[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 15, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H999-H1008]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR
ON TERROR, AND HURRICANE RECOVERY, 2006
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 725 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 4939.
{time} 1646
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4939) making emergency supplemental appropriations for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with
Mr. Boozman (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier
today, 28\1/2\ minutes remained in general debate. The gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis) has 19 minutes remaining and the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Who yields time?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis), the Chairman of the committee, for his work in
bringing this supplemental appropriations bill to the floor. He has
really done an outstanding job of, I think, balancing the different
interests that are involved here.
I want to take my time, Mr. Chairman, Members, to speak a bit about
that part of the bill that deals with the foreign assistance funds.
That is Chapter 3 of H.R. 4939.
The Foreign Operations portion of the fiscal year 2006 supplemental
is $2.08 billion. That amount is $140 million, or 6.7 percent less than
the request of the administration of $2.2 billion.
Now, here is how we arrived at this lesser figure.
First, we eliminated funding requested by the President that is not
for the current fiscal year. That is $74 million. We eliminated funding
that was requested for non-emergency costs. That is $99 million. And we
reduced costs by rescinding previously appropriated funds of $17
million that are not needed because of changed circumstances.
Let me talk for a minute about specific regions and countries. First,
Iraq. The bill provides new budget authority of $1.67 billion for Iraq,
or two-thirds of the amount in foreign assistance is going to Iraq. But
that is a reduction of $58 million from what the President requested.
This reduction represents the amount requested for fiscal year 2007
costs for the U.S. Agency for International Development. As I said a
moment ago, we concluded that this 2006 supplemental bill should not be
used to pre-fund expenses of the next fiscal year.
In addition, the supplemental transfers $185 million from the Iraq
Relief and Reconstruction Fund appropriation to augment the new funds
provided in this supplemental. These are still unobligated funds that
are appropriately applied to the purposes of this legislation. And that
brings the total available to Iraq of $1.85 billion.
Many Members are greatly concerned about Darfur and our efforts to
stave off genocidal warfare in that region of Africa. Though a fraction
of the amount requested for Iraq, our bill attempts to accomplish this.
It contains $201 million, fully funding the President's request for
Darfur programs. This includes $123 million for the African Union
Mission in Sudan, or called AMIS, for peacekeeping activities. The
administration has assured us that this $123 million will finance the
entire U.S. fiscal year 2006 contribution.
Also included in this amount is $11.7 million for refugee assistance
and $66.3 million in nonfood assistance in the International Disaster
and Famine Assistance Account. The plight of displaced persons in
Darfur remains critical and is pathetic.
The supplemental bill provides new budget authority of only $8.4
million for Afghanistan. This is a reduction of $54 million from the
request but does not constitute a lessening of our commitment to this
emerging democracy. Rather, it represents, first, the amount requested,
$16 million, for fiscal year 2007 funds for USAID. It reduces that
amount. Second, it eliminates the amount requested for non-emergency
requirements of $38 million. The $8.4 million fully funds the request
for emergency replacement of an electric turbine generator and
assistance for migration and refugee requirements.
My colleagues should know that the Secretary of State has not yet met
the requirements of the fiscal year 2006 Appropriations Act which
requires a certification that the Government of Afghanistan is fully
cooperating with U.S.-financed efforts to eradicate poppy cultivation.
It did not seem prudent at this juncture to appropriate any non-
emergency funds for Afghanistan until that certification can be made.
The legislation includes $10 million in the Democracy Fund
appropriation for the promotion of democracy, governance, human rights,
independent media and the rule of law programs in Iran. This is a
reduction of $55 million from the requested amount. However, $50
million of that is for broadcasting efforts and is addressed in Chapter
6 of this bill, the jurisdiction of Mr. Wolf's subcommittee.
For Liberia, the bill includes a total of $63.8 million. $13.8
million of that amount would be used to cover the extraordinary costs
of refugees returning to Liberia, and $50 million will provide
assistance for economic and project support.
Now let me turn to the issues that are not specific dollar amounts.
One of these is a general provision, Section 3012, not in Chapter 3 of
the bill. It deals with assistance to the Palestinian Authority.
I want to be clear. This bill includes no new, no additional funding
for the Palestinian territories, and the President's supplemental
request included no such funding. However, the fiscal year 2006 Foreign
Operations Appropriations Bill did include $150 million to support the
Palestinian people and build the capacity of the Abbas-led government.
Since the fiscal year 2006 bill was passed, as my colleagues know,
Hamas won a majority of the Palestinian legislature in the recent
elections.
The provision included in this bill before us today reconfirms and
reemphasizes congressional oversight of our foreign assistance programs
to this troubled region. It directs that no fiscal year 2006 or prior
year funding can be used to support the Palestinian Authority or a
successor entity until the
[[Page H1000]]
government fulfills the requirements of the so-called Quartet
Statement. It also suspends U.S. assistance to the Palestinian
Authority until the administration completes its review of the entire
assistance program.
To be clear, this provision will not halt, nor should it halt,
humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people. We can and we must
hold the elected leadership in the Palestinian territories to account
for their messages of violence. But we should not punish the people of
the territories for asserting themselves peacefully and democratically
against corruption in their quest for a better life.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this supplemental. The
foreign operations funding contained in Chapter 3 has been scrubbed so
that only emergency requirements remain, and that is $140 million
reduction from the President's request.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for the purpose of a
colloquy.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, last year Hurricanes Katrina, Rita
and Wilma dealt a triple blow to the residents of my district.
Florida's commercial fishermen were among the hardest hit, yet these
small business owners did not receive any special disaster assistance
from last year's Hurricane Supplemental Appropriations Bill and minimal
aid from other Federal agencies. Both their livelihoods and the future
of this important industry are threatened. That is why I am requesting
the gentleman's help in securing the necessary resources to assist
these hard-working men and women.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I am certainly aware of the devastating
impact of last year's hurricane season, and you have my assurances that
I will work with you and do everything I can to address this issue when
we go to conference with the Senate on this bill.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your bringing this important
legislation to the floor. I will include for the Record a letter I
recently received from several elected officials from my district which
explains in great detail the devastation Hurricane Rita inflicted on
Southwest Louisiana and the need for Federal support in its aftermath.
The Nation suffers from Rita amnesia, because the residents of
Southwest Louisiana did everything right. We heeded the Federal
warnings, evacuated before the storm, saving thousand of lives in the
process. In fact, there were no deaths after Rita.
We returned after the storm and immediately got to work to begin the
long process of rebuilding our communities and restoring our way of
life. The FEMA Long Term Community Recovery Team has said that
Southwest Louisiana is leading the State in the recovery effort.
Southwest Louisiana is not looking for a Federal handout, but we need
the Nation's help to recover from this unprecedented storm. Debris
removal has been slow. 5.73 million cubic yards so far has been
collected, enough to cover a football field with a pile of debris 1
mile high. Homes are now destroyed or uninhabitable. And, in fact, in
Cameron Parish, 90 percent of the homes were reduced to slabs of
concrete. Industries are hurting. The Lake Area Industry Alliance, home
to a vast petrochemical complex which serves the entire U.S., reports
damages to its facilities of nearly $50 million; and that is just one
example.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot ignore the plight of Southwest Louisiana, and
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Remember
Rita. I yield back.
City of Lake Charles,
March 11, 2006.
Re Hurricane Rita Recovery in Southwest Louisiana.
Hon. Charles Boustany,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Boustany: First and foremost, we from
Southwest Louisiana want to thank you for your support in our
efforts to recover from Hurricane Rita. You have been very
vocal in your effort to help us and we sincerely appreciate
it. This letter is intended to give you information to
support your efforts and to remind you that we stand ready to
work with you in this effort. However, it has become very
evident that others in our nation's capitol have forgotten
about the destruction that occurred as a result of that
storm.
We are not asking them to take our word for it. Just this
week Governor Rick Perry testified in Washington D.C. and
according to AP wire reports he requested that Texas be given
$2 billion dollars, because ``states slammed by Katrina are
getting more generous help than his state, which bore the
brunt of Hurricane Rita.'' Governor Perry's significant
funding request indicates his belief that Hurricane Rita was
a destructive storm.
We do not intend to compete with our Texas neighbors for
recovery money. We acknowledge that Hurricane Rita inflicted
serious damage on Southeast Texas. But Southwest Louisiana
also suffered significant devastation from this storm as
well. The eye of the storm made landfall in Cameron Parish on
September 24. The highly destructive northeast quadrant of
the storm (with its winds and storm surge) was most
destructive in Cameron Parish and in Calcasieu Parish in
Louisiana. Cameron Parish as we knew it no longer exists. We,
as Governor Perry, are concerned that we run the risk of
being overshadowed by Hurricane Katrina when it comes time to
allocate limited resources to the recovery effort.
Southwest Louisiana's elected officials, emergency
responders and citizens worked hard to take the initiative to
comply with evacuation orders, maintain discipline after the
storm and truly prioritize our needs in a professional
manner. Included below for your review is an overview of what
happened in Calcasieu and Cameron Parishes during the Katrina
and Rita storms. Hopefully this information will help you and
your staff in your efforts to prevent Congress and the
federal agencies responsible for hurricane relief from
forgetting the devastation that occurred across the
coastal parishes of Louisiana and in Southwest Louisiana
in particular.
Hurricane Katrina also impacted Southwest Louisiana.
Calcasieu Parish alone welcomed approximately 20,000 evacuees
from Hurricane Katrina by opening shelters at a cost of
nearly $1 million. The support of our community for the
evacuees was overwhelming. Food, clothing, money and time
were donated. Businesses and residents offered shelter,
entertainment and support. The Lake Charles American Press
described the effort as our community's finest hour. When
Hurricane Rita approached our area, the first concern was to
evacuate these people to safety.
When Hurricane Rita passed through Southwest Louisiana, our
citizens listened to officials and heeded warnings to
evacuate. Residents of Cameron and Calcasieu Parishes left
the area on heavily congested roadways to the north along
with residents of Texas who had already been given an order
to evacuate. Gas supplies were limited and hotels to the
north were full with evacuees from Hurricane Katrina, many
who had evacuated a second time to escape Hurricane Rita.
Residents of Calcasieu Parish began returning to the area
after the storm starting September 30, to ``look and leave''.
They returned to find over 19,000 homes or approximately 25
percent of the housing stock was destroyed. Another 35
percent of the housing was damaged. Power was out throughout
most of the area for one to three weeks causing widespread
loss of water and sewer systems and shuttering industry and
retail businesses. Gasoline was a rare commodity.
Approximately half of the trees in Ca1casieu Parish were
destroyed or damaged.
Industries and public facilities were also heavily damaged.
Lake Charles Regional Airport suffered over $20 million in
damage including the passenger terminal, which was damaged
beyond repair. The facility was closed approximately fifteen
days after the storm. Chennault International Airport, home
to Northrop Grumman, suffered approximately $40 million in
damages and was closed for four weeks after the storm.
Damages to other aviation industry businesses brought the
estimated damage to our aviation industry to approximately
$90 million.
The Lake Area Industry Alliance, home of a vast
petrochemical complex important to the entire United States,
reported damages of approximately $50 million to their
members' facilities. Damage to off-shore rigs and the closure
of the Port of Lake Charles (the nation's 12th largest port)
caused supply disruptions to production facilities. Supply
disruptions and power outages resulted in loss of production,
worker layoffs and additional startup costs. Lyondell
Chemical Company closed its facility, costing the community
295 well paying jobs with benefits; it will be impossible to
replace this facility.
The six casinos of our gaming industry were shut down
during the power outage. Harrah's two riverboat casinos and
hotel were damaged beyond repair. Harrah's facility is
currently closed; our community has lost 2,000 jobs as a
result.
McNeese State University and Sowela Technical College
sustained extensive damage. The Calcasieu Parish School
System experienced heavy damage to school facilities and
closure of all public schools for approximately four weeks.
Damage to education facilities is estimated at $57 million.
The Calcasieu Parish Police Jury and area municipalities
suffered damages to facilities of approximately $30 million.
The parish
[[Page H1001]]
wide highway system, including three movable bridges in
Calcasieu Parish, required extensive debris removal and
repairs to make them safe for traffic. The I-10 bridge over
Lake Charles, the main east-west traffic artery through
southwest Louisiana and across the southern U.S. was closed
following the storm for structural inspection after a barge
ran into a supporting structure. An early estimate of parish-
wide highway damage is $20 million.
Cameron Parish, our sister parish to the south was totally
devastated. Although there was no loss of life, Cameron
suffered the loss of a way of life. Approximately 90 percent
of the homes in Cameron, the Parish seat were destroyed.
Other communities suffered similar or worse fates. The major
industries--oil, agriculture, seafood and tourism--were
destroyed. It will take years for the residents to recover.
And Southwest Louisiana will never be fully recovered until
Cameron is rebuilt and back ``in business'' again.
Cameron Parish contains four wildlife refuges, all of which
sustained significant damage. The Sabine National Wildlife
Refuge of 125,000 acres was officially closed after Hurricane
Rita. Facilities were destroyed and the landscape was
littered with debris from damaged structures, vehicles, dead
animals and hazardous chemical containers. The refuge cannot
reopen until the hazardous debris is removed and there is no
safety risk to the public. In 2004 the economic effect of the
refuge and its visitation was $9 million, supporting 108 jobs
and $1 million in tax revenue. This is an average return of
$10.18 for every federal dollar spent operating the refuge.
Annually 300,000 people tour the Creole Nature Trail, which
is designated an All-American Road. Nature trail brochures
are being pulled out of circulation by bureau officials.
The Southwest Louisiana community immediately began
cleaning up and repairing damages in order to begin recovery
from this storm. Temporary ``blue'' roofs were installed on
17,104 houses and apartments. An estimated 5.73 million cubic
yards of storm debris was collected, enough to cover a
football field with a pile more than one half-mile high.
In addition to residents who were displaced from their
homes due to damage, approximately 10,000 evacuees from other
places are now residing in Calcasieu Parish. Hotel vacancy is
essentially zero and there is a shortage of affordable
housing for residents. Because of this housing shortage, many
residents have not been able to return to the Parish. Many
businesses are still unable to operate for normal business
hours because of a shortage of workers. Although many minimum
wage jobs are advertised and unfilled for long periods of
time, unemployment in the Parish has more than tripled from
5.3 percent in 2004 to 16.2 percent in November 2005, an
increase of 10.9 percent due to a number of complex reasons.
We understand the scale of the storm in Hurricane Katrina.
And we understand that Southeast Texas was affected by the
Hurricane Rita, but please do not penalize us for being
aggressive in our efforts to help ourselves recover. It has
been said by the FEMA Long Term Community Recovery Team that
Southwest Louisiana is leading the state in the recovery
effort. But true recovery requires more than just debris
removal and new roofs. Because of the devastation caused by
Hurricane Rita, we need to retool and rebuild the economy of
Southwest Louisiana. We cannot depend on the existing
businesses and industry to rebuild the economy of our area.
We must be creative and aggressive in our efforts to both
diversify and expand our economy if we are to accomplish the
long term recovery goals FEMA and others have set for our
area.
Hurricanes Rita and Katrina have impacted 30-40 percent of
the economy of our state. It will take years to truly recover
from this disaster in terms of real economic recovery. Please
help us remind your colleagues that no state in the history
of our great nation has ever suffered the extent of economic
and social disruption that Louisiana has as a result of these
two storms.
Some would say that it is this ``can do'' attitude that has
prevented us in Southwest Louisiana from getting national
media attention. We don't want media attention, but we do
need your attention. Please assist us in getting our ``fair
share'' of federal funding for our recovery effort. And
please consider extending the GO Zone Legislation for
parishes hardest hit by these storms. We need at least an
additional two years to take advantage of the economic
recovery offered by this bill. And when it comes to the
allocation of Community Development Block Grant monies to the
individual states, please include an allocation for Hurricane
Rita parishes/counties as well.
Thank you again for all you have done in the recent months
to focus attention on the recovery of Southwest Louisiana. If
you need additional information or we can assist you in any
way, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely yours,
Randy Roach,
Mayor, City of Lake Charles
Willie Mount,
Louisiana State Senate
Gerald Theunissen,
Louisiana State Senate
Chuck Kleckley,
Louisiana House of Representatives
Elcie Guillory,
Louisiana House of Representatives
Ronnie Johns,
Louisiana House of Representatives
Dan Morrish,
Louisiana House of Representatives
Brett Geyeman,
Louisiana House of Representatives.
____
[From American Press Editorial, Mar. 10, 2006.]
Hey, Congress, How About Us?
On Wednesday, President Bush once again toured New Orleans'
areas damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
The President's visit, his 10th, comes on the heels of
another visit by a large congressional delegation to New
Orleans and parts of Mississippi hit by Hurricane Katrina.
There were about 100 people in the delegation, including
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and Minority Leader,
Nancy Pelosi.
The trip was organized by Hastert's office and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
Meanwhile, residents of Calcasieu, Cameron, and Vermilion
parishes who are picking up the pieces from the devastating
Hurricane Rita wonder if they are being forgotten or if
anybody in Washington, D.C., cares.
We understand that the areas in New Orleans and the
Mississippi Coast are hurting, but so are Southwest Louisiana
and Southeast Texas.
It's an insult to Southwest Louisiana residents that more
than five months after Hurricane Rita struck here they are
still waiting for members of Congress to come and see the
devastation Rita wrought.
Members of Congress need to talk to Cameron Parish
residents who have seen their entire way of life blown away
by Rita.
Why do Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Texas Gov. Rick
Perry have to go to Washington to beg Congress to send more
funds for Hurricane Rita relief?
All of this is a stark reminder about how Congress is out-
of-touch with what needs to be done to help Southwest
Louisiana and Southeast Texas get back on track.
Louisiana Seventh District U.S. Rep. Charles Boustany Jr.
is aware of the problem with Rita amnesia in Washington. He
sent a letter to Hastert and Pelosi when he learned about the
congressional visit to New Orleans and Mississippi, urging
them to include Southwest, Louisiana in their fact-finding
tour.
Hastert responded in a March 1 letter that he considered
including a tour of Southwest Louisiana in their recent
visit, but it was not possible.
``Unfortunately, logistics and time constraints made it
impractical to tour the parts of Louisiana impacted by
Hurricane Rita during this trip,'' Hastert wrote.
He added that he wants to arrange a ``future visit'' so he
can ``personally come down to Southwest Louisiana.''
Time's a-wastin', Mr. Speaker.
A number of congressional delegations have visited
Louisiana and Mississippi in months past. Why didn't any come
to this part of the state? Why does Boustany have to beg
members of Congress to come here? Why haven't U.S. Sens. Mary
Landrieu and David Vitter come here with a delegation of
their Capitol Hill colleagues in tow to see Southwest
Louisiana?
Landrieu of New Orleans and Vitter of Metairie have been on
the forefront in getting assistance for Katrina-ravaged
areas.
They represent this part of the state, too.
Vitter recently asked Don Powell, the federal recovery and
rebuilding coordinator, to tour storm-damaged areas in
Southwest Louisiana.
It's the members of Congress, not Powell, who will approve
the relief funds this area so desperately needs.
Landrieu and Vitter need to help bring a large
congressional delegation here to Southwest Louisiana. The
sooner the better.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I fully support the funding
for our troops in this Emergency Supplemental; the men and women
serving our country in Iraq and Afghanistan must have equipment to
effectively fight insurgents, and the harsh environment has taken its
toll on everything from helicopters to tanks to armored vehicles.
I am concerned however that we are not addressing the impact of lost
equipment and vehicles when our National Guard and Reserve units are
forced to leave their equipment in Iraq.
Some reports state that Guard and Reserve units in the U.S. are only
equipped at 30 percent of pre-war levels. The FY06 Defense
Appropriations bill included $1 billion for reequipping units here at
home, but the Guard needs $20 billion to address the shortage.
Money is tight in times of war, but national security is hollow if we
leave our homeland unprotected to fight wars overseas. If we are going
to increase the federal debt limit yet again--by nearly $800 billion
this time--and extend tax cuts, we should also equip the men and women
who protect the homeland from terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
This is extremely important for constituents in the district I
represent. In 2001, Tropical
[[Page H1002]]
Storm Allison, just weeks into the hurricane season, flooded tens of
thousands of homes and businesses in Southeast Texas. The Guard was a
critical part of the rescue and recovery effort, using its large trucks
and equipment to reach individuals stranded by the high water. During
Katrina and Rita, the Guard again played a major role in rescue and
recovery efforts after a natural disaster.
With the start of hurricane season on June 1st--less than three
months away--we must ensure Guard units along the Gulf coast have the
equipment they need to save lives.
I also want to talk about housing for Katrina and Rita evacuees. We
have 100,000 evacuees in the City of Houston's emergency housing
program, but frankly FEMA and HUD have been very difficult to work
with.
FEMA told the City to sign 1-year leases for evacuees and promised in
writing to reimburse Houston. First, these reimbursements have been
extremely slow, and the our cities and apartments are becoming the bank
for FEMA.
I met with Houston apartment owners that have not been paid rent for
90 days--I could not get away with that in my apartment in D.C., but
FEMA gets away with it.
Second, these commitments are not being honored. Instead, they are
going to pull the rug out from under probably 30,000 of these evacuees
that FEMA says won't qualify for housing help after March 31.
In the coming weeks, 30,000 evacuees in Houston are going to get a
letter giving them 30 days notice before eviction, even if they have a
1-year lease that FEMA promised to reimburse back in September. Many of
these evacuees are schoolchildren.
FEMA has no plan for where the folks that they decide no longer
qualify for housing assistance are going to find housing or where they
are going to go. Rental rates are going to go up due to the influx of
evacuees. Houston's section 8 housing program is full.
30,000 Americans should not end up on the streets of Houston and
America should not stand for it. FEMA made commitments to 1-year leases
and they are not abiding by their written commitments.
Mr. Chairman, I fully support the hurricane relief funding in this
bill and the funding for the men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, but
I believe that there is a tremendous amount of work yet to be done.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendments by my
colleagues in Texas, Mr. Hinojosa and Mr. Doggett; our levee system in
South Texas has long passed the point of insufficient--we are in an
emergency situation.
The Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project has several components,
including the levee system along the Rio Grande, which is in a state of
disrepair. This amendment provides $10 million for IBWC; it has no
effect on budget authority; and it reduces outlays by $2 million for FY
2006.
The integrity of the 500 mile levee system is the responsibility of
the Army Corp of Engineers and the International Boundary and Water
Commission. The IBWC has not received any consistent federal funding
necessary to rehabilitate this critical levee system.
An indirect impact from Hurricane Emily last September brought water
levels along the South border to critical levels that we have not seen
in decades.
It was Hurricane Katrina that gave each American a tutorial on the
utter importance of levees when it comes to protecting U.S. lives and
property.
In the 2 major storms that blew ashore last fall, Katrina gave us a
glimpse of the damage possible if these levees are not repaired . . .
and Emily that made us hold our collective breath as the waters rose
near the top of the levee system.
Like New Orleans, the population protected by these levees is
enormous. South Texas is a densely populated area, and is the front
door of international trade. Millions of lives and the nation's economy
could hang in the balance when these levees fail. Evaluations of the
present condition of these levees conclude the system is deficient in
both hydraulic capacity and structural integrity.
The investment we ask to include today as part of this emergency
supplemental is a small price to pay to ensure the integrity of these
levees when we have the next major hurricane. Hurricane season is
rapidly approaching, and this is the last opportunity to fix the levee
system before hurricanes start blowing into the Gulf. Let us not be
penny wise and pound foolish about the dangers that await us, as we
were with the New Orleans levees.
We know the damage that can happen . . . and we know it will only
come at a profoundly bad time, as millions of residents are trying to
flee the coast . . . and the U.S. economy takes a multi billion dollar
hit.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation,
which makes ``emergencies'' out of non-emergencies and fails to provide
assistance to my home State of Texas, which did suffer an emergency in
the form of Hurricane Rita last summer.
First, I should note to my colleagues and the American taxpayer that,
at almost $92 billion, this is the largest supplemental appropriations
request in the history of the U.S. Congress.
Is it really an emergency to send $1.2 billion to pay off our allies
for their help in Afghanistan? Won't these countries in close proximity
presumably benefit more than even we will from the stability that we
are told U.S. troops will provide? Perhaps these countries should be
paying us for stabilizing their neighborhood. But no, it is always the
U.S. taxpayer who ends up paying.
Is $36 million more for taxpayer-funded broadcasting programs
overseas really an emergency?
Is $30 million to build roads in Liberia an emergency, when roads in
Texas are still unrepaired after Hurricane Rita?
Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment to this ``emergency''
supplemental that reduces some of the non-emergency ``emergencies'' by
$500 million and allocates that money for the recovery of the State of
Texas from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Additionally, my amendment will
take another half-billion dollars from the non-emergency portions of
this bill and apply it toward the Federal deficit.
The real emergency is the rate that this government is spending money
we do not have on policies that we cannot afford while ignoring what
should be our real priorities.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Boozman). All time for general debate has
expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule. When the reading for amendment reaches title
II, that title shall be considered read.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the following amendments
may be offered at any point in the reading:
An amendment by Mr. Gilchrest, regarding section 3011;
An amendment by Mr. Sabo, regarding the Defense Production Act.
Each amendment may be offered only by the Member named in the request
or a designee, shall be considered read, shall not be subject to
amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations each may offer one pro forma amendment for
the purpose of debate; shall not be subject to a demand for division of
the question; and shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4939
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I--GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
CHAPTER 1
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE
Public Law 480 Title II Grants
For an additional expenses for ``Public Law 480 Title II
Grants'', during the current fiscal year, not otherwise
recoverable, and unrecovered prior years' costs, including
interest thereon, under the Agricultural Trade Development
and Assistance Act of 1954, for commodities supplied in
connection with dispositions abroad under title II of said
Act, $350,000,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That the amount provided under this heading is
designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gilchrest
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gilchrest.
Strike section 3011.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
[[Page H1003]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
{time} 1700
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of dialogue in the last few
weeks about this issue of Dubai Ports World controlling U.S. ports.
What I would like to do with this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to
explain what the Dubai Ports World issue is, and in the process, hope
my colleagues will vote in favor of this amendment which strikes the
section of the supplemental appropriations bill, the section 3011.
I would at first like to give some frame of reference as to what it
means to be the Dubai Ports World, which basically has purchased P&O, a
British firm, that works with scheduling for the loading and unloading
of cargo at our Nation's ports.
The Baltimore Sun, which is a newspaper in Maryland that represents
the Port of Baltimore, one of the largest ports in the United States,
says the following: ``Potentially lost in this uproar is a clear
understanding of what a stevedore company does.'' Stevedore, that is
what the Dubai Ports World is going to do. They are going to employ
stevedores.
For the record, its employees, of Dubai Ports World, do not touch any
cargo. No employee of the Dubai Ports World touches cargo. They are not
in charge of port security. They do not oversee shipping manifests.
That means they don't know what is in the containers. Stevedores, which
is what the Dubai Ports World is going to be, are the middle managers
who tell longshoremen, who are Americans, who are employed by the
ports, who are employed by the State and local governments that control
the ports, the longshoremen are the ones that load and unload the
cargo.
Dubai Ports World will be able to tell them when that ship is going
to dock and how to unload it. USA Today, many foreign companies,
including one from Singapore, China and Taiwan, are doing business
today at U.S. ports, leasing some terminals, to schedule the loading
and unloading.
General Tommy Franks, this is what General Tommy Franks says about
this particular issue: I personally believe that we have no greater
ally in seeking a resolution of problems in the Middle East, the
Palestinian issue, the Israeli issue, than we have found in the United
Arab Emirates.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, this quote, and there are quotes from every
major newspaper in this country, this is a quote from The New York
Times: ``Dubai is not a democracy, and it is not without its warts. But
Dubai is a bridge of decency that leads away from the failing
civilization to a much more optimistic, open and self-confident
society. Dubaians are building a future based on butter, not guns;
private property, not caprice; services more than oil and globally
competitive companies, not terror networks. Dubai is about nurturing
Arab dignity through success, not suicide. As a result, its people want
to embrace the future, not blow it up.
Dubai, the United Arab Emirates. We have a difficult, nearly
impossible situation in Iraq, difficulties in the Arab world. Who do we
need most to bridge the gap of the lack of knowledge? Who do we need
most in the Arab world to connect and bridge that gap between the
United States and that culture? It is the United Arab Emirates.
It is time for us to recognize that this is an ally that we need to
integrate with the United States as far as global issues and global
terror issues are concerned.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Boozman). The gentleman is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield half that time to my
colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Wisconsin
will control 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this has been a very frustrating day. I can remember
when this place used to be a legislative body. Now it has unfortunately
become 99 percent a political institution, and even the politics of the
institution doesn't seem to be working out too well on either side of
the aisle.
What we have before us now is a holy picture debate. This is a
Potemkin amendment. It is a Potemkin debate, and it is another example
of how Congress has been reduced to dealing in symbols rather than
dealing with substance.
We have had this country in a frenzy about the Dubai involvement in
American ports over the past couple of weeks. The Appropriations
Committee had a vote, and by vote of 62 to 2, the committee adopted an
amendment by the distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Lewis,
which shut off the ability of the Dubai company to make their purchase
of American port facilities.
We tried, in the committee, to make that action more rational by also
establishing a process under which we would have a regularized notice
to our government every time such a transaction is being proposed. The
committee saw fit to turn that down.
We are now out on the floor. What is going on now is that there is
such a frenzy to have every single member of the House also on record
on this issue, that we now have a faux debate going on. As I read this,
the only purpose of this debate today is to allow every Member of the
House to cast a vote. It is what I call a holy picture vote, and it
means that when the votes come, this amendment is going to be
overwhelmingly defeated.
The only purposes I see that will have been accomplished by taking
this time, is that Members will then have a vote in their pocket that
they can take home and brag to people about. I admire the gentleman
from Maryland and his willingness to be a sacrificial lamb on the
amendment. I know that one or two people on this side of the aisle,
such as Mr. Moran, share his view, and I admire them for their courage.
I have to say that I really am frustrated to see on this, and a
number of other amendments today and tomorrow, this House is going to
deal with these issues in a symbolic manner rather than discussing it
in a thorough, systematic way that might bring some additional credit
to the House.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I don't feel like I am a sacrificial lamb, and I am not
doing this for any other purpose other than to give our strongest ally
in the Middle East, the United Arab Emirates, the dignity that they
deserve. There are Americans that feel they can do this in a most
positive fashion.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from
Maryland.
Mr. Chairman, I have no illusions about the results of this vote. It
is going to be pretty much proportionate to the 62-2 vote that we took
in the full Appropriations Committee, Mr. Kolbe and I being in the
minority. But I want to share with my colleagues why this is the wrong
thing to be doing.
The fact is that Dubai is our natural bridge to the modern, peaceful
and progressive Arab world, and, with this amendment, instead of
crossing that bridge, we blow it up.
The fact is that we currently have over 600 ships that are using
Dubai, U.S. naval vessels. We have more than 77,000 military personnel
who take leave in Dubai, and we have never had a security incident. In
fact, more U.S. military personnel take liberty, port leave, in other
words, in the United Arab Emirates today than in any other place in the
entire world.
The UAE wants to be our friend. They want to invest some of those
petro-dollars back in the United States. They want to modernize. They
want, in fact, to trade with Israel. They want to trade with Europe.
They want to trade with the United States. They are under a lot of
political pressure, but, in fact, the emirs are standing up to that
pressure.
Couldn't we be expected to do the same? Are we going to yield to the
fear
[[Page H1004]]
and the prejudice that I think motivates this amendment? Because it is
not reasoned judgment. In fact, the Committee on Foreign Investment in
the United States was to be conducting a 45-day thorough investigation.
Then we would be able to make an informed decision. At the end of that
investigation they were going to make recommendations.
But the reality is there aren't a whole lot of things that need to be
changed with this transaction. It is a financial transaction. U.S.
longshoremen still handle the cargo. The U.S. Coast Guard provides
physical security. The Customs Service inspects the cargo.
In fact, it was the UAE who was first, right away, to sign the U.S.
Container Security Initiative. We asked them to. They are doing
everything. And, my friends, the Director of the Department of Homeland
Security, Secretary Chertoff, said if this deal goes through, it will
make our ports more secure, not less.
Listen to the experts.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I am doing this in no small part because I have been
looking for an accurate description of ``holy pictures'' for some time
now since I have been dealing with my friend from Wisconsin, and in
this process we are going through today, I think I may have found at
least one snapshot.
What we have done in this bill is attempt to respond to a very
serious concern on the part of the American public regarding having a
country or an organization that is related to a country in the Middle
East having authority or control over any of our ports in this country.
It is viewed by many as a serious national security issue, and this is
a national security bill.
Our goal is to make certain that we have thought through this Dubai
Ports World deal very carefully before moving forward. The language is
to stop that deal. It is rather straightforward. The 62-2 vote in the
committee indicates the broad cross-section of public reaction
reflected in the membership to going forward without some action on the
part of the committee, and thus this language in the bill. It is rather
straightforward.
I welcome this discussion today, and intend to be as helpful as I can
to those opposing our language.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let me paraphrase the words that Mr. Obey said a few minutes ago.
Rather than holy pictures, I would say this provision of the bill is a
little bit like sprinkling holy water over the issue. It has no effect.
Dubai has already announced that they are going to sell their
interests. The deal already went through. There is no effect of this
provision in actually blocking the sale. This is making everybody feel
good, that they can thump their chest and say we are doing something
really tough here.
There are three good arguments, Mr. Chairman, as to why we should not
be doing this.
First, it diverts our attention from the real issue. The real issue,
is we don't have good port security.
{time} 1715
In fact, our port security is terrible. It is very poor. This diverts
us from really dealing with the issue that we do not inspect more than
2 percent of all containers. We do not really have a system for
tracking containers and we do not know the origin of these containers.
Containers start in one place in Malaysia and go to Singapore and then
go to Vancouver, and then by train to Chicago. We have no idea where it
originated and what might have been put into the container.
We do not have the information. We have bad port security. And
Congress has a responsibility for the oversight and to make sure that
the Department of Homeland Security is doing the job it should be
doing.
This diverts our attention from this issue and, allows everybody to
feel good about what they are doing. It has no effect, none, on port
security, or on the security of the United States.
The second reason why this is bad, it is damaging, as has been
indicated by the gentleman from Virginia, it is damaging to our
relationship with the United Arab Emirates.
The United Arab Emirates, Dubai, is the largest port in the world
outside of the United States for U.S. warships. This last year 56
warships docked in the United Arab Emirates, Dubai, the same port that
is managed by this company, and 590 supply vessels. All supplies that
go to Iraq go through this port.
Now we are inviting trouble. If Dubai decides that they want to
retaliate against the United States, we will be up a creek without a
paddle when it comes to getting our supplies into Iraq.
And then, the third reason, it sends the wrong signal to investors
around the world. It says to investors around the world that we are not
really a reliable trading partner or a reliable investment partner. It
says to them, that, the United States has rules that they are supposed
to follow, and then they throw them overboard.
This has been confirmed to me in at least one email that I have
received from somebody who is an investor in Singapore. It said that
many of his clients are reconsidering some of their investments in the
United States, investments that create jobs for American workers in
this country, because we do not have a reliable policy.
This is good politics but bad policy, and this provision should be
removed from the bill.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 4939. I
will be supporting the Supplemental Appropriations Act so our Armed
Forces who are so bravely working to rebuild Iraq and fight the global
war on terror have all of the tools and equipment they need to be
successful.
My support comes, however, with a great deal of consternation.
Because in this voting for this legislation I will also be forced to
support unrelated spending for the rebuilding of the gulf coast.
Let me be clear. I believe that we need to help those devastated by
Katrina. I have been there twice. But we must do it in a responsible
manner with a clear understanding of where and how the money is spent.
It is clear that we must sustain military operations and
reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, continuing making
progress and tracking down and bringing terrorists to justice and
procure the necessary equipment for our troops to carry out their
mission.
It is unclear to me, however, why we must couple this funding with
gulf coast relief funds. Both are worthy causes, but in my view the
spending for the latter is in desperate need for further oversight and
explanation.
For instance, we should be taking a closer look at the $9.6 billion
included for FEMA's problematic Disaster Relief Fund and the $4.2
billion included for community development block grants, which are not
even required to go to the gulf coast areas. These funds should not be
incorporated into a bill with those for our military force protection
needs, including up-armored Humvees, Abram tanks, Bradley fighting
vehicles.
Congress has already allocated $62.3 billion to hurricane relief and
recovery. I believe that it is Congress' responsibility to demand a
strict accounting of how these dollars are spent, and any further funds
allocated to the gulf coast for hurricane relief should be offset with
other savings.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. We are on the amendment dealing with the
Dubai Ports. Does the gentleman know that?
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I did not know that. I apologize.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I thought that is why you were asking to
speak. But that is okay. Just go right ahead.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I will go ahead and complete. I do
apologize for that. I was not aware of that.
But I think it is important, in conclusion, that we work toward
rebuilding and restoring normalcy for those who are affected by
Katrina. However,
[[Page H1005]]
we should do so in a stand-alone bill to ensure that we have proper
oversight.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, this is what I would like to conclude
with. Dubai Ports World will have no administrative authority over any
ports. They will have no security responsibility over any ports in the
United States. That is retained by the Federal and State governments,
completely.
All the longshoremen will still be American longshoremen that load
and unload these ships. The Dubai Ports World is an organization made
up of American investors, and chief executive officers of the United
States are officers in this Dubai Ports World organization. They are a
strong ally. Let this vote signal dignity and worth to the United Arab
Emirates. I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to strike.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I will use just a few seconds
to close.
We oppose this amendment for security purposes. This language should
remain in the bill to make certain that Dubai Ports World does not have
any management control or authority over any of our major ports.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, while I understand the sentiments and the
security concerns of the Members here today on this ports issue, I feel
strongly that free trade is a core American value that is worth
fighting for. I look forward to making the case for free trade and for
economic engagement with our moderate Arab allies here today.
But first, let's consider what we are and are not voting on today.
The U.S. Congress cannot stop this sale, as this provision would seek
to do. We simply do not have jurisdiction beyond our shores. In fact,
the sale has already happened and the shareholders will be paid over
the next couple of weeks. While I appreciate the desire of Members to
stop the sale, the fact is that this language does nothing of the sort.
I'm not sure what the goal is. The language certainly does not stop
the purchase by Dubai Ports World, and--even more important--does
nothing to improve the security of our ports. I would argue that this
provision does not improve our security but will damage us
economically, militarily, and diplomatically.
It seems as if we are operating in a fact-free zone here.
The facts are that companies based in many other countries are
already managing most of the Nation's ports. Will we be seeking to
overturn these contracts next?
The fact is that no American company chose to bid on Peninsular and
Oriental. There is only one American company large enough to take on
this kind of contract, and my understanding is that firm is already at
capacity. Would we simply wish an American ports management company
into creation?
Let's talk a little about port security. We know that no matter who
manages port operations, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Customs
Service, and U.S. longshoremen continue to be responsible for port
security, the checking of cargo, and the handling of cargo.
Stephen Flynn of the Council on Foreign Relations testified before
Congress: ``We need to know what's in the box more than we need to know
who is moving them around a container yard.''
So if our concern truly is port security, why are we not focusing on
supporting that overall effort?
The fact is that Dubai Ports World is of course involved with the
Jebel Ali port, one of the largest and among the most advanced ports in
the world. According to The New York Times, it is the world's 11th
largest port and annually handles more than 7.5 million containers,
many of them going directly to and from the United States. On a number
of issues, they have cooperated with the U.S. government to allow for
our inspections.
Robert C. Bonner, formerly with Customs, was quoted in The New York
Times: ``Dubai has acknowledged the absolute importance of securing
cargo against terrorists.''
On cargo security, we ought to be concerned about what's being
onloaded in foreign ports just as much as we are concerned about what's
being offloaded on our shores. Once a dangerous ship arrives, it's far
too late for concern.
So if we trust Dubai Ports World on the first crucial half of a cargo
transaction--the loading--why would we not trust the company to be
involved in U.S. cargo operations in a strictly management capacity?
Nonetheless, the company has moved forward to sell the operations to
a U.S. buyer. DPW announced yesterday it has retained credible, well-
known legal and financial firms to handle this transaction. The company
has agreed to abide by a voluntary commitment to hold U.S. ports
separate until the sale is complete.
And still, it seems that it's not enough. I would ask: What more
would we have DPW do? When will this be dead enough to satisfy the U.S.
Congress?
The action, I am sad to say, sends exactly the wrong message to the
world about the climate for international businesses in the United
States. It sends the wrong message about our willingness to engage in
transactions that create growth and jobs here at home. It tells the
world that we are an unreliable trading partner.
While we are sometimes obsessed with the so-called ``outsourcing'' of
American jobs abroad, why are we not similarly concerned about our
ability to ``insource'' jobs through foreign direct investment?
Moving to the military aspect of our relationship with Dubai, today
we may blatantly insult a moderate Arab ally that has generously
allowed the use of its port and airfield facilities for our military.
General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called
the U.S. military relationship with the UAE ``superb.'' Dubai provides
servicing and port security that is good enough for the U.S. Navy.
I worry how that relationship will proceed in the future, and I
believe that this entire affair will end up as diplomatic disaster for
the United States throughout the moderate Middle East.
Lawrence Lindsey recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal: ``The UAE
isn't any old Arab country. It sits astride the Strait of Hormuz
through which a fifth of world oil passes. Iran sits on the other side.
. . . From a global perspective, efforts by the U.S. Congress to
alienate the UAE at this time look about as sensible as Russian
roulette.''
There are many other respected voices who have spoken to the
economic, security, and global issues raised in this controversy.
Robert Samuelson, the renowned economist, wrote recently in The
Washington Post about how this action will damage American interests.
In addition to the damage done to our relationship with the UAE and
other allies in the Middle East, Samuelson holds the view that it has
weakened worldwide confidence in the dollar.
Samuelson concludes, ``Every country has the right to protect its
security interests. But those interests must be defined coherently and
not simply as the random expression of political expediency.''
James Glassman of the American Enterprise Institute testified before
a Financial Services subcommittee: ``Our ties through trade, in fact,
have made us more safe as our trading partners become more prosperous,
open and democratic. But our politicians and pundits should know that
we can't pick and choose. If we decide to deny firms from developing
nations--Arab, Asian or otherwise--from investing in the United States,
those firms will go elsewhere. And we will pay the price--in higher
interest rates, higher mortgage rates, higher inflation, lower stock
prices, less participation in a world [that is] growing more and more
creative and exciting.''
Since World War II, the United States has enjoyed economic growth and
an increase in economic standard of living that has never before been
achieved in world history. This has gone hand-in-hand with our values
of democracy and freedom of thought. We have watched other nations fail
because they were too closed, either economically or politically or
both. One of the critical factors in our stunning success has been free
trade and the free movement of capital throughout the world.
I can't say it any better than Thomas Friedman, who wrote: ``People
across the world still look to our example of pluralism, which is like
no other. If we go Dark Ages, if we go down the road of pitchfork-
wielding xenophobes, then the whole world will go Dark Ages.''
``There is a poison loose today, and America--America at its best--is
the only antidote. That's why it is critical that we stand by our
principles of free trade and welcome the world to do business in our
land, as long as there is no security threat.''
This is a feel-good vote in the heat of the moment that I think the
House will live to regret. It's time for us to decide whether we are
going to continually respond to 9/11 with a reactive fear, or whether
we're going to move forward and engage the world with confidence.
Today, I will vote for the latter.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Boozman). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Boozman). Pursuant to clause 6 of rule
XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Sabo
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
[[Page H1006]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Sabo:
Page 83, after line 16, insert the following new section:
Sec. 3011A. (a) Section 721 of the Defense Production Act
of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 721. INVESTIGATION OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS FOR
NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS.
``(a) Investigations.--
``(1) In general.--Upon receiving written notification, as
prescribed by regulations under this section, of any merger,
acquisition, or takeover proposed or pending on or after the
date of the enactment of this section by or with any foreign
person which could result in foreign control of any person
engaged in interstate commerce in the United States, the
President, acting through the President's designee and the
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States shall
conduct an investigation to determine the effects, if any, of
the proposed or pending merger, acquisition, or takeover on
the national security of the United States.
``(2) Timing.--Any investigation required under paragraph
(1) shall be completed before the end of the 75-day period
beginning on the date of the receipt by the President or the
President's designee of written notification of the proposed
or pending merger, acquisition, or takeover.
``(b) Confidentiality of Information.--
``(1) In general.--Any information or documentary material
filed with the President or the President's designee pursuant
to this section shall be exempt from disclosure under section
552 of title 5, United States Code, and no such information
or documentary material may be made public, except as may be
relevant to any administrative or judicial action or
proceeding.
``(2) Availability to the congress.--No provision of
paragraph (1) shall be construed as preventing the disclosure
of any information or documentary material to either House of
Congress or to any duly authorized committee or subcommittee
of the Congress.
``(c) Committee on Foreign Investment in the United
States.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Committee on Foreign Investment
in the United States established pursuant to Executive Order
No. 11858 (hereafter in this section referred to as the
`Committee') shall be a multi-agency committee to carry out
this section and such other assignments as the President may
designate.
``(2) Membership.--The Committee shall be comprised of the
following members:
``(A) The Secretary of the Treasury.
``(B) The Secretary of State.
``(C) The Secretary of Defense.
``(D) The Secretary of Homeland Security.
``(E) The Attorney General.
``(F) The Secretary of Commerce.
``(G) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
``(H) The United States Trade Representative.
``(I) The Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors.
``(J) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy.
``(3) Chairperson.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall be
the Chairperson of the Committee.
``(4) Other members.--The Chairperson of the Committee
shall involve the heads of such other Federal agencies, the
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and
the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy in any
investigation under subsection (a) as the Chairperson
determines to be appropriate on the basis of the facts and
circumstances of the transaction under investigation.
``(5) Role of the director of national intelligence.--The
Director of National Intelligence shall provide appropriate
intelligence analysis and intelligence briefings to the
Committee.
``(d) Action by the President.--
``(1) In general.--No proposed or pending acquisition,
merger, or takeover, of a person engaged in interstate
commerce in the United States by or with foreign persons may
occur unless the President, on the basis of an investigation
and report by the Committee, finds that such acquisition,
merger or takeover, will not threaten to impair the national
security of the United States, as defined by regulations
prescribed pursuant to this section, and approves the
transaction.
``(2) Enforcement.--The President shall direct the Attorney
General to seek appropriate relief, including divestment
relief, in the district courts of the United States in order
to implement and enforce--
``(A) any finding, action, or determination under this
section of disapproval of an acquisition, merger, or
takeover; or
``(B) any conditions imposed on any approval of any
acquisition, merger, or takeover.
``(3) Finality of determinations.--All actions and
determinations under this section shall be final and not
subject to judicial review.
``(e) Findings by the President.--
``(1) In general.--A finding under this section of
impairment or threatened impairment to national security
shall be based on credible evidence that leads the President
to believe that--
``(A) the foreign interest exercising control might take
action that threatens to impair the national security; and
``(B) other provisions of law do not provide adequate and
appropriate authority for the President to protect the
national security.
``(2) Factors to be considered.--Any investigation under
this section shall take into account the following factors:
``(A) Domestic production needed for projected national
defense requirements.
``(B) The capability and capacity of domestic industries to
meet national defense requirements, including the
availability of human resources, products, technology,
materials, and other supplies and services.
``(C) The control of domestic industries and commercial
activity by foreign citizens as it affect the capability and
capacity of the United States to meet the requirements of
national security.
``(D) The potential effects of the proposed or pending
transaction on sales of military goods, equipment, or
technology to any country--
``(i) identified by the Secretary of State--
``(I) under section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act
of 1979, as a country that supports terrorism;
``(II) under section 6(l) of the Export Administration Act
of 1979, as a country of concern regarding missile
proliferation; or
``(III) under section 6(m) of the Export Administration Act
of 1979, as a country of concern regarding the proliferation
of chemical and biological weapons; or
``(ii) listed under section 309(c) of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Act of 1978 on the `Nuclear Non-Proliferation-
Special Country List' (15 C.F.R. Part 778, Supplement No. 4)
or any successor list.
``(E) The potential effects on the proposed or pending
transaction on United States international technological
leadership in areas affecting United States national
security.
``(f) Report to the Congress.--Upon making any
determination to approve or disapprove any merger,
acquisition, or takeover by or with any foreign person which
could result in foreign control of any person engaged in
interstate commerce in the United States, the President shall
immediately transmit to the Secretary of the Senate and the
Clerk of the House of Representatives a written report of the
President's determination under this section to approve or
disapprove such merger, acquisition, or takeover, including a
detailed explanation of the finding made and factors
considered.
``(g) Congressional Action.--
``(1) In general.--If the determination of the President
contained in the report transmitted to the Congress under
subsection (f) is that the President will approve any merger,
acquisition, or takeover under subsection (d) and not later
than 30 days after the date on which Congress receives the
report, a joint resolution described in paragraph (2) is
enacted into law, then the President shall take such action
under subsection (d) as is necessary to prohibit the merger,
acquisition, or takeover, including, if such acquisition has
been completed, directing the Attorney General to seek
divestment or other appropriate relief in the district courts
of the United States.
``(2) Joint resolution described.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), the term `joint resolution' means a joint
resolution of the Congress, the sole matter after the
resolving clause of which is as follows: `That the Congress
disapproves the determination of approval of the President
contained in the report submitted to Congress pursuant to
section 721(f) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 on
_____.', with the blank space being filled with the
appropriate date.
``(3) Computation of review period.--In computing the 30-
day period referred to in paragraph (1), there shall be
excluded any day described in section 154(b) of the Trade Act
of 1974.
``(h) Regulations.--The President shall direct the issuance
of regulations to carry out this section. Such regulations
shall, to the extent possible, minimize paperwork burdens and
shall to the extent possible coordinate reporting
requirements under this section with reporting requirements
under any other provision of Federal law.
``(i) Effect on Other Law.--No provision of this section
shall be construed as altering or affecting any existing
authority, power, process, regulation, investigation,
enforcement measure, or review provided by any other
provision of law.
``(j) Technology Risk Assessments.--In any case in which an
assessment of the risk of diversion of defense critical
technology is performed by the Committee or any other
designee of the President, a copy of such assessment shall be
provided to any other designee of the President responsible
for reviewing or investigating a merger, acquisition, or
takeover under this section.
``(k) Biennial Report on Critical Technologies.--
``(1) In general.--In order to assist the Congress in its
oversight responsibilities with respect to this section, the
President and such agencies as the President shall designate
shall complete and furnish to the Congress, not later than
May 1, 2007, and upon the expiration of every 2 years
thereafter, a report, both in classified and unclassified
form, which--
``(A) evaluates whether there is credible evidence of a
coordinated strategy by 1 or more countries or companies to
acquire United States companies involved in research,
development, or production of critical technologies for which
the United States is a leading producer; and
[[Page H1007]]
``(B) evaluates whether there are industrial espionage
activities directed or directly assisted by foreign
governments against private United States companies aimed at
obtaining commercial secrets related to critical technology.
``(2) Definition.--For the purposes of this subsection, the
term `critical technologies' means technologies identified
under title VI of the National Science and Technology Policy,
Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 or other critical
technology, critical components, or critical technology items
essential to national defense or security identified pursuant
to this section.
``(l) Biennial Report on Critical Infrastructure.--In order
to assist the Congress in its oversight responsibilities, the
President and such agencies as the President shall designate
shall complete and furnish to the Congress, not later than 90
days after the date of enactment of this subsection and upon
the expiration of every 2 years thereafter, a report, both in
classified and unclassified form, which--
``(1) lists all critical infrastructure, as defined under
subtitle B of title II of Public Law 107-296, that is owned,
controlled or dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation,
or a foreign government;
``(2) evaluates whether there is credible evidence of a
coordinated strategy by 1 or more countries or companies to
acquire United States critical infrastructure; and
``(3) evaluates whether there are industrial espionage
activities directed or directly assisted by foreign
governments against private United States companies
controlling critical infrastructure.''.
(b) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to
the review and investigation of any acquisition, merger, or
takeover which is or becomes subject to section 721 of the
Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170) (as in
effect immediately before the date of the enactment of this
Act or on or after such date) that has not become final
before the date of the enactment of this Act.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that the Rules Committee has not
allowed me to offer my amendment to strengthen the CFIUS foreign
investment review process to this bill.
Americans deserve a rigorous review of foreign investments that could
affect our national security. We all know now that the Bush
administration was sleepwalking through the review of the Dubai Ports
World transaction to acquire shipping terminals at six major U.S.
ports.
We should fix the process. Never again should we find that the
President and the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Treasury and
Defense are unaware of a foreign takeover of a critical U.S. asset
until after it is approved.
The bill kills the Dubai Ports World deal. It does not, however, deal
with the larger problem of an inadequate foreign investment review
process. An amendment I offered in committee would have fixed the
problem for the future.
My amendment would strengthen the CFIUS process in the following
ways: all transactions that result in foreign control of any person
engaged in interstate commerce would be required to undergo a full
review to determine whether it affects U.S. national security.
Today, foreign firms voluntarily, let me say that again, voluntarily
notify us of these transactions. I believe notification must be
mandatory to ensure that our government knows about all such
transactions.
My amendment would also retain the Secretary of the Treasury as the
chairperson of the committee.
Under my amendment, the President would be required to approve or
disapprove all transactions. Today, if the President takes no action,
the transaction is automatically approved.
My amendment would extend the CFIUS review period to the full 75
days. Current practice allows most transactions to be reviewed within
30 days, with an additional 45 days of review only if flags are raised.
The amendment would also require the Congress to be notified of
Presidential decisions. Furthermore, Congress could overturn approvals
within 30 days by a joint resolution. Today, Congress is notified of a
CFIUS transaction only when the President disapproves one, and we
discover about approvals, like we did in the most recent case, through
the press.
Under my amendment, the administration would also be required to
report to Congress on foreign ownership of all U.S. critical
infrastructure within 90 days of enactment of this bill. Today, no one
really knows how much of our critical infrastructure is in the hands of
foreign companies and foreign governments.
If we fail to fix the deep flaws in the CFIUS process, our Nation
will be vulnerable in the future. We should not take that chance. We
should act now to strengthen the foreign investment review process.
I would hope the gentleman from California, the distinguished
chairman, would not insist on his point of order so the House may have
a vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this place is really something else. We just
had a debate on an amendment that doesn't do ``nothing'' to or for
``nobody''.
The Dubai deal is already dead, and so it is irrelevant whether this
House votes for the Gilchrest amendment or not. Because the Dubai deal
is already dead, the Lewis Amendment is eviscerated; it does not do
anything. It leaves the country with the same problem that we had
before we discovered the Dubai controversy.
What Mr. Sabo is doing today is what he usually does, which is to try
to bring a bit of objectivity and concern for substance into a
political pit. And what Mr. Sabo is saying in his amendment is ``Let's
fix the process so that we do not have the future spectacle of a
President to the United States being clueless when a transaction like
Dubai is about to take place.''
So what Mr. Sabo is saying is, ``Look, the problem with the process
is that, right now, it is voluntary, whether or not the people with an
economic interest in such a transaction ever notifies our government or
not.''
What the Sabo Amendment would do is to say, ``Let's make sure our
government always knows what is happening with these kind of
transactions.'' And the second thing the Sabo Amendment does is to make
certain that Congress can have a role, if it chooses, in this process.
Because right now the only time Congress is ever informed is if the
President turns down a transaction. They are not informed if the
President goes ahead with it.
So I would suggest it would be quaint indeed if this House uses a
technicality in the rules to eliminate the only amendment that does
something and then makes a big political production out of voting on
the Gilchrest amendment, which is totally irrelevant. It is as
irrelevant as the Lewis amendment is, because Dubai is already done,
the deal is gone, it is quashed.
What Mr. Sabo is trying to do is to create some order for the future.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
{time} 1730
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank my good friend. I rise in support of
this amendment.
As I suggested in addressing the last amendment, we need to be driven
by people with expertise, not by fear and prejudice. What Mr. Sabo is
suggesting is that we get the facts on the table so that we can make
the most informed judgment. That is all it is. We are not necessarily
going to automatically reject anyone or accept anyone.
Let's have the facts on the table, take the time, let the experts on
the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States do a thorough
investigation. I think it will satisfy our constituents' concerns, but
it will also enable us to make much more responsible decisions that we
have made in the last week. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Point of Order
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of
order.
Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because
it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an
appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that a point of order is
[[Page H1008]]
raised on this very good amendment, but I would concede the point of
order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.
The amendment is not in order.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gilchrest
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Gilchrest) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 38,
noes 377, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 43]
AYES--38
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Blumenauer
Brady (TX)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Conaway
Davis, Tom
Ehlers
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Hensarling
Hoekstra
Jefferson
Kline
Kolbe
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
McCrery
McDermott
Miller (MI)
Moran (VA)
Neugebauer
Olver
Oxley
Rahall
Reichert
Rohrabacher
Sabo
Schwarz (MI)
Shadegg
Smith (WA)
Thomas
Thornberry
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
NOES--377
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--17
Andrews
Becerra
Boren
Buyer
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Duncan
Evans
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Lantos
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
Norwood
Peterson (MN)
Sweeney
Westmoreland
{time} 1800
Messrs. BOEHNER, SCOTT of Georgia, NUNES, WYNN, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio,
Messrs. SAXTON, MEEK of Florida, TIAHRT, Mrs. MUSGRAVE and Mr. RANGEL
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. FRANKS of Arizona, McDERMOTT, and HENSARLING changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Gingrey) having assumed the chair, Mr. Boozman, Acting Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4939)
making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.
____________________