Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1146, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 248) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan, and ask for its immediate consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in 2001 I joined the House in voting for the Authorization for Use of Military Force. In the past 8\1/2\ years, it has become clear that the Authorization for Use of Military Force is being interpreted as carte blanche for circumventing Congress' role as a coequal branch of government.

My legislation invokes the War Powers Resolution of 1973. If enacted, it would require the President to withdraw U.S. Armed Forces from Afghanistan by December 31, 2010.

The debate today will be the first opportunity we have had to revisit the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which the House supported following the worst terrorist attack in our country's history. Regardless of your support or opposition to the war in Afghanistan, this is going to be the first opportunity to evaluate critically where the Authorization for Use of Military Force has taken us in the last 8\1/2\ years.

This 2001 resolution allowed military action ``to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.'' Those of us who support the withdrawal from Afghanistan may or may not agree on a timeline for troop withdrawal, but I think we agree that this debate is timely.

The rest of the world is beginning to see the folly of trying to occupy Afghanistan: The Dutch Government recently came to a halt over the commitment of more troops from their country. In Britain public outcry over the war is growing. A recent BBC poll indicated that 63 percent of the British public is demanding that their troops come home by Christmas. In Germany opposition to the war has risen to 69 percent. Russia has lost billions of dollars in the 9 years it spent attempting to control Afghanistan.

Our supposed nation-building in Afghanistan has come at the destruction of our own. The military escalation cements the path of the United States down the road of previous occupiers that earned Afghanistan its nickname as the ``graveyard of empires.''

One year ago last month, a report by the Carnegie Endowment concluded ``the only meaningful way to halt the insurgency's momentum is to start withdrawing troops. The presence of foreign troops is the most important element driving the resurgence of the Taliban.''

So with this debate today, Mr. Speaker, we will have a chance for the first time to reflect on our responsibility for troop casualties that are now reaching 1,000; to look at our responsibility for the costs of the war, which approaches $250 billion; our responsibility for the civilian casualties and the human costs of the war; our responsibility for challenging the corruption that takes place in Afghanistan; our responsibility for having a real understanding of the role of the pipeline in this war; our responsibility for debating the role of counterinsurgency strategies, as opposed to counterterrorism; our responsibility for being able to make a case for the logistics of withdrawal.

After 8\1/2\ years, it is time that we have this debate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

I just want to say that you can talk about how the Democratic leadership is bringing this up at the time that there is obviously a surge about to begin, but why question the timeliness of the debate when in fact my friend in the minority, their party didn't bring this up for 8 years of debate? Eight years. I mean I think it's timely. That is the whole point.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

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

Could I ask, Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to my friend that the authorization for the use of military force, which passed September 14, 2001, had in its provision this particular line: ``Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.''

So the war powers resolution is properly the subject of a debate and properly serves as a vehicle to bring this debate to the House of Representatives, and we don't need to cede our right under article I, section 8 at any time to determine whether or not we go to war. This is clearly a constitutional issue. And when I take an oath to defend the Constitution, I don't cross my fingers behind my back and say, Well, I will let the President make the final decision regarding war.

Our Founders didn't want to do that. Our Founders said in order to restrain the dog of war, they would put the ability to declare war in the legislative branch. They were very clear about that.

Do not disrespect this institution when it comes to the Constitution. Remember, the War Powers Act specifically was mentioned in the resolution that was passed on September 14, 2001. It was not superseded. And I might add that while I voted for the authorization for the use of military force because I believe America has a right to defend herself, I didn't give any President carte blanche to go and carry or prosecute a war wherever he or she, in the future, determines necessary.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

I want to thank Mr. Berman for agreeing to make this debate possible. I do appreciate it very much. You have been open to that, and I think the country should appreciate that about you.

I also want to say that this CRS study, Congressional Research Study, on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force makes it very clear in it that the War Powers Act is not superseded, and I would like to submit this for the Record.

Authorization for Use of Military Force in Response to the 9/11 Attacks

(P.L. 107-40): Legislative History

[From the Congressional Research Service, Jan. 16, 2007]

(By Richard F. Grimmett)

Summary

In response to the terrorist attacks against the United

States on September 11, 2001, the Congress passed

legislation, S.J. Res. 23, on September 14, 2001, authorizing

the President to ``use all necessary and appropriate force

against those nations, organizations, or persons he

determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the

terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or

harbored such organizations or persons. . . .'' The President

signed this legislation into law on September 18, 2001 (P.L.

107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001)). This report provides a

legislative history of this statute, the ``Authorization for

Use of Military Force'' (AUMF), which, as Congress stated in

its text, constitutes the legislative authorization for the

use of U.S. military force contemplated by the War Powers

Resolution. It also is the statute which the President and

his attorneys have subsequently cited as an authority for him

to engage in electronic surveillance against possible

terrorists without obtaining authorization of the special

Court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

(FISA) of 1978, as amended. This report will only be updated

if events warrant.

On September 11, 2001, terrorists linked to Islamic

militant Usama bin Laden hijacked four U.S. commercial

airliners, crashing two into the twin towers of the World

Trade Center in New York City, and another into the Pentagon

building in Arlington, Virginia. The fourth plane crashed in

Shanksville, Pennsylvania near Pittsburgh, after passengers

struggled with the highjackers for control of the aircraft.

The collective death toll resulting from these incidents was

nearly 3,000. President George W. Bush characterized these

attacks as more than acts of terror. ``They were acts of

war,'' he said. He added that ``freedom and democracy are

under attack,'' and he asserted that the United States would

use ``all of our resources to conquer this enemy.''

In the days immediately after the September 11 attacks, the

President consulted with the leaders of Congress on

appropriate steps to take to deal with the situation

confronting the United States. These discussions produced the

concept of a joint resolution of the Congress authorizing the

President to take military steps to deal with the parties

responsible for the attacks on the United States. The leaders

of the Senate and the House decided at the outset that the

discussions and negotiations with the President and White

House officials over the specific language of the joint

resolution would be conducted by them, and not through the

formal committee legislation review process. Consequently, no

formal reports on this legislation were made by any committee

of either the House or the Senate. As a result, it is

necessary to rely on the texts of the original draft proposal

by the President for a use of military force resolution, and

the final bill, S.J. Res. 23, as enacted, together with the

public statements of those involved in drafting the bill, to

construct the legislative history of this statute. Between

September 12 and 14, 2001, draft language of a joint

resolution was discussed and negotiated by the White House

Counsel's Office, and the Senate and House leaders of both

parties. Other members of both Houses of Congress suggested

language for consideration through their respective party

leaders.

On Wednesday, September 12, 2001, the White House gave a

draft joint resolution to the leaders of the Senate and the

House. This White House draft legislation, if it had been

enacted, would have authorized the President (1) to take

military action against those involved in some notable way

with the September 11 attacks on the U.S., but it also would

have granted him (2) statutory authority ``to deter and pre-

empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the

United States.'' This language would have seemingly

authorized the President, without durational limitation, and

at his sole discretion, to take military action against any

nation, terrorist group or individuals in the

world without having to seek further authority from the

Congress. It would have granted the President open-ended

authority to act against all terrorism and terrorists or

potential aggressors against the United States anywhere,

not just the authority to act against the terrorists

involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks, and those

nations, organizations and persons who had aided or

harbored the terrorists. As a consequence, this portion of

the language in the proposed White House draft resolution

was strongly opposed by key legislators in Congress and

was not included in the final version of the legislation

that was passed.

The floor debates in the Senate and House on S.J. Res. 23

make clear that the focus of the military force legislation

was on the extent of the authorization that Congress would

provide to the President for use of U.S. military force

against the international terrorists who attacked the U.S. on

September 11, 2001 and those who directly and materially

assisted them in carrying out their actions. The language of

the enacted legislation, on its face, makes clear--especially

in contrast to the White House's draft joint resolution of

September 12, 2001--the degree to which Congress limited the

scope of the President's authorization to use U.S. military

force through P.L. 107-40 to military actions against only

those international terrorists and other parties directly

involved in aiding or materially supporting the September 11,

2001 attacks on the United States. The authorization was not

framed in terms of use of military action against terrorists

generally.

On Friday, September 14, 2001, after the conclusion of the

meetings of their respective party caucuses from 9:15 a.m. to

10:15 a.m., where the final text of the draft bill was

discussed, S.J. Res. 23, jointly sponsored by Senators Thomas

Daschle and Trent Lott, the Senate Majority and Minority

leaders respectively, was called up for quick consideration

under the terms of a unanimous consent agreement. S.J. Res.

23 was then considered and passed by the Senate by a vote of

98-0. As part of the Senate's unanimous consent agreement

that set the stage for the rapid consideration and vote on

S.J. Res. 23, the Senate agreed to adjourn and to have no

additional votes until after the following Wednesday. That

action effectively meant that if the House amended S.J. Res.

23, no further legislative action on it would occur until the

middle of the following week. After the House of

Representatives received S.J. Res. 23 from the Senate, on

Friday, September 14, 2001, the House passed it late that

evening, after several hours of debate, by a vote of 420-1,

clearing it for the President. Prior to passing S.J. Res. 23,

the House considered, and then tabled an identically worded

joint resolution, H.J. Res. 64, and rejected a motion to

recommit by Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.), that would have had

the effect, if passed and enacted, of requiring a report from

the President on his actions under the joint resolution every

60 days after it entered into force.

S.J. Res. 23, formally titled in Section 1 as the

``Authorization for Use of Military Force,'' was thus passed

by Congress on September 14, 2001, and was signed into law by

the President on September 18, 2001. The enacted bill

contains five ``Whereas clauses'' in its preamble, expressing

opinions regarding why the joint resolution is necessary.

Four of these are identical to the ``Whereas clauses''

contained in the White House draft joint resolution of

September 12, 2001. The fifth, which was not in the original

White House draft, reads as follows: ``Whereas, the President

has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter

and prevent acts of international terrorism against the

United States. . . .'' This statement, and all of the other

Whereas clauses in P.L. 107-40, are not part of the language

after the Resolving clause of the Act, and, as such, it is

not clear how a Court would treat such provisions in

interpreting the scope of the authority granted in the law.

Section 2(a) of the joint resolution, authorizes the

President ``to use all necessary and appropriate force

against those nations, organizations, or persons he

determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the

terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or

harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent

any future acts of international terrorism against the United

States by such nations, organizations or persons.'' The joint

resolution further states, in Section 2(b)(1), Congressional

intent that it ``constitute specific statutory authorization

within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers

Resolution.'' Finally, Section 2(b)(2) of the joint

resolution states that ``[n]othing in this resolution

supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.''

A notable feature of S.J. Res. 23 is that unlike all other

major legislation authorizing the use of military force by

the President, this joint resolution authorizes military

force against ``organizations and persons'' linked to the

September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. In its past

authorizations for use of U.S. military force, Congress has

permitted action against unnamed nations in specific regions

of the world, or against named individual nations, but never

against ``organizations or persons.'' The authorization of

use of force against unnamed nations is consistent with some

previous instances where authority was given to act against

unnamed states when they became aggressors or took military

action against the United States or its citizens.

President George W. Bush in signing S.J. Res. 23 into law

on September 18, 2001, noted the Congress had acted ``wisely,

decisively, and in the finest traditions of our country.'' He

thanked the ``leadership of both Houses for their role in

expeditiously passing this historic joint resolution.'' He

noted that he had had the ``benefit of meaningful

consultations with members of the Congress'' since the

September 11 attacks, and that he would ``continue to consult

closely with them as our Nation responds to this threat to

our peace and security.'' President Bush also asserted that

S.J. Res. 23 ``recognized the authority of the President

under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent

acts of terrorism against the United States.'' He also stated

that ``In signing this resolution, I maintain the

longstanding position of the executive branch regarding the

President's constitutional authority to use force, including

the Armed Forces of the United States and regarding the

constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.''

It is important to note here that Presidents frequently

sign bills into law that contain provisions or language with

which they disagree. Presidents sometimes draw attention to

these disagreements in a formal statement at the time they

sign a bill into law. While Presidential ``signing

statements'' may indicate that the President views certain

provisions to be unconstitutional, they do not themselves

have the force of law, nor do they modify the language of the

enacted statute. Should the President strongly object to the

language of any bill presented to him, he has the option to

veto it, and compel the Congress to enact it through voting

to override his veto. Once a bill is enacted into law,

however, every President, in accordance with Article II,

section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, is obligated to ``take

care that the laws be faithfully executed. . . .'' Thus,

unless its current language is changed through enactment of a

new statute that amends it, or its effect is modified by

opinions of the Federal Courts, the ``Authorization for Use

of Military Force'' statute, P.L. 107-40, retains the legal

force it has had since its enactment on September 18, 2001.

Text of Original Draft of Proposed White House Joint Resolution

(September 12, 2001)

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against

those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the

United States.

Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence

were committed against the United States and its citizens;

and

Whereas such acts render it both necessary and appropriate

that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense

and to protect United States citizens both at home and

abroad; and

Whereas in light of the threat to the national security and

foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts

of violence; and

Whereas such acts continue to pose an unusual and

extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign

policy of the United States,

Now, therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled--

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and

appropriate force against those nations, organizations or

persons he determines planned, authorized, harbored,

committed, or aided in the planning or commission of the

attacks against the United States that occurred on September

11, 2001, and to deter and pre-empt any future acts of

terrorism or aggression against the United States.

Text of S.J. Res. 23 as Passed September 14, 2001, and Signed Into Law

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against

those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the

United States.

Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence

were committed against the United States and its citizens;

Whereas such acts render it both necessary and appropriate

that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense

and to protect United States citizens both at home and

abroad;

Whereas in light of the threat to the national security and

foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts

of violence;

Whereas such acts continue to pose an unusual and

extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign

policy of the United States; and

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution

to take action to deter and prevent acts of international

terrorism against the United States; Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled,

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).

I just want to say to the gentleman who just spoke, to Mr. Hunter, that we honor his service to our country both as a Member of Congress and in the military, as we honored your father's service. You have served this country well. You are well-spoken, and we appreciate that you are here.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

I would gently remind my colleague from Georgia that article 1, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States places expressly in the hands of Congress the power to declare war. This resolution does not seek to usurp our Commander in Chief. It seeks to reset the balance in our Constitution so that we reclaim what the Founders rightly intended--that the war power be in the Congress and, by reference, that we have the power to determine not just when a war starts, but when a war stops. It is also telling that in this war, in this surge, we're essentially announcing to the Taliban where we are proceeding and when.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 5 minutes.

To my friend from Indiana, who cited his disagreement based on law and facts and the troops, I would like to respond categorically.

First of all, section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Act requires the President to report to Congress any introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities. When the President reports, he does so consistent with but not pursuant to the War Powers Resolution. That's nuance when we're speaking about reporting requirements, because if President Obama did submit a report pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, it would trigger a vote on withdrawal from Afghanistan. Or Congress, on the other hand, has the ability, as I have, to bring a privileged resolution forward.

Now, I have heard a lot of talk about the troops here. I don't take a backseat to anyone in support of the troops. There are some that believe the way that we support the troops is to keep them in Afghanistan. There are others who believe that the way to support the troops is to bring them home.

The Washington Post this week carried one of a series of presentations of what they call ``Faces of the Fallen.'' We owe our gratitude to each and every person who has served this country. We support those who served. But it is our obligation to be able to question the mission at any time. We should honor those who serve and those who have given their lives and made the supreme sacrifice. We owe it to them to continually critically analyze the cost of the war, the purpose of the war, and the continuation of the war.

I never had the opportunity to serve. I had a heart murmur during the Vietnam era. But my father was a World War II marine veteran who had his knee shot out in a campaign in the South Pacific. My brother Frank, who is now deceased, served in combat in Vietnam and came home with post-traumatic stress. It changed his whole life. My brother Gary, a Vietnam-era Marine veteran; my sister Beth Ann, who recently passed, an Army veteran; my nephew Gary, an Iraq combat veteran. I come from a family which believes in service. The American family, the large family of our Nation, believes in service to our country. Yet, it is true that the death toll, as The Washington Post reports in Afghanistan, is at least at 1,000, and we have to have this debate to either recommit to continuing the war and giving the reasons to the troops why we're doing that or to suggest that maybe this is the opportunity for us to take a new direction.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), who, you know, we do have a difference of opinion about this resolution, but we're united in the fact that this House should debate it, and any Member of this House, whatever their opinion is on this resolution, has the right to debate it. And to try to diminish this institution by saying, Well, this is not a proper subject for debate-- we're about to begin a surge. This is a proper subject for debate, and this is why we're here.

If we wait 8\1/2\ years to debate this, and people say, Well, why are we debating it now? Should we wait another 8\1/2\ years to have a debate? Or should we have it now before we commit more and more people into combat?

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

One of the things that really doesn't often get discussion here on this floor with respect to a war is the specifics about how it affects people back home. And because I come from Cleveland, I just want to share with you some things just about my community.

Cleveland, as some of you may know, was the epicenter of the subprime mortgage meltdown. Predatory lenders descended on neighbors in our community and were able to take people into contracts that eventually led them into foreclosure and losing their homes.

Now, I don't think that even the most powerful camera would be able to pick up the sea of red dots across our metropolitan area that represents foreclosures, but you get an idea that we have a desperate need not only in Cleveland but across the country for helping to keep people in their homes. And yet more and more, our priorities are to spend money not just on these wars but to increase the Pentagon budget.

I would like to point out that just with respect to the amount of money that is being spent, allocated by congressional districts--this is the National Priorities Project that I am quoting which includes the fiscal 2010 budget. They point out that taxpayers in the 10th Congressional District that I represent will pay $591.9 million for total Afghanistan war spending, counting all the spending since 2001.

And they go on to say, Here's what that money could have been spent for instead. It could have been used to provide 209,812 people with health care for 1 year. Or it could have been used to provide 13,404 public safety officers for 1 year, or 9,063 music and arts teachers for 1 year, or 68,299 scholarships for university students for 1 year. Or it could have been spent for 106,658 students receiving Pell grants of $5,550. Or it could have been spent to provide for 5,521 affordable housing units. It could be have been spent for providing 355,972 children with health care for 1 year, or 92,161 Head Start places for children for 1 year, or 9,433 elementary school teachers for 1 year, or 662,950 homes with renewable electricity for 1 year.

When we spend money on wars and we spend money expanding the budget for military spending, we may say we are making things safer at home, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the shift in allocation of funds and the shift for spending towards wars, which were off-budget for quite a while, have put our country in a position where we are not really able to meet our needs.

When you look at this, this is from the Friends Committee on National Legislation, they say for each dollar of Federal income tax we paid in 2009, the government spent about 33 cents for Pentagon spending for current and past wars; 27 cents supporting the economy, which is the recovery and the bailouts; 17 cents for health care; 11 cents responding to poverty; 9 cents for general government, and of that 7 cents goes for interest on the public debt; 2 cents for energy, science and environment; and a penny of the Federal dollar for diplomacy, development, and war prevention.

We are setting our priorities here constantly. When we remain silent about war spending, we actually have put ourselves in a position where we go headlong. And the headlong momentum that occurs from being silent about a war just carries us into all these reshaped priorities, whether we realize it or not. That is why I have asked this resolution to be brought forth, so we could talk about this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for the collegial manner in which he has approached this debate, and also to suggest that I think that while this is a very emotional matter, that it is possible for us to talk about it in terms that are clear and logical. I also want to say to my friend that I think I probably joined you in voting against the Wall Street bailouts. That was the fiscal conservative in me.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I just would like to talk for a minute about the mission in the context of what is going on with the government in Kabul. The Washington Post did a story on February 25 which talks about ``Officials puzzle over millions of dollars leaving Afghanistan by plane for Dubai,'' and I will include that for the Record.

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 25, 2010]

Officials Puzzle Over Millions of Dollars Leaving Afghanistan by Plane

for Dubai

(By Andrew Higgins)

Kabul.--A blizzard of bank notes is flying out of

Afghanistan--often in full view of customs officers at the

Kabul airport--as part of a cash exodus that is confounding

U.S. officials and raising concerns about the money's origin.

The cash, estimated to total well over $1 billion a year,

flows mostly to the Persian Gulf emirate of Dubai, where many

wealthy Afghans now park their families and funds, according

to U.S. and Afghan officials. So long as departing cash is

declared at the airport here, its transfer is legal.

But at a time when the United States and its allies are

spending billions of dollars to prop up the fragile

government of President Hamid Karzai, the volume of the

outflow has stirred concerns that funds have been diverted

from aid. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, for its

part, is trying to figure out whether some of the money comes

from Afghanistan's thriving opium trade. And officials in

neighboring Pakistan think that at least some of the cash

leaving Kabul has been smuggled overland from Pakistan.

``All this money magically appears from nowhere,'' said a

U.S. official who monitors Afghanistan's growing role as a

hub for cash transfers to Dubai, which has six flights a day

to and from Kabul.

Meanwhile, the United States is stepping up efforts to stop

money flow in the other direction--into Afghanistan and

Pakistan in support of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Senior

Treasury Department officials visited Kabul this month to

discuss the cash flows and other issues relating to this

country's infant, often chaotic financial sector.

Tracking Afghan exchanges has long been made difficult by

the widespread use of traditional money-moving outfits, known

as ``hawalas,'' which keep few records. The Afghan central

bank, supported by U.S. Treasury advisers, is trying to get a

grip on them by licensing their operations.

In the meantime, the money continues to flow. Cash

declaration forms filed at Kabul International Airport and

reviewed by The Washington Post show that Afghan passengers

took more than $180 million to Dubai during a two-month

period starting in July. If that rate held for the entire

year, the amount of cash that left Afghanistan in 2009 would

have far exceeded the country's annual tax and other domestic

revenue of about $875 million.

The declaration forms highlight the prominent and often

opaque role played by hawalas. Asked to identify the ``source

of funds'' in forms issued by the Afghan central bank, cash

couriers frequently put down the name of the same Kabul

hawala, an outfit called New Ansari Exchange.

Early last month, Afghan police and intelligence officers

raided New Ansari's office in Kabul's bazaar district,

carting away documents and computers, said Afghan bankers

familiar with the operation. U.S. officials declined to

comment on what prompted the raid. New Ansari Exchange, which

is affiliated with a licensed Afghan bank, closed for a day

or so but was soon up and running again.

The total volume of departing cash is almost certainly much

higher than the declared amount. A Chinese man, for instance,

was arrested recently at the Kabul airport carrying 800,000

undeclared euros (about $1.1 million).

Cash also can be moved easily through a VIP section at the

airport, from which Afghan officials generally leave without

being searched. American officials said that they have

repeatedly raised the issue of special treatment for VIPs at

the Kabul airport with the Afghan government but that they

have made no headway.

One U.S. official said he had been told by a senior Dubai

police officer that an Afghan diplomat flew into the

emirate's airport last

year with more than $2 million worth of euros in undeclared

cash. The Afghan consul general in Dubai, Haji Rashoudin

Mohammadi, said in a telephone interview that he was not

aware of any such incident.

The high volume of cash passing through Kabul's airport

first came to light last summer when British company Global

Strategies Group, which has an airport security contract,

started filing reports on the money transfers at the request

of Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security, the

domestic intelligence agency. The country's notoriously

corrupt police force, however, complained about this

arrangement, and Global stopped its reporting in September,

according to someone familiar with the matter.

Afghan bankers interviewed in Kabul said that much of the

money that does get declared belongs to traders who want to

buy goods in Dubai but want to avoid the fees, delays and

paperwork that result from conventional wire transfers.

The cash flown out of Kabul includes a wide range of

foreign currencies. Most is in U.S. dollars, euros and--to

the bafflement of officials--Saudi Arabian riyals, a currency

not widely used in Afghanistan.

Last month, a well-dressed Afghan man en route to Dubai was

found carrying three briefcases stuffed with $3 million in

U.S. currency and $2 million in Saudi currency, according to

an American official who was present when the notes were

counted. A few days later, the same man was back at the Kabul

airport, en route to Dubai again, with about $5 million in

U.S. and Saudi bank notes.

One theory is that some of the Arab nation's cash might

come from Saudi donations that were supposed to go to mosques

and other projects in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But, the

American official said, ``we don't really know what is going

on.''

Efforts to figure out just how much money is leaving

Afghanistan and why have been hampered by a lack of

cooperation from Dubai, complained Afghan and U.S. officials,

who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Dubai's financial

problems, said a U.S. official, had left the emirate eager

for foreign cash, and ``they don't seem to care where it

comes from.'' Dubai authorities declined to comment.

Previous to that, the Post did a story about money funneled through a Kabul bank and companies owned by the bank's founder to individual friends, family, and business connections of Hamid Karzai. When you consider the amount of corruption that is going on in Afghanistan, it can only be called, charitably, ``crony capitalism.'' In fact, The Washington Post printed an article on February 22, entitled ``In Afghanistan, Signs of Crony Capitalism,'' and I include this for the Record.

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 22, 2010]

In Afghanistan, Signs of Crony Capitalism

(By Andrew Higgins)

Kabul.--Afghanistan's biggest private bank--founded by the

Islamic nation's only world-class poker player--celebrated

its fifth year in business last summer with a lottery for

depositors at Paris Palace, a Kabul wedding hall.

Prizes awarded by Kabul Bank included nine apartments in

the Afghan capital and cash gifts totaling more than $1

million. The bank trumpeted the event as the biggest prize

drawing of its kind in Central Asia.

Less publicly, Kabul Bank's boss has been handing out far

bigger prizes to his country's U.S.-backed ruling elite:

multimillion-dollar loans for the purchase of luxury villas

in Dubai by members of President Hamid Karzai's family, his

government and his supporters.

The close ties between Kabul Bank and Karzai's circle

reflect a defining feature of the shaky post-Taliban order in

which Washington has invested more than $40 billion and the

lives of more than 900 U.S. service members: a crony

capitalism that enriches politically connected insiders and

dismays the Afghan populace.

``What I'm doing is not proper, not exactly what I should

do. But this is Afghanistan,'' Kabul Bank's founder and

chairman, Sherkhan Farnood, said in an interview when asked

about the Dubai purchases and why, according to data from the

Persian Gulf emirate's Land Department, many of the villas

have been registered in his name. ``These people don't want

to reveal their names.''

Afghan laws prohibit hidden overseas lending and require

strict accounting of all transactions. But those involved in

the Dubai loans, including Kabul Bank's owners, said the cozy

flow of cash is not unusual or illegal in a deeply

traditional system underpinned more by relationships than

laws.

The curious role played by the bank and its unorthodox

owners has not previously been reported and was documented by

land registration data; public records; and interviews in

Kabul, Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Moscow.

Many of those involved appear to have gone to considerable

lengths to conceal the benefits they have received from Kabul

Bank or its owners. Karzai's older brother and his former

vice president, for example, both have Dubai villas

registered under Farnood's name. Kabul Bank's executives said

their books record no loans for these or other Dubai deals

financed at least in part by Farnood, including home

purchases by Karzai's cousin and the brother of Mohammed

Qasim Fahim, his current first vice president and a much-

feared warlord who worked closely with U.S. forces to topple

the Taliban in 2001.

At a time when Washington is ramping up military pressure

on the Taliban, the off-balance-sheet activities of Afghan

bankers raise the risk of fmancial instability that could

offset progress on the battlefield. Fewer than 5 percent of

Afghans have bank accounts, but among those who do are many

soldiers and policemen whose salaries are paid through Kabul

Bank.

A U.S. official who monitors Afghan finances, who spoke on

the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to

comment publicly, said banks appear to have plenty of money

but noted that in a crisis, Afghan depositors ``won't wait in

line holding cups of latte'' but would be ``waving AK-47s.''

Kabul Bank executives, in separate interviews, gave

different accounts of what the bank is up to with Dubai home

buyers. ``They are borrowers. They have an account at Kabul

Bank,'' said the bank's chairman, Farnood, a boisterous 46-

year-old with a gift for math and money--and the winner of

$120,000 at the 2008 World Series of Poker Europe, held in a

London casino.

The bank's chief audit officer, Raja Gopalakrishnan,

however, insisted that the loan money didn't come directly

from Kabul Bank. He said it was from affiliated but separate

entities, notably a money-transfer agency called Shaheen

Exchange, which is owned by Farnood, is run by one of Kabul

Bank's 16 shareholders and operates in Kabul out of the

bank's headquarters.

The audit officer said Farnood ``thinks it is one big

pot,'' but the entities are ``legally definitely separate.''

A new economy

In some ways, Kabul Bank is a symbol of how much has

changed in Afghanistan since 2001, when the country had no

private banks and no economy to speak of. Kabul Bank has

opened more than 60 branches and recently announced that it

will open 250 more, and it claims to have more than $1

billion in deposits from more than a million Afghan

customers.

Kabul Bank prospers because Afghanistan, though extremely

poor, is in places awash with cash, a result of huge

infusions of foreign aid, opium revenue and a legal economy

that, against the odds, is growing at about 15 percent a

year. The vast majority of this money flows into the hands of

a tiny minority--some of it through legitimate profits, some

of it through kickbacks and insider deals that bind the

country's political, security and business elites.

The result is that, while anchoring a free-market order as

Washington had hoped, financial institutions here sometimes

serve as piggy banks for their owners and their political

friends. Kabul Bank, for example, helps bankroll a money-

losing airline owned by Farnood and fellow bank shareholders

that flies three times a day between Kabul and Dubai.

Kabul Bank's executives helped finance President Hamid

Karzai's fraud-blighted reelection campaign last year, and

the bank is partly owned by Mahmoud Karzai, the Afghan

president's older brother, and by Haseen Fahim, the brother

of Karzai's vice presidential running mate.

Farnood, who now spends most of his time in Dubai, said he

wants to do business in a ``normal way'' and does not receive

favors as a result of his official contacts. He said that

putting properties in his name means his bank's money is safe

despite a slump in the Dubai property market: He can easily

repossess if borrowers run short on cash.

A review of Dubai property data and interviews with current

and former executives of Kabul Bank indicate that Farnood and

his bank partners have at least $150 million invested in

Dubai real estate. Most of their property is on Palm

Jumeirah, a man-made island in the shape of a palm tree where

the cheapest house costs more than $2 million.

Mirwais Azizi, an estranged business associate of Farnood

and the founder of the rival Azizi Bank in Kabul, has also

poured money into Dubai real estate, with even more uncertain

results. A Dubai company he heads, Azizi Investments, has

invested heavily in plots of land on Palm Jebel Ali, a

stalled property development. Azizi did not respond to

interview requests. His son, Farhad, said Mirwais was busy.

Responsibility for bank supervision in Afghanistan lies

with the Afghan central bank, whose duties include preventing

foreign property speculation. The United States has spent

millions of dollars trying to shore up the central bank. But

Afghan and U.S. officials say the bank, though increasingly

professional, lacks political clout.

The central bank's governor, Abdul Qadir Fitrat, said his

staff had ``vigorously investigated'' what he called

``rumors'' of Dubai property deals, but ``unfortunately, up

until now they have not found anything.'' Fitrat, who used to

live in Washington, last month sent a team of inspectors to

Kabul Bank as part of a regular review of the bank's

accounts. He acknowledged that Afghan loans are ``very

difficult to verify'' because ``we don't know who owns

what.''

Kabul Bank's dealings with Mahmoud Karzai, the president's

brother, help explain why this is so. In interviews, Karzai,

who has an Afghan restaurant in Baltimore, initially said he

rented a $5.5 million Palm Jumeirah mansion, where he now

lives with his family. But later he said he had an informal

home-loan agreement with Kabul Bank and pays $7,000 a month

in interest.

``It is a very peculiar situation. It is hard to comprehend

because this is not the usual way of doing business,'' said

Karzai, whose home is in Farnood's name.

Karzai also said he bought a 7.4 percent stake in the bank

with $5 million he borrowed from the bank. But

Gopalakrishnan, the chief audit officer, said Kabul Bank's

books include no loans to the president's brother.

Also in a Palm Jumeirah villa registered in Farnood's name

is the family of Ahmad Zia Massoud, Afghanistan's first vice

president from 2004 until last November. The house, bought in

December 2007 for $2.3 million, was first put in the name of

Massoud's wife but was later re-registered to give Farnood

formal ownership, property records indicate.

Massoud, brother of the legendary anti-Soviet guerrilla

leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, said that Farnood had always been

the owner but let his family use it rent-free for the past

two years because he is ``my close friend.'' Massoud added:

``We have played football together. We have played chess

together.'' Farnood, however, said that though the ``villa is

in my name,'' it belongs to Massoud ``in reality.''

Haseen Fahim, the brother of Afghanistan's current first

vice president, has been another beneficiary of Kabul Bank's

largesse. He got money from Farnood to help buy a $6 million

villa in Dubai, which, unusually, is under his own name. He

borrowed millions more from the bank, which he partly owns,

to fund companies he owns in Afghanistan.

In an interview at Kabul Bank's headquarters, Khalilullah

Fruzi, who as chief executive heads the bank's day-to-day

operations, said he didn't know how much bank money has ended

up in Dubai. If Karzai's relatives and others buy homes ``in

Dubai, or Germany or America . . . that is their own

affair,'' Fruzi said, adding that the bank ``doesn't give

loans directly for Dubai.''

Fruzi, a former gem trader, said Kabul Bank is in robust

health, makes a profit and has about $400 million in liquid

assets deposited with the Afghan central bank and other

institutions. Kabul Bank is so flush, he added, that it is

building a $30 million headquarters, a cluster of shimmering

towers of bulletproof glass.

The bank is also spending millions to hire gunmen from a

company called Khurasan Security Services, which, according

to registration documents, used to be controlled by Fruzi and

is now run by his brother.

The roots of Kabul Bank stretch back to the Soviet Union.

Both Fruzi and Farnood got their education and their start in

business there after Moscow invaded Afghanistan in 1979.

While in Moscow, Farnood set up a successful hawala money-

transfer outfit to move funds between Russia and Kabul.

Russian court documents show that 10 of Farnood's employees

were arrested in 1998 and later convicted of illegal banking

activity. Fearful of arrest in Russia and also in Taliban-

ruled Afghanistan, Farnood shifted his focus to Dubai.

In 2004, three years after the fall of the Taliban regime,

he got a license to open Kabul Bank. His Dubai-registered

hawala, Shaheen Exchange, moved in upstairs and started

moving cash for bank clients. It last year shifted $250

million to $300 million to Dubai, said the chief audit

officer.

The bank began to take in new, politically connected

shareholders, among them the president's brother, Mahmoud,

and Fahim, brother of the vice president, who registered his

stake in the name of his teenage son.

Fahim said two of his companies have borrowed $70 million

from Kabul Bank. Insider borrowing, he said, is unavoidable

and even desirable in Afghanistan because, in the absence of

a solid legal system, business revolves around trust, not

formal contracts. ``Afghanistan is not America or Europe.

Afghanistan is starting from zero,'' he said.

Fahim's business has boomed, thanks largely to

subcontracting work on foreign-funded projects, including a

new U.S. Embassy annex and various buildings at CIA sites

across the country, among them a remote base in Khost where

seven Americans were killed in a December suicide attack by a

Jordanian jihadiist. ``I have good opportunities to get

profit,'' Fahim said.

``Like wild horses''

Kabul Bank also plunged into the airline business,

providing loans to Pamir Airways, an Afghan carrier now owned

by Farnood, Fruzi and Fahim. Pamir spent $46 million on four

used Boeing 737-400s and hired Hashim Karzai, the president's

cousin, formerly of Silver Spring, as a ``senior adviser.''

Farnood said he also provided a ``little bit'' of money to

help Hashim Karzai buy a house on Palm Jumeirah in Dubai.

Karzai, in brief telephone interviews, said that the property

was an investment and that he had borrowed some money from

Farnood. He said he couldn't recall details and would ``have

to check with my accountant.''

Noor Delawari, governor of the central bank during Kabul

Bank's rise, said Farnood and his lieutenants ``were like

wild horses'' and ``never paid attention to the rules and

regulations.'' Delawari said he didn't know about any

property deals by Kabul Bank in Dubai. He said that he, too,

bought a home in the emirate, for about $200,000.

Fitrat, the current central bank governor, has tried to

take a tougher line against Kabul Bank and its rivals, with

little luck. Before last year's presidential election, the

central bank sent a stern letter to bankers, complaining that

they squander too much money on ``security guards and

bulletproof vehicles'' and ``expend large-scale monetary

assistance to politicians.'' The letter ordered them to

remain ``politically neutral.''

Kabul Bank did the opposite: Fruzi, its chief executive,

joined Karzai's campaign in Kabul while Farnood, its poker-

playing chairman, organized fundraising events for Karzai in

Dubai. One of these was held at the Palm Jumeirah house of

Karzai's brother.

The government has returned the favor. The ministries of

defense, interior and education now pay many soldiers, police

and teachers through Kabul Bank. This means that tens of

millions of dollars' worth of public money sloshes through

the bank, an unusual arrangement, as governments generally

don't pump so much through a single private bank.

Soon after his November inauguration for a second term,

President Karzai spoke at an anti-corruption conference in

Kabul, criticizing officials who ``after one or two years

work for the government get rich and buy houses in Dubai.''

Last month, he flew to London for a conference on

Afghanistan, attended by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham

Clinton and other leaders, and again promised an end to the

murky deals that have so tarnished his rule.

Also in London for the conference were Farnood, who now has

an Afghan diplomatic passport, and Fruzi, who served as a

financial adviser to Karzai's reelection campaign and also

owns a house in Dubai. ``If there is no Kabul Bank, there

will be no Karzai, no government,'' Fruzi said.

As a result, U.S. taxpayers and aid organizations are investing billions of dollars in Afghanistan, but the leaders of the country are investing in real estate in Dubai. We care about democracy. Try building democracy in a place which is rife with narcotraffic, crony capitalism, and villas in Dubai. What is this about? Why are we there? I mean, I am from Cleveland, Ohio. The people I represent are very basic people. When you tell them that the head of Afghanistan has his hands in all of these crooked deals, you start to wonder, We are going to build a democracy on this person's shoulders? I don't think so.

We are supporting a government where corruption is epidemic. Last year, USAID reported that corruption in Afghanistan is significant, a growing problem, and that pervasive, systemic corruption was at an unprecedented scope in the country's history. On November 17, Transparency International ranked Afghanistan as the second most corrupt nation in the world. And to compound the fears, in President Karzai's fraud-filled election late last year, he recently took over the country's election watchdog group. Is this the kind of person that we can trust to have a partnership with for democracy? I don't think so.

A January 2010 report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reveals that Afghan citizens were forced to pay an estimated $2.5 billion a year in bribes. According to evidence collected through wiretaps and bank records, a senior border police official in Kandahar allegedly collected salaries of hundreds of ghost policemen and stole money from a government fund intended to pay orphans and widows. Is this the kind of environment where we can build a democracy?

Our troops in Afghanistan have to deal with corrupt officials on a daily basis. A commander of the Afghan border police offered to give the U.S. military prime land at a crossing with Pakistan to build a waiting area for supply vehicles needed for President Obama's troop increase. The same man, U.S. officials believe, earns tens of millions of dollars a year trafficking opium and extorting cargo truck drivers. Is this the kind of person that we can create movement toward a democracy with?

[From the Nation, Nov. 30, 2009]

How the U.S. Funds the Taliban

(By Aram Roston)

On October 29, 2001, while the Taliban's rule over

Afghanistan was under assault, the regime's ambassador in

Islamabad gave a chaotic press conference in front of several

dozen reporters sitting on the grass. On the Taliban

diplomat's right sat his interpreter, Ahmad Rateb Popal, a

man with an imposing presence. Like the ambassador, Popal

wore a black turban, and he had a huge bushy beard. He had a

black patch over his right eye socket, a prosthetic left arm

and a deformed right hand, the result of injuries from an

explosives mishap during an old operation against the Soviets

in Kabul.

But Popal was more than just a former mujahedeen. In 1988,

a year before the Soviets fled Afghanistan, Popal had been

charged in the United States with conspiring to import more

than a kilo of heroin. Court records show he was released

from prison in 1997.

Flash forward to 2009, and Afghanistan is ruled by Popal's

cousin President Hamid Karzai. Popal has cut his huge beard

down to a neatly trimmed one and has become an immensely

wealthy businessman, along with his brother Rashid Popal, who

in a separate case pleaded guilty to a heroin charge in 1996

in Brooklyn. The Popal brothers control the huge Watan Group

in Afghanistan, a consortium engaged in telecommunications,

logistics and, most important, security. Watan Risk

Management, the Popals' private military arm, is one of the

few dozen private security companies in Afghanistan. One of

Watan's enterprises, key to the war effort, is protecting

convoys of Afghan trucks heading from Kabul to Kandahar,

carrying American supplies.

Welcome to the wartime contracting bazaar in Afghanistan.

It is a virtual carnival of improbable characters and shady

connections, with former CIA officials and ex-military

officers joining hands with former Taliban and mujahedeen to

collect U.S. government funds in the name of the war effort.

In this grotesque carnival, the U.S. military's contractors

are forced to pay suspected insurgents to protect American

supply routes. It is an accepted fact of the military

logistics operation in Afghanistan that the US government

funds the very forces American troops are fighting. And it is

a deadly irony, because these funds add up to a huge amount

of money for the Taliban. ``It's a big part of their

income,'' one of the top Afghan government security officials

told The Nation in an interview. In fact, US military

officials in Kabul estimate that a minimum of 10 percent of

the Pentagon's logistics contracts--hundreds of millions of

dollars--consists of payments to insurgents.

Understanding how this situation came to pass requires

untangling two threads. The first is the insider dealing that

determines who wins and who loses in Afghan business, and the

second is the troubling mechanism by which ``private

security'' ensures that the US supply convoys traveling these

ancient trade routes aren't ambushed by insurgents.

A good place to pick up the first thread is with a small

firm awarded a US military logistics contract worth hundreds

of millions of dollars: NCL Holdings. Like the Popals' Watan

Risk, NCL is a licensed security company in Afghanistan.

What NCL Holdings is most notorious for in Kabul

contracting circles, though, is the identity of its chief

principal, Hamed Wardak. He is the young American son of

Afghanistan's current defense minister, Gen. Abdul Rahim

Wardak, who was a leader of the mujahedeen against the

Soviets. Hamed Wardak has plunged into business as well as

policy. He was raised and schooled in the United States,

graduating as valedictorian from Georgetown University in

1997. He earned a Rhodes scholarship and interned at the

neoconservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute.

That internship was to play an important role in his life,

for it was at AEI that he forged alliances with some of the

premier figures in American conservative foreign policy

circles, such as the late Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick.

Wardak incorporated NCL in the United States early in 2007,

although the firm may have operated in Afghanistan before

then. It made sense to set up shop in Washington, because of

Wardak's connections there. On NCL's advisory board, for

example, is Milton Bearden, a well-known former CIA officer.

Bearden is an important voice on Afghanistan issues; in

October he was a witness before the Senate Foreign Relations

Committee, where Senator John Kerry, the chair, introduced

him as ``a legendary former CIA case officer and a

clearheaded thinker and writer.'' It is not every defense

contracting company that has such an influential adviser.

But the biggest deal that NCL got--the contract that

brought it into Afghanistan's major leagues--was Host Nation

Trucking. Earlier this year the firm, with no apparent

trucking experience, was named one of the six companies that

would handle the bulk of US trucking in Afghanistan, bringing

supplies to the web of bases and remote outposts scattered

across the country.

At first the contract was large but not gargantuan. And

then that suddenly changed, like an immense garden coming

into bloom. Over the summer, citing the coming ``surge'' and

a new doctrine, ``Money as a Weapons System,'' the U.S.

military expanded the contract 600 percent for NCL and the

five other companies. The contract documentation warns of

dire consequences if more is not spent: ``service members

will not get food, water, equipment, and ammunition they

require.'' Each of the military's six trucking contracts was

bumped up to $360 million, or a total of nearly $2.2 billion.

Put it in this perspective: this single two-year effort to

hire Afghan trucks and truckers was worth 10 percent of the

annual Afghan gross domestic product. NCL, the firm run by

the defense minister's well-connected son, had struck pure

contracting gold.

Host Nation Trucking does indeed keep the US military

efforts alive in Afghanistan. ``We supply everything the army

needs to survive here,'' one American trucking executive told

me. ``We bring them their toilet paper, their water, their

fuel, their guns, their vehicles.'' The epicenter is Bagram

Air Base, just an hour north of Kabul, from which virtually

everything in Afghanistan is trucked to the outer reaches of

what the Army calls ``the Battlespace''--that is, the entire

country. Parked near Entry Control Point 3, the trucks line

up, shifting gears and sending up clouds of dust as they

prepare for their various missions across the country.

The real secret to trucking in Afghanistan is ensuring

security on the perilous roads, controlled by warlords,

tribal militias, insurgents and Taliban commanders. The

American executive I talked to was fairly specific about it:

``The Army is basically paying the Taliban not to shoot at

them. It is Department of Defense money.'' That is something

everyone seems to agree on.

Mike Hanna is the project manager for a trucking company

called Afghan American Army Services. The company, which

still operates in Afghanistan, had been trucking for the

United States for years but lost out in the Host Nation

Trucking contract that NCL won. Hanna explained the security

realities quite simply: ``You are paying the people in the

local areas--some are warlords, some are politicians in the

police force--to move your trucks through.''

Hanna explained that the prices charged are different,

depending on the route: ``We're basically being extorted.

Where you don't pay, you're going to get attacked. We just

have our field guys go down there, and they pay off who they

need to.'' Sometimes, he says, the extortion fee is high, and

sometimes it is low. ``Moving ten trucks, it is probably $800

per truck to move through an area. It's based on the number

of trucks and what you're carrying. If you have fuel trucks,

they are going to charge you more. If you have dry trucks,

they're not going to charge you as much. If you are carrying

MRAPs or Humvees, they are going to charge you more.''

Hanna says it is just a necessary evil. ``If you tell me

not to pay these insurgents in this area, the chances of my

trucks getting attacked increase exponentially.''

Whereas in Iraq the private security industry has been

dominated by US and global firms like Blackwater, operating

as de facto arms of the US government, in Afghanistan there

are lots of local players as well. As a result, the industry

in Kabul is far more dog-eat-dog. ``Every warlord has his

security company,'' is the way one executive explained it to

me.

In theory, private security companies in Kabul are heavily

regulated, although the reality is different. Thirty-nine

companies had licenses until September, when another dozen

were granted licenses. Many licensed companies are

politically connected: just as NCL is owned by the son of the

defense minister and Watan Risk Management is run by

President Karzai's cousins, the Asia Security Group is

controlled by Hashmat Karzai, another relative of the

president. The company has blocked off an entire street in

the expensive Sherpur District. Another security firm is

controlled by the parliamentary speaker's son, sources say.

And so on.

In the same way, the Afghan trucking industry, key to

logistics operations, is often tied to important figures and

tribal leaders. One major hauler in Afghanistan, Afghan

International Trucking (AIT), paid $20,000 a month in

kickbacks to a US Army contracting official, according to the

official's plea agreement in US court in August. AIT is a

very well-connected firm: it is run by the 25-year-old nephew

of Gen. Baba Jan, a former Northern Alliance commander and

later a Kabul police chief. In an interview, Baba Jan, a

cheerful and charismatic leader, insisted he had nothing to

do with his nephew's corporate enterprise.

But the heart of the matter is that insurgents are getting

paid for safe passage because there are few other ways to

bring goods to the combat outposts and forward operating

bases where soldiers need them. By definition, many outposts

are situated in hostile terrain, in the southern parts of

Afghanistan. The security firms don't really protect convoys

of American military goods here, because they simply can't;

they need the Taliban's cooperation.

One of the big problems for the companies that ship

American military supplies across the country is that they

are banned from arming themselves with any weapon heavier

than a rifle. That makes them ineffective for battling

Taliban attacks on a convoy. ``They are shooting the drivers

from 3,000 feet away with PKMs,'' a trucking company

executive in Kabul told me. ``They are using RPGs [rocket-

propelled grenades] that will blow up an up-armed vehicle. So

the security companies are tied up. Because of the rules,

security companies can only carry AK-47s, and that's just a

joke. I carry an AK--and that's just to shoot myself if I

have to!''

The rules are there for a good reason: to guard against

devastating collateral damage by private security forces.

Still, as Hanna of Afghan American Army Services points out,

``An AK-47 versus a rocket-propelled grenade--you are going

to lose!'' That said, at least one of the Host Nation

Trucking companies has tried to do battle instead of paying

off insurgents and warlords. It is a US-owned firm called

Four Horsemen International. Instead of providing payments,

it has tried to fight off attackers. And it has paid the

price in lives, with horrendous casualties. FHI, like many

other firms, refused to talk publicly; but I've been told by

insiders in the security industry that FHI's convoys are

attacked on virtually every mission.

For the most part, the security firms do as they must to

survive. A veteran American manager in Afghanistan who has

worked there as both a soldier and a private security

contractor in the field told me, ``What we are doing is

paying warlords associated with the Taliban, because none of

our security elements is able to deal with the threat.'' He's

an Army veteran with years of Special Forces experience, and

he's not happy about what's being done. He says that at a

minimum American military forces should try to learn more

about who is getting paid off.

``Most escorting is done by the Taliban,'' an Afghan

private security official told me. He's a Pashto and former

mujahedeen commander who has his finger on the pulse of the

military situation and the security industry. And he works

with one of the trucking companies carrying US supplies.

``Now the government is so weak,'' he added, ``everyone is

paying the Taliban.''

To Afghan trucking officials, this is barely even something

to worry about. One woman I met was an extraordinary

entrepreneur who had built up a trucking business in this

male-dominated field. She told me the security company she

had hired dealt directly with Taliban leaders in the south.

Paying the Taliban leaders meant they would send along an

escort to ensure that no other insurgents would attack. In

fact, she said, they just needed two armed Taliban vehicles.

``Two Taliban is enough,'' she told me. ``One in the front

and one in the back.'' She shrugged. ``You cannot work

otherwise. Otherwise it is not possible.''

Which leads us back to the case of Watan Risk, the firm run

by Ahmad Rateb Popal and Rashid Popal, the Karzai family

relatives and former drug dealers. Watan is known to control

one key stretch of road that all the truckers use: the

strategic route to Kandahar called Highway 1. Think of it as

the road to the war--to the south and to the west. If the

Army wants to get supplies down to Helmand, for example, the

trucks must make their way through Kandahar.

Watan Risk, according to seven different security and

trucking company officials, is the sole provider of security

along this route. The reason is simple: Watan is allied with

the local warlord who controls the road. Watan's company

website is quite impressive, and claims its personnel ``are

diligently screened to weed out all ex-militia members,

supporters of the Taliban, or individuals with loyalty to

warlords, drug barons, or any other group opposed to

international support of the democratic process.'' Whatever

screening methods it uses, Watan's secret weapon to protect

American supplies heading through Kandahar is a man named

Commander Ruhullah. Said to be a handsome man in his 40s,

Ruhullah has an oddly high-pitched voice. He wears

traditional salwar kameez and a Rolex watch. He rarely, if

ever, associates with Westerners. He commands a large group

of irregular fighters with no known government affiliation,

and his name, security officials tell me, inspires obedience

or fear in villages along the road.

It is a dangerous business, of course: until last spring

Ruhullah had competition--a one-legged warlord named

Commander Abdul Khaliq. He was killed in an ambush.

So Ruhullah is the surviving road warrior for that stretch

of highway. According to witnesses, he works like this: he

waits until there are hundreds of trucks ready to convoy

south down the highway. Then he gets his men together,

setting them up in 4x4s and pickups. Witnesses say he does

not limit his arsenal to AK-47s but uses any weapons he can

get. His chief weapon is his reputation. And for that, Watan

is paid royally, collecting a fee for each truck that passes

through his corridor. The American trucking official told me

that Ruhullah ``charges $1,500 per truck to go to Kandahar.

Just 300 kilometers.''

It's hard to pinpoint what this is, exactly--security,

extortion or a form of ``insurance.'' Then there is the

question, Does Ruhullah have ties to the Taliban? That's

impossible to know. As an American private security veteran

familiar with the route said, ``He works both sides . . .

whatever is most profitable. He's the main commander. He's

got to be involved with the Taliban. How much, no one

knows.''

Even NCL, the company owned by Hamed Wardak, pays. Two

sources with direct knowledge tell me that NCL sends its

portion of US logistics goods in Watan's and Ruhullah's

convoys. Sources say NCL is billed $500,000 per month for

Watan's services. To underline the point: NCL, operating on a

$360 million contract from the US military, and owned by the

Afghan defense minister's son, is paying millions per year

from those funds to a company owned by President Karzai's

cousins, for protection.

Hamed Wardak wouldn't return my phone calls. Milt Bearden,

the former CIA officer affiliated with the company, wouldn't

speak with me either. There's nothing wrong with Bearden

engaging in business in Afghanistan, but disclosure of his

business interests might have been expected when testifying

on US policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. After all, NCL

stands to make or lose hundreds of millions based on the

whims of US policy-makers.

It is certainly worth asking why NCL, a company with no

known trucking experience, and little security experience to

speak of, would win a contract worth $360 million. Plenty of

Afghan insiders are asking questions. ``Why would the US

government give him a contract if he is the son of the

minister of defense?'' That's what Mahmoud Karzai asked me.

He is the brother of President Karzai, and he himself has

been treated in the press as a poster boy for access to

government officials. The New York Times even profiled him in

a highly critical piece. In his defense, Karzai emphasized

that he, at least, has refrained from US government or Afghan

government contracting. He pointed out, as others have, that

Hamed Wardak had little security or trucking background

before his company received security and trucking contracts

from the Defense Department. ``That's a questionable business

practice,'' he said. ``They shouldn't give it to him. How

come that's not questioned?''

I did get the opportunity to ask General Wardak, Hamed's

father, about it. He is quite dapper, although he is no

longer the debonair ``Gucci commander'' Bearden once

described. I asked Wardak about his son and NCL. ``I've tried

to be straightforward and correct and fight corruption all my

life,'' the defense minister said. ``This has been something

people have tried to use against me, so it has been

painful.''

Wardak would speak only briefly about NCL. The issue seems

to have produced a rift with his son. ``I was against it from

the beginning, and that's why we have not talked for a long

time. I have never tried to support him or to use my power or

influence that he should benefit.''

When I told Wardak that his son's company had a US contract

worth as much as $360 million, he did a double take. ``This

is impossible,'' he said. ``I do not believe this.''

I believed the general when he said he really didn't know

what his son was up to. But cleaning up what look like

insider deals may be easier than the next step: shutting down

the money pipeline going from DoD contracts to potential

insurgents.

Two years ago, a top Afghan security official told me,

Afghanistan's intelligence service, the National Directorate

of Security, had alerted the American military to the

problem. The NDS delivered what I'm told are ``very

detailed'' reports to the Americans explaining how the

Taliban are profiting from protecting convoys of US supplies.

The Afghan intelligence service even offered a solution:

what if the United States were to take the tens of millions

paid to security contractors and instead set up a dedicated

and professional convoy support unit to guard its logistics

lines? The suggestion went nowhere.

The bizarre fact is that the practice of buying the

Taliban's protection is not a secret. I asked Col. David

Haight, who commands the Third Brigade of the Tenth Mountain

Division, about it. After all, part of Highway 1 runs through

his area of operations. What did he think about security

companies paying off insurgents? ``The American soldier in me

is repulsed by it,'' he said in an interview in his office at

FOB Shank in Logar Province. ``But I know that it is what it

is: essentially paying the enemy, saying, `Hey, don't hassle

me.' I don't like it, but it is what it is.''

As a military official in Kabul explained contracting in

Afghanistan overall, ``We understand that across the board 10

percent to 20 percent goes to the insurgents. My intel guy

would say it is closer to 10 percent. Generally it is

happening in logistics.''

In a statement to The Nation about Host Nation Trucking,

Col. Wayne Shanks, the chief public affairs officer for the

international forces in Afghanistan, said that military

officials are ``aware of allegations that procurement funds

may find their way into the hands of insurgent groups, but we

do not directly support or condone this activity, if it is

occurring.'' He added that, despite oversight, ``the

relationships between contractors and their subcontractors,

as well as between subcontractors and others in their

operational communities, are not entirely transparent.''

In any case, the main issue is not that the US military is

turning a blind eye to the problem. Many officials

acknowledge what is going on while also expressing a deep

disquiet about the situation. The trouble is that--as with so

much in Afghanistan--the United States doesn't seem to know

how to fix it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 976 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I claim time in opposition.

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

Madam Speaker, as my colleagues know, we have been here before. This is the same point of order that has been raised against almost every appropriations measure during this Congress, and each time it is used to discuss something other than its intended purpose.

I would want to respond to my good colleague from Arizona that I, too, share concerns about the earmarking process, and I encourage him to become a cosponsor on the fair elections bill. As we have in Maine, public financing takes away much of the scrutiny around the link between campaign contributions and earmarks.

But once again, this particular debate is about delaying consideration of this bill and ultimately stopping it altogether. I hope my colleagues will again vote ``yes'' so we can consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion.

This rule provides for enactment of legislation to fund our Nation's defense. The brave men and women who serve in the military, particularly those who are currently at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, deserve a swift enactment of this legislation.

This legislation that we will take up later today will also divert TARP money to programs that create and save jobs across the country. We do this by investing $75 billion of TARP money into highways, transit, school renovation, hiring teachers, police, firefighters, supporting our small businesses, funding job training, and affordable housing. And for those hardest hit by the recession, this bill also provides emergency relief by extending programs like unemployment benefits, COBRA, FMAP, our health care funding for the State, and the child care tax credit.

Those who oppose this measure can vote against it on final passage. We must consider this rule, and we must pass this critical legislation today.

I have the right to close, but in the end I will urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and consider the rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, again I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so that we can debate and pass this and the other important items covered by this rule.

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

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 976.

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 976 provides for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3326, House Joint Resolution 64, H.R. 4314, and the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847.

For the Senate amendment to H.R. 3326, the rule makes in order a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with the House amendment, provides 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Appropriations, and waives

all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XI.

The rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 64 under a closed rule. It provides for 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Appropriations. It provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. It waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, and it waives all points of order against provisions in the joint resolution.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4314 under a closed rule. It provides for 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Ways and Means. It provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, and it waives all points of order against provisions in the bill.

For the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847, the rule makes in order a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with the House amendment. It provides 1 hour of debate on the motion controlled by the Committee on Appropriations, and it waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.

The rule provides that in the engrossment of the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847, the Clerk shall add the text of H.R. 2920 as passed by the House.

The rule also provides that measures may be considered under suspension of the rules at any time during the remainder of the first session of the 111th Congress.

The rule waives the requirement of a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee for the remainder of the first session of the 111th Congress.

The rule provides that the Chair of the Committee on Appropriations may insert in the Congressional Record explanatory materials on the Senate amendments and the motions regarding H.R. 3326 and H.R. 2847.

The rule provides that, on any legislative day before January 12, 2010, the Speaker may dispense with organizational or legislative business.

The rule provides that, before January 12, 2010, the Chair may declare the House adjourned.

The rule provides for pro forma sessions until the House adjourns sine die.

And finally, the rule provides that, on any legislative day of the first session of the 111th Congress, the Speaker may declare the House adjourned.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today allows the House to consider the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010, which is the last appropriations bill for this fiscal year.

The conference agreement on H.R. 3326 provides over $363 billion towards protecting our troops abroad and taking better care of their families at home. To help protect our troops, this bill provides increased funding for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund and for the procurement of new Humvees and of new heavy and medium tactical vehicles. This is particularly important given the casualty rate and the difficulties our soldiers are experiencing in Afghanistan.

H.R. 3326 increases pay for all servicemembers by 3.4 percent, and it fully funds the requested end strength levels for active reserve and selected reserve personnel. The bill provides over $29 billion for top- of-the-line medical care, including $120 million for traumatic brain injury and psychological health, and it increases funding for the wounded, the ill and injured warrior programs.

The conference agreement also includes over $472 million for family advocacy programs, and it fully funds the family support and yellow ribbon programs. The bill also includes $20 million for the Army National Guard family assistance centers and reintegration programs; but this bill cannot provide for the common defense without a common effort.

In my home State of Maine, there are men and women who work every day to help in this effort. The funding in this bill would have been wasted if it weren't for the efforts of the welders, designers, and metal workers of the Bath Ironworks; of the skilled factory workers and assembly men at Vintech in Biddeford, Maine; of the world-class machinists and engineers at Pratt and Whitney in North Berwick; or of the dedicated laborers and nuclear engineers at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

This is a clear example of why the bills before us today are so interconnected. Our economic security and our national security are inextricably linked, and our economic security is still in dire straits.

Madam Speaker, if you were sitting at a boardroom table on Wall Street today, you might hear the employees with Goldman Sachs discussing their $1 billion in profits or bonuses or you might hear employees of Citibank discussing raises for their top executives. You might also hear that the stock market has gone up 60 percent since the spring. You might even hear terms like ``economic recovery'' or ``rebound.'' So, if you are sitting at that boardroom table on Wall Street, you might think that the economy has fully bounced back and that we are out of the woods. You may start to believe that there is nothing but smooth sailing ahead.

Yet, if you were at a kitchen table on Main Street in my home State of Maine, you would hear a very different story. Rather than talk of large profits, you would hear families discussing a savings account that has all but disappeared. Instead of listening to talk of raises or bonuses, you would hear families debating cutbacks on food or cutbacks on health care. Instead of hearing phrases like ``economic recovery'' or ``rebound,'' you would hear terms like ``high unemployment'' and ``mounting debt.''

For the big banks on Wall Street, the economic recovery may be at hand, but for the millions of unemployed workers and for the thousands of small businesses that are struggling to get by, the economic recovery is still a long way off. In my State and all across the country, there are millions of Americans who want to get back to work, but they need us to lend the same helping hand that we gave to Wall Street in its time of need.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today allows for the consideration of the Jobs for Main Street Act, which will move us down that road. This legislation invests in our Nation's infrastructure, and it puts more Americans back to work by providing $48 billion to rebuild and repair our national transportation system. This investment provides a measurable return, not only by creating and preserving jobs but by literally building the foundation for a long-term economic recovery. This bill will also preserve the jobs of teachers, of police officers, and of firefighters. For those who have already lost their jobs, the Jobs Act extends unemployment benefits for 2 months, and it maintains the current COBRA subsidy.

These programs--these investments, the economic lifelines--have a real impact. Just this week, I heard from a constituent of mine who said these words: Something needs to be done. There are less than 4 weeks left for my husband's unemployment. After that, we won't be able to pay the rent, and we will be out on the streets with a child under 2 years old. Every day, I wonder what is going to happen next, and I even have nightmares. You bail out these large banks which then only raise our interest rates and lower our credit lines--and for what? That doesn't help the little guy like us. Do something to help us.

Madam Speaker, we have the opportunity and we have the obligation to take the bailout money that was used as a lifeline to Wall Street and to give that money back to the American people and to those who have been hit the hardest by these tough economic times. The COBRA subsidy we passed this spring began expiring a few weeks ago. If we don't act now, it will completely disappear by January 1. In my State, full payment for COBRA uses up nearly 90 percent of the average unemployment benefits. That means out-of-work Mainers end up with only about $150 a month left after paying the full cost of their health insurance.

We need to act now, and we need to act fast to ensure that Main Street recovers. If we do not act, we will have only assured that Wall Street keeps

their bonuses while American families lose their benefits. We will have only watched Wall Street get rid of their debt while watching small businesses take on more.

Madam Speaker, we have already put more than enough into shoring up Wall Street. Now we need to focus on creating jobs for the average American that will rebuild our economy from the bottom up.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Arcuri.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to one of my colleagues, I do want to mention one point of concern I have in the bill.

The conference agreement on H.R. 3326 is the first step towards cutting wasteful defense spending, but it is by no means perfect. It is no means the last step that we must take. The conference agreement provides $465 million for the development of an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. This provision represents businesses as usual in Washington for providing funds for an engine that's already being built and already being built well.

There is no need to devote our precious Federal dollars to a wasteful alternative engine program at this time when Americans are struggling to find jobs to pay their medical bills and to put food on the table. Every defense bill that we spend wisely contributes to our national security, and every defense dollar that we waste hampers our economic security.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman 15 additional seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Madam Speaker, I rise to discuss at least one thing my colleague and friend from North Carolina mentioned. I'm a Northerner, so I can't claim to be an expert on crocodiles, but I assume that when you're talking about crocodile tears, you're talking about being insincere, and I want to say I receive letters from my constituents every day about the urgency of what we are doing today. And I have to say that like it or not, I cannot get through the pile of letters without crying tears for real. It's very, very difficult to think about the small businesses, laid-off individuals, individuals worrying about their jobs, what they're going through in my district and the urgency with which they view the actions that we are about to take today and the importance of moving on from this rule and getting to the actual debate.

I want to read one of them that is in front of me here before I yield a little time to my colleague from California.

This one says: ``My housemate and I were both laid off, me in September 08 and she in February 09. We have applied diligently for work in and around Portland with no luck. We had to cash in our meager 401(k)'s, and have been very thankful for the COBRA subsidy so that we could afford insurance during this most harsh of times. But our money is running out fast.

``As you know, the subsidy is about to expire, and we cannot afford the huge jump in premium. We cannot afford both the mortgage and the insurance. We cannot afford our prescriptions, and our health care will be at stake, as if things weren't bad enough. We will lose our home.

``PLEASE help push through the COBRA extension and continuation of the ARRA COBRA subsidy. It is an immediate fix for so many families who will surely gain employment over the next 6 months now that the economy has finally taken an upswing.''

Madam Speaker, those are the things that make us all cry real tears and make us want to pass this rule and go on to passing this legislation today.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Madam Speaker, the legislation we are considering today is about investing in jobs. It is about investing in infrastructure, and it is about rebalancing our economy. So it's not just the big banks and Wall Street firms that benefit from an economic recovery. This bill is about helping the American family.

This week, a New York Times/CBS News poll surveyed unemployed Americans. Not surprisingly, they found that being unemployed takes a toll far beyond what can be measured in dollars and cents. Half of the people surveyed said they had begun to suffer from depression and anxiety, half said the recession has caused them to make major life changes, and nearly half said they have seen changes in their children's behavior that they know is a result of their difficult financial situation.

We are not just helping men and women who've lost their job, who have suffered from uncertainty, emotional pain, and indignation, but we are helping their families. We are helping their children. It is time for us to invest in the jobs and policies that will get the American Dream back on track and restore the promise of opportunity and prosperity for everyone.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 976 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the legislation, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section 426(1).

Madam Speaker, approximately 68 years ago, in January of 1941, Sam Rayburn was elected Speaker of the House of Representatives. Just prior to his swearing in, he rose on the House floor and said the following:

``You have elevated me to a position, I must confess, that has been one of the ambitions of my lifetime. The House of Representatives has been my life and my love for this more than a quarter of a century. I love its traditions; I love its precedents; I love its dignity; I glory in the power of the House of Representatives. It is my highest hope and my unswerving aim to preserve, protect, and defend the rights, prerogatives, and the power of the House of Representatives.''

What a beautiful statement. You can't help but hear and feel the words of love that Speaker Rayburn felt for this House. As Speaker, he considered himself a custodian of its traditions, its precedents and, as he put it, its dignity.

You might ask why I tell this story, why I raise this point. It is because we are about to consider a bill that endorses and condones a practice that has placed a dark and ominous cloud over this institution. This practice, for lack of a better term, can be called circular fund-raising. It involves the awarding of earmarks, which are essentially no-bid contracts, in close proximity to the receipt of campaign contributions from the earmark recipients.

This legislation contains more than 500 earmarks where a private, for-profit company is the intended recipient. Let me repeat that. This legislation we are about to consider contains more than 500 earmarks, or no-bid contracts, directed to private companies. In many cases, the Members of the Congress securing these no-bid contracts have either received, or will soon receive after this legislation is enacted into law, large campaign contributions from the executives of these companies and/or the lobbyists that represent them.

By now my colleagues are well aware of the PMA scandal which was largely centered on the practice of circular fund-raising. Since news broke in February 2008 of the FBI's raid of the PMA offices, press reports and editorials from coast to coast have raised questions about the action of that firm and the integrity of this body, sowing public distrust and tarnishing the dignity of the House. Just listen to what is being said off the Hill and beyond the beltway.

ABC's news site, The Blotter, noted that PMA's ``operations--millions out to lawmakers, hundreds of millions back in earmarks for clients-- have made it, for many observers, the poster child for tacit `pay-to- play' politics in Washington.''

An editorial in The New York Times entitled, ``Political Animal 101'' referred to ``the relationship between campaign donors and the customized appropriations they are fed by grateful lawmakers'' as ``the ultimate in symbiotic survival'' and ``cynical influence trading.''

An article in The Kansas City Star noted that ``the earmark game gets a bit less baffling'' when taxpayers consider ``the campaign donors that grease political palms.''

The Columbus Dispatch summed it up when they noted, ``Congress has an abysmal public approval rating of 26 percent as of early November, and the smell of quid pro quo certainly doesn't help.''

The embarrassing coverage isn't just limited to domestic press. The Irish Times noted that ``U.S. Congressmen tread a fine line between legitimate political fund-raising and influence-peddling, between friendship with lobbyists and outright corruption.'' They go on, ``Now a leaked confidential report, prepared by the committee (on Ethics) in July and detailed in yesterday's Washington Post, has provided a rare glimpse into the cesspool of Capitol Hill politics.''

Madam Speaker, I have here that article referred to from The Washington Post dated October 30 of this year. It notes that seven Members who sit on the Appropriations Committee, the Subcommittee on Defense, are ``under scrutiny by ethics investigators.'' The article notes that ``Together, the seven legislators have personally steered more than $200 million in earmarks to clients of the PMA Group in the past 2 years, and received more than $6.2 million in campaign contributions from PMA and its clients in the past decade.''

According to The Wall Street Journal, Members who sit on the Defense Subcommittee have this year alone ``received a total of $141,000 in campaign contributions from companies that received earmarks from the lawmakers.''

So here we are today, Madam Speaker, with a backdrop of investigations into the practice of circular fund-raising by the Justice Department and our own Ethics Committee, yet we are poised to pass a Defense appropriations bill that contains more than 500 no-bid contracts for private companies.

In mid-January of 2010, we will see a quarterly report from the Office of Congressional Ethics that will shed light into their investigations. Thereafter, it is likely that our own Ethics Committee will have to provide additional notice of their actions related to the PMA scandal.

If the future is anything like the past, additional scandals will spring from the earmarks that we approve

today. We are surely, as the poet said, ``traipsing down a flower- strewn path unpricked by thorns of reason.''

I should note that circular fund-raising is not a partisan issue; both parties engage in it. The cloud that hangs over this body rains on Republicans and Democrats alike. But it is fair to ask, what about the dignity of this body? Are we appropriately concerned that the words ``pay-to-play,'' ``quid pro quo,'' ``swamp'' and ``cesspool'' are increasingly routine in articles describing the appropriations process? Should we have no standard higher than whether the abuse of the process rises to the level of an indictable offense?

One thing is clear: The practice of circular fund-raising will someday end. The question is, who will end it? Will it take us, in our own initiative, to clean our own House, or will we wait for the Justice Department to launch more investigations and take further action?

My own hope is that those who find themselves in leadership positions today will summon the dormant custodial spirit of those who have protected and defended this wonderful institution long before we arrived in this Chamber. We owe it to them to correct the process that led to this flawed piece of legislation before us.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

I am accused of using a procedural measure to bring up earmarks again. Let me tell you why I'm doing that. I'm doing that because this year, for the first time in the history of this institution, every appropriations bill that came to the floor-- including this one, including the Defense appropriations bill--came under a structured or closed rule with only certain amendments being offered. That's the first time in the history of this institution where every appropriations bill has come to the floor in that manner.

And so individuals like myself and others were only allowed to offer the amendments that the other side wanted us to offer, the ones that they said we could offer rather than the ones that we ourselves would choose. I was fortunate in that I got 10 of the 550-some amendments I offered on this bill. I offered that many because that's how many no- bid contracts for private companies are contained in the bill, and I thought that they deserved some scrutiny.

I wish that the Appropriations Committee was vetting these earmarks; given this, it's clear that they're not. This is one of hundreds of articles out there. There is a cloud hanging over this institution because of prior Defense bills, and this is going to end up the same way. We are guaranteeing that there will be scandal that springs from earmarks approved in this bill because they haven't been appropriately vetted, and they haven't been because we weren't allowed an open rule for people to bring to the floor amendments that they wanted to offer.

I mentioned that I was fortunate in that I got 10 of them. Some of my colleagues offered multiple amendments on multiple appropriations bills throughout the year and weren't given the opportunity to offer any of them, not one. Here are Members across the country wanting to represent their constituents, and through the entire appropriations process, 12 bills this year, weren't given the opportunity to offer one amendment because we have the equivalent of martial law on appropriations bills.

And why? Because we were told we had to get it done so we wouldn't do any omnibus bills at the end of the year. Well, here we are, we just approved a massive omnibus bill last week, and we're here today because the Defense bill was held just so that we could tag on additional items that people who wouldn't want to vote for them anyway would have to because it's a Defense bill. That's just no way to conduct business. This institution deserves better than this. It deserves better than to have a bill that has more than 500 no-bid contracts for private companies of which articles have been written and will be written, making a cloud hang over this body.

As I mentioned, this isn't a partisan issue. This isn't where one party is in the right and one party is in the wrong. We are both doing this, and we shouldn't. And it will come back to haunt us as surely as other practices have in the past.

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

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I had hoped that the gentleman would rise and explain what he just explained.

Now, I will gladly yield to him to explain why this would only apply to earmarks by House Members alone and why the competition requirements don't apply to earmarks that are jointly requested by a House and Senate Member. If we're hanging our hat on language that requires that these earmarks be subject to competition, then surely we would extend it to anything that had our name on it, but we're not.

My understanding is that the language only applies to those earmarks that are requested solely by a House Member, and that if you have a Senate Member on your earmark request, then it is not subject to competition. The language just explained does not apply to it. So you can't have it both ways.

Now, I will argue that it doesn't matter anyway, because right now if you talk to the Department of Defense, and I have, we've held meetings in my office with the procurement officials, and we've asked them, How does this work when these earmarks come over? Are they subject to competition? They said, Yes, we follow the rules. Yet when you ask them to do a cursory examination or a full-fledged examination of those earmarks that were requested in prior years, you will find an uncanny alignment, as you might expect, between the intended recipient and those who actually got the earmarks in the end.

So you can say until you're blue in the face we're going to subject these to full and open competition. The Department of Defense already says that. And these articles that I already talked about, these scandals that are currently underway are under a policy where the Department of Defense already says we subject these to full and open competition. But let me tell you, if an earmark comes over from a Member of Congress, particularly from those on the Appropriations Committee--and I should explain that the majority of these earmarks, a disproportionate number, are from the powerful Members on the Appropriations Committee--believe me, those procurement officials at the Department of Defense take that into account. They know who butters their bread, and they know that they'd better award this contract to the intended recipient or they might not get funded the next year. If that's not the case, why have we seen so much an uncanny alignment between the intended recipient and those who actually got the earmark in the first place?

So, first, again let me say if we're hanging our hat on the language that says these are subject to competition, then why wouldn't we apply it to every earmark that is contained in this bill? It doesn't apply to Senate earmarks, nor does it apply to earmarks requested by both Senate and House Members. So are we saying, well, we're going to subject some to competition and that means something, but these others, yes, it's okay if there are no-bid contracts? That simply doesn't work.

I thank the gentlewoman for her indulgence here.

This is important, and I would ask the gentleman and would yield to him to respond, is it your understanding, then, that this language, this new competition language, applies to Senate earmarks as well as earmarks requested by both House and Senate Members?

I thank the gentleman. Let me simply say if that is the case, that is in conflict with the agreement that we understand to be in effect.

The agreement we understand to be in effect and what I was told is that only those earmarks that are requested solely by a House Member has the language that applies to competition. If it is an earmark requested by both a House and a Senate Member, then it does not apply this year, and supposedly it will next year, although obviously there are no guarantees. We can't bind a future session. And that if it is a Senate earmark, they didn't agree to this at all. That's what we understand. If there is some difference there, then please let's have the chairman of the Appropriations Committee explain it.

But, again, the question here is if that language is so important, then why wouldn't we apply it across the board?

And doesn't it strike everybody a little bit funny that you have an earmark that, when a Member requests it from the Appropriations Committee, they say this earmark of this amount, $500,000, $2 million, $2.5 million, whatever, is to go to this company at this address? It's that specific. It goes to that company at that address.

Now, the Appropriations Committee will say we're just providing a look-see, and so the Department of Defense can say, well, we didn't know that that company existed but now we do, and we're doing nothing more than simply giving them a look-see and giving them a chance to see which companies those are. I think that doesn't quite pass the laugh test.

Yes, I will.

I thank the gentleman for explaining my motives.

But in truth what I would like to see is no more earmarks in the defense bill because when you have an earmark, you don't have full and open competition. What I'm talking about is I would not like to see no- bid contracts for private companies in the defense bill. When you have that, I don't know how in the world you can say we have full and open competition.

Like I say, I don't believe that that language means much at all, but to the extent that you believe it does mean something, then at least you should apply it across the board, not just to earmarks sought by Members of the House solely but those earmarks that are requested by Senate Members as well. How can we say with a straight face that, hey, we're doing things right because we're applying that competition language to us, but all you have to do is to get a Senate Member to request it along with you and then you don't have to subject it to full and open competition. It simply doesn't make sense, Madam Speaker.

I thank the gentlewoman for her indulgence and I appreciate this discussion.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I was one of those Members who understood the horror of 9/11 and joined with the then-President of the United States to respond to an attack on the United States. Subsequently in the Iraq war, I voted against that war knowing that it had nothing to do with the attack on the United States on 9/11. So I do not stand on this floor with a heart that is not heavy-laden and an understanding of the importance of this resolution. This resolution is grounded in the Constitution and it has merit; for the question is, when we responded to 9/11, it was a war on terror.

Today, we find that this is a war of insurgents. There is no real documentation that al Qaeda still lingers in Afghanistan. But we do understand that we have lost 1,000 Americans to date--70 in 2010 and 316 in 2009--soldiers that we honor and respect. Never will there be one soldier that we don't call for an honor and respect of the United States. In fact, I filed legislation to have a day of honor for all of our returning soldiers. None of them should come home to silence. We should always provide great honor for them.

But here is where we are as it relates to the situation in Afghanistan. Today, although he has the right to do so, President Karzai is greeting the President of Iran. I hope they work together for peace. But the questions are: What are our soldiers doing to help impact the governance of Afghanistan? The governance that requires the fighting of corruption; the governance to fight for freedom and for human rights and the right to worship; governance to establish schools for the girls and boys and allow girls and boys to go.

Yes, we need nation building, but not with our soldiers out walking step by step trying to bypass IEDs, many times missing it and losing arms and legs and eyes. This is the time to give the President, who did do the right thing, who deliberated and who took time and responded to his generals--we salute him for that. But now is the time for the United States Congress and the constitutional separation of the branches of government to be able to assess whether or not this particular conflict must continue and whether there is a benefit to the American people.

I would make the argument there is much to do. There is much to do in cleaning up Afghanistan. There is much to do in providing for the opportunity of governance. We can do that in a way that will support the State Department with support staff from the military. And if there is a need to defend the United States, I have no doubt that the brave men and women of the United States military will stand at attention and will rise to the occasion. Now we owe their families,

these young men and women, 165,000 who came home from Iraq, many of whom are suffering from posttraumatic disorder.

When we send them into battle, we have the obligation of saying there is a beginning and an end. World War I, World War II, wars that we may have liked or disliked, but we knew as they went into battle that there was an ending. And how brave they were.

As we saluted the women who participated in the Air Army Corps for Women, the WASPs today, some hundreds of them, we know that there is no doubt that they are brave. But I would say to you, end this war with Afghanistan and end this partnership with Pakistan. There are ways to be able to support the structure of both governments without our soldiers losing their lives on and on and on.

This resolution says that if the President finds it necessary to extend, he can do so. But we are asking for the troops to be out by the end of this year. So many of us have spoken to that over and over again.

Madam Speaker, this is not something unusual. This is not a cause of the fearful. This is not a cause of those who are nonpatriotic. This is a cause for people who believe in the red, white, and blue, who stand here today loving their country and believe that our soldiers are owed this respect to bring them home as heroes. We ask that you support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise in solemn opposition to a war that has cost too many American lives and too many American dollars. To date, over 1,000 Americans have lost their lives in the Afghan theatre, including 70 in 2010. In 2009, 316 Americans lost their lives. The war in Afghanistan should end as safely and quickly as possible, and our troops should be brought home with honor and a national day of celebration. I strongly believe that this can and must be done by the end of the year.

This stance is borne from my deeply held belief that we must commend our military for their exemplary performance and success in Afghanistan. As lawmakers continue to debate U.S. policy in Afghanistan, our heroic young men and women continue to willingly sacrifice life and limb on the battlefield. Our troops in Afghanistan did everything we asked them to do. We sent them overseas to destroy the roots of terror and protect our homeland; they are now caught in the midst of an insurgent civil war and continuing political upheaval.

Throughout the discussion of the administration's proposed surge, I expressed my concern for the cost of sending additional troops, as well as the effect that a larger presence in Afghanistan will have on troop morale. The White House estimates that it will cost $1 million per year for each additional soldier deployed, and I believe that $30 billion would be better spent on developing new jobs and fixing our broken healthcare system. Many leaders in our armed forces, including Secretary Gates, have said that it is optimal for troops to have two years between overseas deployments; yet, today, our troops have only a year at home between deployments. Expanding the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan by 30,000 will negatively impact troop morale and will bring us further away from the conditions necessary to maintain a strong, all-volunteer military. This is not President Obama's war and I applaud his thoughtful leadership--the Congress now needs to give counsel to have a time certain for the troops to come home.

I very strongly believe that our nation has a moral obligation to ensure that our veterans are treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve. One reason that we are the greatest nation in the world is because of the brave young men and women fighting for us in Iraq and Afghanistan. They deserve honor, they deserve dignity, and they deserve to know that a grateful nation cares about them. Whether or not my colleagues agree that the time has come to withdraw our American forces from Afghanistan, I believe that all of us in Congress should be of one accord that our troops deserve our sincere thanks and congratulations.

It is because I respect our troops that I am voting to bring them home from a war that has strayed far beyond its original mandate. The United States will not and should not permanently prop up the Afghan government and military. To date, almost $27 billion--more than half of all reconstruction dollars--have been apportioned to build the Afghan National Security Forces. The focus should be on strengthening the civilian government for it to lead. And we should continue to chase the real terrorists that are now lodged in Pakistan. We must support governments with a diplomatic surge--more resources for schools, hospitals, and government reform.

U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan will come to an end, and when U.S. forces leave, the responsibility for securing their nation will fall to the people and government of Afghanistan. Governance is more than winning elections, it is about upholding human rights, especially the rights of women; it requires fighting corruption. Governance requires fighting corruption. Governance requires providing for the freedom to worship. Governance requires establishing schools that provide education from early childhood through higher education.

Yet, Afghanistan has largely failed to institute the internal reforms necessary to justify America's continued involvement. The recent elections did not reflect the will of the people, and the government has consistently failed to gain the trust of the people of Afghanistan. The troubling reports about the elections that were held on August 20, 2009 were the first in a series of very worrisome developments. The electoral process is at the heart of democracy, and the disdain for that process that was displayed in the Afghanistan elections gives me great pause. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction recently released his quarterly report which detailed our nation's efforts to work with contractors and the Afghanistan government to prevent fraud and enhance transparency. This is the 8th report by the Special Inspector General, but as a recent series in the Washington Post showed, we are unable to stem the flow of corruption and waste within Afghanistan, despite our efforts at reforming our own contracting procedures. This money likely comes from the opium trade and U.S. assistance and, the Washington Post estimates, totals over one billion dollars each year.

The task of establishing legitimate governing practices remains formidable. A November 17, 2009 report from Transparency International listed Afghanistan as the second most corrupt country in the world, continuing its second straight year of declining in the corruption index. Such news is disparaging and provides an important dynamic to how we consider our strategy with regards to Afghanistan going forward. In January, a U.N. survey found that an overwhelming 59 percent of Afghans view public dishonesty as a bigger concern than insecurity (54 percent) and unemployment (52 percent). This is telling for a country with widespread violence and an unemployment rate of 40 percent.

As co-chair of the Congressional U.S.-Afghanistan Caucus, I have called for policies that allow the United States to provide benefits to the people of Afghanistan. Our effort must enhance our efforts at building both hard and soft infrastructure in Afghanistan. Change in Afghanistan is going to come through schools and roads, through health care and economic opportunity, and through increased trade and exchange. The Afghan people need our help to achieve these objectives, but I am not convinced that our military is the solution. If the Government of Afghanistan can demonstrate a responsible and non-corrupt commitment to its people, I believe that America should respond with appropriate and targeted foreign assistance.

I am also concerned that the United States is shouldering too much of the burden in Afghanistan. Although the terror attacks on American soil prompted NATO to respond with collective military action, no nation is immune from the threat of terrorism. Although the troops and resources provided by our allies have been invaluable to date, especially regarding development for the people of Afghanistan, questions must be raised about how long other nations will remain involved in Afghanistan. France and Germany, for example have already questioned whether or not to send additional troops. NATO resources must continue to focus on improving the livelihoods of the Afghan people, but if the support of these governments wavers, American troops and Afghan citizens will suffer the consequences.

I agree with our President that a stable Afghanistan is in the best interest of the international community, and I was pleased to see President Obama's outreach to our allies for additional troops. Currently, 41 NATO and other allied countries contribute nearly 36,000 troops. That number is expected to increase by nearly 6,000 with at least 5,000 additional troops coming from NATO member countries. Multilateralism is vital to ensuring that our operations in Afghanistan succeed.

Madam Speaker, today, we face difficult realities on the ground. The Taliban attacks our forces whenever and wherever they can. Agents of the Taliban seek to turn the people of Afghanistan against us as we attempt to provide them with help in every way we can. This situation is unsustainable. Afghanistan's history has earned it the nickname, ``The Graveyard of Empires,'' and I believe that we should not take this grim history lightly. By including a timetable for our operations in Afghanistan, we focus our mission and place it in a long-term context.

Although development to improve the lives of the Afghan people is important, defeating al-Qaeda and the threat they pose to America and our allies is the most important objective of our operations. To that end, I believe that Pakistan, not Afghanistan, is now the key to success and stability in the region. Over the past eight years, coalition forces have successfully pushed most of al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan. This has not only put them outside the mandate of our forces, but has also forced Pakistan to address an enlarged terrorist threat.

During his State of the Union Address, President Obama spoke of the importance of Pakistan when he noted ``America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.'' As the co-chair of the Congressional Pakistan Caucus, I know, firsthand, of the great potential of the Pakistani people, and I strongly believe that the recently approved assistance package to Pakistan will work to this end. U.S. foreign assistance to Pakistan will improve Pakistan's capacity to address terrorist networks within its own borders, but I worry that a troop increase will cause even more refugees and insurgents to cross into Pakistan.

Ultimately, we in Congress must decide what is in the best interest of the American people. Fighting al-Qaeda was in the best interest of the American people in 2001, as it continues to be today. Yet, we are now fighting an insurgency--not al-Qaeda--in Afghanistan. This should not be their mission, and we must bring our troops home.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank my colleague from Maine for yielding time.

Madam Speaker, the Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010 is intended to provide equipment and technology for our troops. Our country's greatest treasure lies in the bravery, in the dedication, and in the ability of or servicemen and -women. These courageous individuals protect our freedoms every day.

We thank them, and we thank their families for their support, dedication, and sacrifice.

This bill provides top-of-the-line medical care for our troops, including funding for traumatic brain injury and psychological health. This bill provides funding for wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers as well as for cancer research. This bill provides our military with a pay increase, and it continues efforts to end the practice of stop loss--compensating troops for every month their terms of service will be involuntarily extended in 2010. This bill includes funding to provide support for our country's military families who sacrifice every day on behalf of our Nation and to whom we owe a great debt. This bill provides our troops with first-class military equipment and readiness training, ensuring they are fully prepared to successfully perform their missions.

However, while this bill contains funding for several important and necessary initiatives, I would be remiss if I did not mention my disappointment in the overall funding levels when compared to the increases we have seen throughout the appropriations season this year. While the bill does receive, roughly, a 4.5 percent increase over last year, this increase is not comparable to nondefense appropriations bills we have voted on this year, which average a 12 percent increase in funding levels. As we have noted before, the Federal Government is the only unit of government to provide for our national security.

These represent the wrong priorities of the Democrats, who are in charge of the Congress, and of the Obama administration. Increasing spending for domestic priorities by double digits while, in comparison, shortchanging national defense represents a dangerous, wrongheaded policy that does not rightly prioritize the security of our Nation.

Thus, while I am pleased that several items in this bill are being funded in order to provide our troops with the tools, training, and medical services they need and deserve, I am disappointed that, after increasing the funding levels for domestic appropriations bills by an average of 12 percent, the Democrats in control decided only to increase our defense spending by 4.5 percent--less than half--for the coming year.

This is the last appropriations bill, and that is because it has been held in order for the majority to put into it things that are not related, which I will be discussing a bit more, but the substance of the DOD appropriations bill is not the source of my concern.

The extent of the closed rule before us today allows for the consideration of a variety of additional legislation that has been cobbled together without committee consideration. As my colleagues have said before, our colleagues across the aisle have gone to great lengths to shut down debate. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule so the bill can be returned to the committee and can be brought back under regular order.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would now like to yield 3 minutes to my very distinguished colleague from Texas, one of only five CPAs in the House, Mr. Conaway.

Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 3 minutes to another distinguished colleague from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield to a third colleague from Texas (Mr. Culberson), who has come to speak against this rule, one of the most fiscally conservative Members of the House, such time as he may consume.

Madam Speaker, the West continues to be well-represented here. I now yield 3 minutes to our colleague from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Madam Speaker, having a charge of misspeaking is very serious. I would like, therefore, to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) to speak again on the rule.

Madam Speaker, I want to say thank you to our colleague from Arizona for his very valuable input on the issue of earmarks, and say that I join him in opposing all earmarks in any of our bills until we fix this broken system. And I think what we need is a study of how these specific earmarks then get awarded, since there seems to be open competition. And I would welcome the majority to institute such a study and just see how open the competition is.

I now yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Iowa (Mr. King).

Madam Speaker, you know, I'm sitting here listening to the crocodile tears, particularly of my colleague from Maine who spoke earlier about the many people in her district who want to have jobs. And it is the very policies that she and her party have passed in this session of Congress that have caused those people to lose their jobs. What we need to do is let the American people keep their money. Their money. It is not the government's money. It is the hard-earned money of those who work in this country.

And let me point out, even President Obama has said, and I'm going to quote, November 18, 2009: It is important, though, to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that can actually lead to a double dip recession.

But what are we doing today? Adding to the debt, with the support of the President. Do they think the American people are not paying attention? To the contrary, more than ever, the American people are paying attention to what's going on in this Congress, and they have spoken in many, many ways. They have spoken through the polls, they have spoken through election polls in terms of where they're voting, and they're telling us every day this is not what they want this Congress to be doing.

They also are aware of the fact that this Congress is breaking every promise that it made before the majority was elected. And I want to say, with apologies to Elizabeth Barrett Browning and her sonnet No. 43, how many ways can we count the promises that have been broken? Many, many ways. Too many ways to talk about today.

But let me give some examples--one from Majority Leader Hoyer:

``I think that is a very important pursuit. Our committees and Members are served on both sides of the aisle by pursuing regular order. Regular order gives to everybody the opportunity to participate in the process in a fashion which will effect, in my opinion, the most consensus and best product.''

Again, a letter to Majority Leader Hoyer from members of the Democrat Blue Dog and New Democratic Caucuses which said:

``Committees must function thoroughly and inclusively, and cooperation must ensue between the parties and the Houses to ensure that our legislative tactics enable rather than impede progress. In general, we must engender an atmosphere that allows partisan games to cease and collaboration to succeed. We look forward to working with you to restore this institution.''

And what are we getting? Just the opposite. Even Speaker Pelosi endorsed the idea of regular order with her spokesperson stating at the time:

``The Speaker prefers to consider legislation in regular order and the committees of jurisdiction held hearings and markups on the current economic recovery bill. In a few cases, because of urgent financial crises, the leadership agreed to use expedited procedures.''

Lest we forget, promises Democrats made in their 2006 document entitled A New Direction for America, which promised that:

``Bills should be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee and committee markups with appropriate referrals to other committees. Members should have at least 24 hours to examine a bill prior to consideration at the subcommittee level.''

And we've pointed out it's barely been 12 hours since this bill, the bill underlying this rule, was presented.

``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''

As Mr. Dreier pointed out earlier, this is the first Congress in the history of this country that has not allowed that.

``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bill and conference report text prior to floor consideration. Rules governing for debate must be reported before 10 p.m. for a bill to be considered the following day.''

We can go on and on and on about promises broken. The President said bills would be available for 72 hours. The President promised he would post bills 5 days before signing them. He said he would read every bill line for line, and he said there would be no earmarks. He would veto bills with earmarks.

This is a bill with 1,700 earmarks. Is he going to veto the bill? I doubt it.

So here we have one promise after another that's broken. How can the American people believe anything that is said by the other side after this?

Again, they're paying attention. I know they're paying attention, and I believe that there will be consequences to the fact that these promises have been broken.

Madam Speaker, I will enter into the Record a letter written by Republicans, 173 of us, to Speaker Pelosi on December 11, 2009, asking that we not continue this practice.

Washington, DC,

December 11, 2009.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House, The Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Dear Madam Speaker: We write today to express our strong

opposition to reports that the Democrat Majority is

considering attaching unrelated and extremely controversial

proposals, such as an increase in the public debt limit, to

the Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Appropriations bill. We object

to maneuvers to use our troops as leverage to enact proposals

that the Majority either cannot pass on their own or for

which they wish to avoid directly voting on and we will

oppose a Defense Appropriations package that includes such

provisions.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a pattern developing this

year of using legislation that supports our men and women in

uniform to pass other contentious proposals that are

extraneous to our troops. We should supply those who risk

their lives for our country with the resources they need

without conditions and without using them to accomplish other

legislative goals. House Republicans stand ready to help the

Majority enact a defense bill that meets the needs of our

troops, but we will not assist your effort to use the troops

to enact an increase in our national debt limit so as to

finance the irresponsible spending policies of your party.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to point out it's not the role of Federal Government to provide jobs. It's not our job to take money from some and give to others, to try to make them dependent on the government.

I urge my colleagues, Madam Speaker, to defeat the previous question so an amendment can be added to the rule. The amendment to the rule will provide for separate consideration of House Resolution 554, a resolution to require that legislation and conference reports be posted on the Internet for 72 hours prior to consideration by the House, and does not affect the bill made in order by the rule.

I will insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question, and I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.