[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 74 (Monday, June 12, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H3743-H3749]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4939, 
 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR 
                ON TERROR, AND HURRICANE RECOVERY, 2006

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 857 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 857

       Resolved,  That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 
     be in order to consider the conference report to accompany 
     the bill (H.R. 4939) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) is 
recognized for 1 hour.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and insert 
tabular and extraneous material on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule 
for consideration of the conference report of H.R. 4939, the Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, 
and Hurricane Recovery, 2006. The rule waives all points of order 
against the conference report and against its consideration. 
Additionally, it provides that the report shall be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4939, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act 
for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006, is 
intended to fully fund our forces overseas and at home.
  Mr. Speaker, at a time when our sons and daughters are deployed 
overseas in a wartime environment, this legislation provides critical 
funds that will be used to conduct ongoing operations in the global war 
on terror.
  Unlike other wars, this war is one where terrorists are having a 
critical impact and one that requires the perpetual vigilance of not 
only our forces but the American people. To our forces' credit, just 
last week they were successful in killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of 
the critical players among the nonstate terrorist actors. This success 
required professionalism, perseverance, and tenacity, qualities our 
military has in abundance.
  It is worth noting that if we were not in Iraq we would never have 
killed al-Zarqawi. However, it is also fair to observe that al-Zarqawi 
was dedicated to pursuing and killing Americans around the globe. If we 
had not found him, he surely would have found and attacked us.
  Mr. Speaker, the Iraqis also deserve to be commended for their 
efforts in this struggle. During this war, they have held three 
elections, written a constitution, and just last week formed a 
permanent government. They played a key role in locating al-Zarqawi and 
are assuming an increasing role in defending their own country. They 
are watching what we do here today. They require and request our 
continued support as they move forward in their efforts to build a new 
and better Iraq. The passage of this rule and the underlying 
legislation is an important sign that this country and this Congress 
will keep its commitment to Iraq as it strives to create a future of 
hope and promise.

[[Page H3744]]

  But, Mr. Speaker, real challenges remain, and it is these challenges 
that require our action today. Our military, our sons and daughters, 
need these funds immediately. They require our support and we must give 
it to them.
  Mr. Speaker, I am aware that some may question the cost of the global 
war on terror. Some may question its worth. But, Mr. Speaker, today is 
not September 10 of 2001. We know what terrorists are capable of doing. 
Our enemies have chosen to make Iraq the central theater in the global 
war on terror. They seek to do to us what their predecessors did to the 
former Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and that is a triumph which we must 
deny our enemies for our own sake as well as that of the Iraqi people.
  This war is a generational test, one that will affect not only our 
children and grandchildren but our great grandchildren as well. We 
cannot fail in our objectives. We chose this path as a Congress in 
2002, and now we must stay on the hard road to its completion. We must 
support our forces now by passing this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, many may wish to raise extraneous policy issues in this 
debate. Some may want to discuss issues that, however important, are 
superfluous to the question at hand. Frankly, I welcome the debate 
today and later this week; however, now is the time to support our sons 
and daughters deployed overseas in the field of battle. Now is the time 
to accept the true challenges we face. We can do so by passing this 
rule and the underlying legislation.
  Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I wish to note that this supplemental 
has another purpose. It contains funds that are badly needed by our 
fellow Americans on the gulf coast as they are still recovering from 
the devastating effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Our fellow 
citizens need and deserve our support. I am proud that we are 
responding as we have twice before. This, like the war on terror, is a 
national priority. These twin issues, the war on terror and recovery of 
the gulf coast, demand and will receive resources from the Congress on 
a bipartisan basis.
  However, I am pleased to note that in our negotiation with the other 
body our conferees have kept their focus on the challenges at hand. 
They have not allowed the generous impulses that underlay this 
legislation to be perverted into a reckless spending spree on other 
items. For that they are to be commended. They have given us a bill 
that meets the needs at hand, yet remains fiscally responsible. That is 
no small accomplishment. This legislation deserves support from all 
Members.
  Mr. Speaker, to that end I urge support for the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, 3 months have gone by since the House 
last met to pass new funding for one of the greatest challenges our 
Nation faces today: the ongoing war in Iraq.
  It is clear that so long as our soldiers are in harm's way our 
financial support for them must continue. But writing checks is not 
enough. All the money in the world cannot produce a positive change if 
it is squandered and misappropriated.
  What our troops in the field and our citizens at home need is for 
this body to recommit itself to real oversight of our government and 
its actions. What we need is the return of accountability to the House, 
and it is that above all else which has yet to transpire here.
  I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to focus their 
gaze half a world away. The past 90 days has seen victories and defeats 
in Iraq, reasons for hope and reasons for grave concern, and the 
outcome is still far from certain. And yet the overwhelming majority of 
our troops routinely carry out acts of most remarkable personal 
courage. Their very existence is in constant danger, and yet they press 
onward.
  Contrast that courage, Mr. Speaker, with the lack of courage 
displayed by the majority of the House. It is a lack of courage that 
has proven as persistent as the problems it has perpetuated. I should 
first say that the very idea that we are once again funding the 
conflict through a supplemental spending bill is both dishonest and 
dishonorable. It is part of a massive effort to hide the true cost of 
the war from the public because supplemental spending bills are not 
counted in the budget. They, therefore, do not increase our national 
deficits on paper even though they do increase them in reality.
  If this Congress believes that funding the mission in Iraq is 
necessary, it should have the courage to fund it through an official 
appropriations bill. Then the financial cost to the Nation should be 
clear then for all to see and the American people could better judge 
for themselves how much we are willing to devote to it.
  As important as this is, it pales in comparison to the importance of 
overseeing how our money is being spent in Iraq. Events move so quickly 
in that country and every action taken possesses such a great 
consequence that Members of this body should demand nothing less than 
full accountability of how the U.S. funds are being spent.
  Three months ago I repeated the calls of John Tierney for the 
creation of a congressional commission to oversee the reconstruction 
efforts abroad, one like the Truman Commission, created during World 
War II by a Congress with the integrity needed to investigate itself. 
At the time I cited reports claiming that billions of dollars in funds 
intended for the Iraqi people had gone missing.
  Three months later nothing has changed. In fact, just last week the 
Special Inspector General for Iraq reconstruction issued a report that 
documented 7 billion more dollars lost in funds for reconstruction, and 
he has 72 ongoing investigations into accusations of fraud and 
corruption among contractors. And what is his reward? They are going to 
take inspection away from him and give it over to the State Department.
  Now, I am thankful that this Inspector General has been working hard 
in the last 2 years and in keeping track of numbers because that 
document would never have come from this majority. They do not even 
want to discuss the war in any detail. This week's debate on this war 
will be the first of its kind and the September 11 anniversary will be 
5 years very shortly.
  Where is the courage? Where is the resolve? How can they speak day in 
and day out about our need to support the troops and then refuse to 
exercise constitutional responsibility to oversee this, our Nation's 
greatest foreign project in a generation?
  Where there is no oversight, there will be corruption, and in a war 
zone corruption is not just about money. It is about life and death. If 
U.S. contractors are not getting what they are supposed to do done, the 
lives of our troops are put in danger. If reconstruction projects are 
being hobbled by poor accounting, then the projects will not be 
completed and Iraqis will continue suffering.
  We learned months ago that 80 percent of the Marines who died of 
upper body wounds would have been saved if only they had not been 
forced to depend on an unreliable contractor for the body armor. How 
can we live with that?
  I only recently learned that the DOD Inspector General will be 
looking into these contracts at my request because nobody has looked to 
see what happened there.
  Mr. Speaker, these unjustifiable realities are to a large degree the 
product of a lack of any real oversight by Congress. And the lack, in 
turn, has been the province of a majority unwilling to truly reform its 
ways, even while it lectures people near and far about the importance 
of reforming theirs.
  Mr. Speaker, until this changes, we have no solutions to the self-
imposed problems undermining the safety of our citizens here and the 
success of our troops and their mission abroad, and we cannot afford to 
waste another moment. Too much is at stake.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I simply want to note that this supplemental actually addresses many 
of the gentlewoman's concerns. It includes money for armoring Humvees 
and truck vehicles. The supplemental makes modifications to requests in

[[Page H3745]]

order to get the safest, most effective armored vehicles to troops in 
the field, including the National Guard, in a timely manner. It also 
adds $726 million to requests to ensure that Army tracked combat 
vehicles, such as Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles, are 
upgraded and available to the National Guard. There is also in this 
appropriation additional funds to look after the well-being of the 
troops.
  I think that our House Committee on Armed Services has done an 
excellent job in identifying problems as they have shown themselves and 
dedicating resources to them throughout this conflict.

                              {time}  1730

  Certainly more can be done, and it is being done in this 
supplemental. But I would also point out for the record, while every 
loss of life, every loss of life is a tragedy and something that one 
would prefer not to happen, this is still one of the lowest, if not the 
lowest, casualty rates in the history of sustained conflict in our 
country.
  So I think, frankly, those in charge of these particular areas have 
done a commendable job and, frankly, are trying to improve on that job 
literally on a daily basis. This supplemental is a step in that 
direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, the ranking member of Appropriations (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this event is a sad day in the history of the 
House and the country. The fact that this bill is before us today 
indicates that the President's aim is about as faulty as the Vice-
President's.
  The fact is that on 9/11 we were attacked by al Qaeda. They were 
sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan. The President correctly 
responded to that by going after al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But then he 
slipped off the track and diverted his attention and the country's to 
an unnecessary war in Iraq against a government that had nothing 
whatsoever to do with the attack against the United States on 9/11.
  We have now spent, in 18 separate actions, we will now have spent 
$450 billion on this adventure, when you take into account what will be 
provided in the defense appropriations bill which will be considered by 
the full Appropriations Committee tomorrow.
  Now, my objection to the way this war is being funded is based 
primarily on my belief that the country and the Congress has a right to 
know what the cost of this war is and what we think future costs will 
be. But because, as the gentlewoman from New York has indicated, 
because the requests to finance this war have come in the form of 
supplementals outside the regular appropriation process, the actual 
cost of the war has effectively been hidden because the 
administration's plan was to reveal that cost to the American people on 
the installment plan.
  So a little bit at a time they get to understand what the cost is 
going to be. $50 billion here. $50 billion there. As Senator Edward 
Dirksen said, ``Sooner or later that amounts to real money.'' This is a 
huge expenditure for a misguided war, in my view.
  Mr. Speaker, I would make one other point. My second concern about 
this bill is not directed at what the bill does contain, but rather 
what this bill does not contain. The Senate adopted a separate 
amendment, the Byrd-Gregg amendment, which would have added $2.5 
billion in additional funding for border security and port security.
  Unfortunately, the conferees chose to eliminate that funding from the 
bill. That means that they did not provide the $1.9 billion that the 
Senate had asked us to provide to do things such as replace out-dated 
aircraft. The P-3 fleet, which serves as border security's primary air 
surveillance mechanism, is over 40 years old, 20 years beyond the 
average life of that type of plane. The entire fleet needs to be 
overhauled to extend the service life. This bill does not measure up to 
that.
  We also have nearly 1,700 vehicles which are unusable due to wear and 
tear because of the environment, the extreme burden that that 
environment places on Border Patrol agents' equipment and vehicles. 
This bill does not provide funding for that.
  This bill lacks sufficient patrol aircraft. It lacks sufficient 
funding for armed helicopters on the border. Also, in addition, I 
believe the Congress should have provided $648 million in additional 
port security improvements.
  The Coast Guard has only 34 inspectors to review security plans at 
foreign ports. We should have provided $180 million more for customs 
and border protection, including $80 million for Border Patrol vehicle 
replacement, and $100 million more for border infrastructure and 
technology.
  We should have provided $50 million more for an upgrade of law 
enforcement communications. We should have provided $80 million the 
Senate requested for Immigration and Customs Enforcement vehicle 
replacement.
  We should have provided the amount that the Senate requested, $227 
million, for additional port security grants.
  The Senate also asked us to provide $211 million in additional funds 
for rail and seaport inspection equipment. It asked us to provide $132 
million more for radiation portal monitors to accelerate deployment to 
screen 100 percent of in-bound containers.
  Alas, this bill contains none of those items. So I think it is 
grossly deficient in meeting the needs of border security and port 
security. I regret that. But unfortunately I cannot do much about it 
because the majority party was determined to exclude these items.
  I was also stunned by the fact that the majority party refused to 
adopt, or refused to retain, the language that was adopted on the House 
floor which made clear that the United States had no intention of 
entering into permanent basing rights agreements in Iraq.
  Certainly I recognize that some Members of this House do not want us 
to leave Iraq anytime soon, but somewhere between leaving immediately 
and staying forever, we ought to be able to find common ground.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I want to address one of the 
points that my good friend from Wisconsin made. He used the phrase 
``unnecessary war in Iraq.'' I would respectfully disagree with that 
judgment.
  The policy to remove Saddam Hussein was not a policy adopted simply 
by this administration or this Congress. It was the official policy of 
the United States under our former President beginning in 1998. Why did 
we do that? Why did we choose to make the removal of Saddam Hussein a 
priority in American policy?
  You can tick off the reasons. This is the man who launched two 
regional wars that killed over a million people, and he involved our 
country in armed conflict in 1991 in Kuwait. This is a man who twice 
had come close to developing nuclear weapons. First, in 1981, the 
Israelis took them out. Then he was evidently within 6 months of having 
nuclear weapons when the Gulf War broke out, according to the United 
Nations.
  You visit Iraq, you can find mass graves everywhere. Tens of 
thousands, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed. This was a person 
who was financing terrorism up to the moment he was removed from power, 
offering $25,000 bounties and rewards to families whose children were 
killed in terrorist activity.
  This is a person who was getting out from under U.N. sanctions, who 
had already despoiled the Oil-for-Food Program, and who step by step 
was moving himself toward the ability to be a threat in the region 
again, or to enhance his threat.
  So I think when we actually look at this regime, it is fortunate that 
it is not there, because, frankly, if it were there today, it would be 
freer and more powerful and I think more threatening than it was when 
it was removed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I regard the argument made by my good friend from 
Oklahoma to be essentially an ad hominem argument. The issue is not 
whether or not Saddam Hussein was a good guy or a bad guy. He is 
obviously a bad guy. And it is nice to see that he is gone.
  We have other bad guys in the world. We have the guy running Iran 
right now. We have got the guy running North Korea. I do not see the 
United States engaging in military action against either of them.

[[Page H3746]]

  Mr. Speaker, I would also point out, is it not strange that a man who 
was important enough to remove as head of Iraq by this administration 
was seen by this President's father and his administration, I am sorry, 
I got that wrong, was seen by the previous Reagan administration, for 
instance, as being someone we could do business with, and, in fact, was 
someone who the United States supported against Iran in a previous 
military engagement.
  So the issue is not whether Saddam is a good man or a bad man. He is 
obviously a bad man, and it is good that he is gone. I will grant the 
gentleman that. But I would also say, it came at a hellacious price. We 
simply did not have to incur 18,000 American soldiers wounded in order 
to remove him. We did not need to incur more than almost 3,000 dead in 
order to remove him. Let's not kid ourselves. We were misled into this 
war on the basis of manipulated and bad intelligence. We were told by 
the Vice-president we would be welcomed with open arms. The President 
landed on that carrier and said ``Mission Accomplished.''
  Well, not so. Unfortunately, not so. So we continue to pay the price, 
bogged down in the same kind of mess that we were stuck in in Vietnam. 
And let us face it, there is not anybody in this city from the 
President on down who has a clue about how to get the United States out 
of this mess. There isn't anybody in this town who has a clue.
  And that is the sad fact we are faced with, as we are forced to 
continually appropriate more and more funds to support our troops. And 
then we go back home and say, ``Well, we know what we are doing.'' The 
fact is, this Congress did not know what it was doing when it gave the 
President the ability to go to war.
  The President did not know what he was doing, the Vice-President did 
not know what he was doing, and Secretary Rumsfeld has demonstrated 
that he is both the most arrogant Secretary of Defense since Bob 
McNamara and the most incompetent Secretary of Defense in the post-Cold 
War period of this country.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I just want to once again disagree 
with my good friend. I find, frankly, comparisons between Iraq and 
Vietnam to be incredibly overdrawn and misplaced.
  When we look at the scale of the American involvement in Vietnam, the 
level of casualties, the fact that there were not democratic elections, 
that there was not the constitution, that there has not been the 
progress; frankly, when we look at the threat that was constituted by 
Saddam Hussein as opposed to North Vietnam, they simply are not on a 
comparable scale. Saddam Hussein was somebody who tried to assassinate 
a President of the United States, who drew us into war, who was 
actively seeking weapons of mass destruction throughout his political 
career.
  I would agree with the gentleman, the fact that we had had a 
relationship with him was an enormous mistake and bad judgment by the 
American Government. I would actually concede my good friend's point in 
that regard.
  I am glad in the end we understood who and what this person is. I 
point out again, that recognition began before this administration ever 
took office. That began with an act of this Congress and the preceding 
administration, the Clinton administration, that declared it was in the 
interest of the United States to remove this tyrant from office.
  I would also point out with respect to the intelligence, while 
undoubtedly mistakes were made, those were mistakes that were made by 
the entire planet, and, frankly, I can bring quote after quote out by 
the preceding administration, by Members of this body that would 
suggest all of us believed there were weapons of mass destruction.
  There is no question that at various points in his career, Saddam 
Hussein pursued weapons of mass destruction, acquired them and used 
them. And in a post-9/11 world, there is every reason to believe he 
would do so again and that that technology, that capability, could 
easily migrate to our opponents.
  The world is safer; Iraq has a chance for a better future because 
Saddam is gone. That is due to the heroism and the professionalism of 
the American military.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I just found it somewhat ironic to listen to our friend from Oklahoma 
when he talks about the search that was conducted by Saddam Hussein for 
weapons of mass destruction, because it clearly was this administration 
during the 1980s that aided him in that pursuit.
  There is documentation out there that shows the transfer of dual-use 
technologies to Saddam Hussein by the Reagan-Bush administration. There 
is also sufficient evidence, and we can say he is a bad guy now, but 
maybe he was a good guy back in the 1980s, because he was taken off the 
terrorist list.
  In fact, the current Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was a 
special envoy of the Reagan administration to Saddam Hussein. When 
Saddam Hussein unleashed the hell of mustard gas on the Kurds in 
Halabja, it was that administration who said, no, we are not going to 
allow the U.N. to condemn our pal, Saddam Hussein. So I am glad he 
concedes that point because it is right and just that he concedes that 
point.
  I find it interesting now that we are embracing other good guys in 
this world, like Moammar Gadhafi, a great democrat who was taken off 
the terrorist list. I wonder sometime if we will regret that. But we 
are not here to talk about that.
  I am here because I was to echo the sentiments expressed by the 
gentlewoman. I don't think they can be repeated often enough, because 
the reconstruction of Iraq has been plagued by mismanagement, waste and 
fraud. The examples are too numerous to list. I would need the entire 
hour, and I will not burden my colleagues with that.
  But let us suffice it to say that the Bush administration cannot 
account for $9 billion, that is billion with a B, that it purportedly 
transferred to Iraqi ministries. But we cannot find it, it is missing.
  Let me just cite one specific example about the work of a company 
called Custer Battles, which I think illustrates the order of magnitude 
of corruption, fraud and abuse that has been perpetrated on the 
American taxpayer while we have other pressing needs in this country.
  They were retained to provide security at Baghdad International 
Airport, including personnel, equipment, and K-9 teams to process 
passengers and cargo. They were totally inept, and they were corrupt. 
They had a K-9 team that consisted of someone's pet that certainly 
couldn't sniff bombs. I don't know what they were doing, but they were 
not sniffing bombs there.
  But in any event, the director of airport security wrote this about 
them. Custer Battles has shown themselves to be unresponsive, 
uncooperative, incompetent, deceitful, manipulative and war profiteers. 
Other than that, they are swell fellows. Now that is the director of 
the Baghdad International Airport. It is rife over there with 
mismanagement, with fraud and abuse.
  Now, how do we know these problems? We certainly don't know them from 
the activities of this institution. I am the ranking member on a 
subcommittee of the International Relations Committee dealing with 
oversight and investigations. Last week we had our first oversight 
hearing into the activities of the administration when it came to the 
reconstruction phase.
  But we do know about these problems, because we know them through the 
work of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Construction, Stuart 
Bowen, whose reports have been objective, accurate and hard hitting, 
giving praise when it is due and giving criticism when it is due. They 
describe in clear, simple, understandable terms how the 
administration's incompetence, mismanagement and lack of planning have 
exacerbated our problems there.
  But now this bill, as the gentlewoman said, shifts the oversight 
responsibility for new Iraq reconstruction funds from the Special 
Inspector General for Iraq to the State Department Inspector General. 
Since the Department of State Inspector General has a fraction of the 
resources that were provided to the Special Inspector

[[Page H3747]]

General of Iraq and clearly limited experience, this means that 
oversight of Iraq reconstruction will be drastically reduced. We can't 
afford that now. We can't afford it. We cannot afford it, and yet this 
bill does it.
  The American taxpayer cannot afford that. It is an egregious error in 
judgment to remove the Inspector General of Iraq, who is appointed by 
President Bush, from that oversight role.
  Well, I would urge because of those reasons that this rule be 
rejected.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my 
appreciation to my good friend from Oklahoma, who has spent so much 
time and energy focused on our Nation's security, and it is very 
appropriate that he manage this rule, which is primarily dealing with 
that issue.
  When we think about the developments that have taken place just 
within the last week in Iraq, the summit, the meeting that was held at 
Camp David today with President Bush, we all know, as the President 
said today, that we have difficult, tough days ahead. We know that we 
are going to likely see retaliatory action taken by those who would be 
sympathetic with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the butcher who was responsible 
for countless beheadings, the attack on the United Nations meeting, the 
bombings at the wedding that took place in Jordan. We can go down that 
litany of heinous acts perpetrated by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
  But we have to realize that the action that was taken last week was, 
in fact, a blow to the issue of terrorism, which is one with which we 
have to deal with on a regular basis, and daily we have to deal with 
this. I remember in a meeting with President Bush a couple of months 
ago when he looked over to a few of us and said every single morning 
when he wakes up the first concern that he has is the threat of a 
terrorist attack on the United States or our interests in any other 
part of the world.
  I think that this supplemental appropriations bill, which is designed 
to deal with that issue, is a very, very good and important step. We 
also know that dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, one of 
the worst natural disasters that our Nation has ever seen, needs to be 
addressed, and this bill is designed to do that.
  The reason that I really wanted to stand here is to say that this 
kind of leadership could not have taken place were it not for the 
actions of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, Mr. Lewis. We have really seen a revolution take place 
within the Appropriations Committee. That revolution is focused on the 
need to vigorously pursue fiscal responsibility while at the same time 
pursuing our Nation's priorities.
  Chairman Lewis has done an absolutely phenomenal job at doing just 
that. We have seen a reduction in the number of so-called earmarks. We 
have also seen, and the report just came out today, that as we look at 
the economic growth that has taken place we are also seeing a slowing 
in the rate of growth of Federal spending. That is because of this 
appropriations process.
  A lot of people say why isn't George Bush out there exercising his 
right to veto legislation? Well, we all know where we began with this 
supplemental appropriations bill, slightly below the $92 billion level. 
We know that our friends in the other body said it would be $109 
billion. We saw President Bush make it clear that he would veto any 
legislation that went beyond that level that he had requested, and we 
now have seen, because of the leadership of Chairman Lewis, the House 
and the Senate go through this conference process.
  I watched some of it last week. It was on television. We were able to 
see Chairman Lewis prevail in ensuring that we would pursue a fiscally 
responsible supplemental appropriations bill.
  You know, we don't always win here in the House of Representatives 
when we are dealing with our friends in the other body. But Chairman 
Lewis has done just that. I believe we owe a great debt of thanks to 
him for the leadership that he has shown there.
  We also need to note that right upstairs in the Rules Committee now 
we have a hearing, as we proceed, with the Transportation, Treasury, 
HUD, D.C. appropriations bill. We are looking at trying to get as much 
of our appropriations work done as we approach the July 4th break. We 
are on a path towards doing that, having passed out of this House a 
number of important appropriations bills, many of which have seen, as I 
said, this dramatic slowing in the rate of growth of Federal spending. 
Time and time again, we see in the media, and we hear reports, people 
are saying, oh, Republicans are spending huge amounts of money.
  I see my friend from Wisconsin here, the distinguished ranking member 
of the Committee on Appropriations, and his interests were just 
represented very well upstairs in the Rules Committee when our 
colleague, Mr. Olver from Massachusetts, proposed an amendment that was 
modeled after the amendment that Mr. Obey has recommended on a regular 
basis, that being a tax increase for those who are at the highest ends 
of the economic spectrum and, in turn, expending, and we have figured 
it roughly, $26.1 billion in total through the appropriations process 
that we have so far.
  Now, one of the things that Chairman Lewis has done is he has been 
very insistent on keeping that spending level down, but, again, meeting 
our priorities.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply want to extend congratulations to him. I look 
forward to seeing passage of this conference report, with strong 
bipartisan support, so that we can continue winning the war on terror, 
so that we can continue dealing with those victims of this horrible 
tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, so that we can, in fact, have that 
additional $2.3 billion that was provided to ensure that we are taking 
every step that we possibly can to prevent the threat of avian flu and 
for the other items that are in there.
  So I would simply again extend congratulations to Mr. Lewis and our 
colleagues, and I look forward to strong bipartisan support with this 
measure.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California, the 
distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, has just described what 
he believes to be fiscally responsible actions taken by the Congress.
  Let me simply say that the idea that it is fiscally responsible for 
this Congress to provide $40 billion or more in tax cuts to persons 
making $1 million a year, paid for with borrowed money, while at the 
same time refusing to provide $2.5 billion in essential funding to 
secure our borders and secure our ports, is, to me, strange logic 
indeed. I regard that set of priorities to be spectacularly 
irresponsible.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Oklahoma for 
yielding.
  I rise today in strong support of the conference report on the 
supplemental spending bill. I want to applaud the work of Chairman 
Lewis, his cardinals, Mr. Obey and others, who worked hard to bring 
this bill together.
  They spent countless hours trying to hammer this out, and they did 
this at the same time when they were also passing seven appropriation 
bills here on the floor of the House. On behalf of myself and my 
colleagues, let me just say to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Obey, and others, thank 
you, a job well done.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. Speaker, our support of this conference report boils down to 
three groups of people: the first and foremost, our troops. It ensures 
that our fighting men and women have all the equipment and resources 
necessary to successfully win the global war on terror. Overall, it 
provides $65.8 billion for Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring 
Freedom, and it also provides some $4.85 billion to train and equip 
security forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as almost $2 billion 
to prevent IED attacks.
  Second, the conference report helps those most impacted by last 
year's devastating hurricane season by providing $19.8 billion to 
rebuild the gulf coast. This is important, and those folks in the gulf 
coast region that have been

[[Page H3748]]

devastated by these hurricanes last summer are doing well, they are 
improving; but they have got a long, long way to go.
  Finally, it does all of this by keeping an eye out for the American 
taxpayer and his or her wallet. At the start of this conference, House 
Republicans made clear that we would not consider an emergency 
supplemental package that spends $1 more than what the President 
requested. We made good on this promise by rejecting some $14 billion 
in unnecessary, nonemergency spending added by the other body.
  So, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our troops fighting in Afghanistan and 
Iraq, our fellow citizens working to rebuild the gulf coast, and the 
American taxpayer, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to instruct the enrolling Clerk to make some very 
important national security additions to the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
and extraneous materials be printed in the Congressional Record 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the items contained in the amendment are 
not new provisions. They were all included in the Senate version of the 
supplemental appropriations bill and provide greatly needed funds to 
increase security at our Nation's borders and ports; but, 
unfortunately, they were stripped from the final version of the report.
  I want to stress that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not 
stop consideration of the report. A ``no'' vote will simply allow the 
House to add greatly needed funds to protect our Nation's vulnerable 
borders and ports.
  But a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House 
from adding the funds to improve our border and port security; and 
representing a border area myself, I appreciate the importance of it.
  So, please, again, vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to say that I believe we have 
had a good debate on the rule. I believe the importance and the 
timeliness of this legislation could not be more self-evident. This 
bill has been carefully crafted and worked in a way to ensure that our 
servicemen receive the best equipment when they go to war.
  We had an interesting historical discussion and debate here today. It 
was an interesting debate as to how we got into this war and whether or 
not Saddam Hussein, it was appropriate to remove him at the time and in 
the way that we did. I suspect history will vindicate our judgment in 
that regard. He was a terrorist, he was a tyrant, he was a threat to 
global peace; and the world is better because he is gone. Iraq has a 
potential future because he is gone.
  However, I would ask Members to remember this is a vote about our 
willingness to support our service men and women and not about other 
policy issues. The men and women serving our cause in Iraq ask for 
nothing more. In good conscience, we should give them nothing less.
  It is also a vote about whether or not we will support our fellow 
Americans on the gulf coast. On that I doubt there is any division in 
this House.
  To close, I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

 Previous Question for H. Res. 857--Rule on Conference Report on H.R. 
4939, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global 
              War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
     to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
     4939) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
     report shall be considered as read.
       Sec. 2. (a) A concurrent resolution specified in subsection 
     (b) is hereby adopted.
       (b) The concurrent resolution referred to in subsection (a) 
     is a concurrent resolution
       (1) which has no preamble;
       (2) the title of which is as follows: ``Providing for 
     Corrections to the Enrollment of the Conference Report on the 
     bill H.R. 4939''; and
       (3) the text of which is as follows:
       At the end of the conference report, before the short title 
     insert the following:

       TITLE __--ADDITIONAL BORDER AND PORT SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS

                    Department of Homeland Security


            OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT

       For an additional amount for the ``Office of the Secretary 
     and Executive Management'' to provide funds for the Office of 
     Policy, $2,000,000: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     solely for a contract with an independent non-Federal entity 
     to conduct a needs assessment for comprehensive border 
     security: Provided further, That the entire amount is 
     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (l09th Congress), the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.


                OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

       For an additional amount for the ``Office of the Chief 
     Information Officer'' to replace and upgrade law enforcement 
     communications, $50,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the entire amount 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.


   UNITED STATES VISITOR AND IMMIGRATION STATUS INDICATOR TECHNOLOGY

       For an additional amount for ``United States Visitor and 
     Immigration Status Indicator Technology'' to accelerate 
     biometric database integration and conversion for 10-print 
     enrollment, $60,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That none of the additional appropriations made 
     available under this heading may be obligated until the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives receive and approve a plan for the 
     expenditure of such funds: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount is designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (l09th 
     Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2006.

                     Customs and Border Protection


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $446,050,000, of which $80,000,000 is for border patrol 
     vehicle replacement, $100,000,000 is for sensor and 
     surveillance technology, $211,000,000 is for inspection 
     equipment, $32,000,000 is for supply chain security 
     specialists, and $23,000,000 is for additional container 
     security initiative personnel: Provided, That none of the 
     additional appropriations made available under this heading 
     may be obligated until the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives receive and 
     approve a plan for the expenditure of such funds: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount 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.


 AIR AND MARINE INTERDICTION, OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND PROCUREMENT

       For an additional amount for ``Air and Marine Interdiction, 
     Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement'' to replace air 
     assets and upgrade air operations facilities, $790,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended, of which $40,000,000 is 
     for helicopter replacement and $750,000,000 is for 
     recapitalization of air assets: Provided, That none of the 
     additional appropriations made available under this heading 
     may be obligated until the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives receive and 
     approve a plan for the complete recapitalization of Customs 
     and Border Protection air assets and facilities: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount 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.


                              CONSTRUCTION

       For an additional amount for ``Construction'', 
     $120,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That none of the additional appropriations made available 
     under this heading may be obligated until the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     receive and approve a plan for the expenditure of these 
     funds: Provided further, That the entire amount 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.

                  Immigration and Customs Enforcement


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'' to 
     replace vehicles,

[[Page H3749]]

     $80,000,000: Provided, That the entire amount 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.

                       United States Coast Guard


                           OPERATING EXPENSES

       For an additional amount for ``Operating Expenses'', 
     $23,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the entire amount 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.


               ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS

       For an additional amount for ``Acquisition, Construction, 
     and Improvements'' for acquisition, construction, renovation, 
     and improvement of vessels, aircraft, and equipment, 
     $600,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the entire amount 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.

                    Office for Domestic Preparedness


                        STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

       For an additional amount for ``State and Local Programs'', 
     $227,000,000: Provided, That the entire amount shall be for 
     port security grants pursuant to the purposes of 46 United 
     States Code 70107 (a) through (h), which shall be awarded 
     based on risk and threat notwithstanding subsection (a), for 
     eligible costs as defined in subsections (b) (2)-(4): 
     Provided further, That the entire amount 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.

                         Science and Technology


           RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION, AND OPERATIONS

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, 
     Acquisition, and Operations'' for the Domestic Nuclear 
     Detection Office, $132,000,000, to remain available until 
     expensed for the purchase and deployment of ration portal 
     monitors for United States seaports: Provided, That the 
     entire amount 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.

                Federal Law Enforcement Training Center


     ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, AND RELATED EXPENSES

       For an additional amount for ``Acquisition, Construction, 
     Improvements, and Related Expenses,'' for construction of the 
     language training facility referenced in the Mater Plan and 
     information technology infrastructure improvements, 
     $18,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the entire amount 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.''
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution * * * [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule * * * When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.'
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________