Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4939) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 857 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and insert tabular and extraneous material on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the conference report of H.R. 4939, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. Additionally, it provides that the report shall be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4939, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006, is intended to fully fund our forces overseas and at home.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when our sons and daughters are deployed overseas in a wartime environment, this legislation provides critical funds that will be used to conduct ongoing operations in the global war on terror.

Unlike other wars, this war is one where terrorists are having a critical impact and one that requires the perpetual vigilance of not only our forces but the American people. To our forces' credit, just last week they were successful in killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the critical players among the nonstate terrorist actors. This success required professionalism, perseverance, and tenacity, qualities our military has in abundance.

It is worth noting that if we were not in Iraq we would never have killed al-Zarqawi. However, it is also fair to observe that al-Zarqawi was dedicated to pursuing and killing Americans around the globe. If we had not found him, he surely would have found and attacked us.

Mr. Speaker, the Iraqis also deserve to be commended for their efforts in this struggle. During this war, they have held three elections, written a constitution, and just last week formed a permanent government. They played a key role in locating al-Zarqawi and are assuming an increasing role in defending their own country. They are watching what we do here today. They require and request our continued support as they move forward in their efforts to build a new and better Iraq. The passage of this rule and the underlying legislation is an important sign that this country and this Congress will keep its commitment to Iraq as it strives to create a future of hope and promise.

But, Mr. Speaker, real challenges remain, and it is these challenges that require our action today. Our military, our sons and daughters, need these funds immediately. They require our support and we must give it to them.

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that some may question the cost of the global war on terror. Some may question its worth. But, Mr. Speaker, today is not September 10 of 2001. We know what terrorists are capable of doing. Our enemies have chosen to make Iraq the central theater in the global war on terror. They seek to do to us what their predecessors did to the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and that is a triumph which we must deny our enemies for our own sake as well as that of the Iraqi people.

This war is a generational test, one that will affect not only our children and grandchildren but our great grandchildren as well. We cannot fail in our objectives. We chose this path as a Congress in 2002, and now we must stay on the hard road to its completion. We must support our forces now by passing this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, many may wish to raise extraneous policy issues in this debate. Some may want to discuss issues that, however important, are superfluous to the question at hand. Frankly, I welcome the debate today and later this week; however, now is the time to support our sons and daughters deployed overseas in the field of battle. Now is the time to accept the true challenges we face. We can do so by passing this rule and the underlying legislation.

Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I wish to note that this supplemental has another purpose. It contains funds that are badly needed by our fellow Americans on the gulf coast as they are still recovering from the devastating effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Our fellow citizens need and deserve our support. I am proud that we are responding as we have twice before. This, like the war on terror, is a national priority. These twin issues, the war on terror and recovery of the gulf coast, demand and will receive resources from the Congress on a bipartisan basis.

However, I am pleased to note that in our negotiation with the other body our conferees have kept their focus on the challenges at hand. They have not allowed the generous impulses that underlay this legislation to be perverted into a reckless spending spree on other items. For that they are to be commended. They have given us a bill that meets the needs at hand, yet remains fiscally responsible. That is no small accomplishment. This legislation deserves support from all Members.

Mr. Speaker, to that end I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill.

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

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

I simply want to note that this supplemental actually addresses many of the gentlewoman's concerns. It includes money for armoring Humvees and truck vehicles. The supplemental makes modifications to requests in

order to get the safest, most effective armored vehicles to troops in the field, including the National Guard, in a timely manner. It also adds $726 million to requests to ensure that Army tracked combat vehicles, such as Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles, are upgraded and available to the National Guard. There is also in this appropriation additional funds to look after the well-being of the troops.

I think that our House Committee on Armed Services has done an excellent job in identifying problems as they have shown themselves and dedicating resources to them throughout this conflict.

Certainly more can be done, and it is being done in this supplemental. But I would also point out for the record, while every loss of life, every loss of life is a tragedy and something that one would prefer not to happen, this is still one of the lowest, if not the lowest, casualty rates in the history of sustained conflict in our country.

So I think, frankly, those in charge of these particular areas have done a commendable job and, frankly, are trying to improve on that job literally on a daily basis. This supplemental is a step in that direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to address one of the points that my good friend from Wisconsin made. He used the phrase ``unnecessary war in Iraq.'' I would respectfully disagree with that judgment.

The policy to remove Saddam Hussein was not a policy adopted simply by this administration or this Congress. It was the official policy of the United States under our former President beginning in 1998. Why did we do that? Why did we choose to make the removal of Saddam Hussein a priority in American policy?

You can tick off the reasons. This is the man who launched two regional wars that killed over a million people, and he involved our country in armed conflict in 1991 in Kuwait. This is a man who twice had come close to developing nuclear weapons. First, in 1981, the Israelis took them out. Then he was evidently within 6 months of having nuclear weapons when the Gulf War broke out, according to the United Nations.

You visit Iraq, you can find mass graves everywhere. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed. This was a person who was financing terrorism up to the moment he was removed from power, offering $25,000 bounties and rewards to families whose children were killed in terrorist activity.

This is a person who was getting out from under U.N. sanctions, who had already despoiled the Oil-for-Food Program, and who step by step was moving himself toward the ability to be a threat in the region again, or to enhance his threat.

So I think when we actually look at this regime, it is fortunate that it is not there, because, frankly, if it were there today, it would be freer and more powerful and I think more threatening than it was when it was removed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to once again disagree with my good friend. I find, frankly, comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam to be incredibly overdrawn and misplaced.

When we look at the scale of the American involvement in Vietnam, the level of casualties, the fact that there were not democratic elections, that there was not the constitution, that there has not been the progress; frankly, when we look at the threat that was constituted by Saddam Hussein as opposed to North Vietnam, they simply are not on a comparable scale. Saddam Hussein was somebody who tried to assassinate a President of the United States, who drew us into war, who was actively seeking weapons of mass destruction throughout his political career.

I would agree with the gentleman, the fact that we had had a relationship with him was an enormous mistake and bad judgment by the American Government. I would actually concede my good friend's point in that regard.

I am glad in the end we understood who and what this person is. I point out again, that recognition began before this administration ever took office. That began with an act of this Congress and the preceding administration, the Clinton administration, that declared it was in the interest of the United States to remove this tyrant from office.

I would also point out with respect to the intelligence, while undoubtedly mistakes were made, those were mistakes that were made by the entire planet, and, frankly, I can bring quote after quote out by the preceding administration, by Members of this body that would suggest all of us believed there were weapons of mass destruction.

There is no question that at various points in his career, Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass destruction, acquired them and used them. And in a post-9/11 world, there is every reason to believe he would do so again and that that technology, that capability, could easily migrate to our opponents.

The world is safer; Iraq has a chance for a better future because Saddam is gone. That is due to the heroism and the professionalism of the American military.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to say that I believe we have had a good debate on the rule. I believe the importance and the timeliness of this legislation could not be more self-evident. This bill has been carefully crafted and worked in a way to ensure that our servicemen receive the best equipment when they go to war.

We had an interesting historical discussion and debate here today. It was an interesting debate as to how we got into this war and whether or not Saddam Hussein, it was appropriate to remove him at the time and in the way that we did. I suspect history will vindicate our judgment in that regard. He was a terrorist, he was a tyrant, he was a threat to global peace; and the world is better because he is gone. Iraq has a potential future because he is gone.

However, I would ask Members to remember this is a vote about our willingness to support our service men and women and not about other policy issues. The men and women serving our cause in Iraq ask for nothing more. In good conscience, we should give them nothing less.

It is also a vote about whether or not we will support our fellow Americans on the gulf coast. On that I doubt there is any division in this House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this event is a sad day in the history of the House and the country. The fact that this bill is before us today indicates that the President's aim is about as faulty as the Vice- President's.

The fact is that on 9/11 we were attacked by al Qaeda. They were sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan. The President correctly responded to that by going after al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But then he slipped off the track and diverted his attention and the country's to an unnecessary war in Iraq against a government that had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack against the United States on 9/11.

We have now spent, in 18 separate actions, we will now have spent $450 billion on this adventure, when you take into account what will be provided in the defense appropriations bill which will be considered by the full Appropriations Committee tomorrow.

Now, my objection to the way this war is being funded is based primarily on my belief that the country and the Congress has a right to know what the cost of this war is and what we think future costs will be. But because, as the gentlewoman from New York has indicated, because the requests to finance this war have come in the form of supplementals outside the regular appropriation process, the actual cost of the war has effectively been hidden because the administration's plan was to reveal that cost to the American people on the installment plan.

So a little bit at a time they get to understand what the cost is going to be. $50 billion here. $50 billion there. As Senator Edward Dirksen said, ``Sooner or later that amounts to real money.'' This is a huge expenditure for a misguided war, in my view.

Mr. Speaker, I would make one other point. My second concern about this bill is not directed at what the bill does contain, but rather what this bill does not contain. The Senate adopted a separate amendment, the Byrd-Gregg amendment, which would have added $2.5 billion in additional funding for border security and port security.

Unfortunately, the conferees chose to eliminate that funding from the bill. That means that they did not provide the $1.9 billion that the Senate had asked us to provide to do things such as replace out-dated aircraft. The P-3 fleet, which serves as border security's primary air surveillance mechanism, is over 40 years old, 20 years beyond the average life of that type of plane. The entire fleet needs to be overhauled to extend the service life. This bill does not measure up to that.

We also have nearly 1,700 vehicles which are unusable due to wear and tear because of the environment, the extreme burden that that environment places on Border Patrol agents' equipment and vehicles. This bill does not provide funding for that.

This bill lacks sufficient patrol aircraft. It lacks sufficient funding for armed helicopters on the border. Also, in addition, I believe the Congress should have provided $648 million in additional port security improvements.

The Coast Guard has only 34 inspectors to review security plans at foreign ports. We should have provided $180 million more for customs and border protection, including $80 million for Border Patrol vehicle replacement, and $100 million more for border infrastructure and technology.

We should have provided $50 million more for an upgrade of law enforcement communications. We should have provided $80 million the Senate requested for Immigration and Customs Enforcement vehicle replacement.

We should have provided the amount that the Senate requested, $227 million, for additional port security grants.

The Senate also asked us to provide $211 million in additional funds for rail and seaport inspection equipment. It asked us to provide $132 million more for radiation portal monitors to accelerate deployment to screen 100 percent of in-bound containers.

Alas, this bill contains none of those items. So I think it is grossly deficient in meeting the needs of border security and port security. I regret that. But unfortunately I cannot do much about it because the majority party was determined to exclude these items.

I was also stunned by the fact that the majority party refused to adopt, or refused to retain, the language that was adopted on the House floor which made clear that the United States had no intention of entering into permanent basing rights agreements in Iraq.

Certainly I recognize that some Members of this House do not want us to leave Iraq anytime soon, but somewhere between leaving immediately and staying forever, we ought to be able to find common ground.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I regard the argument made by my good friend from Oklahoma to be essentially an ad hominem argument. The issue is not whether or not Saddam Hussein was a good guy or a bad guy. He is obviously a bad guy. And it is nice to see that he is gone.

We have other bad guys in the world. We have the guy running Iran right now. We have got the guy running North Korea. I do not see the United States engaging in military action against either of them.

Mr. Speaker, I would also point out, is it not strange that a man who was important enough to remove as head of Iraq by this administration was seen by this President's father and his administration, I am sorry, I got that wrong, was seen by the previous Reagan administration, for instance, as being someone we could do business with, and, in fact, was someone who the United States supported against Iran in a previous military engagement.

So the issue is not whether Saddam is a good man or a bad man. He is obviously a bad man, and it is good that he is gone. I will grant the gentleman that. But I would also say, it came at a hellacious price. We simply did not have to incur 18,000 American soldiers wounded in order to remove him. We did not need to incur more than almost 3,000 dead in order to remove him. Let's not kid ourselves. We were misled into this war on the basis of manipulated and bad intelligence. We were told by the Vice-president we would be welcomed with open arms. The President landed on that carrier and said ``Mission Accomplished.''

Well, not so. Unfortunately, not so. So we continue to pay the price, bogged down in the same kind of mess that we were stuck in in Vietnam. And let us face it, there is not anybody in this city from the President on down who has a clue about how to get the United States out of this mess. There isn't anybody in this town who has a clue.

And that is the sad fact we are faced with, as we are forced to continually appropriate more and more funds to support our troops. And then we go back home and say, ``Well, we know what we are doing.'' The fact is, this Congress did not know what it was doing when it gave the President the ability to go to war.

The President did not know what he was doing, the Vice-President did not know what he was doing, and Secretary Rumsfeld has demonstrated that he is both the most arrogant Secretary of Defense since Bob McNamara and the most incompetent Secretary of Defense in the post-Cold War period of this country.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, has just described what he believes to be fiscally responsible actions taken by the Congress.

Let me simply say that the idea that it is fiscally responsible for this Congress to provide $40 billion or more in tax cuts to persons making $1 million a year, paid for with borrowed money, while at the same time refusing to provide $2.5 billion in essential funding to secure our borders and secure our ports, is, to me, strange logic indeed. I regard that set of priorities to be spectacularly irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, 3 months have gone by since the House last met to pass new funding for one of the greatest challenges our Nation faces today: the ongoing war in Iraq.

It is clear that so long as our soldiers are in harm's way our financial support for them must continue. But writing checks is not enough. All the money in the world cannot produce a positive change if it is squandered and misappropriated.

What our troops in the field and our citizens at home need is for this body to recommit itself to real oversight of our government and its actions. What we need is the return of accountability to the House, and it is that above all else which has yet to transpire here.

I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to focus their gaze half a world away. The past 90 days has seen victories and defeats in Iraq, reasons for hope and reasons for grave concern, and the outcome is still far from certain. And yet the overwhelming majority of our troops routinely carry out acts of most remarkable personal courage. Their very existence is in constant danger, and yet they press onward.

Contrast that courage, Mr. Speaker, with the lack of courage displayed by the majority of the House. It is a lack of courage that has proven as persistent as the problems it has perpetuated. I should first say that the very idea that we are once again funding the conflict through a supplemental spending bill is both dishonest and dishonorable. It is part of a massive effort to hide the true cost of the war from the public because supplemental spending bills are not counted in the budget. They, therefore, do not increase our national deficits on paper even though they do increase them in reality.

If this Congress believes that funding the mission in Iraq is necessary, it should have the courage to fund it through an official appropriations bill. Then the financial cost to the Nation should be clear then for all to see and the American people could better judge for themselves how much we are willing to devote to it.

As important as this is, it pales in comparison to the importance of overseeing how our money is being spent in Iraq. Events move so quickly in that country and every action taken possesses such a great consequence that Members of this body should demand nothing less than full accountability of how the U.S. funds are being spent.

Three months ago I repeated the calls of John Tierney for the creation of a congressional commission to oversee the reconstruction efforts abroad, one like the Truman Commission, created during World War II by a Congress with the integrity needed to investigate itself. At the time I cited reports claiming that billions of dollars in funds intended for the Iraqi people had gone missing.

Three months later nothing has changed. In fact, just last week the Special Inspector General for Iraq reconstruction issued a report that documented 7 billion more dollars lost in funds for reconstruction, and he has 72 ongoing investigations into accusations of fraud and corruption among contractors. And what is his reward? They are going to take inspection away from him and give it over to the State Department.

Now, I am thankful that this Inspector General has been working hard in the last 2 years and in keeping track of numbers because that document would never have come from this majority. They do not even want to discuss the war in any detail. This week's debate on this war will be the first of its kind and the September 11 anniversary will be 5 years very shortly.

Where is the courage? Where is the resolve? How can they speak day in and day out about our need to support the troops and then refuse to exercise constitutional responsibility to oversee this, our Nation's greatest foreign project in a generation?

Where there is no oversight, there will be corruption, and in a war zone corruption is not just about money. It is about life and death. If U.S. contractors are not getting what they are supposed to do done, the lives of our troops are put in danger. If reconstruction projects are being hobbled by poor accounting, then the projects will not be completed and Iraqis will continue suffering.

We learned months ago that 80 percent of the Marines who died of upper body wounds would have been saved if only they had not been forced to depend on an unreliable contractor for the body armor. How can we live with that?

I only recently learned that the DOD Inspector General will be looking into these contracts at my request because nobody has looked to see what happened there.

Mr. Speaker, these unjustifiable realities are to a large degree the product of a lack of any real oversight by Congress. And the lack, in turn, has been the province of a majority unwilling to truly reform its ways, even while it lectures people near and far about the importance of reforming theirs.

Mr. Speaker, until this changes, we have no solutions to the self- imposed problems undermining the safety of our citizens here and the success of our troops and their mission abroad, and we cannot afford to waste another moment. Too much is at stake.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking member of Appropriations (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule to instruct the enrolling Clerk to make some very important national security additions to the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous materials be printed in the Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, the items contained in the amendment are not new provisions. They were all included in the Senate version of the supplemental appropriations bill and provide greatly needed funds to increase security at our Nation's borders and ports; but, unfortunately, they were stripped from the final version of the report.

I want to stress that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the report. A ``no'' vote will simply allow the House to add greatly needed funds to protect our Nation's vulnerable borders and ports.

But a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from adding the funds to improve our border and port security; and representing a border area myself, I appreciate the importance of it.

So, please, again, vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

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

Mr. Speaker, if I can borrow this Republican mike, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for this piece of legislation because I think we do need to distinguish between supporting our troops and supporting the war in Iraq. I continue to believe that the war in Iraq is the dumbest war since the War of 1812; but at the same time, we obviously want our troops to be as well-equipped as is humanly possible, and we hope that this bill will take a decent step in that direction.

Having said that, I want to make three points about my concerns about this bill. Number one, it continues a fiction that this war must be financed through ``emergency spending.'' That is simply a gimmick that allows the entire cost of this war, some $450 billion by the time the defense bill, which is going to be considered by the Appropriations Committee tomorrow, is spent. By that time we will have spent $450 billion, and yet we continue to pretend that it is an unexpected contingency which means that it is handled outside of the normal limits of the budget. That does not fool anybody except the American people, unfortunately; and that is what it is designed to do, to mask the full costs of the war.

Secondly, it is outrageous, in my view, that this Congress eliminated both Senate provisions and the single House provision which made it clear that the Congress did not want in any way to allow the impression to continue to exist that we intend to have a permanent presence in Iraq. The fact is over 70 percent of Iraqis continue to believe, despite the protestations of the President and the Secretary of Defense, they continue to believe that America intends to have a long- term permanent presence in Iraq, and we need to disabuse them of that fact in order to take the target off the backs of our soldiers.

Thirdly, as the gentleman from South Carolina has indicated, we will have spent $450 billion on this war by the end of the year, and yet the Congress is refusing to spend an additional $2.5 billion to provide further strengthening and thickening of our efforts at border security and port security.

This bill has a significant increase in funds for personnel as far as border security is concerned; but it shortchanges the equipment, it shortchanges the aircraft, it shortchanges the facilities, it shortchanges the construction efforts, it shortchanges all of the nonpersonnel items that go into providing solid border security on both the northern and southern borders.

There is no excuse whatsoever for this Congress to be providing over $40 billion in tax cuts to people who make over $1 million a year, while refusing to spend adequate amounts of money to secure our borders both the north and the south.

I want to make one other point.

It infuriates me to hear the White House say we will do whatever is necessary to secure the borders of the United States at the same time that the President has consistently refused to support adequate appropriations to do just that.

And I want to tell, I want to close by telling a story that I have told many times because I think the American people need to know about it.

Right after 9/11, when this Capitol Hill was hit by anthrax, this committee was then chaired by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and when we could not get into our offices, I called Bill and I said, Bill, as long as we cannot do anything useful in our office, why do we not consult each of the security agencies of our government to see what they think we need on an emergency basis to deal with homeland security problems. We talked to the CIA, the FBI, the CDC, the NSA, you name it; and we got from each of them their estimate of what we needed to provide immediately to beef up our homeland security, border security, and port security operations.

We then went down to the White House to talk to the President. The President came in. We were seated around the table. Before we could say a word, he said, well, I understand some of you want to spend more money than I do on homeland security. I just want you to know, if you appropriate $1 more than I have asked for, I will veto the bill. I have got time for four or five comments and I am out of here.

So Senator Byrd made clear what he thought of that attitude. Senator Stevens pointed out to the President that we had already agreed that if there was any item on the list that the President did not want we would automatically strike it.

And then finally it came my turn to speak, and I said to the President, Mr. President, I have been coming down here for over 30 years. This is the first time any President has ever told me his mind was closed before the subject was even open, and I want you to know since you are being hard nosed on the subject, I am going to be too. I asked him four questions about Federal installations that we had been told by his own security people were gravely at risk of terrorist attack, their words not mine, and I asked the President if he had been briefed; if he had, I wanted to know what he had been told because I know what I had been told and it scared the dickens out of me. And to put it kindly, if he had been briefed, he gave no evidence thereof. I did not expect him to. He is a busy man, but I did expect him to have an open mind.

And we walked out of that room after the President said that, without listening to a single argument, he would veto any money we added for homeland security, and that has been the case ever since.

Each year, whatever strengthening we have had on the border, of ports has come at the insistence of the Congress of the United States, overcoming the objections of the President; and we have tried on both sides of the aisle from time to time, we have tried to add more money than the President asked for for border security and for port security.

This is just the latest chapter in the efforts of some Members of Congress to almost get a double hernia trying to do enough heavy lifting in order to get sufficient money into this budget so we do have a secure border on the south

and a secure border on the north, and we still are a long way from being there.

So while I will vote for this bill, I regret very much that it is woefully short in terms of the funding that it needs to truly provide full security on either border. I hope this country does not some day pay a very high price for that, but I worry each day that it will.

With that, I would ask the gentleman if he has any more speakers. If not, I am prepared to yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the latest supplemental appropriation for hurricane relief.

We cannot move forward with rebuilding our city unless we are sure that such a disaster cannot happen again. For this reason, we must ensure the integrity of our flood control and hurricane protection system, which so disastrously failed during Katrina last year. To date, the Corps of Engineers has been directly appropriated a total of $3.3 billion. This amount not only funds the reconstruction of flood control projects that were damaged by Hurricane Katrina, but also the restoration of these projects to their design specifications of Category Three protection, which had lapsed over the course of time. Over $500 million of this total will go to the construction of previously authorized new projects. The current supplemental provides $3.7 billion, which more than doubles the amount previously given to the Corps. This funding will help to ensure that the city is protected against future storms of Katrina's magnitude.

Our long-term goals for rebuilding and improving the community can only be achieved with significant support from the Federal government. The Community Development Block Grant program has been used with great success in the past when confronting disaster-stricken areas and has proven to be an invaluable tool for recovery. A total of $11.5 billion went to the five states impacted by last year's storms, of which Louisiana received $6.2 billion. The flexibility of this program provides our local government officials with the resources they need to aid businesses and provide services to residents. Over 220,000 homes were damaged as a result of this storm and are in continuing need for relief. In this bill, an additional $5.2 billion in overall CDBG funds is allocated. $4.3 billion tent to fund Louisiana's ``Road Home'' project enabling our citizens to return to their homes and begin rebuilding their lives. This funding is a welcome addition to the recovery efforts and will assist all those affected by the storms in a very real and profound manner.

This bill provides $285 million for hurricane-related education programs. Funding will focus on direct assistance to displaced elementary and secondary school students, a group that is perhaps the most helpless of all the hurricane's victims. Previously, $1.6 billion was provided in the last supplemental to aid the devastated educational system not only in New Orleans, but in I the entire Gulf South. The relocation of much our city's population into other areas has placed a strain on school systems across the country. This funding bolstered the school systems that were kind enough to take in large numbers of displaced students.

Department of Defense personnel, along with the Coast Guard and other Homeland Security agencies, performed much of the heroic search and rescue operations that saved the lives of thousands of citizens. Because of their sacrifices and hardships, and our appreciation for those actions, we are assuring that their needs will be met. DoD received $4.4 billion in previous supplemental appropriations, covering their storm-related activities as well as repairs to damaged facilities and equipment. This bill gives them an additional $1.5 billion to ensure the presence of the Armed Services in the Gulf South.

The medical community in New Orleans has been decimated by the effects of Hurricane Katrina. The capacity of hospitals in the city is down to less than a thousand beds, a reduction of over 75 percent from its capacity prior to the storm. Today's supplemental provides $550 million for a new VA Hospital in New Orleans. Not only will this assure that New Orleans remains a viable outlet for the health needs of veterans across the Gulf coast states, but it will also serve as a valuable training outlet in conjunction with the Tulane and LSD medical centers. Together with the $550 million previously allocated to the Social Services Block Grant program, the healthcare infrastructure of the city is well on its way back to full strength.

Mr. Speaker, the challenges we face in rebuilding our community demand a great deal of attention. This supplemental appropriation is a welcome addition to the recovery process and an indication that we in Congress are committed to helping those affected in New Orleans and in all other hurricane-affected areas.

But Mr. Speaker before I close I would be remiss if I did not remind my colleagues the challenges remaining after Katrina are still daunting. Moreover there is one aspect in terms of our recovery and rebuilding that has not been addressed fully by this Congress and that is healthcare in New Orleans. According to a recent issue of U.S. News & World Report, the New Orleans area is now home to one million people, just under the pre-Katrina population of 1.3 million. But the healthcare resources necessary to adequately serve that level of population have not returned: only half of the previous 4,000 hospital beds are available; there is no Level I trauma center; there are 34 nursing homes, down from 63; and 19 clinics, down from 90.

The area's only certified Level I trauma unit is still closed (the 35-bed, limited trauma unit opened recently cannot provide full Level I trauma services), and the number of staffed hospital beds in the City of New Orleans was estimated to be about 80 percent less in February 2006 than before Hurricane Katrina. Moreover, to date, many patients are still getting primary care and rudimentary emergency services provided in tents that have now been set up by Charity Hospital in an old department store.

Mr. Speaker we cannot allow for New Orleans's healthcare system to die-on-a-vine. For as the statement goes: ``Justice delayed is Justice denied.'' Healthcare delayed is healthcare denied. Thus, Mr. Speaker I implore my colleagues on the relevant committees to hold hearings and investigate the problems we are facing. Furthermore, I ask that Congress consider one more legislative package that would focus solely on rebuilding our health care system and the associated social services.