been approved by FEMA.
During markup of this bill last week, I offered an amendment that would have provided funds to the election assistance commission to help States pay for the entire range of activities that are crucial to running fair, accurate, and secure elections in 2006.
I regret that my amendment was not accepted, and I regret that the bill before us today does not include a provision specifying that under the Stafford Act FEMA is authorized to reimburse States for a wider range of election activities than the agency insists.
Let me be clear: I do not blame this omission on partisanship because there is nothing partisan about the issue.
Democratic, Republican, and Independent voters in the Gulf States all endured last year's trauma.
However, I am very pleased that Chairman Knollenberg recognizes the significance of this issue and has agreed to work to address it in conference.
In the days ahead, I look forward to working with Chairman Knollenberg and his staff to ensure FEMA has the necessary authorities to reimburse the hurricane-stricken States for a much wider range of essential election activities than FEMA claims it has under current law.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 4939 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 725, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no…
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 4939 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 725, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except:
Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate;
An amendment by Ms. Millender-McDonald, regarding funding for election activities under FEMA;
An amendment by Mr. Hinchey, regarding limitations on foreign media;
An amendment by Mr. Hinchey, regarding funding for contracts using other than competitive procedures;
An amendment by Mr. Melancon, regarding funding for flood control programs;
An amendment by Mr. Melancon, regarding agriculture disaster relief for Louisiana;
An amendment by Mr. Jefferson, regarding funding for HUD and FEMA disaster relief;
An amendment by Mr. Jefferson, regarding increased funding for HUD;
An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, regarding increased funding for rental housing under HUD;
An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas to strike certain Secretarial authorities to waive low- and moderate-income requirements;
An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, regarding limiting certain funds on gulf coast elections;
An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, regarding approval of disaster loans;
An amendment by Mr. Paul, regarding funding for the State of Texas;
An amendment by Mr. Tierney, regarding establishment of a House Select Committee;
An amendment by Mr. Conaway, to strike section 3010;
An amendment by Mr. Conaway, regarding LIHEAP funding and ANWR and OCS drilling;
An amendment by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota, regarding demonstrations within cemeteries;
An amendment by Mr. Nadler, regarding ocean shipping containers;
An amendment by Ms. Velazquez, regarding deadlines for SBA loans;
An amendment by Ms. Velazquez, regarding SBA loan rates;
An amendment by Mr. Hall, regarding child care subsidies;
An amendment by Ms. DeLauro to repeal avian flu liability provisions;
An amendment by Mr. Berry of Arkansas, regarding the enrollment period for Medicare benefits;
An amendment by Ms. Kaptur, regarding establishment of a House Select Committee;
An amendment by Ms. Lee, regarding FEMA termination of housing activities;
An amendment by Mr. DeFazio, regarding limitation on funds with an exception for constitutional activities;
An amendment by Mr. Reyes, regarding funding for pandemic flu;
An amendment by Mr. Reyes, regarding the Veterans Administration;
An amendment by Mr. Gingrey, to strike funding for the Historic Preservation Fund;
An amendment by Mr. Westmoreland, to strike section 3006;
An amendment by Ms. Foxx, to strike funding for the Broadcasting Board of Governors;
An amendment by Mr. Flake, to strike section 3007;
An amendment by Mr. Inslee, regarding FISA;
An amendment by Mr. Brady of Texas, to strike certain language regarding HUD funding distribution;
An amendment by Mr. Brady of Texas, regarding HUD funding distribution among the States;
An amendment by Mr. Brady of Texas, regarding additional funding for Texas;
An amendment by Mr. Brady of Texas, regarding additional funding for Texas offset by State Department and FEMA disaster relief funds;
An amendment by Mr. Brady of Texas, regarding redirection of HUD funding for educational costs in Texas;
An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, regarding educational and cultural exchange programs;
An amendment by Mr. Waxman, regarding DOD contracts, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Neugebauer, eliminating funding in title II, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Obey, regarding availability of certain LIHEAP funds, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; 30 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Sabo, regarding funding for Homeland Security, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes (and which shall be in order at any point in the reading);
An amendment by Ms. Lee, regarding Iraq, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Jindal, regarding funding for VA offset from FEMA disaster relief;
An amendment by Mr. Jindal, regarding defense programs offset from FEMA disaster relief;
An amendment by Mr. Jindal, regarding funding for military construction offset by FEMA disaster relief;
An amendment by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, regarding military construction.
Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee or by the Member who caused it to be printed in the Record or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this Congress needs to recognize that caring for our veterans is a continuing cost of the war on terrorism. My amendment adds $630…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that this Congress needs to recognize that caring for our veterans is a continuing cost of the war on terrorism.
My amendment adds $630 million in emergency funding so that the VA can better meet the needs of veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and with this financial relief the VA will also be able to provide better care to the heroes of earlier conflicts.
Here is the situation. The VA projected that it would treat 110,000 Operation Iraqi and Enduring Freedom veterans this fiscal year. At the end of January, the first third of the fiscal year, the VA had already treated 74,000 veterans. At this rate, the VA will treat twice the number of veterans than projected.
Our veterans need our support now. There is no better place to include funding for our veterans and military families than in the bill addressing the costs of the war.
First, I have added $250 million for mental health. According to a recent Army study, as many as one in three veterans returning from combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will experience symptoms related to mental health problems.
This amendment will make available $9 million to expand veterans' access to family therapy; $168 million to implement the VA's own Comprehensive Mental Health Plan; $24 million for additional substance abuse treatment, one in five post-traumatic stress disorder patients have had substance abuse problems; $35 million to increase capacity to treat returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who need outpatient mental health services; $15 million for increased in-patient PTSD treatments, about a 12 percent increase; $3 million to increase staffing for VA efforts to seamlessly transition returning veterans with the Post-Deployment Health Assessment.
The VA is seeing more and more veterans from previous conflicts with post-traumatic stress disorder. This is a growing concern, and it is smart to provide quality mental health care to our returning veterans now and help forestall greater problems and more expense in the future.
The amendment also adds $110 million for prosthetics, a 10 percent increase. We all marvel at what we have done today to help return veterans to a full life, but it is not cheap. Above-knee replacement costs about $50,000, and then it needs periodic adjustment and maintenance. In past years, the VA prosthetic budget had grown by 17 percent a year. By 2007, the administration would cut back the growth to 12 percent. Now is certainly not the time to cut these important programs.
In another area, I added $200 million for direct medical services. Just like last year, we are already hearing anecdotes about shortages at VA medical facilities. Supply problems, budget problems, we do not need a crystal ball to make these predictions. With all the extra new veterans in need of medical care, there will be another budget shortfall.
This is by no means the fault of the men and women in the VA. The VA has made a real innovation by establishing state-of-the-art polytrauma centers, but they cost real money. These centers treat the worst injuries, sharing information with one another and military hospitals by videophone.
The amendment also adds $15 million for medical and vocational rehabilitation services. Service-disabled veterans applying for vocational rehabilitation and employment services increased dramatically over the last decade, roughly a 75 percent increase. Demand for this service will grow even faster due to the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Finally, the amendment includes $55 million for increased staffing to process the growing number of disability claims. Currently, the backlog is more than 370,000 cases, and it is getting worse. In 2005, the VA was averaging 167 days to process one of these claims.
In 2006, it has grown to 185 days. In a time of war, we need to treat our heroes well. Slowing down the process of disability claims is a slap in the face.
Before closing, I would like to acknowledge Chairman Walsh's recognizing that there is a need for VA funding. In fact, he was good enough to grant the VA authority to use $275 million for the construction of a VA Hospital in New Orleans on a need basis.
VA facilities are already feeling the crunch when it comes to their budgets. Why are we not preparing for the future? Why are we willing to let the VA funding run out this year? Why is this administration not willing to fully fund the true cost of the war?
I am here to tell you that we can do better and we must do better. Our troops bravely put their lives on the line and it is our moral duty to provide them the care they were promised. Mr. Chairman, it is high time we stop paying lip service to our veterans and realize that caring for veterans is an ongoing cost of the war. It is high time that we start working towards providing the
VA with the tools needed to provide proper care for our servicemen and -women.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and to support the brave men and women in uniform.
Point of Order
Mr. Chairman, after 7 years of work on anti-narcotic efforts in Colombia, we are now seeing the fruits of our labors in the drug wars. Americans, and especially our young people, are greatly…
Mr. Chairman, after 7 years of work on anti-narcotic efforts in Colombia, we are now seeing the fruits of our labors in the drug wars. Americans, and especially our young people, are greatly benefiting here at home from our policies in Colombia and the strong support of the government of President Alvaro Uribe.
We are concerned, however, with the recent waning support by some in the administration for our vital counterdrug initiatives. A focused part of our war on drugs is comprised of the interdiction and spray airplanes used by the Colombian police and military. We have funded a number of these aircraft, but several have been lost because of serious maintenance problems or have been shot down or destroyed.
Since the year 2000, more than 23 aircraft, including spray planes and vital helicopters, have crashed or been lost in action. This includes one of the original Black Hawk helicopters which we in the Congress obtained for the Colombian National Police, CNP, to use against the opium crops as early as 1999. The administration's FY07 budget fails to address these shortfalls.
Moreover, after some correspondence, the State Department dismissed my recent call for the replacement of these aircraft.
What we need is a small, but targeted, assistance package to replace lost anti-drug aircraft and to provide a few new Marine Patrol Aircraft, MPA, of modest cost for the Colombian Navy. We are asking that $99.4 million be directed for the operational costs of maintaining and replacing aircraft used by the Colombian police and military for drug interdiction efforts.
Of that $99.4 million, we ask for $31 million to be allocated for the purchase and operation of ten Huey II helicopters, $40 million be used for the purchase and operation of two UH-60 Black Hawks, one of which will be dedicated to interdicting high value targets, HVT, $2 million to be given toward the upgrade and purchase of flight simulators to be used by the CNP for training on safety and night operations, and $26.4 million to be allocated for the purchase and operation of three DC-3 aircraft which will be used by the Colombian Navy as Marine Patrol Aircraft for multi-role shore interdiction and support missions.
The assistance we provide to Colombia is equally as important to the United States as our assistance in fighting terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lest we forget, more Americans die each year from using deadly heroin and cocaine that originate from nearby Colombia than did those on the day of the 9/11 attacks in New York, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon. We must continue to sustain our war against drugs and the progress we have been witnessing in Colombia.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to secure funding for an aerial surveillance platform to be used for counternarcotics efforts by the agents and personnel of our Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, in Afghanistan.
The 9/11 Commission has made it clear that if Afghanistan were to again fall into failed-state status, we would be set back in our war on terror.
The growing opium and heroin trade provides for that possibility. The massive opium crop helps finance terrorism and anticoalition attacks and hampers the effective growth of peace and stability in the region. The drug trade also fuels corruption, which undermines the new democratic institutions we have worked so hard to establish.
We must vigorously pursue, interdict, and arrest the drug kingpins and shut down their operations. The just-signed PATRIOT Act has an additional provision I authored, creating a new Federal offense of narco-terrorism, to be enforced by the DEA against those who use illicit drugs and proceeds from their sales to support or fund terrorist acts or organizations, in places like Afghanistan.
In order to enable the DEA to enforce the new legislation, it is important for it to have the appropriate tools. An aerial surveillance platform provides both ``force protection'' of its dedicated and courageous personnel, as well as a platform for gathering judicially enforceable and prosecutable evidence of drug-related crimes. This evidence can be used in this country as a means of prosecuting and bringing to justice the drug kingpins and their cohorts.
If Afghanistan were to revert to its former failed-state status, the United States would be dealt a severe blow in its global war on terror. We cannot expect the Afghan legal system to effectively combat the drug problem in that country.
Thus, it is critical that we take the appropriate measures to ensure security and stability in Afghanistan. This modest $9.2 million amendment is one huge step toward that goal.
Show 11 more
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. Chairman, I come once again to the floor to raise the issue that I have raised earlier this evening, and that is in this time of spiraling deficits and excess…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I come once again to the floor to raise the issue that I have raised earlier this evening, and that is in this time of spiraling deficits and excess spending by the Federal Government, is now the time to be spending money on an emergency supplemental where the nature of the emergency comes into question? In this case, as I classified in my terminology before, I called it foreign aid, I don't know whether anyone can really say that this is not.
The funding here is $5 million for academic, professional and cultural exchange focused on Iran. As I pointed out before, and it was agreed, Iran is no ally of the United States Government. As we agree, Iran is a part of the Axis of Evil. They are supporting Hamas. They do wish to eliminate and see Israel wiped off the map of the world. They do wish to see the United States wiped off the map of the world. They are continuing with their nuclear program. In this, we are all in agreement. Iran is a threat.
This is not something new. This is not something that just came about in the last few days, weeks, months or what have you. We have known that Iran is a threat to the world community for some time, at least this House did. We have had many debates and discussions on this in the past on this floor as to the threat that Iran poses to this Nation, to its area community and the world in general.
The question then becomes, is this new news to the State Department? Apparently it is, because were it not new news to the State Department, they would have gone through regular order and they would have sought this $5 million or the $10 or $15 million for the other appropriations that we previously spoke about.
They would have gone through regular order, and they would have asked for and put this through the budget process in the current budget cycle year, or they would have included it in the budget proposal that we are currently considering as we go forward for the next fiscal year. They did not. Instead, they come to us now at the last minute and ask for an emergency supplemental appropriation.
I would ask that the State Department pay more attention to these matters. If they were not aware that Iran was such a threat and that these programs are needed, and I am not about to debate right here that they are not needed, but if they were needed, they should have gone through regular order, they should have come through the process earlier.
In addition, all other areas of spending in this House, when it goes through regular order, has to compete against other necessary expenditures. Some foreign threats that we have, Afghanistan, and Iraq and elsewhere, have to be weighed against other competing interests.
Likewise, they must be weighed against domestic interests as well. As in this bill, there is money here for Katrina. They have to assist those people down there. They have an interest as well. Other domestic programs also have to be weighed against other competing domestic interests.
I would simply suggest to this body that while Iran is a threat, it is not a new threat. It is a threat that we have known has been out there for some period of time.
The appropriate manner would have been for this to have gone, as with the other legislation amendments that I discussed previously, through regular order, so that we would have had a complete and full debate on it.
Again, I agree with what the committee said on those other matters, that the committee, as I quote from their report, ``is disappointed in the Department of State's failure to provided adequate and timely justification of the emergency nature of these funds.'' I concur with the committee. The State Department has not provided that justification.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to delete this additional $5 million.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have the amendment considered at this point. Mr. Chairman, my amendment speaks to the immediate needs of our southern…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have the amendment considered at this point.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment speaks to the immediate needs of our southern neighbor, Haiti. This amendment would increase economic support funds by $40 million, development assistance by $5 million, and child survival and health funds by $5 million, totaling an additional $50 million for Haiti. It is my intention to offer and withdraw this amendment.
After a history of instability, poverty and democratic setbacks, Haitians
poured onto the streets of their country last month to cast their votes, demonstrating a desire for a better future. After a contested vote-counting period, the front-runner in the presidential election, Rene Preval, was declared the winner with nearly 52 percent of the official vote, compared to less than 12 percent to his closest contender.
Such a large mandate and a large margin of victory gives Preval a strong mandate and legitimacy to reform and rebuild Haiti's institutions and fractured society. Yet the challenges are vast. The same massive underlying problems still plague Haiti, and a second round of elections looms in the coming weeks.
Now is the time, I very strongly believe, for the United States to tangibly demonstrate that it stands with the Haitian people in their quest for democracy and stability. We have long had a special relationship and a special obligation to the people of Haiti. I believe that there exists a limited window of opportunity to help Haiti, which was opened by the recent successful elections.
We should seize this opportunity by expanding our assistance to Haiti and the Haitian people in the immediate future. My amendment does just that. My amendment provides $50 million in emergency FY 06 supplemental assistance for our impoverished neighbor in the south. Haiti, of course, is the poorest country in the Americas.
Specifically, the amendment increases economic support funds by $40 million, developmental assistance by $5 million and child survival and health by $5 million. This supplemental funding directly addresses the profound social needs in Haiti, while providing support for future elections, reconciliation and efforts to jump-start local economies.
Mr. Chairman, I would like you to know that members of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, where I am the ranking member, recently wrote a bipartisan letter supporting $50 million of additional assistance for Haiti in this supplemental legislation.
I would like to thank Chairman Barton and the other members of the subcommittee for their support. I will include this letter in the Record.
Elections signal the beginning of a transition, not an end. Thus we believe that this additional assistance is the least we can do at this critical time to help Haiti. We obviously have a stake in their democracy-taking route, having Haiti so close to our shores. Of course, there is a large Haitian-American community in this country which has ties to Haiti that further bind our two countries together as well.
Mr. Chairman, as this legislation moves forward, I ask that the House work with the Senate to include emergency aid for Haiti. It is my hope that, in the end, Congress will heed the bipartisan call of the subcommittee and provide important additional aid to Haiti.
As I said, I am going to withdraw my amendment at the end because I believe that this is the best way to move this amendment forward, by working with the Senate, and hopefully we get it there and it comes here. So I urge my colleagues to listen to our pleas.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congresswoman Lee and Congresswoman Lowey for their support and Congressman Kolbe for his explanation.
Mr. Chairman, in the hope that this will move the process along so that Haiti will get all of the money it needs, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would designate $10 million of economic support funds for the Community Action Program, also known as CAP, in Iraq. That is what this…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would designate $10 million of economic support funds for the Community Action Program, also known as CAP, in Iraq. That is what this amendment does.
I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that a real hero in this House is Mr. Kolbe who has made sure that these programs have flourished. In my 11 trips to Iraq, I am absolutely convinced the best thing we have done in all of our expenditures on the economic side of the table has been to support these CAP agencies.
There were five NGOs, nongovernment organizations. There are still four left. They stand potentially to lose money in June or July and not have the carry-over into the next fiscal year. What this amendment ensures, with Mr. Kolbe's help, is that that money will be extended so that we can keep them in place.
When we talk about keeping them in place, for instance, one of these nongovernment organizations, and it is typical, has about 130 employees who are all Iraqis throughout Iraq and only seven who are not Iraqis, one or two Europeans, one or two eastern Europeans, and one or two Americans; and when you add up the others we are talking about over 600 Iraqis. And what are they doing? They are rebuilding schools, they are repairing water and sewer lines, building health clinics, helping what takes place in the schools. Just a host of other infrastructure and development projects.
In the report that was done by the Appropriations Committee, and I would like to read from it, it expresses my sentiments better than I could. This is what the report says, ``The CAP program has generated a network of more than 1,300 community associations across 17 governorates in Iraq, and has trained 17,281 community association members.''
The January, 2005, audit by the Office of Inspector General USAID found that the CAP, ``achieved 98 percent of its intended outputs, including citizen participation, inner-government cooperation, local government cooperation, local employment generation, and consideration of environmental concerns.''
The bottom line is, these programs are working extraordinarily well. And I thank Mr. Kolbe, and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee as well, for ensuring that these organizations do not have to close up shop, and fire a whole host of Iraqis.
I would like to just say, in addition, I am a strong supporter of making sure that we do everything we can to have the Iraqis succeed. It is astounding that last year they had three elections. They established a government. That government established a constitutional convention. They created a constitutional convention.
Then we had a second election, ratified by 79 percent of the Iraqis who voted. And then, once the constitution was established, December of this last year, 76 percent of all Iraqi adults voted, not 76 of those who registered, 76 percent. And 30 percent of their new assembly is made up of women. That is extraordinary progress on the political side. We are training their police, their border patrol and their army. I wish we had not allowed it to disintegrate.
But now they are getting to critical mass, so we are seeing the military side, we are seeing the political side. This is the economic side that Mr. Kolbe is focusing on.
I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. Chairman, if I can just add, reclaiming my time, evidently not one of these projects done by these organizations have had to deal with assaults by Iraqis, have had a building or something which was then destroyed by insurgents. They have all survived.
I thank Mr. Kolbe from the bottom of my heart for his help in this effort.
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Chairman, there is a concern obviously with continuing resolutions. Is there a way to deal with that issue?
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the Community Development Block Grant…
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the Community Development Block Grant Program needs more funding, however, this amendment would take $2 billion out of the Disaster Relief Fund, which is severely underfunded as it is, of the more than $35 billion in supplemental funds that we have provided to the Disaster Relief Fund for the recovery from Katrina, Rita and Wilma. As of March 8, only $3.7 million of that remains unallocated; and long term recovery, of course, is just getting underway.
The disaster fund is very volatile. Over the last month, weekly obligations have varied from $250 million to $1.1 billion. That is per week. The administration estimates the current balance of $3.7 billion in the disaster fund will only last us through the end of May as it is. If you take $2 billion out of that, there is not much left to last us in the disaster fund.
Now, if you take those monies out of the disaster fund, many of the authorized activities for which the States are expecting funding cannot be funded. And I am talking about the Stafford Act Recovery Programs in the gulf coast States' ability to respond to new disasters if they should occur. During the months ahead, funds are needed
primarily for the public assistance and mitigation programs in the gulf coast area.
Also, funding for the disaster fund, if it is less than $9.5 billion, would mean deferring or postponing, at least stopping momentarily, at least, public assistance projects like repairing roads, repairing water control facilities, public buildings and equipment, public utilities, park, recreational facilities and the like, all of that would have to stop.
So, Mr. Chairman, I urge that Members vote against this amendment. Not to say that the Community Development Block Grant Program does not need funds but this ain't the place to get it. So I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition.
Could I propose a question to the offeror of the amendment? Are you proposing with this amendment to just simply add $1.9 billion to the Disaster Relief Fund?
I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Reclaiming my time, as I understand it then, you propose to take $1.7 billion.
$1.9 of the 3.7 that has not yet been allocated out of the disaster fund?
For the Community Development Block Grant Program?
So it is essentially like the last amendment but in different form?
Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
Reclaiming my time, I also oppose the gentleman's amendment for the same reason that I said on the earlier amendment.
If you take these monies out of the Disaster Relief Fund, then you are saying to the gulf coast States that we will not have money to continue the Stafford Act Recovery Programs, which are vital to that region. You are saying there are not monies there for the public assistance and mitigation programs in the gulf coast area. You are saying that we will have to postpone the projects like repairing roads and water control facilities and public buildings and equipment, public utilities, parks, recreational facilities and the like.
So as much as I understand the gentleman's concern to get more money in the Community Development Block Grant Program, this would be, to coin a phrase, disastrous for the gulf coast region to take it away from the Disaster Relief Fund.
I oppose the amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am being asked every two seconds by Members, what is the story about tonight. Let me simply suggest, and ask the gentleman from…
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am being asked every two seconds by Members, what is the story about tonight. Let me simply suggest, and ask the gentleman from California if he concurs. It is my understanding that what we are trying to do is to put together a unanimous consent agreement under which we would be able to complete our business of debating all of the pending amendments within about another 11 hours. That assumes that we can get that UC agreement. If we can't, the debate could go on far longer. We don't quite have that UC agreement worked out yet, but we are trying to. And what we are hoping to do is to proceed with a number of amendments, the Millender-McDonald, Souder, Engel, Shays, Hyde, Burton, Capuano, Salazar, Doggett, Hinojosa, Melancon, Jefferson, Reyes, Jackson-Lee, and Tierney/Leach. We are trying to get at least that far tonight. We don't know if we can. I would ask the gentleman if he has any disagreement with what I just said.
And I would simply say, my understanding is if we can reach this UC agreement, there will be no further votes tonight.
It is also my understanding that afterwards, there is an intention to have the Energy and Commerce Committee also bring up a matter relating to the Low Income Heating Assistance Program.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) a question. As the gentleman knows there is a tradition of courtesy in this House which dictates that when either party has a function that the House will not be in session beyond say 5 or 6 o'clock.
We have made an exception this evening despite the fact that there was a dispute in the Republican caucus earlier in the day, which ate up an extra hour and a half and despite the fact that we have been told that other legislation needed to be brought to the floor. We still indicated our desire to cooperate in establishing a time limit, because we were trying to facilitate the Members of both parties leaving here tomorrow afternoon.
It now appears to me that despite our willingness to do that, we are getting a continual stream of new amendments being produced on the majority side, which are preventing us from reaching a time agreement that would enable us to get out of here at a reasonable hour tomorrow afternoon. I would like to know what the status of the situation is because at this point, I frankly see no purpose in continuing tonight if all we are going to do is give people more time to draft more amendments.
We have imposed a deadline on our side of the aisle and told Members that amendments will not be considered if they come in after a certain hour. But my understanding is on the Republican side there are still amendments coming in and the majority is being pressured to put them on the list. I do not mind working cooperatively, but I do mind when I am being taken advantage of.
I want to suggest that if we can not reach an agreement on time within the next 10 minutes, I for one intend to move to adjourn.
I yield to the gentleman from California.
I want it understood that if we do not have an agreement in 10 minutes, I will move to adjourn.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, what I am trying to do still in the interest of cooperation tonight, I am trying to filibuster until Mr. Capuano, who is ready to offer the amendment, is ready to offer at this point.
Could I ask if the gentleman is ready? He is ready. This is probably the shortest filibuster in the history of the House.
I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? I do agree. Texans stepped up and helped out in a tremendous way. I hope the Attorney General will work quickly to deliver a plan that meets the gentleman's…
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
I do agree. Texans stepped up and helped out in a tremendous way. I hope the Attorney General will work quickly to deliver a plan that meets the gentleman's concerns.
The committee accepts the amendment and congratulates the Member for doing this to help DEA. I think he makes a very powerful point.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
I am kind of surprised the amendment came up, to a certain extent. The gentleman from Texas, not this gentleman, but the gentleman he referred to, just came into town, and I have not had an opportunity to talk to him. I thought I was going to get to talk to him, and we felt that we were going out of our way to help.
The President has been requesting funding for the Lower Rio Grande Flood Control project for years and has again requested funding in the President's budget for 2007.
There are other areas of the country that have this problem, and so to do it here and not there, and there are gang problems around the Nation. Let us forget the full bills and put everything into the supplemental and so we can just have one big supplemental and not have to pass any other bills.
But to go through the normal process, the gentleman from Texas brought the issue of the Lower Rio Grande Valley Flood Control project to my attention last year. As a result, we included language in the IBWC account directing more funds be provided above the President's request for this project.
A week ago, the gentleman talked to me about additional moneys for the project in the fiscal year 2007 process. Funding for the International Boundary Water Commission should be addressed in the regular bill. This request does not belong in an emergency supplemental, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the Doggett amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would tell the body, this really is not foreign aid. You cannot pick up the newspaper without seeing the threat that Iran is to the Nation. This is a priority of the administration, but a priority of everyone who cares with regard to changing the government that we have in Iran. I do not know how you put it, but it is not aid. Iran is a threat to the United States. Is that a fact? I think you would have a very hard time finding anybody who says, no, it is not a fact. It is.
Iran is developing a nuclear bomb. I have seen some reports that say it may be within 18 months to 2 years of having an nuclear bomb.
The Iranian government is intent on destroying Israel. The Iranian government is the one who funded the bombing of the Marines barracks in 1993 where 241 marines died. They fund Hezbollah. They are the ones creating the problem in Lebanon. They are the ones involved in the funding and the blowing up of the American embassy in Beirut, the first embassy and the second embassy.
We need to do everything we can to change the government and get information to the people. So what the administration is trying to do is to have some public diplomacy, to basically do what Democrat administrations and Republican administrations have done during the Cold War: public diplomacy, exchange programs, change their government through peaceful means.
This is not foreign aid. I would say on behalf of anyone who thinks that Iran is a danger, please, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. Chairman, I plan to withdraw my amendment after I give a summary of the serious condition of the floodway levee system near the Rio Grande River in Texas. My…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I plan to withdraw my amendment after I give a summary of the serious condition of the floodway levee system near the Rio Grande River in Texas.
My friend and colleague, Mr. Lloyd Doggett, has brought some charts and shown what he understands to be the problem. I was born and raised there. I remember 1967 when six brothers were told by my dad that we were going to stop and shut down our business to go and help control what was happening on our levees that just could not stand the over 28 feet of water that was coming down the Rio Grande River and that our levee system was unable to stand up to that pressure.
So I am here to say that we today are appropriating billions of dollars to help New Orleans recover because we did not spend the millions necessary to maintain our levee system. Because of our shortsightedness, the residents of New Orleans are displaced and many died trying to escape the flood waters. I am here today to plead with you to not let this tragedy happen in my part of the country.
The International Boundary Water Commission is charged with maintaining over 500 miles of levees along the U.S.-Mexico border. A recent study by the U.S. Corps of Engineers shows that numerous sections of these levees are too weak, they are too low to hold back flood waters from the devastating Rio Grande River.
More than a million people call the Rio Grande Valley home, and 2.5 million people live on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande River. This region is the poorest in the Nation, and I am sure we do not want to see more images on television of the poorest of the poor losing what little they have.
My colleagues in Congress need to know that the Rio Grande Valley is also the gateway through which much of our Nation's commerce flows. Should a devastating flood hit the valley, factories and small businesses in Indiana, Illinois, New York, and throughout the Nation will shut down because of their inability to get just-in-time deliveries of the parts and supplies from maquiladoras that come through the valley's international border ports.
My constituents are not only afraid of the effects of a category 4 or category 5 hurricane, such as we experienced with Hurricane Beulah in 1967, but we are worried that even a slow-moving tropical storm could make them homeless like their neighbors in New Orleans. Heavy rains in the mountains of northern Mexico could cause a catastrophe because those flood waters empty into the Rio Grande River in areas from El Paso to Laredo to Roma and to Brownsville, Texas.
The IBWC estimates that $125 million would fix all of our inadequate floodway levees in South Texas.
My border colleagues and I, in a bipartisan collaboration with other members of the Texas delegation, will be asking the appropriators for most of this funding over a 5-year period or sooner through the regular appropriations process.
This evening, I spoke with Chairman Wolf and have agreed to work with him on ways to resolve these concerns. I welcome that opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Madam Chairman, let me just join Mr. Brady in his analysis. What we are talking about is people, not places, and that is that the funds be able to support…
Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Madam Chairman, let me just join Mr. Brady in his analysis.
What we are talking about is people, not places, and that is that the funds be able to support the people wherever they are. And Texas is certainly not in any way rejecting the role that we have had the opportunity to play. In fact, we welcome it. But, frankly, it is quite necessary to provide the resources.
I will have a subsequent amendment on this very question; and I rise in support of Mr. Brady's amendment so we can provide the resources where the people are until they return home, of which we are certainly supporting their desire to return home, but while they are where they are we believe these funds on education and housing are crucial.
Madam Chairman, I thank Mr. Brady very much.
Let me just share with my colleagues, you have heard it before, but within hours of when we got the call to open the Astrodome in Houston for the survivors, the Astrodome was opened with full medical care, volunteers and local resources. We would do it over and over again, because we know our neighbors would do it for us. But, at the same time, as we have integrated our Katrina survivors into our community, waiting to return home, we have opened schools. We have added a new mental health unit to the existing mental health facilities in Harris County; and, in fact, we know that right after that, as Mr. Brady has indicated, Hurricane Rita came through and devastated a large part of East Texas.
So the combination of East Texas devastation and the impact in Houston and Dallas and other cities around the State, these dollars specifically would go to help the impacted States like Texas in helping to educate, provide health care and other resources.
So I support the gentleman's amendment. Again, his words are accurate. We would do it over and over again, but we have already done the necessary facilities and staffing without asking. We are simply asking now to help us as we continue the burden that we willingly accept.
Point of Order
I want to congratulate the gentleman for the approach he has taken. This is an amendment that covers schools across the Nation. I want to remind my colleagues that the Katrina survivors were evacuated to 44 States. Mr. Brady is right. We share contiguous districts, with school districts that have willingly taken in students.
But as I said in the earlier debate, we have opened schools actually. We actually have new schools that welcomed children, Katrina survivors. We provided enhanced resources, counselors
to assist as well, and we do it willingly. What we are saying is that we are already suffering as it relates to public education in America. This instance provides added support for a particularly fragile situation and a necessary situation, and I support the gentleman's amendment.
Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Shays amendment because this continues the CAP program led by groups like Mercy Corps in Iraq who are able to operate with…
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Shays amendment because this continues the CAP program led by groups like Mercy Corps in Iraq who are able to operate with very low levels of security because they are so heavily supported by the local community.
This is a phenomenally successful program. The gentleman is exactly right.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair, and I want to particularly thank Mr. Obey of Wisconsin and our chairman, Mr. Lewis of California, for their work on this.
This amendment addresses a critical need in the drug war in Afghanistan. Since the U.S. coalition forces arrived in Afghanistan, Afghanistan has become the source of three-quarters of the world's heroin supply. We know what a failed state in Afghanistan leads to. In our new counternarcotic operations in Afghanistan, the United States is about to launch a major operation in the Helmand River Valley, where over half of the heroin crop is raised. In doing this, Afghan forces, including their police, will be hitting drug labs, and we need to collect critical information as those operations unfold.
This amendment would provide for critical tools on an aircraft already owned by the Drug Enforcement Agency to collect information on drug traffickers, and especially on kingpins who could be connected to terror. On this, I very much support the work of Chairman Wolf.
I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would provide this critical platform to give the tools necessary for Drug Enforcement Agency to be the most effective they can be against Afghan drug kingpins. We already have 120 dedicated drug enforcement personnel on the ground helping Afghan police to carry out this mission. Chairman Hyde, Chairman Ileana Ros- Lehtinen, and I have backed this amendment because we feel it is critical for DEA to have these tools now to apply the lessons learned in Colombia to build a success in the coming operations in Afghanistan.
It is also important to note that this House supported amendments to the PATRIOT Act, which now make it a crime to deal in heroin for the support of terror without the need to show a connection to the U.S. market. We have seen Afghan drug dealers and terrorists killing U.S. troops, including two from the 10th Mountain Division, and this tool and the legal authorities that the House just provided are critical in helping force protection and adding to the tools that we need to continue this conflict in the most effective way.
So with that, I urge adoption of this amendment. It is a modest addition to this bill and provides a critical tool that will very quickly, dramatically assist in DEA's operation in Afghanistan.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. Chairman, my intention is to withdraw this amendment. But I want to express my frustration at actually a combination of issues but particularly related to…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, my intention is to withdraw this amendment. But I want to express my frustration at actually a combination of issues but particularly related to Colombia; that I have been a strong advocate that the military has been slow in responding in Afghanistan to the interrelationship to the heroin problem in Afghanistan into the military efforts, and will be there again next week to meet on the ground to see how we are progressing. And I have grave concerns that the DOD money that is being spent in Afghanistan is not being spent as wisely as I would like. Nevertheless, I am happy that the Defense Department is starting to understand the link between what is being done in narcotics and the heroin funding the attacks on our troops and men and women in our armed services there.
We have a grave problem down in the eastern Pacific, and that is, we have spent this money in the Andean Initiative and in Plan Colombia. What we have seen, as naval resources, which are very limited, have been transferred out of that zone, and the DOD has not made additional investments in, that my amendment would address the problem of an oiler.
When our Coast Guard vessels go out to interdict in drug interdiction through the Department of Homeland Security, they have always been dependent, just like many intelligence assets are, on DOD. DOD has not given them an oiler with which to refuel.
So logically the drug dealers, which we see far more than we used to, we can see them coming at us. We have gone from 20,000 to 30,000 deaths in America, real deaths in the streets of America, because we are not interdicting things that we can see, because we don't have an oiler in the eastern Pacific.
Last Sunday in The Washington Post, a big article about Guatemala, a top antidrug person being corrupt. Why is Guatemala being corrupted? Why do we hear about the gangs in El Salvador related to narcotics? Why do we hear about the problems in the southwest border related to narcotics?
We can see the stuff coming, but unless DOD makes some investment in an oiler, we can talk all we want about intercepting narcotics. But if you don't have a way to refuel their ships out in the water, and the United States Navy takes all the resources on it, we can't fight the war on narcotics.
I am going to withdraw this amendment, because I understand the supplemental is focused on Afghanistan and Iraq. I support the antinarcotics efforts in Afghanistan, but I am very concerned, and I am hoping that the Appropriations Committee will work with us on getting this oiler, work with DOD, because this is essential to the war on drugs.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to simply agree with every word the gentleman from Virginia just spoke. I cannot think of a more mindless, shortsighted or ridiculous amendment to be offered that affects a…
Mr. Chairman, I rise to simply agree with every word the gentleman from Virginia just spoke. I cannot think of a more mindless, shortsighted or ridiculous amendment to be offered that affects a serious problem than this amendment. It is absolutely backwards. It is ludicrous. It is absolutely against the interest of the United States.
What we are in effect saying is we have such great relations with this country that we don't want to do whatever we can to improve them by going directly to people through exchange programs. I find that to be ridiculous.
Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I would simply like to make one observation. Scheduling of legislation is done by the majority party. I have, I think it is fair to say, given procedural cooperation every step of the way to see to it that before the House leaves for yet another recess, that we will finish this supplemental appropriation bill.
I am Irish, and French, and a few other things. And like a number of other people, I was invited to the Irish Embassy tonight because this is close to Saint Patrick's Day. I turned that invitation down because I knew that we would be here tonight having to work on this bill. And even though my own party had an event tonight, we have agreed to stay here and continue to work on this bill, and we are staying considerably later than we had first agreed to, but we are trying to finish these amendments so that Members can get out of here at a reasonable time tomorrow, hopefully late tomorrow afternoon instead of into the evening. That is why we are staying here late tonight.
Now I discover that there is one amendment that could have been offered tonight, but we are told that we can't offer it because the member of the Appropriations Committee on the majority side who wants to handle it is, guess where? At the Irish Embassy.
Well, I would simply suggest that I don't mind somebody else enjoying themselves, but I do suggest that if Members of the minority are expected to be here, if members of the Appropriations Committee on the minority side are expected to be here, I do think it is too much to ask that the party setting the schedule expect the same thing of Members on its side.
I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from California. Well, no, I wouldn't be happy to, but I will.
Well, I am truly sorry we can't make as much progress on this bill tonight as I had hoped we would be able to make, but I find some of the reasons for that to be quite interesting.
And, Madam Chairman, I am going to ask unanimous consent that we might move to another amendment by Mr. Melancon at the end of the bill.
We will wait until he is here.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Melancon
Bill Text
2 versions available
[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 725 Engrossed in House (EH)]
H. Res. 725
In the House of Representatives, U.S.,
March 15, 2006.
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the
bill (H.R. 4939) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. When the
reading for amendment reaches title II, such title shall be considered as read.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and
reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass,
the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Attest:
Clerk.