Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 258, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1268) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence, and for other purposes.

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

I am pleased to bring to the House for its consideration the conference report on H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror and Tsunami Relief.

The conference agreement includes a total of $82 billion. The vast majority of these funds are to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. For that reason, it is critical that we move this package quickly. It also provides needed assistance to the victims of the tsunami.

During our conference with the Senate, Chairman Cochran and I agreed that the final agreement should come in at or below the President's request and relatively free of extraneous items. The conference report before you has met both of these very critical parameters. We did our very best to keep the package clean, and by and large, we were successful with that. We have funded our foreign policy priorities while still preserving congressional prerogatives where appropriate.

With that said, the conference report provides a total of $75.9 billion for defense-related expenditures, roughly $921 million over the President's request. The additions over the request are for force protection, and increasing the survivability of troops in the field. In addition to the defense-related spending, the conference report provides a reduction of $1.5 billion in foreign assistance from the President's request. The conference agreement also includes $635 million for increased border security enforcement. This includes 500 additional border patrol agents and increased detention space.

We have also included $656 million for tsunami disaster relief. Finally, the bill includes much of the REAL ID Act of 2005, which was included in the House-passed version of the bill. The provisions on asylum, border infrastructure, and driver's license standards are included. Each of these provisions will greatly enhance the security of our borders. All of these provisions reflect agreements negotiated by relevant authorizing committees. I especially want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Chairman Davis and their staffs for getting this measure before the Congress in a timely fashion.

I urge my colleagues to support this much needed support for our troops.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.008

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), my colleague on the committee.

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

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

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for one of the most illuminating, but also one of the longest, statements I have ever heard him make on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the greatest subcommittee in the appropriations process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to our majority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a great member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) as I express my deep appreciation for his cooperation in this project.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

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

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that while I very strongly oppose my colleague from Wisconsin's motion to recommit, the gentleman was kind enough to share the recommittal motion with us before the fact, and I am very much appreciative of that.

The greatest difficulty I have with the motion is that at this moment our forces are on gas fumes, rather than real gasoline. It is very, very critical that we get this bill moving towards the President's desk and to the troops as quickly as possible.

I would like to speak for a moment about some of those things that the bill does that may be of great interest to the Members who are concerned especially about border security.

Within this package there are some 500 border patrol agents, added as a result of this measure as it goes to the President's desk. There are 218 immigration enforcement agents and criminal investigators. There are some 1,950 detention beds. The bill is designed to take every step that we possibly can on short order to secure our border.

At the same time, just yesterday the Subcommittee on Homeland Security marked up their 2006 bill to move further down this same pathway. We are moving very quickly to strengthen and secure our borders by way of this legislation, as well as regular order.

From there, Mr. Speaker, let me express my deepest appreciation to Members on both sides of the aisle who have worked very hard, their staffs, as well as the Members themselves, to make sure that this supplemental would arrive on time and ahead of schedule. Virtually nobody thought we would be here at this moment. The reason we are is because the Members recognize

how critical it is that we get this support to our troops immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleagues' patience as we work quickly on this bill. It is a very good bill. I urge my colleagues' support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to notify Members of the House that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I are sending out invitations by way of an event that will take place in the Committee on Appropriations on May 16. The title is ``Celebrating Charlie Wilson's War and the End of the Soviet Empire.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of our former Members and a stalwart on the House Appropriations Committee, whose ability to work behind the scenes and across the aisle helped speed the downfall of the Soviet empire. Those who are interested in the past impact of one Member concentrating himself upon the Soviet empire and the effect he had should be a part of this celebration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today pay tribute to one of our former Members, and a stalwart on the House Appropriations Committee, whose ability to work behind the scenes and across the aisle helped speed the downfall of the Soviet empire.

I am referring to former Congressman Charlie Wilson, who was renowned for providing top-notch representation for his east Texas constituents. Many of you will remember my good friend Charlie for that, and for a dashing and debonair style that was perhaps unequaled during my time in the House. But I would like to recount something Charlie did quietly about two decades ago that may have changed the course of world history.

In the early 1980s, foreign policy was for the most part a bipartisan affair. The Soviet Union seemed unshakable in its anti-American strength, and the evil stain of communism continued to spread around the world. Those of us who served on the Intelligence Committee and the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee heard constant reports of our Nation's efforts to counter-act that tyranny and oppression.

I served on those committees with Charlie Wilson, a former Navy lieutenant who was known outside the House as a connoisseur of the good life. Those of us who served with him were well-aware of his insight and keen intellect. When Charlie spoke about world affairs, we always listened.

Longtime members of the Appropriations Committee develop a unique perspective on

Congress's ability to influence national policy. We have seen time and again that one Member, who has developed an expertise in a subject and a commitment to change, can influence colleagues on both sides of the aisle to provide support and get a program moving that might spend years languishing in bureaucratic review.

Perhaps the most dramatic example of this was how Charlie Wilson found a way to fund the rebels in Afghanistan, which eventually led to the defeat of the Soviet Union's efforts in that country, which was the beginning of the disintegration of the Soviet empire. As CIA Director James Woolsey later said: ``The defeat and breakup of the Soviet Union is one of the great events in world history. There were many heroes in this battle, but to Charlie Wilson must go a special recognition.''

Charlie was amazed that the Afghan rebels seemed to be holding the Soviets at bay with rocks and knives, and urged appropriators to provide covert funding to get them more sophisticated weapons. The committee agreed to a few million in the first year, and Charlie persuaded his colleagues to increase spending in succeeding years. Ultimately the rebels began shooting down Soviet planes and helicopters with Stinger missiles. By 1988, the Soviets were on the run. By 1990, the Berlin Wall had fallen and the breakup of the Soviet empire was under way.

Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues will recognize this tale from George Crile's marvelous ``Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History.'' I urge everyone to read this highly entertaining book, and I am happy to say that it may soon be produced as a motion picture.

What you as members will see in this story is that a single voice, heard with respect and supported by House colleagues, can initiate the kind of program that can change the world. I know that Charlie Wilson is gratified to have been given that respect and support, and I am proud in the knowledge that I have been privileged to serve with Charlie in this House and on that committee.

Mr. Speaker, Charlie Wilson retired from Congress in 1996, but he is only now leaving Washington. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in thanking him for giving us the opportunity to take part in history, and to wish him well as he heads home to Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the managers on the part of the House may have until midnight tonight to file the conference report to accompany the bill, H.R. 1268.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1268) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

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

I do not intend to use a lot of my time, but I think our public knows that both sides of the aisle, Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle, are struggling with the question of how we provide adequate funding to make certain, absolutely certain, that we are protecting our borders.

Just following 2001, the past administration had difficulty trying to figure out exactly what those costs should be. We should be willing to do whatever is necessary within the limits of what is sensible, to secure those borders.

It is my intention to support that position, and I do not intend to resist this motion to instruct.

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

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

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

Let me say that I feel this discussion is a very healthy discussion in terms of the preliminary work we have to do here. The most important reason for this supplemental is because in line and waiting are the troops who are representing us so well in the Middle East.

It is critical that we get this bill on to conference and move it quickly to the President's desk. So, today, I would hope with all of our discussion, above and beyond everything else we make every effort to make certain we get this bill to the President as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my Appropriations colleague yielding me a moment just to say that my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I have spent a lot of time together discussing these questions and the schedule and otherwise. The relationship is extremely positive, and I believe he and I this week, before the week is out, will have a chance to sit down and talk about 302(b)s, for example. We are going to move forward very expeditiously, and I think it will benefit, one more time, my colleague and I, who are Appropriations members together, and it will benefit our committee greatly.

I very much appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we have come to the conclusion, by looking at some recent history, that we can, within pretty close margins, measure what our likely allocations will be. The subcommittees are proceeding as though there are numbers, recognizing full well that we will have to respond to the final budget package as they have given it to us and as we have talked between subcommittee chairmen, but we can pretty well guesstimate.

In the past, I believe that we have tended to delay our process because we decided we had to wait until the budget process was already complete, and we let supplementals interfere with that process, et cetera. So, in the past, we found ourselves sending our product to the other body just as we go past the end of the fiscal year, hardly giving them the time to do the kind of work that they would like to do, thus the omnibus, et cetera.

The cooperation between the two bodies, I must say to my colleague, is better than I could ever have imagined. It is a fabulous, growing relationship, and I think it will benefit both of the bodies.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 1268, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to say upfront to the House that it is not my intention to speak on the time I have reserved in opposition to this proposition, so I am asking for a chance for an exchange here with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I have spent a good deal of time behind closed doors in appropriate security to discuss matters like this, but especially to express our concern that the Department of Defense communicate regularly with the Congress relative to activities that might involve areas that are, indeed, secure.

I have never told the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) this before, but I will never forget as a mere member of the Subcommittee on Defense and a member of the Intelligence Committee discussing a program that was in the black that I knew about because I happened to be in the back room, but a program that the Department of Defense was not very excited about. We ended up advancing some money to have that program go forward. I have no idea if we would have been unsuccessful with that effort if they had known how serious we were.

It is important that we communicate with each other. Communication is a two-way street not a one-way street. So for those listening across the river, it is very important to know that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is serious about this, and the leadership of the House is serious about it as well.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment is most intriguing. The gentleman is interested in having opportunity for veterans to gain employment. I presume they are veterans, whether veterans of World War II or circumstances in Iraq or otherwise. I presume that is the case. I certainly would be supportive of ensuring every veteran has an opportunity to find work, wherever the veteran might have served. I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman.

Yesterday we had a discussion on the floor of the House relative to the gentleman's wanting to ensure there were additional funding flows for veterans. There was some resistance to that suggestion because some of us thought there was money in the pipeline that adequately serviced the hospitals; and in regular order we would make sure whatever was necessary would be available, at future hearings and markups of bills that affect funding. So I want to ask a question: There is a veterans hospital in San Diego County, is there not?

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to remember, what is the name of that hospital. I am trying to remember.

San Diego Veterans Medical Center in La Jolla. And does it happen to be in the gentleman's district?

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that hospital needs a lot of work. I assume the gentleman suggests that veterans ought to be first in line if we do some refurbishing?

And was the gentleman involved in that?

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, did we successfully get money for that seismic retrofitting?

Mr. Chairman, I wish the gentleman would have discussed that with me at the time.

We had a similar problem at Loma Linda Veterans Medical Center, the sister hospital of the Jerry Pettis Veterans Hospital, and we found a way to do seismic retrofitting by way of using a laser. No portion of the hospital needs to be closed down while the work is being done. Thereby, patients can actually be in the hospital while the work is being done. We did not have that discussion.

Mr. Chairman, has the gentleman visited that hospital in the last years?

In the last year?

Mr. Chairman, I attempt to visit my hospital regularly as well. And, indeed, visit the veterans who are now back at Walter Reed or Bethesda. Indeed, we all should be concerned about that priority.

But, frankly, I am a bit incensed by the gentleman's suggestion yesterday that would indicate that we do not give priority on a bipartisan basis to veterans. I would ask the gentleman to join me in a special mission. Would the gentleman consider the mission?

Mr. Chairman, the mission is the veterans service organizations are a great voice for veterans here in Washington. Like the gentleman, they are constantly pounding their chest saying, I am calling for money, more opportunity for veterans. I insist that they help us go back to where the hospitals are and see that veterans are treated like real human beings in those hospitals. I cannot get the VSOs to do it. Maybe I can get the gentleman to do it because the gentleman is obviously more concerned than the VSOs are about those veterans benefits and the way they are being treated.

Mr. Chairman, I ask, would the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) join me in that effort, or does the gentleman believe the money is being spent very well at veterans hospitals?

Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time. . . .

Who says we do not have enough money? . . .

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Let me say that we made a major effort to see that veterans in our hospital did not have to walk around with folders under their arm. We insisted on computerization within that hospital. The gentleman could help me a lot helping the VSOs to really work with veterans where they are being treated or not treated so well.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill which violates clause 2 rule XXI.

The rule states that an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law or imposes additional duties.

I ask for the Chair's ruling.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

I appreciate the gentlewoman from New York yielding. Como esta.

I wanted to say to the gentlewoman, first, I very much appreciate the thrust of her amendment. While we are prepared to accept her amendment, let me add to that there could be some resistance, perhaps, on the part of the State Department. If there is resistance, it is because they have never seen fit to apply the existing law to overseas contracts. I think that is a small mistake on their part, frankly, if they have not. I think the gentlewoman is not just raising an important point but a point that needed to be made.

Let me say to the gentlewoman that her amendment is overdue. I am happy to accept it and I am happy to be her partner on behalf of small business in America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit largely because I believe on both sides of the aisle the body recognizes that the reason for this supplemental is to provide as quickly as possible money flows in support of our troops.

This is a supplemental dealing with our challenges in the Middle East especially. It is a supplemental dealing with the crises that have resulted from the tsunami. But, in the meantime, the gentlewoman is suggesting that we should recommit this bill to add $150 million. The best thing that we can do for our troops is to move this bill very quickly and send it on its way for a conference with the Senate. There is absolutely no question that to have a recommittal motion be successful that would add $150 million to an $82 billion package, the vast percentage of which is in support of our troops, at best is a technical exercise.

To recommit for the sake of recommitting is not a reflection of how seriously we are taking the challenge we have of supporting our troops. So I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit, and I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to recognize that we must move forward with this supplemental.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the Chair giving me a moment to express my deepest appreciation to the entire House for the way they handled the discussion on the bill that has just been passed.

I especially want to express my appreciation for the fabulous staff work on both sides of the aisle who allowed us to move this bill as expeditiously as we have.

The bill involves sizeable amounts of money designed essentially to support our troops, wherever they may be, but especially in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I want to also express my deep appreciation to my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who cooperated every step of the way, a demonstration that we do not have to agree on everything; but in terms of supporting our troops we are in agreement. I very much appreciate the work of the House, as well as the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my chairman yielding me time.

I really come today to express my very sincere and deep appreciation to both the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for the fabulous job they do of working together on behalf of all of us to try to make sense out of our budget process.

To say the least, the world on both sides of the aisle and across the country would love to suggest that we provide for them every program at a maximum level that they might have on their wish list. And in turn, that same world wants us to make sense out of balancing our budget. These gentlemen are faced with that horrendous and impossible task, and to them we owe a great debt of gratitude.

As the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) suggested, I have now the responsibility of chairing the Committee on Appropriations where, as they help us struggle with the budget, we spend money that has a propensity to violate that which is their guidelines for sensible budgeting. But in turn, over the years as I have observed this process there has been far too little communication, that is meaningful communication, between those on the staff level but also the professional level within the committee itself, between the appropriations process and the budgeteers.

I must say that in the time I have had this job, the short time, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has gone out of his way to say time and time again, we want to work with you.

I have committed myself to trying to have the Committee on Appropriations once again be a committee designed to preserve dollars, not just spend dollars; and, indeed, if we are successful in that effort, we will be in partnership with our budgeteers, attempting to make sense out of the budget and eventually balance that budget.

We are not in this alone. And the issues that flow around stabilizing our economy know nothing about partisan politics. And I must say that the Committee on the Budget has provided guidelines; in the past we have not always followed those guidelines. It is my intention to work as partners in this business so we can all be successful. And I can say without any reservation, if we are successful, moving our bills this year very rapidly so they are ready for conference in the early spring, it will be in no small part a success of the work you all have done.

I appreciate that very much and look forward to continuing this relationship.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great reluctance, not only because we are working with the minority leader of the House, but because the gentlewoman is from California, that I must move to table the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill (H.R. 1268) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is with great pride that I bring before the House H.R. 1268, a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2005. This is my first appropriations measure as the new Appropriations Committee chairman. I am especially proud of the extraordinary effort put forth by the committee's members and staff to report a bill that will better permit our troops to prosecute the war on terrorism and will do so with a price tag less than that requested by the President.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the House pay special attention to three of my colleagues who have come back from the private sector to help serve this committee. Frank Cushing is my staff director, and David LesStrang and Jeff Shockey are my deputy staff directors for the Committee. I really appreciate their willingness to make great sacrifice to come back.

Six of the committee's 10 subcommittees participated in the development of this measure which provides $81.27 billion in urgent and emergency spending. The lion's share of that amount, some $76.8 billion, is for defense-related expenditures. This funding represents an increase for defense needs of $1.8 billion above the President's request, which I hasten to note is entirely for enhanced support for deployed, soon-to-be deployed, or returning troops in order to assist in force protection and to increase the survivability of the troops in the field.

To provide these important resources for our troops, we reduced other, nonessential DOD requests by some $600

million as well as nearly $1 billion in foreign assistance-related programs that were either not well justified or did not meet the strict definition we applied for emergency spending. In addition, another $1 billion of extremely important and time-sensitive non-emergency foreign assistance approved by the committee was completely offset by a rescission of funds originally appropriated in fiscal year 2003.

With my colleagues' indulgence, I would like to take a few moments to give the House a flavor of the urgent procurement needs that the committee has included in the measure for our troops. Those include up- armored Humvees and other new Humvees, medium and heavy trucks, night vision devices, handheld stand-off mine detection systems, jammers, improved high-frequency radios, Strykers to replace combat losses, add- on armor kits, small-arms modifications and ammunition, body armor for both the Army and Marine Corps, and medical supplies.

In addition to our providing these necessary resources for our troops, the committee was compelled to fully fund the Army's modularity program at this time because of the urgency to address the significant challenges the Army now faces in mitigating stress on the current active duty combat force. To meet this problem, the Army will not only create 10 additional combat brigades; all of the current combat brigades will be redesigned to enhance their ability to deploy more rapidly and operate more independently on the battlefield. I might add that our determination to procure additional equipment beyond the President's request will allow forthcoming troop rotations to receive much of their equipment prior to deployment, clearly an obvious benefit to the success of our troops.

Beyond the requirements of our defense community, the bill provides $656 million to meet the human needs resulting from last December's horrific tsunami. In addition, the bill includes $592 million for the construction of the U.S. embassy compound in Baghdad. While that money for the embassy is a reduction of some $66 million, or 10 percent, from the President's request, construction of the embassy compound has been deemed urgent because of the imminent security threats to some 4,000 U.S. personnel in Iraq. Thus far, 45 personnel with the U.S. mission in Iraq have been killed, including two American citizens who were killed by a rocket attack on our diplomatic compound the day of the Iraqi elections. Providing the funds now will greatly reduce the amount of time our personnel remain in harm's way.

Despite the additional needs we have recommended on behalf of our troops, the committee's bill is $614 million less than that requested by the President. This reduction comes largely as a result of reductions in proposed foreign assistance spending.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this measure is responsible both in how we have responded to the needs to provide for adequate resources in making this fight against terrorism and also in how we have carefully scrubbed each and every program so that we can say with utmost assurance that this is a fiscally sound piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, as I close my remarks, I wish to express my deep appreciation for my ranking member from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), as well as to each and every member of the committee. I have already expressed my feelings about our staff on both sides of the aisle. All of them have worked so diligently to prepare effectively this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned at the outset, I am very proud of this measure I bring to you, my first measure as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. I certainly urge the Members to adopt this bill.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MR05.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MR05.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MR05.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MR05.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MR05.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MR05.006

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate my colleague yielding. I know he will continue with his statement. I want the body to know that I very much share his concern. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I have discussed this issue. He expresses his concern very clearly; as did the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). It has been my privilege to work with the gentleman for years, and I know of his commitment to the Department and our work. Indeed the Administration does owe us the courtesy of adequate and appropriate response time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

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

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and HUD.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would take a moment to suggest to the gentleman that he may not be aware of it because he does not serve on those subcommittees, but there were at least six hearings in a variety of subcommittees and other meetings regarding this matter before we got organized.

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

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

At this point I see none on the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers. I will make closing remarks on the general debate.

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

Having no additional speakers under general debate, I would just like to close by saying that the discussion we have had thus far on this very important measure has been very healthy.

The fundamental thrust of this supplemental is to support the troops in Iraq and in the Middle East. We do have funds that involve the terrible tragedy, the tsunami. The discussion will lead to amendments that will round out this debate. I expect it will be a very efficient, hopefully very speedy, debate.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law.

The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect.

I ask a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment in no small part because essentially the Tierney amendment would be changing the rules of the House. That is above the purview of the Committee on Appropriations, at least of this chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. Because of that, I would oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to extend this conversation for too much longer. I think it is an amendment that we can accept. I think it is the amendment that takes out $1 million and puts $1 million back in. I am very happy with that.

Of course.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of title I be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I do so in order to have a very brief discussion with the gentleman who is chairman of the authorizing committee. I think many of you in the House know that I spent a lot of years in my life making an honest living in the life and health insurance business so I know a little bit about this subject.

The gentleman is raising a number of questions that are very legitimate questions. I do not think there is a conflict here. I just wanted the gentleman to know that it is my intention to examine these serious questions between now and the time we go to conference. I am absolutely certain we can at least clear the air on any remaining problems between now and then.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Reclaiming my time, let us not describe what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) did. We will be here for hours. Either we do this my way or we do not.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman can then, in this complex field, understand when he used the term ``restrict'' that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) might be a bit disconcerted.

Does the gentleman see what I am saying?

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Reclaiming my time, it would be my intention for us to have serious discussions including the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and his staff and our people so that we know that the air is cleared.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) point. In the meantime, I believe we will have some work to do in the weeks ahead and I look forward to working with the gentleman and with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and others to solve this problem.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order so we can accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, reluctantly I make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation on budget totals for fiscal year 2005 on July 22, 2004. The amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the committee allocations and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the act. I ask for the ruling of the Chair.

I have asked for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply say it is our intention to pursue the questions the gentlewoman is asking. It may very well be in conference on the supplemental that it is appropriate, but frankly in some ways we take from Peter to pay Paul. We can pursue this is regular order, and I prefer to use the supplemental process for those emergencies that we cannot deal with in regular order. Because of that, I am not pursuing the recommendations at this time. We will follow through, however, on the questions that the gentlewoman is asking.

Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, while I am very empathetic to the gentleman's concern, for I have many a grandchild myself, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' In this case, the amendment addresses funds in other acts, and so I have to reluctantly ask the Chair to rule.

Mr. Chairman, in that event, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chairman, I am very empathetic to the concerns of the gentleman from California. We expect fully to address those concerns in regular order. Therefore, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment includes an emergency designation and as such constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Madam Chairman, speaking further on the point of order, I would simply, calmly say to the gentleman that I very much agree, as the entire House agrees, that we must be responsive to the medical needs of our veterans, especially those who are coming back at this very moment. There is not any doubt that the new Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee is designed in the fashion to be very responsive to the needs of veterans. I urge the gentleman to recognize that we have begun hearings in connection with that already. It is our intention in regular order to move these bills very quickly, and there is absolutely no doubt that the needs of these veterans, beyond money that is already in the pipeline, will be met as a result of regular order.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

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

Mr. Chairman, I am sure all Members are very concerned about the proposed embassy compound in Iraq and the number of dollars that are involved. I think it is very important that I share with Members our discussion with the Secretary of State. She feels it is absolutely critical that we move forward very quickly with this money, first and foremost because we have almost 4,000 American personnel whose lives are in jeopardy under current conditions. Indeed, if this compound goes forward quickly, their security will be assured.

The Secretary has been given great assurance that the compound can be completed in 24 months. There is only one small hook, and that is in order to get a contractor to bid on such a job in this territory, the money has to be there in the pot. So within this bill we are providing the funds to make sure the funds are available and we can move quickly. This embassy and the compound are designed to solidify our mission, allowing us to be successful in Iraq as well as the Middle East. It is very important that we go forward with this money now.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

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

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

I appreciate the remarks of my colleague from Illinois. I would suggest that in voting for this amendment, Members would be voting against the view of our Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. The Secretary of State has spoken very strongly about the urgency of this matter. There is little doubt that we have the appropriate place, we have the plans in place, we can get it done quickly. We need the money up front. That is why it is here. Because of that, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Upton amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 1268 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 151, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except:

Pro forma amendments offered at any point by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate; amendment 4, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; and an amendment by Mr. Markey regarding combat pay; an amendment by Mr. Markey regarding torture; an amendment by Mr. Weiner regarding funds to the Palestinian Authority, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; an amendment by Mr. Obey regarding intelligence; an amendment by Mr. Filner regarding veterans hiring preference for reconstruction of Iraq; and an amendment by Ms. Velazquez regarding small business.

Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed in the Record or a designee, shall be considered only in the order listed, except in the case of pro forma amendments; shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise very hesitantly to oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

The gentleman has an amendment that is very worthy of consideration. We all know we have a difficulty with the Guard and Reserve and how they maintain their level of income that they have had or what they had before they were called up. There are incredible problems here. But the gentleman's amendment involves the authorizing arena, and we are doing everything we can in this new appropriations committee to work with our authorizing committees to try to avoid doing their work.

The gentleman, for example, is one of the truly outstanding members of the Committee on International Relations. He plays a phenomenal role in this arena. In the past, I have been very disconcerted with Foreign Ops getting into that area, that is the authorizing piece. We are trying to avoid that sort of work by the appropriations committee. In this case we are talking about major authorizing circumstances that affect the Committee on Ways and Means, affect the housing committee potentially, certainly the Committee on Armed Services. So I am very hesitant about that movement in the arena that is an authorizing responsibility.

Because of that, I am opposing the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me respond by saying that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) had to leave this evening. Because of that he is not here to interact regarding this amendment. I understand that what the gentleman from Pennsylvania has described is exactly my chairman's feeling. And, frankly, I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to cooperate.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time.

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

I took this position on this amendment because I do not want to rise in opposition to the amendment. As the gentleman suggested, it is a restatement of existing law. I think it is appropriate for us to consider it in that connection, and, further, I would like to say to the gentleman that the Chair is inclined to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, we have made considerable progress on this bill today. There has been great cooperation on both sides of the aisle. I must say the membership has been very positive in their discussion and very helpful to one another.

As the chairman may know, there are dinners that are going on tonight that affect both sides of the aisle and there are still a number of Members who would like to participate in same. Because of those circumstances and because we can finish our work very easily tomorrow morning, there are minor amendments to be expeditiously handled.

Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague from California yielding me a moment. Doris knows that Bob and I were very, very dear friends. We came to the Congress together. At that time we talked a lot about our hometown, for the Matsui family knows that Arlene and I consider in many ways Sacramento to be really our second home. It was our privilege to spend a decade there working in the legislature on behalf of public affairs; and the reputation of the Matsui family went well ahead of their service here. Bob served as a member of the board of supervisors and was a fabulous local leader.

In turn, his tragic loss was a shock to all of us, but clearly the voice expressed by that vote by the people in that district that surrounds and includes Sacramento is a reflection of the fact that their people know and deeply believe that Doris is the person to reflect the view and the future that Bob would have for the country.

Doris, I want you to know that we do not just welcome you to the family today but it is very important for you and I to know that we will continue to work together on behalf of California and our second home; and, indeed, there are wonderful things as well as great things in the future that need to be done.

So welcome, God bless you, Godspeed.