A joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Election Commission with respect to travel on private aircraft by Federal candidates.

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).

I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

I want to thank our majority leader for his participation and also for his cooperation in ensuring that this debate could happen. You and our Speaker and Mr. Berman are appreciated for your willingness to provide for this moment to happen so that the House could be heard from, so thank you.

I would ask, Madam Speaker, how much time remains in the debate? I am sure we're winding down here.

I yield myself 3 minutes.

One of the areas of concern that I have about our presence in Afghanistan that I haven't seen discussed that much deals with the role of oil and gas, particularly in Afghanistan. Paul Craig Roberts, who was an Assistant Secretary of Treasury under the Reagan administration, reported in November of last year on a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who was fired from his job when he spoke out about documents he saw ``proving that the motivation for U.S. and U.K. military aggression in Afghanistan had something to do with the natural gas deposits in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.'' He continues, and these are his words, ``The Americans wanted a pipeline that bypassed Russia and Iran and went through Afghanistan. To ensure this, an invasion was necessary.''

I did some additional research on that and I found an article by Craig Murray where he claims that Mr. Karzai ``was put in place because of his role with Unocal in developing the Trans-Afghanistan Gas Pipeline project. That remains a chief strategic goal. The Asian Development Bank has agreed finance to start construction in spring, 2011. It is, of course, a total coincidence that 30,000 extra U.S. troops will arrive 6 months before, and that the U.S. (as opposed to other NATO forces) deployment area corresponds with the pipeline route.''

I have a map of the pipeline. It's probably not easily visible, but it starts on the west in Turkmenistan, goes through Afghanistan, south to Pakistan and India, and it touches near both Helmand and Kandahar province, which is exactly where our troop buildup is occurring. I will put this article by Mr. Murray into the Record.

Obama Is Wrong on Both Counts

(By Craig Murray)

Obama loves his rhetoric, and his speech on the Afghan

surge was topped by a rhetorical flourish:

``Our cause is just, our resolve unshaken''.

He is of course wrong on both counts.

The occupation of Afghanistan by the US and its allies is

there to prop up the government of President Karzai. Karzai's

has always been an ultra-corrupt government of vicious

warlords and drugs barons. I have been pointing this out for

years, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-469983/ Britain-protecting-biggest-heroin-crop- time.html#ixzz0VS78HVR1

The CIA is up to its usual tricks again supporting the drug

running of key warlords loyal to them. They are also setting

up death squads on the Central American model, in cooperation

with Blackwater.

Fortunately Karzai's rigging of his re-election was so

blatant that the scales have fallen from the eyes of the

public and even the mainstream media. Politicians no longer

pretend we are promoting democracy in Afghanistan.

Karzai comes directly from the Bush camp and was put in

place because of his role with Unocal in developing the Trans

Afghanistan Gas Pipeline project. That remains a chief

strategic goal. The Asian Development Bank has agreed finance

to start construction in Spring 2011. It is of course a total

coincidence that 30,000 extra US troops will arrive six

months before, and that the US (as opposed to other NATO

forces) deployment area corresponds with the pipeline route.

Obama's claim that ``Our cause is just'' ultimately rests

on the extraordinary claim that, eight years after the

invasion, we are still there in self-defence. In both the UK

and US, governments are relying on the mantra that the

occupation of Afghanistan protects us from terrorism at home.

This is utter nonsense. The large majority of post 9/11

terror incidents have been by Western Muslims outraged by our

invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Put bluntly, if we keep

invading Muslim countries, of course we will face a violent

backlash. The idea that because we occupy Afghanistan a

Muslim from Dewsbury or Detroit disenchanted with the West

would not be able to manufacture a bomb is patent nonsense.

It would be an infinitely better strategy to make out

theoretical Muslim less disenchanted by not attacking and

killing huge numbers of his civilian co-religionists.

Our cause is unjust.

We are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of

civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and for the further of

radicalisation of Muslim communities worldwide. That

threatens a perpetual war--which is of course just what the

military-industrial complex and the security industry want.

They have captured Obama.

Fortunately, our resolve is shaken.

The ordinary people of the UK and US have begun in

sufficient numbers to see through this perpetual war

confidence trick; they realise there is nothing in it for

them but dead youngsters and high taxes. That is why Obama

made a very vague promise--which I believe in its vagueness

and caveats to be deliberate deceit--that troops will start

to leave in 2011.

Today's promises of 5,000 additional NATO troops are,

incidentally, empty rhetoric. I gather from friends in the

FCO that firm pledges to date amount to 670.

A well-placed source close to the Taliban in Pakistan tells

me that the Afghan Taliban

and their tribal allies have a plan. As the US seeks

massively to expand the Afghan forces, they are feeding in

large numbers of volunteers. I suspect that while we may see

the odd attack on their trainers, the vast majority will get

trained, fed, paid and equipped and bide their time before

turning en masse. This is nothing new; it is precisely the

history of foreign occupations in the region and the purchase

of tribal auxiliaries and alliances.

I will also have this article called ``Unocal and the Afghanistan Pipeline'' submitted in the Record because he talks about how ``Unocal was not interested in a partnership. The U.S. Government, its affiliated transnational oil and construction companies, and the ruling elite of the West had coveted the same oil and gas transit route for years.

``A trans-Afghanistan pipeline was not simply a business matter, but a key component of a broader geostrategic agenda: total military and economic control of Eurasia.'' This is supposedly described in Zbigniew Brzezinski's book, ``The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives'' as ``the center of world power.''

``Capturing the region's oil wealth and carving out territory in order to build a network of transit routes was a primary objective of U.S. military interventions throughout the 1990s in the Balkans, the Caucasus, and Caspian Sea.''

[From Centre for Research on Globalisation, March 2002]

Unocal and the Afghanistan pipeline

(By Larry Chin)

CRG's Global Outlook, premiere issue on ``Stop the War''

provides detailed documentation on the war and the ``Post-

September 11 Crisis.'' Order/subscribe. Consult Table of

Contents

Part One of a two-part series Players on a rigged grand chessboard:

Bridas,

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Argentine oil company

Bridas, led by its ambitious chairman, Carlos Bulgheroni,

became the first company to exploit the oil fields of

Turkmenistan and propose a pipeline through neighboring

Afghanistan. A powerful US-backed consortium intent on

building its own pipeline through the same Afghan corridor

would oppose Bridas' project.

The Coveted Trans-Afghan Route

Upon successfully negotiating leases to explore in

Turkmenistan, Bridas was awarded exploration contracts for

the Keimar block near the Caspian Sea, and the Yashlar block

near the Afghanistan border. By March 1995, Bulgheroni had

accords with Turkmenistan and Pakistan granting Bridas

construction rights for a pipeline into Afghanistan, pending

negotiations with the civil war-torn country.

The following year, after extensive meetings with warlords

throughout Afghanistan, Bridas had a 30-year agreement with

the Rabbani regime to build and operate an 875-mile gas

pipeline across Afghanistan.

Bulgheroni believed that his pipeline would promote peace

as well as material wealth in the region. He approached other

companies, including Unocal and its then-CEO, Roger Beach, to

join an international consortium.

Unocal was not interested in a partnership. The United

States government, its affiliated transnational oil and

construction companies, and the ruling elite of the West had

coveted the same oil and gas transit route for years.

A trans-Afghanistan pipeline was not simply a business

matter, but a key component of a broader geo-strategic

agenda: total military and economic control of Eurasia (the

Middle East and former Soviet Central Asian republics).

Zbigniew Brezezinski describes this region in his book ``The

Grand Chessboard--American Primacy and Its Geostrategic

Imperatives'' as ``the center of world power.'' Capturing the

region's oil wealth, and carving out territory in order to

build a network of transit routes, was a primary objective of

US military interventions throughout the 1990s in the

Balkans, the Caucasus and Caspian Sea.

As of 1992, 11 western oil companies controlled more than

50 percent of all oil investments in the Caspian Basin,

including Unocal, Amoco, Atlantic Richfield, Chevron, Exxon-

Mobil, Pennzoil, Texaco, Phillips and British Petroleum.

In ``Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in

Central Asia'' (a definitive work that is a primary source

for this report), Ahmed Rashid wrote, ``US oil companies who

had spearheaded the first US forays into the region wanted a

greater say in US policy making.''

Business and policy planning groups active in Central Asia,

such as the Foreign Oil Companies Group operated with the

full support of the US State Department, the National

Security Council, the CIA and the Department of Energy and

Commerce.

Among the most active operatives for US efforts:

Brezezinski (a consultant to Amoco, and architect of the

Afghan-Soviet war of the 1970s), Henry Kissinger (advisor to

Unocal), and Alexander Haig (a lobbyist for Turkmenistan),

and Dick Cheney (Halliburton, US-Azerbaijan Chamber of

Commerce).

Unocal's Central Asia envoys consisted of former US defense

and intelligence officials. Robert Oakley, the former US

ambassador to Pakistan, was a ``counter-terrorism''

specialist for the Reagan administration who armed and

trained the mujahadeen during the war against the Soviets in

the 1980s. He was an Iran-Contra conspirator charged by

Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh as a key figure involved

in arms shipments to Iran.

Richard Armitage, the current Deputy Defense Secretary, was

another Iran-Contra player in Unocal's employ. A former Navy

SEAL, covert operative in Laos, director with the Carlyle

Group, Armitage is allegedly deeply linked to terrorist and

criminal networks in the Middle East, and the new independent

states of the former Soviet Union (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan,

and Kyrgistan).

Armitage was no stranger to pipelines. As a member of the

Burma/Myanmar Forum, a group that received major funding from

Unocal, Armitage was implicated in a lawsuit filed by Burmese

villagers who suffered human rights abuses during the

construction of a Unocal pipeline. (Halliburton, under Dick

Cheney, performed contract work on the same Burmese project.)

Bridas Versus the New World Order

Much to Bridas' dismay, Unocal went directly to regional

leaders with its own proposal. Unocal formed its own

competing US-led, Washington-sponsored consortium that

included Saudi Arabia's Delta Oil, aligned with Saudi Prince

Abdullah and King Fahd. Other partners included Russia's

Gazprom and Turkmenistan's state-owned Turkmenrozgas.

John Imle, president of Unocal (and member of the US-

Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce with Armitage, Cheney,

Brezezinski and other ubiquitous figures), lobbied

Turkmenistan's president Niyazov and prime minister Bhutto of

Pakistan, offering a Unocal pipeline following the same route

as Bridas.'

Dazzled by the prospect of an alliance with the US, Niyazov

asked Bridas to renegotiate its past contract and blocked

Bridas' exports from Keimar field. Bridas responded by filing

three cases with the International Chamber of Commerce

against Turkmenistan for breach of contract. (Bridas won.)

Bridas also filed a lawsuit in Texas charging Unocal with

civil conspiracy and ``tortuous interference with business

relations.'' While its officers were negotiating with

Pakistani and Turkmen oil and gas officials, Bridas

claimed that Unocal had stolen its idea, and coerced the

Turkmen government into blocking Bridas from Keimir field.

(The suit was dismissed in 1998 by Judge Brady G. Elliott,

a Republican, who claimed that any dispute between Unocal

and Bridas was governed by the laws of Turkmenistan and

Afghanistan, rather than Texas law.)

In October 1995, with neither company in a winning

position, Bulgheroni and Imle accompanied Niyazov to the

opening of the UN General Assembly. There, Niyazov awarded

Unocal with a contract for a 918-mile natural gas pipeline.

Bulgheroni was shocked. At the announcement ceremony, Unocal

consultant Henry Kissinger said that the deal looked like

``the triumph of hope over experience.''

Later, Unocal's consortium, CentGas, would secure another

contract for a companion 1,050-mile oil pipeline from

Dauletabad through Afghanistan that would connect to a tanker

loading port in Pakistan on the coast of the Arabian Sea.

Although Unocal had agreements with the governments on

either end of the proposed route, Bridas still had the

contract with Afghanistan.

The problem was resolved via the CIA and Pakistani ISI-

backed Taliban. Following a visit to Kandahar by US Assistant

Secretary of State for South Asia Robin Raphael in the fall

of 1996, the Taliban entered Kabul and sent the Rabbani

government packing.

Bridas' agreement with Rabbani would have to be

renegotiated.

Wooing the Taliban

According to Ahmed Rashid, ``Unocal's real influence with

the Taliban was that their project carried the possibility of

US recognition, which the Taliban were desperately anxious to

secure.''

Unocal wasted no time greasing the palms of the Taliban. It

offered humanitarian aid to Afghan warlords who would form a

council to supervise the pipeline project. It provided a new

mobile phone network between Kabul and Kandahar. Unocal also

promised to help rebuild Kandahar, and donated $9,000 to the

University of Nebraska's Center for Afghan Studies. The US

State Department, through its aid organization USAID,

contributed significant education funding for Taliban. In the

spring of 1996, Unocal executives flew Uzbek leader General

Abdul Rashid Dostum to Dallas to discuss pipeline passage

through his northern (Northern Alliance-controlled)

territories.

Bridas countered by forming an alliance with Ningarcho, a

Saudi company closely aligned with Prince Turki el-Faisal,

the Saudi intelligence chief. Turki was a mentor to Osama bin

Laden, the ally of the Taliban who was publicly feuding with

the Saudi royal family. As a gesture for Bridas, Prince Turki

provided the Taliban with communications equipment and a

fleet of pickup trucks. Now Bridas proposed two consortiums,

one to build the Afghanistan portion, and another to take

care of both ends of the line.

By November 1996, Bridas claimed that it had an agreement

signed by the Taliban and Dostum--trumping Unocal.

The competition between Unocal and Bridas, as described by

Rashid, ``began to reflect the competition within the Saudi

Royal family.''

In 1997, Taliban officials traveled twice to Washington,

D.C. and Buenos Aires to be wined and dined by Unocal and

Bridas. No agreements were signed.

It appeared to Unocal that the Taliban was balking. In

addition to royalties, the Taliban demanded funding for

infrastructure projects, including roads and power plants.

The Taliban also announced plans to revive the Afghan

National Oil Company, which had been abolished by the Soviet

regime in the late 1970s.

Osama bin Laden (who issued his fatwa against the West in

1998) advised the Taliban to sign with Bridas. In addition to

offering the Taliban a higher bid, Bridas proposed an open

pipeline accessible to warlords and local users. Unocal's

pipeline was closed--for export purposes only. Bridas' plan

also did not require outside financing, while Unocal's

required a loan from the western financial institutions (the

World Bank), which in turn would leave Afghanistan vulnerable

to demands from western governments.

Bridas' approach to business was more to the Taliban's

liking. Where Bulgheroni and Bridas' engineers would take the

time to ``sip tea with Afghan tribesmen,'' Unocal's American

executives issued top-down edicts from corporate headquarters

and the US Embassy (including a demand to open talks with the

CIA-backed Northern Alliance).

While seemingly well received within Afghanistan, Bridas'

problems with Turkmenistan (which they blamed on Unocal and

US interference) had left them cash-strapped and without a

supply.

In 1997, they went searching for a major partner with the

clout to break the deadlock with Turkmenistan. They found one

in Amoco. Bridas sold 60 percent of its Latin American assets

to Amoco. Carlos Bulgheroni and his contingent retained the

remaining minority 40 percent. Facilitating the merger were

other icons of transnational finance, Chase Manhattan

(representing Bridas), Morgan Stanley (handling Amoco) and

Arthur Andersen (facilitator of post-merger integration).

Zbigniew Brezezinski was a consultant for Amoco.

(Amoco would merge with British Petroleum a year later. BP

is represented by the law firm of Baker & Botts, whose

principal attorney is James Baker, lifelong Bush friend,

former secretary of state, and a member of the Carlyle

Group.)

Recognizing the significance of the merger, a Pakistani oil

company executive hinted, ``If these (Central Asian)

countries want a big US company involved, Amoco is far bigger

than Unocal.''

Clearing the Chessboard Again

By 1998, while the Argentine contingent made slow progress,

Unocal faced a number of new problems.

Gazprom pulled out of CentGas when Russia complained about

the anti-Russian agenda of the US. This forced Unocal to

expand CentGas to include Japanese and South Korean gas

companies, while maintaining the dominant share with Delta.

Human rights groups began protesting Unocal's dealings with

the brutal Taliban. Still riding years of Clinton bashing and

scandal mongering, conservative Republicans in the US

attacked the Clinton administration's Central Asia policy for

its lack of clarity and ``leadership.''

Once again, violence would change the dynamic.

In response to the bombing of US embassies in Nairobi and

Tanzania (attributed to bin Laden), President Bill Clinton

sent cruise missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan. The

administration broke off diplomatic contact with the Taliban,

and UN sanctions were imposed.

Unocal withdrew from CentGas, and informed the State

Department ``the gas pipeline would not proceed until an

internationally recognized government was in place in

Afghanistan.'' Although Unocal continued on and off

negotiations on the oil pipeline (a separate project), the

lack of support from Washington hampered efforts.

Meanwhile, Bridas declared that it would not need to wait

for resolution of political issues, and repeated its

intention of moving forward with the Afghan gas pipeline

project on its own. Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan

tried to push Saudi Arabia to proceed with CentGas (Delta of

Saudi Arabia was now the leader). But war and US-Taliban

tension made business impossible.

For the remainder of the Clinton presidency, there would be

no official US or UN recognition of Afghanistan. And no

progress on the pipeline.

Then George Walker Bush took the White House.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I would like to speak for a moment about civilian casualties in Afghanistan.

According to the United Nations, airstrikes continue to be a leading cause of civilian casualties. Days into the Marjah military offensive, 12 Afghans died when two rockets fired by NATO forces hit the wrong house. Ten of the 12 Afghans killed were from the same family. U.S. military officials initially apologized for the death of the civilians, but later backtracked, claiming they were insurgents. An Italian aid group working at a hospital just outside of Marjah accused allied forces of blocking dozens of critically wounded citizens from receiving medical attention at the hospital. A February 21 NATO airstrike conducted by U.S. Special Forces helicopters killed over 27 civilians and wounded dozens more after minibuses were hit by helicopters ``patrolling the area hunting for insurgents who had escaped the NATO offensive in the Marjah area,'' over 100 miles outside of Marjah in the southern province of Uruzgan.

The Wall Street Journal cited Afghan and NATO representatives, explaining that the air strike was ordered because it was believed that the minibus carried fresh Taliban fighters who were sent to help those under attack. However, the source of intelligence used to determine that the minibus carried insurgents has not been made known.

Admiral Mike Mullen, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, claimed the goal of the Marjah operation was to have no civilian casualties.

I submit for the Record a Brookings Institution 2009 report estimate that 10 civilians die for every militant killed in a drone strike.

I submit for the Record an article published in The Nation, written by journalist Anand Gopal, titled ``America's Secret Afghan Prisons,'' which reveals the existence of secret detention facilities at Bagram.

The daily night raids and indiscriminate aerial bombings must stop. The alleged torture of Afghans who are accused of supporting the Taliban who are captured in such night raids and the slaughter of innocent civilians in drone attacks only serve to embolden popular support against the United States.

[From the Brookings Institution, Mar. 10, 2010]

Do Targeted Killings Work?

(By Daniel L. Byman)

July 14, 2009.--Killing terrorist leaders is difficult, is

often ineffective, and can easily backfire. Yet it is one of

the United States' few options for managing the threat posed

by al Qaeda from its base in tribal Pakistan. By some

accounts, U.S. drone activity in Pakistan has killed dozens

of lower-ranking and at least 10 mid- and high-ranking

leaders from al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Critics correctly find many problems with this program,

most of all the number of civilian casualties the strikes

have incurred. Sourcing on civilian deaths is weak and the

numbers are often exaggerated, but more than 600 civilians

are likely to have died from the attacks. That number

suggests that for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians

also died.

To reduce casualties, superb intelligence is necessary.

Operators must know not only where the terrorists are, but

also who is with them and who might be within the blast

radius. This level of surveillance may often be lacking, and

terrorists' deliberate use of children and other civilians as

shields make civilian deaths even more likely.

Beyond the humanitarian tragedy incurred, civilian deaths

create dangerous political problems. Pakistan's new

democratic government is already unpopular for its

corruption, favoritism, and poor governance. U.S. strikes

that take a civilian toll are a further blow to its

legitimacy--and to U.S. efforts to build goodwill there. As

counterterrorism expert David Kilcullen put it, ``When we

intervene in people's countries to chase small cells of bad

guys, we end up alienating the whole country and turning them

against us.''

And even when they work, killings are a poor second to

arrests. Dead men tell no tales and thus are no help in

anticipating the next attack or informing us about broader

terrorist activities. So in any country with a functioning

government, it is better to work with that government to

seize the terrorist than to kill him outright. Arresting al

Qaeda personnel in remote parts of Pakistan, however, is

almost impossible today; the Pakistani government does not

control many of the areas where al Qaeda is based, and a raid

to seize terrorists there would probably end in the militants

escaping and U.S. and allied casualties in the attempt.

When arrests are impossible, what results is a terrorist

haven of the sort present along the Afghanistan-Pakistan

border today. Free from the threat of apprehension,

terrorists have a space in which to plot, organize, train,

and relax--an extremely dangerous prospect. In such a haven,

terrorist leaders can recruit hundreds or even thousands of

potential fighters and, more importantly, organize them into

a dangerous network. They can transform idealistic but

incompetent volunteers into a lethal legion of fighters. They

can also plan long-term global operations--terrorism

``spectaculars'' like the September 11 attacks, which remain

one of al Qaeda's goals.

Killing terrorist operatives is one way to dismantle these

havens. Plans are disrupted when individuals die or are

wounded, as new people must be recruited and less experienced

leaders take over day-to-day operations. Perhaps most

importantly, organizations fearing a strike must devote

increased attention to their own security because any time

they communicate with other cells or issue propaganda, they

may be exposing themselves to a targeted attack.

Given the humanitarian and political risks, each strike

needs to be carefully weighed, with the value of the target

and the potential for innocent deaths factored into the

equation. In addition, the broader political consequences

must be evaluated; the same death toll can have vastly

different political consequences depending on the context.

But equally important is the risk of not striking--and

inadvertently allowing al Qaeda leaders free reign to plot

terrorist mayhem.

We must not pretend the killings are anything but a flawed

short-term expedient that at best reduces the al Qaeda

threat--but by no means eliminates it. Even as U.S. strikes

have increased, Pakistan has suffered staggering levels of

terrorism as groups with few or limited links to al Qaeda

have joined the fray. Al Qaeda itself can also still carry

out attacks, including ones outside Pakistan in Europe and

even the United States. Thanks to the drone strikes, they are

just harder to pull off. The real answer to halting al

Qaeda's activity in Pakistan will be the long-term support of

Pakistan's counterinsurgency efforts. While this process

unfolds, targeted killings are one of America's few options

left.

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak about the failure of the counterinsurgency strategy.

The Brookings Institution recently reported that, in terms of raw violence, the situation is at an historic worst level with early 2010 levels of various types of attacks much higher than even last year at this time. Much of that is due to the recent Marjah campaign and, more generally, to the deployment of additional U.S. and Afghan troops to parts of the country where they have not been present before.

The President has called this war a just war. The framing of war as ``just'' is served to legitimize the slaughter of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A 200-page report by the RAND Corporation is entitled, ``Counterintelligence in Afghanistan Deals a Huge Blow to our Ideas of Counterinsurgency.'' It reads: In many cases, a significant direct intervention by U.S. military forces may undermine popular support and legitimacy. The United States is also unlikely to remain for the duration of most insurgencies. This study's assessment of 90 insurgencies indicates that it takes an average of 14 years to defeat insurgents once an insurgency develops. Occupations fuel insurgencies. In other words, this assessment does not fit into the President's supposed rapid increase and the shaky plan to withdraw by the summer of 2011.

The Brookings report continues: Second, the United States and other international actors need to improve the quality of local governance, especially in rural areas of Afghanistan. Field research in the east and south show that development and reconstruction did not reach most rural areas because of the deteriorating security environment. Even the provincial reconstruction teams, which were specifically designed to assist in the development of reconstruction projects, operate inside pockets in east and south because of security concerns.

NGOs and State agencies, such as USAID and the Canadian International Development Agency, were also not involved in the reconstruction and development in many areas of the south and east.

The irony of this situation is that rural areas which were at most risk from the Taliban, which were unhappy with the slow pace of change, a population with the greatest unhappiness, received little assistance. The counterinsurgency in Afghanistan will be won or lost in the local communities of rural Afghanistan, not in urban centers such as Kabul, says the Brookings Institution.

Now, someone I'm not used to quoting, conservative columnist George Will, wrote in The Washington Post that the counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and level of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps, for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.

For how long are we willing to dedicate billions of dollars and thousands of lives before we realize that we can't win Afghanistan militarily? Our biggest mistake in the Afghanistan strategy is to think that we can separate the Taliban from the rest of the population. We cannot. The Taliban is a local resistance movement that is part and parcel of an indigenous population. We lost Vietnam because we failed to win the hearts and minds of local populations without providing them with a competent government that provided them with basic security and with a decent living. That message can and should be applied to Afghanistan.

The strategy for winning Afghanistan is simple: Stop killing the people and they will stop killing you.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute.

The more troops we send into Afghanistan, the more support the Taliban gains as resistors of foreign occupation. We say we want to negotiate with the Taliban in the future while, at the same time, conducting air strikes to take out Taliban strongholds across the country.

Just yesterday, The Washington Post published an article about the Zabul province and the pouring in of Taliban fighters following a retreat of U.S. Armed Forces from Zabul in December. If we accept the premise that we can never leave Afghanistan until the Taliban is eradicated, we may be there for a very long time.

The justification for our continued military presence in Afghanistan is that the Taliban, in the past, has provided a safe haven for al Qaeda, or could do so in the future. General Petraeus has already admitted that al Qaeda has little or no presence in Afghanistan.

We have to careful about branding al Qaeda and the Taliban as a single terrorist movement. Al Qaeda is an international organization, and, yes, they are a threat to the United States. The Taliban is only a threat to us as long as we continue our military occupation of Afghanistan.

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

I want to thank Mr. Berman and my colleagues for this opportunity to engage in this important debate.

At the current estimated deployment rate, the number of troops in Afghanistan will increase from about 70,000 at the end of 2009 to the stated goal of 100,000 by July of this year. My resolution calls for the withdrawal of all U.S. Armed Forces from Afghanistan no later than December 31 of this year. And it can be done. Unlike Iraq, where we have significant infrastructure built in and around the country to support our presence there, prior to last year, the United States invested very little in permanent infrastructure for U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan.

President Obama has called on the logisticians for the U.S. military to triple the amount of troops we have had in the country since the war started. If the administration expects the U.S. military to figure out a way for a rapid increase of troops on the ground, we can figure out how to have a method of rapid withdrawal.

Getting supplies into Afghanistan is one of the biggest obstacles to providing adequate support for troops on the ground. Due to frequent attacks on U.S. convoys traveling to Afghanistan through Pakistan, the U.S. is forced to deliver most of the supplies by air.

Madam Speaker, we have, in the last 3 hours, talked about 1,000 troop casualties; we have talked about a cost of a quarter of a trillion dollars and rising; we have spoken of civilian casualties and about the incredible amount of corruption that is going on in Afghanistan; we have spoken of the role of the pipeline, which is sure to deserve more critical inquiry; and we have talked about the failure of doctrines of counterinsurgency. That strategy doesn't work, and there are logistics of withdrawal that we can pursue.

The question is should the United States' people continue to bear the burden of this war when we have so many problems at home, with 15 million people unemployed, with millions of people losing their homes, with so many people without health care, with so many people not being able to send their children to good schools.

We have to reset our priorities. Our priorities should begin by getting out of Afghanistan, and then we can turn to getting out of Iraq.

Thank you very much for this debate. I urge approval of the resolution.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding time, and I appreciate very much and accept his comments, in particular about how we are concerned personally for each other's children and each other's family. I believe that is absolutely true. And I appreciate the comments that the gentleman made yesterday in Rules in that respect, and also here.

Madam Speaker, Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines outrageous as ``going beyond all standards of what is right or decent,'' ``deficient in propriety or good taste.''

The outrageous rule before us today represents a sickening embarrassment for this institution that the American people have charged with the responsibility to provide effective solutions to their real problems.

Unfortunately, the ruling liberal Democrat majority has taken this opportunity to devise a cynical plot to ram through this misguided, partisan legislation which has had no committee consideration, no CBO cost estimate, and was sprung on the minority party only 90 minutes before its consideration in the Rules Committee yesterday. Despite these atrocities, the ruling liberal Democrats couldn't bring themselves to allow for any amendments, choosing instead to present us with this closed rule containing same-day ``martial-law'' authority through Sunday.

Although we've grown accustomed to this type of process under the reign of the current liberal Democrat majority, their arrogance and contempt for institutional integrity never ceases to shock and amaze us.

This is a far cry from 2006 when then-minority leader Nancy Pelosi promised regular order for legislation in her ``New Direction for America.''

At that time she pledged that bills should be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee and committee mark ups with appropriate referrals to other committees.

Members should have at least 24 hours to examine a bill prior to consideration at the subcommittee level. 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.

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

``Should,'' I guess, is the operative word here, Madam Speaker. Speaker Pelosi could say she didn't promise, she just said ``should.'' How times have changed. With hypocrisy like this, it's no wonder the American people are shaking their heads watching the shenanigans of this most leftist, liberal, elitist, arrogant, and out of touch Democrat regime in the history of our great Nation.

The liberals will undoubtedly excuse their shameful actions today by blaming George Bush, as they always do, and relate their actions to certain instances under Republican congressional leadership, but it makes no sense to criticize in one breath and emulate in another what they identify as the sins of the past.

My friend across the aisle talked about tax cuts and how Republicans love tax cuts but don't want investments. I want to point out to my colleague that in the 2001 tax cuts which

were passed, there were many Democrats who voted for those tax cuts, both on the House and Senate side. The same thing with the 2003 tax cuts. Democrats supported those. And we were very grateful for that. In the final consideration of the Iraq war authorization, many Democrats supported that also. So we do have revisionist history, Mr. Speaker. And I would like to insert into the Record the record of the votes on those various items.

Let's be clear about what this bill does, Mr. Speaker. We are spending more of taxpayers' money on plans that will kill private- sector jobs. We know we have the largest deficit in history, and we need to stop this spending. Let me say to you again, there are four parts to this bill. Let me mention what they are in terms the American people can understand.

Number one, it provides for up to $5 billion for the Welfare Emergency Fund, doubling a new welfare program that Democrats created in the 2009 stimulus. The bill has $31.8 billion in revenue increases that will hurt an already weakened economy and could threaten our international competitiveness. The bill spends $25.6 billion on State infrastructure programs while abandoning small businesses, and will not create the private-sector jobs that we need. Also, we know that this bill wouldn't be needed at all if the stimulus that our friends tout so much had not been the huge failure that it has been and had actually worked.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and reject this bill so we can begin to restore a semblance of sanity in this noble institution.

Initial Consideration of 2001 Tax Cuts H.R. 1836, 107th Congress

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA)--P.L. 107-

16, (16 May 2001)

Question: On Passage: Yea-and-Nay.

Bill title: Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation

Act.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeas Nays Pres NV ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Republican.......................... 216 ....... ....... 4 Democratic.......................... 13 196 ....... 1 Independent......................... 1 ....... ....... .......

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, you know, every time our colleagues come here and talk about the horrible unemployment in their districts, they condemn themselves. They condemn their own policies and the policies of their President because they promised, when President Obama came to office and pushed through the stimulus package, that unemployment would never go above 8 percent. It's been a failure. Everything they've done has been a failure, Mr. Speaker. But they keep trying.

Again, I want to say Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result. That's what our colleagues across the aisle keep doing, the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

This bill is not going to create private sector jobs. It is only going to put us deeper in debt and cause us to lose more jobs.

My colleague from Texas also mentioned the loopholes, that this bill is going to close loopholes. Well, that is convenient language for our colleagues across the aisle. It's doublespeak. And language means something.

When our colleagues across the aisle talk about a loophole, they're saying this is something that gives us an excuse to raise taxes. The loopholes that they talk about are legal entities in our tax structure that probably most of them voted for.

But when it's convenient for them, they call it a loophole, and let me say also that my colleague from California was absolutely right. The staff from the Ways and Means Committee says this bill is definitely not the same as bills we've seen before. There are items in here that have not been in any other legislation in this session.

Mr. Speaker, if we look at the rule before us, we might wonder what mystical legislation would prompt the ruling liberal Democrat regime to resort to such authoritarian tactics being proposed by this rule. Unfortunately, the answer isn't anything American job seekers want to hear but, rather, a rehash of the tired, old, failed destructive policies of this regime who are apparently scared to death that the American people are seeing through their partisan schemes.

While this bill does contain some Federal taxpayer funds to bailout States for infrastructure, they are coupled with tax increases that will be added to the unconscionable liberal tax policy that will bleed the American economy of desperately needed private sector jobs.

Not only does the bill write a blank check by authorizing such sums as necessary--and let me point out to the American people, ``such sums'' means a blank check. It means they can spend as much as they want to. Here we have the largest deficit in our history, and yet, they're writing another blank check to bureaucrats. But one of the most telling provisions in the bill simply assigns a more politically palatable title to an expensive Federal welfare fund. Indeed, title II, section 201(a)(1) of the bill changes the name of the Emergency Contingency Fund for State Temporary Assistance for Needy Family Programs to the Emergency Fund for Job Creation and Assistance. And again, for those not versed in Washington double-speak, State Temporary Assistance For Needy Families Programs is Washington double-speak for welfare money. This was a welfare bill, part of it was, and it continues to be one, no matter the title.

Apparently our liberal friends on the other side of the aisle are so motivated to create another permanent Federal welfare benefit they simply cannot tolerate the word ``temporary'' being in the title of their beloved welfare fund. The new title also highlights the misnomer of suggesting that increasing unemployment benefits will increase employment or, as Speaker Pelosi recently put it, growing unemployment benefits ``creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.''

Renowned economist Arthur Laffer wrote in the July 8, 2010, Wall Street Journal that: ``The Democratic argument also ignores the impact of unemployment benefits on employer costs. Employers don't usually hire people to assuage their consciences. They hire people to make after-tax profits. And if workers require more pay because of higher unemployment benefits, employers will hire fewer employees.''

Mr. Speaker, this bill is going to redistribute wealth. That is what our colleagues across the aisle are so good at doing. And again, as Mr. Laffer pointed out, ``The government doesn't create resources.'' There's always a zero sum game. There's no stimulus given from unemployment benefits.

``To see these effects clearly, imagine a two person economy in which one of the two people is paid for being unemployed. From whom do you think the unemployment benefits are taken? The other person obviously. While the one person who is unemployed may `buy' more as a result of unemployment benefits, the other person from whom the unemployment benefits are taken will `buy' less. There is no stimulus for the economy.''

If unending expansion of Federal welfare benefits is the liberal plan for creating private sector jobs, I'm frightened to imagine what success looks like to them. It's my hope that this Election Day, or ideally before, that the ruling liberal Democrats learn the lesson that, ``When you're in a hole, stop digging.''

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to say The Washington Times had it right on March 3, 2010. Every bill that comes before the House these days is called a jobs bill. The title was, ``Lawmakers cry `jobs' to push through bills.'' That's what we see happening over and over and over and over again by our colleagues. Again, they can't stand to say that they're increasing welfare in this country. They're trying to say this is creating jobs. It's not going to create jobs, Mr. Speaker.

We can start today, though, by rejecting this rule, rejecting the underlying bill and doing something about real jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert The Washington Times article into the Record.

[From The Washington Times, Mar. 3, 2010]

Lawmakers Cry ``Jobs'' to Push Through Bills

(By Stephen Dinan)

It was a modest measure to designate several thousand

beachfront acres of St. Croix as a National Historic Site,

but in the hands of a skilled congressman such as Rep. Nick

J. Rahall II, it became yet another jobs bill.

Likewise the Travel Promotion Act, which would create a

nonprofit group to push U.S. tourism, has been billed as a

job-producing machine by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid,

Nevada Democrat.

It doesn't stop there--backers last week unveiled a

bipartisan bill to create a visa category for entrepreneurs,

predicting it ``will create jobs in America.''

From immigration to clean energy to expanding the social

safety net, there's no better way to grease the skids for new

government programs in Washington nowadays than to declare

them job-producing bills, then watch supporters line up and

potential opposition crumble.

When Mr. Reid dubbed as a jobs bill a simple $15 billion

measure to offer payroll tax breaks and continued highway

construction funding, it helped head off a potential

Republican filibuster. Likewise, the Trade Promotion Act,

which would tout the U.S. as an international tourist

destination, sailed through the Senate after it was tagged

with the almighty jobs-bill moniker.

Given an unemployment rate hovering near 10 percent, the

focus on jobs is not surprising.

House and Senate lawmakers raised the jobs issue on the

chamber floors at least 154 times over the past week, and the

jobs issue is more popular in Congress now than it has been

in nearly two decades--since the 1991-92 recession.

President Obama joined the jobs chorus Tuesday, touting a

$6 billion plan to offer up to $3,000 rebates for energy-

efficiency home upgrades as ``a common-sense approach that

will help jump-start job creation.''

Mr. Obama, who used the word ``jobs'' 11 times in his 17-

minute speech in Savannah, Ga., said the issue is dominating

his time right now.

``When it comes to domestic policy, I have no more

important a job as president than seeing to it that every

American who wants to work and is able to work can find a

job--and a job that pays a living wage,'' he said.

On Monday, Republicans fought back the ever-broadening

definition of what creates jobs. They told Democrats to quit

trumpeting a $104 billion bill on the Senate floor as a job

creator and argued that it merely continues existing tax

breaks and spending that are extended every year.

``The bill before us creates no new jobs, and I challenge

my Democratic friends to show us how doing what we always do

and what was done last year--extending the R&D tax credit,

extending COBRA insurance, extending unemployment benefits--

creates jobs,'' said Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican.

Sen. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, said saving jobs is just

as important as creating them. If Congress allows tax cuts to

expire, he said, jobs definitely would be lost.

``If the provisions we are seeking merely to extend were

not passed, it would be a job destroyer,'' Mr. Baucus said.

Members of both sides of the aisle are joining the chorus.

Sen. John Thune, South Dakota Republican, offered an

amendment to the $104 billion extenders bill that would

redirect unspent money from last year's $862 billion stimulus

bill to let small businesses write off more investments and

give them a capital-gains tax cut.

``True job creation doesn't happen when the government adds

jobs; it grows when small businesses are given the incentives

to thrive,'' he said.

Meanwhile, the top Democrat and top Republican on the

Senate Foreign Relations Committee are sponsoring the

immigration bill to increase visas for entrepreneurs.

It's sometimes tough to see how the jobs math adds up.

The administration has estimated that the $862 billion

stimulus act would create up to 3.5 million jobs, which would

seem like a bad deal if a $15 billion highway funding

extension could create 1 million jobs alone, as Mr. Reid has

said on the Senate floor.

Mr. Reid also has said a health care overhaul ``would

create 400,000 jobs a year,'' and that his travel promotion

bill ``will create tens of thousands of jobs in the service

industry.''

``It is a jobs bill, and that is an understatement,'' he

said.

Among the other job creators being touted, the beachfront

historic site in the U.S. Virgin Islands stands out.

Democrats, arguing for the bill in January, said

designating the site and spending the $40 million or more to

acquire the land will transform it into a popular tourist

destination.

``It will create jobs and help ease unemployment on the

island,'' said Mr. Rahall, the West Virginia Democrat who

shepherded the bill through the House.

Dubious Republicans pointed out that the cost of a ticket

from the U.S. to the island and the travel time make it

unlikely that the new historic site would be a major economic

draw.

``Let's quit spending like crazy. Let's sell off some of

our assets, pay down our debt and let America find jobs

again,'' said Rep. Louie Gohmert, Texas Republican.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to my comment about welfare because I think the American people thought that welfare was done away with many years ago in this country, but that simply isn't the case.

A document that was prepared by the Heritage Foundation and released September 16, 2009, provides a valuable perspective on the current state of welfare spending, and I'm going to be quoting from that document for several moments.

``Welfare spending has grown enormously since President Lyndon B. Johnson launched the War on Poverty. Welfare spending was 13 times greater in FY 2008, after adjusting for inflation, than it was when the War on Poverty started in 1964. Means-tested welfare spending was 1.2 percent of the gross domestic product, the GDP, when President Johnson began the War on Poverty. In 2008, it reached 5 percent of GDP . . .

``Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, taxpayers have given $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) to means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all other wars in U.S. history was $6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).''

My colleague across the aisle wants to blame our deficit on the war, and yet, we're spending much, much more on welfare than we are spending on war, and we have done that since the sixties.

``In his first two years in office, President Barack Obama will increase annual Federal welfare spending by one-third, from $522 billion to $697 billion. The combined 2-year increase will equal almost $263 billion . . . After adjusting for inflation, this increase is two- and-a-half times greater than any previous increase in Federal welfare spending in U.S. history. As a share of the economy, annual Federal welfare spending will rise by roughly 1.2 percent of GDP.''

Americans are already frightened to death of our deficit. Now they're going to see why a large part of that deficit is here.

``While campaigning for the Presidency, Obama lamented that `the war in Iraq is costing each household about $100 per month.' '' Let me say that again. ``The war in Iraq is costing each household about $100 per month,'' President Obama said.

Applying the same standard to means-tested welfare spending means that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.''

Go on and make all your comparisons you want to about how much is being spent on the war. Keeping this Nation safe is the role of the Federal Government.

``Most of Obama's increases in welfare spending are permanent expansions of the welfare state, not temporary increases in response to the current recession. According to the long-term spending plans set forth in Obama's FY 2010 budget, combined Federal and State spending will not drop significantly after the recession ends. In fact, by 2014, welfare spending is likely to equal $1 trillion per year.''

According to President Obama's budget projections, Federal and State welfare spending will total $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years, FY 2009 to FY 2018. This spending will equal $250,000 for each person currently living in poverty in the U.S., or $1 million for a family of four.

``Over the next decade, Federal spending will equal $7.5 trillion, while State spending will reach $2.8 trillion. These figures do not include any of the increases in health care expenditure currently being debated in Congress.'' This was written in 2009 before the health care bill was passed.

``In the years ahead, average annual welfare spending will be roughly twice the spending levels under President Bill Clinton after adjusting for total inflation. Total means-tested spending is likely to average 6 percent of GDP for the next decade.''

I am ending my quote of the Heritage article.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are frightened to death. That's what I hear every weekend when I go home, frightened to death about the direction of this country. They can identify the fact that we are spending too much. It's helpful to show them where some of that money is going and to balance out the misinformation our colleagues are giving out across the aisle about this issue.

Mr. Speaker, this rule and this bill need to be rejected. I could go on and on about the jobs situation. We know full well that our colleagues like to brag about how many jobs that they have created.

I am only going to show a couple of posters because we talk about this a lot, but I think it's very, very important to do it. I would like to show the job increases and jobs lost across the Presidencies of President Bush and President Obama.

If we look at this, we will see that from the time President Bush came in, there was a drop in job growth right after 9/11, but then there was a 46-month steady increase of jobs up to 8.1 million. If you look at President Obama's administration, there has been a loss of over 3 million jobs.

Now, I know our friends can count this lots of different ways. Another way that Scott Hennessey has said we should do it is to look at the average unemployment rate during a President's time in office. This clearly shows that under President Obama our average unemployment rate has been 9.5 percent, under President Bush, 5.3 percent. I think that tells the tale. So they can talk about creating jobs; they can talk about all their wonderful policies.

All their wonderful policies have created this hole that we are in. They should stop digging, Mr. Speaker, instead of continuing to dig.

The evidence is here, Mr. Speaker. The liberal Democrat agenda has failed. They need to go back to the drawing board and come back to the American people with real solutions to the real problems of the American people.

This isn't time to dither and blame the Republican minority for the disappointing collapse of governance we have seen since the liberal regime seized control of Congress in 2007, or blame President Bush for everything bad that they have done.

Mr. Speaker, I will point out again that this bill is a welfare emergency fund expansion. H.R. 5893 will add $5 billion to the welfare emergency fund, doubling this fund the Democrats created in their 2009 stimulus bill, again, an example of the fact that the stimulus has failed miserably.

The Democrats' welfare emergency fund expansion would especially benefit States that have increased welfare case loads and spending on welfare most. The new welfare money will be paid to States in FY 2011, a third fiscal year since this welfare emergency fund started.

Democrats are trying to re-brand this welfare emergency fund to seem to be all about jobs. It's not.

After calling it the emergency contingency fund for State Temporary Assistance for Needy Family Programs for the last 2 years, Democrats now propose to rename this program the Emergency Fund for Job Creation and Assistance, but only 25 percent of the $4 billion in welfare emergency funds has been spent on jobs.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill, Mr. Speaker, and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1568 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this resolution provides a closed rule for the consideration of H.R. 5893, the Investing in American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI and against the bill, itself. The rule provides that the previous question shall be considered as ordered, without intervening motion, except 1 hour of debate for the Ways and Means Committee and one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The rule also provides same-day authority for a resolution reported from the Rules Committee through Sunday, August 1, 2010.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 5893, the Investing in American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010, creates and protects American jobs through increased investment in infrastructure and by closing tax loopholes that enable companies to move their operations offshore. This is another piece of legislation to add to the long list of bills that Democrats have passed this Congress to spur opportunities to support American jobs, American manufacturing, and American families. Democrats are helping Americans dig out of the worst recession in decades. We are making steady, albeit slow--too slow for me--gains in our economy. The struggle is not over, but we are on the right path.

Madam Speaker, this legislation funds the highly successful Build America Bonds program, the Recovery Zone Bonds, the Emergency State Jobs Assistance program, and it closes unfair tax loopholes that allow corporations to send American jobs overseas. This bill provides critical funding for infrastructure investment that will create jobs here in the United States and will put money in the pockets of people who badly need it.

And yet, still, the Republicans are against it.

Madam Speaker, it seems every other day around here we have to drag our Republican colleagues kicking and screaming to the House floor to try to help hardworking Americans, and they continue to say ``no.''

Every other day we have to try to persuade our friends on the other side of the aisle that it's not crazy for the American Government to invest in the American economy to benefit the American people.

Every other day we have to remonstrate the same old arguments from the Republicans about spending and deficits and taxes and the bad old government stifling our economic recovery.

I'll remind this body that the Republicans were against the largest stimulus in history, which was not large enough for me and some of us in this body. But they were against this stimulus, an effort that demonstrably has saved American jobs.

And I'll remind this body that 95 percent of the Republicans in this House have signed a pledge to protect tax breaks for companies that ship American jobs overseas.

And I'll remind this body that Republicans have consistently voted against job creation and economic development measures that directly benefit, directly benefit hardworking Americans trying to secure enough income to feed their families and keep their homes.

Every single time Democrats try to pass essential legislation in this body, and the other body, Republicans complain about the numbers. If it's spending on investments in our economy, Republicans complain the numbers are too high. But if it's spending on tax cuts for the extremely 1 percent wealthiest of Americans, the Republicans complain the numbers are too low.

Well, here's a number and a letter we should be mindful of: $2.2 trillion, and the letter D: D is the grade given to America's infrastructure by the American Society of Engineers in 2009.

And $2.2 trillion is the amount the American Society of Engineers estimates the United States needs to spend over the next 5 years to repair our crumbling infrastructure.

Madam Speaker, in recent years we've seen levees fail, bridges collapse. As a matter of fact, we saw a levee fail last week in Iowa. Bridges collapsed. I asked one of our colleagues yesterday that appeared before the Rules Committee, how did he feel when the bridge collapsed in Minnesota. He referenced it as a national tragedy, as all of us do and did.

But when I came to this Congress in 1992, there were 14,000 bridges that were in disrepair in the United States of America. And I dare say that we have not even come close and, likely, there are many more. And what I said to him was, I wanted his daughter, who I know, to travel on a safe bridge, and I wanted my children and all the children of all Americans, when they cross a bridge, to know that that bridge is safe.

Millions of tons of hazardous waste have wrecked fragile ecosystems, and billions of gallons of wastewater have poured from burst pipes into our rivers and streams, and we saw that happen this week in America.

Beyond the disasters is the steadily rising gridlock on our highways, roads, airports and rails, the constant erosion of our water systems. Right here in the metropolitan Washington area people are on boil water advisories and limited uses, including for showers.

Declining park land in urban areas and maintenance backlogs in our schools amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars.

Budget cuts are not going to repair bridges, replace water treatment facilities or maintain classrooms. State and local governments desperately need Federal funding to engage American small businesses and put people to work.

This legislation provides billions of dollars in infrastructure bonds and other supports so communities can hire the necessary workers to make sure that, while we are arguing about process here, whether or not it's a closed rule or an open rule, arguing process in the Rules Committee, more dams don't fail. That's what we want to make sure that does not happen.

Dollars that go to infrastructure projects get returned to the economy at higher rates. Infrastructure spending is impactful, essential, and worthwhile, pumping in cash that goes right to the American worker.

The funding in this legislation is paid for. It does not add to the deficit. It is revenue neutral, and there is no wasteful spending in here.

What Republicans argue is wasteful, I say, is essential to preventing millions of Americans from falling into destitution. For every one job opening in our great country, there are five applicants. Unemployment remains unbearably high, and all economists indicate that it is going to remain that way for some time to come.

I dare say that what America needs to understand, and what my colleagues here on both sides of the aisle continue to say, is that it happened on this President's watch, or it happened on that President's watch. The real truth is the economy in this country transitioned, as well as globally, over about a 45-year period of time. I'll get to that one day, so as how there's a better understanding than all of this finger-pointing about who caused this deficit.

And I certainly hope we have a debate about how much the war in Iraq and Afghanistan cost. I can tell you now it's about $1 trillion. And guess what our deficit is? Just a little more than $1 trillion.

Madam Speaker, it's far past time to pass this legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote favorably on this rule and on the final passage of this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to my good friend from Houston, Texas, the distinguished gentlelady Sheila Jackson Lee.

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

I believe that the distinguished chair of the Ways and Means Committee answered my good friend from California yesterday with regard to the immediacy.

Among the things that he said to you was we had waited for the United States Senate, which, if you recall, much of what is in this provision, and he said to you there is nothing new in here that we haven't voted on before.

Will the gentleman yield?

Pointedly, did we not vote on the measures in this particular provision?

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to tell me how much time I have remaining.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, you know, Paul Krugman wrote an article in The New York Times sometime back, and he is the Nobel Prize winning economist. On July 20 he talked about ``Tax Cut Truthiness.''

Without reading the entire article, he cites to Erick Erickson and says, ``But I think we have part of the key to how Republicans can believe that returning to the Bush agenda is exactly what we need: they've invented themselves an alternate history in which wonderful things happened under Bush, and earlier booms have been sent down the memory hole.''

Now, I have had the good fortune of being here in the minority and in the majority. I served 8 years under President Bush in the minority. I also served 8 years during the Clinton administration.

My late mom had a statement about all of us as politicians. She used to say, if you are going to say that George H.W. Bush did it, then you have to say that Jimmy Carter did it and then somebody else will say that Reagan did it. She said why don't you all just admit it that George Washington did it and get it over with so as how you don't have to keep pointing fingers at each other.

My distinguished colleague from North Carolina just certainly misspoke and didn't mean to when she said that this particular measure isn't scored.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the Preliminary CBO Estimate of Changes in Revenue and Direct Spending of the Investing in America Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010. I might add that it points out that it is revenue neutral, as I said previously.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY10.001

I am so glad that my colleague and I come from virtually all the same kinds of backgrounds, if you read her biography and you read my own. We also have been advantaged in this society by taking advantage of the opportunities that were presented to us.

But where we parted company somewhere along the line, well she didn't want, evidently, to give opportunity to those who have no opportunity. I have been taught all of my life to do everything I can for the least of these in society. Now, I heard her, and I agree that the role of government identified in the United States Constitution clearly points out that national security is the role, and a primary role, of the Congress.

But promoting the general welfare is also a role of Congress. When I see, as I do, at the pantry in Fort Lauderdale, them not having the funds to carry forward, when I see the food bank on Oakland Park, that's less than nine blocks from the office where I am privileged to serve the people of the State of Florida, when I see it robbed by thieves so that they can't help the needy, I know that out there somewhere are people that are hurting, and they are hurting that people need our help.

And they need our help whether it's from the Federal Government or the State government or the local government, they need our help. And to suggest by any stretch of the imagination that it is wrong for us to help those who are in need is anathema to my background. And that isn't because I am a liberal Democrat; that is because I am an American citizen who believes in America and who believes in all of its people, whether they are rich or whether they are poor.

Now, I don't believe at all that this YouCut project that my friends have created allows that States do anything less than be incentivized by using the temporary assistance for needy families. No less an authority than the former chairman of the National Republican Party, Haley Barbour, who is now a member of the National Governors Association--and I might add, support for this temporary assistance program is expected to and sought to be brought onboard by the National Governors Association; they support it, the National Conference of State Legislatures, they support it, and the National Association of Counties have all urged Congress to continue the TANF as a way to create jobs and assist families. Listen to what Haley--who I happen to know and I happen to think is a distinguished American and an outstanding Governor of Mississippi--listen to what Haley said on February 17. He said, I hope the program will be extended so more jobs could be created. Now that's a conservative for you.

Now my colleague on the other side, I have been very anxious and very concerned that evidently people in this body do not understand how much Iraq cost this country. I did not vote for us to go to Iraq, and I am glad I didn't. I did not vote for the supplemental that we passed 2 days ago, and I am glad I didn't because it didn't include things that should have been included. I might add that I can't make Afghanistan make sense when I see the number of young Americans that are being killed in that particular theater. But I do know this: Joseph Stiglitz, who is a economics Nobel Laureate, claimed the Iraq war will cost the United States more than $3 trillion, and he said the final tally is likely to climb much higher than that. There are others who believe that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost Americans a staggering $1 trillion to date, second only, in inflation-adjusted dollars, to the $4 trillion price tag for World War II. It cost us $1.1 million per man and woman in uniform in Afghanistan. Now somebody make it make sense to me that it's all right for us to continue down that path while it's not all right for us to have temporary assistance for needy families.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is another tool that State and local governments can use to invest in infrastructure development and put much-needed cash and jobs into the economy. I am well aware that Republicans object to the expeditious nature of this legislation. However, the provisions in this legislation have already been debated and considered on numerous other occasions, and we do need to act quickly.

When we sent it, Mr. Speaker, to the United States Senate, these are the things that were included. My colleague began her remarks today by saying that it's outrageous. I find it interesting that she cited as one of the definitions of outrageous, ``exceeding the limits of what is normal or tolerable.'' It also describes outrageous as ``whatever is so flagrantly bad that one's sense of decency or one's power to suffer or tolerate is violated.''

Now, I fall into that second category and believe that small business lending is not outrageous. That was what was sent to the Senate that Republicans said no about. I believe that infrastructure investments are not outrageous. Much of that that was sent to the Senate was what Republicans said no about.

Business tax relief; I certainly don't believe that that is outrageous, and that's what was stripped out in the United States Senate by Republicans and was not voted on by Republicans in this particular body.

Individual tax cuts. TANF jobs and emergency funding that we now have some of. Veterans concurrent receipt, I don't think that's outrageous. The National Housing Trust Fund, I don't think in a time of downturn in this economy, with one out of every five Americans facing foreclosure or in foreclosure, I certainly don't think that that is outrageous. I don't think it's outrageous to hold harmless the provisions for low- income families in this country. They stripped out, by saying no, oil disaster response.

National Flood Insurance, something that has been around that has helped a lot of us all over America, they stripped that out. I don't think that it's outrageous that it was in there.

Mine safety--and we've seen what happened in West Virginia--I don't think taking that out was the right thing to do; I certainly don't think it was outrageous to leave it in there.

Federally declared disaster areas, where floods and drought and other matters have gone on. Agriculture disaster relief was taken out of this measure, and I'm here to believe that it was outrageous? Other expiring disaster relief programs were as well.

Now some of the things that are in there, some of the things that are in it that I don't think are outrageous: It extends the Build America Bonds program that everybody in this institution knows has been successful for State and local government. It makes additional allocation of recovery zone bonds to ensure that each local municipality receives the minimum allocation or equal to at least its share of national employment in December of 2009. I certainly don't think that's outrageous.

And I might add my colleague Mr. Dreier also referred, as did Dr. Foxx, to the outrageousness. I don't think it is outrageous to exclude bonds financing facilities that furnish water and sewage from State volume caps estimated to cost $371 million over 10 years.

Is it outrageous to eliminate the cost imposed on State and local governments by the alternative minimum tax, estimated to cost $224 million over 10 years? Is it outrageous to have new market tax credits? Is it outrageous to have emergency job fund creation and assistance, scheduled to expire on September 30, to extend that through 2011?

I don't think it's outrageous to suspend the recognition of foreign tax credits. And even though it is a legal entity in our law, as my colleague has said, I don't think it's outrageous that we close tax loopholes that allow American corporations to take American jobs abroad and cause this economy to continue to be exacerbated.

I don't think it's outrageous for us to offset the cost of this bill. However, the provisions in this legislation, as I indicated, have already been debated and considered on numerous other occasions. In fact, we have already pared down this legislation from the larger measure that I just talked about that the House already passed because the Senate could not get enough votes from the Republicans for passage in their body.

Now, America can continue to put up with these people that drove us in the ditch and give them the keys if they want to and expect that if we return to that era, that we are going to have prosperity. I don't think so. I saw what

happened. I believe Americans saw what happened.

The programs that we are considering are designed especially to assist the American people in times of economic hardship, just like the one our Nation is currently facing. We need to act to help Americans, not find evermore excuses not to help. Republicans have been consistently saying ``no'' on every jobs package and economic development legislation that we have put forward in this House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans in this Chamber are against everything coming their way from the Democratic side of the aisle. They want to block any job creation legislation in order to make Democrats look bad for the upcoming election, but they are doing so at the expense of the American people.

This legislation will help. This legislation does not add one nickel to the deficit and does not contain wasteful spending. Democrats are hard at work on an agenda to improve our economy, to create jobs, and to ensure that all Americans--all Americans--will be able to take advantage of opportunities and to have an opportunity to have opportunity as our economy recovers.

I hope that my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle will unite with us to help Americans in these most difficult economic times.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. President, the very first bill debated on the floor of the Senate after the 2006 elections was S. 1, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, HLOGA. About 9 months later, President Bush signed that bill into law as Public Law Number 110-81. It was the most sweeping ethics reform legislation since Watergate, and it passed both houses of Congress by a wide margin--the final votes were 411-8 in the House and 83-14 in the Senate.

The new law contained, among many other provisions, significant reforms to the lobbying disclosure laws, a tough new prohibition on gifts from lobbyists, improvements to the revolving door rules, and new restrictions on privately funded fact-finding trips. It also contained new rules on personal, official, and campaign travel on non-commercial aircraft, often known as ``corporate jets.'' Prior to HLOGA, members who flew on corporate jets, often accompanied by corporate lobbyists, were required to reimburse the owner of the aircraft only the amount that they would have paid to fly first class between the origin and destination of the flight. HLOGA provided that Senators and presidential candidates would have to reimburse such travel at the charter rate. House members were prohibited from flying on non- commercial aircraft altogether.

Because Senators travel in different capacities, HLOGA addressed the issue in separate sections. Section 544(c) of the bill amended the Senate Rules XXXV and XXXVIII to address official and personal travel by Senators. The House had already amended its rules at the very beginning of the year. Section 601 dealt with campaign travel for both House and Senate candidates by amending the Federal Election Campaign Act, ``FECA''.

Both the House and the Senate have been living under these new rules for over two years. No House member has flown on a corporate jet, as far as we know. Senators, whether they were traveling in personal, official, or campaign capacity, and regardless of who was paying for the trip, have flown on them only if they were prepared to pay the charter rate for these trips. Presidential candidates in the last campaign abided by the new rules as well.

Because HLOGA made amendments to the FECA on this issue, the FEC started a rulemaking shortly after its enactment to implement the new provision. But at the end of 2007, just as the agency was poised to put new regulations in place, the terms of several recess-appointed Commissioners expired. A stalemate ensued that left the agency without a quorum to do business until the summer of 2008. Once a full slate of Commissioners was in place, the agency deadlocked on issuing final regulations. The three new Republican commissioners refused to sign off on the rules that the Commission had been prepared to adopt in December 2007. The deadlock was resolved only a few weeks ago, when a Democratic Commissioner reluctantly agreed to go along with modifications that the Republicans proposed. See Statement of Chairman Steven T. Walther, Campaign Travel Regulations, Nov. 19, 2009. The new rule was published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2009. Federal Election Commission, Notice 2009-27, Campaign Travel, 74 Fed. Reg. 63951, Dec. 7, 2009.

I will put this as simply as I can. The new FEC rule relating to travel on non-commercial aircraft is an outrage. Rather than respecting the intent of Congress in HLOGA to address all travel on corporate jets by members of Congress and presidential candidates, the FEC has carved a loophole in the statute for travel by candidates on behalf of someone other than their own campaigns. No one in the House or the Senate contemplated this exception when the bill was passed. No one discussed it. No one considered it. The FEC just made it up. Now we in Congress have no choice but to take action to correct it if the FEC refuses to do so.

We cannot let a lawless agency undermine our effort to police ourselves, to end a practice that exposed Congress to public criticism and even ridicule. Some Senators and House members may have agreed to kick the corporate jet habit reluctantly, but they have learned to live with it. There is no need for the loophole the FEC has opened. It is contrary to the statutory language and to the legislative history. It must be closed.

So today, I will introduce, along with my colleagues from Arizona, Connecticut, and New York, Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Schumer, all of whom played a key role in the enactment of HLOGA, a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act. This resolution, if passed by the House and signed by the President, will send the FEC back to the drawing board. After a rebuke of this kind, one can only hope that the Commission will craft a regulation that does not so completely ignore the letter and spirit of the provision we passed in HLOGA.

Let me take a minute to explain what the FEC has done and what it must do to correct its error. The new regulation takes the position that the key fact in determining what rate must be paid for a corporate jet flight is not who is flying, but who is paying for the flight. The explanation and justification, ``E&J'', adopted by the commission states:

[W]hen a presidential, vice-presidential, or Senate

candidate, or a representative of the candidate, is traveling

on behalf of another

political committee (such as a political party committee or

Senate leadership PAC, rather than on behalf of the

candidate's own authorized committee, the reimbursement for

that travel is the responsibility of the political committee

on whose behalf the travel occurs. If the political committee

is other than an authorized committee or House candidate's

leadership PAC, then the appropriate reimbursement rate for

that political committee is set forth in new 11 CFR

100.93(c)(3), discussed below. In such cases, the

presidential, vice-presidential, or Senate candidate or

candidate's representative, is treated the same as any other

person traveling on behalf of the political committee.

74 Fed. Reg. at 63955. That rate for such a trip, under an FEC regulation promulgated in 2003, is the first class rate unless regularly scheduled commercial air service is not available between the origin and the destination of the flight. The E&J also reiterates that leadership PACs of Senators and Presidential candidates can continue to pay the first class rate, even for the candidates themselves.

In addition, although House leadership PACs are prohibited from taking advantage of this loophole, the E&J makes clear that House candidates can do so if they are traveling on behalf of a political party committee or a Senate or presidential candidate, even though they are otherwise completely prohibited from traveling on a corporate jet. The loophole seems to apply to House members even if they are traveling on behalf of a corporate PAC.

In a recent article in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, FEC Commissioner Matthew Peterson attempted to explain the FEC's decision. He argues that the loophole is compelled by the statutory language, which is structured to prohibit an expenditure for any flight by a Senate candidate or the candidate's authorized committee unless the charter rate is paid for that flight. This interpretation ignores specific language in section 601 that requires payment of the charter rate by ``the candidate, the authorized committee, or other political committee'' and the lack of any language in the statute or the legislative history suggesting that Congress meant to leave open a way for Senators to travel on corporate jets without paying the charter rate.

Moreover, it ignores the clear intent of the two provisions of HLOGA concerning travel on private aircraft--to prohibit all corporate jet flights by Senators unless the charter rate is paid. There are literally more than a dozen statements by supporters of the bill that make this intent clear. The FEC chose to ignore the clear purpose of the bill in favor of a strained interpretation of the statutory language that flies in the face of that purpose. That is unacceptable. The FEC's duty is to implement the statute as Congress intended it. Its job is to give guidance to candidates and others who want to follow the law, not to provide a roadmap for evading it.

For the convenience of my colleagues, my staff has collected statements from the floor debate on HLOGA that show beyond any doubt that the corporate jet provisions were intended to apply to all travel on corporate jets by Senators without regard to who is reimbursing the jet owner. One Senator said the following:

I understand that for many Members, these jets are an issue

of convenience. They allow us to get home to our

constituents, to our families, and to the events that are

often necessary for our jobs. But in November, the American

people told us very clearly they are tired of the influence

special interest wields over the legislative process. The

vast majority of Americans can't afford to buy cheap rides on

corporate jets. They don't get to sit with us on 3-hour

flights and talk about the heating bills they can't pay, or

the health care costs that keep rising, or the taxes they

can't afford, or their concerns about college tuition. They

can't buy our attention, and they shouldn't have to. And the

corporation lobbyists shouldn't be able to either. That is

why we need to end this corporate jet perk if we are to pass

real, meaningful ethics reform.

Cong. Rec. at S263, Jan. 9, 2007. The speaker of those words, which make plain that the intent of the provision was to completely eliminate subsidized travel on corporate jets, was then-Senator Barack Obama. This strongly suggests that the President of the United States will sign the resolution of disapproval once we pass it.

Notwithstanding my strong feelings about the part of the FEC rule I have just discussed, significant portions of the rule are unexceptional. The intent of this resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act is solely to reverse the FEC's decision to open a loophole in the requirements for corporate jet travel by members of Congress and their staffs. So we do not intend to disable the FEC from putting out a new regulation, only from including a gaping loophole in it.

I note this because the Congressional Review Act only allows Congress to disapprove, and therefore make ineffective, an entire regulation. It states that the agency may not promulgate a rule that is ``substantially the same'' as the old one without new congressional authorization. I want to be clear that the loophole created by the FEC's recent rule is so significant that a rule that is otherwise identical to the entire campaign travel regulation, but that does not contain the loophole that this resolution is designed to disapprove, should not be considered to be ``substantially the same'' as the previous rule, even though other portions of that rule may be re- promulgated unchanged.

The Congressional Review Act has only once been successfully used to overturn an agency regulation. Thus, there is little experience to fall back on to determine the consequences for future agency action of a successful disapproval resolution. Morton Rosenberg, a long time analyst at the Congressional Research Service, includes the following useful analysis in his 2008 assessment of the CRA:

A review of the CRA's statutory scheme and structure, the

contemporaneous congressional explanation of the legislative

intent with respect to the provisions in question, the

lessons learned from the experience of the March 2001

disapproval of the OSHA ergonomics rule, and the application

of pertinent case law and statutory construction principles

suggests that (1) It is doubtful that Congress intended that

all disapproved rules would require statutory reauthorization

before further agency action could take place. For example,

it appears that Congress anticipated further rulemaking,

without new authorization, where the statute in question

established a deadline for promulgating implementing rules in

a particular area. In such instances, the CRA extends the

deadline for promulgation for one year from the date of

disapproval. (2) A close reading of the statute, together

with its contemporaneous congressional explication, arguably

provides workable standards for agencies to reform

disapproved regulations that are likely to be taken into

account by reviewing courts. Those standards would require a

reviewing court to assess both the nature of the rulemaking

authority vested in the agency that promulgated the

disapproved rule and the specificity with which the Congress

identified the objectionable portions of a rule during the

floor debates on disapproval. An important factor in a

judicial assessment may be the CRA's recognition of the

continued efficacy of statutory deadlines for promulgating

specified rules by extending such deadlines for one year

after disapproval.

Congressional Research Service, Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking: An Update and Assessment of The Congressional Review Act after a Decade, RL30116, May 8, 2008, at 30. Rosenberg notes that the fact that Congress specifically provided in the CRA for a one year extension of any statutory deadline for a rule that has been overturned by the CRA shows that Congress did not intend to disable an agency from issuing regulations on the same topic. Indeed, a Joint Explanatory Statement by the principal sponsors of the CRA in the House and Senate states the following:

The authors intend the debate on any resolution of

disapproval to focus on the law that authorized the rule and

make the congressional intent clear regarding the agency's

options or lack thereof after enactment of a joint resolution

of disapproval. It will be the agency's responsibility in the

first instance when promulgating the rule to determine the

range of discretion afforded under the original law and

whether the law authorizes the agency to issue a

substantially different rule. Then, the agency must give

effect to the resolution of disapproval.

Joint Explanatory Statement of House and Senate Sponsors, 142 Cong. Rec. E 571, at E 577, daily ed. April 19, 1996; 142 Cong. Rec. S 3683, at S 3686 daily ed. April 18, 1996. It is the intent of this resolution of disapproval to invalidate the loophole that the FEC created in the E&J, but not to disable the FEC from issuing a new rule that properly implements Congress's intent in passing HLOGA.

My displeasure with the actions of the FEC over the past 7 years is well known. The agency has repeatedly failed to properly implement provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, BCRA, leading to its regulations being overturned by the courts numerous times. Indeed, because of the

agency's dismal record in the courts, some important BCRA regulations are still not in place 7\1/2\ years after BCRA's enactment. But the FEC's recent action on corporate jets may be its worst yet. Congress passed HLOGA with wide bipartisan support and clear intent. Because of the FEC's failure to issue rules promptly, members of Congress have been living under the terms of the statute alone with no misunderstanding of what it means. And yet, over two years after its enactment, the FEC has now created an unnecessary and wholly unjustified loophole in the statute. Congress must act to correct this egregious mistake.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a collection of quotations concerning corporate jet provisions of HLOGA be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the very first bill debated on the floor of the Senate after the 2006 elections was S. 1, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, HLOGA. About 9 months later, President Bush signed that bill into law as Public Law Number 110-81. It was the most sweeping ethics reform legislation since Watergate, and it passed both houses of Congress by a wide margin--the final votes were 411-8 in the House and 83-14 in the Senate.

The new law contained, among many other provisions, significant reforms to the lobbying disclosure laws, a tough new prohibition on gifts from lobbyists, improvements to the revolving door rules, and new restrictions on privately funded fact-finding trips. It also contained new rules on personal, official, and campaign travel on non-commercial aircraft, often known as ``corporate jets.'' Prior to HLOGA, members who flew on corporate jets, often accompanied by corporate lobbyists, were required to reimburse the owner of the aircraft only the amount that they would have paid to fly first class between the origin and destination of the flight. HLOGA provided that Senators and presidential candidates would have to reimburse such travel at the charter rate. House members were prohibited from flying on non- commercial aircraft altogether.

Because Senators travel in different capacities, HLOGA addressed the issue in separate sections. Section 544(c) of the bill amended the Senate Rules XXXV and XXXVIII to address official and personal travel by Senators. The House had already amended its rules at the very beginning of the year. Section 601 dealt with campaign travel for both House and Senate candidates by amending the Federal Election Campaign Act, ``FECA''.

Both the House and the Senate have been living under these new rules for over two years. No House member has flown on a corporate jet, as far as we know. Senators, whether they were traveling in personal, official, or campaign capacity, and regardless of who was paying for the trip, have flown on them only if they were prepared to pay the charter rate for these trips. Presidential candidates in the last campaign abided by the new rules as well.

Because HLOGA made amendments to the FECA on this issue, the FEC started a rulemaking shortly after its enactment to implement the new provision. But at the end of 2007, just as the agency was poised to put new regulations in place, the terms of several recess-appointed Commissioners expired. A stalemate ensued that left the agency without a quorum to do business until the summer of 2008. Once a full slate of Commissioners was in place, the agency deadlocked on issuing final regulations. The three new Republican commissioners refused to sign off on the rules that the Commission had been prepared to adopt in December 2007. The deadlock was resolved only a few weeks ago, when a Democratic Commissioner reluctantly agreed to go along with modifications that the Republicans proposed. See Statement of Chairman Steven T. Walther, Campaign Travel Regulations, Nov. 19, 2009. The new rule was published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2009. Federal Election Commission, Notice 2009-27, Campaign Travel, 74 Fed. Reg. 63951, Dec. 7, 2009.

I will put this as simply as I can. The new FEC rule relating to travel on non-commercial aircraft is an outrage. Rather than respecting the intent of Congress in HLOGA to address all travel on corporate jets by members of Congress and presidential candidates, the FEC has carved a loophole in the statute for travel by candidates on behalf of someone other than their own campaigns. No one in the House or the Senate contemplated this exception when the bill was passed. No one discussed it. No one considered it. The FEC just made it up. Now we in Congress have no choice but to take action to correct it if the FEC refuses to do so.

We cannot let a lawless agency undermine our effort to police ourselves, to end a practice that exposed Congress to public criticism and even ridicule. Some Senators and House members may have agreed to kick the corporate jet habit reluctantly, but they have learned to live with it. There is no need for the loophole the FEC has opened. It is contrary to the statutory language and to the legislative history. It must be closed.

So today, I will introduce, along with my colleagues from Arizona, Connecticut, and New York, Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Schumer, all of whom played a key role in the enactment of HLOGA, a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act. This resolution, if passed by the House and signed by the President, will send the FEC back to the drawing board. After a rebuke of this kind, one can only hope that the Commission will craft a regulation that does not so completely ignore the letter and spirit of the provision we passed in HLOGA.

Let me take a minute to explain what the FEC has done and what it must do to correct its error. The new regulation takes the position that the key fact in determining what rate must be paid for a corporate jet flight is not who is flying, but who is paying for the flight. The explanation and justification, ``E&J'', adopted by the commission states:

[W]hen a presidential, vice-presidential, or Senate

candidate, or a representative of the candidate, is traveling

on behalf of another

political committee (such as a political party committee or

Senate leadership PAC, rather than on behalf of the

candidate's own authorized committee, the reimbursement for

that travel is the responsibility of the political committee

on whose behalf the travel occurs. If the political committee

is other than an authorized committee or House candidate's

leadership PAC, then the appropriate reimbursement rate for

that political committee is set forth in new 11 CFR

100.93(c)(3), discussed below. In such cases, the

presidential, vice-presidential, or Senate candidate or

candidate's representative, is treated the same as any other

person traveling on behalf of the political committee.

74 Fed. Reg. at 63955. That rate for such a trip, under an FEC regulation promulgated in 2003, is the first class rate unless regularly scheduled commercial air service is not available between the origin and the destination of the flight. The E&J also reiterates that leadership PACs of Senators and Presidential candidates can continue to pay the first class rate, even for the candidates themselves.

In addition, although House leadership PACs are prohibited from taking advantage of this loophole, the E&J makes clear that House candidates can do so if they are traveling on behalf of a political party committee or a Senate or presidential candidate, even though they are otherwise completely prohibited from traveling on a corporate jet. The loophole seems to apply to House members even if they are traveling on behalf of a corporate PAC.

In a recent article in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, FEC Commissioner Matthew Peterson attempted to explain the FEC's decision. He argues that the loophole is compelled by the statutory language, which is structured to prohibit an expenditure for any flight by a Senate candidate or the candidate's authorized committee unless the charter rate is paid for that flight. This interpretation ignores specific language in section 601 that requires payment of the charter rate by ``the candidate, the authorized committee, or other political committee'' and the lack of any language in the statute or the legislative history suggesting that Congress meant to leave open a way for Senators to travel on corporate jets without paying the charter rate.

Moreover, it ignores the clear intent of the two provisions of HLOGA concerning travel on private aircraft--to prohibit all corporate jet flights by Senators unless the charter rate is paid. There are literally more than a dozen statements by supporters of the bill that make this intent clear. The FEC chose to ignore the clear purpose of the bill in favor of a strained interpretation of the statutory language that flies in the face of that purpose. That is unacceptable. The FEC's duty is to implement the statute as Congress intended it. Its job is to give guidance to candidates and others who want to follow the law, not to provide a roadmap for evading it.

For the convenience of my colleagues, my staff has collected statements from the floor debate on HLOGA that show beyond any doubt that the corporate jet provisions were intended to apply to all travel on corporate jets by Senators without regard to who is reimbursing the jet owner. One Senator said the following:

I understand that for many Members, these jets are an issue

of convenience. They allow us to get home to our

constituents, to our families, and to the events that are

often necessary for our jobs. But in November, the American

people told us very clearly they are tired of the influence

special interest wields over the legislative process. The

vast majority of Americans can't afford to buy cheap rides on

corporate jets. They don't get to sit with us on 3-hour

flights and talk about the heating bills they can't pay, or

the health care costs that keep rising, or the taxes they

can't afford, or their concerns about college tuition. They

can't buy our attention, and they shouldn't have to. And the

corporation lobbyists shouldn't be able to either. That is

why we need to end this corporate jet perk if we are to pass

real, meaningful ethics reform.

Cong. Rec. at S263, Jan. 9, 2007. The speaker of those words, which make plain that the intent of the provision was to completely eliminate subsidized travel on corporate jets, was then-Senator Barack Obama. This strongly suggests that the President of the United States will sign the resolution of disapproval once we pass it.

Notwithstanding my strong feelings about the part of the FEC rule I have just discussed, significant portions of the rule are unexceptional. The intent of this resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act is solely to reverse the FEC's decision to open a loophole in the requirements for corporate jet travel by members of Congress and their staffs. So we do not intend to disable the FEC from putting out a new regulation, only from including a gaping loophole in it.

I note this because the Congressional Review Act only allows Congress to disapprove, and therefore make ineffective, an entire regulation. It states that the agency may not promulgate a rule that is ``substantially the same'' as the old one without new congressional authorization. I want to be clear that the loophole created by the FEC's recent rule is so significant that a rule that is otherwise identical to the entire campaign travel regulation, but that does not contain the loophole that this resolution is designed to disapprove, should not be considered to be ``substantially the same'' as the previous rule, even though other portions of that rule may be re- promulgated unchanged.

The Congressional Review Act has only once been successfully used to overturn an agency regulation. Thus, there is little experience to fall back on to determine the consequences for future agency action of a successful disapproval resolution. Morton Rosenberg, a long time analyst at the Congressional Research Service, includes the following useful analysis in his 2008 assessment of the CRA:

A review of the CRA's statutory scheme and structure, the

contemporaneous congressional explanation of the legislative

intent with respect to the provisions in question, the

lessons learned from the experience of the March 2001

disapproval of the OSHA ergonomics rule, and the application

of pertinent case law and statutory construction principles

suggests that (1) It is doubtful that Congress intended that

all disapproved rules would require statutory reauthorization

before further agency action could take place. For example,

it appears that Congress anticipated further rulemaking,

without new authorization, where the statute in question

established a deadline for promulgating implementing rules in

a particular area. In such instances, the CRA extends the

deadline for promulgation for one year from the date of

disapproval. (2) A close reading of the statute, together

with its contemporaneous congressional explication, arguably

provides workable standards for agencies to reform

disapproved regulations that are likely to be taken into

account by reviewing courts. Those standards would require a

reviewing court to assess both the nature of the rulemaking

authority vested in the agency that promulgated the

disapproved rule and the specificity with which the Congress

identified the objectionable portions of a rule during the

floor debates on disapproval. An important factor in a

judicial assessment may be the CRA's recognition of the

continued efficacy of statutory deadlines for promulgating

specified rules by extending such deadlines for one year

after disapproval.

Congressional Research Service, Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking: An Update and Assessment of The Congressional Review Act after a Decade, RL30116, May 8, 2008, at 30. Rosenberg notes that the fact that Congress specifically provided in the CRA for a one year extension of any statutory deadline for a rule that has been overturned by the CRA shows that Congress did not intend to disable an agency from issuing regulations on the same topic. Indeed, a Joint Explanatory Statement by the principal sponsors of the CRA in the House and Senate states the following:

The authors intend the debate on any resolution of

disapproval to focus on the law that authorized the rule and

make the congressional intent clear regarding the agency's

options or lack thereof after enactment of a joint resolution

of disapproval. It will be the agency's responsibility in the

first instance when promulgating the rule to determine the

range of discretion afforded under the original law and

whether the law authorizes the agency to issue a

substantially different rule. Then, the agency must give

effect to the resolution of disapproval.

Joint Explanatory Statement of House and Senate Sponsors, 142 Cong. Rec. E 571, at E 577, daily ed. April 19, 1996; 142 Cong. Rec. S 3683, at S 3686 daily ed. April 18, 1996. It is the intent of this resolution of disapproval to invalidate the loophole that the FEC created in the E&J, but not to disable the FEC from issuing a new rule that properly implements Congress's intent in passing HLOGA.

My displeasure with the actions of the FEC over the past 7 years is well known. The agency has repeatedly failed to properly implement provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, BCRA, leading to its regulations being overturned by the courts numerous times. Indeed, because of the

agency's dismal record in the courts, some important BCRA regulations are still not in place 7\1/2\ years after BCRA's enactment. But the FEC's recent action on corporate jets may be its worst yet. Congress passed HLOGA with wide bipartisan support and clear intent. Because of the FEC's failure to issue rules promptly, members of Congress have been living under the terms of the statute alone with no misunderstanding of what it means. And yet, over two years after its enactment, the FEC has now created an unnecessary and wholly unjustified loophole in the statute. Congress must act to correct this egregious mistake.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a collection of quotations concerning corporate jet provisions of HLOGA be printed in the Record.