[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 54 (Thursday, April 3, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H2718-H2757]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EMERGENCY WARTIME SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 172 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1559.
The Chair designates the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) as
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Fossella) to assume the chair temporarily.
{time} 1140
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1559) making emergency wartime supplemental appropriations for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes, with
Mr. Fossella (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is
considered as having been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, today H.R. 1559 is before the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union to pay for the war in Iraq, the
liberation of the people of Iraq, the destruction of a regime that
threatens its own people, that persecutes its own people, that
threatens its neighbors with weapons of mass destruction, that is a
vicious, violent regime. We are at war today, and I want to say that
American people can be, and I am sure they are, tremendously proud of
the members of our Armed Forces.
{time} 1145
I was paying tribute to the men and women who serve in our Armed
Forces for their tremendous dedication and their courage and their
commitment and their valor and the tremendous way in which they are
carrying out their mission. All Americans are proud of what these young
Americans are doing.
The Committee on Appropriations reported the bill with a recorded
vote and every Member in the Committee voted yes: number one, to bring
the bill to the floor; number two, to show our complete support of our
American Armed Forces. And I am very proud of that. I want to thank the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I wanted to thank the members
of both parties, on both sides of the political aisle on the Committee
on Appropriations who worked together to produce this product that is
very similar, Mr. Chairman, to what the President of the United States,
the Commander in Chief, asked us to do. The major part of the
appropriations provided in this bill are for the Department of Defense,
and the military services, to pay for much of the activities that have
already taken place and to provide additional funding to complete this
effort to rid the world of a regime as the one we have seen for the
last 20 years headed by Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to reserve the balance of my time at this
point because I want the subcommittee chairmen who worked so hard to
bring this package together to use a considerable amount of the time to
explain the part of the bill on which they worked.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following tabular and
extraneous material:
[[Page H2719]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03AP03.001
[[Page H2720]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03AP03.002
[[Page H2721]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03AP03.003
[[Page H2722]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03AP03.004
[[Page H2723]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03AP03.005
[[Page H2724]]
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 11 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, we have by the previous vote unfortunately short-
circuited the democratic process in this House, and we have prevented
us from having any really meaningful debate on this resolution today.
Under the rule, we are going to be free to talk about providing
additional money for homeland security. We just are not going to be
able to put any amendments before the House that in any substantial way
enhance homeland security, and I find that unfortunate.
I think that there is much in this bill that is good, and I wanted to
congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of
the committee, because he has done his constitutional duty and he has
seen to it that the 200-year-long responsibility of the Congress to
keep a tight leash on the public purse has been maintained, and I
congratulate him for it. I know that there are a lot of people in this
town who do not like that, but that was his responsibility. That was
his committee's responsibility, and we lived up to it; and I think the
House can be proud of that.
I also think, frankly, that there are a couple of other occasions
when Members of Congress wanted to unfairly intervene in executive
prerogatives in this bill, and the committee correctly resisted those
as well. So on that score I have no problem whatsoever with this bill.
My problem is that I think it is a missed opportunity to provide
additional protection for people at home. We are engaged in a war in
Iraq. The idea of that war is to make the world safer for the United
States and other democracies. And it would seem to me that if we are
going to engage in a war against Iraq, we ought to be battening down
the hatches to the fullest extent possible here at home to protect
against terrorist attacks; but we have been denied the opportunity to
offer our amendment to do so. And I want to walk through with the House
what it is that they have rejected because I am going to try to offer
it again anyway at a later point in the process.
Perhaps the greatest challenge we face in dealing with terrorism is
to monitor the more than 20,000 shipping containers that enter the
United States each day. In our amendment, which we will seek to offer
even though the rules sought to deny us, we tried to put $135 million
in this bill so that we can institute at nine major ports around the
world a system which we have now in the port of Rotterdam, which would
enable us to install equipment so that we know that none of the
containers in the 10 major ports in the world contain radioactive
material which could be used to set off a dirty bomb within the United
States. We think the House ought to support that.
We also want to put $87 million in this bill to strengthen our
ability to deal with nuclear material which is stored right here in the
United States. We want to provide $150 million to strengthen the
capacity of State laboratories and EPA laboratories to deal with the
aftermath of a chemical attack. We are better equipped to deal with a
biological attack in the country at this point than we are to deal with
a chemical attack.
We wanted to put sufficient funds into this bill so that we can take
the vulnerability assessment that was done on Federal dams and
waterways throughout the country and in fact act on that assessment and
actually provide for the security upgrades that we need for those
facilities. We need $108 million to do that.
Only weeks ago, the General Accounting Office completed a report
indicating that there is a serious threat posed by the possibility of
terrorists targeting U.S. chemical plants. We wanted to provide $75
million to initiate an assessment of that threat as recommended by the
GAO. We have been denied the opportunity to do that. We also want to
see to it that there is better coordination between the FDA and the
USDA in determining what kinds of inspections have taken place and what
inspections have not taken place with respect to a number of shipments
of agricultural products and medical products that come into this
country.
The Hart-Rudman report recommended the Federal Government provide
funding to first responders to immediately clear the backlog of
requests for protective gear for our local first responders. This
legislation does not begin to lay a glove on the size of that problem.
We also have a problem in that the equipment used by our firemen and
our policemen and our rescue workers at the local level are not
interoperable, and so those groups cannot talk to each other.
Twenty years ago in this town when we had the Air Florida accident,
we had rescue workers from Virginia, from Maryland, from the District
of Columbia. They could not talk to each other on their emergency
equipment because they were all on different wavelengths. That was 20
years ago. When we had that same problem at the Pentagon just about a
year ago, we still had not improved the situation. No real progress in
20 years. It is about time we fix it. We want to in our amendment. We
have been denied the opportunity.
We also wanted to provide $300 million in additional funding to the
Office of Domestic Preparedness, which has been denied. We also wanted
to provide sufficient funds to guarantee that every State in the Union
has at least one National Guard Civil Support Team to back up first
responders in case of terrorist attack emergencies. We have been denied
the opportunity to do that. We wanted to provide $90 million to expand
port and waterway safety systems. Right now the port of Norfolk has a
sophisticated system and the port of San Diego is going to get that
system later in the year; but we still have ports like Boston,
Charleston, Philadelphia, Jacksonville, Baltimore, Honolulu, San
Francisco, Los Angeles, Corpus Christie, San Juan, and Washington, D.C.
where we need that equipment, but do not have it.
The Coast Guard indicates that in addition to all of that we have at
least $900 million in needs that we ought to be helping local port
authorities with and over the next 10 years those needs are estimated
to be about $4.4 billion. We wanted to add $250 million to the 440
already in this bill to deal with that problem, and we have been denied
that opportunity.
And we also take note of the fact that the Pentagon has identified
more than $1 billion of unfunded security needs at military bases here
at home, such as providing additional protection for family housing by
building perimeter fencing. Our amendment wanted to put at least $200
million in here for that purpose. We have been denied the right to do
so.
We wanted to increase the intelligence budget for the Department of
Energy so that they can have a better surveillance operation with
respect to countries like Iran and North Korea. We have been denied
that opportunity. And we wanted to do a number of other things which I
do not have time to discuss.
Let me simply say, despite the fact that the rule has denied us the
opportunity to offer the amendment, I am going to attempt to offer that
amendment anyway when we get to the 5-minute rule because I believe
that this is so important for the security of this country. There is no
reason for us to have a dispute on this issue. There is no reason to
have a difference between Republicans and Democrats on a national
security issue of this magnitude. I cannot believe that we do not have
bipartisan support for this added money.
We found enough room to give $3 billion and more to the airlines, but
not enough to provide $2.5 billion for homeland security. We find
enough room in this bill to provide $7 billion in foreign aid to other
countries including some bribe money to countries that voted with us in
the United Nations who are adding virtually nothing to our security
effort; and yet we are being denied the opportunity to provide $1
billion on the homeland security front. For that matter we know that
our government policy is, and this is in writing, to provide health
care, basic universal health care was the term, for 25 million people
in Iraq.
We know that our government intends to repair 6,000 schools and 100
hospitals in Iraq. It would be nice if we could do the same thing here
at home. We are not, obviously, being allowed to do that because of the
majority party's lust for passing every tax cut known to man, but that
is a debate for another day.
[[Page H2725]]
Today, as far as I am concerned, the critical hole in this bill is
lack of sufficient funds for homeland security. We are going to try to
do everything we can to fix that problem despite the lack of
cooperation from the majority leadership. But I do want to, at the same
time, thank the chairman of the committee for his personal cooperation
in trying to make sure that this House at least met its constitutional
responsibilities with respect to the power of the purse, and I
congratulate him for that action.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
I do so to again thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for
the cooperation that we enjoyed as we prepared this bill. And this is a
clean bill, by the way. And I compliment the members of the House. A
lot of Members came to us and asked for consideration to do something
that they felt was important to do in this supplemental, and we
explained that it was a war supplemental and explained why we were not
going to be able to accept Member projects. There are no Member
projects in this bill. This is a clean bill. It tracks what the
President asked for, and I think the House can be very proud of that.
There are several major parts of the bill: the national defense part
dealing with the war, the very important part of the bill dealing with
homeland security, and another part of the bill that deals with support
for our coalition partners. So we are going to explain those sections
of the bill separately.
The largest part of the bill goes to the war, of course, and for
national defense and for our troops to provide what they need to carry
out their important mission.
Mr. Chairman, to present that part of the bill, I yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the very distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations' Subcommittee on Defense,
who does a tremendous job in presenting and providing information that
we need to put these bills together.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin my
remarks by first expressing the deepest appreciation we have for the
work that has been done between the gentleman from Florida (Chairman
Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), seeing that this
bill that really is a work in response to the needs of our military
forces who are fighting for freedom overseas. The way in which the
House is responding today is a reflection of the best work of the
House, perhaps demonstrated best in recent days by our all coming
together to celebrate the freedom now that is being experienced by
Jessica Lynch, the prisoner of war, this young American, who our forces
made every effort to identify by way of location and made sure that she
once again has the opportunity to breathe free.
{time} 1200
This bill would not be in the condition it is in if it were not for
the magnificent work of staff on both sides of the aisle. The growing
relationship between David Morrison and Kevin Roper, working with the
Committee's staff, is somewhat magnificent to see, even though it is
not a surprise to most who have observed often our committee work.
In turn, however, there are others who deserve credit today, such as
our personal staff, and all those people who spend endless hours to
make sure that we get this work done in a timely fashion.
The bill before us has some $74.5 billion in supplemental funding
that is designed in large form to make sure we can carry forward the
war in a timely fashion and make sure that our forces do not run out of
funding at this critical moment in our history. Of that $74.5 billion,
approximately $62.5 goes to national defense matters. Within that
package of funding, there is approximately one-half of it, a little
over $30 billion, which really goes to money that has already been
obligated and essentially spent; that is, the money that was required
to deploy the forces, to mobilize the National Guard and Reserve, to
train and equip for battle those men and women who are the backbone of
our successful effort in Iraq. From there, there is little doubt that
in the months ahead we will be called upon time and time again to make
sure that the pipeline does not run dry, and that is the work of our
committee. Working very closely with Members on both sides of the
aisle, it has been my experience that this House is most responsive
when our forces need them most.
So having said that, Mr. Chairman, the defense portion of this bill,
which does spend as much money as I indicated, is going to be the least
controversial of this bill. We will probably spend much of the day
talking about other relatively smaller elements that are before us
today. That piece of the bill that involves homeland defense will lead
to a lot of discussion. And I would say to my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle that the challenges that we face as they relate to
homeland defense are challenges that really have come to our attention
because of 9/11. They are primary in our mind.
But I would remind us also that this is not the last bill of the
year. We are going to have more than one opportunity in the
appropriations process to be responsive to the needs of protecting our
homeland, and the committee will come together again when those items
are before us, and I am sure respond in a bipartisan way.
There will be a good deal of discussion today regarding those
elements that relate to Turkey's role in the struggle that is ahead of
us; and the issues that flow around the foreign operations portion of
the bill are difficult issues, but, indeed, those too can be handled
through regular order.
In the months and the years ahead, we will be making decisions
regarding the way we relate to those allies who are not nearly as
responsive as we might have expected as we went about attempting to lay
the foundation for freedom for the people of Iraq.
I am most pleased with the fact that this body today will give
dramatic illustration that we can come together in time of need, in a
nonpartisan way, on behalf of the men and women who are fighting for
freedom in Iraq. In the final analysis, our purpose is to make certain
that the children of Iraq have the same chance for opportunity and
freedom that so many of us experience in this country because, by the
grace of God, we happen to have been born here.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.
I would like to take a moment to address two different sections of
the Supplemental--foreign assistance and support for first responders.
The Foreign Operations section provides $7.3 billion of the $7.5
billion requested. I think it is generally a good product, and I
appreciate Chairman Kolbe's willingness to work with me on it.
As many of my colleagues know, I consider foreign aid to be an
indispensable arm of our national security strategy. No place is this
role more evident than in today's bill, which will help strengthen many
of our allies in the coalition of the willing. I particularly support
the funding for Israel, a key ally in the war on terrorism and a force
for stability in the Middle East, as well as the assistance for Jordan,
a country which has supported our cause at great risk to its own
stability.
I am also pleased that this bill takes important steps to secure the
role of the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International
Development in guiding spending for post-war relief and reconstruction.
It has been clear to us for quite some time that the Department of
Defense would like to take over the management of these funds. While
the President requested that all Iraq relief and reconstruction dollars
be provided in a form that would have allowed him to transfer them to
any government agency with no Congressional input, this bill wisely
allows the flexibility to use them only at USAID, the Department of
State, the Department of the Treasury, and HHS--the four main agency
implementers of our foreign assistance programs. The bill also makes
clear the policy decisions regarding post-war relief and reconstruction
should be made at the State Department--not anywhere else. Both of
these provisions provide important precedents for similar situations
that may arise in the future.
I do have a few concerns about the Foreign Operations section of the
bill--primarily that
[[Page H2726]]
funding is provided for Colombia and the Philippines, despite the fact
that they have no direct or indirect role in the conflict in Iraq.
Congress has been admonished by the administration not to attach
extraneous provisions to this bill, and I think these are two that
could be better dealt with in the regular Fiscal Year 2004 process.
I strongly support the $700 million set-aside in the High-Risk Urban
Areas category in the Office of Domestic Preparedness, an area of
critical need. The administration requested $50 million for this
purpose, an in the committee's mark on Tuesday the funding was raised
to $700 million. This is excellent progress, but I still believe we
must do more.
We have a responsibility to protect every American, wherever they
live and wherever they serve this Nation around the globe.
But we know, based on experience and intelligence, that there are
areas of higher risk than others in America. And it isn't always the
most obvious places, like New York City, or Washington, DC, and the
Pentagon.
It could be Orlando, where Disney World draws millions of visitors,
or Fort Knox in Kentucky. It could be an attraction that symbolizes
American culture like the Rock and Roll Hall of fame in Ohio, or a
military installation like Quantico in Virginia.
Each of these places has political and cultural significance to our
people and the world. We've seen that Al Qaeda has a diabolical sense
of where to hit us--not only to take innocent life and destroy
structures, but also to shake our confidence and our sense of America
as a safe place.
For those reasons, there's an urgent need to provide funding for
high-level risk areas, especially in urban centers. The administration,
in its request, provided $50 million in funding for these needs. But
$50 million isn't adequate. New York City spends that in 10 weeks
alone--$5 million a week. The State of New York spends $7 million a
week, mostly in New York City.
This funding is for needs nationally, and that's very important, but
I want to mention just a few things that New York needs to do in order
to protect the 11 million people who work in the city every day:
The city now has its own Counterterrorism Bureau in the police
department that costs $200 million to run. Its one thousand officers
are deployed in New York and around the world.
It's designing a communications system that will work from high-rise
buildings to subways, that isn't reliant on a private carrier and has
built-in redundancy so a failure at one point won't bring the whole
communications systems to a halt. That will cost $120 million.
It needs $25 million to add HazMat units because the city isn't
adequately prepared for a major chemical and/or biological incident.
It needs bigger and faster fireboats to help put out fires. For all
of New York City's 575 miles of shoreline, there are 3 small fireboats.
If, God forbid, there's an attack on a cruise ship, ferry, bridge or
port, a large fireboat would be needed for rescue and fire control. A
boat with large capacity is $15 million.
It also has immense training needs--among the 343 firefighters killed
on September 11th were many of the department's most highly trained
officers, who had accrued 4,400 years of collective experience and
training. To recruit and train new firefighters will cost about $40
million.
And that's just New York--unfortunately, cities nationwide are forced
to carry out similar costly measures to ensure their security. The U.S.
Conference of Mayors estimates that cities are spending about $70
million a week, on top of their law enforcement budget, to deal with
the increased threat level and security costs due to the war.
I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for working hard to
address these important needs, and to fund the High Risk Urban Areas
category at $700 million.
We still need to do more. As a fire commissioner in my district said,
referring to the color code alert system, ``we cannot go to color
orange without seeing some color green.''
I hope we can work together through conference with the Senate, to
help all our local areas--urban and rural--become as prepared as
possible for any terrorist attack.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. We
all recognize the need to provide this emergency funding. It is the
right thing to do for our troops, particularly those who are now in
harm's way. No Member of Congress would send America's sons and
daughters to war without providing for them the adequate resources, and
we will pay any price to protect our troops and the American people. As
the distinguished ranking member of the committee has said, there are
no Democrats, there are no Republicans, there are only Americans who
are involved in this debate.
However, I do remain concerned that the supplemental package falls
short in funding pressing needs like homeland security. It is not a
small venture; it is critical to our local communities. To date, our
cities and towns have spent nearly $3 billion to protect their
communities from the threat of terrorism. They cannot rely on State
governments which are in the midst of the worst fiscal crisis since
World War II. So at a time when towns like West Haven, Connecticut are
spending more than $4,000 per week to meet these needs, we have a
responsibility to offer them a helping hand. They cannot afford to do
this alone.
While $4.2 billion for homeland security is an improvement over the
initial proposal, there remains approximately $10 billion in unmet
needs to adequately secure our ports, our airports, the police, fire,
emergency medical personnel on the front lines who need this funding
for training and for new equipment. We cannot afford to ignore those
funding gaps.
Congress owes it to our troops overseas, who are sacrificing so much
to protect the American people, to pass a bill that not only gives our
fighting men and women the resources to carry out their mission, but
one that also complements those efforts by securing our greatest
vulnerabilities here at home.
Let us ensure those fighting men and women a safe homeland to return
to.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
I do so to say that on September 11, 2001, America's world changed.
As we entered the 21st century, everything changed. Our citizens came
under attack from cowardly terrorists who killed thousands of innocent,
and I repeat, innocent civilians. That war against terrorism has been
ongoing very effectively.
Early this year, I recommended to the Committee on Appropriations a
reorganizational structure that would create a subcommittee which would
have the responsibility of dealing specifically with the security of
our homeland. I asked the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) if he
would chair that subcommittee. He is one of the outstanding leaders of
our Committee on Appropriations, and he agreed to do that. They are
well under way with their work.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers), the chairman of that very important Subcommittee on Homeland
Security.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I want to compliment the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full Committee on
Appropriations who just spoke, for having the foresight and vision and
leadership to have taken on this very difficult chore of reorganizing
the House to deal with homeland security. It was his leadership that
created this new subcommittee that brought together authorities from
other subcommittees into one place, and it is the right thing to do and
he took the leadership to make it happen; and the other body then
followed suit, followed the leadership of the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. We are
fortunate to have him in the position that he is in.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this bill has plenty of money for homeland
security. Could we spend more money? Yes, of course, we could. Are
there fire departments and police departments and EMT departments out
there that could use more money? Absolutely. Is there a role for the
Federal Government in helping them meet their expenses? Yes. What is
that role? Our role is to assist them to train and to have equipment
and the like to help protect the Nation from threats. But of course,
their main responsibility is to protect their hometown and their home
State and, of course, we cannot and should not pay their entire budget.
Yet some would have us do that. Some would have us turn the homeland
security funding mechanisms into another revenue sharing, so that
States and localities could get huge sums of money without any real
policy connection to a Federal role, and we must guard against that.
But in this bill, Mr. Chairman, there is plenty of money for homeland
security. There is plenty of money backed
[[Page H2727]]
up in previous years that has not yet been spent that localities can
have access to. But in this bill, there is $2.2 billion that is
destined for our States and localities when they apply for it, for
monies to go to their first responders; $2.2 billion to different grant
programs that they can apply to the Secretary for, and those monies
will be granted to the States and localities; and 80 percent of the
money has to go to the local departments and not be funneled off by the
States. So we think it is a substantial sum of money that will satisfy
the need for the moment. We may see the need in short order for
something else, but for the moment we think this is sufficient.
There is also $1.5 billion for the Secretary to use on the Federal
level for such things as cargo and portal radiation monitors. These are
in our Nation's seaports and our land ports to protect us from cargo
containers that might contain nuclear materials or biological or
chemical weapons. There is $193 million for just that. There is $100
million for additional staffing along the northern border with our
neighbors in Canada. There is $35 million more for container security
initiatives so that we can keep track of, find and keep track of
container cargo that might be damaging. There is $235 million in this
bill to help our local airports modify their premises to accommodate
these huge x-ray machines that are checking our baggage. There is $85
million to help reimburse our local law enforcement and State law
enforcement officers and National Guardsmen who have been providing
increased security at the airports and other critical transportation
sites. Most of this money is going to our localities, as it should.
There is $40 million for the Transportation Security Administration's
port security efforts, and there is $30 million for nonaviation surface
transportation security initiatives. There is $185 million for the
Immigration Service for overtime, and air and marine interdiction and
detention and removal of people who should not be here.
Now, do the States and localities need more? Well, of course their
budgets are tight. But I would point out to my colleagues that we still
have $291 million of 2002 monies still available. There is $291 million
yet unspent that we provided in fiscal year 02 that the States and
localities have not even applied for. There is $566 million that we
provided for State and local grants in the 03 omnibus bill. All of
those monies are yet unspent. In the current supplemental, there is
$2.2 billion that is destined for our localities, and in the 04 fiscal
year that we are holding hearings on right now, and that bill will be
passed sometime hopefully this summer, there is another several
hundreds of millions of dollars.
All told, that is a combined total of $19 billion-plus over the 02-04
period, monies that are destined for localities, most of which has not
even been applied for. So there is plenty of money in the pipeline for
our States and localities. Sure, we would like to have more money
perhaps one of these days, but for the moment we have plenty of money
for our States and localities to apply for if they wish.
{time} 1215
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to correct the impression left by the
previous speaker. The previous speaker said in committee earlier this
week, and he has touched on it again today, he said that we had almost
$19 billion in so-called ``unspent'' homeland security funds. The fact
is, that is a fictional number. I want to show the Members why.
First, 34 percent of that number is found in a bill which we have not
yet even enacted. We cannot expect localities to spend money we have
not yet provided them.
Second, 10 percent of that so-called $19 billion in unspent money
represents money in this supplemental which we have not yet passed. We
cannot count money that we have not yet passed as part of the money
localities have not yet spent.
Then, in the omnibus appropriation bill which we just passed in
February, and we were supposed to pass it before October 1 but we did
not get around to it until February, 30 percent of that so-called $19
billion in unspent money is in that omnibus bill.
It was only 2 weeks ago that the agency invited localities to apply
for that money. The application time is not even closed yet. When we
get down to the real, hard facts, only 26 percent of that $19 billion
represents previously enacted money before February of this year. Of
that 26 percent, only 4 percent is unobligated, and 22 percent of that
is obligated.
Mr. Chairman, so much for the idea that there is ``enough in the
pipeline.'' There is not nearly enough in the pipeline. Ask the mayors,
ask the firemen, ask the police chiefs, ask the Coast Guard, ask the
Department of Defense. They know there is not enough money in the
pipeline.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, the defense part of this bill is the
Congress' version of shock and awe.
The President the other day complained after only giving this to us 9
days ago, the largest supplemental in history, or in my 30 years; maybe
it was larger in World War II, but the largest supplemental I have ever
known.
We have had hearings, we have discussed it with the agencies, and we
did our part in accountability. We want to make sure that these
agencies are accountable to us, to the people that are elected to
represent the people in this country.
It is a bipartisan bill. We sat down and we looked at what was done
in 1991, we looked at how we handled things in the past, and we have
tried to make sure that the public is protected and that this money is
protected and they have accountability.
I compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) in the work
that he did; the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young); and the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). This is an accountable bill, but the defense
portion takes care of the troops. That is what it is all about. We take
care of the money that was spent already, and we take care of getting
the troops back home. We hope they will be there as short a period as
they could possibly be.
But we have to keep in mind, here we have a bill, $70-some billion in
supplemental, which is bigger than almost every other bill that we have
passed. In just a little over a week we have it on the floor, and
within 2 weeks we will have it passed. So all the grumbling that goes
on from some of the folks outside the legislature have to realize that
we have a responsibility, and we have accepted that responsibility. We
have made darned sure that this bill was something we can be proud of.
Obviously, I believe that in the end we are going to have to pass
another supplemental, because of just the way things have gone. I am
pleased that the troops are doing so well. Unfortunately, we will have
casualties in any kind of a war like this. But one thing for sure, we
have done everything we could do humanly possible in the legislative
process to make sure that they had everything that they could possibly
have and could get to the field. I am proud of this.
I would hope we would have large, bipartisan support for this
supplemental, and it will pass overwhelmingly in as short a time as
possible.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
I just want to point out that under the strong leadership of
President Bush, we have developed a good coalition to fight this war
against the regime of Saddam Hussein. We actually have 49 active
members of the coalition, which is a larger group of countries
supporting this effort than we had in Desert Storm in 1991.
So with the leadership of President Bush and the strong support that
he has had from Prime Minister Blair, the Prime Minister of Spain, the
Prime Minister of Australia, providing the strongest leadership, we
have a good, strong coalition.
The next part of this bill has to do with financial support for some
members of that coalition. But as I talk about the coalition, there is
one group that has not had much recognition, and they really deserve
it. That is Poland. Poland, a new member to NATO, an emergent country
after the Soviet Union went away, actually was involved in one of the
very first combat
[[Page H2728]]
missions in this action of the Iraqi freedom. That mission was the oil
platforms in the gulf. Actually, their combat team took control of and
are managing and defending those platforms that were sabotaged, that
were wired for explosives.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe), the very distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on
Appropriations, to discuss that part of the bill.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I want to publicly thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for the work they have done to
get this supplemental bill to the floor as expeditiously as possible,
in as good shape as it is, and with as little controversy as we have
seen. There is certainly some disagreement.
Mr. Chairman, the recommendations of the foreign operations chapter
of this supplemental total $7.4 billion. That is 2 percent, $184
million, less than was requested by the President. We have fulfilled
the administration's funding request for Iraq and for the countries
supporting the war on terrorism. Let me start by outlining where we do
concur with the President's request.
The most urgent requirement in the foreign operations chapter is
assistance for Iraq's people. One-third of the foreign operations
chapter is for relief and reconstruction in Iraq. We have provided
every penny the President requested, plus an additional $40 million.
Therefore, we are asking the House to approve $2.5 billion for a new
Iraq relief and reconstruction fund.
The Department of State, USAID, and the Treasury and Health and Human
Resources Department could receive direct apportionments from the fund;
but it does not go to the Department of Defense, which already, I think
most of us would agree, has its hands full with winning the war and
providing security in Iraq.
The immediate focus of the new fund would be provision of clean
water, food, and care for displaced and vulnerable people. Soon
thereafter, repairs of the degraded electricity and communications,
health, and education systems would get under way. We anticipate that
other donors and international organizations would eventually take over
much of that work.
The remaining funding in this chapter is to be provided for countries
supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom, or the broader war against
terrorism. The committee has provided all of the funding that was
requested for Israel, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Colombia, and the
rest of the 22 countries that are included in this supplemental.
While I understand there are many amendments that today will be aimed
at cutting funds to one or more of these countries, I would like to
emphasize that the President requested these funds to help the United
States fight this war in Iraq. He is our Commander in Chief, and I ask
my colleagues not to remove the tools he needs to win this war. That
includes funding for our diplomatic efforts as well as our military
operations.
The foreign operations chapter includes $9 million for loan
guarantees to Israel, which are to be issued over the next 3 years.
This is very similar to the multiyear loan guarantee package that we
provided to Israel in 1992. These guarantees will bolster the nation's
credit rating and help Israel implement the critical budget and
economic reforms. They may also support the renewed peace process after
the end of the conflict in Iraq.
Additionally, the foreign operations chapter includes $2.3 billion
for the economic support fund. This total provides $700 million for
Jordan. Jordan is particularly dependent on Iraqi oil. There is $300
million for Egypt which may be used for loan guarantees, not to exceed
$2 billion, and $127 million is provided for Afghanistan to continue
efforts to support security and economic development in that Nation.
Also, $100 million is provided for a new Islamic partnership and
outreach program.
Additionally, there is permissive language that allows the President
to use up to $1 billion for Turkey that could subsidize some $8.5
billion of loan guarantees. The language of this bill requires the
Secretary of State to assure Congress that Turkey is cooperating with
the United States in Operation Iraqi Freedom, including facilitation of
humanitarian assistance to Iraq, before authorizing the loan
guarantees.
There is going to be a lot of discussion about this issue today, so
let me just say now that Turkey is a longtime ally of the United
States. It is a key front-line state in the war on terrorism. It is a
democratic Muslim nation that is part of most of the Middle East and
southern Europe. Obviously, it is a nation that has been significantly
impacted by the conflict in Iraq, and it had significant economic
problems before the conflict.
As Deputy Secretary Armitage said in testimony before our
subcommittee, ``It would be the greatest of ironies if we spend all
this energy, blood, and treasure and were successful in Iraq, only to
turn around and see a longtime ally, Turkey, go bottom up because of
economic weakness.''
The last part of the foreign operations chapter includes $2.1 billion
for foreign military financing as requested, which improves defense
capabilities of America's friends and allies. There is $406 million
that is provided to Jordan to meet border security requirements to
upgrade air bases, and $170 million is for training and equipping the
new Afghan army.
Finally, within this section the FMF account includes $1 billion to
help Israel strengthen its military and civil defenses.
There are programs for which we did not provide the full President's
request. Chief among these is the U.S. Emergency Fund for Complex
Emergencies. The President asked for $150 million for this new
emergency fund, but we believe that this request should be considered
within the context of the fiscal year 2004 appropriations and
authorization processes.
As I said in our hearing last week with Deputy Secretary of State
Armitage, in my view it is not appropriate to use the Iraq supplemental
as a cover to assert agency jurisdiction or to implement untried
concepts. The amount not provided for this new emergency fund was
distributed among the international disaster assistance and emergency
refugee accounts and the new Iraq relief and reconstruction fund.
Mr. Chairman, this is a brief summary of the recommendations
contained within the foreign operations chapter of this supplemental. I
believe the committee has developed a responsible product, and I ask
for the support of the House.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
supplemental appropriations bill.
I want to compliment the chairman and the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Defense, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha),
for giving specificity to this bill in terms of how the money was
appropriated. I think that was the right decision, defending the
constitutional prerogatives of the legislative branch.
We are all proud of what our men and women are doing over in Iraq.
The gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and I had a chance to
visit right before the war started and to see the troops. It was truly
outstanding.
We also had a chance to see the great work that is being done in the
area of intelligence, the Predator, and all of the new capabilities
that we have given our troops to know where the enemy is.
The thing that I am most proud of are the tremendous aerial
capabilities that we have been able to provide with the B-2 bomber, the
B-1, the B-52, giving smart weapons to them, smart conventional weapons
which have worked so effectively in degrading the military capabilities
of the Iraqis. We have seen this in the last few days with the collapse
of the Medina and Baghdad divisions of the Republican Guard.
This is an enormously important bill because we have to replenish
these smart weapons that we have used, because 10,000 smart weapons,
precision weapons, have been used. We have flown over 21,000 sorties.
The one thing that is wrong with this bill is we have not done enough
for homeland security. I completely concur with the gentleman from
Wisconsin
[[Page H2729]]
(Mr. Obey), who has taken the time to go out and investigate the needs
of all of these agencies. We are underfunding the security of the
United States of America here at home by not adequately funding
homeland security.
We are doing a great job in Iraq; we are doing a great job in
Afghanistan, but we are only doing a marginal job here at home in terms
of protecting our ports, our cities. This is us. This is our families.
This is our children, our grandchildren. We have to get serious about
this. This administration has to get serious about this.
{time} 1230
They can not continue to not provide the resources necessary for
homeland security. Maybe we will not correct it here today, but I
guarantee you once the American people understand that we are not
providing the necessary resources, they will make certain that we
correct it and hopefully in a bipartisan fashion.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the very distinguished
chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee
on Appropriations.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this
Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act which, as has been
mentioned, passed on a unanimous vote of 59 to 0 in the committee.
I wanted to extend a strong salute to the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Young), to the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey), and also to the staff who worked, with barely a week, on
the very extensive bill, and they worked to produce a bill that I
believe deserves our thanks, and this also is one that is good and
necessary and it protects the House priorities.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the
Committee on Appropriations, providing what our military personnel need
to protect their lives and ensure their success is my top priority, and
I believe this bill does that, we have made sure that our military
personnel have all the tools necessary to ensure success.
I would like to bring the attention of the House to two important
provisions in this wartime supplemental bill. The first is the
additional funding for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection,
which will receive some 428 million. The bill sets asides 80 million of
that amount for new inspectors and Border Patrol agents at the northern
border ports of entry. For those whose districts and States lie on the
northern border, this funding is critical not only to the safety of our
constituents but also to the economic safety of our country.
I am pleased that the administration and the House continue to place
such an emphasis on filling the needs we have at the northern border.
I would also like to bring to the House's attention the foreign
assistance portion of the bill. Foreign assistance is critical to our
overall foreign policy and the President needs these funds immediately.
This money is necessary to support the stabilization of Iraq and also
support our key partners in the war with Iraq and the global war on
terrorism.
I also support strongly the Middle East partnership initiative, or
MEPI. This initiative is critical to our country's policy toward the
Middle East because it strengthens our policy on economic, political,
and educational reforms in that part of the world. The administration
should be commended for initiating and funding this program to work
with our Arab and Muslim allies on these issues.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear that our men and women in the Armed Forces,
along with our allies, will prevail in Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein
and his regime from power. This supplemental will ensure that they have
the resources they need to finish that job. I urge all of my colleagues
to support this bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I rise in strong support of this essential bill for military
operations, homeland security, and foreign assistance, and I want to
thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the ranking
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for their hard work,
especially on the gentleman from Wisconsin's anniversary of service in
this Congress today. After three decades of service, we need that
intelligence, especially now in this critical time in world history.
I want to focus my remarks particularly on health care for those who
are putting their lives on the line in America's cause as we stand here
to provide the resources for them to do that, and that is especially
those in our Guard and Reserve. Those in the Guard and Reserve are not
tangential to this operation. In many units they comprise over half of
these on the ground. I think we have to recognize with the change in
our force structure that we have to provide the kind of benefits to
these Guard and Reserve forces that they deserve.
In this bill, with the leadership of the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lewis) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Murtha), we have made an improvement in health care coverage for
our Guard and Reserve forces. After 30 days of active duty call-up,
they are eligible for TRICARE and their families are eligible for that
health insurance. So it is an improvement over past situations.
But as we move forward this year, I would hope we would recognize the
changes that have occurred in our force structure and provide 365-day-
a-year optional health care coverage for members of the Guard and
Reserve upon their return home. Because, truly, one-third to one-half
of members of the Guard and Reserve have no health insurance. They do
not work for companies that provide health insurance. And for those
with insurance, the current system is a patchwork. It creates a lot of
family turbulence as they are called up to active duty and then they
find their insurance plan switching to another, and so forth. And I can
tell you when they come home, many of them will fall off their
benefits. The Veterans Administration has told us they will only care
for those in active duty from the Guard and Reserve for 2 years after
they come home, and they will not care for their families.
So we have a situation here that has a lot of inequities. I would
just ask the chairman and ask the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Defense of the Committee on Appropriations and the ranking member, that
as strongly as we support this bill and the improvements for family
coverage for those in our Guard and Reserve, that when they do return
home, that in further bills that will come before us in the
appropriations process and in the authorizing bill for the Department
of Defense for 2004, that we provide optional TRICARE coverage for
those in the Guard and Reserve and their families, 365 days a year. Let
us give them that option. I ask my colleagues to support this important
measure as essential under current circumstances but far from perfect
in times of adequate support for our veterans and our homeland
security.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), chairman
of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me time.
I rise in strong support of this supplemental appropriations to pay
for Operation Iraqi Freedom and to advance and expand homeland
security.
As those of us who have seen war know, freedom is not free. It is
paid by the sacrifices of those who serve literally on the ground now
in Iraq and Afghanistan as we speak and debate here on the floor today.
Their courage is our inspiration. We wish them Godspeed, swift victory,
and a safe return.
Now that we are liberating the Iraqi people and better protecting the
safety of the American people, Congress is acting decisively today to
ensure that our soldiers, sailors, and airmen and women, that they have
the resources they need to win the war against the regime of Saddam
Hussein.
This bill essentially contains over $62 million to support our
military, to pay for the troop deployment that they are
[[Page H2730]]
presently in, to replenish essential munitions and smart munitions and
supplies. And this bill provides critical humanitarian needs on the
ground in this war-torn nation. And most importantly, this bill also
recognizes the ongoing war on terror by strengthening America's first
line of defense, our first responders, our local police and
firefighters. This supplemental deserves our strong support.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Young) for maintaining the Committee on Appropriations'
constitutional right to appropriate, and for oversight, both to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and to our ranking member, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and our staffs for making sure that
our constitutional rights as appropriators is preserved under this
supplemental.
I rise in strong support of the supplemental, our troops, our men and
women in the military who are fighting to support this country's and
around the world's freedom. I rise also to support the Obey amendment
that was not made in order. We must protect our homeland. We must
protect our hometowns. And as was mentioned earlier in the chart
displayed by the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), this supplemental does not do that yet, and we will have another
opportunity in the 2004 budget and I hope we will do that.
I represent probably the largest body of water, of international
waterway, in this country. The Ambassador Bridge is the busiest
commercial border in this country, where a billion and a half
commercial products cross that border every day; 40,000 businesses have
trucks with hazmat materials on them. Three million people drive those
trucks. And we must make sure that our homeland is protected, and we
need this homeland money so that our local communities, our targeted
communities, can have those dollars we need to protects our citizens,
not just at the ports but around this country. And this supplemental
does not do it. And I hope we will do it in our 2004 budget as we move
forward to do that.
It is so important that we speak out to let Americans know that as we
appropriate their tax dollars, we are not only taking care of
Afghanistan, Iraq, helping with our other foreign allies, but we are
doing what is necessary so that their children can be safe in their own
homes, so that the mayors can have the resources they need. It is so
important.
And I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and our staffs for bringing it to
the floor in such a timely manner. This is a good supplemental at this
time, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
I rise today to support H.R. 1559, the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for FY2003. As a member of the Appropriations Committee
and the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, I am proud of the work that
the committee was able to produce and thank Chairman Young and Ranking
Member Obey, as well as Chairman Kolbe and Ranking Member Lowey of the
Foreign Operations Subcommittee on Appropriations for their continued
leadership.
Our nation is in a time of unparalleled needs. We are waging a war
against Saddam Hussein and his regime, we are fighting a war on
terrorism, while at the same time needing to respond to the needs to
protect our homeland. This supplemental reflects what is at stake.
The supplemental includes $62.5 billion for military operations in
Iraq and the war on terrorism. As an appropriator and a member of the
United States Congress, let me say that I am committed to doing
everything I can to make sure that our troops are provided with the
equipment and resources necessary that will ensure their safety and
their ability to mount an effective opposition in Iraq, that will
ensure a successful and hopefully an expeditious end to military
action. Let me state the utmost respect and admiration I have for our
men and women in uniform and that my thoughts and prayers go out to all
of them and their families during their difficult times.
I am also proud that this bill does not reflect the blanket check
that the Administration originally sought, that would have created new
accounts and provided the Administration with programming authority,
without congressional oversight. I do not believe in writing blanket
checks. As a Member of Congress and a member of the appropriations
committee, I feel our role is more important than being just a bank. If
we are to be successful in our important missions, Congress needs to be
involved and be assured a say in how, where and to whom our money is
going. I am happy that Members on both sides of the aisle were able to
work together to ensure that Members retain congressional oversight
during these important times.
While I support this important supplemental, it is not without
certain reservations. First, this bill does not go far enough in
providing the sufficient funds needed to protect our homeland. We have
vital, unmet needs that need to be responded to effectively. We had a
chance to do right, but the Republicans, unfortunately, have blocked an
amendment by Congressman Obey that would have provided for $2.5 billion
in additional funds for our homeland security needs.
These additional funds would have allowed us to address important
issues, such as: increasing port security; protecting federal dams and
waterways from terrorist attacks; protecting important food and medical
equipment; strengthening the security of nuclear materials at home and
abroad; and strengthening U.S. laboratories' ability to cope with a
chemical attack.
I represent the 13th District of Michigan, which contains the largest
international commercial border in the nation, with $1.5 billion in
goods coming into our country every day. The City of Detroit has also
been named as one of 10 cities likely to be targeted for a terrorist
attack. Mr. Speaker, our security needs are immense here at home and we
need to act responsibly. Refusing to allow Members a vote here on the
House floor to increase funding for homeland security is an act of
irresponsibility that could have adverse consequences.
These additional funds would have allowed government agencies to
respond to the unmet needs that our nation's safety requires. Refusing
to allow Members a vote here on the House floor to increase funding for
homeland security is an act of irresponsibility and we are
shortchanging, plain and simple.
Mr. Chairman, the American people look to us to do the job of the
people and to protect and safeguard our homeland. It is time that our
words and intentions are reflected in the amount of funds that we
appropriate in the name of homeland security.
Finally, I also question the amount of funding we are providing for
reconstruction and humanitarian needs in Iraq--$2.48 billion. With the
war that presumably could last for weeks, maybe longer, the
humanitarian needs and reconstruction needs will be great.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very
distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, if I could engage the chairman in a
colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Senate version of the supplemental
contains funding for further construction activity for the National
Animal Disease Center facilities in Ames, Iowa. This initiative is one
that the Agriculture Department has been planning for some time. After
9/11 and with the potential threats to our food supply, the urgency of
this modernization initiative has become more pronounced. In fact, the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service was put into the Department
of Homeland Security because of such threats.
We are working closely with the USDA budget office to ensure a timely
and cost-effective construction schedule, enabling a usable first phase
that includes the biocontainment level 3 lab. This national animal
disease facility is important for the prevention and diagnostic
research for animal-related disease threats, when we talk about the
potential for contamination of our food supply.
The longer we delay this project, the more expensive it becomes, and
the further out the full project completion date. Without appropriate
funding, we risk our construction costs by tens of millions of dollars.
Will the Chairman agree to work with me on this National Animal Disease
Center lab modernization initiative so as to complete the full project
as soon as practical and with minimum cost increase?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would like to respond that he is correct in
his assessment of the situation, and I guarantee him that I would work
as closely with him as I possibly can to accomplish what he wishes to
accomplish.
[[Page H2731]]
The National Animal Disease Center modernization project is an
important initiative, both for updating these facilities and
particularly in light of the threats of agro- and bioterrorism. And I
thank the gentleman for calling this to our attention today.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have just a brief closing
statement. I reserve my time until the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) yields back his time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I salute the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and others
who put this package together. It funds the war in Iraq, and I strongly
support that. And it funds some important homeland defense measures,
and I support that. But I think this bill does not go far enough in
protecting our homeland security and we have a responsibility to do
something about that today.
The Obey amendment would provide $197 million for additional funding
to protect our U.S. military installations and the families, the
spouses of our soldiers fighting in Iraq, the children of our troops
defending our country through their bravery and courage in Iraq. These
projects only represented, these security upgrades, and I am talking
about fences around our military installations, guard houses, ways in
which we can responsibly protect those military bases and the families
living there.
These projects in the Obey amendment represent only the top 16
percent of security needs requested by the Army, the Navy, the Air
Force, and the Marines. This should be the least we should do. There is
no reason, other than some artificial number established by the
administration, why we should not spend just a bit more to make it
safer for our families, our military families, living within our
installations.
We cannot promise everything to our troops over in combat in Iraq.
But the one thing we have an obligation to do for them is to say, if
you will put your life on the line for our country in Iraq today, we
will defend your children and your spouses back at home.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Out of courtesy, let me say I think that the gentleman and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) are correct. We are going to
need to spend more money on homeland security, protecting our ports. We
are going to need to do that soon. But I think this is a great step in
the right direction and this is sufficient.
I want to say one thing to the whole House as a member of the
homeland security subcommittee; be careful, because of what happened at
TSA, not to overpromise to the first responders, local government,
communities, that everything called homeland security is going to be
funded by the Federal Government, because there is no possible way we
can afford to fund everything that comes under the umbrella of homeland
security.
{time} 1245
We need to be careful as a Congress. The statute for TSA said they
could not be more than 45,000 people. We created the Transportation
Security Agency. Today it is 64,000 people. We have got to be careful
the government does not go too far. We have got to be careful we do not
grow these agencies beyond our ability to manage them and to exert our
oversight. We have got to be careful. We have got to do this quick, but
we have got to do it right.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I guarantee my colleague we are being
careful, careful almost to the extent where I think we are leaving the
country vulnerable, and I really do disagree.
I think we have got a responsibility to get a plan in all the States.
We do not have all 50 States under the National Guard program, to give
each State a unit in support of local officials in a crisis. We still
do not have that done. There is a lot of things we need to do, and
money is important in getting it done.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, there are several Members who wanted to
speak, but let me yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Chairman, every Member of this House supports whatever is
necessary to give our troops every dollar and every piece of equipment
they need to come through this war successfully and unscathed, we hope;
but there are other duties which this Congress has as well, and I
believe that we are missing a huge opportunity to strengthen our
defenses here at home.
I really believe that the people who died in the Pentagon and in
Pennsylvania and the Twin Towers in New York were the last casualties
from the 1991 war against Iraq. It was that war to which bin Laden
responded, and it was because of his anger at the West for stationing
troops on Saudi territory that he lashed out in his vicious attack on
this country.
I think we have to recognize that there will be future bin Ladens,
and if we are going to have an ultimately successful result from our
attack on Iraq, we need to make certain that we do a much better job
the next 10 years in battening down the hatches against terrorism than
we did the past 10 years. That is why we wanted to offer this amendment
today; and in my view, we will pay a price for not being able to
provide these additional protections.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, outside groups like the Council on Foreign
Relations, Senator Rudman, Senator Hart, the Brookings Institute, they
have looked at these numbers, and they have said they are completely
inadequate to do the job. That is why we are so upset that we have not
been offered the chance to present an amendment today.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) presented it in the full
committee. It was a close vote. This is something that worries me
deeply.
I think we do a great job in Iraq and in Afghanistan, but we are not
doing the job we need to do right here at home to protect the United
States of America; and it is not right, and we have got to do something
better than that. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I
could not say it better myself.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
I want to say, to the Members of the House, today my colleagues are
exercising one of the most basic requirements of the Constitution, and
that is to provide for the defense of our Nation. We will appropriate
the funds today to do just that.
The situation is serious. Our young Americans are at risk on the
battlefield. It is important that we provide everything that they need
to conclude their mission and to replace whatever munitions have been
used.
Mr. Chairman, I would just ask all Americans to join in a prayer
asking God's blessing on all of those men and women who are performing
that mission today, wherever they might be in this world, and also to
ask God's blessings on the President of the United States, President
Bush, the Commander in Chief, as he leads our Nation through these very
difficult times.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this War Time
Supplemental, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
The Congress has certain responsibilities in a time of war. We have
the responsibility to authorize the use of force. We did this in the
last Congress.
And we have the responsibility to pay for the war. This supplemental
is our contribution to the war effort.
Any one who has any doubts about the justice of our cause should read
the story of Jessica Lynch, and how a bunch of Saddam's henchmen
mistreated her. They should read
[[Page H2732]]
the story of how the citizens of Najaf have welcomed our troops as
liberators from the Hussein regime.
Our troops need our help. They need our support. They need the
bullets, the MRE's, the cruise missiles, the jet fuel, which we provide
in this supplemental.
There are a lot of arm-chair quarterbacks out there, people who think
they know better how to conduct this war. In my view, our President and
his team have been doing a very good job. We are exceeding any
realistic expectations. And we can be proud of our soldiers, sailors,
and Marines. They are performing as well as any group of warriors has
ever performed.
Mr. Chairman, our cause is just. Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator
who has based his regime on torture and terror. He has supported
terrorists and he has tried to produce weapons of mass destruction. His
days are numbered, and for that, the world should be grateful.
This supplemental also contains important resources to secure the
Homeland.
Our cities and states need help in this battle against terrorists.
We want to make certain that what happened on September 11, 2001
never happens again. We want to prevent terrorists before they strike.
And we want to be prepared if they do succeed in launching an attack.
We don't know where they will target. This is a big country, and the
possible targets are as vast as the deranged imagination of an Al Qaeda
terrorist.
This bill achieves a critical balance. We don't want to federalize
every police and civil service function. But we do want to help these
localities prepare. And that is what this bill does.
Finally, let me say a word about the airline provisions of this bill.
Some say we have done too much for the airlines industry. Some say we
have done way too little. I think we have the right balance to help
airlines deal with the increased security costs brought on by war and
terrorism.
This is a simple proposal. It will help the airlines immediately, it
will help them fairly, and it will help them effectively.
Let me conclude by saying that I urge my colleagues to support this
important war supplemental. The American people want us to support our
troops and defend the Homeland in this time of war.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of
this wartime supplemental appropriations bill which provides needed
resources for our troops who are fighting so valiantly in Iraq. With a
price tag of almost $78 billion, this bill represents the largest
supplemental bill ever considered by Congress.
This bill strikes the necessary balance between providing the Defense
Department the flexibility to get resources to our troops in a timely
manner and retaining Congress' constitutional authority over the
nation's spending.
While this bill addresses our military needs abroad during this time
of war, we must remember that we're also fighting a war against
terrorism on our homefront. To do so effectively requires significant
resources for the security of our ports and borders, our
counterterrorism initiatives and our first responders on the front
lines of this war. Yet only 5 percent of the funding in this bill is
dedicated to homeland security.
Mr. Chairman, throughout this country, our states and localities are
strapped for cash. They simply do not have the resources to take on the
financial burden of homeland security. Without Federal help, there is
no way we can implement a coordinated and comprehensive effort to
defend our cities and states from attack.
Without doubt, the domestic and military needs of this country are
great. And in times of need, the American people have a proud history
of banding together and sacrificing for the betterment of the nation as
a whole
It is in this tradition of shared sacrifice that we must put the
needs of the country ahead of any personal desire for a tax cut. Our
increasing budget deficits alone show that we can't afford it. And
there's little evidence to suggest that this second tax cut would do
any better than the first at stimulating the economy.
As we consider this supplemental bill and other budget and tax
measures, I urge my colleagues to remember the true needs of this
nation by providing adequate funding for homeland security and
abandoning this fiscally irresponsible tax cut proposal that will
inevitably be paid for on the backs of future generations.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, the issue of homeland security
affects us all, and the need for adequate homeland security funding
must be a priority for Congress.
Perhaps no set of installations is more important to the economic
well-being of the nation than our nation's port--and perhaps none is
more vulnerable to the threat of a terrorist attack.
In California, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach comprise the
largest port complex in the nation, handling over 6 million cargo
containers each year--over 15,000 each and every day. These containers
represented more than $100 billion in goods entering the U.S. economy
last year.
The threat of a terrorist device entering the port through one of
those 6 million containers is very real, and the impact of such an
attack at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach would have far-
reaching and devastating effects on our nation's economy.
For example, during the 10-day lock-out in July of last year by the
pacific Maritime Association, the nation's economy lost an estimated $1
billion per day because container cargo was not moved. Container ships
were anchored outside the breakwater at the port for several days,
creating a backlog in ships waiting to berth and unload. Because of
just 10 days of inactivity, container throughputs for the year were
down nearly 10%.
The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach move cargo that is destined
for businesses across the united States that have just-in-time
inventory systems. These businesses, as far away as Michigan and Ohio,
were affected by the port lock-out and slow-down. Some manufacturing
lines cut back and furloughed employees during that port slow-down;
some were forced to shut down.
A catastrophic terrorist event that shuts down the port for a
significant period of time would have a disastrous impact on the U.S.
economy.
The City of Los Angeles has responded aggressively to this threat.
Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Los Angeles
Mayor James Hahn assembled an 18-member Seaport Security Task Force
that included the U.S. Coast Guard and federal, state and local law
enforcement officials, to devise a plan to assess the port's
vulnerabilities and upgrade the port's security in case of terrorist
attack.
Since that time, the port has invested more than $2 million to
upgrade its security infrastructure, train additional port police, and
acquire the necessary equipment to provide the required security at the
container and cruise ship terminals and berths.
However, the port's importance is clearly national in scope, and the
federal government should contribute its fair share for the increased
security needs at the port.
How great is the port's need?
During the first round of Seaport Security Grants, the Port of Los
Angeles identified $48 million in priority security improvements. Chief
among these was the construction of a high-risk container inspection
facility that would permit immediate inspections to take place on-site.
Under current procedures, questionable containers must be transported
along city streets and regional highways to the current inspection site
located 15 miles north of the port.
Unfortunately, the Port of Los Angeles was awarded only $750,000 in
federal money towards construction of a container inspection facility.
The port has applied for $11 million under the second round of Seaport
Security Grants. The security needs of the Port of Los Angeles and
ports across the nation remain great. Until we make these needed
security improvements, the Post of Los Angeles will remain just as
vulnerable to a terrorist attack as on September 11. If a terrorist
attack were to take place in Los Angeles or in any other of the
nation's ports, we would be justly criticized for not having moved more
quickly to provide the resources necessary.
I am pleased that H.R. 1559, the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations bill, contains funding for port security. But I would
contend that the $35 million for container security provided in the
bill is inadequate for the nation's needs in light of the fact that the
Port of Los Angeles alone has identified $48 million of necessary
security improvements, and the Coast Guard has indicated that $1
billion is probably a more realistic figure for what would be required
to provide adequate port security across the U.S. this year.
As a member of the Appropriations Committee that considered this bill
earlier in the week, I supported the Obey Amendment to add $250 million
in port security funding. Had Congressman Obey been permitted to offer
his amendment today, I would have voted for it on the House floor.
Mr. Chairman, I will support this bill today to provide our military
leaders and our servicemen and women the tools they need to complete
the job that has been given to them. Our military is strong, we support
our military, and our military will prevail in the war in Iraq.
While making sure our forces are secure abroad, we must also strive
to protect our people at home. The funding in this bill for port
security is inadequate for the demonstrated need, and I will continue
to fight with my Democratic colleagues for the necessary resources so
our people, our commerce, and our economy will continue to be strong,
too.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this defense
supplemental without hesitation, but with regrets and concerns.
[[Page H2733]]
To begin with, I regret that we have to be voting on this bill now.
I thought the President's decision to begin military action in Iraq
was premature. I thought it would have been better to allow more time
for other measures, including coercive inspections, to accomplish the
goal of disarming Saddam Hussein. However, Congress--by adopting the
resolution authorizing the use of force--left it to the President to
decide if and when military action would begin.
That is another source of regret. I opposed the resolution precisely
because I thought it gave the President too much discretion about the
timing of that action. But the resolution was enacted. And, now that
military action has begun, it is necessary for Congress to consider the
Administration's requests for funds to pay for it and for related
purposes.
Our troops are in the field, actively engaged in operations that
Congress has authorized. Under those circumstances, I cannot make them
the victims of my regrets by failing to support this bill to provide
them what they need to carry out those operations.
So much for my regrets. I also have strong concerns about some things
that are in this bill and some things that were left out.
The bill does have many good features. For example, I am glad that
the Appropriations Committee placed some important limits on the
President's request before bringing the bill to the floor.
Among other things, the bill bars the Pentagon from controlling the
over $2.5 billion it provides for humanitarian relief and
reconstruction and instead designates the money for the State
Department and other non-military agencies. The bill also reduces the
President's request for no-strings-attached Pentagon funding from $63
billion to $25 billion by putting the rest of the funds into
appropriate spending categories. Though the $25 billion still amounts
to a signed check with the payee line left blank, it's an improvement
over the request. Regardless of the Administration's preference, it
remains the right and duty of Congress--not the White House--to decide
how much money is allocated for what purpose.
On the other hand, I am concerned that the bill does not do enough in
other areas. In particular, I voted against ordering the previous
question on the rule, and against the rule itself, because it did not
allow a straightforward vote on the Obey amendment to add more funding
for homeland security.
The bill does include $4.25 billion for this purpose--slightly less
than the President's request--but I think that is not nearly enough to
meet the country's needs. Although many of our Republican colleagues
would have you believe that states and localities are sitting on
millions of dollars of unspent funds for first responders, my
conversations with Colorado police chiefs, fire departments, and other
first responders have convinced me that is not the case. Every time the
Department of Homeland Security changes the official color-coded threat
level, Colorado and the other States and localities are required to
spend more money that they don't have. We are asking them to provide
top-dollar security for our nation on a dime's worth of resources.
So, I am very concerned that the Republican leadership has denied us
the opportunity to vote to correct the bill's deficiencies. The Obey
amendment would have provided $2.5 billion in additional funds for our
local first responders, for port security grants, for protection for
our waterways and nuclear plants, for our National Guard and Reserves
to provide assistance with chemical and biological weapons attacks, and
for other homeland security needs.
I do not know how many of our colleagues would have joined me in
supporting this amendment--and I will never know, because the
Republican rule didn't permit a vote--but I know Colorado's first
responders would have wanted it to be a majority. That's because
homeland security is for Americans--it is not just for Democrats or
Republicans. At a time when states and cities are suffering
economically and crying out for federal assistance to meet their new
and stepped-up homeland security obligations, I believe we must do more
than we've done in this bill.
Nonetheless, as I said, I am voting for this bill without hesitation
because its prompt passage is needed--not just to support our men and
women in uniform as they fight, but also to lay the foundation for the
harder mission of winning the peace after they have won the war.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, this $77.9 billion supplemental
appropriations bill is the largest ever considered by Congress. Yet, it
still fails to address our most critical need of ``hometown'' security.
The lack of adequate funding to protect our hometowns exposes the
United States to greater risks than those posed by Saddam Hussein.
This bill provides less than half of an estimated $9 billion need for
the safety of our ports, transportation systems, water supplies, and
first responders. It even falls short of what the administration
requested for homeland security. Nationwide, cities are spending $70
million a week to protect and prepare themselves from potential attacks
at a time when state and local governments are already crippled by
economic conditions.
In the last two weeks since the war in Iraq began, my hometown of
Portland, Oregon has spent nearly a million dollars to respond to the
heightened security alert. As the State of Oregon struggles to keep
schools open and to provide medical care for the neediest people, it is
incomprehensible that we are not fulfilling our responsibility at the
federal level to help fund critical homeland security needs.
A Democratic amendment that would have added $5.5 billion for
homeland security and $300 million specifically for metropolitan
security needs, would have provided Oregon an additional $4 million to
secure, protect, and prepare our ports, our hospitals, and our first
responders against potential terrorist attacks. Appallingly, the
Republican leadership blocked this and other Democratic amendments from
even being voted on.
There is no reason to rush this resolution through to fund the war on
Iraq. It would appear to the casual observer as an attempt to hide the
true cost of the war by breaking it up into pieces. There are already
discussions that another supplemental will be necessary before the end
of the year. The 2004 budget resolution, which was just debated two
weeks ago, failed completely to deal with the expended costs of this
war.
I did not support this resolution, because it is not needed at this
moment, the process by which it was brought to the floor is
unreasonable, and it fails to fund protection for our communities.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, at a time of war Congress has no more
important duty than to make sure that our military force have all the
resources they need. However, Congress also has a duty to not use the
war as cover for unnecessary and unconstitutional spending. This is
especially true when war coincides with a period of economic downturn
and growing federal deficits. Unfortunately, Congress today is derelict
in its duty to the United States taxpayer. Instead of simply ensuring
that our military has the necessary resources to accomplish its mission
in Iraq, a mission which may very well be over before this money
reaches the Pentagon, Congress has loaded this bill up with
unconstitutional wasteful foreign aid and corporate welfare spending.
For example, this bill provides a hidden subsidy to vaccine
manufacturers by transferring liability for injuries caused by the
smallpox vaccine from the companies to the United States Taxpayer. It
also provides $3.2 billion dollars for yet another government bailout
of the airline industry, as well as a hidden subsidy to the airlines in
the form of $235 million of taxpayer money to pay for costs associated
with enhanced baggage screening. Mr. Speaker, there is no more
constitutional reason for the taxpayer to protect what is, after all,
the airlines' private property, than there is for the taxpayer to
subsidize security costs at shopping malls or factories. Furthermore,
the airlines could do a more efficient and effective job at providing
security if they were freed from government rules and regulations. I
remind my colleagues that it was government bureaucrats who disarmed
airline pilots, thus leaving the pilots of the planes used in the
September 11 attacks defenseless against the terrorists. I would also
remind my colleagues that anti-gun fanatics in the federal bureaucracy
continue to prevent pilots from carrying firearms.
Although generous to certain corporate interests, this bill actually
contains less money than the administration requested for homeland
security. One area of homeland security that Congress did not underfund
is its own security; this bill provides the full amount requested to
ensure the security of the Congress. Still, one could reasonably
conclude from reading this bill that the security of Turkey, Pakistan,
and Jordan are more important to Congress that the security of Houston,
New York and other major American cities.
On foreign spending, this bill actually provides one billion dollars
in foreign aid to Turkey--even though that country refused the U.S.
request for cooperation in the war on Iraq. One billion dollars to a
country that thumbed its nose at an American request for assistance?
How is this possibly an appropriate expenditure of taxpayer money?
Additionally, this ``war supplemental'' has provided cover for more of
the same unconstitutional foreign aid spending. It provides 2.5 billion
dollar for Iraqi reconstruction when Americans have been told
repeatedly that reconstruction costs will be funded out of Iraqi oil
revenues. It also ensures that the American taxpayer will subsidize
large corporations that wish to do business in Iraq by making
transactions with Iraq eligible for support from the Export-Import
Bank. It sends grants and loans in excess of 11.5 billion dollars to
Jordan, Israel, Egypt, and Afghanistan--above and beyond the money we
already send them each year.
Incredibly, this bill sends 175 million dollars in aid to Pakistan
even though it was reported
[[Page H2734]]
in April that Pakistan purchased ballistic missiles from North Korea!
Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how $100 million to
Colombia, $50 million to the Gaza Strip, and $200 million for ``Muslim
outreach'' has anything to do with the current war in Iraq. Also, this
bill spends $31 million to get the federal government into the
television broadcasting business in the Middle East. With private
American news networks like CNN available virtually everywhere on the
globe, is there any justification to spend taxpayer money to create and
fund competing state-run networks? Aren't state-run news networks one
of the features of closed societies we have been most critical of in
the past?
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1559 endangers America's economy by
engaging in pork-barrel spending and corporate welfare unrelated to
national security. This bill endangers America's economic health by
adding almost $80 billion to the already bloated federal deficit.
Additions to the deficit endanger our financial independence because
America will have to increase its reliance on foreign borrowers to
finance our debt. H.R. 1599 also shortchanges Americans by giving lower
priority to funding homeland security than to funding unreliable allies
and projects, like the Middle Eastern TV Network, that will do nothing
to enhance America's security. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, knowing full
well that it will pass today.
Like many of you here in Congress and like millions of Americans
across the country, my hopes and prayers go out to our troops. I want
to see them safe at home as soon as possible. I deeply admire their
courage, mourn their losses, and honor their sacrifice and commitment.
I cannot, however, endorse the decision to send our troops into
harm's way by launching a first strike against Iraq. I fear we are
witnessing the first chapter of the Doctrine of Preemption. This
Doctrine of Preemption is taking us more deeply into uncharted waters.
No one knows where this will end.
There is also no end in sight to the costs of war and to the price we
will pay here at home in the America we will not be able to build. Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. taught us, ``In the wasteland of war, the
expenditure of resources knows no restraints.''
Thus, I cannot support the $75 billion down payment on this war that
makes up the bulk of this supplemental while under-funding homeland
security by $4 billion. With those facts, in mind, I must oppose this
appropriations bill.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I am aware that many of my constituents
hope that I vote ``no'' on this supplemental appropriations bill. Many
of my constituents are passionate in their opposition to the Iraqi
invasion. Last fall, I voted against the resolution that authorized the
invasion because I believed the invasion was a mistake for our country.
But that fact is this: The resolution passed the Congress. Whether or
not one agreed with the actions that led up to today, America's troops
are now in the field and the bills need to be paid. Accordingly, I will
vote ``aye'' on this bill.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, two years ago, I don't think
there would be any doubt that most Americans would have felt a sense of
safety, but in today's world that is not the case. Indeed, in today's
world of opting to spend an estimated $9 million on security for the
Super Bowl, Americans are looking for a greater feeling of safety and
security in their daily lives, whether in their homes, on the street,
or in their workplace.
While tensions abroad are troubling, we can't overlook or underfund
our own homeland security.
There is a bipartisan consensus that protecting the security of our
communities requires that we adequately equip and train our first
responders, who form our first line of response to any terrorist
attacks. These first responders need additional funding to match
mandates and goals, particularly to address the need for new
communications equipment. Fire fighters need to be able to communicate
with police officers, and police officers need to be able to
communicate with emergency medical personnel in order to effectively
protect our communities.
Recently, a group of over 80 police, fire and emergency response
agencies in Oregon came to me requesting funding for a regional
communications system that would allow all the agencies to communicate
with one another. This proposal cost $59 million and would greatly
improve the regional response capability of these first responders.
Increasing money for first responders may allow them to build their
communications system.
We are in the midst of an extraordinary time, when we and our allies
are pursuing a war on terrorism that extends across the globe. Our
resources, troops, intelligence agents, and surveillance equipment are
currently spread across the world, from Yemen to the Philippines, from
Afghanistan to Colombia.
In our own backyards, at the borders with Canada and Mexico, in the
hundreds of seaports on our coast, indeed even in our own communities,
I will fight to ensure that we have the proper resources or
organization to prevent terrorist attacks.
In the midst of this lack of resources and organization, we hear
constant reports that new attacks on American soil are being planned.
Members of President Bush's administration have publicly stated that
they believe another attack on American soil is nearly inevitable.
During a time when our nation seems its most vulnerable and under its
greatest threat, we have the responsibility to ensure that everyday
Americans are safe and secure. We must protect and defend our cities at
home during these troubling times by investing in our new Department of
Homeland Security, by providing local law enforcement and first
responders with adequate resources to prevent or respond to any future
attacks.
I am disappointed that this legislation includes less spending on
homeland security than was requested by the President, and I am
disappointed that the rule was structured in such a way to prevent
amendments increasing homeland security spending.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McGovern
Amendment. The war on drugs in Colombia should not receive funding in
an emergency supplemental spending bill. Additional funding for
Colombia should properly be considered as part of our regular
appropriations process for fiscal year 2004. Muddling the important
issues at stake in Colombia with an amorphous definition of terrorism
and then burying the funding in a bill that is on a fast-track is not
the way we should proceed.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The balance of my remarks relate to the underlying issue of war in
Iraq and this Supplemental Appropriations bill.
I am one of the 133 Members of this body who cast a ``no'' vote on
the resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq last October. I
believed then as I do today that alternative means exist to deal with
the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. I believed then as I do today that
the world will not be a safer place because of this war. I believed
then as I do today that the new Bush doctrine of preemptive military
action threatens to further destabilize our world.
For those of us who voted against war in Iraq, this is an incredibly
painful and difficult time. Many of our constituents are feeling angry
and frustrated, powerless and hurt, worried and disappointed. We've
been searching for ways to take meaningful steps toward peace, having
failed to convince this President, a majority of this Congress and a
majority of the American people that war in Iraq is not the right path.
When I refer to the phrase ``meaningful steps toward peace,'' I have
three very specific goals in mind. First, I deeply believe that the
Bush policy of preemptive war must end, here and now.
Secondly, I believe that we must take immediate responsibility for
rebuilding strong trusting relationships with the international
community because too many of these relationships have been strained
and damaged when this administration turned away from pursuit of a
diplomatic resolution to this problem. Lastly, I believe that we must
take immediate responsibility for rebuilding Iraq.
Throughout our history, the United States has been viewed by the
world as a beacon of freedom and a pillar of democratic principle.
While never perfect, we were admired for our openness, our charity and
our commitment to liberty. Weary of war, we created, supported and
enhanced international institutions and agreements to encourage
peaceful solutions to world disagreements and conflicts. The United
States was seen as a constructive force in the world. Right now we are
seen by many as a destructive force in the world.
I stand here today to urge this President and this Congress to return
to our tradition of constructiveness rather than destructiveness. We
should be builders rather than destroyers.
A vote against this bill would do nothing to stop this war. If a
``no'' vote would stop the war, that is how I would vote. Rather, I
urge Members and citizens to join me in the effort to become
constructive as a nation, once again, to become builders, once again.
This measure does contain resources to begin the rebuilding process. In
light of these considerations, I expect to cast a vote to pass this
bill.
We must rebuild and restore our relationships with our allies and our
friends around the world. Our long term security rests in working
cooperatively in a world community with international standards and
laws, seeking peaceful solutions to the many challenges we face.
We must also rebuild Iraq. We can't back away now. American
compassion, generosity and respect in Iraq are the essential first step
in restoring trust between the United States and the Islamic world.
I said that we must construct and we must build rather than destroy.
But, I make one exception to that statement. We must destroy
[[Page H2735]]
the doctrine of preemption. In fact the policy of preemption must be
buried deep beneath the Iraqi desert, never to appear again. It is
illegal and wrong and it harms American security far more than it
helps. Beyond preemption lies the American way--democracy, diplomacy,
cooperation and compassion.
Mr. Chairman, peace is not simply the absence of war. The seeds of
peace must be planted and nurtured. A peaceful world must be tended. It
is my hope that it is the rebirth of our true vision of America, in
which we reject the ``got-it-alone'' mentality, reject preemption and
endorse the hard work of building and growing a peaceful world.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this
Supplemental Appropriations bill. I must admit that I opposed the war
that this bill is funding. This war is the result of failed diplomacy.
This war cost us valuable allies, and now it is costing us our lives.
It will also cost us--the American taxpayer--billions of dollars.
In the last Persian Gulf war, we relied on our allies. The war cost
the U.S. about $61 billion, but almost all of it was reimbursed. The
amount of money in this one Supplemental--larger than the entire cost
of the first Persian Gulf war--is the largest Supplemental in history.
At about $75 billion, this Supplemental is larger than the entire
budget of the State of California.
My opposition to the war, however, is not the principal reason for my
opposition to this bill today. I oppose the bill for two reasons:
First, because it leaves our first responders at home--our ``troops''
on the homefront--without complete protection. Second, I don't believe
this bill addresses another emergency--repairing U.S. relations with
the international community and its representative organizations, such
as the United Nations and NATO.
The Emergency that this bill supposedly addresses is American
security. While we must remain concerned with the impact of
international affairs on American security, first and foremost,
American security begins at home. Our attention as Congress, must
therefore be focused on protecting the territory of the United States
from attack. That was the danger we faced on September 11th. That is
the apparent reason that we intervened in Afghanistan and now Iraq, and
in other countries across the globe.
This bill inadequately addresses the security needs of the United
States. We are spending $62.5 billion for military activities in this
bill, and only $4.25 billion for ``Homeland Security''. Our troops
overseas should be secure in the knowledge that their loved ones here
are safe from any form of domestic terrorism.
An amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin would have
addressed some of these needs, but the Republican leadership did not
allow the amendment to be debated on the floor of the House.
This bill also purportedly addresses the future of rebuilding Iraq.
It provides $2.4 billion for ``Relief and Reconstruction''. The sum is
woefully inadequate to meet the needs of the Iraqi people. We, the
United States, are in the process of bombing their country, destroying
their infrastructure. And when the war is over (which I hope will be
soon), we will ask them to rebuild and form their country into a
democracy. This bill provides more money for another airline bail-out
than it does to provide the foundations of an Iraqi democracy.
Moreover, the money for reconstruction in Iraq--which is supposed to
cover a huge range of activities including health, education,
transportation, rule of law, agriculture--comes with no apparent
structure or oversight. The post-conflict reconstruction of Iraq can
provide the U.S. an opportunity to rebuild its frayed alliances with
the international community, an opportunity to work with the United
Nations and to strengthen its credibility, credibility that was
undermined by the unilateralist approach the Administration has taken
previously towards Iraq. This bill shows no vision of an international
civilian administration in post-conflict Iraq, one that will be crucial
to winning the peace. This task, as has been demonstrated in
Afghanistan, could be far more difficult than a successful war
campaign.
My vote today is in no way a vote against American troops in the
field. Their safety is foremost in my thoughts; I hope that they will
return quickly to safety of their homes. My vote, rather, is a vote
against the priorities of this Administration and the Republican
majority, priorities that place an offensive war abroad above defensive
protection at home. Priorities to place short-term, unilateral quick-
fixes over international solutions which are sustainable in the longer-
term.
This vote is about current U.S. foreign policy and about what
direction we are heading in. I think that we are supporting the wrong
priorities and are heading in the wrong direction, and that is why I am
voting against this bill.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us provides the additional
funds required for the ongoing war in Iraq. $62 billion will help
provide the supplies, munitions, weapons, intelligence, and logistics
that are critical to those in combat at this time. I support our brave
troops, and urge my colleagues to do the same. Congress must ensure
that our fighting men and women are provided with every resource they
need to accomplish their mission and return home quickly and safely.
As I cast my vote in favor of this measure, however, I note that
there is $1 billion in foreign aid for Turkey. The Administration
argues that we need to offer this aid because of the depressed economy
there. I voted to strike this aid, since it makes no sense to provide a
billion dollars to a nation that did not even allow our troops access
to their soil for this operation. Unfortunately, the amendment was
defeated.
Further, as I support this measure, I would hope that Congress is
equally generous when addressing the challenges that we face right here
on the home front. For instance, our economy is in worse shape than
Turkey's, having steadily declined for the last two years and with job
losses in my district and across the nation continuing to mount. But
somehow we have no funds to provide extended unemployment benefits for
the 1 million in our country who have been out of work for more than 39
weeks.
Additionally, seniors need a prescription drug benefit for Medicare,
and families have contacted me to ask what can be done about
skyrocketing healthcare costs. We also must ensure that federal
commitments in education and healthcare are met, and that our homeland
security is strong and our first responders equipped and prepared. Here
at home we have needs that also could use this additional funding that
we have provided to other nations through this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I support our men and women in uniform and pray for
their quick and safe return. We must give them everything they need to
accomplish their mission. I just hope that later on, this Congress will
remember what it gave for Turkey's economy when it comes time to vote
on providing extended benefits to the many still unemployed right here
at home. With this in mind, I urge my colleagues to support passage of
this Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations bill.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1559, the
fiscal year 2003 Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act. I
applaud the swift bipartisan effort that has brought this vital
legislation to the floor so quickly. I also congratulate my colleagues
on the Appropriations Committee for resisting the Administration's
effort to wrest from the Congress its constitutional prerogative of
overseeing all monies drawn from the Treasury. Our founding fathers
rightly understood the need for accountability among the branches of
government--even in times of crisis.
The funding provided in this bill is critical to ensuring that the
brave men and women in our armed services have the tools and resources
necessary to accomplish a swift, sure and decisive victory over tyranny
and oppression in Iraq. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues
to vote in favor of H.R. 1559 and for the full and continuing support
for our troops deployed in the war on terrorism.
The best of America, and thousands of the best from my home state of
Texas--our men and women in uniform, active duty and reserve components
alike--are now in harm's way in Iraq, on the high seas and at the far
corners of the world. These brave Americans now risk their lives to
confront the oppression, tyranny, and terrorism that plague and
threaten the world and our nation.
One of America's finest tradition is our ability to draw together in
support of our men and women in uniform when they are actively engaged
in the defense of our freedom. American forces in the Iraqi theater
fight not for narrow interests or for reasons of national pride.
American soldiers, sailors, aviators, and Marines are engaged in combat
today so that our people do not live in a world in which tyrants armed
with weapons of horror hold free nations hostage, and in doing so
threaten freedom itself.
Accordingly, it is our solemn obligation to stand solidly behind our
soldiers, sailors, aviators and Marines and to give our men and women
in uniform the full and complete support they must have in order to
prevail in this war and come safely home. This wartime supplemental
appropriations bill is an appropriate first step in fulfilling our
obligation.
However, Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I am concerned that
this bill is incomplete. It is merely a down payment on the war in Iraq
and, more broadly, on the war on terrorism at home and abroad.
The noble effort currently underway to liberate Iraq from a
tyrannical regime is but one front in the global war on terrorism.
The Department of Homeland Security has elevated the national threat
level to ``High'' because of its belief that there is a high risk of
terrorist attacks against U.S. targets as a consequence of the war in
Iraq. Despite this level of alarm, the bill being considered by the
House today does not provide adequate resources to secure our own
communities
[[Page H2736]]
against the very real threats the government has told us we face.
H.R. 1559 does not provide the tools and resources needed by the
brave men and women on the front lines in the event of a terrorist
attack against our local cities and towns. We should ensure that state
and local civil defense teams are established and equipped to meet the
needs of our communities in the event of such a tragedy. We should
provide all the necessary resources so that the firefighters, police
officers and emergency medical personnel can effectively respond to any
and all threats to the peace and security of our citizens.
H.R. 1559 does not provide sufficient resources to secure our
nation's ports and infrastructure.
In virtually every one of our towns across this country is a water-
treatment facility that ensures that each of us has safe drinking
water. Virtually all of these water-treatment facilities are vulnerable
to terrorist attack and so our most basic necessity of life--water--is
not adequately secured. Despite this, the Administration did not seek
and this bill does not provide one penny to better secure our water-
treatment facilities.
In addition, our nation's ports are vulnerable, as are dams, bridges
and tunnels throughout the country. Even so, this bill does not provide
the resources needed to secure our country's critical infrastructure.
In a time during which the threat of the horrific use of weapons of
mass destruction is very real, we have to step up and ensure that our
state and local governments have the tools they need to respond
effectively to chemical or biological terrorism. We must ensure that
our front-line defenders have adequate training and are properly
equipped to secure the safety of our friends and family at home.
While H.R. 1559 is a thoughtful, measured response to the needs of
our armed forces on the field in Iraq, it does not provide tools that
are critical to adequately secure our local communities--the places
where Americans live and work, where we raise our children and care for
our families.
I support H.R. 1559 as a first step, but I believe that we have a
solemn obligation to do more. The preamble to the Constitution spells
it out as well as one could: We are obliged to ``insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity.''
Mr. Speaker, I will vote for H.R. 1559 in full and complete support
of the brave men and women of our armed services in harm's way so far
from home. But, Mr. Speaker, I also urge my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to do more--to vote to secure our cities and communities
against the very real threats that they face every day during these
uncertain times. Mr. Speaker, we must ``secure the Blessings of
Liberty'' here at home with the same vigor and with the same measure of
devotion that we have shown to bringing freedom to the people of Iraq.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R.
1559, the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal
Year 2003, While I believe that it is a tragedy that the Republican
Leadership in the House did not allow the Democrats to offer an
amendment to include funding to support critical first responder and
other homeland security needs, we have no choice to vote for this bill
to support our brave men and women now engaged in hostilities in Iraq.
My support for this bill does not mean, however, that I will not
continue my fight with my like-minded colleagues to provide additional
funds to enhance the security of Americans at home. We urgently need to
address vulnerabilitites in our ports, borders, transportation system
and other critical infrastructure, and we need to augment our first-
response by way of training, equipment and communality of
communications, in reinforce counter-terrorism and other capabilities.
As Ranking Member on the Committee on House Administration, I am
pleased that this bill includes funds to address the needs of several
Legislative Branch agencies under my Committee's jurisdiction. There is
over $37 million for general expenses of the Capitol Police, mostly for
additional equipment to improve the physical security of the Capitol,
the temple of our democracy which thousands of American and foreign
tourists visit each year. The bill provides $63.9 million for
acquisition of a larger headquarters for the Capitol Police. Our police
force has grown considerably since the 1998 shootings and 9/11, and
there is a need for more space to consolidate functions and improve
operational efficiency.
Also under our jurisdiction, the bill funds security-related work in
the Library of Congress and the Congressional Research Service. The
bill funds the newly constituted House Select Committee on Homeland
Security, which will, under the able leadership of the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cox] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Turner], oversee
our newest department and its enormous job of making our people as safe
as we can be made from terrorism.
I am particularly pleased that this bill includes $110,000 to satisfy
an operating shortfall at the Office of Compliance. While this amount
of money is very small in the context of the overall bill, it is
important to ensure fairness in the Congressional Accountability Act
complaint process by allowing the Office to employ outside, independent
mediators. I would like to compliment the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Kingston] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], Chairman and
Ranking Minority Member of the Legislative Branch Appropriations
Subcommittee, respectively, for recognizing the importance of this
program and for providing the funding needed for it to continue.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney], Chairman of the House Administration
Committee, our Committee colleagues, and members of the Appropriations
Committee on these and a number of matters in coming months to ensure
the security and other needs of the first branch of government are
properly met.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe we need to urgently act on
providing additional resources to meet our country's homeland security
needs that this bill fails to address. In the meantime, however, I rise
in support of this bill to provide short term funding for our troops
and security needs of the Congress and would urge my colleagues to vote
in favor of it.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
supplemental--funding to provide for our troops and homeland security.
This supplemental will support the men and women of our Armed Forces
in Operation Iraqi Freedom and help provide humanitarian relief for the
people of Iraq.
The brutality of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime continues to be
revealed through the brave efforts of the men and women of our Armed
Forces. Saddam's death squads--his enforcers--go into cities to ensure
that the people not rise up against him. They execute civilians. They
go door-do-door, take children from their homes, and hold them hostage
under the threat of massacre. Saddam Hussein's regime has a documented
record of gassing, torturing, raping and executing its own people.
While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from this Iraqi
regime stands alone--because, as President Bush has said, it gathers
the most serious dangers of our age in one place under the leadership
of a merciless dictator.
What if we had refused to take the necessary action to stop this
Iraqi dictator from building his weapons of mass destruction--chemical,
biological, and nuclear? What if we had allowed him to supply these
weapons to international terrorists?
My friends, not long ago we came to the Floor and voted to allow
President Bush to use every tool at his disposal to stop this threat to
the American people and the world. We must make sure that our military
has everything it needs to do the job that they have been asked to do.
Under difficult circumstances, our troops continue to make good
progress toward our objectives of ending the Iraqi regime, freeing the
Iraqi people, and disarming the country of weapons of mass destruction.
Our forces are fighting well, with overwhelming force, and have
defeated every threat they have encountered.
It is our obligation to make sure that they are fully supported in
this endeavor. I urge my colleagues to vote for this supplemental.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the supplemental bill
before the House today.
As a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have been
anxiously awaiting this supplemental since current war operations are
being funded out of this year's third and fourth quarter accounts. I
thank the committee for your rapid action on this bill.
Our young men and women are performing magnificently right now in
Iraq, as well as in Afghanistan. It doesn't matter if you agreed with
the first strike policy, our troops are on the ground and operating
with great professionalism. It falls to the Congress to make sure our
troops have what they need to prosecute this war on all fronts.
I thank the appropriators for largely keeping the control over the
spending in this bill with Congress, not giving away our Constitutional
authority to the executive branch.
While I'm glad we are addressing some homeland security needs, what
concerns me is a lack of proper funding for our nation's first
responders, the first line of defense for us here in the United States.
I was surprised the committee is recommending even less for homeland
security than the president requested.
[[Page H2737]]
September 11--and the anthrax attack the following month--taught us
that we are vulnerable here in the United States. We must employ the
lessons we learned from those attacks and ensure these men and women
are adequately funded.
We still have every reason to believe there will be a retaliatory
attack here in the U.S., and we are still woefully unprepared. That
does not need to be the case, but to date we have vastly under-funded
our first responders. I am disappointed the committee did not adopt Mr.
Obey's amendment that would have added in more funding for this
priority.
I represent a border and coastal district, with needs related to
border security, Coast Guard funding, port and container security, plus
other priorities. The constant refrain is: we cannot afford it. Here's
the reality: we can't afford not to fund these urgent needs.
I will continue to work with my colleagues on the Appropriations
Committee to find the money new agencies of the Department of Homeland
Security need to conduct the tracking of foreign nationals from
countries suspected of supporting terrorist activities, something we
need to be doing better.
Our border stations need more money for the infrastructure to
accurately and completely use biometrics in the entry-exit system of
our tracking programs . . . to follow both those who aren't citizens
and cargo originating outside the country. All the money in the bill
appears to be for the Canadian border. While it was the Canadian border
that the Sept. 11 hijackers crossed, the cost of increased security
level along the Mexican border is being ignored.
I'm pleased to see money for Coast Guard operations. But our Coast
Guard needs more funding for both infrastructure and operations. They
are living up to their missions heroically, but their mission to
protect every single mile of shoreline in the nation.
We must provide complete containment security at every port in the
nation. South Texas is home to 2 deep seaports--making us a vulnerable
place for those who want to get weapons or people into the country.
I appreciate our directing the authority for rebuilding Iraq to the
Secretary of State, not the Pentagon. The Pentagon runs wars . . .
diplomats run peace.
This war will touch many more of us before it is over. Already, South
Texans are bearing the painful price for the war in Iraq, including
young Edward Anguiano from Los Fresnos, Texas, who was listed as
missing just this past weekend.
Our community is praying for Edward, his family, and other children
of Texas who are serving in this war. We pray for the troops' safety,
and for a rapid conclusion to this war.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, $74.7 billion seems sufficient to wage war
for quite some time, but when it is broken down, there is less than
meets the eye.
Of the $74.7 billion, $62.6 billion goes to DoD.
Of the $62.6 billion allocated to DoD, $30.3 billion goes to cover
``sunk cost,'' which the supplemental calls ``coercive diplomacy.''
Of the remaining $32.3 billion: $13.1 billion is allocated for a
``short, extremely intense period of combat operations''; $12 billion
is allocated for post-war ``mopping up'' and phasing the combat force
into an occupation force; $7.2 billion is allocated for redeployment,
replenishment of munitions, and repair of weapon systems. Of the $7.2
billion, about $1.1 billion goes to Iraq's reconstruction.
In addition, $7.8 billion is allocated out of the $74.7 billion for
aid and humanitarian assistance to Israel and Jordan and other nations
as well as post-war Iraq. Out of this $7.8 billion, some $2.4 billion
is identified for reconstruction and humanitarian aid to Iraq. Added to
the $1.1 billion, this makes aid to post-war Iraq equal to about $3.5
billion.
One must conclude, therefore, that this supplemental is probably a
first installment on the cost of this war. The supplemental will not
cover (1) the cost of combat lasting more than 2-3 months, (2) the cost
of prolonged occupation by a sizeable force, or (3) our likely share of
the post-war reconstruction and humanitarian aid.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in full support of the
Democratic amendment to the Republican Supplemental for Homeland
Security. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
vote in favor of the democratic substitute.
Regardless of the speed of our success in Iraq, regardless of how we
personally feel about our role in Iraq, we must recognize that our
Homeland needs to be our first priority for defense. We must provide
appropriate funding to our first responders and our preventative
Homeland defense. The Democratic substitute recognizes our pressing
needs. The Democratic substitute provides additional funding for the
protection of our ports and infrastructure, state/local first
responders, and extremely vulnerable nuclear facilities. For example,
in the Republican supplemental Puerto Rico would receive most needed
resources for Homeland defense; however, the Democratic substitute
provides additional resources to the Commonwealth. In fact, the
Democratic substitute provides all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the territories additional
resources.
The city of San Juan in Puerto Rico has one of the most important
ports of any U.S. Jurisdiction--it is one of the most popular stops for
Caribbean cruise liners and one of the most active commercial ports. We
need those additional dollars to provide the most effective
fortification of our vulnerable infrastructure and ports-of-entry.
I commend all of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, for
bringing this important issue to the floor and to full democratic
debate. I, also, commend them for acknowledging the importance of our
Caribbean ports-of-entry.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time for general
debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 1559
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I--WAR-RELATED APPROPRIATIONS
CHAPTER 1
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Public Law 480 Title II Grants
For an additional amount for ``Public Law 480 Title II
Grants'', $250,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust
The Secretary of Agriculture shall utilize the funds and
authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation to acquire a
quantity of commodities for use in administering the Bill
Emerson Humanitarian Trust in an amount equal to the quantity
utilized by the Corporation pursuant to the release of March
20, 2003, relating to the use of commodities for assistance
in Iraq: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, monetization of stocks in the Bill Emerson
Humanitarian Trust to purchase different commodities for
humanitarian aid to Iraq is prohibited.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
In chapter 1 of title I, insert at the end the following:
Food Safety and Inspection Service
For an additional amount for ``Food Safety and Inspection
Service'', $13,000,000, to remain available until expended,
for activities authorized under section 332 of the Public
Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness Response Act of
2002 (Pub. L. 107-188).
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
salaries and expenses
For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'',
$17,000,000, to remain available until expended.
In chapter 3 of title I, under the heading ``OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE'', in the item relating to ``Operation and
Maintenance, Army National Guard'' insert after the dollar
amount the following: ``(increased by $160,200,000)''.
In chapter 3 of title I, under the heading ``OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE'', insert at the end the following:
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army Reserve'', $66,000,000.
In title I, after chapter 3, insert the following new
chapter:
CHAPTER 3A
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps Of Engineers--Civil
Operation And Maintenance, General
For an additional amount for ``Operations and Maintenance,
General'' for safeguards and security activities,
$108,000,000, to remain available until expended.
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
water and related resources
For an additional amount for ``Water and Related
Resources'' for safeguards and security activities,
$24,000,000, to remain available until expended.
[[Page H2738]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Science
For an additional amount for ``Science'' to support
additional safeguards and security activities, $7,500,000, to
remain available until expended.
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
NATIOINAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Weapons Activities
For an additional amount for ``Weapons Activities'' to
support additional safeguards and security activities,
$68,200,000, to remain available until expended.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
For an additional amount for ``Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation'' for various domestic and international
nonproliferation activities, $175,000,000, to remain
available until expended.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
For an additional amount for ``Defense Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management'' to support additional
safeguards and security activities, $11,300,000, to remain
available until expended.
Other Defense Activities
For an additional amount for ``Other Defense Activities''
to support increased Office of Intelligence mission
requirements resulting from the conflict in Iraq, $5,000,000,
to remain available until expended.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER
international materials protection, control, and accounting
Sec. 1351. (a) Definition.--As used in this section,
``sensitive material'' means nuclear weapons or components
thereof, nuclear materials, radioactive materials, and
related technology and sources that pose a risk of
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
(b) International Materials Protection, Control, and
Accounting Program.--The Secretary of Energy may expand the
International Materials Protection, Control and Accounting
program outside the Russian Federation, and the independent
states of the former Soviet Union. The program may include,
but is not limited to, assisting countries to--
(1) reduce the risk of theft of sensitive material or of
diversion of sensitive material to terrorists or terrorist
organizations;
(2) store securely sensitive material;
(3) establish procedures, such as inspections, audits, and
systematic background checks, to improve the security of the
use, transportation, and storage of sensitive material; and
(4) improve their domestic export control and border
security programs for sensitive material.
(c) Applicability.--This section shall only apply with
respect to amounts appropriated by this Act and any previous
appropriations Act enacted before the date of enactment of
this Act.
In title I, after chapter 4, insert the following new
chapter:
CHAPTER 4A
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
construction
For an additional amount for ``Construction'', $18,000,000,
to remain available until expended.
Departmental Management
salaries and expenses
(including transfer of funds)
For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'',
$10,000,000, to remain available until expensed, for
extraordinary costs to provide for the security of
departmental facilities; Provided, That the Secretary of the
Interior may transfer such funds to other accounts of the
Department of the Interior, as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate, for use by the agencies or bureaus of the
Department to offset such homeland security costs.
In chapter 5 of title I, under the heading ``BORDER AND
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY'', in the item relating to ``Office
for Domestic Preparedness'', insert after the first and
second dollar amounts the following: ``(increased by
$300,000,000)''.
In chapter 5 of title I, under the heading ``BORDER AND
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY'', insert at the end the following:
Firefighter Assistance Grants
For an additional amount for ``Firefighter Assistance
Grants'' for programs as authorized by section 33 of the
Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C.
2201 et seq.), $150,000,000, to remain available until
December 31, 2003.
Emergency Management Planning and Assistance
For an additional amount for ``Emergency Management
Planning and Assistance'' for grants for interoperable
communications equipment, $350,000,000, to remain available
until December 31, 2003.
Transportation Security Administration
maritime and land security
For an additional amount for ``Maritime and Land
Security'', $250,000,000, for making port security grants to
be distributed under the same terms and conditions as
provided for under Public Law 107-117, to remain available
until December 31, 2003.
In chapter 5 of title I, under the heading ``COAST GUARD'',
in the item relating to ``Operating Expenses'', insert after
the dollar amount the following: ``(increased by
$100,000,000)''.
In chapter 5 of title I, under the heading ``COAST GUARD'',
insert at the end the following:
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
For an additional amount for ``Acquisition, Construction,
and Improvements'', $90,000,000, to remain available until
December 31, 2003.
In chapter 6 of title I, in the item relating to ``Public
Health and Social Services Emergency Fund'', insert at the
end the following:
For an additional amount for ``Public Health and Social
Services Emergency Fund'', for the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, to be used to improve Federal, State,
and local preparedness against potential chemical terrorism,
$75,000,000.
In chapter 8 of title I, under the heading ``MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION'', in the item relating to ``Military
Construction, Navy'', insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $92,579,300)''.
In chapter 8 of title I, under the heading ``MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION'', in the item relating to ``Military
Construction, Air Force'', insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increase by $28,160,000)''.
In chapter 8 of title I, under the heading ``MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION'', insert at the end the following:
Military Construction, Army
For an additional amount for ``Military Construction,
Army,'' $65,340,000, to remain available until expended.
Military Construction, Air National Guard
For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, Air
National Guard,'' $8,800,000, to remain available until
expended.
Military Construction, Army Reserve
For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, Army
Reserve'', $2,200,000, to remain available until expended.
In the Transportation and Treasury chapter of title I,
insert after the chapter heading the following:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
National Railroad Passenger Corporation
For necessary life/safety capital improvements of the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation as authorized by 49
U.S.C. 24104(a), $50,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
In the VA-HUD chapter of title I, insert after the heading
for ``DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS'' the following:
Veterans Health Administration
medical care
For an additional amount for ``Medical Care'', for
enhancement of emergency preparedness, $70,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2004.
In the VA-HUD chapter of title I, insert at the end the
following:
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Environmental Protection Agency
science and technology
For an additional amount for ``Science and Technology,''
$100,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$25,000,000 is for water systems vulnerability analysis and
$75,000,000 is for chemical plant vulnerability assessments.
hazardous substances superfund
(including transfers of funds)
For an additional amount for the ``Hazardous Substances
Superfund'', $75,000,000, to remain available until expended,
for carrying out homeland security activities authorized by
law related to the agency's counter-terrorism programs
including radiological, biological, and chemical attacks:
Provided, That these activities include, but are not limited
to, (1) support of State and local responders to plan for
emergencies, (2) coordination with federal partners, (3)
training of first responders, and (4) providing resources
including federal personnel in the event of any attack:
Provided further, That the Administrator may transfer such
portion of these funds as she deems appropriate to other
agencies of the Federal government with expertise in
radiological, biological, chemical attack related counter-
terrorism programs: Provided further, That the Administrator
is authorized to make grants to states for radiological,
biological, and chemical attack related to counter-terrorism.
Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment attempts to add $2.5 billion
in funding for homeland security. It seems to me that if we can
undertake an effort that will provide basic health
[[Page H2739]]
care for Iraqis, 25 million Iraqis, if we can provide for the
reconstruction of 6,000 schools in Iraq and 100 hospitals in Iraq, it
seems to me that we can at least do the minimum necessary to batten
down the hatches here at home and protect our communities, our ports,
our first responders, our schools and our other citizens from potential
terrorist attacks.
This amendment seeks to add $135 million to increase the
sophistication of our anti-nuclear detection equipment in the 10 main
ports around the world that ship over 50 percent of the shipping
containers into the United States. We are incredibly vulnerable to the
use of a dirty nuclear device in our ports, and this would be a major
step forward in correcting that vulnerability.
We also want to spend $87 million to provide additional oversight of
nuclear materials stored here in the United States so it is not
reachable by terrorists.
We want to provide $150 million to upgrade the State public health
departments and environmental laboratories in order to strengthen our
ability to respond to chemical weapons attacks.
We want to provide additional funding to follow up on the site-by-
site analyses of our vulnerability or of the vulnerability of our
Federal dams and waterways across the country.
We want to provide $75 million to initiate assessments of the
vulnerability of the U.S. chemical plants in the country.
We want to provide an additional $300 million for first responders
and $150 million of that specifically for firefighter grants to raise
that program up to its authorized level of $900 million.
We want to provide additional funding to our National Guard civil
support team so that every State in the Union can have a qualified
National Guard backup operation to supplement the actions of our first
responders in case of terrorist attacks in our localities.
We want to see to it that the Coast Guard is expanded by at least
2,000 personnel beginning in October, rather than waiting until next
April. The Coast Guard is stretched to the breaking point at this
point.
We want to see to it that many of the other ports in the United
States have the same detection equipment that is now available in
Norfolk and will soon be available in San Diego.
We want to respond to the fact that the Coast Guard has estimated
that we need $4.5 billion in additional funding for our local port
authorities over the next 10 years. We want to provide an additional
response to that.
We want to deal with the fact that today, if there were an attack on
our tunnels, our Amtrak tunnels, in a number of cities across the
country, that, in fact, the ability to evacuate people from those
tunnels right now is extremely and dangerously limited. And I would
point out that the size of this amendment is smaller than the amendment
that is contained in the bill to provide aid to airlines. It is very
much smaller, about a third the size of the foreign assistance that is
contained in this bill for other countries.
This is the minimum that we ought to be doing. I originally submitted
a list that would come up to almost $8 billion in what we regard as
essential security, home front security operations that need to be
undertaken. None of these ideas originate with us. They all originate
with the agencies charged with the responsibility of protecting the
security of the United States at home.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge that the Members of this House not
lodge an objection to this amendment so that we can, in fact, at least
have a debate on this issue. We are in the minority. We understand that
we cannot expect to win on many votes around here, but at least in the
people's House, we ought to be able to debate these issues. You already
have 13 votes more than we have on this side of the aisle. You will
most assuredly win; but at least take the gag off, and let us have the
opportunity to have an up or down vote on something that ought to be a
totally bipartisan effort.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The committee,
as I said before in general debate, provided $3.5 billion for the
Department of Homeland Security activities related to the war effort.
This amendment would add another substantial amount of money to that
figure, which at this moment in time is not necessary.
This bill, this supplemental bill we are talking about is only for a
3-month period of time. We will have plenty of time after that to look
to the future, but for this 3-month window of time, I say to the
Members, this money is adequate. Could we spend more? Of course, we can
shovel money out the door, but we have tried to be reasonable and
somewhat restrained in what we throw out the window here at this point
in time. This is a 3-month expenditure we are talking about.
Taking some of the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) specifics,
for the Office of Domestic Preparedness, this is money for our local
responders. We provide $2.2 billion. His amendment would add another
300, but I would point out to the Members that there is already almost
$1 billion of money presently allocated that is unspent, laying there
waiting for our communities to ask for that money.
{time} 1300
And, number two, the 2004 budget request adds another $3.6 billion
that likely will be appropriated and will be available beginning this
October 1.
Now, the Coast Guard: We provide $630 million. His amendment would
add $100 million more to hire 2,000 more people. We cannot bring 2,000
people on board that fast. The 2004 budget request includes funds for
hiring new people and, undoubtedly, we will approve that. But for this
3-month period of time, this is unrealistic.
Now, for the Transportation Security Administration, we provide $390
million. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would add $250 million
for port security grants. But the Coast Guard has $40 million in this
supplemental to complete the port vulnerability assessments. We do not
know what the ports need until we assess them, and that is what the
Coast Guard is doing just this minute. They are going to come back and
tell us what we will need for fiscal 2004 and we will provide it for
them. They are going to tell us what we will need for the next 10
years. And the estimated cost over 10 years is $4.4 billion to harden
the ports, and we will do that over the period of time. We cannot do it
all at once.
The amendment provides another $150 million for firefighter
assistance grants for which there was no request. We have already
provided $1.1 billion in fiscal 2002 and 2003. And as I said, most of
that money has not yet been passed out to the communities.
Mr. Chairman, I am just saying to my colleagues that there is plenty
of money in the first responder pipeline for this 3-month period of
time about which this bill addresses itself.
The amendment would provide $350 million for interoperable
communications equipment between first responders. There was no request
for that money. There is a need for interoperability, no doubt about
it, but we have first got to develop regional and national standards
before we spend zillions of dollars trying to communicate with each
other. This has to be done on a regional basis. And the regionalization
of that system is in the works even as we speak, but not quite yet
ready.
The committee, I think, has adequately funded homeland security
activities that were war related for this 3-month period of time. There
is only 5 months left in the fiscal year to spend additional monies.
There is plenty of money in the pipeline for our first responders.
There is plenty of money in the bill for port security, including
extending our port assessment to the 20 megaports in the other parts of
the world from which we receive most of our shipments.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of
order.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Kentucky,
let me simply say that the Coast Guard has told us very clearly that if
we provide this money now, they can get
[[Page H2740]]
these additional 2,000 people on board by October. They have also told
us if we wait until the 2004 budget year that they cannot bring them on
until April. That is a fact.
Fact number two. The gentleman talks of $1 billion in ODP money that
is not spent. The fact is it is not spent because the application
period is open until April 22. It cannot be spent until that
application period is finished.
Thirdly, the fire grants for 2002. They are virtually all out. And
for the fiscal 2003, the applications are still open, so again that
money cannot be expected to be out of here. The agency assures us it
will be out of here by June once the application period is finished.
So I think the gentleman is using a lot of interesting numbers to
make a point that does not exist.
I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, let us just look at it. The
fiscal 2002 grants, the money we appropriated a year and a half ago,
$495 million for grants for our local communities to apply for, $291
million of that money is still lying there unspent. Nearly 60 percent
of the fiscal 2002 monies are still available to communities, and the
filing deadline is still available. It has been available since 2002,
and the money is not applied for. What does the gentleman say about
that?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin
for a response.
Mr. OBEY. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, we have answered those
statements twice, and I also answered them earlier in the debate.
The fact is if Members think there is enough money being provided to
protect the homeland, vote against the amendment. If they think there
is not enough money, vote for it. But at least let us have a vote.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I will yield briefly to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, there is $291 million available
for first responders from fiscal 2002. Why do you not apply for it?
Mr. OBEY. Against a defined need of $9 billion.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, let us spend what we have already. If
we need more, we will get it.
Mr. OBEY. It is your administration running the show, not ours.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say this. There
are some problems that we should not wait to address, and I can think
of few more important than the potential threat of nuclear terrorism
exercised against major American cities.
It is frightening when one realizes the reality that a Coke can-size
full of highly enriched uranium, put into a bomb, placed into one of 11
million ship containers that end up in major U.S. ports, God forbid if
that were to happen and that bomb to be exploded in a major American
port, 2 to 3 million American citizens could be killed instantly.
Surely, surely, we would all agree in this House that we should do
everything we can humanly do to prevent that sort of catastrophe from
happening. Perhaps that is why President Bush has said protecting our
homeland against nuclear terrorism should be of the highest national
priority.
I think the Obey amendment does something about that potential threat
of nuclear terrorism. By providing a little over $100 million, we can
actually put in place at 10 megaports nuclear protection devices. So
that if a terrorist were to try to put a nuclear bomb into a ship
container, and keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, only 2 percent of ship
containers are ever inspected before they come into major American
ports, but these nuclear detection devices, funded by the Obey
amendment, a technology developed by our Department of Energy, could be
put in place in the next year or so, starting now, in the 10 major
megaports that could protect our major American cities and the millions
of people that live in them from the threat of a nuclear bomb being
exploded in the hold of a cargo ship parked in New York harbor or New
Orleans harbor or outside of Los Angeles or the city of Houston.
If we can spend $100 billion to fight a war in Iraq, which I support,
and if we can have proposed a $374 billion dividend tax cut, which I do
not support, certainly we could afford to spend another $135 million in
this bill today to try to protect major American cities from nuclear
terrorism. I urge support for the Obey amendment.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R.
1559, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003,
including $62.5 billion for military operations in Iraq and the war on
terrorism.
In the months and years ahead, questions will persist as to whether
alternatives to a U.S. military invasion might have succeeded in
removing the threat posed by Iraq's weapons program. And there are
important debates still to come about the postwar program for
rebuilding Iraq, the multilateral cooperation we must secure to ensure
a postwar transition to democracy, and the efforts our nation must
resume to bring Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating
table. This Congress must hold the President and our country to these
critical objectives.
But today, our task is more straightforward: we are here to give our
courageous men and women in uniform the support and the resources they
need to carry out their mission swiftly, effectively, and decisively. I
have no doubt that that support, in the form of this supplemental
appropriations bill, will be provided with near unanimity later today.
This bill also must address the protection of our citizens here at
home. This Administration has made a total supplemental appropriation
request of $74.7 billion. Homeland Security accounts for less than 6
percent, or only $4.2 billion, of this total. The Republican leadership
of the Appropriations Committee has made significant improvements in
the Administration's request and has courageously refused to cede the
Congress's responsibility to apportion spending to the discretion of
the President or Secretary of Defense on any other executive officer.
But the bill still falls short of our minimal homeland security needs,
and unfortunately, the leadership of this body has rejected
constructive efforts from our side of the aisle to improve it.
Let me give two examples: port security and support for first
responders. Although Congress and the Bush administration have taken
important steps to improve airline safety, very little has been done to
secure the 361 seaports around our nation that receive nearly 21,000
containers a day from hundreds of overseas ports. Maritime shipping
moves 95 percent of non-North American U.S. trade.
Testifying before Congress last August, Robert Bonner, Commissioner
of Customs and Border Protection, said, ``There is virtually no
security for what is the primary system to transport global trade . . .
The impact (of an attack) on global trade and the global economy could
be immediate and devastating--all nations would be affected.'' Despite
the vital role seaports play in linking America to the world, both
economically and militarily, port vulnerability studies for the
nation's 50 largest ports are not scheduled to be completed for five
more years.
The Coast Guard estimates the 10-year cost for port security
improvements at $4.4 billion, and $963 million for the first year
alone. In this time of crisis, we cannot afford to delay this effort.
Despite no request from the Administration, Congress has appropriated
$400 million for grants to critical ports to conduct vulnerability
assessments and make needed security improvements. The Democratic
amendment provides $250 million more to better meet the security
requirements of our ports.
Our first responders are our first line of defense--the ones who
intercept terrorist activities and are first on the scene in the event
of disaster, putting their life-saving skills to work.
I have traveled throughout my district meeting with local leaders and
first responders. They tell me that they need equipment, training, and
funding to meet the demands of their new responsibilities. Yet, they
still have not received the funding that they have been promised; in
fact, they are facing funding cuts in the President's 2004 budget.
The Democratic amendment provides critical support, first, in
securing interoperable communications equipment. Incompatible
communications equipment hinders the ability of our first responders to
adequately respond to disasters and costs lives. Only 40 percent of
fire departments can communicate with police or EMS personnel. The
technology to obtain interoperable communication equipment exists now.
DHS is developing national guidelines. The Democratic amendment
provides $350 million to be directed immediately through grants to this
effort in our effort to correct a universally accepted need.
Fire fighter grants were authorized at a level of $900 million for
Fiscal Year 2003, but funded $150 million below its authorized level.
The Democratic proposal makes up this shortfall
[[Page H2741]]
by providing the additional $150 million to the grant program. This
additional money would make up shortages in basic needs such as
portable radios, self-contained breathing devices, and map coordinate
systems.
Not only major metropolitan areas but also smaller communities
located near critical infrastructure are faced with an increased burden
of security as a result of the ongoing high threat level. The
Democratic proposal provides $300 million through the Office of
Domestic Preparedness to help these communities fund the heightened
security requirements they must address. This additional $300 million
would provide a total of $3.5 billion to ODP for Fiscal Year 2003,
which is equal to the Administrations original Fiscal Year 2003 budget
request.
Mr. Chairman, members of this House understand the importance of
providing our troops with the resources they need. We stand united
behind them today, and we remain steadfast in our faith in them and our
support of their mission.
However, it is also our duty protect all of our citizens and to
provide funding to ensure homeland safety and security. It is in that
respect that the bill before us falls short. Having been denied the
opportunity to strengthen this bill today, we on the Democratic side
will persevere in future appropriations efforts, hopefully with
bipartisan support, to address urgent priorities in homeland defense.
Point of Order
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation in 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 changing existing law.''
Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. OBEY. I most certainly do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, let me state what I understand the parliamentary
situation to be. My understanding is that the rule under which we are
operating waives section 302(c), 302(f) and section 311 of the Budget
Act against the bill as reported, and clause 2 of rule XXI.
My understanding is that the rule provides, with respect to section
302(c), my understanding is that if the gentleman's interpretation of
the rule is correct, that would mean that while the majority would get
a waiver for its bill, even though the committee has not filed its
302(b) suballocations, the minority would not get a corresponding
waiver.
My understanding with respect to section 302(f) is that if the
gentleman's interpretation is correct, that would mean that despite the
fact that the bill exceeds 302(a) or (b) allocations, that the
majority's bill will still be allowed to come to the House floor but
our amendment would not be able to, even though we are in precisely the
same situation with respect to those allocations.
With respect to section 311, which prohibits consideration of a bill
or amendments that exceed total spending in the deemed fiscal year 2003
budget resolution, if the gentleman's interpretation is to prevail,
that would mean that the majority would be waiving requirements on this
point for their bill but not for the minority's.
I cannot believe that the majority would intentionally produce such
an unfair result, and so I therefore would urge the Chair to rule that
the amendment is in order.
The CHAIRMAN. If no other Member wishes to be heard on the point of
order, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair understood the point of order offered by the gentleman from
Florida to be related to clause 2 of rule XXI. The Chair finds that the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) includes
new language imparting direction, as, for example, section 1351 in the
proposed amendment. The amendment, therefore, does constitute
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The fact that points of order under clause 2 of rule XXI were waived
against provisions in the bill does not, under the precedents, permit
amendments adding further legislation. The point of order is,
therefore, sustained and the amendment is not in order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am most reluctant to do this, but in my
view when the rights of the minority to offer a meaningful amendment on
a bill of this nature, which goes to the very heart of our national
security preparation, when the minority is denied an opportunity to
even have such a proposal debated, I have no choice but to move to
appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is, shall the decision of the Chair stand
as the judgment of the Committee.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 217,
noes 195, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 104]
AYES--217
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--195
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
[[Page H2742]]
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--22
Ballance
Capuano
Combest
Conyers
Cox
Doolittle
Gephardt
Gingrey
Hyde
Jones (NC)
Linder
Lynch
McCarthy (MO)
McInnis
McIntyre
Oberstar
Paul
Royce
Slaughter
Towns
Velazquez
Walden (OR)
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are
approximately 2 minutes remaining to vote.
{time} 1331
Mr. ROSS, Mr. WYNN and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. CAPITO and Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Committee.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Young) and our ranking member. I think they have done the
best job that could possibly be done, and I commend them for making
sure the supplemental appropriation is not simply a slush fund giving
the administration and Secretary Rumsfeld the ability to spend this
money in any way that they wish to spend it. However, no matter how
hard they have worked, this bill is not what it is made out to be.
This bill provides almost $78 billion in supplemental funds, some of
which are not related to either the war in Iraq or homeland security.
In addition to some funds for the war in Iraq, this bill includes money
for Turkey, Israel, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Latvia,
Slovakia, Romania, Slovania, Lithuania, and Bulgaria. In addition to
the millions of dollars for all of those Eastern European countries,
this bill includes generous sums of money for health care,
rehabilitation, and the construction of new schools, housing, and
transportation systems in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet many communities
right here in the United States of America are continuing to suffer
from the effects of prolonged economic recession and deprivation,
including job losses and a lack of investment in our cities and our
rural communities.
Later on today I will be offering an amendment to encourage
investment in our cities and in our rural communities and for economic
development. I will also offer an amendment to encourage the Inter-
American Development Bank to release money for Haiti, one of the
poorest countries in the whole world right here in our own hemisphere.
Mr. Chairman, I do not begrudge these countries. We have bombed and
invaded. I do not begrudge them assistance in rebuilding, but I do
resent attempts to define this bill as simply support for our soldiers.
This bill includes political money that simply rewards countries for
voting with us in the United Nations. It includes money to subsidize
the airlines. It includes money to the CDC and other funding that has
nothing to do with the war in Iraq that it is supposed to be covering.
I can tell the Members what is not in this bill. There is not money
for homeland security or money for our own ailing and broken education
and health systems.
I will support this bill, but I will also speak up for the citizens
of this country. Mr. Chairman, charity begins at home and spreads
abroad. If I had my way, I would not only include in this language that
would have forced the money from the Inter-American Development Bank to
be passed on to Haiti that should have been done years ago, not only
would I have an amendment for $5 billion that would deal with our
ailing infrastructure systems right here in our own communities, urban
communities and rural communities. I think I would even put $28 billion
in here that the President is cutting from our veterans. Do not forget,
those soldiers who are in Iraq today will be veterans some day, and
they will need to have funds to cover all of those services that we are
now cutting.
Mr. Chairman, the young lady who was just rescued, who was captured
and was a prisoner of war found in the hospital, simply went into the
service because she could not afford to pay for her education. She went
into the service in order to be able to pay for her education; and now
that she has been shot, now that she has been captured and rescued,
when she gets home she has been offered a scholarship. She should have
had a scholarship before she ever signed up, but that is what is wrong
with our education system. It does not provide for all of those young
people who wish to be educated.
Again, I respect the work that has been done; but I want this bill to
include support for homeland security, support for our ailing
communities, and language for Haiti.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, let me speak to the gentlewoman that just spoke. There
are ways in which I think we can come together. One of the areas, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) has an amendment coming up
that gives preference to the United States in the rebuilding process
over those nations that fought against us in the United Nations. That
is American jobs, American construction. In California with our
constituents, I think the gentlewoman and the caucus could support
that.
The second thing, I think it is even more important, as one that
opposed going into Haiti, as one that opposed going into Somalia after
Adid, and I would tell the gentlewoman if she has been to Haiti, the
Halie Selassie Highway, one can drive a truck in a pothole. It is
terrible. Many of the conditions have not been improved, and even
though I opposed going in there, the dollars that were already
appropriated for that should be released to help, and I again opposed
going into Haiti and Somalia. So I think it is even more important.
I would also inform the gentlewoman there is another way. I have an
amendment on Turkey. Turkey stood against our troops going in from the
north, stopped us from having a northern front, caused us to have to
ship around all the way to the east side our troops. It cost American
lives. We should send them a message. That is $1 billion that could be
freed up. They did not ask for it, and Turkey gets a ton of money
already in the foreign aid package. That is another way which I think
we can help. I recently had it in homeland defense. Technicalities did
not allow us to do that, but $1 billion in the general fund is a lot of
money to work with, with us.
As far as the scholarships, the gentlewoman and I both support, and I
personally believe, that a child that qualifies, that works hard should
not be denied a college education or a general education as a result of
their economic status, and they should be provided that.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to talk about this bill that will provide
much-needed support for our men and women in the armed services who
find themselves in harm's way. That aspect of this bill is very good.
As a matter of fact, I see this bill in three parts. First, the war. We
are doing the right thing. We are supporting our men and women through
the supplemental. Second, the post-war. Provisions are made in this
bill, I believe, to the tune of $8 billion that would provide for the
reconstruction of Iraq or the beginning of the reconstruction of Iraq
after the war as well as assistance to our allies.
But then there is the third part, homeland security. And here I must
say, Mr. Chairman, I am greatly distressed. We are not adequately
supporting our homeland security needs. In this bill we have not put in
enough money to help the local firemen, policemen, public safety
personnel, emergency medical technicians, the people
[[Page H2743]]
on the front lines to keep our communities safe. The gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has tried to put in an additional $2.8 billion.
That has not been accepted. That money goes into our communities to
provide the same kinds of protections in our hometowns that we would
want to see in communities abroad in Iraq after the war is over.
Let me give an example of what I am speaking about. Here in the
Capitol we have all sorts of protections. We have barriers around the
complex. We have an emergency communication system. We have got special
equipment in the case of a chemical or biological attack for ourselves
but also for other Federal employees working in this complex. But when
these same employees go home to their districts in the suburbs of
Washington, D.C., and specifically to my district in Prince George's
and Montgomery County, they do not have these same kinds of
protections.
For instance, in Prince George's County, Maryland, just outside of
the Capitol where many of our employees live and where evacuation
procedures may take place, we still need funding to purchase 800
megahertz radios to seamlessly communicate with surrounding
jurisdictions as we try to facilitate traffic and respond to emergency
situations.
Montgomery County, Maryland, again in the Washington, D.C. suburbs
where many of our employees live, needs gas masks and monitoring
equipment for first responders and schools. These counties and many
others all across our country are working tirelessly to respond to the
orange alerts and the red alerts and all the other kinds of exigencies
connected with war on terrorism and what we anticipate may be increased
problems as a result of the war in Iraq. But yet when it comes to
funding them, we cannot find the additional $2 billion that we need to
provide resources that they need.
{time} 1345
One of my counties is actually cutting personnel because of the
strains caused by trying to maintain homeland security. There are still
questions. Schoolteachers come to me and say, well, what are we going
to do about protecting the schools? We have concrete barriers, but many
of our schools do not. We have extra police personnel, but many of our
schools and local government facilities do not have them. We have
reservoirs, we have water systems with other public accommodations at
the local level where our citizens live that do not have the adequate
resources for homeland security.
We should include more money for homeland security in this bill. It
is a true tragedy that we have not.
So I urge my colleagues, as we consider this bill and as amendments
come to the floor, to give us an opportunity to do more than just wave
the flag or pay lip service, but that we will actually put some money,
more money where it belongs, and that is in the protection of our local
communities.
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no other Members seeking recognition, the
Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
CHAPTER 2
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
Salaries and Expenses
For an additional amount for ``General Administration,
Salaries and Expenses'', $5,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2004.
Counterterrorism Fund
For an additional amount for ``Counterterrorism Fund'',
$50,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 2003:
Provided, That funds provided under this paragraph shall be
available only after the Attorney General notifies the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate in accordance with section 605 of Division B
of Public Law 108-7.
Detention Trustee
For an additional amount for ``Detention Trustee'' for the
detention of Federal prisoners in the custody of the United
States Marshals Service, $15,000,000.
Office of Inspector General
For an additional amount for ``Office of Inspector
General'', $2,500,000, to remain available until September
30, 2004.
Legal Activities
Salaries and Expenses, United States Marshals Service
For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses,
United States Marshals Service'' for necessary expenses,
$26,080,000, to remain available until September 30, 2004.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Salaries and Expenses
For an additional amount for ``Federal Bureau of
Investigations, Salaries and Expenses'', $398,862,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2004.
THE JUDICIARY
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Salaries and Expenses
For an additional amount for ``Supreme Court of the United
States, Salaries and Expenses'' for police enhancements,
$1,535,000, to remain available until September 30, 2004.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Salaries and Expenses
For an additional amount for ``United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Salaries and Expenses'' for
court security officer expenses, $973,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2004.
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Salaries and Expenses
For an additional amount for ``United States Court of
International Trade, Salaries and Expenses'' to enhance
security, $50,000.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
ADMINISTRATION OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Diplomatic and Consular Programs
For an additional amount for ``Diplomatic and Consular
Programs'', $106,420,000, to remain available until December
31, 2003.
Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance
For an additional amount for ``Embassy Security,
Construction, and Maintenance'', $71,500,000, to remain
available until expended.
Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service
For an additional amount for ``Emergencies in the
Diplomatic and Consular Service'', $65,708,000, to remain
available until expended.
RELATED AGENCY
BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS
International Broadcasting Operations
For an additional amount for ``International Broadcasting
Operations'' for activities related to the Middle East
Television Network broadcasting to the Middle East and radio
broadcasting to Iraq, $30,500,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2004.
General Provisions--This Chapter
Sec. 1201. Funds appropriated under this Chapter for the
Broadcasting Board of Governors and the Department of State
may be obligated and expended notwithstanding section 313 of
the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994
and 1995, and section 15 of the State Department Basic
Authorities Act of 1956, as amended.
CHAPTER 3
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide'', $1,400,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2004, which may be used, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, for payments to reimburse Pakistan,
Jordan, and other key cooperating nations, for logistical and
military support provided, or to be provided, to United
States military operations in connection with military action
in Iraq and the global war on terrorism: Provided, That such
payments may be made in such amounts as the Secretary of
Defense, with concurrence of the Secretary of State and in
consultation with the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget, may determine, in his discretion, and such
determination is final and conclusive upon the accounting
officers of the United States: Provided further, That unless
expressly provided for in an appropriations act enacted after
the date of enactment of this Act, and notwithstanding any
other provision of law, no funds other than those additional
amounts provided herein shall be made available for any
payments intended to fulfill the purposes specified in this
paragraph and similar reimbursement authorities expressly
provided in section 304 of Public Law 107-117 and within the
``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' appropriation
account enacted in Public Law 107-206: Provided further, That
the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate
shall be notified in writing at least seven days prior to the
obligation of funds for payments to Pakistan, Jordan, or
other key cooperating nations: Provided further, That not
later than 30 days following enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit a report in writing to the
Committees on Appropriations that includes a financial plan
for the obligation and expenditure of such funds: Provided
further, That if such report is not provided to the
Committees on Appropriations by the date specified in the
previous proviso, unobligated balances of funds in this
account that are available from the amounts provided in this
paragraph shall be returned to the Treasury of the United
States: Provided further, That, beginning not later than June
30, 2003, and ending on September 30, 2004, the Secretary of
Defense shall provide quarterly reports to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House and
[[Page H2744]]
Senate on the uses of funds made available for payments to
Pakistan, Jordan, and other key cooperating nations for
logistical and military support provided to United States
military operations in connection with military action in and
around Iraq and the global war on terrorism.
OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM RESPONSE FUND
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
For incremental costs of the Department of Defense
associated with the global war on terrorism and operations in
and around Iraq as part of operations currently known as
Operation Iraqi Freedom: $59,682,500,000 is appropriated to
the ``Operation Iraqi Freedom Response Fund'', which is
hereby established in the Treasury of the United States.
Funds appropriated or transferred to the ``Operation Iraqi
Freedom Response Fund'' shall remain available until
expended.
Amendments Offered by Mr. Kucinich
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments and I ask
unanimous consent they be considered en bloc.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. Kucinich:
Page 9, line 8, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $19,386,500,000)''.
Page 10, line 2, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $19,386,500,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object,
and I only do so to engage the gentleman just very briefly, the
gentleman and I have an understanding that I will not object to his
request; I have no problem with that, but that we have an agreement
that I would then ask unanimous consent to limit debate on this
amendment, these amendments, to 15 minutes, 7\1/2\ minutes on each
side.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman's request.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
further debate on the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and any amendments thereto be limited to 15 minutes
to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the
opponent.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, in the
interchange that we were having, I was momentarily distracted. The
agreement that we had worked out earlier I understood was 15 minutes. I
thought it was 15 minutes a side, instead of 7\1/2\ minutes a side.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I
thought we had amended that. But that is okay with me; if the gentleman
wants to do it 15 and 15, I have no problem with that either.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman if that would
be acceptable to him.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would restate my unanimous
consent request that it be 15 minutes on each side rather than 7\1/2\
minutes on each side.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) will be
recognized for 15 minutes and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young)
will be recognized for 15 minutes on the amendments.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.
We all stand here today hoping that no more American soldiers will be
killed in Iraq. My amendment will do the most to prevent more American
fatalities.
This amendment would bring the troops home immediately and safely. It
will end this unjust and illegal war now.
The administration has spent $30.3 billion already on current
military operations. This amendment will give the Pentagon another $10
billion to ensure the troops can be safely brought back home to their
families. Out of the $59.6 billion for military operations, my
amendment will leave $40.3 billion to pay for the war to date and to
get the troops back home now. This amendment will save taxpayers $19.3
billion. The savings from the adventure in Iraq can be used for
increased homeland security, education, health care, or veterans funds.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this war is not about defending the United
States from the threat of Iraq, this war is not about the U.S. trying
to save or liberate the Iraqi people, this war is not about an Iraqi
nuclear threat. Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction that have been
able to be detected by the U.N., and it would be most unfortunate if it
was for our troops to find those weapons in combat when, by stepping
back and letting the U.N. inspectors return, we could avoid that kind
of confrontation and cataclysm.
None of us in this Chamber holds any brief for Saddam Hussein. He is
a dictator, yet it is not the responsibility of the United States to
oust the leaders of sovereign nations. There are many who want to see
this Nation become more safe, but I think a good case can be made that
the action against Iraq will not make this country more safe, it will
make this country less safe. It will foster terrorism and it will
increase anti-American feelings. We will continue to see more orange
alerts as the threats against our Nation increase, and we will continue
to see the hatred of America grow from people around the world.
This war is killing our troops. It is killing innocent Iraqi
civilians. This war must end now. It was unjust when it started 2 weeks
ago and it is still unjust today. The U.S. should get out now and try
to save the lives of our troops and of innocent Iraqi citizens.
This is the ultimate support-the-troops amendment. There is no better
way to ensure their safety than to bring them home now. I support the
troops, but I oppose the war.
I am not the only Member of Congress to have taken such a position.
On another war at another time with another President, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) was quoted in The New York Times on May 7, 1999
as saying, ``While we may not support the President's ill-advised war,
we do support our troops.''
My colleague from Texas, for whom I have the greatest respect, was
referring to a different war, but he demonstrates the precedent for
opposing the mission and supporting the troops. I believe he is a
patriot and I believe he is a good American. In fact, I voted with him
that year on a vote seeking to get the troops out of Kosovo.
On December 13, 1995, the House, under the control of Speaker
Gingrich, considered H.R. 2770. The bill, a prohibition of funds for
the deployment of forces in Bosnia, was introduced by Representative
Dornan. Many leading Republicans, such as the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas), the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter),
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), voted to cut off funds for
the military action while the troops were deployed in Bosnia. In fact,
82 percent of the gentlemen and gentlewomen from the other side of the
aisle voted to cut off funds while troops were deployed in Bosnia.
I urge my colleagues to read the Congressional Record of that day. I
would quote:
``Mr. Speaker, I think it is disgraceful that Members would get up in
the well of this House and talk about cutting the knees out from under
the troops. No one wants to hurt the troops. No one wants to hurt the
troops. We want to get the troops there out, and we do not want to send
any more troops.''
That was our good friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
Again, another quote:
``Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight with a troubled heart. I rise tonight
to ask my colleagues to support our troops. Support them by bringing
the 150 home. Bring them home now before we get into a mess like I
personally had to live through 30 years ago.''
That was my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
{time} 1400
I believe that a ``no'' vote on this supplemental is patriotic,
because this war is not about defending the United
[[Page H2745]]
States from a threat of Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. There
has never been a link demonstrated of any credibility connecting Iraq
to al Qaeda's work on 9-11. Iraq had nothing to do with the anthrax
attack upon this country.
Iraq did not attack this country. Iraq does not have the military
capability to attack this country. The United Nations had not been able
to establish before their inspectors were withdrawn that Iraq in fact
had weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was not acquiring nuclear
material from Niger, as had been advanced by some in the
administration.
This war is not about the U.S. trying to liberate the people of Iraq.
It is not about an Iraqi nuclear threat. Ending this war now and
resuming weapons inspections could salvage world opinion of the United
States, which has been deteriorating since even the talk of war began.
After all, the greatest threat to the United States at this time is
terrorism. This war will breed terrorism.
I agree with those in this Congress who today have taken this floor
to express concern about meeting the challenge of terrorism. But this
war against Iraq and our occupation of Iraq will make America less
safe, not more safe. This war will make America a target.
We all desire safety and security in this country. The only way that
we can truly achieve that is to work cooperatively with the world
community. We had the sympathies of the world after 9-11. Nation upon
nation looked forward to cooperating with the United States after 9-11.
This approach towards aggressive war has squandered the support of the
world, the very support that we need to successfully meet the challenge
of terrorism here at home.
Every dime that we spend to advance aggressive war in Iraq, or
anywhere else in that region, for that matter, will require later on
spending two dimes or $2 to secure our own Nation. I believe that now
is the time for America to take a new direction, to turn away from
aggressive war.
Mr. Chairman, we have been told that it is Iraq's possible possession
of weapons of mass destruction which brings us into their borders and
causes our troops to go throughout their cities. This country needs to
confront the reality that there are many countries which possess or are
pursuing or are capable of acquiring nuclear, chemical, or biological
weapons or missile delivery systems.
As of 2000, there were 17 such nations with respect to nuclear
weapons, 26 such nations with respect to chemical weapons, 20 with
biological weapons, 17 with missile systems. The administration's
nuclear posture review and their national security strategy taken
together would put us towards confrontation with many nations of the
world. Now is the time for us to reassess that.
This downpayment on this war, which is represented by this
supplemental, is not simply a way of supporting the war; it is a way of
supporting a policy which can only lead this Nation to disaster around
the world. Now is the time to step back.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the very
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of the
Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague
yielding me this time. I must say that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich), I know, is very sincerely serious about his position on this
matter. I respect his position greatly.
I must say that I was one of those who believed deep in my heart that
we would solve this problem by way of peace; that there was an avenue
open for us to change the regime in Iraq, and at the same time do so
without having to find ourselves in war.
That opportunity for peace closed. The door closed entirely when
friends and allies of ours in Europe took a different position. When
France decided to take the position they did, when Germany decided to
take the position they did, there was no opportunity to find a peaceful
solution.
In the meantime, this bill before us is designed to make sure that
our troops will be fully supported as they go forward attempting to
ensure the opportunity of freedom for the people of Iraq. It is
absolutely certain by the time we get through this process before us
that they will have an opportunity they have not had during all of the
history of this brutal regime.
Indeed, it is difficult for me to understand my colleague's position.
I happen to think he is absolutely wrong, but I have risen in part to
support his right to express that position. That is what this debate is
all about.
I hope at another day, another time, we will find a peaceful solution
for dealing with people like Saddam Hussein. I just do not see that
time in the near future.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), a member of the
Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all again congratulate
the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman from
California (Chairman Lewis), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Murtha) for the way they crafted this legislation. We have made the
Defense Department be accountable for this money.
But I must say, cutting $19 million out of this fund, or $19 billion,
excuse me, is not going to help the troops. We are in the middle of a
war. This money must be replenished. We have used 10,000 precision
weapons very effectively. We have these troops in the field, and they
need to have the resources in order to complete this task and get this
job done.
I do not mind people making their speeches and exhorting their
position on the issues; but when it is going to hurt the people in the
field, it is unacceptable. This will hurt the troops in the field. I
urge the House to reject overwhelmingly the Kucinich amendment, which I
will request a record vote on.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment points out that the administration has
spent $30 billion already on current military operations. This
amendment will give the Pentagon another $10 billion to ensure that the
troops can be brought safely home to their families.
Out of the $59.6 billion for military operations, my amendment will
leave $40 billion to pay for the war to date and to get the troops home
now. I want to restate that $10 billion is there to ensure that the
troops get home safely.
This amendment is a statement that we should end the war now and that
we should bring our troops back home safely; that we can pay the bills
that have already been incurred, but that we should not incur any more
bills.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member
on the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I have been around this institution long enough to know
what an amendment looks like when it does cut off and end the war
because we voted that way to end the Vietnam War. I voted for that
resolution, or for that amendment.
I also voted to require the President to come back to the Congress
for a second vote before he went to war if the Security Council did not
agree with his decision to go to war, so I think my position is clear.
I think there are going to be very bad, long-term results from this
war.
But having said that, I think it is incorrect for the gentleman to
say that this amendment will, in effect, bring the troops home. It does
no such thing. All it does is to say that we will not reimburse the
Pentagon for money which has already largely been spent. It simply does
not replenish those accounts. I do not think that that is a rational
thing to do.
Secondly, I would point out one of my problems with this bill is that
this bill already, in my view, substantially understates, and therefore
substantially hides from public view, the full cost of this war. It is
going to cost a lot more than the $70 billion in this bill today.
[[Page H2746]]
The effect of offering this amendment, in my view, would be to
further mask the real cost of that war. I do not think that is a
healthy thing to do. I think we are getting into some long-term costs
associated with this war far in excess of what the Pentagon, the State
Department, or the White House are admitting. I think this amendment
simply further would play into that game.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not going to pass because, frankly,
it does not do what it purports to do. I understand what the gentleman
is trying to do; he is trying to find some way to express his views on
the war, so in a sense this is a symbolic act. I respect him for that.
The fact is, Members need to be assured they understand exactly what
it does and what it does not do. One thing it does not do, it does not
bring the troops home.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the
Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I do not doubt my friend's concern for the troops. I
think that is genuine. However, I do debate the gentleman's point on
the war. I will be specific.
First of all, there is no doubt, no doubt whatsoever that Saddam
Hussein has contacts and is utilizing al Qaeda within Iraq. Just attend
some of the intelligence briefings.
Second, as a combat veteran, the troops, sure, when we flew in
Vietnam, we wanted to come home; but we also wanted to do our job. If
we talk to the embedded reporters and listen to our men and women
overseas, they want to finish the job, I would tell the gentleman.
Secondly, on the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on
Appropriations, the gentleman's amendment does not bring the troops
home. We are already spending fourth-quarter dollars. What the
gentleman wants to do is not be able to even replenish those, which
would weaken the state of national security in the long run.
I would tell the gentleman that Saddam Hussein today pays $5,000 to a
family in Palestine that will take their 15-year-old child and blow
themselves up in Israel. We have lost American citizens in that. I do
not think we want to let that go.
If we listen to Saddam Hussein, he says he will attack us in the air,
the sea, and the land. I would ask the gentleman to project Saddam
Hussein, if we pull our troops back, project someone like this 5 years
from now with a nuclear weapon. It would be devastating, and we would
lose American souls, many thousands.
A lot of people say, what about Korea? Korea is a threat; but I want
to tell the Members, they are not working every single day through
Mujahedin, Hammas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda to damage the United States.
We need to finish this job, whether the gentleman agrees with it or
not. We need to protect American citizens and those abroad for
worldwide peace.
If we take Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and bring them
about with true democracies, this country is far better off than
bringing our troops home and not dealing with this problem. If we do
that, this problem will magnify in the Middle East, not depreciate.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), for his remarks. I respect his service to
our country, both in the military and in this Congress.
To my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey): If I could
have offered an amendment that would have required the President to
bring the troops home now, I would have.
{time} 1415
As my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) knows, the
majority would not have permitted such an amendment, and that leaves me
with two options. One, which is to do nothing. And considering the
statements that I have made over the past year challenging this war,
that is not going to happen. And the other is to offer the amendment
before us now, which my colleague from Wisconsin understands does have
a powerful symbolic impact, and, as I understand it, is limited by the
limitations of the amendments process. But my amendment was crafted to
ensure that the troops would have safe passage home, $10 billion to
assure that they come home safely.
I yield to no one in my love for this country, in my commitment to
the men and women who serve, and I honor similarly the patriotism which
brings every Member of this House to this floor, their honest
differences of opinion about the policies of this United States which
have brought this country into Baghdad today.
This is an appropriate moment for us to stop and think whether or not
aggressive warfare is consistent with the aspirations of this country,
whether or not policies of preemption and unilateralism, as articulated
in the National Security Strategy, will serve this country well in a
complex world where so many nations possess biological, chemical, and
nuclear weapons as well as the missile capability to deliver them.
This amendment seeks to create this discussion in this House at this
moment as to whether or not this is the time in world history to seek
to reengage the world community, which certainly understands America's
concern, but to get that same world community which has shown sympathy
for America in the past to join with us in once again going back to
Iraq with U.N. inspectors instead of our troops, who we would never
want to have to find weapons of mass destruction on the battlefield in
combat used against them. It is much more appropriate to have
inspectors determine whether or not such weapons exist, and if they do,
to move to destroy them.
We need to find a way to reintegrate nations like Iraq and the
others, which are hostile to this country at this point, back into the
world community. We need to find a way to catch what I believe is an
advancing tide of human unity which we see expressed all around the
world with friends of ours who have stated their concern about the
American position of aggressive war against Iraq.
This is a turning point in this country's history, and it is an
important moment for us to ask questions about the direction we are
going in. Because we are not only talking about Iraq here. We are not
just talking about a down payment on a war. We are not just talking
about the safety of our troops today. We are talking about the safety
and security of the world, America's role in the world, our ability to
keep America safe and secure in a climate with an administration that
is determining that aggressive war is the way to achieve that.
I maintain that is always open to debate, and I want to thank the
gentleman for providing me with this opportunity to raise this question
on this floor.
We are all patriots. We all love our country. But one of the glories
of this country is its first amendment, which provides not only for
freedom of speech, but which provides for a national discussion on
issues that are of urgent importance.
And I want to thank both the ranking member and the chair for
ensuring that this happens on this issue, and I acknowledge that. And
when it is appropriate, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment out of respect for the heartfelt concerns expressed by my
colleagues.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the tenor of the
gentleman's debate. I think this debate has been great all day long,
and at a very high level.
For a closing statement in opposition to the amendment, I yield the
balance of the time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my
colleague yielding me this time and rise simply to say that I very much
empathize with the position of my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich).
We happen to rather intensely disagree as to what role America is
going to be playing in the world in the years
[[Page H2747]]
and months, perhaps decades, ahead. Our country remains, whether we
like it or not, as the only remaining superpower in the world. We now
spend dollars at a level, 380-plus billions of dollars to make sure
that we are the strongest country in the world. Indeed, it is my view
that those dollars are spent because we are the force for peace. If
there is a country that, long term, is going to maintain the peace in
the world, it is America. And it is the men and women of the very
troops serving presently in the Middle East who reflect the best of the
best, who are of course for peace.
This bill is designed to make sure that they can carry forward their
job at this moment to its completion and do it well. Indeed, no force
is more capable than these men and women. Their purpose, though, is to
ensure that freedom becomes available to the people, the men and women,
the mothers, the children of Iraq. Without their presence, Saddam
Hussein would take us down the pathway towards appeasement. He would be
the voice that says ``we ought to stand still for whatever time is
necessary for me to rebuild my position of strength.'' He will say, ``I
will find any another way to win one more time.'' This is not a plan of
peace.
America is the voice for peace in the world. We need to recognize
that. And because we need to recognize that, we must reject this
amendment.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, out of respect for the troops and the
concern that all of our Members have for them, whatever their position
is on this war, I respectfully withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) asks unanimous
consent to withdraw the amendment.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am in support of the wartime supplemental, H.R. 1559,
and I rise today to thank the House Committee on Appropriations for
recognizing the damage caused by Supertyphoon Pongsona to our military
installations in the territories of Guam. As this bill before us
states, Typhoon Pongsona struck Andersen Air Force Base on December 8,
2002 for 9 long hours, with sustained winds of 180 miles per hour. Much
damage was done to the family housing units at our base where our brave
servicemen and women work around the clock to ensure our safety and
security, and especially during this time of war when our bases should
be in top order.
On behalf of those servicemen and women and their families, I would
like to thank the House Committee on Appropriations chairman, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and ranking member, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). Because of their hard work, this bill
provides $1.8 million to repair family housing and air-conditioning
units damaged by Supertyphoon Pongsona.
It also identifies the need for new aircraft hangers to bed down
bombers, tankers, surveillance and fighter aircraft. Currently only one
of three hangars at Andersen Air Force base is fully operational. The
new reinforced concrete high-bay aircraft hangars will be typhoon
proof. The state-of-the-art climate control within the hangars will
ensure that the bombers will be able to use the hangars for repairs and
maintenance.
I hope that in conference on this bill, funds will be identified to
begin the hangars' construction. And once again, I want to thank the
leadership for recognizing the emergency damage caused by Supertyphoon
Pongsona to our military assets on Guam and for taking action to fund
the repair of these damages which is now so important, Mr. Chairman,
because of increased military activity, the Iraq war, and the impending
dangers in North Korea.
Mr. Chairman, I support this legislation.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cunningham
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my
amendment related to Turkey be considered at this point in the reading
of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I
reserve the right to object merely to inquire of the gentleman if he
would be interested in reaching some agreement on a time limit, because
this amendment has the potential to be very time consuming. And it is a
very important amendment, but I would like to say to the gentleman that
I do not want to limit any debate for those who desire to speak, but we
need to finish this bill tonight. We have to have the weekend to
prepare for the conference with the other body. So, would the gentleman
be interested in discussing the possibility of a time limit?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would
say to my friend and my chairman that we have several speakers that are
very passionate on this issue. To me, the debate of this issue is as
important as its passage, and once those individuals do get allowed to
speak, and I would encourage them not to take the 5 minutes, if the
chairman would redress the issue then I would not object.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to considering the amendment at this
point in the bill?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Cunningham:
In chapter 4 of title I, in the item relating to ``Economic
Support Fund''--
(1) after the aggregate dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000,000)'';
(2) strike paragraph (3) (relating to financial assistance
to Turkey); and
(3) redesignate paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs (3)
and (4), respectively.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) is
recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will choose to strike the last word
at the end to close, and I would allow the other Members that wish to
speak on this issue, and I would go to the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. Did the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham)
yield to the gentleman?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, the gentleman is going to strike the last word.
I will strike the last word at the end so I will have time to close.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized now for 5
minutes in support of his amendment. If the gentleman wants to be
recognized again later, the gentleman will have to ask unanimous
consent to do so.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Okay. Then I will be recognized for the 5 minutes,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I truly believe that the United States needs the
support of all allies. That includes Turkey. That includes France. That
includes Germany. As many of us are upset at those countries for the
actions that they took in the previous weeks, we need their help
towards world peace in the future. They are aware of the damage that
they have done to the United States and their allies and that some
penalty is in order.
And as I stated before, the debate on this issue is just as important
as the passage of the amendment. There needs to be some message sent to
any country that chooses to put in harm's way American and allied
soldiers that there will be a penalty. The message should be, ``Do not
tread on me.''
Now, that does not mean that we do not want them as allies in the
future. I would state, and I do not mean to demean Turkey by making
this point, but merely to make a point, if my own daughters
intentionally did something egregious, I am surely, Mr. Chairman, not
going to raise their allowance. I love them. I want their love in the
future. And the same goes for Turkey.
Secretary Colin Powell at this very moment is negotiating with
Turkey, and he has made some great strides. I
[[Page H2748]]
think all the Members in this House respect Secretary Powell. But I
would say, Mr. Chairman, that current negotiations and even positive
steps do not forgive what has happened in the past with Turkey denying
our troops access.
Turkey never asked for this money. The United States is asking to
give them $1 billion. The United States is giving Turkey a ton of money
in the foreign aid bill.
{time} 1430
This is in the 2003 supplemental. The 2004 bill is coming up. There
is a ton of money in there for Turkey. I am not asking to take this
away, but should we reward a country for not only putting our men and
women in harm's way, but actually causing the deaths of some of our
troops?
By Turkey not allowing us to overfly Turkey and give overfly rights,
there was an agreement, and they have done some overflights, but that
was based on a previous agreement, but by not allowing our troops to
launch from the north and out of Turkey, it denied us a northern front.
It allowed Saddam Hussein to redeploy his troops and forced us to
parachute in with our paratroopers a very lightly armed force to
support the north; and I think this is wrong.
A foreign aid package should be for Turkey and our allies, but I
would tell the gentleman that just like the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Rogers) a minute ago spoke against the Obey amendment, he used the
analogy that this was only for 3 months, and I would use the same
analogy here because in the 2004 budget, I do not object to the support
for Turkey, if, if their parliament does not turn its back on the
United States as they did in the past.
In 3 months, Saddam Hussein will be out of power. We will be on the
road to democracy in Iraq and a free people, but can my colleagues
imagine giving France preferential treatment on the reconstruction of
Iraq? No, and there is an amendment coming up by the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) that will handle that; and I would
encourage my colleagues to vote for that.
By the same means, do we reward Turkey? Do we give them an incentive
for turning their backs on the United States even though they are
opening up their borders with Colin Powell today? What they did in
causing American lives to be lost, there needs to be a message sent and
a penalty, Mr. Chairman. I would say the same is true with France and
Germany as well.
Saddam Hussein did work with al Qaeda, and where he worked in al
Qaeda is in the northeast portions of Iraq. By not allowing our
northern front to go forward and launch out of that area, it allowed
many of the terrorists and al Qaeda to launch out of that area.
I ask for the support of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The gentleman from California is a valued member of our subcommittee,
and on almost all defense issues we agree. Unfortunately, today, I must
rise in opposition to this amendment.
As everyone here knows, yesterday Secretary Powell met with the
leadership of Turkey. Immediately following that meeting, the border
was opened and supplies on trucks were flowing into northern Iraq for
the U.S. forces that are there. These are supplies, not ammunition or
weapons; but it is a significant step forward.
Also, we were able to use the air space of Turkey in order to bring
in forces into northern Iraq by air lift. Bombers have flown into Iraq
using turkey's airspace.
So I think they have made a very significant contribution, and people
sometimes forget that 90 percent of the people in Turkey are opposed to
this war. They are on the border with Iraq. It was much different in
1991 when Saddam Hussein was invading another country like Kuwait, and
therefore, they could join as a NATO ally and work with the United
States to get Saddam out of Kuwait. This is a different circumstance.
I think they have done almost everything they could. If 90 percent of
the people in the United States were opposed to this war, we might not
be there. I think we have to understand, this is a new government with
a new parliament; and Turkey has been a reliable ally for many, many
years.
This was in the President's budget request. Condoleezza Rice has
written a letter to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) expressing
the support of the administration for keeping this money in this bill.
We also have to look at the long term. Once we get through with this
war, and I hope and pray it is over very quickly, we are going to have
to rebuild our alliances, not only with NATO, but with all the
countries in the region; and I think showing some good faith at this
point and supporting this $1 billion to help Turkey, who has serious
financial problems that were caused by their participation in the
original Gulf War in 1990 and 1991. They have been hurt economically by
this because of humanitarian problems and economic problems that they
are facing.
They desperately need this aid and assistance, and they are a
democratic secular country that in my mind deserves the support of the
United States. They have been involved with us in every military
conflict since the Korean War and through Afghanistan; and on the floor
of the House, to undercut the agreement that was reached just yesterday
with Secretary Powell, I think, would be a terrible mistake.
We should show Turkey that we understand their problem and we want
them to recover economically and we want them to work with us through
NATO to be a good ally and a good friend. Please vote against the
Cunningham amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. As the preceding
speaker said, the gentleman who offers this amendment is somebody that
I have the highest respect for. He is a true patriot, and no way would
I impugn his motives. I just think the basis of this amendment is
fundamentally wrong.
As I said the other day in the committee, this is one of those tough
votes where I think we as Members have an obligation to not let our
emotions run away with us but to do what is the right thing in order to
prosecute the war and to carry out our national security and diplomatic
objectives.
If I may I would like to provide a little bit of background. The bill
language, as it is presented on the floor today, permits us to provide
to Turkey, through permissive legislative language, $1 billion in
economic support funds to Turkey which could be used by Turkey in turn
to buy down the cost of private sector loans, that is, the credit
subsidy that would sustain about $8.5 billion of loan guarantees.
The committee recommends this bill language but requires that the
Secretary of State determine and notify Congress that Turkey is
cooperating with the United States in Operation Iraqi Freedom,
including the facilitation of humanitarian assistance. So this money
does not get spent until that certification is made by the President.
The President, the administration, and the committee support the
assistance in this bill because a strong and economically viable and a
democratic Turkey is a model in the Middle East, and it is essential to
U.S. strategic interests.
Turkey has been an ally of ours for the last half century. During the
Korean War, the Turks were with us and suffered the highest per capita
casualties of any partner in the Korean War coalition. They were with
us in Vietnam. They were with us in 1991 in the Gulf War. They have
been with us in Afghanistan. They helped us in Bosnia. They have been
very helpful in the war against terrorism.
They have hosted Operation Northern Watch. That is the enforcement of
the no-fly zone in the northern part of Iraq for the last 12 years.
They are a member in good standing of the NATO alliance.
Turkey is also a democratic nation. It is one of the few Muslim
nations that has built economic and military ties with Israel. Ankara
has viewed this relation as important, as does Israel. After the
conflict with Iraq ends, we will clearly need Turkey to play an
important role in the Middle East peace process.
Obviously, the Turks have not done everything that we would have
wished and may have been expected in Operation Iraqi Freedom; but we
need to remember that they are a democracy,
[[Page H2749]]
and sometimes democracies can be messy, as we certainly know in our own
body here.
The Turkish parliament did not support the executive by some three
votes. They fell short of the absolute majority they needed to have;
but in fairness, 90 percent of the population has been opposed to this
war, and so it was an act of some courage for this new parliament, 80
percent of whom were new at the time they voted, to cast the votes they
did; and as The Washington Post pointed out recently, the United States
contributed to part of the problem with its own diplomatic errors
leading up to the vote that took place.
Foreign affairs is, in part I think, understanding about being
sensitive to other nations' views. We need to remember that Turkey does
border Iraq, as well as Syria and Iran. We need to understand that the
Iraq conflict and Kurdish issues are extraordinarily important domestic
issues in this multiethnic nation. The refugee flows from Iraq in 1991
tragically led to a wave of terrorism that resulted in 30,000 Turkish
deaths, and we can be sure that was very much on the minds of these
people at the time they cast the votes that they did.
While they did not allow U.S. combat troops to cross into Iraq from
Turkish territory, they are now supporting us in a number of important
ways with intelligence support, with overflights by combat aircraft and
missiles, the basing of helicopters in southeastern Turkey for medical
evacuations, by allowing resupply of our troops by opening a northern
front, and emergency landings of U.S. combat aircraft, and with
humanitarian assistance that is now flowing regularly across the border
into Iraq.
We have been firmly opposed to having Turkish military intervention
in Iraq. The assistance in the supplemental provides an incentive for
Turkish restraint. Should Turkey move into Iraq, the President would be
able to withhold the funds in this bill.
Just yesterday, Secretary of State Powell completed talks in Turkey.
He obtained formal Turkish agreement to allow overland supply of fuel,
water and food to our forces in northern Iraq. The Secretary worked on
repairing relations. He secured Turkish agreement on the flow of
humanitarian supplies.
Mr. Chairman, for us to cast a positive vote on this amendment right
now undercuts not only the President's diplomatic efforts but, yes,
sadly undercuts our military forces in northern Iraq; and, Mr.
Chairman, we should not do that. I urge my colleagues to vote against
this amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, because she has laryngitis, I ask unanimous
consent that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) may be
permitted to insert a statement in the Record at this point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
There is no question that Turkey's initial refusal to allow the use
of its territory had made prosecution of the war more difficult for us.
While I would characterize the vote of the Turkish Parliament as
unfortunate and misguided, it happened. Sometimes we find the result of
democratic deliberations inconvenient, but this was, in fact, the
result. Despite that vote, the administration has requested $1 billion
for Turkey. The justification, as presented by administration
officials, is primarily economic. Turkey is in dire straits at the
moment.
This is partly due to the war, and partly due to past economic
policies. But regardless of the reason, the Turkish economy is
teetering. They owe the IMF over $17 billion at the moment, and are
financing most of their cash needs in short-term, high-interest debt.
They have started down the path of economic reform, but they have a
long way to go.
Now that the war is on, and Turkey has finally agreed to allow the
positioning of supplies for our troops on its soil, the worst thing we
could do is send a signal that we do not support Turkey. The
circumstances surrounding this request may not be ideal, but our men
and women in uniform are well into a tough battle for the future of
Iraq, and Turkey's continued cooperation will help them.
Economic collapse of Turkey, coupled with a further breach in United
States-Turkish relations which would result from passage of this
amendment, would be absolutely disastrous to the war effort--and the
peace effort that will come after. Turkey remains one of the few
stable, democratic countries in the region, surrounded by unstable,
authoritarian states. As a moderate Muslim state, strategically
situated at the gateway to the Middle East, we simply cannot allow it
to fail.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from California's
amendment. I join many of my colleagues that feel anger and frustration
over the Turkish refusal to allow some 62,000 American troops to be
based on their soil in order to open up the northern front against
Iraq.
Mr. Chairman, Secretary Powell recently went to Ankara to meet with
Turkish officials, and press reports on his mission indicate that
Turkey has made some concessions allowing limited U.S. military and
humanitarian resupply operations via its territory. These concessions
are obviously vital to the safety of the Americans that are on the
ground right now in northern Iraq and the overall success of the Iraq
mission.
The supplemental bill addresses some of my concerns on the use of the
$1 billion in aid to Turkey. There are legitimate restrictions on use
of our aid. The Secretary of State is required to determine and to
report to Congress that Turkey has met certain obligations such as
certain economic responsibilities that the Turkish Government must meet
and Turkey's cooperation in Operation Iraqi Freedom. I would like to
see the report to Congress to address more than these issues, though,
and to set benchmarks for what the Secretary can determine as Turkey's
cooperation in Operation Iraqi Freedom. We have not seen all the
details.
On the House floor last week, I called attention to several important
issues that bear repeating and that should serve as the basis for
additional conditional aid to Turkey. Turkey must agree to allow
unfettered U.S. and/or international humanitarian aid transiting
through and/or being staged in Turkish territory in support of the
northern Iraqi Kurds. Turkey must explicitly agree not to cross into
northern Iraq, as demanded by President Bush.
Turkey must agree that it will provide only logistical support to the
humanitarian effort in the northern, and Turkey must agree to economic
and banking reforms as specified by international lending institutions.
Finally, Turkey should agree to provide full minority rights to its
citizens as stipulated in international and European conventions.
I know all these conditions have not been met, and the report is not
clear about exactly what conditions are to be set, and I think we need
to be careful and concerned about the fact that all of these conditions
are not set forth before we provide any aid.
Turkey has been touted by some as a model of a Muslim, secular,
democratic State; but it is often overlooked that Turkey's history of
human rights abuses and aggression towards its neighbors is very long.
Turkey appears on every major U.S. and international human rights
violator's lists every year. This is mainly due to their treatment of
their minority citizens. The international community has repeatedly
warned them that the brutal treatment of their Kurdish citizens and
others jeopardizes their chances of entering the European Union.
Turkey also continues to join with Azerbaijan in illegally blockading
Armenia. This is in direct violation of the U.S. Humanitarian Aid
Corridors Act, which states the U.S. assistance may not be made
available for any country whose government prohibits or otherwise
restricts, directly or indirectly, the transport or delivery of U.S.
humanitarian assistance.
{time} 1445
Turkey has also flouted international law and U.S. criticism for 31
years, illegally occupying the northern third of Cyprus. And even
though there was an effort in the last few weeks to try to come to a
settlement, Turkey refused to be part of that settlement and there
still is no settlement in Cyprus.
Now, these last few weeks have served as a wake-up call for many of
us in the United States. We have seen the obvious contradictions I have
spoken
[[Page H2750]]
about and have real questions about how we can afford giving American
tax dollars to a country like Turkey that does not share our strategic
vision and is not willing to share the burdens of dealing with the
Iraqi regime. I understand that Secretary Powell and others on the
Committee on Appropriations have made an effort to put some conditions
on this aid, but I do not think it goes far enough. I think at this
time, unless we have more restrictions put on the aid, that it is wrong
for us to go ahead with this billion-dollar package.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the
Cunningham amendment to cut the aid to Turkey unless Turkey shoulders
its international responsibilities more correctly. And, more
specifically, the American taxpayer should not be footing their loan
bill or any other of their bills.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the gentleman's position,
and I do agree with the chair of the subcommittee's position, the
gentleman from Arizona. I think he articulates the reasons that we
ought to support the money allocated to Turkey. And yet I have a
question for him, if I can attract his attention for a moment, either
the gentleman from Arizona or the chair of the full committee.
Again, while I applaud the democracy that we have noted in Turkey and
the fact that they have been steadfast allies of this country, and that
they did have a very healthy parliamentary debate and reached the
conclusion, as democracies do, that they would not accept what I
understand was a $30 billion package, at the same time I just recently
read and I would like----
The CHAIRMAN. Time of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) has
expired.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from New Jersey be granted an additional 30 seconds.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
Mr. YOUNG OF Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object,
and I will not, but if we get into a situation where we are having a
lot of requests for a lot of time extensions, then I would have to
object because this bill needs to get done.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts that the gentleman from New Jersey be given an additional
30 seconds?
Mr. STEARNS. Objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida objects.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I come here to the House floor and I rise in opposition
to the gentleman's amendment. I understand my friend's concern, but I
do not think we need to exacerbate the situation. Turkey has been with
us so many times, as the gentleman from Arizona has pointed out. So
many times Turkey has been with us, and would my colleagues hurt a
friend because of this situation, after Turkey has now agreed, as
reported in The New York Times, to increase its cooperation with the
American military campaign in Iraq by permitting use of its territory
for the overland supply of food, water, fuel, and other necessities to
American armed forces operating in northern Iraq?
Number two, Mr. Chairman, and another step that Colin Powell was
successful in, Turkey has agreed to open their airfields to American
military planes in distress or for the evacuation of American service
personnel. Turkey has extended such help occasionally since the war
began 2 weeks ago, but the new accord will make it more routine.
Most importantly, my colleagues, in a separate but important part of
the agreement, Secretary Powell said that the United States and Turkey
would establish a monitoring group to watch northern Iraq to make sure
no conditions arose that might compel Turkey to send its troops across
the borders into Iraq. Turkey is a modern republic. It is a Muslim
state. It is unique, as pointed out, in all the nations of the world.
It is the only operating democracy in the Middle East. So it is
essential that the United States realize and appreciate the burden, the
special burden Turkey has, and the fact that they are the only Muslim
member of NATO.
Turkey remained steadfast with the United States and our allies
through the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, NATO air strikes during the
conflict in Kosovo, and in providing aid to Albanian refugees, as well
as hosting Operation Northern Watch, which maintains the no-fly zone
over northern Iraq. Turkey has been of enormous assistance in our
global war on terrorism. And they should know. They have been fighting
it for 30 years. Thirty thousand people have been killed by terrorists
in Turkey.
We have a vested interest in Turkey, and Turkey is sacrificing its
well-being just by supporting a lot of our policies. Turkey will open
its airfields, as I pointed out earlier, to the American military
planes. Is this everything we have asked for from this ally? No. But I
would like to point out that Turkey does support our efforts, unlike
other so-called allies who have opposed us at every turn.
So, Mr. Chairman, I believe this is an amendment that should be
defeated. The administration, Secretary of State Colin Powell, is
satisfied with Turkey's response and he is willing to go ahead with the
foreign aid package, so why should we not? In the interest of
maintaining good relationships with an ally, a solid ally, where solemn
Muslim leadership is needed in this region, we should do this as well.
So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get into a debate on this amendment,
but I do want to object to something I just saw here on the House
floor. We have been trying to work out cooperatively, between both
sides of the aisle, arrangements on time. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich) was willing to limit his amendment, for instance, to 15
minutes. We now have a Republican amendment on which we have not yet
been able to obtain time limits. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young)
has been trying to manage the bill in a very fair way, and I have been
trying to do what I can on this side as well.
I, frankly, find it offensive when an individual Member of the House
objects to another Member of the House simply asking for an extension
of time for a minute or so to ask a question. I want to put the House
on notice that if that happens once more, I will guarantee that we will
not finish this bill tonight.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise with hesitation to oppose the amendment of my
very dear friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who,
let me note, has always been one of my heroes in this body because he
not only is an articulate champion of the things that he believes, but
he is a man who has walked the walk as well as talked the talk. He is a
legitimate American hero and, thus, I am hesitantly coming to oppose
his amendment.
Let me suggest that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) is
right when he says that no Nation, including Turkey, should be able to
slap the United States in the face and walk away without paying a
price. They are paying a price. The fact is that earlier on we were
willing to give them a huge aid package to join us in this war. It was
a $16 to $30 billion package, and they are not going to get that now.
This is a very much reduced package of about a $1 billion expenditure.
So let us say that they have paid the price for not being true when the
time was right.
But let us add that Turkey must also get the credit it deserves for
being one of our most stalwart friends and allies over the years. The
Turkish people have stood by the United States more strongly and more
courageously than almost any other people on this planet for over five
decades. They deserve to get a little leeway for that. We deserve for
them to be given a little credit. We should give the Turks a little
credit for the fact that when the Korean War was on, and our people
were being brutally murdered and we were unprepared for that conflict,
the Turks were the first ones to send help to our end and stand by us
in that conflict.
[[Page H2751]]
In Vietnam, while they did not have troops there, they did support us
in that effort while the rest of the world heaped abuse upon us. During
the Gulf War, a decade ago, even though it was dramatically against
their economic interest to do so, the Turks stood with us, and their
assistance saved the lives of many and made that operation the success
it was. We could not have done it without them.
Thus, we owe the Turks. Now, yes, they did not do what was right by
us at this moment. It was a time of confusion in their history. They
are paying for that mistake. But let us give them the credit that is
due them for so many years of friendship, so many years of alliance, so
many years when we could count on them. And let us look to the future.
If we are going to have democracy develop in the Muslim world, Turkey
will be an absolutely pivotal player. We will rely on them again to
make this a safer and a better world. We will not succeed in the
President's goal of bringing democracy to the Muslim world without the
Turks there. They are giving us a good example. They are giving their
fellow Muslims a good example. Let us stand by them.
Yes, let us say we were disappointed, but let us not treat them in a
way inconsistent with the way that they have treated us over these many
decades, which is as a friend and ally.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the thoughtful comments just
presented by my colleague from California and with comments made
earlier in this debate by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Turkey is a democracy, as our Secretary of Defense often points out
approvingly, Turkey is a NATO ally, and Turkey is a courageous
supporter of Israel. I too regret the recent action by Turkey's
Parliament, but I am pleased to see that what has followed is more
promising. And I applaud our Secretary of State for visiting Turkey
these past days to mend relations.
This is a good debate to have, Mr. Chairman, and an important vote to
make on this floor. In that spirit, I wish the rule had permitted us to
have a good debate on the amendment the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) had planned to offer, and a good vote on the proper level of
homeland security funding for our first responders.
On that subject, I want to point out briefly that it is not just the
level of responder funding, it is not just the top line that matters,
it is the front line.
It is as important that Federal funds are delivered quickly to local
police and fire departments, public health officials and other first
responders on the front lines of our hometowns. When an earthquake or
other natural disaster strikes in California, first responders rush in
to secure the scene, render medical assistance and provide a hot meal
and a cot. FEMA has programs in place to reimburse communities promptly
for the costs they incur.
The point is this: The FEMA system has been thoroughly tested. We
know it works and it serves our communities well.
A similar kind of system should be in place in preparation for
possible acts of domestic terrorism which can have the same or worse
impacts than a natural disaster. It is up to the Federal Government to
make sure emergency response programs are extremely effective and
efficient. After all, we are obligated by the Constitution to provide
for the common defense, and part of the war theater is our hometowns.
Last week, Secretary Ridge put it this way in testimony before the
Congress. ``I would like to engage both Chambers in a bipartisan way to
see whether or not I can convince you that the formula we have used in
the past shouldn't be the formula we use in the future.'' He continued:
``It doesn't take into consideration some of the special needs that
certain communities have and certain States have that are substantially
greater than others.''
Secretary Ridge has it right and I commend him for his willingness to
acknowledge the problem and offer to work with Congress to fix it. The
Secretary is saying what many of us have known for some time. It is not
enough for Congress simply to write the check. The check needs to be
delivered and cashed. And as of today, the dollars are not flowing.
There is a better way to do this, and I think it is the FEMA way.
Secretary Ridge can and should exercise his authority to streamline and
expedite his Department's funding process the FEMA way.
{time} 1500
FEMA has long used emergency funds to support communities,
individuals, and families in the face of a natural disaster. Under
prior leadership, FEMA streamlined its assistance to individuals and
families, cutting checks within 3 to 7 days of a disaster.
As a first step, Secretary Ridge should move the Department's
Emergency Management Preparedness Grant program from the Office of
Domestic Preparedness back to FEMA where experienced officials can
process requests more quickly. Our emergency unpreparedness is a
disaster waiting to happen, and we need to support our communities.
There are other steps to consider as well. All Federal first
responder funds that have not yet been made available should be
released, including $100 million available to Secretary Ridge for high-
threat urban areas. He should determine where these areas are and get
those funds out immediately. America's major metropolitan areas know
their needs and can take steps to increase security now. We should not
have to wait for a full-blown interagency process to tell us that a
city like Los Angeles has critical infrastructure or a large
population.
I not only represent that large urban area, but many small areas,
where small amounts of dollars can make a big difference. And those
dollars are needed now.
Wartime is not a time for business as usual. The war on terrorism is
being fought on a number of fronts, including our hometowns. We would
not send our troops to war in Iraq without the support, training, and
equipment they deserve. We should do nothing less for those on the
front lines here at home.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
further debate on the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), and any amendments thereto be limited to
40 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent of the
amendment and myself as the opponent.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, that
arrangement as stated would provide that all of the time would be
managed on that side of the aisle. Can we work it out so that some of
it is assured to folks on this side of the aisle, regardless of which
side of the question they are on?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to ask unanimous
consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) as an opponent
would share the 20 minutes. So the gentleman from Wisconsin would have
10 minutes and I would have 10 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, that is agreeable. I withdraw my reservation
of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
Mr. DeFAZIO. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I would
like an idea how many Members are waiting to speak on which side of the
issue, and whether that is an adequate amount of time.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have about six speakers for the amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, on this side we have at least two or
three.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak on the amendment. I
would just like to see us finish before 4 in the morning.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, maybe a little more time is required on
this amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H2752]]
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman be interested
in 25 minutes on each side? I think Members know how they are going to
vote on this amendment right now, but we need to have the debate. I do
not want to restrict the debate, but as the gentleman from Wisconsin
stated, we would like to finish before we get accused of doing this in
the wee hours of the night, and Members know that usual routine.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the problem is the uncertainty who will
get to speak or not get to speak. Can we proceed a little further and
then see if we can get a unanimous consent request? Maybe 25 minutes a
side.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent request
that further debate on the pending amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cunningham) be limited to 25 minutes on each side,
to be equally divided and controlled by myself and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham) as the proponent.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield
half of my 25 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) as an
additional opponent to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) will
control 25 minutes, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will control
12\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will
control 12\1/2\ minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the chairman of
the committee for a fine job on a fine bill for the soldiers, sailors,
and airmen of the United States military.
I stand here as a friend of Turkey. I stand here as someone who looks
to a strong relationship with Turkey in the years to come. I also stand
here as a strong proponent of the Cunningham amendment.
I met Mr. Erdogan the weekend before he was to be elected. We talked
to some of his top leaders and advisers, ministerial-level officials in
the new government. We came to a conclusion when we were getting ready
to leave that it was probably in the best interest, and maybe in the
next 10 or 15 or 12 days there would be a vote and they would push for
a vote, understanding the very clear consequence that if they did not
do this vote, we believed and we believe today there will be more
American casualties on the battlefield and more Iraqi citizens killed.
Instead of standing up and showing leadership in those 10 days, they
decided to ride that wave of populism and avoid that vote. They had
their chance to make a difference in this debate. Leadership would have
solved this problem, and I understand they are a new government. I
understand they have challenges with their IMF requirements, and they
have challenges they need to meet in reforming their economy, and I
understand that they have a struggling economy like our own.
But it is a concern to me that this money is in this bill at this
time. This is a wartime supplemental. Our chairman graciously stood up
earlier and said let us keep these troops in our thoughts and our
prayers, and I was humbled by that. This bill is for the very brave
patriots who fight for America today, and by no means should we
underestimate what the Turkish decision by a democracy, who are still
friends, but let us not underestimate what that decision did; it cost
us more money, more time, and more American lives.
I find it offensive that we would put this money in this bill today
on this floor. This is not the time nor is it the place to be debating
the Turkey financial future or IMF or economic reform, or the fact that
they helped us 50 years ago. Let us send a message to this new
government that we are their friends, but there are consequences to
being a part of democracy.
I met with the Ambassador to Turkey yesterday who said this money
``is not anything that they asked for,'' quote/unquote; that the money
has nothing to do with any of the previous arrangements made on
humanitarian aid supply, resupply or flyover, no bearing whatsoever.
This has nothing, quote/unquote, to do with the war.
A State Department senior official said yesterday that Powell's visit
did not get any new agreements, it reinforced old agreements with
Turkey. Let us not get confused by the things that we will hear on this
floor or by the letters that we receive. This is about old agreements
and old relationships that we should value as allies. This should not
be about a new billion dollars at a time when we have soldiers dying on
the battlefield as a result of their decision.
Let us remind our friends in Turkey that they are allies of ours and
they will continue to be, and even democracies can have differences;
but sometimes there is a cost and a consequence to a decision to turn
your back at a very critical time. This is not about a trade agreement
or a company that got its privileges taken away in a copyright
violation. This decision cost American lives.
Let us stand up today and let them remember that. They are going to
continue to be our friends, and I am going to continue to be a
supporter from Turkey. But I want them to understand that we can never
tie these issues together. Some of this money will be used to bring
home our dead. The fact that we are allowing this money to be in this
bill is wrong. I would ask Members to stand up today and support the
Cunningham amendment and let us save Turkey economic development for
another day.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
(Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I join the chorus of Members who have
commended the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who is a
patriot and is exactly right on so many national security issues, but I
have to oppose this amendment. I believe it would be ill-advised to
allow our short-term emotional feelings to affect the long-term
security of this Nation and of the world.
The nation of Turkey has been an ally of the United States for more
than 50 years. During the Korean War, 717 Turkish soldiers lost their
lives fighting on our side, and more than 2,000 were wounded. After
September 11, 2001, Turkey voted in NATO to invoke article 5 of the
Defense Treaty and join the coalition to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban
regime, allowing access to airspace and providing intelligence within
24 hours of that vote.
The U.S. is right now working with Turkish forces in the Balkans, the
Middle East, and the Caucasus. Currently Turkey is allowing flyover
rights, supporting our resupply lines, allowing humanitarian aid and
the evacuation of our wounded to cross their borders.
Although Turkey's Parliament did not vote as we wanted, we need to
remember that over 90 percent of their Parliament is brand new at this
idea of governing. They were just newly elected, and more members of
their Parliament voted in our favor than voted against us. It was only
a parliamentary requirement that caused the issue to fail in
Parliament.
I think the actions of the Turkish Parliament were irresponsible and
wrong, but two wrongs do not make a right. And certainly let's not
compare Turkey with France and Germany on this issue. Turkey's
leadership has supported the United States throughout. It has not been
Turkey who has gone globe trotting all over the world, rounding up
Security Council votes against the United States' position. It was not
Turkey which did this.
Further, I think it is inaccurate to make the analogy that the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) made with regard to what we
do with our children. Turkey is not our child. Turkey is our ally, our
partner in NATO. We can love them as a child and love them as an ally,
but we must not
[[Page H2753]]
forget that Turkey is a sovereign nation, a nation whose friendship we
need and whose friendship we have enjoyed.
This appropriation issue is a matter of this House exercising its
discretion and prerogative. We have the power of the purse. We can make
this decision as a Congress. The Constitution gives us that right, but
it also gives us the responsibility, I believe, to listen to the best
minds on Earth on this issue. The Secretary of Defense yesterday told
Congress that appropriating this money is in the national interest.
That has also been the message of Secretary of State Powell, National
Security Advisor Rice, and most importantly the President of the United
States. I urge defeat of this amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Wexler).
Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment which cuts the President's $1 billion request for wartime aid
to Turkey. I too join in the commendation to the sponsor of the
amendment for his patriotism and to the goodwill for those Members that
support it. But with all due respect, and I was with the gentleman from
Michigan in Turkey 2 weeks ago, the suggestion that Turkey, in the
exercise of her democracy, is somehow responsible for putting American
soldiers in harm's way I believe is a misplaced and inaccurate
argument.
We are not at war with Turkey. We are at war with Iraq. Do not
transfer the atrocities of Iraq to the decisions of a longtime
democratic ally. What is being discussed in the essence of this
amendment, I would respectfully suggest, is a very short-term American
memory; and if we really want to calculate what advantage the American
men and women, the brave American men and women who are on the
battlefield now have gotten or not gotten from Turkey, why are we not
calculating the last 12 years where Turkey has provided the authority
for American and British pilots to control northern Iraq and contain
Saddam Hussein?
{time} 1515
One of the principal reasons why the disparity of power is so great
and so much in our favor in the fight right now is because Turkey
allowed the United States for the past 12 years to diminish the
capacity of Saddam Hussein and diminish his atrocities; but there is no
mention of that with respect to this amendment.
Following September 11, Turkey demonstrated a steadfast commitment to
aiding the United States by leading the international security
assistance force in Afghanistan. Let us not underestimate that. When we
were attacked in New York, in Washington, in Pennsylvania, when it was
our blood that was being spilled and when our forces left Afghanistan,
whom did we hand it over to? We handed it over to a willing Turkey, a
country that is almost 100 percent made up of Muslim citizens; and they
took our battle and they took it willingly. And to suggest that because
they exercised their democracy, even though we may be disappointed by
the decision, that they are somehow responsible for the letting of
American blood I do not believe is the message that the United States
should ever suggest to an ally like Turkey.
We are fighting in Iraq to destroy Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass
destruction, but I also thought we were fighting to liberate the Iraqi
people, to help them install a democracy. So what is the message? That
the United States is their friend if they are a democracy only when
they decide in agreement with what we believe?
Is there no room for allies in the midst of a hot debate, in the
midst of competing interests to have honest discussions, and do there
have to be catastrophic consequences if a country disagrees?
If I were an ally of the United States today, the message that I
would get from this amendment is they are only as good as long as they
agree 100 percent, but if they spill their blood with the United States
for 6 decades like Turkish soldiers have done shoulder to shoulder with
American soldiers, if they spill their blood for 6 decades, but they
exercise their democracy and come up with a differing result, then the
United States says all bets are off.
We are better than that. We are better as a people, and we owe it to
our soldiers that are fighting now to defeat this amendment.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Keller).
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Cunningham amendment to
strike $1 billion in foreign aid to Turkey.
Turkey is a NATO ally; and because of its location just to the north
of Iraq, it was strategically important to the United States in our
military plans to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
But at a time when we needed Turkey the most, on March 1, 2003, the
Turkish Parliament rejected a resolution to allow 62,000 U.S. troops,
255 planes, and 62 helicopters to enter Turkey.
Saddam Hussein is a ruthless, pathologically aggressive dictator with
a history of attacking several countries bordering Iraq. Our country
has incurred many casualties. We spent billions of dollars to help
reestablish the reign of peace and stability throughout the Middle
East. Why is Turkey not giving us $1 billion?
And these fair-weather friends in Turkey, are they even grateful that
the United States is giving them $1 billion in American taxpayers'
money, money that is extracted from the paychecks of waitresses,
secretaries, and small businessmen? The answer is no. Recently the
Turkish Ambassador to the United States stated, ``This is not something
Turkey has asked for. It is a unilateral action by the U.S.
administration.''
We are giving $1 billion to Turkey in the name of friendship when it
is clear to anyone with common sense that friendship cannot be bought.
One billion dollars is a lot of money. It is enough to send 250,000
American children to college on Pell grants. Let us use our taxpayer
dollars wisely.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Cunningham amendment and
strike the $1 billion in foreign aid to Turkey.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member on
our Committee on Appropriations for yielding me this time.
I rise in opposition to this amendment, but I certainly understand
where the distinguished Member from California is coming from. But in a
bill that includes $7.5 billion in direct assistance and authorization
for another $19.5 billion in guaranteed loans with the full faith and
credit of the United States behind them, Turkey needs to be part of
this package. They are too strategically an important ally not to be
because they are a member of NATO, they border Iraq and Iran. They are,
in fact, cooperating in our battle with Iraq, with Saddam Hussein more
than with the Iraqi people. But if we are going to be successful in a
long-term war of winning over the hearts and minds of the Islamic
people, more than 1 billion people throughout the world, that is where
we need Turkey the most, to move this world in the direction of
democracy, of free enterprise, and of individual rights.
Turkey is a secular society and a truly democratic electoral system,
and we cannot have it both ways. We cannot urge countries throughout
the world to in fact democratize their political system, but then when
they do not act according to our will but rather reflect the will of
their people, we reject it and we want to hold back money. We cannot do
that. We cannot have it both ways in Turkey or any other country; and
that is really what this is all about. When 90 percent of the Turkish
people are opposed to the war in Iraq, of course 90 percent of the
Turkish people are Islamic, it is perhaps understandable; but we ought
to respect that and respect Turkish leaders and work with them.
Turkey needs to be a member of the European Union. One of the reasons
they are held back is because of corruption, which at least has been
endemic in Turkey, and human rights abuses. We need to use this money,
in my opinion, as leverage in advancing America's priorities, the
priorities of the American people in terms of human rights and
democratization.
There is a woman by the name of Leyla Zana, for example, who goes on
[[Page H2754]]
trial today. She has been in prison for 11 years. When she was
inaugurated a duly elected member of parliament, she made a speech
urging that the Kurdish minority work with the Turkish majority in a
more integrated and peaceful society. That is a tinderbox in Turkey.
Turkey needs to work with the Kurdish minority. Many of us were
concerned about the Turkish military going into the northern part of
Iraq into the Kurdish zone for fear they might attempt a military
occupation. Turkey needs to understand that we provide this money, but
we expect them to integrate the Kurdish people within their entire
society and, in fact, their economy.
So that is our objective, advancing America's priorities; and
America's priorities are more consistent with Turkey's long-term
priorities than many of the countries that we are providing aid to
today.
So I urge the Members of this Congress to support the $1 billion and
in fact the additional $8.5 billion in guaranteed loans for Turkey, but
then not to shrug our shoulders and turn our back but to work with
those in the Turkish society and in politics who want to modernize
Turkey, to enable it to become a member of the European Union, a bridge
between East and West and one of the shining examples that democracy
can work and human rights can be observed throughout the Islamic world.
I urge defeat of the amendment for that reason, but I congratulate
the Member for raising the issue.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to how
much time is remaining for the proponent and the opponents.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) has 19
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 9\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 4\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished majority whip.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
As my friend from Virginia just said, I share his admiration and
appreciation for the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), one of
the true heroes of this Congress, a person who has defended our
country, who thinks about those who are in harm's way, who appreciates
what they do only as one who has bravely stood there, appreciates what
they do, and I appreciate his sense that this is a topic that we need
to discuss because we do need to discuss it; and our friends in Turkey
need to hear the discussion. We have been disappointed with their
actions in recent days. In fact, someone just stood up a minute ago,
another friend of mine, and said Turkey disappointed us when we needed
them most. I think that would be hard to evaluate when we needed Turkey
the most because we have needed Turkey often and we have needed Turkey
for a long time, and they have been there on all previous occasions.
If we were going to have a debate on this floor about who was the
most valued NATO ally, certainly our friends in Great Britain today and
in this moment would rank at the top of that list, and they would be
widely appreciated. But if we had to look over the history of NATO,
certainly as we had that discussion, we would have to have that
discussion, and it would have to involve Turkey. Turkey, because of its
location, has been at the focal point of so much of the world's chaos
and in the last 5 decades has been at that focal point as well. Turkey,
who during the 45 years of the Cold War stood facing the Soviet Union
on the north, the bulwark of stopping the advance of those that we saw
who opposed our way of life and what we did at that time, they stood so
firmly and so strong that we prevailed in that great conflict of
ideology. Now Turkey has had to turn and face the south as the hotbed
of the world borders Turkey on the south, and they face the south as a
great and dependable friend of ours. Certainly Turkey has had a change
based on their democracy. The government has changed. The government is
working hard, in my opinion, to continue that strong friendship with
the United States. They do need to be part of the European Union. They
have been discriminated against for many reasons. They need to move in
the right direction. We need to encourage that both economically and
socially and politically.
This continues to move Turkey in that direction. It continues to show
that we appreciate those who 90 percent of the time and plus in the
last decades have stood with us.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, it was not long ago we were standing in
this place voicing our support of the troops; and when we were voicing
that support, I think some of the most poignant remarks came from the
soldiers in our midst.
It is hard to imagine what it is like being in the middle of a war
for those that have not done it like myself. However, the sponsor of
this amendment has been there. He has had the experience of being a
soldier in a very perilous situation, and I think today that the
sponsor of this amendment is putting himself in the place of the
soldiers that are serving us in this conflict right now.
We have not forgotten what Turkey has done for us. My brother-in-law
is a Korean War veteran, and we appreciate their friendship and their
support through the years. But one of the qualities of friendship is
steadfastness, being able to call on a friend in one's time of need.
Turkey has failed us now in this present situation. In fact, Under
Secretary Wolfowitz told the House of Representatives on March 27,
``There is no question if we had had a U.S. armored force in Iraq right
now, the end of the war would have been closer.''
{time} 1530
Every one of us in this Chamber, every citizen in the United States,
wants this conflict to end as soon as possible. If Turkey had done what
the United States had requested and needs, and given their full support
and assistance, many lives would have been saved. The soldiers that my
distinguished colleague identifies with that are in this conflict
today, many of them would not have been killed.
I find it offensive that we would say to the families of those
soldiers that have been lost, we are going to reward Turkey's behavior
by giving them $1 billion in aid today. I think there are consequences
when nations take action that harm our soldiers, and I would ask that
we support this amendment that is given by the heart of a soldier.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Turkey may need assistance, but today is not the day to approve that
assistance. Today we send a clear signal to America and the rest of the
world that we support our troops. Turkey has not supported our troops.
The U.S. over the last number of months has consistently and
frequently consulted with Turkey as to the direction of the war with
Iraq and the role that Turkey would take. Turkey allowed us to make
improvements to their infrastructure. We invested millions of dollars,
contracted with Turkish companies to work, yet they would not allow us
to deploy our troops. The Pentagon supported their economy by
purchasing Turkish-made apparel for U.S. troops for 1 year, waiving a
Buy America provision, sacrificing American jobs for Turkish jobs. The
U.S. continues to promise protection to Turkey in the event of an
attack. That is more than what we can say Turkey did for us.
Turkey has been an ally for a long time. So maybe sometime in the
future would be the appropriate time to come back and take a look at
how to help a friend with tough economic times. But in this vote, where
we are supporting our troops in our war effort, this is not the place
to reward Turkey.
Let us remove this from the bill. Let us make this a clean bill that
signals to our troops that we stand with them and that we will be with
them through the conclusion of this war effort.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very
distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), a leader in this
House.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H2755]]
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
Cunningham amendment.
We have heard a lot about the distinguished history of Turkey as a
NATO ally, and as an ally in Korea as well, and in Afghanistan leading
the ISAF for 8 months, and in Operation Northern Watch over Iraq where
they provided the air base for our flights for the last 12 years. They
have been an incredibly faithful ally.
Now, what happened in Turkey is really this, when it comes down to
it. They had an election in November. It swept in a new party. Ninety
percent of their national assembly is new. This party, the Justice and
Development Party, had never been in power; and never had even shared
power before. And through inexperience and incompetence they were
surprised to have lost the vote. They got the plurality. They had too
many absentees and too many abstentions and they were surprised that
they did not have the absolute majority vote.
This is not the time to punish Turkey for that inexperience.
Their own party leader, a charismatic man, was not eligible to serve
in the Parliament at that time. Now he is the Prime Minister.
They have done an incredible amount of things, but the other thing I
want my colleagues to consider is that they were the biggest loser in
the Gulf War. Not the United States in terms of costs, no one else; the
cost to them was somewhere between $60 billion and $80 billion,
unreimbursed. We had our costs paid for, primarily so, by Kuwait and
Saudi Arabia.
Now, let us see what Condoleezza Rice said in behalf of the President
today. She said in this letter addressed to the chairman, ``American
and Turkish soldiers stood side by side during the Cold War and on
battlefields from Korea to Afghanistan. The President's supplemental
request recognizes and reflects that past, and his desire,'' that is
the President's desire, ``to strengthen the relationship further. This
assistance . . . can play a significant role in bolstering the U.S.-
Turkey partnership.''
This is not the time to undercut our President. And this very moment
is certainly not the time, because the concessions and the kind of
agreements recently conveyed to Colin Powell says Turkey is there for
us.
Please defeat the amendment. The costs for passing this amendment are
extraordinary.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding me this time.
I rise in support of this very important amendment. I think the
debate itself is a very important one.
It has been said that this amendment is emotional. I am not sure
where folks are coming from. A lot of what we do up here is certainly
emotional, and certainly not everything we do up here is logical. But I
will say this, in terms of the logic of this important amendment, if we
can picture Baghdad and if we can picture the 3rd Infantry Division,
the 3rd Infantry Division whose patch I am proudly wearing today
because it was given to me by one of the military officer's wives back
at Fort Stewart in Georgia, and I have the proud honor of representing
the 3rd Infantry. Mr. Chairman, 18,000 troops right now are in the war
theater who are my constituents.
Now, they have gone up the Euphrates River and they are a little bit
southwest of Baghdad. Now, in the original game plan, the war plan, the
4th Infantry was to be on the north of Baghdad. The idea was that they
would come over from the Turkish border and then they would be ready,
and we would have Baghdad in kind of a pincher movement. We would have
troops on the north, heavy armor; we would have troops on the south,
heavy armor. Instead, what we have because of Turkey's wishy-washy
position, because Turkey could not make up their mind, we have the 3rd
Infantry Division fighting basically the full force of Baghdad on their
own. Now there are folks from the 4th Infantry Division getting in
place, but there has been anywhere from a 2-week to a 1-month delay.
So what I am saying to my colleagues is, you know what? Maybe if you
were from Hinesville, Georgia, maybe if you were a member of the 3rd
Infantry Division, maybe if you are looking at the Republican Guard in
the face, maybe you have a right to show a little bit of emotion. For
Members here to take kind of this intellectual high ground and suggest
that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who is one of our
brave combat veterans of Vietnam, to suggest that he is not entitled to
some emotion on a situation that regards troops in harm's way, I think
that is somewhat of a slight.
But I want to say this to the gentleman from California: The
gentleman is entitled to be emotional anytime he wants, and by golly, I
think our folks from the 3rd Infantry Division are. I want to say this.
Back in the 1970s, when the gentleman was in Vietnam, I am glad the
gentleman was emotional.
But I want to address some of the logic here that people so proudly
say they have. We have 49 countries in our coalition. I will ask
Members, do my colleagues know how many of those are getting monetary
support from the United States? Twenty-two of them. The reason why I
point that out is many people are saying, this is no way to treat an
ally. Well, wait a minute. If we are only giving money to 22, what
about the others? Are they not entitled to it? Are they going to walk
around saying, well, we have to question being allies of the United
States of America because they did not give us money?
Now, it has been suggested that this is the only money for Turkey.
Remember, this is $1 billion. We gave Turkey money just a month ago in
our regular fiscal year 03 budget. We will be giving Turkey more money
in our regular fiscal year 04 budget. We have given Turkey aid money
for the past 5, maybe even 10 years. I am not sure of the exact number
of years, and I am not sure of the exact level. I think it is in the
$200 million range.
But people are coming up here acting like this is Turkey's one shot
for money. It is not. It is a $1 billion support check. That is a lot
of money.
If we support the Cunningham amendment, we will get a second shot at
Turkey, for those of us who feel that we should support them. They are
allies and I think we should have some level of support for them, but
we might not need to do it right here, right now. Let us wait until the
fiscal year 04 budget and take a look again.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
The debate has been a little surreal because we have had such
impassioned speeches about Turkey as an ally and how could we do this
to them, how could we deprive them of this money, which they did not
ask for? The Turkish Ambassador, Faruk Logoglo, said yesterday, ``This
is not something Turkey has asked for. It is a unilateral action by the
U.S. administration.''
Mr. Chairman, this is $1 billion they did not ask for, they do not
expect, and yet now it has become an imperative in this bill, making
emergency wartime supplemental appropriations. Why? Why now? Why is it
in this bill?
As the gentleman who spoke before me said, there will be a time and
place to debate aid to Turkey and the many other worthy nations around
the world who need United States assistance. But should not this bill
be more focused?
Remember, we are borrowing every penny. Every penny of the $74
billion in this bill will be borrowed. We do not have the money in the
bank somewhere. It is not coming from a contingency fund. It is going
to be borrowed. So we should borrow $1 billion to send to Turkey who
has not asked for it, and if we do not borrow the money to send to
Turkey who has not asked for it, we are somehow penalizing them. I do
not think they will see it that way. It does not sound like the
Ambassador is going there.
There are other needs that are unmet in this bill. The gentleman from
Wisconsin attempted to enhance homeland security, port security. I
serve on the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation of
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Committee
on Homeland Security, and I can tell my colleagues, our ports are not
safe. We have not done everything we need to do. We need more funds to
make those ports safe. The most likely way of delivering a weapon of
mass destruction
[[Page H2756]]
in the United States is not an intercontinental ballistic missile, it
is a container on a rogue ship. That is how it will get here in all
probability.
So why are we not making those investments? We could spend, if we
need to borrow this extra $1 billion, there are a lot of ways to spend
it. We could even spend it here at home. There is $3.4 billion in this
bill to rebuild Iraq: 6,000 new schools, universal health insurance.
Guess what? We have 44 million Americans uninsured. We have cut
Medicaid in my State. I have thousands of Oregonians who do not have
health insurance, that need work. Our schools are crumbling. We cannot
run a full school year. We could take this $1 billion and spend it here
in the United States of America. I have to question a lot of the
foreign aid that is in this bill and the priorities that are being set
here.
So therefore, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, and if
this is successful, that would be good; and if not, I will offer an
amendment later to reduce the funds to Turkey to fund National Guard
weapons of mass destruction civil support teams which my State and 17
other States do not have, which have been authorized by this Congress,
but we do not have enough money to fund them; but we can send $1
billion to a country that did not ask for it and does not want it.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I just returned from Camp
Lejeune, went down with the President and the gentlemen from North
Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) and (Mr. Ballance), my colleagues, to say thank
you to the families of those who have lost loved ones fighting this war
in Iraq.
I just want to say I join my colleagues on both sides of the
political aisle. I think it is time that this Congress start looking at
what is important to this country.
Let me give an example. Veterans. I have 61,000 veterans in my
district. Many of my colleagues in this House have more than that, but
I have 61,000 veterans and retired military combined. Yet every year
when we debate concurrent receipts for those men and women who have
served this Nation, it is also a major issue of where are we going to
find the money? How are we going to help those who have served this
Nation?
I believe sincerely, and I know that through history, Turkey has been
a friend of this Nation and maybe it is now and maybe it will be in the
future, but I agree with my colleagues, this $1 billion is unnecessary.
The gentleman that spoke before me just said that Turkey has not even
asked for the $1 billion. I am saying to this Congress that this is
going to be a tough budget year, there are going to be a lot of tight
decisions that we have to make, and let us take this money and let us
spend this money on the American people.
{time} 1545
Let us spend the money on the people of this country who have served
this great Nation, like the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham);
and God bless all who are veterans and retired military.
I hope that, as we vote on this amendment today, we will support the
gentleman from California and that we will remember that those who have
served this Nation, whether they be retired military or retired
veterans, that they have a right. This government made a promise, we
will help you if you serve this Nation. If Turkey does not want the $1
billion, let us take it back and spend it on to those who serve this
great Nation.
Mr. Chairman, God bless America, and God bless our men and women in
uniform.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and I hope that everyone would pay
close attention to someone who has a real-life experience on this
issue.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment
and stand not so much out of concern for foreign policy, but out of
concern for the 3,000 American men and women of the 173rd Airborne
Brigade whose supplies are today delivered from Turkey.
To the proponents of this amendment, what would the soldiers of the
173rd do in northern Iraq if the diplomatic incident we cause leads to
a cutoff in their supplies? The 173rd needs supplies in northern Iraq.
Therefore, the United States needs Turkey.
Prior to my election, I served as a Navy air crewman who flew out of
Incirlik Air Base in Turkey against Iraq. For 12 years, Turkey
supported Operation Northern Watch and the thousands of Americans like
me who flew into Iraq to protect the Kurds in the north.
Under the U.S.-Turkey alliance, the Kurds built two powerful armies
in northern Iraq. It is those armies who rushed the Ansar al-Islam and
other al Qaeda forces with U.S. special operations this week. Tonight,
U.S. airborne and special operations forces are moving with the Kurds
against Saddam. Their beans and bullets to fight Saddam are now rolling
through Turkey on the way to the front.
Look at the past. Turkey sent troops to fight alongside us in Korea.
Turkey sent troops to stand with us in Bosnia and in Kosovo, with me.
Turkey replaced us in Somalia and stands with us in Afghanistan. We
should not question our Commander in Chief on the eve of victory. We
should not cause a diplomatic incident now. Think of the Americans in
the 173rd, think of their supply lines, and vote ``no'' as the
President, the Commander in Chief, the Secretary of State, the
Secretary of Defense, my chairman, and the ranking Democrat member of
this committee have urged. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
Cunningham amendment. Condoleezza Rice, the Assistant to the President
for National Security Affairs, wrote us a letter:
``Secretary Powell addressed important military, political, and
economic issues when he met this week with the Turkish leadership. Both
sides agreed to an unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid to north Iraq,
and access by American forces to supplies sent through Turkey. Turkey
continues to grant overflight rights, and is committed to enhance
cooperation on terrorist threats and possible refugee flows into the
region, without moving additional Turkish military forces into Iraq.
These are very positive steps.''
The President of the United States has requested this $1 billion. We
will be acting like the Turkish Parliament acted if we cut this money
out. It will be a mistake. This is not the way to rebuild and treat a
NATO ally. Let us defeat the Cunningham amendment and move this bill
forward.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if anyone has a right to be upset at the
Turks, it is me. I represent Fort Hood, where the 4th Infantry Division
is located, the division that was supposed to come down through Turkey.
I had met with 50 of the spouses several weeks ago, and have been
watching them live under the uncertainty of not knowing what will
happen and where their husbands will be deployed.
But this is a well-intentioned but dangerous amendment. While not
intended, it could put at greater risk thousands of military soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and Marines in Iraq, including the 4th Infantry
Division that was involved in this Turkish decision.
Let us support the President, and let us trust the President on this
decision in time of war. Oppose the Cunningham amendment.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Idaho (Mr. Otter).
(Mr. OTTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), on the floor today, as I joined him on the
floor not too long ago when all of us sat in this Chamber and listened
to these words: ``If they are not with us, they are against us.''
I think that acid test that was asked for, not too long ago, we asked
that question of our friends in Turkey. That question was asked and
they failed that test.
True democracies are joined irreversibly at the heart and soul with
one great and unyielding truth, that is, their belief in freedom. This
surely was
[[Page H2757]]
a test of the love of our freedom for this entire world and this entire
effort we are engaged in; freedom, I might add, that swears perpetual
hostility over any form of tyranny.
I believe this country should have understood, if they had lived that
long with that close of a neighbor, that if they did not understand the
tyranny that such a tyrant as their neighbor in Iraq was leading that
country with, surely they understood that.
I would just close by asking my good friend and colleague, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), what would be the price
that would have been paid when the wingman left the gentleman's wing
the first time?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I hope this amendment passes. If it does
not, I will be offering an amendment that goes just half as far as this
one and still allows Turkey to obtain substantial benefits for its
limited aid to us at this time.
Keep in mind, Turkey will get tremendous benefits during the Iraqi
rebuilding program. Her contractors are well positioned to obtain
billions of dollars in contracts. Keep in mind that we are controlling
the exuberance of the Kurds, who otherwise would be waging war against
Saddam's forces more effectively; but we are restraining them because
of the request of Turkey.
Therefore, we have already done a lot for our friends in Turkey. We
do not need to provide aid that they have not asked for.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Cunningham
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is a difficult decision. As a member of the
Committee on International Relations, and coming from a State that has
produced not only the current chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, but also a former chairman of the House Committee on
International Relations, Indiana has a great tradition of engagement on
international affairs. Hoosiers believe in economic and in cultural
engagement.
I am very much aware, Mr. Chairman, of the relationship that we enjoy
with Turkey. I am also very much aware that in a matter of weeks we
will appropriate another quarter of a billion dollars in assistance to
Turkey. I will be first among those on this floor at that time to
support that funding, to strengthen that relationship.
This is, however, a different question today. The Cunningham
amendment is all about whether or not this part of the national
government, which is truly the heart of the national government, should
resonate with the hearts of the American people who are disappointed in
our friend, the nation of Turkey. It is not that they are no longer our
friend, but it is that we are disappointed in recent decisions that
have endangered American lives and cost us in our effectiveness in
Operation Iraqi Freedom.
I will vote for the Cunningham amendment to stand with the American
people, who choose at this time to send this message to that friend.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, this is indeed a sobering day as we sit on the floor
and debate this important issue while our young men and women in the
military are outside the city of Baghdad as we speak.
It is my privilege to represent the 101st Airborne Division, which is
present in Baghdad today. When I was first elected to Congress, the
military leaders at Fort Campbell reiterated to me the importance of
Turkey as a military ally. As a result of those discussions repeatedly
over many occasions, I joined with others in the Congress, and we
established the Congressional Caucus on Turkey and Turkish Americans a
couple of years ago.
With the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Rogers) I went to Turkey about 3 weeks ago. We met with
not the Prime Minister, Mr. Erdogan, he subsequently became the Prime
Minister; and we urged him to allow our troops to use Turkish soil to
come into northern Iraq. The Parliament, even though they voted more to
do it than they voted against it, they did not get the necessary votes,
and they did not pass it. We were disappointed.
I think it has been said repeatedly today, and everyone recognizes,
we all agree, Turkey is a valuable military ally. But on another note,
I would like to point out today that the real tension in the world
today, I think all of us would agree, is between Christians and Muslims
and the Jewish faith. Everywhere we look we see this tension.
Turkey has been a perfect example of a Muslim country with a secular
government that has good relationships with the United States, with
democracies, with the State of Israel. It is the type of model that I
think is vitally important for the long term. I think that is one of
the reasons that we see that President Bush has requested this money.
Therefore, I would urge the Members today to defeat this amendment.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, maybe some of us that have seen our friends killed in
action do have a different view. I have personally witnessed the
actions of other countries that caused the loss of many of my friends.
Perhaps someone that is responsible for killing my friends, American
soldiers, I just do not feel that they should be rewarded.
I do not think anyone disputes on this floor that Turkey's action
damaged our ability to project force into Iraq, specifically from the
north. Turkey's action contributed to the loss of American lives when
our paratroopers had to parachute into northern Iraq lightly armed,
instead of with a major force.