[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 58 (Thursday, May 5, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H2997-H3027]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1268, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS 
ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR, AND TSUNAMI RELIEF ACT, 2005

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
258, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1268) making 
emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly implement regulations for 
State driver's license and identification document security standards, 
to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United 
States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and 
removal, to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border 
fence, and for other purposes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 258, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
May 3, 2005 at page H2813.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I am pleased to bring to the House for its consideration the 
conference report on H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror and Tsunami 
Relief.
  The conference agreement includes a total of $82 billion. The vast 
majority of these funds are to support our troops in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. For that reason, it is critical that we move this package 
quickly. It also provides needed assistance to the victims of the 
tsunami.
  During our conference with the Senate, Chairman Cochran and I agreed 
that the final agreement should come in at or below the President's 
request and relatively free of extraneous items. The conference report 
before you has met both of these very critical parameters. We did our 
very best to keep the package clean, and by and large, we were 
successful with that. We have funded our foreign policy priorities 
while still preserving congressional prerogatives where appropriate.
  With that said, the conference report provides a total of $75.9 
billion for defense-related expenditures, roughly $921 million over the 
President's request. The additions over the request are for force 
protection, and increasing the survivability of troops in the field. In 
addition to the defense-related spending, the conference report 
provides a reduction of $1.5 billion in foreign assistance from the 
President's request. The conference agreement also includes $635 
million for increased border security enforcement. This includes 500 
additional border patrol agents and increased detention space.
  We have also included $656 million for tsunami disaster relief. 
Finally, the bill includes much of the REAL ID Act of 2005, which was 
included in the House-passed version of the bill. The provisions on 
asylum, border infrastructure, and driver's license standards are 
included. Each of these provisions will greatly enhance the security of 
our borders. All of these provisions reflect agreements negotiated by 
relevant authorizing committees. I especially want to thank Chairman 
Sensenbrenner, Chairman Davis and their staffs for getting this measure 
before the Congress in a timely fashion.
  I urge my colleagues to support this much needed support for our 
troops.

[[Page H2998]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.001



[[Page H2999]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.002



[[Page H3000]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.003



[[Page H3001]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.004



[[Page H3002]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.005



[[Page H3003]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.006



[[Page H3004]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.007



[[Page H3005]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.008



[[Page H3006]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill before us today makes clear that we have now 
spent $284 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan since the war began. The 
money that has been spent in Afghanistan is certainly legitimate and 
justified. After all, that country harbored the people who attacked us 
on 9/11. The problem is, however, that $165 billion has now been spent 
to deal with a country that did not attack us. We have spent some $240 
billion on this entire endeavor since the President first landed in his 
jumpsuit on that carrier and addressed the country under the banner 
``Mission Accomplished.'' There has been quite a bit of that mission 
left since it supposedly was over. We have now been involved in Iraq 
longer than we were involved in World War I, and respectable and 
responsible experts have told me that they expect that we will be 
involved for at least another 5 years.
  This whole operation has been brought to us by the same people who 
erroneously told us that we had to go to war because Iraq had weapons 
of mass destruction and it was implied that they had, or were close to 
having, nuclear capability. That was all demonstrated not to be true. 
This has been brought to us by the same people who believed the 
assertions that our troops would be welcomed with open arms. It has 
been brought to us by the same people who thought they were so smart 
that they knew more than General Shinseki when the good general warned 
us that we would need substantially more troops and boots on the ground 
than we were scheduled to have if the postwar occupation was to go 
well.
  And it has been brought to us by the same people who provided to our 
troops insufficient armor for Humvees, insufficient body armor and 
insufficient jammers to prevent our troops from having their faces and 
their legs and their arms blown off by remotely detonated bombs and 
mines.
  I want to make quite clear I will support this bill because I feel 
that I have no choice but to participate in cleaning up the mess which 
somebody else left. But I do not relish it. I believe that the entire 
operation in Iraq has been accompanied by incredibly naive romanticism 
on the part of the White House and on the part of the civilian 
leadership in the Pentagon, and that has left the people fighting the 
war to bear the brunt of the miscalculations that have been made by the 
civilian leadership of our government. We have lost the lives of 1,500 
American service men and women. We have seen more than 11,000 be 
injured. And this bill understates, in my view, the amount of money 
that will be needed eventually to restore the readiness of the U.S. 
Armed Forces and to minimize their casualties.
  The second thing this bill does is to demonstrate once again how we, 
on both sides of the aisle, have had to work doubly hard to overcome 
the resistance of the White House in adequately funding homeland 
security operations. They have been especially resistant to providing 
the adequate funding along the borders, especially the Canadian border. 
And it has taken a bipartisan effort on the part of a wide variety of 
people in this Congress in order to overcome that resistance. This bill 
falls far short of the funding that is necessary to provide a secure 
set of borders for the United States. The new bill that is going to be 
offered by the gentleman from Kentucky will help fill that gap, but 
that is forced to play catch-up because we have met a steady resistance 
effort on the part of the White House.
  Lastly, I simply want to say that while I am certainly no expert on 
the subject, I note that there is being attached to this bill a 
provision which many experts in the field feel has the potential to 
construct a nationwide database that could be very harmful in terms of 
people's efforts to engage in identity theft. I hope that proves not to 
be the case.
  I would simply make the point that certainly no one on our committee 
on either side of the aisle has the expertise that you would hope would 
be found in the authorization committees, and I wish that that 
provision had been dealt with on a separate bill rather than solving an 
internal problem within the Republican Caucus by having it attached to 
an unrelated bill, and I want to make one point about that.
  We are being lectured almost daily by the majority that we should not 
add ungermane riders to appropriation bills. I want to serve notice 
that if the majority feels free to add unrelated authorization bills 
such as this to a must-pass bill, that then I feel fully within my 
rights in offering whatever authorization legislation we feel 
appropriate on this side of the aisle and asking that it be attached to 
appropriation bills. If sauce is going to be okay for the goose, then 
it ought to be good for the gander.
  So we will see in the coming months what the attitude of the majority 
is when we seek to add what we feel are legitimate efforts to 
strengthen appropriation bills by adding various pieces of so-called 
legislation to appropriation bills.

                              {time}  1230

  So since the majority has chosen to proceed down that path, I hope 
they raise no objection when we seek to follow it. With that, Mr. 
Speaker, again, I repeat I intend to vote for this bill with all of my 
misgivings.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), my colleague on the committee.
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the 
chairman of the full committee on this, his maiden effort, to bring a 
major supplemental appropriation to the floor as chairman, and I 
congratulate him for the leadership that he has shown in bringing this 
so swiftly to this floor.
  I do rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 1268. Before I 
address the funding that is the responsibility of my subcommittee, I 
want to briefly acknowledge a critically important part of this bill, 
border security funding. The securing of our Nation's borders to 
prevent the hemorrhaging flow of illegal immigration through my State 
of Arizona has got to be a top priority for the Federal Government. The 
people I represent living on the border are frustrated with the illegal 
immigration system, and we must address gaps in border security now. 
Arizona and other border States can no longer serve as the back door 
for this country's broken immigration system. By adding the funding 
that we do in this bill, we are taking a step in the right direction to 
ensure our northern and southern borders are protected.
  Regarding the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs Subcommittee chapter of this legislation, the conference 
report includes $2.53 billion in funding for programs under the 
jurisdiction of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs Subcommittee, which I chair. While this overall level is $1.4 
billion less than requested, let me say once again I strongly support 
the objectives of the President that he seeks to achieve with this 
request for Afghanistan, the Middle East, and the tsunami-devastated 
areas of Asia. I believe that this conference agreement provides the 
financial support necessary to help the United States achieve these 
objectives.
  The major elements of the conference agreement that differ from the 
House-passed levels are additional funds for Afghanistan 
reconstruction, the Solidarity Initiative, and support for Ukraine. The 
$739 million proposed by the House for Afghanistan reconstruction 
represented the highest priority projects that could be implemented and 
executed during 2005. The Senate provided $1.3 billion, the 
administration's request. And the conference level is $1.086 billion, 
or $347 million over what the House had recommended. This increase over 
the House level supports some 2006 requirements, which is, I believe, a 
cost-effective approach to the 2006 budget process.
  The House provided no funding for the administration's $400 million 
Solidarity Initiative. The Senate provide a total of $225.5 million, 
$200 million in the Solidarity Fund and $25.5 million in the Global War 
on Terror Partners Fund. The conference agreement provides a total of 
$230 million, merging the two funds into one appropriation, and places 
these funds within Peacekeeping Operations appropriations. This 
arrangement provides for regular order congressional review of the 
Department's plans for these funds.

[[Page H3007]]

  The conference agreement provides $60 million for Ukraine, and these 
funds will support the government of Ukraine's highest priorities for 
political and economic reform, including anti-corruption initiatives 
and support for the upcoming parliamentary elections.
  I think my colleagues recognize that we are faced with unique 
opportunities in the Middle East and Afghanistan. This agreement will 
provide the financial resources necessary to promote democracy and 
provide the State Department with programs and projects to support 
these positive influences.
  Let me say that the funds we are providing in the foreign assistance 
chapter must be considered an investment in security both in the region 
and on American soil. However, Congress has the responsibility to 
ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently and transparently, 
and we take that responsibility seriously with reporting requirements, 
and we will continue vigorous oversight of these programs.
  The greatest weight all of us must bear is the knowledge that these 
decisions we make directly put the lives of Americans at risk. I firmly 
believe the bill before us today will help build stability and freedom 
in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and parts of Asia. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the fiscal year 2005 emergency 
supplemental conference report on H.R. 1268.
  I rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 1268, a bill 
making emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2005.
  Before I address the funding in my subcommittee, I wanted to briefly 
acknowledge a critically important part of this bill--border security 
funding. The securing of our nation's borders to prevent the 
hemorrhaging flow of illegal immigration through my state of Arizona 
must be a top priority for the federal government. The people I 
represent living on the border are frustrated with the illegal 
immigration system, and we must address gaps in border security now. 
Arizona and other border states can no longer serve as the backdoor for 
this country's broken immigration system. By adding this funding we are 
taking a step in the right direction to ensure our northern and 
southern borders are protected.
  I am pleased that my colleagues on the conference committee agreed to 
provide $635 million for Border Security to hire an additional 500 
Border Patrol Agents, 50 additional criminal investigators, 168 
Immigration Enforcement Agents and Deportation Officers, and to fund 
1,950 additional detention beds.
  The bill also includes my amendment to strengthen the REAL ID Act to 
address the technology, equipment, and personnel needs improving 
security within the U.S., requiring Department of Homeland Security to 
carry out an improved ground surveillance program, and requiring DHS to 
improve interagency communication.
  Regarding the Foreign Operations Subcommittee chapter, the conference 
agreement includes $2.532 billion, in funding for programs under the 
jurisdiction of the Foreign Operations subcommittee of which I am 
Chairman. This amount is $685 million over the House level, $251 
million less than the Senate level, and $1.4 billion less than the 
Administration's request.
  While this overall level is $1.4 billion less than requested, let me 
say once again that I strongly support the objectives the President 
seeks to achieve with this request for Afghanistan, the Middle East, 
and the tsunami devastated areas of Asia. I believe that, with the 
understanding that we need to reduce our federal deficit, this 
conference agreement provides the financial support necessary to help 
the United States achieve these objectives.
  The major elements of the conference agreement that differ from the 
House passed-level are: additional funds for Afghanistan 
reconstruction, the Solidarity Initiative, and support for Ukraine.
  The $739 million proposed by the House for Afghanistan 
reconstruction, represented the highest priority projects that could be 
implemented and executed during 2005. The Senate provided $1.3 billion, 
the Administration's request. The conference level is $1.086 billion, 
$347 million over the House recommendation. The increase over the House 
level supports some 2006 requirements--a cost effective approach to the 
2006 budget process--such as $101.4 million for two additional power 
plants, $8.4 million for a water pipeline, $72 million for additional 
roads and infrastructure, and $43 million for economic governance.
  The House provided no funding for the Administration's $400 million 
``Solidarity Initiative.'' The Solidarity Initiative request of $400 
million for two $200 million Funds to be used by the Secretary of 
State, as she determines, was to offset the costs of those countries 
that have dedicated troops to the Global War on Terror as well as 
economic support to other nations that have provided support. The 
Senate provided a total of $225.5 million--$200 million in 
the Solidarity Fund and $25.5 million in the Global War on Terror 
Partners Fund. The conference agreement provides a total of $230 
million, merging the two Funds into one appropriation and places these 
funds within the Peacekeeping Operations appropriations. This 
arrangement provides for regular order Congressional review of the 
Department's plans for these funds. This will provide sufficient 
oversight of a substantial amount of money for the Global War on 
Terror.

  The House provided $33.7 million for support to Ukraine. The Senate 
provided the Administration's request of $60 million. The conference 
agreement provides $60 million for Ukraine. These funds will support 
the government of Ukraine's highest priorities for political and 
economic reform, including anti-corruption initiatives and support for 
the upcoming parliamentary elections.
  I think my colleagues recognize that we are faced with unique 
opportunities in the Middle East and Afghanistan. U.S. leadership can 
have positive, democratic influence in the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, 
Belarus, and Ukraine. This agreement will provide the financial 
resources necessary to promote democracy and provide State Department 
with programs and projects to support these positive influences.
  Finally, the conference agreement provides $656 million for 
assistance to the victims of the tsunami and earthquakes of last 
December and March.
  Let me say that the funds we are providing in the foreign assistance 
chapter must be considered an investment in security both in the region 
and on American soil. However, Congress has a responsibility to ensure 
that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently and transparently, and I 
know my colleagues take that responsibility seriously. We have included 
financial reporting requirements for all funds in the Foreign 
Operations chapter. For Afghanistan counternarcotics and West Bank Gaza 
programs, we have included additional auditing requirements. As 
Chairman, I pledge to continue vigorous oversight of these programs.
  The greatest weight all of us must bear is the knowledge that 
decisions we make as Members of Congress directly puts the lives of 
Americans at risk. Already, men and women from probably every district 
represented today have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. I firmly believe the bill before us today will help to 
build stability and freedom in Afghanistan, the Middle East and parts 
of Asia.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on passage of the fiscal 
year 2005 emergency supplemental conference report on H.R. 1268.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the ranking member of the 
Defense Subcommittee, the gentleman who has long been trying to extend 
debate in this Chamber.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, in regards to what the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just said, I am surprised at the new chairman. He 
is so lenient about getting time out of him. Usually our bill moves 
much faster than this. I thought he learned.
  Let me say the defense part of this and maybe the rest of it is 
probably the most bipartisan bill one could ever find. The gentleman 
from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman from California (Chairman 
Lewis), and I have been traveling to these various bases. We found 
shortages every place we went, all kinds of problems that they brought 
to our attention that needed to be rectified. We found problems so 
severe that many of the units that were on their way to Iraq were C-4. 
The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), my good friend, the 
hero from Vietnam, knows what I am talking about when I say C-4. I am 
talking about they are not ready to go to combat because the equipment 
is so bad.
  As a matter of fact, the equipment was so bad at one base, and I 
think it was Fort Stewart where the troops did not have radios to train 
with, did not have small arms ammunition, did not have mortar 
ammunition to train with, and that means that when they get there, they 
are not at the cutting edge of where they should be. Now they get 
equipment when they get there, and that overcomes the C-4.
  So the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and I, what we did was 
put $2.3 billion into the budget. We first checked, the staff checked, 
with the Army to make sure that that is where it ought to be put. The 
Army came back and supported us. Usually, they beat around the bush. 
The gentleman from California (Chairman

[[Page H3008]]

Lewis) knows what I mean. We talk to them, and because of other people 
over there, they do not want to admit that they need the money. This 
time they were very emphatic that they needed every cent and they 
needed it as soon as they could get it. So we added money for the types 
of things that they need.
  Having said that, what I have said to the services because we are 
having such a problem, we see the recruiting problem, we are looking 
into that right now. The subcommittee I serve on, we realize and we 
have said for a long time, they are going to have a recruiting problem 
as this war gets unpopular; and we were trying to figure out how do we 
overcome that.
  Most times I disagree with those bonuses because I feel so strongly 
that people ought to join the Armed Forces for the good of the country, 
but we have to give bonuses to send them over there. We put money in 
for those kinds of things. We increased the amount of money somebody 
gets when they are killed in action. We expanded it so that when they 
are killed in action, they are taken care of retroactively as well as 
prospectively. We take care of somebody who is wounded. We added money 
to it. Some veterans group called me and said they were not happy with 
the way we added that money. They felt like there ought to be more 
study, and I cannot disagree with that.
  But when the four of us sat down, the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Young) and Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens, we came to the 
conclusion that we just did not think we could wait. So we put money in 
to take care of people who were injured so severely as well as the ones 
that were killed. And I got so many letters from the people at home, 
and I have had 12 killed in my district, how pleased they were about 
what we are doing because it helped them get through a very difficult 
time.
  What we have tried to do over the years is make sure that the people 
that were in the Armed Forces had what they needed, that the people in 
Iraq have what they need. Our subcommittee brought to the attention of 
the country that they were without a lot of equipment in Iraq. We are 
working right now. New trucks, we are trying to figure out how to put 
new trucks in that are encapsulated because we have taken care of the 
Humvees, but we need to take care of the trucks now. So we got some 
commercial trucks which were recommended which were $100,000 less, but 
it was so late, we could not get it in the bill. We are going to ask 
for reprogramming for that amount of money.
  So this bill is taking care of equipment shortages, not all of them, 
but it is taking care of as many as we could possibly squeeze in. It is 
taking care of Reset. We forced the military to ask for Reset. The 
minute that this war is over and the money starts to dry up, Reset will 
be the first thing they do not do; so we have to do it now. And I have 
said to many of the industrial leaders in this country, the minute the 
war is over, there will not be any supplementals, there will be a lot 
less money to be spent, and we have got to spend this money now in the 
supplementals to make sure that that gets done. Armor modularity, there 
is some argument about that; but we think it ought to be done, and we 
have pushed this.
  Many of the programs that the Army has today have come about because 
of the Defense Subcommittee, chaired by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lewis) and chaired by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). Many 
of the things that have happened have happened because we see it out in 
the field. We go out in the field, talk to the people, make sure that 
we are doing the right thing, and then we try to send defense in the 
right direction.
  So I urge the Members to vote for this. The troops need it, and it 
helps dramatically for the amount of money that is needed by the Armed 
Forces.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for one of the most 
illuminating, but also one of the longest, statements I have ever heard 
him make on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young), chairman of the greatest subcommittee in the 
appropriations process.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations for yielding me this time.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the ranking member on 
our Defense Subcommittee, has explained the bill quite thoroughly as it 
relates to the war fighters. The biggest part of this supplemental is 
for war fighters, and the bill that we have put together goes just to 
that issue.
  The increases that we have added in this bill go to the urgently 
needed items such as ammunition, weapons, up-armored Humvees, transport 
vehicles, Jammers, night vision equipment, radios, add-on armor kits; 
and the list goes on and on. And I include a list of those items that 
are for the war fighter and force protection, Mr. Speaker. The 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Lewis) and I and many of our colleagues have 
visited our hospitals to visit with our soldiers and Marines at Walter 
Reed and at Bethesda Naval Hospital and also at Landstuhl, where many 
of our servicemen come first before they get transported back to the 
United States, and we have located a number of areas where the 
government just does not take care of these soldiers and the Marines. 
And this bill goes a long way towards taking care of that.
  It has been pretty generally known that we have in this bill 
increased the death benefit for those who make the total sacrifice and 
lose their lives in working and supporting the Nation's security. We 
have also increased the service group life insurance programs 
substantially so that those who prefer to take part in that program can 
have additional benefits, and many of these benefits are really needed. 
And the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) referred to this, but 
I want to take just a minute and explain. We added, basically, a new 
program, and that is for a traumatic injury insurance benefit for 
members of the service. We provide up to $100,000 to compensate for 
injuries such as loss of sight, losing a hand or a foot, or other 
debilitating injuries. And these benefits would be retroactive to 
October of 2001, when the war started.
  There are many soldiers and Marines today who have been wounded so 
seriously that in previous wars would have died on the battlefield but 
who are living today in this war because of improved and increased 
medical benefits and better training and better medicines and the 
ability to transport from the battlefield to a medical facility. So 
these soldiers and Marines are hurt really bad, and we have an 
obligation to take care of them, and this bill goes a long way toward 
beginning that process, to take care of things for our heroes and our 
fallen heroes who have not been taken care of by the government 
properly.
  The material previously referred to is as follows:

             Conference Agreement for Additional Equipment

                       [In thousands of dollars]

        Program                                          Recommendation
Missile Procurement, Army:
  ITAS/TOW Mods..................................................30,000
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army:
  Bradley Reactive Armor Tiles...................................20,000
  Stryker........................................................69,540
  Small Arms Modifications.......................................55,200
Procurement of Ammunition, Army:
  Ammunition Industrial Base.....................................57,800
Other Procurement, Army:
  Up-Armored IDMWVs (M1114).....................................150,000
  Other HMMWVs (M1151)...........................................80,000
  FMTV..........................................................225,000
  FHTV..........................................................114,000
  Add-On Armor Kits..............................................48,000
  SINCGARS Family................................................30,000
  Improved HF Radios (including PRC-150 and PRC-148).............17,000
  Jammers (Warlock including Low Cost Jammer)....................60,000
  Night Vision Devices...........................................59,000
  Counter Rocket Artillery and Mortar System (CRAM)..............75,000
  Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2).............66,100
  Handheld Stand-off Mine Detection System (HSTAMIDS)............10,000
                                                             __________
                                                             
    Army Total:...............................................1,166,640
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps:
  Small Arms Ammunition...........................................6,000
Procurement, Marine Corps:
  Light Armored Vehicle (LAV)...................................175,000
  Night Vision Equipment.........................................54,000
  Radio Systems (including EPLRS, PRC-117 and HF Communications 
    Vehicle).....................................................55,000

[[Page H3009]]

  HMMWVs.........................................................30,000
                                                             __________
                                                             
    Marine Corps Total:.........................................320,000
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

    Grand Total:..............................................1,486,640

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am of course going to vote for this emergency 
supplemental appropriation because I believe it is absolutely 
imperative to support our brave men and women in harm's way in 
Afghanistan and Iraq.
  I know that even today, 2 years after the onset of Operation Iraqi 
Freedom, there continues to be strong disagreement across the Nation on 
the decision to remove the brutal Hussein regime as well as the 
planning and prosecution of our military effort in Iraq.

                              {time}  1245

  However, on this point, I believe there is unanimity.
  We, the elected representatives of the American people, have a 
legislative duty as well as a moral responsibility, to do everything in 
our power to ensure that our troops have everything they need to defeat 
the vicious insurgency in Iraq, to assist the Iraqi people in 
establishing democracy, and continuing our efforts in Afghanistan.
  In my view, however, we are not doing enough. Just last week, The New 
York Times reported the experience of Marine Company E, an experience 
that, ``was punctuated not only by a lack of armor, but also by a 
shortage of men and planning that further hampered their efforts in the 
battle.''
  I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that this bill includes $1.4 billion more 
than the administration requested for bolstering force protection needs 
such as add-on armor and night vision goggles, and, in addition, for 
outfitting troops rotating into Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Over the last 4 years, this administration, however, has refused to 
ask the American people, particularly the wealthiest American people, 
to make even minimal sacrifices, while we ask our men and women in 
Afghanistan and Iraq for some to make the ultimate sacrifice. The very 
least, in my opinion, that we can do is give them the resources they 
need to achieve victory and to return home safely.
  I also support, Mr. Speaker, the important funding in this bill for 
tsunami relief, foreign assistance, and domestic homeland security as 
well as the $200 million in assistance for the Palestinian Authority 
for infrastructure and economic development projects. Those are all 
worthwhile, necessary, and important projects. The political reforms 
taking place in the territories must be accompanied by an end to the 
poverty and lack of opportunity facing the Palestinian people. That is 
ultimately how we will defeat terrorism.
  Finally, however, let me raise, Mr. Speaker, one objection, among 
others, to the funding bill: the $592 million for a new embassy 
compound in Baghdad. That is not an emergency. This funding, Mr. 
Speaker, is not only inappropriate in this emergency supplemental 
appropriation, but it also, in my opinion, is substantially excessive 
in its expenditures; not to keep the people safe, we can do that, but 
to create an embassy in a relatively small country that, hopefully, in 
the years ahead, will be more peaceful than we have found it.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that we are at a critical juncture in Iraq. 
Victory is imperative, although it is not certain. I urge my colleagues 
to support this conference report.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I want to compliment the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) 
and the other conferees for giving us a whole new effort, a major 
effort to try to control the borders and to deal with the massive 
illegal immigration problem that the country is facing. We have 11 
million estimated illegal aliens in the country, and 800,000 or so of 
them are people who have been ordered deported and yet have absconded. 
Eighty thousand of those have criminal records.
  This bill, when combined with the homeland security appropriations 
bills for 2006 that we marked up yesterday in the subcommittee, those 
two bills combined will give us a new, massive effort to deal with the 
problem. These two bills will give us 1,500 new Border Patrol agents, 
568 new Immigration and Customs enforcement officers throughout the 
country, and some 3,900 new jail bed space to try to deal with this 
massive, overwhelming problem.
  I want to commend the chairman for having the foresight, along with 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the other members of the 
conference, for giving us the new capability to tackle a problem that 
is proving to be very elusive.
  So I compliment the chairman, and I urge everyone to support this 
bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
conference committee report. But, Mr. Speaker, the American people 
whose sons and daughters are fighting this war and the senior military 
officers who are directing this war deserve to know what the White 
House will consider to be success in Iraq.
  Now, this conference committee report includes language that would 
require the administration to fully evaluate the situation in Iraq and 
provide the Congress with measurable, achievable criteria, including 
the following: an assessment of the number of troops it will take to 
secure the peace and how those troops would be rotated; key measures of 
political stability, such as ratification of a national Constitution 
and permanent national elections now scheduled for next year; the 
estimated strength of the Iraqi insurgency and the extent to which it 
is composed of nonIraqi fighters; the operational readiness of Iraqi 
military forces, including the type, number, size, and organizational 
structure of Iraqi battalions that are capable of conducting 
counterinsurgency operations independently; and the readiness of Iraqi 
police forces to perform all duties now being undertaken by coalition 
forces; as well as the viability of economic sectors that are crucial 
to Iraq's economic recovery, as measured by unemployment levels, 
utility availability, and oil production rates.
  The fact is that our long-term presence in Iraq will only give our 
enemies in the region a greater ability to recruit terrorists and build 
public support for violence. That is the opposite of our objective 
there. I do think it is past time to lay out for the American people 
what is our strategy for success. This language that is included in the 
report will require the Secretary to report no later than 60 days after 
the enactment of the supplemental and every 90 days thereafter. That is 
progress.
  We support our troops. We have to complete this mission, but we also 
need to work together. The fact is, the American people whose sons and 
daughters are fighting this war do not have the ability to require this 
of the administration, nor do the senior military officers. It is our 
responsibility, and I am glad that this Congress is committed to 
performing that responsibility. On balance, it is a good bill, and I 
support it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to our 
majority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise, of course, in support of this supplemental.
  I also want to rise to really express my appreciation to the 
gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the tremendous job he 
has done in limiting the scope of this supplemental and getting this 
work done in a quick way, and moving forward on the rest of our 
appropriations process at the same time. These measures can often 
become reasons not to move forward with the normal work of the House, 
and the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and his committee 
and their staff have really accepted double responsibility and double 
duty by doing these things at the same time.
  This bill does include, as my friend from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) 
mentioned, the embassy compound in Baghdad. He

[[Page H3010]]

and I visited the current embassy together in December, and I think we 
disagree on the need to go ahead and get this project started now. The 
project is 10 percent below the amount of money that the administration 
asked for. It is a substantial amount of money. It is a difficult 
environment, but bidding and starting these projects simply cannot 
happen if we have a little piece of that money to start with; you have 
to have the money available so that this embassy can be built and that 
our people representing us there in the embassy can be secure. We had 
two people killed in the current embassy compound in recent weeks from 
a missile that was fired there, and we need to move forward.
  In addition to providing vital funding for our troops in fighting the 
war, this bill also addresses some of the border vulnerabilities 
identified by the 9/11 Commission. This legislation does not create a 
national ID card or a national database, but it does move forward in 
securing our borders and making our asylum process work better to 
protect Americans, both young and old. This legislation tightens the 
asylum system because of that.
  Finally, this legislation provides $635 million for increased border 
security and enforcement. That includes $176 million to hire, train, 
equip, and support 500 border patrol agents and relieve current 
facility overcrowding. It includes almost half a billion dollars for 
Immigration and Customs enforcement, which includes $97.5 million to 
hire and train additional criminal investigators and immigration 
enforcement agents.
  This bill works to protect our fighting forces abroad, to help secure 
our borders at home, to move us forward in the war against terror. I 
appreciate the committee's work on it, and I encourage its approval 
today.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, why is Congress approving yet another 
multibillion dollar spending bill when the previous 3 multibillion 
dollar spending bills have been misused, improperly managed, and, in 
some cases, downright stolen?
  A report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq's reconstruction 
has stated that nearly $100 million for reconstruction projects in 
southern Iraq is missing and cannot be accounted for. These funds must 
be accounted for before allotting one more dollar for the war in Iraq.
  And where is the congressional investigation into the $9 billion that 
mysteriously disappeared from the books at the Coalition Provisional 
Authority? Why are we voting on writing another check for a mission 
that has been so badly botched? Who is being held responsible for the 
misinformation that led us into the war in the first place? Who is 
being held responsible for the troops not being equipped and armed with 
the billions of dollars that we have allocated to Iraq? Where is our 
exit strategy?
  This bill is nothing short of highway robbery, and the victims are 
the troops and the American people. No more blank checks, Mr. Speaker. 
No more wars without reason. I will vote against the supplemental.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice, and Commerce, 
and Related Agencies, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report to fund urgent supplemental requirements for the military.
  For the State Department, we have included just over $2 billion, a 
reduction of $199 million from the President's request.
  The bill includes the necessary funds to maintain our diplomatic 
presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for allowing our personnel to 
carry out their duties in the safest and most secure manner.
  Iraq and Afghanistan are the front lines of our foreign policy. This 
conference report provides the necessary resources for operations, 
logistics, and security in those dangerous, but critically important, 
parts of the world.
  There is also $592 million to allow State to move quickly to build a 
secure compound in Baghdad and, as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Blunt) said, these facilities are not secure now, and they are needed. 
This money will result in the completion of a secure living and working 
compound facility within 24 months.
  The $680 million, $100 million below the President's request, pays 
for the U.S. share of ongoing peacekeeping missions, including a new 
mission for Sudan, where it is absolutely critical, now that there is a 
north-south peace. And, by sending this mission there, hopefully, it 
will bring peace to Darfur.
  The conference report also includes $241.6 million for domestic 
appropriations to support the war on terror, including FBI 
counterterrorism efforts and, for DEA, a counternarcotics program in 
Afghanistan.
  Finally, it includes $17.2 million to jump-start the improvement of 
the United States tsunami warning capabilities on both coasts.
  The conference report before us provides funding for important 
security measures for our diplomatic personnel, for our ongoing State 
Department and Justice Department commitments, and I strongly urge 
support of the conference report.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, while I have problems with the concept of 
this supplemental and supplementals, and the misplaced budget 
priorities of the Republican Party, this bill, I believe, is needed for 
our men and women who are fighting the war on terrorism.
  This bill includes much needed higher death benefits for our 
military. And while it will never return these patriots such as 
Christian Engeldrum in my district to his family, what we can do as 
Americans is ensure that his wife and children have financial security 
for his personal sacrifice to his country.
  This bill finally provides funding for body armor for our troops, 
something that this administration has refused to do for over 2 years 
now. So hopefully less families can claim the new death benefits for 
their loved ones fighting overseas.
  This bill provides much needed aid for the victims of the December 
tsunami. I led a delegation to Sri Lanka in January, and I saw first 
hand the resources needed in that country, multiplied by the effects on 
other countries; and this money will go to good use.
  This funding, along with the sheer generosity of the American people, 
is a true testament of our country in comparison to the tepid actions 
by the White House in the immediate days after the crisis.
  While this money is important, I would be remiss if I did not express 
my disappointment at no funding being included for the U.N. Population 
Fund for children and maternal health care in the tsunami region. I 
offered an amendment to fix this, but yet again this administration has 
played politics and refuses to fund the UNFPA.
  This bill provides $50 million in important aid to the State of 
Israel as they embark on the critical disengagement plan and withdraw 
from the Gaza Strip. We have the support, the courage of the Israeli 
people; and this is the right thing to do at this time.
  And, finally, this bill includes important language to create the 9/
11 Heroes Medal of Valor, for which I am deeply indebted to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for including this provision in this bill.
  On behalf of my cousin, John Moran, who was killed on 9/11, a 
battalion chief of the Fire Department of New York, and the over 400 
families in New York City that are affected by this legislation, I want 
to say thank you for this honor that is going to be bestowed by the 
President in September of this year.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a great member of our 
committee.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have been flying wing on the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for about 14 years, and he has always 
got me home safely.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) and his wife are out at Bethesda in the hospitals 
every single day

[[Page H3011]]

taking care of our troops. There is no better team than the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) 
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) to make sure that our 
men and women are safe.
  I have another great friend in the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey). And if we were back in the times of Troy, I would be Achilles, 
and he would be Hector, and we would cross swords, but we would respect 
each other. And there is one area, Mr. Obey, when you mentioned 
homeland security we can seat those swords. The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox) is working on the abuses of the homeland security 
money. That is being taken on.
  I think we can work in a very bipartisan way to make sure that that 
happens. I would like to thank the chairman for the border issues, that 
we have been able to secure our borders with this bill and provide for 
border patrol.
  Many of us have been working on this for years. And the Speaker has 
granted us that at the first must-pass bill we can bring this forward.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire how much time each side has 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lewis) has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield for purposes of a unanimous consent 
request to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller.)
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it has been 2 years 
since President Bush stood aboard the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier and 
declared, ``Mission Accomplished'' in Iraq. And in those two years it 
has become increasingly clear that the war in Iraq is far from over, 
and that the American people are paying the price.
  Let's just take a look at the facts:
  There are currently 150,000 American troops now serving in Iraq, 
including 8,000 Reserve and National Guard troops.
  Tragically, 1,582 American service members have been killed in the 
Iraq war.
  At least 12,243 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, many with 
grievous injuries that will require a lifetime of medical assistance 
and other types of support.
  More than one in five Iraqi war veterans have some type of mental 
disorder caused by their wartime service.
  In addition to the cost of life and quality of life for the brave 
American men and women who are fighting in Iraq, the dollar cost of the 
war is also taking its toll on the American people.
  To date, $217 billion in American taxpayer dollars have gone to fund 
the war in Iraq. We were told our allies would share the cost of the 
war; we were told Iraqi oil would pay for the cost of the war. Now it 
is clear, there was no plan: the American taxpayer is paying for the 
cost of this war to the tune of $5 billion a month.
  In fact, today's $82 billion supplemental is the fifth such 
supplemental Congress has passed at the request of the Bush 
Administration to fund the war on terror. That's billions of dollars 
not spent on pressing problems right here at home.
  Problems, such as:
  The price of gas at the pump. Gas prices remain at record levels at 
$2.24 per gallon nationwide, with some states topping $2.60. That means 
gas prices have risen 33 cents in just the last two months and are 42 
cents a gallon higher than a year ago. The Energy Department predicts 
that gas prices will climb to a record $2.35 by Memorial Day--averaging 
$2.28 this summer.
  The high cost of health insurance. Health care costs for families 
have skyrocketed almost 50 percent over the past five years.
  A lagging economy. The economy grew at just 3.1 percent in the first 
quarter--the slowest pace in 2 years and down from a 3.8-percent pace 
logged in the final quarter of 2004.
  Declining wages and benefits. Workers' salaries and benefits have 
suffered the largest 3-year decline since 1948 (as a portion of our 
economy) even as corporate profits continue to rise.
  Fewer jobs. 446,000 private-sector jobs and 2.8 million manufacturing 
jobs have been lost.
  Record budget deficits. This year's deficit is on track to reach a 
record $427 billion.
  Veteran's benefits. Over the next 5 years, the budget for veterans 
programs, primarily health care, is $14.2 billion below the amount 
needed to maintain services at current levels.
  And, record trade deficits. The U.S. trade deficit surged to an all-
time high of $61.04 billion in February.
  Two years after President Bush declared mission accomplished in Iraq, 
there is still no end in sight. Instead of just signing another multi-
billion dollar check to the Administration, isn't it time to develop a 
real plan to stabilize Iraq so we can bring American troops home and 
concentrate on our problems here at home?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) as I express my deep 
appreciation for his cooperation in this project.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank him for his hard work on this conference report. 
As many in this Chamber know, this conference report contains the 
provisions of the Real ID Act, which I offered, and the House 
overwhelmingly approved earlier this year.
  The sensible reforms contained in this legislation are long overdue 
and will make America safer. These provisions will hamper the ability 
of terrorists and criminal aliens to move freely through our society by 
requiring that all States' prior proof of lawful presence in the U.S. 
for their driver's licenses be accepted as identification for Federal 
purposes, such as boarding a commercial airplane, entering a Federal 
building or a nuclear power plant.
  This legislation will also require a temporary driver's license 
issued to a foreign visitor to expire when their visa expires, with the 
maximum term of 1 year. The legislation will also prevent the ability 
of potentially dangerous aliens to show up under false pretenses on our 
shores and be granted safe haven, while simultaneously protecting those 
who are legitimately fleeing persecution.
  Finally, the legislation will also ensure that the security and 
integrity of our border is not imperiled by endless and frivolous 
litigation. I would also note that there are several immigration-
related provisions included in the report by the other body that enjoy 
broad support from this House.
  One will provide that aliens who have received H-2B visas issued to 
work in temporary or seasonal jobs in any of the last 3 years shall not 
be counted toward the 2005 or 2006 quotes when applying for an H-2B 
visa during the next 2 years.
  Another amendment expands immigrant visas available for aliens who 
serve as nurses or physical therapists. I wish to thank the House 
leadership, the White House, and many Members of both Chambers who 
rightly recognized the importance of the Real ID Act and supported its 
inclusion in this conference report.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both the chairman and the ranking member 
for this bill, especially for its Iraqi dollars, because this bill 
analyzes microscopically the kinds of equipment that is needed there 
now, and then surgically targets those dollars in a vastly efficient 
manner for our troops.
  The bill also deals with healing the wounds of both mind and body of 
those soldiers who are returning. The bill also deals with small 
businesses being able, through the H-2B process, to hire legal workers. 
And the bill also deals with enhanced technology for the tsunami 
situation that we saw so much, months ago.
  I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for the 
legislation, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the $17 million included in the 
Supplemental that we are considering today, which will support the 
expansion of the U.S. Tsunami Warning Network. These funds will help 
NOAA to procure and deploy tsunami detection buoys in a system designed 
to provide continuous tsunami warning capability for both the Pacific 
and Atlantic coasts of the United States. Detection is a critical part 
of a warning system which I hope will ultimately include a 
comprehensive approach to educating communities about, and preparing 
them for, tsunamis.
  Comprising 70 percent of the Earth's surface area, our oceans support 
a growing source of protein for many developing countries, promising 
sources of medicines, and efficient transport of goods between 
continents and among nations. They also strongly influence our climate 
and weather and provide economic and unmeasurable quality of life

[[Page H3012]]

benefits. For proof of this, one only needs to know that the U.S. 
coasts support over 50 percent of the U.S. population and comprise only 
17 percent of our land base.
  When South Asia was struck by tsunami waves on December 26, the 
world's interest in tsunami detection and warning systems was 
heightened. The impact of these waves was felt around the world, and 
the tragedy of its immediate effect on Indian Ocean coastlines has 
painfully exposed our lack of ability to provide early warning and 
coastal community education and support. Many lifelong residents of 
Indian Ocean coastal towns fear the sea--the primary source of their 
livelihoods for generations. It is critical that individuals in high-
risk areas are educated about and prepared for tsunamis before they 
strike. Coastal communities need assurance that technology exists and 
will be applied to increase warnings for such events and to prepare 
them for evacuation to avoid catastrophic loss of human life.
  In contrast, developed nations use increasing technological 
sophistication to acquire from the sea its bounty--with little thought 
for the long-term sustainability of this activity. In time, without 
increased understanding of our ocean ecosystems and the impact of our 
harvest and extraction of its resources, developed nations may also 
come to fear the sea. The antidote to the disease of fear is 
understanding. New technologies have already led to enormous advances 
in our understanding of the coastal and marine environment. However, 
advanced sensors have been deployed only on relatively small scales, 
and the systems that are deployed have not been coordinated into an 
integrated system that will optimize our understanding of the oceans.
  Since the U.S. hosted the Earth Observation Summit in July 2003, we 
have been working with our partner nations to adopt a comprehensive, 
coordinated and sustained Earth Observation System to collect and 
disseminate data, information and models for more effective and 
responsible use of our resources as well as to inform decision-makers 
about impending disasters. Most recently, the U.S. Commission on Ocean 
Policy made an integrated ocean observing system a top recommendation 
in its report, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century.
  Our space exploration and our weather programs show that when our 
scientists and the Nation support a program and devote time, money and, 
most importantly, the human mind into these types of endeavors we are 
highly successful. The ocean, however, is often referred to as the last 
frontier, a place where we continue to find new organisms and species 
and where we still struggle to understand the profound implications for 
climate changes and more direct impacts of the oceans on our human 
habitats.
  There is perhaps no more motivating event, no louder a voice for 
attention and understanding than having the ocean engulf human 
habitats. Our failure to fully develop and utilize our technology to 
understand our oceans has many more implications, including the 
potential for permanent damage to fragile and complex ecosystems that 
have generously provided us with food, medicines, recreation, and other 
benefits. We are now awake to the power of the ocean, and it is my hope 
that we will use this opportunity to move more quickly toward 
integrated data collection and dissemination systems, as well as 
intensive education of coastal communities, to ensure that we and 
future generations can look to the sea for inspiration, sustenance, and 
life-giving support.
  I strongly support the inclusion of these funds to increase global 
monitoring capacity and public awareness about tsunamis and other 
disasters, particularly if they add to capacity of ocean monitoring as 
part of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. 
And I would like to take a few minutes to express my support with some 
provisions included in the foreign operations chapter of this 
supplemental bill.
  First and foremost, I am pleased that we have finally appropriated 
funding to address the earthquake and tsunami that devastated Asia. The 
images of destruction, parents separated from their children, whole 
villages flattened and emptied, livelihoods washed away, touched the 
American people deeply and brought out the most generous and 
humanitarian impulses in us all.
  I am disappointed, however, that it has taken Congress so long to 
respond officially on behalf of the United States, but I am happy that 
we finally have a robust package of aid to offer affected nations.
  I want to thank Chairman Kolbe, Senators McConnell and Leahy for 
responding to my request to ensure that the needs of women and children 
around the world are addressed in this supplemental. Of the $656 
million included in the bill for tsunami-related assistance, over 200 
million will be dedicated to directly meet the needs of women and 
children, and much of the remainder of those funds will be of indirect 
benefit through the restoration of infrastructure needed, such as new 
schools and roads.
  The bill also makes a strong statement about U.S. support for a 
peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It provides 200 
million to help the Palestinian people improve their economic 
situation.
  I also want to thank Chairman Kolbe and my colleagues in the Senate 
for agreeing to provide most of the $100 million added by the House for 
emergency needs in Africa outside of Sudan. Unfortunately, the horrible 
tragedy in Sudan has meant the diversion of funds needed to address 
ongoing problems in the democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, 
Ethiopia, and Uganda. This 100 million, along with additional funds for 
Public Law 480 food aid, will go a long way toward easing the pain and 
hunger expressed by many women and children throughout Africa.
  While I have deep concerns about other provisions included in other 
sections of this supplemental, I am pleased with the shape of the 
foreign operations section. I believe it goes a long way toward 
fulfilling our many commitments around the world.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for this time. I rise 
in strong support of this conference report as the people's House at 
long last takes care of some unfinished business. In the closing days 
of the 108th Congress, some in the other body objected to commonsense 
provisions that deal with our national security and our border 
security, to wit, the notion that when you apply for a driver's license 
or another legal document, you should be who you say you are, and you 
should enjoy legal status in this country.
  This supplemental conference report includes the REAL ID Act, and at 
long last the Congress of the United States gets real and understands 
that border security and national security are one and the same. Pass 
this to help protect our borders and help protect our national 
security.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Lewis for including in the 
supplemental the provision which is our wounded warrior bill.
  As our enemies adapt their war-fighting strategies, they change not 
just to kill our men and women overseas, but to maim and wound. 
Roadside incendiary devices, rocket grenades, car bombs mean the loss 
of several arms and legs and eyes, blindness and paralysis.
  Our men and woman coming home at Walter Reed Army Hospital and their 
families coming up to be with them so they can heal faster are 
incurring great debt. Never mind that they try to transition back into 
society, those great wage earners, trying to find self-worth in the 
work.
  This bill includes the wounded warrior project. It says to our 
troops, we are going to provide you with supplemental disability 
insurance to help you transition back to being American citizens and 
thank you for your patriotism.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this supplemental. Do not allow 
these traumatic injuries to be the economic death sentence after our 
troops have survived the death bed overseas. Vote for our wounded 
warriors.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the chairman on this bill. It is 
important that we take care of business with our military.
  Mr. Speaker, having been to Iraq this year, I saw our troops, our 
young men and women from all branches of the service doing the finest 
job ever representing the concept of freedom and representing the 
United States; and they certainly need the supplemental.

[[Page H3013]]

  However, I am concerned about some of the baggage that seems to have 
been added to the supplemental. And I think maybe in the future we 
should be careful about adding things that are not really important 
emergencies, such as in this supplemental conferring eligibility for 
rural housing assistance grants in the village of New Miami, Ohio; 
allowing some farm service accounts for the Alaska dairy farmers; 
increasing the cost of the Fort Peck Fish Hatchery Project in 
Minnesota; and adding to the National Center for Manufacturing Services 
in Michigan; along with $500,000 for the oral history of negotiated 
settlement projects at the University of Nevada.
  I think these belong in some other bill. They may be great projects, 
but they certainly are not emergency projects. But I do urge all 
Members of the House to support this legislation.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the conference report 
includes the REAL ID Act, which I co-sponsored. And of course the goal 
of this bill is straightforward. It seeks to prevent another terrorist 
attack on U.S. soil by disrupting terrorist travel. These provisions 
were called for by the 9/11 Commission. And this legislation uses 
existing States driver's license systems to ensure we know who is in 
our country, that people are who they say they are, and that the name 
on a driver's license is the holder's real name, not an alias.
  All but one of the 9/11 hijackers used U.S. driver's licenses to 
board the planes that day because these documents allowed them to 
circumvent their expired visas. It allowed them to not raise suspicion 
or concern.
  Mohammed Atta received a 6-month visa to stay in the U.S. He received 
a Florida driver's license good for 6 years. The REAL ID Act will end 
this by establishing a rule for all States, that temporary driver's 
licenses for foreign visitors expire when their visa terms expire and 
establishes tough rules for confirming identity before driver's 
licenses are issued.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I take this time to explain the motion to recommit that 
I will offer at the end of this debate. Here is what it does:
  The Senate bill contains funding for a total of 150,000 border patrol 
agents, 250 immigration investigators, and 168 immigration enforcement 
agents, and detention officers and their associated training and 
support cast.
  This conference agreement falls short of the Senate bill in 3 areas. 
It only contains funds for 500 border patrol agents, not the 150,000 
called for in the Senate bill. It only contains funding for 50 
immigration investigators, not the 250 called for in the Senate bill.
  Last, it also contains no funding for unmanned border aerial 
vehicles.
  The motion to recommit is simple. It would take us to the levels 
contained in the Senate bill for border patrol agents by adding funding 
for 550 additional border patrol agents and for 200 immigration 
investigators.
  It would also fund unmanned border aerial vehicles that have been 
used successfully in a test in Arizona to assist in surveillance. 
Former DHS Deputy Secretary Lloyd testified that the vehicles provided 
``invaluable'' service.
  Since border patrol agents are trained at the Federal Law Enforcement 
Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico, funding is included like the 
Senate bill to purchase and operate modular classrooms for these 
additional agents.
  This motion, in short, would provide an additional $284.4 million to 
immigration and customs enforcement to do this as was in the Senate 
bill. Need I remind anyone that the Intelligence Reform Bill, which 
became law last December, called for 2,000 additional border patrol 
agents a year and 800 additional immigration investigators? The 
President requested no funding for that supplemental request.
  I would note that on March 30 the administration announced it would 
add more than 500 agents in Arizona, but those are not new agents. 135 
of them or so will come from other southwest and southern border patrol 
locations, and the remainder are simply new trainees who will replace 
agents retiring or leaving the border patrol across the country.
  So I would simply urge House Members to vote for this motion. It 
ought not be at all controversial. It is practical if you want to put 
your money where your press releases have been with respect to border 
patrol.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent 
request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, although I am 
disgusted with the anti-immigration provisions in it, particularly the 
things with the driver's licenses.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this supplemental appropriations 
bill, but not without very serious misgivings. I will vote for this 
legislation because it contains support for our troops in the field and 
important tsunami relief. With American soldiers in harm's way, I am 
very reluctant to vote against funding of military operations. And, 
having personally seen the devastation in the wake of the Tsunami in 
Indonesia, I feel that aid to the victims is critical.
  Nevertheless, I am disgusted by the process by which this legislation 
came to the floor and by the immigration-related provisions in the 
bill. This is an appropriations bill. It is not the place to write new 
immigration law or to include seriously flawed driver's license 
provisions. The Republicans are clamoring in the Senate about the lack 
of up or down votes on judges and, today, they denied the House not 
only an up or down vote on the so-called ``Real ID'' Act, but even a 
real debate on this issue.
  The immigration sections are seriously flawed. They impose onerous 
restrictions on foreign nationals in the U.S., not to mention upon 
American citizens, and slap a massive unfunded mandate upon the states. 
Shortly after this legislation takes effect, I can only imagine that, 
instead of more licensed drivers on the roads, there will be less. 
Instead of safer roads, we will have more reckless drivers operating 
completely outside of our laws.
  America is a nation of immigrants and our strength is in our 
diversity. We are founded upon the people who have come from all 
corners of the globe and are continually enriched by the unique 
strengths that they add to our national mosaic. We must not undermine 
the careful balance our nation has struck. I, therefore, strongly 
oppose these ID and immigration-related sections and pledge to fight 
hard in the future to remove the offensive provisions from the law.
  in the end, as a legislator, I must vote on the bill in front of me, 
and in this instance I must vote for the vital funding contained in 
this bill. But, Mr. Speaker, please know that I will work hard in the 
day ahead to strike the dangerously flawed sections from the code.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous 
consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise sadly to oppose the 
emergency supplemental because of the horrific and ill-advised 
immigration provisions and the lack of oversight that has been given to 
the provisions in this section. I hope we will have an opportunity to 
address this in a comprehensive manner.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today very conflicted over a piece of vital 
legislation for which this entire body should really be in solidarity. 
The Conference Report on H.R. 1268 provides for emergency FY2005 funds 
for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, tsunami relief 
efforts, foreign assistance programs and domestic homeland security 
priorities. However, this legislation also includes an insidious 
section with provisions of H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act, which has nothing 
to do with what should be the real intent of this Emergency 
Supplemental. Instead of being united on issues of national security 
and international relations, we are put in a divisive situation with 
the provisions of the REAL ID Act.
  The issues of importance addressed by this Emergency Supplemental do 
not give rise to a need to include provisions from H.R. 418, the REAL 
ID Act--legislation for which Congress

[[Page H3014]]

has not held a legislative hearing, markup, nor full debate in the 
House. Just last year, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
attempted to force these provisions in the context of the 9/11 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, H.R. 10.
  The sponsor of the REAL ID Act's driver's license provisions would 
have gone far beyond the scope of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. 
The 9/11 Commission did not suggest that the standards should be 
federally mandated without state participation, that a database should 
be created to share personal identification information, that 
undocumented immigrants should be prevented from getting licenses or 
that non-citizens should get an identifiably different driver's 
license.
  Finally, none of the REAL ID Act sponsor's provisions have been 
reviewed by the Congress or the Commission. There have been no hearings 
or debates on these significant changes to existing law. The 
immigration provisions that have been forced into this 
supplemental include numerous provisions restricting the grant of 
asylum `` protection, imposing onerous new driver's license 
requirements on the States, making it easier to deport legal 
immigrants, waiving all Federal laws concerning the construction of 
fences and barriers anywhere within the United States, and denying 
immigrants long-standing habeas corpus rights.

  The USA PATRIOT Act, for which we in the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the Judiciary are only now holding 
hearings in piecemeal form, already barred terrorists from receiving 
asylum protection in the United States. None of the people associated 
with recent attacks, or plans for terrorist attacks in the U.S., were 
here under grants of asylum. Instead, these changes will make it harder 
for people legitimately fleeing persecution to prove their asylum 
claims and gain protection here. Bona fide refugees who cannot meet the 
higher standards will be returned to countries where they were 
persecuted, possibly to face terror, torture and death.
  The forced provisions will set a dangerous legal precedent by 
requiring the government to waive all federal, state and local laws to 
build barriers and fences to deter illegal entry into the United 
States. This waiver would require violating laws that protect sacred 
Native American burial sites, important environmental regions, and the 
wages of laborers. Yet this policy is unnecessary. In the 9-11 Act, we 
passed language to develop and implement a comprehensive plan for the 
systematic surveillance of the Southwest border by remotely piloted 
aircraft and other electronic means. We can preserve our legal rights 
and regimes and still secure our Nation.
  The great majority of this Emergency Supplemental, a sum of $75.9 
billion goes towards U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
In this Conference Report's military spending total of $75.9 billion 
includes $37.1 billion for military operations and maintenance 
spending, $17.4 billion for personnel, and $17.4 billion for new 
weapons procurement. I am very pleased to say that this Conference 
Report increases the military death gratuity to $100,000, from $12,420, 
and increases subsidized life insurance benefits to $400,000, from 
$250,000, for families of soldiers who died or were killed while on 
active duty beginning from Oct. 7, 2001. I can not describe how 
fundamental it is that we take care of our armed forces and their loved 
ones. This Conference Report addresses some of the concerns that 
Democrats have had about the fact that the families of soldiers who 
were killed while on active duty were not being given the necessary 
funds to provide for themselves. In addition, this Conference Report 
provides $308 million more than requested for add-on vehicle armor 
kits; large increases for new trucks; added funds for night-vision 
equipment; and $60 million in unrequested funds for radio jammers to 
disrupt attempts by Iraqi insurgents to explode remote-control bombs 
and mines. As with the increase in death benefits, Democrats in this 
body have been advocating for increased funds to provide the necessary 
armor and equipment to protect our troops. While I am supportive of our 
troops and their families, I am disappointed that this war continues 
with no end in sight. How long will it be before our brave men and 
women of the Armed Forces can come home and embrace their families? 
This is the question Democrats have been asking for months and we still 
don't have a real answer. Again, while I support funding our soldiers 
and their families to ensure that their safety and financial needs are 
met, I am deeply disappointed that we still do not have a proper exit 
strategy in Iraq.
  As I stated there are many provisions of this Emergency Supplemental 
in which this body can be united in agreement. One such issue is the 
tsunami relief provided in this Emergency Supplemental. The Conference 
Report before us today appropriates $907 million in direct assistance 
for tsunami disaster relief for countries affected by the Dec. 26, 
2004, earthquake and tsunami. In addition, this measure also provides 
$226 million to reimburse the U.S. military for expenses incurred in 
providing emergency relief to the tsunami victims, and $25 million to 
build and deploy 35 new tsunami-detection buoys in the Pacific, 
Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico to provide warning to 
communities of approaching tsunamis. I had the opportunity to see the 
damage caused by the tsunami when I visited Sri Lanka with my 
colleagues led by Mr. Crowley shortly after the tsunami disaster. I had 
the opportunity to visit with USAID personnel who were there trying to 
aid the Sri Lankan people in rebuilding their Nation. I have to say the 
attitude of our American personel and the smiles they brought to the 
face of the Sri Lankan people would make every member of this Congress 
very proud. We talk about public diplomacy with the international world 
and I firmly believe that the funds appropriated here along with the 
work of our personnel on the ground help make a great case for the 
goodness of our Nation.

  I am also similarly pleased that about $400 million in this 
Conference Report will go towards humanitarian assistance in Darfur, 
Sudan. I recently had the opportunity to visit refugee camps in 
neighboring Chad where thousands of Sudanese in Darfur have fled to 
escape the conflict. Needless to say, I was able to confirm from 
eyewitness accounts that the conflict in Darfur is indeed even more 
shocking and deeply disturbing in its viciousness than has been 
reported to us. We as a Nation must stand against such brutality and 
the funds in this Emergency Supplemental will help to ease the 
suffering of those involved in this conflict. In addition, this 
Conference Report includes $920 million for all peacekeeping programs, 
many of which are in Sudan. However, while I have always been a strong 
advocate for peacekeeping operations, I am disappointed that the total 
money appropriated is $70 million less than the president's request. We 
must continue to support such operations because the alternative can 
only be to the detriment of the international community, including our 
own Nation.
  Again, I am in general support of the goals proposed by H.R. 1268, 
but I am troubled by the implications of the Supplemental 
Appropriations measure that this body is poised to pass that relate to 
immigration policy. The underlying legislation proposes to fund 
important needs that pertain to Operation Iraqi Freedom; Operation 
Enduring Freedom, in Afghanistan; Army and Marine Corps restructuring; 
recapitalization and replacement of equipment; and replenishment of 
cash balances in certain working capital funds. In truth, this 
Emergency Supplemental funds many needed priorities, but it is the one 
issue of the REAL ID Act, which is not a priority, that poisons this 
legislation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority 
leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), our distinguished ranking member, the lead Democrat on the 
Committee on Appropriations for his leadership for his very important 
motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, before I get into talking about the bill, I want to 
commend both the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and our 
distinguished ranking members on the Committee on Appropriations and 
Subcommittee on Defense. Over the years, they have worked very hard and 
provided great leadership for our men and women in uniform and for the 
security of our country.
  There is much about this bill that I support. I have some concerns 
which I will express but none of that diminishes the regard and 
appreciation I have for the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. Speaker, for the fourth time since the President ordered the 
invasion of Iraq 2 years ago, Congress has been asked to provide funds 
for the war outside the regular budget. With nearly 140,000 troops in 
dire need of equipment and supplies, this legislation will be 
overwhelmingly approved and I will support it.
  A willingness to provide our troops the support they need, however, 
should not be mistaken for support for the repeated failures in 
judgment that first put our troops in harm's way and that keeps them 
there today.
  Two years ago this week on May 1, 2003, President Bush stood on an 
aircraft carrier under a banner that proclaimed ``Mission 
Accomplished.'' Considering the events that followed and what has been 
disclosed since then, if the President were to stand under a

[[Page H3015]]

banner today it would have to read ``Credibility Demolished.''
  We are in the war's third year. Daily headlines are grim reminders of 
how far we are from a stable and secure Iraq, and the President has yet 
to provide a plan to get us to that place. We are fast approaching 
sadly 1,600 U.S. military deaths and thousands of more have suffered 
grievous and lasting wounds.
  I have had the privilege to pay my respects to troops in theater and 
in hospitals in Europe and in the United States. Whatever our 
disagreement about the policy which brought us into the war, whatever 
our disagreement on the lack of planning to end it, it never diminishes 
the regard that we have for our men and women in uniform. We respect 
them and we appreciate their courage, their patriotism and the 
sacrifice they are willing to make for our country. And on any 
opportunity that many of us have, we express that to them personally.
  The President's rationale for the invasion was discredited long ago. 
Iraq remains unsafe. I talked about credibility in terms of the lack of 
planning. There is also a lack of credibility in budgeting. Although 
appropriations for Iraq approaches $200 billion, the President's budget 
requests no money for the war on the grounds that the cost is 
unknowable. Instead, the President chooses to include a figure for the 
war's cost, zero, that everyone knows to be wrong.
  Here we are today on Thursday talking about a supplemental with a set 
amount in it of emergency funding for our troops, and we passed the 
budget last Thursday. It was not one week ago we did not know what the 
cost would be and now we do this week.
  This is simply not an honest way to do our budgeting.
  Our troops need relief and their equipment needs repair and 
replacement. The risk assessment released by the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
this week shows the strain on our military is real and unsustainable. 
And it is clear that the figure in the supplemental is really not 
enough to meet to meet the measure that the chairman mentioned.
  Providing money alone as this bill will do is not enough. A way out 
must be provided as well. We must focus on quality rather than quantity 
when training Iraqi security forces, accelerate Iraq's reconstruction 
in ways that give Iraqis a major stake in rebuilding their country, and 
step up regional diplomatic efforts to heal the strife on which the 
insurgency thrives.
  I was pleased to be part of the bipartisan delegation that visited 
Iraq during Holy Week, and I can tell you that firsthand that we have a 
long way to go to reaching those goals.
  Our experience in Iraq strongly suggest that if we do not take these 
steps and soon, about training the security forces, accelerating Iraq's 
reconstruction, and stepping up regional diplomacy or as the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) would say, Iraq-atize, internationalize 
and energize, if we do not do this and soon, Americans may wonder for 
years to come if the end will ever be in sight.
  The funds provided for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the 
relief of those devastated by the tsunami, to aid those suffering in 
Darfur and elsewhere, and to promote Middle East peace are necessary 
and important.
  Were conferees able to focus solely on these issues, their final 
product would have been much stronger. However, since this bill is 
must-pass legislation, House Republicans demanded the inclusion of 
controversial immigration provisions. These provisions would be much 
better considered as part of a comprehensive immigration reform effort. 
These provisions will make asylum harder to obtain for those seeking a 
haven from persecution and place a huge unfunded responsibility on the 
States to verify information used to support a driver's license 
application.
  This is an unfunded mandate. This is an unfunded mandate and it is 
not part of the Contract With America, no unfunded mandates.
  Since this is a conference report, we cannot have a ruling from the 
Chair that will allow us to discuss some specifics about the unfunded 
mandate, the driver's license application that is in the bill. It 
sounds like a good idea. But if you are at the desk at the Department 
of Motor Vehicles and you have now become an immigration officer 
because you have to prove the citizenship, or at least the legality of 
somebody being in the country, it is a big burden, it is costly, and it 
is unfunded.
  We have given a mandate without the money and really without the 
consideration that this provision should have been given.
  In addition, we unwisely vest in the Secretary of Homeland Security 
the power to weigh Federal and State environmental and labor laws. This 
in the name of securing our borders. Securing our borders should be a 
national priority, which makes it all the more inexplicable that the 
President did not request in his budget the extra border patrol agents 
and detention beds authorized by Congress last year in response to the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  Bipartisan efforts in the Senate do more for border security in this 
bill and were rebuffed by House Republicans in favor of provisions that 
trample on the rights of individuals and States, and may result in the 
diminishment of the safety of the American people.
  I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for offering his 
motion to recommit to fund border security at the Senate levels. He 
also had this as a motion to instruct when the conferees were named, to 
add $1 billion so that we could have the border security that was 
recommended by the 9/11 Commission. But that was rejected.
  So we talk a great deal about securing the border, but we are not 
putting the resources there to do the job. Thank heavens Senator Byrd 
prevailed with part of the money in the Senate. We can do more. We 
should have done more. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has been 
a champion on this issue year in and year out as far as this discussion 
has been going.
  Again, border security, border security, border security, and then we 
can talk about a comprehensive immigration policy.
  I hope that all of our colleagues will give an overwhelming support 
of this body to the Obey motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, for many reasons, this is not an easy bill to support. 
The legitimate emergency needs to which it responds, particularly the 
needs of our men and women in uniform overseas, are real and must be 
addressed.

                              {time}  1330

  A much better job, though, must be done to create conditions to allow 
large numbers of them to come home and to come home soon.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support the gentleman from 
Wisconsin's motion to recommit.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that while I very strongly oppose 
my colleague from Wisconsin's motion to recommit, the gentleman was 
kind enough to share the recommittal motion with us before the fact, 
and I am very much appreciative of that.
  The greatest difficulty I have with the motion is that at this moment 
our forces are on gas fumes, rather than real gasoline. It is very, 
very critical that we get this bill moving towards the President's desk 
and to the troops as quickly as possible.
  I would like to speak for a moment about some of those things that 
the bill does that may be of great interest to the Members who are 
concerned especially about border security.
  Within this package there are some 500 border patrol agents, added as 
a result of this measure as it goes to the President's desk. There are 
218 immigration enforcement agents and criminal investigators. There 
are some 1,950 detention beds. The bill is designed to take every step 
that we possibly can on short order to secure our border.
  At the same time, just yesterday the Subcommittee on Homeland 
Security marked up their 2006 bill to move further down this same 
pathway. We are moving very quickly to strengthen and secure our 
borders by way of this legislation, as well as regular order.
  From there, Mr. Speaker, let me express my deepest appreciation to 
Members on both sides of the aisle who have worked very hard, their 
staffs, as well as the Members themselves, to make sure that this 
supplemental would arrive on time and ahead of schedule. Virtually 
nobody thought we would be here at this moment. The reason we are is 
because the Members recognize

[[Page H3016]]

how critical it is that we get this support to our troops immediately.
  Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleagues' patience as we 
work quickly on this bill. It is a very good bill. I urge my 
colleagues' support.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, during times of war, the United States 
Congress has an obligation to act. With this bill, we do just that.
  I want to commend Chairman Jerry Lewis and the Appropriations 
Committee for their hard work on this legislation. This is the first 
appropriations bill completed under the leadership of the gentleman 
from California. He and our conferees did a tremendous job of crafting 
this war supplemental promptly and responsibly.
  H.R. 1268 provides the funds needed to pay, equip and protect our 
military during a time of overseas conflict. It supports the war on 
terrorism at home and abroad.
  It also is important to note that tomorrow is Military Spouses 
Appreciation Day, and this bill provides for spouses and families who 
might tragically lose a loved one at war. The bill increases the 
maximum Servicemember Group Life Insurance benefit from $250,000 to 
$400,000. The onetime death gratuity for combat families will rise from 
$12,000 to $100,000. There are also new insurance benefits for soldiers 
who suffer traumatic injuries, such as loss of a limb or sight.
  Funds are included to assist our coalition partners, support 
international peacekeeping efforts and continue reconstruction programs 
in Afghanistan. As you know, opium production is undermining 
Afghanistan's efforts to rebuild and in too many cases, funding 
terrorists. Money included in this bill will train Afghan police and 
help farmers produce alternative crops.
  We pledged to include in this bill critical provisions to protect our 
border and curtail illegal immigration. We have delivered on that 
promise, and I thank Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner of the Judiciary 
Committee and Chairman Tom Davis of the Government Reform Committee for 
their leadership on these provisions.
  The bill includes $176.3 million to hire, train and equip 500 new 
Border Patrol Agents. New immigration enforcement agents and other 
criminal investigators are also funded in the bill. Last year, Border 
Patrol agents arrested nearly 1.2 million illegal aliens; nearly 12 
percent of them were captured near the San Diego Sector. In an 
important step, this bill eliminates the barriers to completing 
construction of the San Diego border fence, closing a critical border 
security breach.
  Finally, the bill supports recovery efforts for the hundreds of 
thousands of people impacted by the Indian Ocean tsunami by providing 
$656 million in tsunami-related disaster relief.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill goes a long way towards meeting our global 
commitments and maintaining America's status as a world leader. More 
importantly, it declares to the brave men and women serving in our 
armed forces that the United States Congress will continue to stand 
beside them in the war on terror. I urge the House to adopt this 
legislation.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I recently presented a joint statement 
with Senator Snowe regarding small business contracting and would like 
to submit it for the Record.

       Section 6022 of H.R. 1268, as adopted in the Conference 
     Report, H. Rep. 109-72, contains certain provisions 
     concerning small business contracting at the Department of 
     Energy. These provisions were inserted as a substitute for 
     Section 6023 of the Senate version of H.R. 1268. Section 
     6023, among other things sought to amend the Small Business 
     Act to authorize counting of small business subcontracts at 
     the Department of Energy's large prime contractors for 
     purposes of reporting small business prime contracting 
     results. Because the substitute language was not adopted by 
     Congress through regular legislative proceedings in the 
     Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and 
     the House Committee on Small Business but was adopted anew 
     during the House-Senate conference, the committees of 
     jurisdiction take this opportunity to provide guidance 
     generally provided through their reports to Senators and 
     Representatives prior to their vote on the Conference Report, 
     and to affected Federal agencies prior to their 
     implementation of the Conference Report if adopted.
       In subsections 6022 (a) and (b), the language chosen to 
     replace Section 6023 in the Conference Report directs the 
     Department of Energy and the Small Business Administration to 
     enter into a Memorandum of Understanding for reporting small 
     business prime contracts and subcontracts at the Department 
     of Energy. This replacement language does not change the 
     Small Business Act's clear distinction between prime 
     contracts and subcontracts, does not amend the statutory 
     small business prime contracting goal requirements which are 
     binding on the Department of Energy, and does not obviate 
     Congressional and regulatory policies against contract 
     bundling. This language does not repeal the President's 
     Executive Order 13360 directing the Department of Energy to 
     comply with its separate statutory prime contracting and 
     subcontracting goals for awards to small businesses owned by 
     service-disabled veterans. Any interpretation to the contrary 
     would be unreasonable and contrary to Congressional intent.
       In subsection 6022(c), the replacement language mandates a 
     study of changes to management prime contracts at the 
     Department of Energy to encourage small business prime 
     contracting opportunities. The object of the study is to 
     examine the feasibility of establishing a procurement agency 
     relationship between the management prime contractors and the 
     Department of Energy in accordance with the requirements of 
     Federal procurement laws, Federal procurement regulations, 
     the ``Federal norm'' of government contracting as recognized 
     by the Comptroller General, and applicable judicial precedent 
     such as U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. United States, 940 
     F.2d 622 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
       Finally, in subsection 6022(d), the replacement language 
     imposes certain requirements upon the Department of Energy 
     concerning break-outs of services from large prime contracts 
     for awards to small businesses. First, the Secretary of 
     Energy is required to consider whether services performed 
     have been previously provided by a small business concern. 
     This requirement is for acquisition planning purposes only, 
     and shall not be construed as imposing a restriction of any 
     kind on the ability of the Department of Energy to break out 
     its large prime contracts for award to small businesses. 
     Congress recognizes that most of work currently contracted by 
     the Department of Energy to its large prime contractors has 
     never been historically performed by small businesses. 
     However, this does not waive the application of the Small 
     Business Act, the President's Executive Order 13360, or the 
     President's initiative against contract bundling to the 
     Department of Energy. Second, the Secretary of Energy is 
     required to consider whether small business concerns are 
     capable of performing under the contracts which are broken 
     out for award. This requirement is simply a restatement of 
     current statutory and regulatory requirements on contractor 
     responsibility. Subsection (d)(2) direct the Secretary of 
     Energy is required to--impose certain subcontracting 
     requirements. As the text plainly indicates, this provision 
     applies solely to small, business prime contracts which were 
     formerly small business subcontracts for services.

  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, when H.R. 1268 was first 
considered on the floor in March, I reluctantly supported its passage. 
Now that the conference report has been returned to the House for this 
chamber's approval, I still find myself torn because I do not see how 
additional funding for the Iraq War effort will ultimately produce a 
positive outcome for the United States or for the people in Iraq. I 
want a successful exit strategy--not a permanent occupation in Iraq.
  Despite my misgivings for the direction of our Iraq policy, or lack 
thereof, I do not believe our troops, who are fighting so bravely, 
should be penalized for the mistakes in judgment of our civilian 
military leadership at the White House and the Pentagon. As we speak, 
our ground forces scrounge for scrap metal to make the unarmored 
vehicles more safe against insurgent attack. The funds provided in this 
bill will enable our soldiers and Marines on the ground to uparmor 
their vehicles. There should be more outrage from the American public 
that they were deployed without adequate equipment from the beginning. 
But they are there. It is vital that our troops receive the equipment 
they need to defend themselves against attack.
  I have been critical of our war planning from the outset. I voted 
against the authority that allowed the President to take action in 
Iraq. I continue to be frustrated that our war plan still contains no 
game plan on when we can begin to bring our troops home. I am pleased 
that the bill does contain provisions that require the administration 
to develop a set of performance indicators and measures for determining 
the stability and security in Iraq and report its findings to Congress. 
This requirement falls well short of the exit strategy we need to 
determine how long our commitment in Iraq will last.
  The bill also funds tsunami relief, which is well overdue. The 
agreement appropriates $656 million in direct assistance to tsunami 
disaster relief for countries affected by last December's tragedy. The 
total includes $5 million to support environmental recovery activities; 
$10 million to create new economic opportunities for women; and $12.5 
million to support initiatives that focus on the immediate and long-
term needs of children.
  The bill provides $400 million for humanitarian assistance in the 
Darfur region of Sudan and elsewhere in Africa, including funds for the 
temporary resettlement of refugees. It also funds $240 million for 
international humanitarian food assistance through the Food for Peace 
Program, much of which will go to the Darfur region. This assistance 
will provide some relief to those who are being victimized by the 
ethnic cleansing that is being waged against the black Muslim 
population by the Arab Muslim-dominated Sudanese government.
  In a period when the President and this Congress proposes reductions 
in programs that support the development of local communities and 
neighborhoods, the bill provides

[[Page H3017]]

$592 million for a gold-plated embassy compound in Iraq. I find it very 
difficult to defend such spending when the budget priorities of this 
administration propose disinvesting in our cities, towns and our 
American workforce. Money for this project goes beyond providing office 
and working space for U.S. foreign service personnel. What we are 
proposing to build is not an embassy, but a compound, with stores and 
other amenities which will further distance our American embassy 
personnel from the Iraqi civilian and political population. We are 
constructing a fortress, not an embassy. I want a successful exit 
strategy--not a permanent occupation in Iraq.
  Another key element of this agreement with which I take issue is the 
mandate imposed on states that requires certain identification 
standards on driver's licenses for federal identification purposes. The 
measure mandates that states meet certain requirements for determining 
the validity of persons applying for drivers' licenses. Although the 
bill provides authority for states to receive federal grants to comply, 
it is insufficient and amounts to an unfunded federal mandate.
  The money contained in this bill will go a long way to saving lives, 
saving the lives of our land forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and 
reconstructing the lives of those who experienced the devastation of 
last year's tsunami. After weighing the alternatives, I reluctantly 
support the passage of this bill. I am not happy with the choices we 
are making today. I feel backed into a corner without much wiggle room, 
but the lives of our troops matter to me and they deserve the 
protection this bill is designed to deliver to them.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of H.R. 
1268, the War Supplemental Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005, 
which will provide funding for military operations and reconstruction 
activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as important funds for 
tsunami relief and recovery.
  I say ``reluctant support'' because the Republican leadership has 
made a very poor and political decision to include controversial 
legislative provisions in this emergency spending bill that otherwise 
enjoys almost universal support because it provides needed assistance 
for our servicemen and women overseas.
  It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that our servicemen and women 
deserve to have the equipment and support they need to help keep them 
safe as they fulfill their missions abroad. Towards that end, the 
Appropriations Committee increased funding by 69 percent above the 
President's request for add-on vehicle armor kits, new trucks, and 
radio jammers to disrupt attempts by Iraqi insurgents to explode remote 
controlled bombs and mines.
  The bill also includes important provisions to increase the military 
death gratuity and to provide subsidized life insurance benefits for 
families of soldiers who die or are killed on active duty. No amount 
can compensate for the tragic death of a loved one, but an increase in 
these benefits can help a family cope with the financial impact of a 
combat death.
  I am also pleased that additional funds have been provided for 
humanitarian relief and disaster assistance, including $400 million for 
Sudan, $907 million for Indian Ocean tsunami relief, and $240 million 
in P.L. 480 grants for emergency food assistance.
  But I am extremely upset and disappointed that the Republican 
leadership is using this critical bill as a vehicle to pass unrelated 
and controversial policies, that will allow the Department of Homeland 
Security to preempt state and federal laws to build border fences, 
require uniform national standards for issuing driver's licenses, and 
change the asylum standards for immigrants seeking to flee to the 
United States to avoid persecution. In particular, the bill includes an 
assault against the matricula consular cards issued by Mexican and 
other Latin American consulates, and consequently makes it an assault 
on our immigrant families who rely upon this form of identification in 
their daily lives for transactions involving banking, housing, 
education and even proving, when necessary, that they are the parents 
of their own children. These provisions were not openly debated or 
negotiated with the minority, but once again decided behind closed 
doors by the Republican leadership. I am outraged that this Republican 
leadership essentially has chosen to pit support for our troops against 
support for hard-working immigrants, many of whom have their own sons 
and daughters fighting to protect our country abroad.
  Why does the Republican leadership continue to abuse its power and 
shut out the American public? Because the Republican leadership knows 
that if these controversial provisions were openly debated in the House 
and Senate they would not pass. Only by attaching these provisions to a 
must-pass bill like the emergency supplemental appropriations bill for 
our troops in Iraq could they hope to be successful.
  Mr. Speaker, this is just one more example of abuse of power by a 
Republican leadership that continues to act irresponsibly on issues of 
importance to our American society.
  Nevertheless, in spite of my concerns, given the choice before us, I 
believe it is my responsibility to provide our servicemen and women the 
resources necessary for them to fulfill their mission and come home 
safely. Protecting our troops, who are sacrificing so much on our 
behalf, and providing for their families, will always be one of my 
highest priorities, and that is why, once again, I will support this 
necessary and important conference report today.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to question the omission of an 
amendment sponsored by Mrs. Maloney, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Crowley and 
myself, which was agreed to by the Chairman of Appropriations.
  The amendment took $3 million from the ``Economic Support Fund'' and 
put it toward the ``Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction Fund,'' for the 
express purpose of the providing the United Nations Population Fund, 
UNFPA with these funds.
  This past January, I toured the region that was overwhelmed by the 
tsunami. The extent of the destruction was massive, and I was glad to 
see the world contributing to relief efforts. However, I was concerned 
that the special needs of women were not being adequately addressed.
  I visited the remains of a three-story maternity hospital. There were 
300 women and infants in that hospital when the first wave hit. The 
tsunami toppled a cement wall, flattened utility polls, and shattered 
all of the glass windows in the front of the building. Of the 300 women 
and their babies, all but one, a newborn, were saved from the crashing 
waves. I met a doctor who finished a C-Section in absolute darkness, 
after the generators were underwater, as the rest of the building was 
evacuated. The hospital was practically destroyed. The beds were pushed 
and piled against each other by the flooding, and shards of glass 
crunched under our feet. The sheets were strewn about like wet rags, 
and saturated packages of medicine were thrown in useless piles.
  It is conditions like these that the UNFPA addresses. The 
organization has experience working with women in disaster areas; they 
have participated in emergency projects in more than 50 countries and 
territories. They already have offices in tsunami-affected countries, 
and they understand the distinctive ways that disasters affect women 
and children.
  When I visited in January, there were an estimated 150,000 pregnant 
women in the tsunami-affected areas. The UNFPA has worked to supply 
safe-birthing kits and emergency obstetric equipment.
  Women who are in refugee camps need personal hygiene kits, soap, 
sterile cotton cloth, antibiotics, and drugs for treating sexually 
transmitted infections. Although relief efforts often overlook these 
supplies, and the UNFPA has done its best to fulfill these needs.
  UNFPA's priorities are reproductive health, including safe 
childbirth, prevention of violence against women and girls, and 
counseling for those affected by the 26 December tsunami. For many of 
these women, they must now become the head of the household. They have 
become widows overnight, and must deal with the emotional and economic 
issues involved with being the sole breadwinner in an area with no 
jobs.
  In early January, UNFPA asked for $28 million to support its tsunami-
related work. Our amendment would have given them $3 million, which is 
about 11 percent of what they requested.
  By late February, over 70 percent of the requested funding had been 
received or pledged. Germany gave $8 million. Japan gave $5.5 million. 
The Netherlands gave $1.5 million. Norway gave $1 million. New Zealand 
gave $700,000.
  The United States has not given anything to this organization that is 
the most experienced and successful in addressing the distinctive needs 
of women during times of natural disaster.
  But this is not unusual. We have not given the UNFPA the money they 
need for some time.
  The Omnibus for 2005 earmarked $34 million for UNFPA, however, the 
UNFPA has not and will not receive it. The UNFPA also received no funds 
from the United States in 2002, 2003, and 2004. Unfortunately, the 
President will not release these funds to this organization, because of 
issues related to abortion.
  The money would not have been used for abortion. The money would have 
helped women deliver their babies. It would have helped women who have 
been sexually assaulted. It would have given women some of the tools 
they need to take care of themselves and their children.
  It is unconscionable that this Congress would not allocate this $3 
million to UNFPA.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the wartime supplemental 
that includes urgent funding for our soldiers and sailors now 
prosecuting the global war on terror in Afghanistan

[[Page H3018]]

and Iraq. This bill also has important additional funding for border 
security, and language important to South Texas shrimpers that will 
make it easier for them to hire workers for the coming season.
  As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I know our 
soldiers can do anything. Yet that truth does not mean that the 
Congress should skimp on our financial obligations to our fighting men 
and women. They run out of money altogether at the end of this month, 
so I am pleased we are finalizing this bill today.
  As a border Congressman, I am grateful that the conferees included 
desperately needed funding for border security. I have been relentless 
in talking to so many of you about my concerns related to spending on 
border security matters. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 
Obey, for his work in getting negotiators to include this spending. 
While this is a good start, it still comes up short of both what we 
need and what the Intelligence Reform bill mandated we do.
  The Intelligence Reform bill passed by Congress last year mandated 
2,000 Border Patrol agents a year for the next 5 years. The President 
came to the table with only 210 in his budget; today we are adding 
another 500. That's still over 1,000 short of what this government 
agrees is the very least we should do to protect our border and stem 
the tide of releasing OTMs--illegal immigrants that are ``other than 
Mexican''--into the U.S. general population.
  Given our border security is entirely budget driven, this is a rare 
victory for those of us who have been talking about the need to put our 
money where our mouth is when it comes to protecting our nation from 
terrorists that may be trying to enter the country through the 
loopholes in our border security policy. We are sending our young 
soldiers to fight and die in Iraq and Afghanistan and we justify that 
by saying we are fighting the war there so we will not have to fight it 
here.
  We may very well be fighting a war over there and letting terrorists 
in our back door. As so many South Texans and my colleagues know, I 
have been lifting my voice about how border security is profoundly 
lacking. Currently, the United States does not have room to hold the 
large number of OTMs, caught by border law enforcement. While I know 
that most of these immigrants are merely seeking a better life, it is 
the few--the handful--that may be entering our country to do us harm. 
That is whom we need to worry about. So we are releasing, on their own 
recognizance, into the population of the United States very large 
numbers of OTMs.
  What happens is our border patrol agents routinely call detention 
facilities and discover there is no room to hold OTMs. So, they process 
these immigrants, many times without even getting fingerprints or 
running them through our national databases to see if they are on watch 
lists, and release them into the general population with a notice to 
appear at a deportation hearing a few weeks later. Law enforcement 
officers then take the released OTMs to the local bus station by the 
vanload, where they head elsewhere in the U.S. The number that never 
appear for deportation is over 90 percent of those released, a number 
now probably over 75,000.
  Already the number of OTMs captured and released is more, so far this 
year, than for all of last year. It is little wonder that private 
citizens are taking the law into their own hands to try to stem the 
tide of OTMs coming into our country. But private militias, operating 
without the color of law, are not the answer. We must secure our 
borders so private citizens do not feel the need to do so.
  As a former law enforcement officer I know if we don't have the 
border officers to stop the OTMs crossing the border, if we don't have 
the room to hold the ones we catch, if we don't put our money where our 
mouth is, we continue to send a dangerous signal to those who may wish 
to do us harm. Until we send a signal that those who cross our borders 
illegally, until we send a signal that when we catch you we will hold 
you until you are deported, until we honestly face the amount of money 
it will take to deal with these things, OTMs will continue to flock to 
the U.S., quite possibly populating terror cells already operating in 
the United States.
  Unfortunately, the Leadership decided to include many controversial 
provisions that members wouldn't otherwise support if they weren't 
linked to funding our troops. I do not agree with some of the so-called 
security provisions in this bill, mainly the stricter asylum laws and 
national standards for drivers' licenses. A country like ours that 
believes so greatly in freedom and the protection of the oppressed 
should be a safe haven for refugees that are being persecuted by their 
governments because of their race, religion or political beliefs, which 
is why we are fighting the war we fund in this bill.
  I am also disappointed Congress has gone one step further in creating 
a national ID. Many would suggest that a drivers' license is the way 
terrorists are infiltrating our country. That is simply not the case. 
Standardizing a drivers' license would not have precluded the 9/11 
terrorists from entering this country--immigration reform and better 
border security practices would have.
  Today's bill is a start in putting our money where our mouth is, but 
it is still insufficient to the monumental border security task before 
us and I ask our appropriators to ensure the necessary funding is 
included in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, as the ranking Democrat of the 
Committee on House Administration, I wish to comment briefly on key 
provisions of this supplemental appropriations bill that touch upon my 
committee's jurisdiction.
  I commend the conferees for including $2.6 million for taking 
``technical countermeasures'' to assure the electronic integrity of the 
Visitor Center now under construction here at the Capitol. Given the 
status of that construction project, this matter is time-sensitive, and 
while we have no reason to believe anyone involved with the 
construction may be seeking to install surreptitious listening devices 
within the building's walls and fittings, we know there are people in 
this world who might like to do so. It is prudent to take reasonable 
steps against it, and thus eliminate any chance of repeating what 
happened during construction of the U.S. embassy in Moscow some years 
ago.
  I also commend the conferees for including $8.4 million to refresh 
the supply of ``quick masks'' deployed around the Capitol complex to 
protect persons against chemical or biological attack. The current 
masks have a limited shelf-life, and making these funds available now 
will expedite the process of replacement as they approach their 
expiration dates.
  There is no question that the Congress needs a new off-site delivery 
center, to facilitate the secure, timely delivery of packages to the 
Capitol and congressional office buildings. I am pleased the conferees 
included funds for a temporary facility to replace the substandard site 
now used, and funds for design of a permanent facility. I trust that 
given the importance of deliveries to the Capitol, any difficulties 
between the two houses over the nature of the delivery system can be 
resolved quickly.
  Finally, I wish to comment on something the conferees did not include 
in this bill, namely, any funding for up to 132 additional Capitol 
Police officers during fiscal 2005. These 132 officers, when added 
together with 122 more requested as part of the Police's fiscal 2006 
request, would increase the sworn ranks by another 254 officers, an 
increase of roughly 16% within two years. Obviously, with less than 
five months remaining in fiscal 2005, the Police could not hire and 
fully train 132 more officers by September 30, so there is little 
reason to include funds in this bill, or even the funds for all 50 more 
officers included in the Senate bill. I am pleased that under these 
circumstances, the conferees chose to defer a decision about the need 
for 254 more officers until the House Administration Committee and the 
Senate Rules Committee, the authorizing committees for the Capitol 
Police, have had an opportunity to consider the optimum strength of the 
force going into the fiscal 2006 cycle.
  I thank our friends on the Appropriations Committee for their 
difficult and prudent decisions on the Legislative-branch portion of 
this bill. I look forward to working with them, and with our colleagues 
on my own committee, as the work of the Legislative branch forges 
ahead.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations (HR 1268), on substance and process. I am 
strongly supportive of our fighting men and women, and mourn the loss 
of nearly 1,600 Americans who have died in Iraq, four of whom resided 
in my congressional district.
  On substance, this bill fails to provide an exit strategy for our 
troops in Iraq. Since Iraq held democratic elections in January, the US 
should have been implementing an aggressive exit strategy that includes 
a timetable for the training of Iraqi security forces, so US troops can 
return home. Moreover, with nearly $10 billion already appropriated but 
not spent for critical reconstruction projects in Iraq, like rebuilding 
electrical grids and establishing telecommunications networks, US 
policy objectives for Iraqi independence are jeopardized. On process, 
many of the items in this bill should be funded under the regular order 
in the annual appropriations cycle.
  Unfortunately, the Republican Leadership has used this bill as a 
vehicle for passage of immigration measures that are divisive and 
harmful for our country, and couldn't be passed as stand-alone bills. 
Provisions commonly known as the ``REAL ID Act'' regarding national 
driver's license standards, asylum law and completion of a southern 
border fence have been controversial from day one, but were added to 
appease a vocal minority of anti-immigrant advocates. I and many others 
in Congress would like to have a rational debate on immigration reform, 
but we are denied

[[Page H3019]]

the opportunity when the leadership attaches non-germane immigration 
measures to a funding bill.
  To better demonstrate how the process has been hijacked by a minority 
of the majority, many of the same provisions that constitute the REAL 
ID provisions in the supplemental being considered today were stripped 
from the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (PL 108-458) 
in conference because of their extreme nature.
  One of the most egregious provisions in the REAL ID section of the 
supplemental is the blanket authority given to the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to expedite construction of the remaining three miles 
of the southern border fence in San Diego. All Americans should be 
concerned that the DHS Secretary has carte blanche authority to waive 
any and all laws in the name of border security. This provision is a 
dangerous attack against the civil rights of all Americans, when any 
law can be waived under the guise of border security. Blanket authority 
to complete the three mile border fence is especially ``in your face'' 
politics when, under current law, the DHS Secretary already has a 
national security waiver for the National Environmental Policy Act and 
the Endangered Species Act. We must work harder to strike a balance 
between our national security and environmental protection, not simply 
ignore environmental laws.
  Furthermore, the driver's license provisions of this bill touted in 
the name of national security are equally concerning. It is indeed 
ironic that these provisions would not have stopped the 9/11 hijackers 
from obtaining driver's licenses. The breach of our border security was 
a result of the hijackers having been issued legal visas to enter the 
US, which many of them used to apply for driver's licenses and 
identification cards. Even if the REAL ID provisions had been in place 
before the 9/11 attacks, the hijackers still would have been able to 
obtain a driver's license or state-issued ID. Again, a minority of the 
majority is playing on the fears of this nation to enact a flawed 
policy that does not actually address the problem it purports to fix.
  For the record, I do not support illegal immigration, but I do 
support a regulated process for immigrants who enter the US legally, 
pay their taxes and play by the rules to earn US citizenship. No one 
can deny that comprehensive Immigration reform is a topic on the minds 
of our constituents--but such a critical policy debate should be 
conducted on its own merits.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the War Supplemental 
Appropriations Act but must voice my incredible misgivings for what the 
Republican majority has attached to legislation that should solely be 
about how we provide for our brave men and women in harm's way in Iraq 
and Afghanistan.
  There is much in this bill to be proud of. Our military, despite the 
job of the civilian brass and this Congress, have been performing 
heroically. They have accomplished much more than we could have ever 
hoped for, and if any fault needs to be assigned it is to the policy 
makers, and not to those in uniform.
  However, I am ashamed that this body has taken something as important 
as securing our troops, and attached a hastily considered immigration 
provision that will result in massive unfunded mandates being passed on 
to our states. I am ashamed that the conference committee removed 
language that would have created a Truman-style Commission to examine 
war profiteering, largely to ensure that this administration would not 
be embarrassed. Finally, I am ashamed that this Congress has turned its 
back on a promise made by our President to the Palestinian Authority to 
help improve the situation of the Palestinian people and further the 
cause of peace for all in the Middle East.
  I am concerned that the immigration provisions will force our great 
nation to turn our back on the thousands of political and human rights 
asylum seekers who look toward America as their last and best hope. The 
Real ID Act will force the most vulnerable to have their torturers 
corroborate their tales of persecution.
  I understand that we must protect our borders, and I understand that 
changes must be made to keep out those that seek to do us harm. But we 
should not hastily foreclose the dream and promise of America because 
of fear. We should not send back asylum seekers back to their 
torturers. Under these standards, Iraqis seeking to escape the rape 
rooms of Saddam Hussein would have been sent back to the Ba'athist 
prisons if they fled Iraq without the proper documentation.
  I am also dismayed that rather than seeking to be responsible 
stewards of the public's trust, the Republican majority in charge of 
Congress once again decided to ignore its oversight responsibilities. 
It seems that rather than doing our oversight job as a separate and 
equal branch of government, the GOP leadership would rather save the 
Bush Administration and corporate CEOs some embarrassment.
  I am old enough to remember the Truman Commission. I remember that 
Sen. Truman went against a Democratic administration, and saved our 
military and our tax payers billions of dollars in waste and fraud. I 
cannot understand why we do not do the same.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle should be ashamed of the 
fact that Mr. Waxman and I have probably done more on this front from 
the minority, than has anyone with a gavel. Reconstructing Iraq and 
Afghanistan is too important not to get it right, but confronted yet 
again with evidence of massive fraud and egregious war profiteering, my 
Republican colleagues are again choosing to bury their heads in the 
sand, plug their ears, and turn out the lights on our duty.
  Finally, this bill, by intention or not, has the potential of undoing 
all the progress that the Middle East Peace process has made since the 
death of Yasser Arafat. Mr. Speaker, the new president of the 
Palestinian Authority is in an almost untenable position. In order for 
Palestinian democracy to succeed over radical terrorism, President 
Abbas must be provided with the resources to open hospitals, create 
jobs, arm a police force, build jails, and take the fight to the 
terrorists.
  President Bush recognized this. He made a statement asking for $200 
million to support a nascent Middle Eastern democracy. Instead of 
allowing President Abbas to use American aid to build his security 
forces to take on terror, we instead set him up for failure. My 
friends, if you want to see Hamas win the upcoming municipal elections; 
if you want to see the peace process come to an abject halt; if you 
want to see more dead young Israelis and young Palestinians you should 
support this language.
  It surprises me that the only thing that this Congress is capable of 
bucking and embarrassing this Administration on is the prospect of 
peace. I hope, for the sake of peace, we can correct this colossal 
error in judgment and that the President and the State Department speak 
out against Congress' ill-advised policy making on this most tragic 
conflict.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, on February 17, 2004, the national 
debt of the United States exceeded $7 trillion for the first time in 
our country's history. One year later, our national debt is $7.7 
trillion. In the past year, our country has added $700 billion to our 
national debt.
  The conference report for the FY06 budget resolution that is before 
us today would increase the statutory debt limit by $781 billion to a 
record $9 trillion. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. The out-of-control 
rise in our national debt over the last year and the rise in our debt 
envisioned in this conference report are further signs of the terrible 
fiscal position in which we now find ourselves.
  In 2001, we had ten-year projected surpluses of $5.6 trillion [2002-
2011]. Now, over that same time period, we have likely ten-year 
deficits of $3.9 trillion. That's a $9.5 trillion reversal in our ten-
year fiscal outlook.
  Whether intentional or otherwise, our country's current fiscal 
policies are depriving the federal government of future revenue at a 
time when we ought to be preparing for an unprecedented demographic 
shift that will strain Social Security and Medicare. Our current fiscal 
irresponsibility will eventually land squarely on the shoulders of our 
children and grandchildren, who will be forced to pay back the debt we 
are accumulating today. The ``debt tax'' that we are imposing on our 
children and grandchildren cannot be repealed. It can only be reduced 
if we take responsible steps now to improve our situation.
  Both parties need to work together in a bipartisan fashion to bring 
our budget back into balance so we can avoid the higher long-term 
interest rates and weakened dollar that are the inevitable consequences 
of rising deficits and a high national debt. We are witnessing on a 
daily basis the reaction of the global financial markets to our fiscal 
irresponsibility, and as we can see in this conference report, Congress 
has not yet gotten the message that deficits and debt matter.

  For starters, Congress needs to reinstate PAYGO rules for the entire 
budget, including spending and revenue measures. Budget enforcement 
rules that apply to only certain parts of the budget will not have a 
significant impact on our rising deficits, as Federal Reserve Chairman 
Alan Greenspan mentioned in his recent testimony before the Budget 
Committee.
  This fiscal year alone, interest on the national debt is expected to 
rise to $178 billion, and the administration projects that that figure 
will increase to $211 billion during the next fiscal year. To put that 
figure in perspective, projected interest on our national debt next 
year will be $75 billion more than projected spending on education, 
public health, health research, and veterans' benefits combined [$138 
billion].
  Further, the budget conference report before us today, which was 
filed only three hours before the House began to consider it, would 
require the House to cut Medicaid funding by as much as $15 billion 
over the next five years.

[[Page H3020]]

Just two days ago the House voted, by a vote of 348-72, to reject 
harmful cuts to the Medicaid program, and this conference report 
blatantly ignores the will of the House.
  In addition to assuming an ever-larger share of our annual budgets, 
the interest on our debt, and the debt itself, are increasing our 
reliance on foreign borrowers, which will weaken our position in the 
world and increase the risk that another nation will be able to assert 
greater leverage over America. Over the last year, our country has 
borrowed nearly $400 billion [$389 billion] from foreign countries, and 
almost half [44%] of our publicly-held debt is held by foreign 
creditors [$1.96 trillion, out of $4.4 trillion of publicly held debt].
  Finally, our deficits and debt threaten the Social Security and 
Medicare programs that have raised so many of our seniors out of 
poverty and helped sustain the strongest middle class in history. With 
a projected 75 year unfunded liability of $3.7 trillion, both parties 
in Congress need to work together to address Social Security's solvency 
problem, and this conference report does nothing to protect Social 
Security. In fact, it continues the practice of raiding the Social 
Security trust funds to pay for other expenses of the federal 
government.
  It is time for Congress to stop playing games with our national debt, 
with Social Security, and with our kids and grandkids' futures and take 
a commonsense, bipartisan approach to solve our budget problems.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this supplemental 
appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.
  At $82 billion, this is the second largest supplemental 
appropriations request passed by Congress. This is on top of an already 
bloated $400 billion defense budget. Instead of borrowing more from our 
children, Congress ought to instead stop wasteful spending on 
ineffective, redundant and unnecessary weapons programs.
  A supplemental of this size wouldn't even be necessary if Congress 
dumped pie-in-the-sky missile defense programs, put a stop to the 
delayed and over budget F-22 and F-35, and ended the boondoggle Osprey 
that's unsafe for our troops.
  There is, however, a larger, more fundamental issue here. The Bush 
Administration refuses to live up to the human costs of this ongoing 
war. Over 1,500 young Americans dead, over 12,000 young Americans 
maimed and wounded and countless Iraqi civilians killed in the 
continuing bloodshed.
  The message of my vote against this bill today is clear. The 
immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is necessary if the 
United States is serious about bringing peace and security to the Iraqi 
people.
  The continued presence of an American occupying force only 
intensifies the resentment, anger and distrust that fuels the ongoing 
violence against our troops. It's time to bring our troops home.
  This message is lost on the Bush Administration. They've sought to 
establish American dominance in the region and to pursue regime change 
at any cost. They'll stay the course whatever the tragic consequences 
for the wives, husbands and families of our soldiers.
  These brave young Americans face down deadly conflict in the streets 
each and every day. We honor their courage and service. But, for their 
sake, everyone of us in this House must consider the burden they bear. 
Is it worth it for them and for all of us?
  America is not safer today two years after the capricious preemptive 
invasion of Iraq. Terror networks continue to grow and recruit in 
response to the US' arrogant preeminence in the Middle East.
  Terrorism has been brought to the front door of America: waged 
mercilessly against our troops in places like Baghdad and Tikrit. That 
terror won't stop until we get serious about involving the world in 
solving this conflict.
  We must actively involve Arab states, the United Nations and our 
major world partners in taking a stand against these insurgents--and in 
taking our place. A large, multinational peacekeeping force is the 
soundest way forward to end the war and win the peace.
  The Bush Administration can continue to throw billions at Halliburton 
without real accountability. They can continue to look the other way as 
profiteering trumps genuine reconstruction in Iraq. They can laud its 
new democracy as one of the key foundations necessary to sustain it--
Iraq's economy--continues to flounder. The Bush Administration can do 
all these things, but the end of this war will not come any day sooner.
  What America needs most is honest leadership and a clear strategy for 
Iraq. That's not reflected in this bill. Its just more money thrown at 
a crisis we cannot solve through force of will alone.
  That is our problem here today. Congress won't force our President 
and his advisors to live up to their failure. We'll vote to give them 
another blank check without addressing the fundamental illusion of our 
Iraq policy: we can win the peace alone. That's a costly falsehood.
  I urge my colleagues to take responsibility for the lives of our 
soldiers, Iraq's future, and the future security of the United States 
and the world. Vote down this bill. It is time to bring our troops 
home.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this appropriations bill contains much 
crucial funding, most importantly money to provide additional armor for 
our troops and vehicles in Iraq and electronic jammers to protect them 
from roadside bombs. While I strongly support this funding, I am 
disappointed that I must vote ``no'' on this bill.
  We have a responsibility to the men and women who we send into harm's 
way as members of the United States Armed Forces. It is because of my 
desire to support our troops that I continue to insist that the 
administration develop a plan to win the peace in Iraq and, to the best 
of our capability, protect the troops as they go about their mission. I 
believe that Congress must hold the administration to the highest 
standards when the lives of our service personnel are at risk. A ``no'' 
vote is one of the few ways I have to protest the continued abdication 
of this responsibility by the highest levels of the Bush 
Administration.
  One positive part of this legislation is an amendment that I offered 
during House consideration with Mr. Markey to prohibit funds for 
torture and for sending detainees to countries that practice torture, 
which was carried into this conference report. The use of torture and 
rendition is morally reprehensible, puts Americans at risk, is a poor 
way to obtain reliable information in our fight against terrorism, and 
sets back the cause of democracy. This is the very least that we can do 
as Congress continues to abdicate its responsibility to investigate 
this horrific aspect of administration policy.
  Perhaps most disappointing, this legislation also continues to be 
burdened with all the flaws of H.R.418, the ``REAL ID Act,'' which, 
among other things, placed the entire 7,514 mile border completely 
outside all legal protections. This is perhaps the single most damaging 
precedent since I've been in Congress. Do we really want to be giving 
this responsibility to the Department of Homeland Security, which has 
not been a paragon of efficiency and sensitivity during its three years 
of existence? Some of the environmental laws waived by this provision 
include: the Noise Control Act, the Clean Water Act, the Farmland 
Protection Policy Act, and the Bald Eagle Act. This is not only bad 
public policy, it is unnecessary, as most of these laws have security 
exemptions already written into them. However, in addition to 
environmental laws, this provision would waive labor laws, safety 
standards, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Native 
American Graves Protection Act. If this provision were to become law, 
the Department of Homeland Security could build a road that has no 
safety standards, using l2-year-old laborers, through the site of a 
Native American burial ground, killing hundreds of bald eagles during 
construction, and polluting the drinking water of a nearby community. 
The proponents of this provision have given us no compelling reasons 
for why this broad exemption is necessary.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for 
H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, 
the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief. This essential 
legislation will support and defend America's values both at home and 
abroad.
  Our troops serving in Iraq will have the necessary tools to continue 
their rebuilding efforts in Iraq and to continue the War on Terror. At 
home, the REAL ID provisions will strengthen our Nation's driver's 
license laws, providing each citizen with another layer of security.
  Until now, terrorists could easily exploit weak driver licensing laws 
and obtain fake documents. With a license in hand, terrorists were 
better able to blend in, avoid detection, and harm our nation's 
citizens. This is exactly what several of the 9/11 terrorists did, 
using drivers' licenses to board airplanes and murder thousands of 
innocent Americans on September 11, 2001.
  We in Congress have been working on ways to prevent our Nation from 
experiencing another terrorist attack by establishing stronger and more 
secure national programs. Stronger driver's license standards made 
possible by the REAL ID provisions will be another step towards 
American security.
  The REAL ID provisions will close dangerous gaps that remain in our 
current licensing law and that allow terrorists to abuse our asylum and 
driver's license systems. The new law will protect innocent Americans 
by setting up national driver's license standards, networking State 
motor vehicle data bases, and linking visa and license expirations.
  In 2003, the former Attorney General of Virginia, Jerry Kilgore, and 
I worked together on the Driver's License Integrity Act. That 
legislation required non-immigrant aliens to show

[[Page H3021]]

their visas when applying for State identification and tied the 
expiration date of the identification to that of the visa.
  Due to Mr. Kilgore's leadership on this issue, the Commonwealth of 
Virginia was one of the first States to clamp down on terrorists' abuse 
of the trust that a driver's license conveys. Today, I am pleased to 
see Virginia's Driver's License Integrity Act provisions in this piece 
of legislation before us in the House of Representatives.
  Since the beginning of the War on Terror, Congress has fought daily 
to ensure that our Nation never again suffers at the hands of 
terrorists. The provisions in this bill provide us with more weapons in 
our arsenal against terrorism.
  I urge passage of this legislation.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1268, to authorize 
emergency supplemental appropriations for our military. The vast 
majority of this $82 billion bill will go directly to support our 
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Congress has a responsibility to work with the President to protect 
the national security of our Nation. When our soldiers are sent in to 
war, it is the Congress' responsibility to make sure that all resources 
necessary are provided to carry out their missions.
  I stand behind our brave men and women who have performed admirably 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have made tremendous sacrifices on behalf 
of their country and have served longer deployments than expected.
  This bill provides important new benefits for our troops and their 
families. The legislation: increases the military death gratuity; 
increases subsidized life insurance benefits; creates a new insurance 
benefit for soldiers who have suffered traumatic injuries, such as the 
loss of a limb; extends the Basic Allowance for Housing for dependents 
of soldiers who die while on active duty; and provides additional 
funding for add-on vehicle armor kits, night-vision equipment, and 
radio jammers that disrupt remote-control bombs and mines.
  The conference report also contains important measures to strengthen 
our domestic border security, by providing funds for new border patrol 
agents, immigration and customs investigators, enforcement agents, and 
detention officers. The bill also provides additional foreign 
assistance for: tsunami reconstruction; humanitarian and peacekeeping 
programs in Darfur; democracy assistance in Belarus; and political and 
economic reforms in Ukraine to strengthen their new democracy and legal 
system.
  I regret that the Administration has consistently failed to properly 
budget for our ongoing military and reconstruction operations in Iraq. 
Congress should not repeatedly rely on emergency spending bills to 
provide the critical funding, resources, and equipment for our troops 
in battle by using emergency supplemental appropriations bills.
  The United States is only belatedly seeking international support for 
our reconstruction efforts in Iraq, and we have failed to broadly 
engage the international community.
  Because of these failures, Americans have paid a heavy price. It is 
primarily American troops stationed in Iraq that face continuing 
attacks, and have lost life and limb. It is our taxpayers that are 
being asked to almost exclusively pay the cost to rebuild Iraq, and 
these costs are mounting every day. Iraq is already facing a difficult 
transition in establishing a democracy that operates under the rule of 
law and protects minority rights. The U.S. must show enough flexibility 
in working with our allies to effectively help Iraq during this 
critical transition period, so that other countries will pledge both 
troops and funds to alleviate the burden on our American soldiers and 
taxpayers. Ultimately, the best way that we can support our troops is 
to reach out more aggressively to the international community, 
establish order and security in Iraq, and help the interim Iraqi 
government assume more responsibility for its own affairs as they 
establish a democratic state.
  I am also disappointed that the Republican leadership decided to 
insert extraneous provisions into this legislation, which go beyond the 
scope of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I voted against the 
``REAL ID Act'' when it was considered by this House as a separate bill 
earlier this year. I am particularly concerned that this legislation 
repeals a number of provisions of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004, which enacted the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission. The 9/11 bill established a negotiated rulemaking 
framework--allowing for critical input from governors, State 
legislators, State officials, and other stakeholders--which would 
provide the opportunity to develop effective national standards for 
driver's licenses. I am concerned that this legislation does not give 
the States adequate flexibility to implement the 9/11 bill, and that 
this legislation may also create serious unfunded mandates and 
administrative burdens for the States.
  As the ranking member of the Helsinki Commission (Commission on 
Security and Cooperation in Europe), which promotes human rights and 
rule of law in Europe, I am also concerned about many of the asylum law 
changes contained in the REAL ID Act, which again go beyond the scope 
of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. These provisions may have a 
harmful effect on true asylum seekers, trafficking victims, women and 
children who are victims of domestic violence, and others seeking 
protection against persecution. This legislation may create higher 
burdens for legitimate asylum seekers, restrict judicial discretion to 
grant asylum, and take away some of the rights of appeal for certain 
refugees and asylum seekers.
  Over the past week I have heard from a number of groups in Maryland 
that provide legal and social services to immigrants, asylum seekers, 
refugees, and survivors of torture and slavery. These groups have 
reported to me that it is already extremely difficult for legitimate 
asylum seekers to prevail in their case, as they have often left their 
home country on short notice, and do not have documentation of their 
persecution. It can take months or years for a case to work its way 
through our legal system. During this period, the asylum seeker often 
has neither legal representation nor work documentation.
  I hope that in the near future Congress will have the opportunity, in 
a more thoughtful manner, to consider comprehensive immigration reform 
measures.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report 
to H.R. 1268, legislation providing $81.3 billion in emergency wartime 
supplemental appropriations to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
The conference report's immigration-related provisions are neither 
wise, nor consistent with our national values. I am equally disturbed 
that Congress declines to institute greater accountability for the Bush 
Administration's use of wartime appropriations. Accordingly, I cannot 
in good conscience support this conference report.
  On March 16, 2005, I joined the vast majority of my colleagues in 
voting for H.R. 1268. The legislation included many laudable 
provisions, including funding for tsunami relief, humanitarian 
assistance in Darfur, and needed equipment for our Nation's soldiers. 
On the other hand, I was deeply troubled by the bill's inclusion of the 
REAL ID Act, which called for egregious, new restrictions on immigrants 
and put us on the path to creating a national identification card. I 
had hoped that the Senate would prevail and remove these indefensible 
provisions proposed in the House bill.
  I am particularly concerned with provisions in the bill that affect 
asylum seekers. This conference report would require that asylum 
seekers establish first that they would be subject to persecution if 
returned to their home country, and second that race, religion, 
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political 
opinion is at least one ``central reason'' for that persecution.
  These changes will deny asylum to people who cannot prove the central 
motive of their persecutor, who cannot produce corroborating evidence 
of their account, or whose demeanor is inconsistent with an immigration 
judge's preconceived expectations. This measure could place 
insurmountable legal obligations on already vulnerable asylum seekers 
by requiring unrealistic and unfair burdens of proof. U.S. law already 
has safeguards to prevent immigration by known terrorists and 
criminals.
  Another section of the conference agreement establishes minimum 
requirements for States issuing driver's licenses and identification 
cards, including acceptable documentation for issuance of 
identification cards. As a result, States will have the burden of 
determining the authenticity of a wide array of documents. Placing 
these types of requirements on State motor vehicle authorities is 
prohibitively costly and ultimately unworkable. Federal authorities 
will not recognize State identification cards that fail to meet these 
requirements.
  With respect to the current military operations, I am also 
discouraged that Congress remains unwilling to hold the Bush 
Administration accountable for its many missteps in Iraq, and I am 
troubled that the President may interpret this emergency supplemental 
as another blank check. The Bush Administration cannot account for 
billions of Federal dollars targeted for Iraq, and allegations of 
inappropriate no-bid contracts to ``well-connected'' multi-national 
corporations have never been thoroughly investigated. Efforts on the 
House floor by Representatives John Tierney and Jim Leach to establish 
a bipartisan commission to investigate allegations of war profiteering 
were rejected by the Republican leadership, and no substantive 
accountability measures were included in the conference report.
  I understand well the responsibility the Congress has to fully 
support our Nation's troops, and as former Peace Corps volunteer, I 
appreciate the value of humanitarian aid to regions ravaged by natural 
disasters and human conflict. I would proudly support a bill that meets 
these important priorities, but I cannot vote for a conference report 
that incorporates unnecessary and unjust provisions designed to hurt 
immigrants.

[[Page H3022]]

  This conference report is an abuse of the legislative process and a 
threat to the fabric of this Nation. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1268 
making supplemental appropriations to ensure that our forces who are 
hard at work in Iraq and Afghanistan, and elsewhere, have the tools 
they need to do their job, and are well protected.
  Mr. Speaker, this week we witnessed the establishment of Iraq's first 
democratically elected government in over half a century and their 
swearing in. This event is yet another historic milestone in Iraq's 
progress toward a representative and transparent government.
  But even as we see important movement toward democracy, we are 
reminded that ``freedom is not free.'' As those of us who have seen war 
know, it is paid first by the sacrifices of those who serve.
  Their courage is our inspiration. We wish them Godspeed, swift 
victory and safe return.
  However, while it pales in comparison to the sacrifices of our brave 
men and women in the field, there is another part of the equation. And 
it is before us today.
  With this legislation, Congress is acting decisively to ensure that 
our soldiers, sailors and airmen have the resources they need to keep 
Iraq on the road back to the community of civilized nations.
  This bill contains over $76 billion to support military activities. 
This sum will: pay for the troop deployment; repair and replace damaged 
vehicles being chewed up in an extreme harshly operating environment; 
replenish stores of munitions and supplies; and provide additional 
armor for vehicles, improved communications gear and more night-vision 
equipment.
  I would also add that this bill also provides over $60 million for 
additional electronic devices designed to protect our forces from the 
``weapon of choice'' of the insurgents--IEDs.
  Mr. Speaker, this ``wartime supplemental'' appropriations bill meets 
our military, humanitarian and foreign policy requirements.
  We have every reason to be proud of young men and women at war. Every 
single word of praise uttered on this floor today is justified.
  But while our young men and women in uniform appreciate our vocal 
support, they need this bill. It will provide them with the tools they 
need to get their job done as quickly as possible so they can return 
home to their families.
  I commend Mr. Lewis, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee--
the gentleman from California--for his leadership.
  And I urge passage of the legislation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I want to comment briefly on the $82 
billion spending bill that will be approved today for the ongoing U.S. 
military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I will support this bill. I am pleased it includes additional money 
for body armor and armored vehicles for our troops. It includes money 
to purchase bomb-jamming devices to protect our troops from roadside 
bombs. I also support the improved life insurance death benefits for 
military personnel and their families. And, I am hopeful that the 
additional funds that are in the bill to train and equip security 
forces in Iraq all Afghanistan will be expeditious and well spent. This 
money is critical if Afghan and Iraqi forces are to take over security 
duties from American troops, which will allow our men and women to 
finally come home. I have called for negotiating a timeline for the 
withdrawal of American troops with the new Iraqi government, hopefully 
to be completed within the year. But, for that to become a reality, 
well-equipped and competent security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan 
must be prepared to take our place. This bill will help achieve that 
goal.
  I am also pleased that the final bill retained language inserted in 
the Senate directing the President to include future requests to fund 
the U.S. presence in Iraq in his regular budget. We have been in Iraq 
for more than two years and in Afghanistan for more than three years. 
The fact that we still have troops in Iraq should not come as a 
surprise to the budget writers at the White House and the Pentagon. It 
is not appropriate to continue funding these long-term, ongoing 
operations via supplemental appropriations bills, which are considered 
outside of the normal budget procedures and restrictions.
  While I support the bill, I am outraged that, more than two years 
after the U. S. invaded Iraq, the Pentagon leadership has not gotten 
their act together to adequately protect our troops and to come up with 
a plan to get them home.
  As columnist Mark Shields pointed out late last year, in the three 
years immediately after Pearl Harbor, the United States produced the 
following to win World War II: 296,429 aircraft, 102,3351 tanks, 87,620 
warships, and 2,455,694 trucks. At the time, the U.S. population was 
132 million and the size of our economy was less than $100 billion. 
Yet, approaching three years into the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the 
United States, with a population of almost 300 million and defense 
spending of $500 billion a year, under the failed leadership of the 
Pentagon, only 6,000 of the nearly 20,000 Humvees in Iraq are factory 
armored versions and more than 8,000 of the 9,128 medium and heavy 
trucks used in Iraq are without armor.
  Despite repeated promises from the Pentagon leadership that the 
situation is getting better, a recent article in The New York Times 
showed that the emperor has no clothes. As the article details, one 
Marine Company has returned home to expose the reality of their tour in 
Iraq, ``one they say was punctuated not only by a lack of armor, but 
also by a shortage of men and planning that further hampered their 
efforts in battle, destroyed morale and ruined the careers of some of 
their most competent warriors.''

  I have heard similar stories from the Oregon National Guard members I 
have talked to.
  How did this happen?
  Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against our country; 
Congress has provided the Pentagon with $1.6 trillion--$167 billion in 
supplemental appropriations bills for fiscal years 2001-2005; and $1.45 
trillion in regular defense appropriations for fiscal years 2002-2005. 
Today's bill will add $75 billion or so to the Pentagon budget. Given 
that level of funding, it is hard to understand why our troops continue 
to suffer shortages of critical equipment.
  It is hard to understand until you remember that Secretary Rumsfeld 
and the other civilian leaders at the Pentagon argued that our troops 
would be greeted in Iraq as liberators with flowers and candy, not the 
bullets and bombs that have led to more than 1,500 of our soldiers 
getting killed. Before, the invasion, the Pentagon planned to reduce 
our troop levels to 20,000-30,000 within a few weeks of overthrowing 
Saddam Hussein. The fact that 150,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq more 
than a year and a half after the war began shows how badly the Pentagon 
leadership miscalculated the post-war situation.
  Those miscalculations also led the Pentagon to vastly underestimate 
the equipment that our troops would need to survive and succeed in 
Iraq. First, the Pentagon leadership did not even order the necessary 
equipment like body armor, armored Humvees and bomb jamming devices. 
For example, under the Pentagon's original war plan, the Pentagon 
planned to have only 235 armored Humvees in Iraq for the 20,000 troops 
who would remain after overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
  Then, when it became clear that this equipment was necessary, the 
Pentagon did not procure it with any sense of urgency. As The New York 
Times article I mentioned above noted, ``The Army's procurement system, 
which also supplies the Marines, has come under fierce criticism for 
underperforming in the war, and to this day it has only one small 
contractor in Ohio armoring new Humvees.''
  The performance of Secretary Rumsfeld and his senior leadership at 
the Pentagon has been a disgrace. Unfortunately, it is our troops who 
have had to pay the price.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, this conference report includes 
some items that I strongly support, and other things that I think 
should not have been included. On balance, I will vote for it because I 
think it would unrealistic and irresponsible to do otherwise.


                    Funding for Military Activities

  Most of the money appropriated by this legislation is for our ongoing 
military activities, especially in Iraq. Passage of this conference 
report will bring the total cost of operations in Iraq to well over 
$200 billion--and by now, two years after President Bush prematurely 
announced the end of major military activities in Iraq, I think even 
those who have been uncritical supporters of the Administration should 
be deeply concerned about the escalating costs, not just in money but 
in casualties.
  The time has come--in fact, it is long since past--for the 
Administration to be candid about the costs not just of the war in Iraq 
but of the Administration's overall foreign policy. This should be the 
last time that the Administration or the Congress pays those costs 
through a supplemental appropriation bill instead of the regular 
budgetary and appropriation process. The American people deserve to 
know in advance what they will be asked to pay to support the 
Administration's policies.
  Nonetheless, Congress must not fail to supply our troops. Funds in 
this conference report will pay for more resources, including body 
armor and military equipment, needed to safeguard their lives. The 
conference report also includes important provisions to raise the 
military death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000 and to include a new 
insurance benefit of up to $100,000 for soldiers who have suffered 
traumatic injuries. The report also increases funding for body armor 
for the Army and Marines, add-on vehicle armor kits, night-vision 
equipment, and electronic roadside-bomb jammers--and includes funding 
for contract linguists for the Army.
  Further, there is an imperative need for this funding. The Defense 
Department reports that

[[Page H3023]]

operating funds for the Army are nearing exhaustion and that it will be 
necessary to transfer more than $1 billion from other accounts to 
continue essential activities at home and abroad until these 
supplemental funds are available.
  In short, the choice before us today is to vote for this supplemental 
or, by voting against it, to in effect require an immediate halt to 
military operations not just in Iraq but elsewhere.
  And while I remain convinced it was an error to rush into war in 
Iraq, I am equally convinced it would be just as much an error to rush 
to withdraw.
  We do need a strategy to get us out--which is why I'm pleased that 
the conferees included language directing the Secretary of Defense to 
provide Congress with a report that identifies security, economic, and 
Iraqi security force training-performance standards and goals, 
accompanied by a timetable for achieving these goals.
  But an immediate departure is neither good strategy nor would it mean 
peace for Iraq.
  I recently returned from my second trip to Iraq--this time as a 
Member of the House Armed Services Committee. As a critic of the Bush 
administration's policy in Iraq, I did not go there to confirm my 
opposition to the war, but rather, to gain knowledge based on face-to-
face conversations with our military leaders, the Iraqi leadership, an 
extraordinary group of Iraqi women, and most important for me, with our 
troops on the ground.
  I am convinced that there can be no successful exit strategy without 
first doing what is needed to enable the new Iraqi government to take 
up the burden of providing security. That will take time and money, and 
in the meantime we must maintain our efforts. As the former head of 
American forces in northern Iraq, Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, said recently, 
``We don't want a rush to failure.''
  So, for me, the need to support the military funding in this 
conference report--however unpleasant--is clear.


                              Other Funds

  The conference report also provides funding for tsunami disaster 
relief as well as for assistance in Darfur, food aid to Sudan and 
Liberia, and for peacekeeping programs, most of which are for Sudan. 
Importantly, the bill appropriates the president's request of $200 
million for economic development in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.


                         Immigration Provisions

  Other parts of the conference report are problematical, particularly 
the inclusion of provisions like those in the ``REAL ID Act,'' 
legislation that I opposed when the House passed it in February. I 
believe these provisions will not strengthen national security, but 
will create undue difficulties for asylum seekers and excessively 
expand the powers of the Secretary of Homeland Security. This is a 
controversial issue that should have been addressed separately, not 
incorporated into this legislation.
  An editorial in today's Rocky Mountain News says this part of the 
conference report ``has much more to do with immigration than 
security'' and is just ``one piece of a policy, poorly thought out and 
scarcely debated at all, and likely to have unintended consequences.'' 
I think that is an accurate description.
  The Conference report also includes a provision that would revise the 
H-2B visa program, under which people can come into the country legally 
for seasonal non-agricultural work.
  Several industries in Colorado are heavily dependent on the H-2B visa 
program to provide seasonal employees--some in the summer and some in 
the winter. While most of these companies try hard to find Americans to 
fill these jobs, they have not been fully successful. And the current 
limit on the numbers of visas has made it difficult for many of them to 
find the people they need. So, they have been asking Congress to revise 
the program.
  However, while I am pleased that the report attempts to provide 
relief to companies struggling to find eligible employees, the specific 
provisions have some problems and may detrimentally affect some of the 
companies that have employed people entering under the H-2B program. 
This is particularly true for companies whose busy season is in the 
winter, such as the ski industry. They would actually be detrimentally 
affected by this provision because they do not rehire the same workers 
every year, and thus do not benefit from the provisions in the 
conference report that will exempt previously hired workers from the 
overall limit on the number of visas.
  I wrote to conferees to urge a solution to the H-2B visa problem that 
would be equitable for both the winter and summer industries. 
Regrettably, the conference report does not fully meet that test. 
Still, it does make a good start to addressing the H-2B visa problem. I 
hope that we will be able to build on this foundation in the future so 
as to protect the interests of both summer and winter industries.


                State Regulation of Hunting and Fishing

  The conference report also includes, as Section 6063, provisions to 
reaffirm the authority of the States and Territories to regulate 
hunting and fishing.
  This part of the conference report is identical to the text of H.R. 
731, which I introduced in the House, and to S. 339, introduced in the 
Senate by Senator Reid of Nevada. I applaud Senator Reid's leadership 
in having this included when the Senate considered this supplemental 
appropriations bill and I am glad that it was accepted by the 
conferees. It will do two things--
  (1) Declare as Congressional policy that it is in the public interest 
for each State to continue to regulate the taking of fish and wildlife 
within its boundaries, including by means of laws or regulations that 
differentiate between residents and non-residents; and

  (2) Provide that courts should not use Congressional silence as a 
reason to impose any commerce-clause barrier to a State's or tribe's 
regulation of hunting or fishing.
  Its purpose is to reaffirm the authority of States and Territories to 
regulate hunting and fishing by resolving questions that have arisen in 
the wake of a recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that held 
that some Arizona limits on non-resident hunting permits had 
constitutional defects.
  Ideally, of course, legislation of this sort should be handled 
through the regular authorization process, and I had hoped that the 
Resources Committee would have taken it up by now. However, State fish 
and wildlife agencies will soon be considering regulations for coming 
seasons, and it is important that questions about their authority be 
resolved without unnecessary delay.
  Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new about a State's having different 
rules for resident and nonresident hunters or anglers. Colorado draws 
that distinction in several ways, and many other States do so as well.
  And while there have been challenges to the validity of such rules, 
until recently the Federal courts have upheld the right of the States 
to make such distinctions. For example, in 1987 the Federal district 
court for Colorado, in the case of Terk v. Ruch (reported at 655 F. 
Supp. 205), rejected a challenge to Colorado's regulations that 
allocated to Coloradans 90% of the available permits for hunting 
bighorn sheep and mountain goats. But a recent Court of Appeals 
decision marked a change--something that definitely is new.
  In that case (Conservation Force v. Manning, 301 F.3rd 985; 9th Cir. 
2002), the Federal appeals court for the 9th Circuit held that 
Arizona's 10% cap on nonresident hunting of bull elk throughout the 
State and of antlered deer north of the Colorado River had enough of an 
effect on interstate commerce that it could run afoul of what lawyers 
and judges call the ``dormant commerce clause'' of the Constitution.
  Having reached that conclusion, the appeals court determined that the 
Arizona regulation discriminated against interstate commerce--meaning 
the ``dormant commerce clause'' did apply and that the regulation was 
subject to strict scrutiny, and could be upheld only if it served 
legitimate State purposes and the State could show that those interests 
could not be adequately served by reasonable non-discriminatory 
alternatives.
  The appeals court went on to find that the regulations did further 
Arizona's legitimate interests in conserving its population of game and 
maintaining recreational opportunities for its citizens, but it 
remanded the case so a lower court could determine whether the State 
could meet the burden of showing that reasonable non-discriminatory 
alternatives would not be adequate.
  Because of the decision's potential implications for their own laws 
and regulations, it was a source of concern to many States in addition 
to Arizona. In fact, 22 other States joined in supporting Arizona's 
request for the decision to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. 
Colorado was one of those States, and Senator Ken Salazar, who was then 
Colorado's Attorney General, joined in signing a brief in support of 
Arizona's petition for Supreme Court review.
  Regrettably, the Supreme Court denied that petition. So, for now, the 
9th Circuit's decision stands. Its immediate effect is on States whose 
Federal courts are within that circuit--namely those in Alaska, 
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and 
Washington as well those of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern 
Marianas. But it could have an effect on the thinking of Federal courts 
across the country.
  The purpose of this part of the conference report is to forestall 
that outcome, and so far as possible to return to the state of affairs 
prevailing before the 9th circuit's decision. It is intended to speak 
directly to the ``dormant commerce clause'' basis for the 9th Circuit's 
decision in Conservation Force v. Manning.
  I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that lawyers and judges 
use that term to refer to the judicially established doctrine that the 
commerce clause is not only a ``positive'' grant of power to Congress, 
but also a ``negative'' constraint upon the States in the absence of 
any Congressional action--in other words, that it restricts the powers 
of the States to affect interstate commerce in a situation where 
Congress has been silent.

[[Page H3024]]

  Section 6036(b)(1) would end the perceived silence of Congress by 
affirmatively stating that State regulation of fishing and hunting--
including State regulation that treats residents and non-residents 
differently--is in the public interest. This is intended to preclude 
future application of the ``dormant commerce clause'' doctrine with 
regard to such regulations. And Section 6036(b)(2) would make it clear 
that even when Congress might have been silent about the subject, that 
silence is not to be construed as imposing a commerce-clause barrier to 
a State's regulation of hunting or fishing within its borders.
  These provisions are neither a Federal mandate for State action nor a 
Congressional delegation of authority to any State. Instead, they are 
intended to reaffirm State authority and make clear that the ``dormant 
commerce clause''--that is, Congressional inaction--is not to be 
construed as an obstacle to a State's regulating hunting or fishing, 
even in ways that some might claim adversely affect interstate commerce 
by treating residents differently from nonresidents.
  It's also important to note that this part of the conference report 
is not intended to affect any Federal law already on the books or to 
limit any authority of any Indian Tribe.
  Section 6036(c) is intended to prevent any misunderstanding on these 
points.
  Section 6036(c)(1) specifies that the bill will not ``limit the 
applicability or effect of any Federal law related to the protection or 
management of fish or wildlife or to the regulation of commerce.''
  Thus, to take just a few examples for purposes of illustration, this 
part of the conference report will not affect implementation of the 
Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Lacey Act, 
the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, or the provisions of 
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act dealing with 
subsistence.
  Section 6036(c)(2) similarly provides that the bill is not to be read 
as limiting the authority of the Federal government to temporarily or 
permanently prohibit hunting or fishing on any portion of the Federal 
lands--as has been done with various National Park System units and in 
some other parts of the Federal lands for various reasons, including 
public safety as well as the protection of fish or wildlife.
  And Section 6036(c)(3) explicitly provides that the bill will not 
alter any of the rights of any Indian Tribe.
  These provisions are narrow in scope but of national importance 
because it addresses a matter of great concern to hunters, anglers, and 
wildlife managers in many States. I think they deserve broad support.


                               conclusion

  In conclusion, while this conference report is far from perfect, I 
think it deserves to pass and I will vote for it.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, passage of this legislation demonstrates 
our commitment to our brave men and women in uniform and acknowledges 
that they need resources in order to accomplish their mission and 
return home safely. It also offers support for the families when a 
loved one pays the ultimate sacrifice in the cause of fighting for 
freedom.
  All along, I've been concerned about the lack of progress reports 
coming from the Pentagon. This bill finally requires the Pentagon to 
use real performance indicators to report to Congress with our progress 
in terms of security, economic, and Iraqi security force training 
goals.
  The money that will go directly to help our troops is of course the 
most important part of this bill. It increases the military death 
gratuity to $100,000 and increases life insurance benefits to $400,000 
for families of soldiers killed while on active duty in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  We've all been hearing reports about the lack of adequate personal 
and vehicle armor. Congress has funded these critical protections in 
the past and we're doing so once again in this bill. I hope that this 
money will quickly be turned around to provide the needed add-on 
vehicle armor kits, new trucks, more night-vision equipment, and 
essential radio jammers to defeat the roadside bombs that are injuring 
and killing our troops almost every day.
  Our troops should not be compromised. Resolving the current 
instability in the region is in the long-term best interests of all 
Americans--failure in Iraq would lead to irreparable consequences. 
Thousands of American troops have been in Iraq for more than 2 years. 
We have to take care of them and ensure that they can come back home as 
soon as possible.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, when the House debated this legislation in 
March, it voted 420-2 to approve an amendment, which I authored, which 
reaffirms the U.S. commitment under the Convention Against Torture to 
not engage in torture, and to not render or transfer people to 
countries where they are likely to face torture. The U.S. signed this 
treaty under President Reagan, and the Senate ratified it in 1994.
  Despite our commitments under this treaty and the recent statements 
made by the Bush Administration emphasizing that the U.S. is 
emphatically and unambiguously against the use of torture, there have 
been repeated reports in the press indicating that the U.S. has been 
sending detainees to countries where they are likely to face torture, 
including to countries who have become notorious for their human rights 
violations.
  The practice of extraordinary rendition is shrouded in secrecy. An 
unmarked plane arrives in the middle of the night carrying men wearing 
plain clothes and black hoods, to take custody of the prisoners, cut 
off their clothes, drug them on the spot, shackle them, and fly off 
into the night. President Bush signed a secret directive reported to 
speed up the process by eliminating the case by case evaluation. And 
while unofficial estimates put the number of renditions since 9/11 to 
be between 100 and 150, the actual number of renditions remains a 
secret.
  The Administration maintains that it is in full compliance with the 
Convention Against Torture. Compliance, they say, is guaranteed by the 
dubious practice of asking countries known to torture prisoners for 
``promises'' that they will not torture our prisoners. These so-called 
``diplomatic assurances'' then provide the cover for sending a suspect 
to that country to undergo interrogation.
  The list of countries where the detainees have been rendered includes 
Syria, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
  So here is the sand on which the Administration stands--at the same 
time that we exhort the international community to isolate Syria for 
thumbing its nose at U.N. resolutions to get out of Lebanon, the United 
States has apparently been willing to accept Syrian promises that it 
will comply with the Convention Against Torture.
  Here is what the State Department's annual human rights report says 
about Syria's methods of interrogation: ``administering electrical 
shocks, pulling out fingernails, forcing objects into the rectum, . . 
.'' And the list goes on.
  How about Uzbekistan?--``suffocation, electric shock, rape, beatings, 
and boiling prisoners to death . . .'' And the list goes on.
  The so-called ``diplomatic assurances'' that we have received from 
the torturers that they will not torture those we send them are not 
credible, and the Administration knows it. CIA Director Porter Goss 
basically acknowledged as much when he stated: ``But of course once 
they're out of our control, there's only so much we can do.'' Attorney 
General Alberto Gonzales confirmed this, when he said ``Once someone is 
rendered, we can't fully control what that country might do.''
  Section 1031 of the conference report would prohibit the use of any 
funds included in this Supplemental appropriations bill to subject any 
person in custody or under the control of the United States to torture 
or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that is 
prohibited by the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 
While the Conferees approved Senate language that is slightly different 
from that of the House-passed amendment, I am nevertheless supportive 
of this language. I support it because I read Section 1031 to clearly 
prohibit any appropriated funds from being spent to subject any person 
in U.S. custody or control to torture or other cruel, inhuman or 
degrading treatment or punishment by transferring, extraditing, or 
rendering such persons to countries where they are likely to face 
torture.
  This is because such actions clearly would be prohibited under 
Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, a treaty signed and 
ratified by the United States. Article 3 of the Convention clearly 
states that:

       ``No State Party shall expel, return (``refouler'') or 
     extradite a person to another State where there are 
     substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger 
     of being subjected to torture.''

  Article 3 of the Convention further states that:

       ``For the purpose of determining whether there are such 
     grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account 
     all relevant considerations, including, where applicable, the 
     existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of 
     gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights.''

  It would be my expectation that the funding limitation contained in 
Section 1031 would therefore prohibit funds from being used to transfer 
persons to any Nation where the person was likely to face torture, and 
that under Section 1031, funds could not be used for transfers or 
renditions in situations where the U.S. government had found there to 
be a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human 
rights. I would also note that in a September 2004 report to the United 
Nations General Assembly, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture 
expressed concern that reliance on diplomatic assurances is a 
``practice that is increasingly undermining the principle of non-
refoulement'' and observed that where torture is systematic, ``the 
principal of non-refoulement must be strictly observed and diplomatic 
assurances should not be resorted to.''

[[Page H3025]]

  We take pride that even as our Nation fought for its survival against 
the Nazis and the Japanese Empire during World War II, that we did not 
ask our ``Greatest Generation'' to engage in torture or other war 
crimes. The legacy of the U.S. then, and now as we prosecute the War on 
Terror, is that we uphold our commitment to justice--even in the face 
of shadows of terror and war. The test of a Nation is found as much in 
how it wages war as in how it promotes the values of peace and 
democracy. That is what we must do today.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
supplemental appropriations bill and the anti-immigrant legislation it 
contains.
  If we truly believe all the rhetoric we hear about the importance of 
freedom and liberty from the president and others, we will vote down 
this bill, which denies so much freedom and liberty to immigrants in 
our own country.
  H.R. 1268 includes numerous provisions limiting the rights of 
refugees, imposing onerous new driver's license requirements on the 
states, making it easier to deport legal immigrants, waiving all 
federal laws concerning the construction of fences and barriers 
anywhere within the United States, and denying immigrants long standing 
habeas corpus rights.
  If enacted into law, this legislation will close America's doors to 
religious minorities escaping religious persecution and women fleeing 
sex trafficking and rape.
  We have been down this road of overreaction in the past. During the 
Civil War, General Grant sought to expel the Jews from the South. The 
aftermath of World War I brought about the notorious Red Scare and the 
anti-immigrant Palmer raids. World War II led to the unconscionable 
internment of Japanese Americans.
  In the wake of the 9/11 tragedy, and even after the PATRIOT Act, this 
legislation would further target immigrants for crimes they have not 
committed, and sins they are not responsible for. At some point, we 
have to treat terrorism as a problem that requires an intelligence 
response, as opposed to an excuse to scapegoat immigrants.
  It is for all these reasons that so many groups strongly oppose this 
bill, including groups concerned about immigrant rights, civil rights 
and liberties, privacy rights; Labor rights; the environment; Native-
American rights; state rights, and international human rights.
  I urge a ``no'' vote. We cannot and should not close ourselves off to 
the most vulnerable members of our society.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conference Agreement. 
I wish to commend the conferees for their work in bringing this 
important legislation to the House Floor. Not only does this bill 
provide critical support to our military and the war on terror, but it 
also funds international humanitarian reconstruction and economic 
assistance programs provided by the United States Agency for 
International Development.
  As my colleagues know, I have believed for many years that the HIV/
AIDS pandemic represents one of the greatest health and moral crises of 
our time, particularly in Africa. That is why I was especially pleased 
by the President's announcement of a visionary Emergency Plan for AIDS 
Relief, and have supported grants and other programs funded by USAID 
that help to reverse the spread of this pandemic. It is thus my 
strongly held view that USAID should continue to fund existing 
programs, as well as invest in new programs, that support the 
President's HIV/AIDS initiative. In this regard, there are two 
programs, both directed toward South Africa, that I believe deserve the 
Agency's particular attention.
  The first program is the new African Center for AIDS Management, 
which has, to date, trained over 800 graduates and is the largest 
program of its kind worldwide. I understand that USAID has provided 
only modest funding to support this initiative, while the bulk of the 
support has come from South African institutions. With substantial 
additional support from USAID during Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006, this 
program could double in size and provide training for executives and 
senior managers from government, the provinces, municipalities and 
educational institutions, as well as NGOs, corporations, and trade 
unions, in the management of an expanded capability to detect and treat 
HIV/AIDS in Africa.
  The second program would be a new joint U.S.-South African program to 
provide telemedicine-equipped mobile clinics to serve the South African 
military involved in peacekeeping efforts throughout Africa. This 
program, which merits both USAID and DOD support, would be run through 
the South Africa Medical Research Council and provide medical services 
to remote areas to combat HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases. This 
mobile clinic system, employing some of the latest U.S. telemedicine 
technologies, would leverage U.S. military expertise across distances. 
As this system develops, so would it expand in both its capabilities 
and its services to the civilian population.
  Both of these programs are examples of humanitarian initiatives 
requiring modest investments that USAID is both equipped and funded to 
support. I applaud the Agency's past work in this area, and encourage 
both the continuation of existing efforts and the expansion of the new 
efforts that I have outlined.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of the Conference Report on H.R. 1268 and urge all my 
colleagues to support it.
  In addition to necessary funding for our troops, tsunami disaster 
relief, and border security; this conference report also includes 
important provisions to bring long-overdue, common sense reform to 
drivers' licenses and state-issued identification cards, authored last 
year by the Government Reform Committee in response to a recommendation 
of the 9-11 Commission.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to especially thank the Speaker and Majority 
Leader for making good on their promise to get this legislation to the 
floor signed into law quickly in the 109th Congress. I also want to 
thank my colleague from California, the Chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, for his strong support and for agreeing to include these 
provisions in H.R, 1268. Finally, I would like to thank my colleague 
from Wisconsin for his tireless work and support on this issue, Last 
year following passage of the 9-11 Commission Recommendations 
Implementation Act, he and I made a commitment to work together to 
ensure that the most important provisions not addressed in the final 
bill would be addressed early in the 109th Congress. That commitment is 
being fulfilled today.
  Judging by the basic nature of these requirements as well as the 
actions taken by some States, it is quite obvious that not enacting 
these reforms does not come from a lack of ability, but from a lack of 
will. The federal government cannot continue to allow our security 
responsibilities to be compromised by the inaction of a few.
  Our approach is very straightforward. Building upon guidelines and 
best practices established and accepted by State Motor Vehicle 
Administrators, the federal government's long-standing work on identity 
security, and actions taken by individual States to shore up their 
licensing process following the terrorist attacks; our legislation sets 
forth minimum document and issuance standards for federal acceptance of 
driver's licenses and state-issued personal identification cards. The 
legislation provides three years for States to come into compliance 
with these standards in order for the federal government to recognize 
their documents as proof of an individual's identity.
  Let me make one thing perfectly clear. States that want their 
drivers' licenses to be used for federal identification purposes will 
be required to meet these standards. All of them. If they do not, the 
citizens of that State will not be able to use their driver's license 
to identify themselves for many purposes that they use them for today, 
such as boarding an airplane. The bill and the report make clear that 
the Secretary must determine the uses, in addition to those set forth 
in the bill, for which drivers licenses only from complying states will 
be accepted. Importantly, the final bill makes clear that the Secretary 
of Homeland Security will be responsible for ensuring that the 
certifications represent full compliance. This requirement ensures that 
the national security interests of the United States will be protected 
through enforcement of the requirements of the bill.
  States will also be required to confirm the applicant's proof of 
legal presence in the United States. Currently, only 11 states lack 
such a requirement, meaning a majority of states have already 
recognized the need for tighter standards, but unnecessary and 
dangerous gaps in the system still exist. Importantly, States are still 
permitted to issue drivers' licenses to individuals who are not 
lawfully present in the United States or who cannot provide 
satisfactory proof of identity. The ability of States to have such a 
system is currently under challenge in court, and this legislation will 
provide them with express authority. The bill further provides that 
these licenses or identification cards must be clearly visually 
differentiated from other licenses and contain specific language 
regarding their validity for federal identification and other official 
purposes.
  In addition, the legislation will require identity documents to 
expire at the same time as the expiration of lawful entry status--this 
will prevent individuals who have illegally entered or are unlawfully 
present in the United States from having valid identification 
documents. This loophole was highlighted on September 11th, as Nawaf al 
Hazmi and Hani Hanjour, the pilots of Flight 77, both obtained licenses 
and identification cards after the expiration of their visa 
authorization. We must correct this dangerous problem before we again 
give individuals who have overstayed their visas the tools they need to 
integrate into society and carry out criminal and terrorist acts.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that these actions are 
consistent with actions taken

[[Page H3026]]

by individual states to date. For example, Nevada and New Mexico do not 
accept, as proof of identity, a state-issued driver license or 
identification card from states that do not meet their own standards. 
The federal government has been delinquent in dealing with this issue, 
but we are correcting that problem today.
  Fraud in identity documents is no longer just a problem of theft. As 
we continue to strengthen our intelligence function to better identify 
and track terrorists, those individuals will be forced to find ways to 
conceal their identity in order to avoid detection. We must be able to 
establish, as close to certainty as we can, that people are who they 
say they are, and in order to do so the federal government must have 
documents that it can trust. In fact, we would not be fulfilling our 
security role for the American people if we did not.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these important 
provisions and the passage of this conference report.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Emergency Wartime Supplemental, especially the provision that would 
postpone reducing the number of Navy aircraft carriers from 12 to 11. 
Our nation is at war against global terrorism and reducing the number 
of aircraft carriers would be a huge blow to our nation's defense at 
this very critical time.
  Since the end of the Cold War, carriers have been kept very busy and 
have proven their value in numerous operations. In this era of 
uncertain U.S. access to overseas air bases, the value of carriers as 
sovereign U.S. bases that can operate in international waters, free 
from political constraints, is particularly significant.
  During the past half century, the carrier force has never dropped 
below 12 ships, illustrating the enduring need for a force of at least 
that many ships. After experimenting with an ``11 + 1'' carrier force 
in FY1995-FY2000, DOD returned to a force of 12 fully active carriers, 
suggesting that DOD was dissatisfied with a force of less than 12 fully 
active carriers.
  This provision in the Supplemental would effectively delay the 
decommissioning of the USS Kennedy until 6 months after the Quadrennial 
Defense Review is released. The Kennedy is based at the Mayport Naval 
Station near Jacksonville, Florida. Aside from concerns of this move 
striking a blow to national security, the carrier's retirement would 
mean an estimated loss of $300 million a year to the local economy.
  Furthermore, if the Kennedy were retired, all of the Atlantic Fleet's 
carriers would be, for some time at least, home ported in a single 
location. This, of course, would not be in the best interest of 
national security.
  Decommissioning the Kennedy before the QDR is complete could prove to 
be a very costly and ill-timed decision. The QDR may conclude that a 
fleet of 12 aircraft carriers is essential to our nation, thus 
necessitating that the USS Kennedy be operational. In a time of war, it 
is unwise to retire an aircraft carrier without knowing whether or not 
it will be needed.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge members of congress to carefully examine the 
effects that retiring the Kennedy and reducing the number of carriers 
would not only have on our nation, but the world at large. Please join 
me in supporting the Supplemental and the provision that keeps the 
number of carriers in the Navy's fleet contained therein.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.


                 Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, in this form, I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

  Mr. Obey of Wisconsin moves to recommit the conference report on the 
bill, H.R. 1268, to the committee of conference with instructions to 
the managers on the part of the House to recede to the Senate and agree 
to the highest level of funding within the scope of conference for 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for the electronic vote on the question of adopting 
the conference report.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 201, 
nays 225, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 160]

                               YEAS--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--225

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley

[[Page H3027]]


     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)

                              {time}  1355

  Mr. EHLERS and Mr. DeLAY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. FRANK of Massachusetts, CONYERS, and RYAN of Ohio changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the 
conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 368, 
nays 58, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 161]

                               YEAS--368

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--58

     Abercrombie
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Blumenauer
     Capuano
     Carson
     Clay
     Coble
     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     Duncan
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gordon
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (OH)
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Maloney
     Markey
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Matsui
       

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)

                              {time}  1404

  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________