[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.
____________________