[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.
____________________