[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4658-4714]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR 
                  ON TERROR, AND TSUNAMI RELIEF, 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Pursuant to House Resolution 151 
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 1268.

[[Page 4659]]



                              {time}  1217


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1268) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Thornberry in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is with great pride that I bring before the House 
H.R. 1268, a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for 
fiscal year 2005. This is my first appropriations measure as the new 
Appropriations Committee chairman. I am especially proud of the 
extraordinary effort put forth by the committee's members and staff to 
report a bill that will better permit our troops to prosecute the war 
on terrorism and will do so with a price tag less than that requested 
by the President.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the House pay special attention to 
three of my colleagues who have come back from the private sector to 
help serve this committee. Frank Cushing is my staff director, and 
David LesStrang and Jeff Shockey are my deputy staff directors for the 
Committee. I really appreciate their willingness to make great 
sacrifice to come back.
  Six of the committee's 10 subcommittees participated in the 
development of this measure which provides $81.27 billion in urgent and 
emergency spending. The lion's share of that amount, some $76.8 
billion, is for defense-related expenditures. This funding represents 
an increase for defense needs of $1.8 billion above the President's 
request, which I hasten to note is entirely for enhanced support for 
deployed, soon-to-be deployed, or returning troops in order to assist 
in force protection and to increase the survivability of the troops in 
the field.
  To provide these important resources for our troops, we reduced 
other, nonessential DOD requests by some $600 million as well as nearly 
$1 billion in foreign assistance-related programs that were either not 
well justified or did not meet the strict definition we applied for 
emergency spending. In addition, another $1 billion of extremely 
important and time-sensitive non-emergency foreign assistance approved 
by the committee was completely offset by a rescission of funds 
originally appropriated in fiscal year 2003.
  With my colleagues' indulgence, I would like to take a few moments to 
give the House a flavor of the urgent procurement needs that the 
committee has included in the measure for our troops. Those include up-
armored Humvees and other new Humvees, medium and heavy trucks, night 
vision devices, handheld stand-off mine detection systems, jammers, 
improved high-frequency radios, Strykers to replace combat losses, add-
on armor kits, small-arms modifications and ammunition, body armor for 
both the Army and Marine Corps, and medical supplies.
  In addition to our providing these necessary resources for our 
troops, the committee was compelled to fully fund the Army's modularity 
program at this time because of the urgency to address the significant 
challenges the Army now faces in mitigating stress on the current 
active duty combat force. To meet this problem, the Army will not only 
create 10 additional combat brigades; all of the current combat 
brigades will be redesigned to enhance their ability to deploy more 
rapidly and operate more independently on the battlefield. I might add 
that our determination to procure additional equipment beyond the 
President's request will allow forthcoming troop rotations to receive 
much of their equipment prior to deployment, clearly an obvious benefit 
to the success of our troops.
  Beyond the requirements of our defense community, the bill provides 
$656 million to meet the human needs resulting from last December's 
horrific tsunami. In addition, the bill includes $592 million for the 
construction of the U.S. embassy compound in Baghdad. While that money 
for the embassy is a reduction of some $66 million, or 10 percent, from 
the President's request, construction of the embassy compound has been 
deemed urgent because of the imminent security threats to some 4,000 
U.S. personnel in Iraq. Thus far, 45 personnel with the U.S. mission in 
Iraq have been killed, including two American citizens who were killed 
by a rocket attack on our diplomatic compound the day of the Iraqi 
elections. Providing the funds now will greatly reduce the amount of 
time our personnel remain in harm's way.
  Despite the additional needs we have recommended on behalf of our 
troops, the committee's bill is $614 million less than that requested 
by the President. This reduction comes largely as a result of 
reductions in proposed foreign assistance spending.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this measure is responsible both in how we 
have responded to the needs to provide for adequate resources in making 
this fight against terrorism and also in how we have carefully scrubbed 
each and every program so that we can say with utmost assurance that 
this is a fiscally sound piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, as I close my remarks, I wish to express my deep 
appreciation for my ranking member from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), as well 
as to each and every member of the committee. I have already expressed 
my feelings about our staff on both sides of the aisle. All of them 
have worked so diligently to prepare effectively this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned at the outset, I am very proud of this 
measure I bring to you, my first measure as chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations. I certainly urge the Members to adopt this bill.

[[Page 4660]]

TH15MR05.001



[[Page 4661]]

TH15MR05.002



[[Page 4662]]

TH15MR05.003



[[Page 4663]]

TH15MR05.004



[[Page 4664]]

TH15MR05.005



[[Page 4665]]

TH15MR05.006



[[Page 4666]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the ranking member of the 
defense appropriations subcommittee.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, this is truly a bipartisan bill, the 
defense part of it in particular. Chairman Young and I have worked very 
closely together. He visited some places; I visited three bases. We 
found shortages. We found problems. We tried to rectify those problems. 
We tried to put in what the people in the field asked us and what 
needed to be done.
  We realized that insurance payments needed to be changed. We realized 
that the death benefits needed to be changed. We also realized there is 
a jurisdictional problem, but we felt like it could not wait. I have 
had 12 people killed in my district, and there is no question in my 
mind for the need for that to be changed.
  But the thing that is the most important in my estimation is 
accountability. Chairman Young and I sat in his office not long ago and 
talked about the bill, and he got his copy of the Constitution out and 
it talked about accountability. It talked about congressional 
accountability. And I thought how unaccountable the Defense Department 
seems to be at this stage. They do not seem to realize we are not here 
to hurt them, we are here to help them. We believe that if you do not 
have the confidence of the people, if you do not have confidence in the 
way the money is being spent, you are going to lose confidence in the 
overall project, the overall philosophy, the overall direction we are 
trying to go.
  We put language in the bill last year, and we said, you have got to 
give us a report. That report is 3 or 4 months late. No reason for that 
to happen. They had plenty of notice. And it should have been on our 
desk before this bill was up so that if there was something that needed 
to be rectified, we could rectify it. There are two reports. I do not 
know if the second one is late yet or not.
  Of course that takes us to the next step and that is the thing with 
the intelligence which we have read in the newspaper and which I can 
neither confirm nor not confirm has happened. But I worry that things 
are getting out of control that we do not know about. We sit and try to 
help them every way we can. Many of the things we put in this bill they 
did not ask for because they did not know about it. We found out about 
it, and we made sure that was part of the presentation, part of this 
bill.
  I have to say that when I meet with the Secretary of Defense, when we 
listen to his presentation, we always say to him, chairman of the full 
committee, Chairman Lewis, chairman of the defense subcommittee the 
last time, Chairman Young, we always say, Look, we're here to help you. 
Give us these reports. Tell us how you're spending this money. When I 
saw there was a $9 billion fund that was not accounted for according to 
the auditors, and, of course, this is not appropriated money, this is 
money provided for the oil, but still we should know where it goes 
because it can replace some of the money that we are appropriating for 
these resources.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate my colleague yielding. I know 
he will continue with his statement. I want the body to know that I 
very much share his concern. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
and I have discussed this issue. He expresses his concern very clearly; 
as did the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). It has been my privilege 
to work with the gentleman for years, and I know of his commitment to 
the Department and our work. Indeed the Administration does owe us the 
courtesy of adequate and appropriate response time.
  Mr. MURTHA. I would just conclude by saying this is our 
responsibility under the Constitution, and I am hopeful that the 
Defense Department gets the message. I support the bill and will do 
everything I can to get it passed. Of course, any problems we have in 
conference I am sure we will work them out.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I want to congratulate the gentleman on this, his first bill to 
be brought to the floor of the House of Representatives. I think it is 
indicative of the good work that he and his staff are doing.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about the funding of programs that are 
under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee that I chair, that is, the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs. It totals $2.7 billion. However, approximately $1 billion of 
that is offset with a cut to previously appropriated funds. The 
remaining $1.75 billion is provided as emergency spending and includes 
$656 million for tsunami recovery. The committee's overall 
recommendation for all the programs under the jurisdiction of the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs is $1.2 billion less than the President requested. However, 
with the $1 billion offset, less than half of the President's request 
will impact the Federal deficit.
  Let me say once again that I do strongly support the objectives that 
the President seeks to achieve with this request as it relates to 
Afghanistan, the Middle East, the Ukraine and the tsunami-devastated 
areas of Asia. But I did tell Chairman Lewis that I would scrutinize 
this request, and the result of that scrutiny is what is before the 
Members today. We have assigned the highest priority to programs that 
can be implemented and executed during 2005 and that are not likely to 
be funded by other donors. The resulting recommendation is a balanced 
approach to supporting the President's request and provides much-needed 
emergency appropriations to further the fight against terror and 
provide disaster assistance.
  Let me explain further the recommendation for the programs under the 
foreign operations jurisdiction. We broke the President's request down 
into three different categories. The first includes programs that are 
true emergencies, such as replenishment of funds that were reprogrammed 
previously for tsunami disaster assistance and poppy eradication in 
Afghanistan, funds for the humanitarian crisis in Darfur and in Asia, 
and funds to train Afghan police, funds that are necessary to improve 
conditions that would enable us to bring our troops home as soon as 
possible. Total emergency spending under this first category is $1.75 
billion, as I already indicated.
  The second category of funds includes those programs requested by the 
President that we have determined to not be an emergency, but are 
important to U.S. leadership abroad. Additionally, this category 
includes reconstruction resources to stabilize and improve conditions 
in Afghanistan and the Middle East which support our efforts to bring 
our troops home, funds to support the democratic movement and 
government in Ukraine, and funds for programs in the West Bank and 
Gaza. We have provided $995 million in this second category of 
nonemergency spending and have offset these funds with the rescission 
of prior foreign assistance appropriations, specifically funds that 
were appropriated for Turkey in the fiscal year 2003 supplemental bill.
  I think my colleagues recognize that we are faced with unique 
opportunities in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Our leadership can 
have positive influence in both the West Bank and Gaza, in Ukraine, in 
Indonesia and Sri Lanka and, of course, in Afghanistan. I saw a press 
report recently from Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim 
country, that showed that the backing for Osama bin Laden had dropped 
from 58 percent in 2003 to 23 percent today.

                              {time}  1230

  I believe part of that is due to the efficiency and the generosity of 
U.S. relief efforts after the December tsunami. As chairman of the 
Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related

[[Page 4667]]

Programs Subcommittee, I am repeatedly reminded of how much we as a 
nation do each year to provide disaster assistance and relief. It is 
encouraging to know that at least one important Muslim country has 
started to take notice.
  Finally, the last category includes programs requested by the 
administration that we determined were less urgent and could be 
considered in the 2006 budget process. This category totals $1.2 
billion in funding and includes fiscal year 2006 operating costs of our 
programs overseas and large construction projects that can either wait 
for consideration or would have a possible revenue stream, making them 
ideal projects for World Bank and Asian Development Bank funding. These 
programs total $616 million for Afghanistan, $200 million for the new 
Global War on Terror Partners Fund, the new $200 million Solidarity 
Fund, and $45 million in debt relief for countries affected by the 
December tsunami.
  Let me say that the funds we are providing in the foreign assistance 
chapter must be considered an investment in security both in the region 
and on American soil. It is also a responsibility to our future. We 
must not be faced 20 years in the future with the knowledge that we 
looked at the opportunities of a Taliban-free Afghan government, a 
democracy-oriented government in the Ukraine, a Middle East craving 
freedom and representative government, only to turn away and leave them 
to their own meager means with no U.S. influence.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge that this legislation be adopted. I believe that 
this is a good bill and a well written one.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the 
Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have worked with the 
gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) to develop recommendations on 
the international assistance portion of the bill. As the gentleman from 
Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) said, the bill does cut $1.2 billion in 
nonemergency initiatives from the administration's international 
assistance request as well as rescinds an additional $1 billion in 
previously appropriated funds that are no longer needed, and I 
certainly concur with most of the chairman's recommended cuts. However, 
I do want to express my concern that we will be expected to fund some 
of these items on the fiscal year 2006 bill, and as I anticipate a 
302(b) allocation for the Foreign Operations bill that may cut the 2006 
request, these needs will be tough to accommodate.
  We are now into year three of the reconstruction programs in 
Afghanistan; yet the administration continues to rely on off-budget 
emergency supple-
mentals to fund ongoing reconstruction. There are clearly many 
nonemergency items in the $2 billion requested for Afghanistan in this 
bill. The establishment of a stable democracy in Afghanistan with their 
own security forces is the key to bringing our troops home. The 
administration, I am concerned, has set back that effort by overuse of 
the emergency supplemental mechanism instead of providing appropriate 
assistance within the normal appropriations process, and I do hope in 
working closely with the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe), we 
will be able to provide sufficient funds that are so important for the 
future of Afghanistan.
  I am very pleased that the committee was able to protect funds for 
continued urgent needs in Afghanistan, especially for initiatives that 
support women and girls. The supplemental contains approximately $63 
million in support of education, health, economic, democracy programs 
that target women and girls. And I am pleased with the generous amounts 
in the bill for the tsunami relief and reconstruction, as well as other 
items that advance our foreign policy interests.
  I will be supporting the Jackson amendment to add $100 million for 
unmet needs in Africa because in my judgment the ongoing complex crisis 
in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Northern Uganda, 
Ethiopia, and Somalia may be out of the media spotlight, but the human 
suffering continues and additional funds are urgently needed to provide 
food and medical assistance to refugees, to facilitate refugee returns, 
and to provide drought-related aid. The Congress does have a 
responsibility to real disasters and to ensure that the United States 
is generous in our response to crises throughout the world. We have 
been extraordinarily generous with our tsunami relief, and I think we 
need to follow suit to meet the real needs in Africa.
  I would also note that the bill contains $200 million for the West 
Bank/Gaza program with appropriate safeguards for monitoring and 
auditing. Fifty million of the $200 million will improve the flow of 
goods and people with Israel and will thus improve the security of 
Israel and the region.
  Finally, I will be also supporting the Maloney amendment to transfer 
$3 million from ESF accounts to UNFPA to assist tsunami victims. The 
UNFPA, with its proven track record and longstanding presence in the 
tsunami-affected areas, is uniquely placed to immediately respond to 
the needs of women and children, populations among the most vulnerable 
after disasters such as the tsunami.
  In closing, I just want to say for me I want to applaud the important 
efforts of the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis); the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member; the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha); and the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman 
Kolbe). We wrote the bill together. I think it is a good bill, it is an 
important bill, and provides very vital services to important places 
around the world where there are ongoing emergencies.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Lewis) for having brought this first of many 
important appropriation bills to the floor. He explained the Defense 
part of this bill very well, as well as he should because he has served 
superbly as chairman of the Defense Subcommittee for many years. Our 
portion of the bill is just a little over $73 billion, and it is to 
provide for the warfighters, to provide the equipment that they need 
and the protection that they need as they go about carrying out their 
mission.
  I want to take just a few seconds and comment on the issue that the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) raised because we have worked 
together on this section of the bill from the very beginning, along 
with the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) of the Committee on Armed Services, the 
gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). This is truly a work of bipartisanship. But on 
the subject of accountability, there is no reason that I can think of 
other than the importance of the Legislative Branch of government that 
Article I of the Constitution establishes the Legislative Branch of 
government. We have three branches, separate but equal, but right after 
the Preamble the first article is the Legislative Branch.
  So I do not know whether that means we are a little more equal, but I 
do know that we control the money. And as I have referred to so many 
times, and I will continue when it is necessary, it says ``No money 
shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations 
made by Law.'' That means nobody can spend money, Federal money, unless 
we appropriate it. But part of that section that does not get referred 
to very often says in the same sentence, ``and a regular Statement and 
Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be 
published from time to time.''
  So we think that is just as important, and we, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), myself, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) have just recently met 
with representatives of the Defense Department. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and I just recently

[[Page 4668]]

sent a letter to the Secretary of Defense outlining our concerns. I 
think we have made that point very well.
  What we do in this supplemental is to provide, as the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Lewis) has mentioned, body armor, the uparmored 
Humvees, ammunition, and medical care. We provide the soldiers that are 
fighting in the war with what they need to accomplish their mission and 
what they need to protect themselves while they are accomplishing their 
mission. And the specific details of the bill have been made available 
to Members if they want to see all of the items that are funded in this 
bill.
  I would like to make a brief closing statement that if we are going 
to get our troops out of Iraq, and we are, and we want them out as soon 
as we possibly can, and as difficult as it is to state a specific date, 
but the way we are going to get our troops out, our exit strategy is to 
provide training to the Iraqis so they can protect themselves from 
these terrible, violent insurgent terrorists. Part of the money in this 
bill goes to do just that, to train the Iraqis to protect themselves so 
that they can have a self-government with some semblance of security. 
So part of the money will allow the Iraqis to get the training that 
they need. That is our exit strategy. Let them take over from the 
American troops, and our American troops will come home. And in the 
meantime, say a prayer for them, the ones that are over there still. 
They are still in harm's way. They are doing a really great job. Their 
attitude is beautiful. As we visit soldiers who have come back from the 
war in the hospitals, in the VA hospitals, their attitudes are just 
unbelievable. They believe in what they are doing. So many of them are 
anxious to get well and get back to the battle if they can. But, 
anyway, remember, support our troops. Find a job for them when they get 
out. Take them to lunch. Buy them dinner. Thank them for the good work 
that they do.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, as someone who for the past 2 years has 
represented over 40,000 soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, who have fought 
for our country in Iraq, I am deeply appreciative of the expeditious 
manner in which the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Young), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) have 
worked together to pass this important piece of legislation.
  This bill sends a very clear message to our troops in harm's way that 
while Americans may have differences of opinion about the Iraqi War, 
the fact is that we are all unified when it comes to seeing that our 
troops in harm's way have all of the support that they need and deserve 
to do their mission and to come home safely to their families.
  In the area of responsibility for the subcommittee on which I serve 
under the Committee on Appropriations, the Military Quality of Life and 
Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I wholeheartedly 
support the language and funding in this bill. Under our subcommittee 
is $3.1 billion in funding, $175 million of which goes to the 
Department of Defense health care system to deal with the direct 
increased costs for health care for our wounded troops coming home; 
$1.5 billion to pay for housing allowance for our Guard and Reserve 
soldiers and their families; and $1.3 billion in military construction 
needed in Iraq and Afghanistan and throughout our country to support 
our war against terrorism.
  I enthusiastically and wholeheartedly support this bill. I do want, 
Mr. Chairman, to express one concern. The fact is that as of the end of 
December of last year, there have been 48,000 American troops coming 
home who have needed health care from the Veterans Administration 
health care system. While we put $175 million in the DOD part of this 
budget to take care of extra DOD health care costs, there is not a dime 
in this supplemental appropriation bill to help the Veterans 
Administration deal with the cost of dealing with 48,000 and still 
counting troops who have needed VA health care.
  Using the VA Secretary's own testimony before our subcommittee last 
week, the average cost mathematically is $6,200 for treatment for each 
veteran within the VA health care system. Multiply that number by the 
48,000 troops coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are talking 
about an additional $302 million of cost to the VA health care system 
to help provide needed care for these deserving patriots. I do not 
think that money ought to come out of the hide of VA health care 
services to other veterans, and I do not think we should cut corners in 
terms of quality of care for Iraqi and Afghanistan War veterans once 
they have left the Department of Defense system and gone into the VA 
system.
  In committee we heard some say the VA is flush with money. I have 
looked into that statement, and the fact is that the VA is presently 
laying off hundreds of employees in the VA medical system and taking 
money out of their equipment accounts to fund their personnel accounts. 
During time of war and in the spirit of this bill supporting our troops 
not only when they are in the combat zone but when they return home, I 
think in that spirit we ought to, as this bill goes to conference 
committee, look specifically at what additional needs the VA health 
care system needs, provide the quality medical care that these troops 
need. If the war is worth fighting, certainly it is worth paying for 
and it is worth supporting those troops even after they have left the 
military and continue to pay the mental and physical price for decades 
for having stood up for our country.

                              {time}  1245

  So I would like to urge the committee chairman, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) to work together with us on a bipartisan basis to 
see that we can add the needed money for the VA health care system, to 
see that we do not shortchange these great Americans who have risked 
their lives for our country.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the bill we bring to the floor today includes 
$2 billion for funding requirements under the jurisdiction of the 
Subcommittee on Science, State Justice and Commerce including State 
Department and FBI needs related to program expenses in Iraq.
  There are two major issues that I want to summarize, because there is 
not a lot of time.
  The embassy in Iraq. The embassy in Iraq, 45 people have died in 
attacks on the embassy in Iraq. We want security in this building; we 
want security in many other buildings around the city. This embassy 
will cost less in many respects than many of the other buildings. So 
there is going to be a lot to talk about. But to send our men and women 
in harm's way to live in a building that is unsafe or to delay the 
construction would be, quite frankly, wrong.
  On the whole issue of peacekeeping, there may very well be an 
amendment to strike the peacekeeping section. Members should know that 
in the North-South war, 2.1 million people in Sudan, many Christians, 
some Muslims and Animists, died in the North-South issue.
  Darfur is the scene of genocide today as we now speak, and every 
Member of this House voted to say there was genocide in Sudan, and 
every Member of the Senate voted the same way. To take away the 
peacekeeping money after the Bush administration has done such a good 
job of bringing North-South peace, to take that away to allow the 
raping and the pillaging and everything that is going on in Sudan would 
be morally unacceptable.
  Now, President Bush, working with Secretary Powell and Senator 
Danforth, has negotiated, after 20 years, and keep in mind, Osama bin 
Laden lived in Sudan from 1991 to 1996, have negotiated for 20 years, 
and now to

[[Page 4669]]

strike the peacekeeping money that will send troops in that regard, and 
we do not want to send American troops there, troops that will stop the 
pillaging and put insulation into the peace agreement that has been 
signed, and that will put pressure, pressure, on ending the genocide 
that is taking place in Darfur.
  I would beg this Congress after the good work of this administration 
and Members on both sides, and almost everybody signed Dear Colleague 
letters urging the administration to do more on Sudan, they are now 
doing it. Keep in mind there was slavery in Sudan up until 2 years ago. 
Without peacekeepers in Sudan, the North-South agreement will break 
down, 2.1 million Christians will have died in vain, and many Muslims 
and many Animists, and Darfur will not come to an end.
  So I beg this institution, when this amendment comes up to strike 
peacekeeping for this area, do not support it, because if you support 
it and it carries, the genocide, I can guarantee you, will continue in 
Darfur and the North-South peace agreement will break down and the war 
will begin. And keep in mind, Hamas has training camps in Khartoum and 
so does Hezbollah.
  The bill we bring to the Floor today includes just over $2 billion 
for funding requirements under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on 
Science, State, Justice and Commerce, including State Department and 
FBI needs related to program expenses in Iraq.
  For the State Department, we have included $1.92 billion, a reduction 
of $285 million from the President's request.
  The bill includes the necessary funds to maintain our diplomatic 
presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to let our personnel carry out 
this duties in the safest and most secure manner possible.
  If we are going to conduct diplomacy anywhere, it had better be done, 
and done right, in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are front lines of our 
foreign policy, and we neglect them at our peril. This bill pays the 
costs necessary for operations, logistics, and security in those 
dangerous, but critically important parts of the world.
  This bill also includes $592 million to allow State to move out 
quickly to build a secure compound in Baghdad. The current facilities 
are not secure. We need to move people out of harm's way as soon as 
possible.
  State has secured a 100 acre site, and is ready to begin construction 
immediately upon receiving the funds in this bill. Since the bombings 
in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam, State has delivered many of these secure 
compounds on time and on budget. With this funding they will complete a 
secure living and working compound within 24 months of enactment.
  The bill also provides $580 million, $200 million below the 
President's request, to pay for the U.S. share of ongoing peacekeeping 
missions and a new mission for Sudan, where the U.S. has been a driving 
force for a peace agreement.
  We have also included requested funding for the FBI counterterrorism 
efforts, and for DEA counternarcotics efforts in Afghanistan.
  Finally, the bill includes requested costs of $14.5 million to jump-
start the improvement of United States tsunami warning capabilities.
  The Committee has scrubbed the President's request and reduced where 
we thought it made sense to do so. The result before you provides 
funding for important security measures for our diplomatic personnel, 
and provides for our ongoing commitments in Iraq and elsewhere.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I cannot help before I begin 
to join with my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), to 
say that we absolutely cannot strike those vital funds for 
peacekeeping.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I rise today, as well as to support those 
peacekeeping dollars, to say that many of the efforts in this 
legislation, the work that has been done by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), I 
can appreciate in this emergency supplemental, even though as I have 
spoken to my good friend and leader, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Murtha), on this issue, it is important that we have an announced 
success strategy for leaving Iraq. Remember what I said, a success 
strategy, and I have not yet heard that from the administration.
  But I rise today to comment that the legislation fails to contain 
important provisions that would provide what is truly needed by our 
government and that would ensure that the $81.3 billion in this bill is 
really spent wisely. I think we could have done better.
  I am very disturbed as the ranking member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims that 
we have now forced into this bill as a self-operating part of the rule 
that H.R. 418 would be included in the engrossment of the underlying 
bill, H.R. 1268.
  I opposed the Republican leadership's position to attach the REAL ID 
Act to this emergency supplemental. This is anti-immigrant legislation 
that will not make us safer. Rather, it scapegoats asylum seekers and 
other immigrants.
  Last year, Congress passed new driver's license standards in the 9/11 
intelligence reform bill with bipartisan support, and I do support 
that. It was a good bill, and the intelligence reform bill was 
supported in a bipartisan manner. But we do not need to undo the 
careful compromise and thought processes by imposing anti-immigrant 
policies onto States' driver's licenses and identification processes.
  Where is the money? This is an unfunded mandate. What is a State 
going to do if they are not able to implement these new procedures 
because they do not have the money?
  The bill is being attached here in an effort to force the Senate to 
pass these ill-conceived policies. We have had no hearings on this REAL 
ID legislation, and I oppose the inclusion of this bill if the 
underlying legislation is passed and engrossed as set forth in H. Res. 
151.
  H.R. 418 includes numerous provisions limiting the rights of 
refugees, imposing onerous new driver's license requirements on the 
States, making it easier to deport legal immigrants, legal immigrants, 
waiving all Federal laws concerning the construction of fences and 
barriers where we have been told by Homeland Security experts they will 
not make us safer anywhere in the United States, and denying immigrants 
long-standing habeas corpus rights.
  I believe those who are criminals need to be incarcerated, but there 
are immigrants who are standing in line trying to achieve citizenship. 
If reenacted into this legislation, it will yet again threaten to close 
America's doors to religious minorities escaping religious persecution 
and women fleeing sex trafficking, rape and forced abortions.
  In the wake of the 9/11 tragedy, and even after the PATRIOT Act, this 
legislation would further target immigrants for crimes they have not 
committed and sins for which they are not responsible. At some point we 
have to treat terrorism as a problem that requires an ``intelligence'' 
response, as opposed to an excuse to scapegoat immigrants.
  An emergency supplemental that purports to aid tsunami victims, our 
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is no place for the provisions of the 
REAL ID Act. I support spending the necessary dollars to keep our 
troops in Iraq safe, to provide relief to victims of the tsunami in 
Southeast Asia and Africa, and to provide security in Afghanistan; but 
this is a poison pill.
  I look forward to supporting the Jackson amendment. I will offer an 
amendment to stop the devastating lack of funding on the Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement section of DHS. But we need to take this REAL 
ID out of it so we can have a good bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of some of the efforts funded in this 
emergency supplemental, H.R. 1268, although the legislation fails to 
contain important provisions that would both provide what is truly 
needed by our government and that would ensure that the $81.3 billion 
proposed in this bill is spent wisely. Of particular concern to me as 
Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, 
Border Security, and Claims, is the forced inclusion of H.R. 418 in the 
engrossment of the underlying bill, H.R. 1268.
  I oppose the Republican leadership's decision to attach the REAL ID 
Act to this Emergency Supplemental. This anti-immigrant legislation 
will not make us safer--rather, it scapegoats asylum-seekers and other 
immigrants.

[[Page 4670]]

  Last year, Congress passed new driver's license standards in the 9/11 
Intelligence Reform bill with bipartisan support. We do not need to 
undo that careful compromise by imposing anti-immigrant policies onto 
States' driver's license and identification processes.
  This bill is being attached here in an effort to force the Senate to 
pass these ill-conceived policies. We have had no hearings on this 
bill, and I oppose the inclusion of this bill if the underlying 
legislation is passed and engrossed as set forth in the Rule, H. Res. 
151.
  H.R. 418 includes numerous provisions limiting the rights of 
refugees, imposing onerous new driver's license requirements on the 
states, making it easier to deport legal immigrants, waiving all 
federal laws concerning the construction of fences and barriers 
anywhere within the United States, and denying immigrants long standing 
habeas corpus rights.
  If re-enacted into this legislation it will yet again threaten to 
close America's doors to religious minorities escaping religious 
persecution; and women fleeing sex trafficking, rape, and forced 
abortions.
  In the wake of the 9/11 tragedy, and even after the PATRIOT Act, this 
legislation would further target immigrants for crimes they have not 
committed and sins for which they are not responsible. At some point, 
we have to treat terrorism as a problem that requires an 
``intelligence'' response, as opposed to an excuse to scapegoat 
immigrants. An emergency supplemental that purports to aid tsumani 
victims, our troops in Iraq, and Afghanistan is no place for the 
provisions of REAL ID. Inclusion in this fashion amounts to a forced 
acceptance of its provisions much like a contract of adhesion.
  Mr. Chairman, I support spending the necessary dollars to keep our 
troops in Iraq safe, to provide relief to victims of the tsunamis in 
southeast Asia and Africa, and to provide security for Afghanistan. 
However, the legislation before us today stands to use the public's 
fear of terrorism to radically change asylum law for ALL asylees, not 
just those with some connection to terrorism or relating to the issues 
contained in the underlying legislation. For these reasons, I oppose 
this legislation in its present form. I will, however, support the 
Jackson Amendment on Africa and I as well, will offer an amendment to 
stop the devastating lack of funding of the Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement section of DHS, a real crucial part of the Nation's 
Homeland Security.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 4 minutes 
to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and HUD.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
supplemental appropriations bill, and I thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis) for yielding me time. I want to commend the 
gentleman for putting together what I believe is an excellent bill and 
for his leadership in reviewing each single element of the 
administration's request.
  The Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and HUD that I chair 
has mostly technical items in this supplemental that are not 
controversial, so I would like to focus my comments on the overall 
bill.
  In the past few months, we have seen an extraordinary progress in 
Iraq and in the Middle East at large. From the historic Iraqi 
elections, the new Palestinian leadership, voting in Saudi Arabia, and 
massive demonstrations in Lebanon against their Syrian occupiers, I 
believe that these events show major positive changes that can come to 
this part of the world.
  We must maintain that momentum, and that is what this bill does. By 
passing this legislation, we will keep our soldiers in Iraq fully 
equipped as they continue their daunting task in maintaining security 
and training Iraqis to take over those functions.
  The funding included in this bill to secure a new United States 
embassy will help get us out of the palaces that we currently occupy. 
We will provide much-needed assistance to Afghanistan in its efforts to 
become more secure, restrict the drug trade, and develop its economy. 
This is a good bill, and it deserves our support.
  I would like to comment specifically on one part of the supplemental 
that I know many of us are concerned about, and that is the $200 
million to aid the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinians have an 
opportunity to get their house in order, and we should help them. Prime 
Minister Abbas and Finance Minister Fayyad are the right people for 
their jobs, but we all know that the Palestinian Authority still needs 
a great deal of reform, and we need to be careful about how we provide 
money to help the Palestinians.
  That is why under the direction and leadership of the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), we included specific conditions for how this money 
can be used. We maintain the prohibition on direct assistance to the 
Palestinian Authority. We require the administration to provide a 
comprehensive report on the steps taken by the Palestinian Authority on 
good governance, economic reforms, and dismantling the terrorist 
organizations. And we require an audit of the Palestinian Authority's 
financial structures.
  Providing this money sends an important signal that the U.S. is 
prepared to help the Palestinians. Including the appropriate conditions 
sends an equally important signal that the Palestinian Authority has 
expectations that must be met. The committee should be commended for 
handling this issue in a balanced and effective way; and I urge 
everyone, obviously, to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, again I say, this is a good bill, It is a necessary 
bill, and I urge again all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, and I 
thank our new chairman and congratulate him on his new position.
  Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote for this supplemental appropriations 
bill, because I believe it is imperative to support our men and women 
in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan and to continue our Nation's 
important work there. Our Nation must finish what it has begun. We 
cannot disregard the bravery of millions of Iraqi citizens who turned 
out to vote in January. Failure there, in my opinion, is not and should 
not be an option.
  This legislation also is a recognition of the bravery and courage of 
our service men and women, more than 1,500 of whom have given the 
ultimate measure of sacrifice for freedom.
  As Tom Friedman pointed out in the New York Times in February: 
``There is no single action we could undertake anywhere in the world to 
reduce the threat of terrorism that would have a bigger impact today 
than a decent outcome in Iraq.'' I share that view.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it is more than mere coincidence that over 
the last several months the winds of democratic reform have begun to 
blow, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but also in Lebanon, Egypt, 
Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian Authority. But we must harbor no 
illusions about the prospects for democratic reform in lands that have 
never known it. However, I believe that it is in our Nation's interests 
to encourage and promote it.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to note that this legislation includes 
funding for food and humanitarian assistance in Sudan, as well as 
tsunami relief.

                              {time}  1300

  However, despite these important funding requests, I would be remiss 
if I did not point out that this bill is far from perfect. In many 
respects it is troubling.
  This Congress has a constitutional obligation, a duty, on behalf of 
the voters who elected us to serve here to hold the administration 
accountable for such expenditures. We have asked for a report. We have 
not gotten that report yet.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) mentioned that in our 
markup. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) mentioned that in our 
markup.
  The American public wants to support this effort but wants to do so 
in an effective, honest and efficient manner. It is our responsibility 
to ensure that.
  It is clear that the administration has included many measures in 
addition that are not emergencies. We understand that practice. It has 
happened before. But I believe with all due respect that we have not 
met our oversight requirements.
  This bill is approximately $82 billion. In talking to staff, and 
maybe I stand to be corrected, but I believe that there

[[Page 4671]]

are only two appropriations bills, Defense and Labor and Health that 
are larger than this $82 billion bill. Now there may be another one. I 
think VA-HUD used to be but we do not have VA-HUD. What does that mean? 
That means we are passing the third largest appropriations bill that we 
will pass in the Congress.
  What does that mean? We are passing the third largest appropriations 
bill through this House without a single hearing, not one. There was no 
hearing in subcommittee, any of the subcommittees. There was no hearing 
in the full committee. We had 2\1/2\ hours of consideration in the full 
committee.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, we literally hold hundreds, perhaps 
thousands of hours of hearings on the individual bills. As a result, 
individual Members have the opportunity to ask questions, to make sure 
themselves that the money that is asked for is being spent 
appropriately.
  As I said, I will support this bill. I do not hold our new chairman 
responsible for this. This is a supplemental. It came down relatively 
late. Our men and women are at risk. We need to get this money moving. 
I understand that. But I suggest to my colleagues that oversight is 
critical, and I would urge the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) 
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), that 
as we proceed with further consideration of these items that we 
exercise oversight carefully in the coming months to assure ourselves 
that this money is being spent as we intend it to be.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would take a moment to suggest to the gentleman that 
he may not be aware of it because he does not serve on those 
subcommittees, but there were at least six hearings in a variety of 
subcommittees and other meetings regarding this matter before we got 
organized.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) has 10 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis) has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I will vote in favor of this bill. We cannot let our 
troops down who are out there on the front line.
  Let me wish our new chairman the very best in his maiden voyage 
through this body on the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I want my colleagues to know that my vote is not a full 
endorsement of the bill. I am troubled that we continue to resort to 
supplementals to fund our efforts in Iraq and in Afghanistan. I think 
we can do a better job making sure our troops on the front line have 
everything they need if we put funding for these operations up front in 
the fiscal year rather than halfway through it like we are doing in a 
supplemental like this.
  I also think we should require more rigorous accounting of the war 
costs. This is important. We need better information to conduct our 
constitutional duty of oversight. Most important, my reservations have 
to do with the fact that we still do not have a coherent strategy for 
success in Iraq.
  When I go back home I get questions from my constituents about the 
war in Iraq and its costs. What is the meaning of winning in Iraq? How 
will we know when we have won and we can leave, especially when for 
every insurgent we kill there seems to be another to take his place? 
Are we trying any more to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? 
If so, when will the Iraqis be ready to take over their own security?
  Many in the administration have said we cannot put a timetable on the 
withdrawal. I agree. We cannot put a timetable on it. But while we 
should avoid a schedule, we must have a ``to do'' list. We must set 
goals for the Iraqi forces. We must be able to measure the progress of 
those Iraqi forces in attaining those goals.
  I voted for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. I 
will vote for this bill. We must win in Iraq. But I see no game plan. 
There is nothing in this bill that forces the administration to level 
with us and to level with the American people about either the real 
costs or about our strategy for success. In my opinion this is a missed 
opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, but we 
should all realize that this is far from a perfect way of running 
Operation Iraqi Freedom.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how many speakers does the gentleman have 
remaining?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. At this point I see none on the floor.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am the last remaining speaker on my side. 
How much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 7\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes and 50 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make four points. Information is the 
lifeblood of democracy. If the public does not get sufficient 
information, they cannot perform their duties in a citizen-based 
democracy. If this Congress does not get adequate information, it 
cannot make the right choices in providing checks and balances to any 
administration.
  We have gotten precious little information about the administration's 
plans for war before the war. We have gotten precious little 
information about their plans during the war, and we certainly are 
getting precious little information from them now.
  The full cost of this war is being revealed a little bit at a time on 
the installment plan, and information that the Congress has asked for 
has not been forthcoming. Example, section 9012 of the 2005 DOD 
appropriations bill requires, it does not request, it requires the 
administration as a condition of getting the previous money, it 
required the administration to give the Congress its best estimate of 
what our costs would be in the Iraqi war over the next 5 years. They 
were supposed to have that information by January 1. Last time I 
looked, we are past January 1. Still no information.
  I have already referred previously to the information we have seen in 
the papers about the activities, the under-the-table classified 
activities that DOD appears to be engaged in without informing the 
Congress about those activities. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) referred to oversight responsibilities. I think this Congress 
has done a miserable job in meeting its oversight responsibilities on 
this war. There are notable exceptions. But I do not believe that we 
have insisted on the information that we need to have in order to meet 
our responsibilities fully and well. I certainly do not think that we 
have measured up to our obligation to protect taxpayers' money.
  We tried in full committee to win support for the creation of a 
Truman-like committee to conduct ongoing investigations of profiteering 
in Iraq by contractors. We were turned down.
  We asked the Committee on Rules to make a similar amendment in order. 
We were turned down.
  This article demonstrates why we need that committee. This appeared 
in the Washington Post this morning. ``Pentagon audit questions 
Halliburton costs in Iraq. Pentagon auditors found more than $100 
million in questionable costs in one section of a massive no-bid 
Halliburton Company contract for delivering fuel to Iraq according to a 
summary of their reports released yesterday. The audit summary written 
in October 2004 but withheld from public release covers one out of 10 
sections from a $2.5 billion contract under which Halliburton was 
tapped to deliver fuel, fight oil well fires, repair oil

[[Page 4672]]

well facilities in Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion in the spring of 
2003.'' And then it goes on to tell the story.
  This article alone demonstrates why we need that kind of a committee.
  Now, Harry Truman during World War II when he was a member of the 
Senate conducted over 400 hearings. He issued almost 50 reports. That 
was a Democratic Congress investigating a Democratic administration and 
no harm was done to the country in the process. But a lot of taxpayers' 
money was protected and a lot of embarrassments were avoided. That is 
what ought to happen now, but we are being stonewalled by the majority 
and by the White House on this issue. I hope that changes.
  I would also like to simply say with respect to my comments earlier 
about the Department of Defense appearing to undertake covert 
activities which in the past have been within the purview of the CIA, I 
want to read the concluding paragraph from an editorial in the 
Minnesota Daily which reads as follows:

       Human intelligence is a risky business. When missions go 
     awry, the consequences can be far-reaching. Congressional 
     oversight assures that spymasters remain accountable for 
     their foul-ups. It might indeed be necessary to give the 
     Pentagon more control over human intelligence but that is a 
     decision Congress should make, not Rumsfeld.

  And that is my point. I do not know whether the activities that are 
being discussed in the newspapers are wise or not. I have my doubts 
about some of them. But it seems to me that in the end this is a 
judgment that needs to be made by elected officials, not an independent 
agency that feels it is too powerful to listen to anybody else in 
government.
  Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this bill, but I want to make it quite 
clear, this is the last time we are going to be supporting a bill like 
this if we do not have adequate oversight and we do not have adequate 
information on the part of the administration.
  I think it is fair to give the administration and the majority 
parties notice that this is the last time as far as I am concerned 
unless we get better information. I would urge support for the bill and 
simply note that it appears that many, many Members of this body who 
voted to go to war in Iraq are now planning to vote not to pay for the 
war which they agreed to support in the first place. I find that 
position most interesting indeed.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
yield back the balance of his time?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis) have more than one speaker remaining?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers. 
I will make closing remarks on the general debate.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Having no additional speakers under general debate, I would just like 
to close by saying that the discussion we have had thus far on this 
very important measure has been very healthy.
  The fundamental thrust of this supplemental is to support the troops 
in Iraq and in the Middle East. We do have funds that involve the 
terrible tragedy, the tsunami. The discussion will lead to amendments 
that will round out this debate. I expect it will be a very efficient, 
hopefully very speedy, debate.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, several provisions in this legislation are of 
particular interest to the Committee on Homeland Security.
  First, this spending bill will be procedurally consolidated with the 
REAL ID Act, which the House approved 261-161 on February 10, 2005. We 
cannot effectively fight terrorism if we cannot verify the identity of 
people boarding airplanes, entering nuclear power plants, visiting the 
White House, or gaining access to any of the countless places a 
terrorist could use as a stage to multiply the effect of an attack. 
Accurate identification of individuals before permitting them access to 
critical infrastructure is a prerequisite to success.
  The failure to ensure the integrity of identification documents that 
can be legally used to access critical infrastructure means that the 
entire process of checking IDs is deeply flawed. Likewise, the time and 
effort of every law abiding citizen who waits in seemingly endless 
lines, first to obtain and then to present identification, is wasted. 
Document fraud is a crime against all Americans who must tolerate the 
indignity of life in a post-9/11 world. Why must honest Americans prove 
who we are, again and again, if terrorists and criminals are free to 
make a hash of this requirement?
  Five weeks ago, the House approved the REAL ID Act, just as we did in 
the 108th Congress. In so doing, we responded to the challenge put 
before us by Mir Aimal Kansi, who slaughtered five people at CIA 
headquarters; by Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the first World Trade 
Center attack; and by several of the 9/11 hijackers who would have 
found it far more difficult, if not impossible, to carry out their 
terror attacks had we prevented them from using false identification.
  This spending bill also contains funding to secure our borders. To 
secure our nation from nuclear attack, the legislation includes $55 
million to detect nuclear material at foreign ports. The Megaports 
Initiative is designed to interdict illicit traffic in nuclear and 
other radioactive materials. By surveilling container shipping at high 
volume, high risk overseas ports, and by deploying radiation detection 
devices at our own ports of entry, America's counter-terrorism strategy 
can succeed in a comprehensive defense of the global supply chain.
  This bill also provides $38.97 million for the Terrorist Screening 
Center. This multi-agency homeland security effort is responsible for 
supporting the Department of Homeland Security's effort to screen 
passengers on both domestic and international flights. This new funding 
will help the TSC to handle new requirements, such as the Department of 
Homeland Security's Secure Flight Program.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today out of 
frustration with H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental Wartime 
Appropriations Act. I support passage of this legislation, as I believe 
it is absolutely necessary to continue to fund the important activities 
of our brave men and women fighting the global War on Terrorism.
  Our men and women depend on having the necessary equipment and 
systems to be successful in mission accomplishment. As a Member of the 
House Armed Services Committee, I am actively involved in efforts, for 
example, to better protect our troops while they are in harm's way. 
With that said, the inclusion of spending projects within this bill 
that certainly do not qualify as either ``emergency'' or ``wartime'' is 
outrageous.
  The issue at hand is not whether or not it is necessary to fund the 
noble efforts of our soldiers, for that answer is self-evident. Rather, 
the question is about our responsibility to spend the American people's 
money wisely, and in a manner consistent with the established process. 
I do not doubt that the non-wartime, and non-defense related projects 
in this bill are worthwhile; however, the decision to fund these 
projects should be made during the established appropriations process. 
Certainly, it is inappropriate for this body to have to consider 
legislation under the guise of emergency, wartime spending, when in 
fact, that description is not completely honest.
  Again, I support this funding legislation as it pertains to the 
support of our military, and our efforts to protect American citizens, 
and to promote peace and democracy in the Middle East. However, I do 
not support the inclusion of unrelated projects within this bill, and 
find it most unfortunate that Members of Congress are forced to vote on 
such legislation.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of our troops 
serving overseas and H.R. 1268.
  I would first like to recognize Mr. Lewis, Mr. Obey and the 
Appropriations Committee for their work on this bill.
  This past weekend, Colorado welcomed home the 143rd Signal Company of 
the Colorado Army National Guard. We honor the sacrifices these men and 
women have made and welcome them home.
  We must ensure the safety and well being of the brave men and women 
who are still serving our country overseas.
  By passing this budget supplemental, we send a message to our troops 
that, ``we support you in your cause to bring freedom and democracy to 
the world.''
  I commend the committee for proposing to increase funding for vehicle 
armor kits, new trucks and night vision equipment above and beyond the 
administration's request.
  This money will ensure our troops are safe in the line of fire.
  I am also very pleased that H.R. 1268 proposes to increase benefits 
for military personnel.

[[Page 4673]]

  For too long, life insurance and death gratuity benefits have not 
been enough to take care of families who lost a loved one.
  I urge my colleagues to support these two important provisions and 
not allow them to be stripped from the bill.
  Although I will be voting for this supplemental, I hope in the future 
we will not have to vote for supplemental appropriations.
  I hope in the future we will vote on the funding of military 
operations during the budgeting process.
  We are dealing with known and fixed costs in this supplemental.
  It is time for the Congress to send a message to the Administration 
that we must include future funding for the war on terrorism in the 
federal budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support our troops and pass 
H.R. 1268. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. Chairman, first, I want to take a moment and commend 
the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Edwards, Ranking Member Obey, Chairman 
Lewis and the Committee on Appropriations for bringing this 
supplemental appropriation to the floor so quickly. This legislation is 
extremely important to the lives of servicemembers in Iraq and 
Afghanistan and their families.
  As many of my colleagues know, Las Vegas is home to the Nellis Air 
Force base and many of the men and women stationed there have been sent 
overseas. Over 1,000 Nevada reservists and National Guard members have 
been called to active duty. I have spoken to the parents and families 
of our men and women who have fallen in the line of duty and I am 
acutely aware of family conflicts which are exacerbated by the death of 
a servicemember.
  Therefore, I have serious concerns regarding the application of the 
Servicemember's Group Life Insurance (SGLI) spousal consent 
requirements in section 1113(b) of the emergency supplemental bill. 
This section requires a married servicemember to purchase a particular 
level of life insurance and to list their spouse as the beneficiary, 
unless the spouse consents otherwise. At first blush, this proposal 
sounds great-until you think about it. This ``one size fits all'' 
approach could result in the one-time payment of $400,000 to a spouse, 
at the expense of a servicemember's wishes and the best interest of his 
orphaned children.
  We must remember that not all married servicemembers have the same 
types of families and relationships with their spouses.
  Imagine a servicemember who is married to a man with a serious drug 
problem. This servicewoman may prefer to name their children as the 
beneficiaries of her life insurance policy so that in the event of her 
death, the insurance is spent on he children's school, clothes, and 
health care. Not her husband's cocaine addiction. I do not believe that 
this woman should have to receive permission from her husband to name 
her children as the beneficiaries of her life insurance policy and that 
the government should be forcing her to do so.
  Consider a serviceman who has minor children from a prior marriage. 
He may want his children to receive the monies, instead of his current 
wife. A man who wants to be responsible and take care of his children 
in the event of his death, should not be prevented from doing so. But 
the spousal consent provision in the emergency supplemental may do just 
that.
  Current law allows a servicemember to designate 50% of his life 
insurance policy to a spouse and the rest to a child. This flexibility 
has given servicemembers the opportunity to properly take care of their 
families upon their deaths, no matter what kind of family situation 
they have.
  The Military Officers Association of America originally supported the 
provision, but now recognizes that the language is excessively 
stringent. The organization now supports striking the requirement for 
spousal consent. I would like to insert in the record a letter from 
MOAA and a similar letter from The Military Coalition.
  Mr. Chairman, the potential of this provision to require that a large 
one time payment be made to the legal spouse of a deceased 
servicemember could have serious ramifications for the servicemember's 
children. It needs to be reconsidered in that light. I do not want to 
delay passage of this important bill, since it contains many important 
and urgent provisions. I trust that the conferees will be able to 
address this issue in conference.

                                                 Military Officers


                                       Association of America,

                                                   March 11, 2005.
     Hon. Steve Buyer,
     Chairman, Committee on Veterans Affairs, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the 370,000 members of the 
     Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), I am writing 
     to inform you that, after discussing the issue extensively 
     with the Committee's majority and minority staff, MOAA has 
     reconsidered its position on the Servicemen's Group Life 
     Insurance (SGLI) spousal consent requirement, as included in 
     the Appropriations Committee's markup of the FY2005 Defense 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act.
       We believe there is merit to the staff's view that the 
     Appropriations Committee's language is excessively stringent 
     and could inappropriately preclude servicemembers' ability to 
     make reasonable insurance decisions--especially in 
     circumstances where it may be reasonable and appropriate for 
     a member to designate children as beneficiaries instead of 
     the current spouse.
       MOAA believes Congress is doing the right thing in 
     expediting passage of improved death benefits coverage in the 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, and we have no wish to slow 
     that process in any way.
       Therefore, MOAA urges your support for a floor amendment 
     that would either substitute a provision requiring spousal 
     notification (instead of spousal consent) or strike the 
     spousal consent requirement to allow the Committee to develop 
     more appropriate language that could be offered in conference 
     or another appropriate legislative venue.
           Sincerely,

                                         Steven P. Strobridge,

                                              Colonel, USAF (Ret),
     Director, Government Relations.
                                  ____



                                       The Military Coalition,

                                   Alexandria, VA, March 15, 2005.
     Hon. Lane Evans,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Veteran's Affairs, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Representative Evans: The Military Coalition (TMC), a 
     consortium of nationally prominent uniformed services and 
     veterans' organizations, representing more than 5.5 million 
     members plus their families and survivors, is writing to 
     inform you that, after discussions with the Veterans Affairs 
     Committee's majority and minority staff, TMC has reconsidered 
     its position on the Servicemen's Group Life Insurance (SGLI) 
     spousal consent requirement, as included in the 
     Appropriations Committee's markup of the FY2005 Defense 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act.
       TMC believes there is merit to the staff's view that the 
     bill language is excessively stringent and could 
     inappropriately preclude servicemembers' ability to make 
     reasonable insurance decisions--especially in circumstances 
     where it may be reasonable and appropriate for a member to 
     designate children as beneficiaries instead of the current 
     spouse.
       TMC believes Congress is doing the right thing in 
     expediting passage of improved death benefits coverage in the 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, and we have no wish to slow 
     that process in any way.
       Therefore, TMC urges your support for a floor amendment 
     that would either substitute a provision requiring spousal 
     notification or strike the spousal consent requirement to 
     allow the Committee to develop more appropriate language that 
     could be offered in conference or another legislative venue.
           Sincerely,
       Signed by the representatives of the following 
     organizations:
       Air Force Association.
       Air Force Sergeants Association.
       Air Force Women Officers Associated.
       American Logistics Association.
       AMVETS (American Veterans).
       Army Aviation Assn. of America.
       Assn. of Military Surgeons of the United States.
       Assn. of the US Army.
       Commissioned Officers Assn. of the US Public Health 
     Service, Inc.
       Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the US.
       Fleet Reserve Assn.
       Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.
       Marine Corps Reserve Association.
       Military Officers Assn. of America.
       Military Order of the Purple Heart.
       National Association for Uniformed Services.
       National Military Family Assn.
       National Order of Battlefield Commissions.
       Naval Enlisted Reserve Assn.
       Naval Reserve Assn.
       Non Commissioned Officers Assn. of the United States of 
     America.
       Reserve Officers Assn.
       The Military Chaplains Assn. of the USA.
       The Retired Enlisted Assn.
       United Armed Forces Assn.
       USCG Chief Petty Officers Assn.
       US Army Warrant Officers Assn.
       Veterans of Foreign Wars of the US.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Iraqi 
Supplemental Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2006. To call this 
legislation a travesty is to put it nicely. It is nothing but $81 
billion of chaos blanketed in lofty-sounding phrases like ``tsunami 
relief'' and ``supporting our troops.'' Actually, this bill represents 
a mockery of the democratic process.
  Calling this bill an ``Emergency Supplemental'' implies that the Bush 
Administration and Congress were somehow not aware of these costs. That 
is ridiculous. The only unforeseen cost contained in this $81 billion 
dollar boondoggle is the $656 million for tsunami relief.

[[Page 4674]]

  Both Congress and the Administration have known for months that $75 
billion in the bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be 
needed, but we didn't put it in the budget. The real story is that the 
Bush Administration is attempting to hide from the American people the 
real costs of a mismanaged war.
  The Administration once claimed the war in Iraq would cost $1.7 
billion. This Supplemental alone is almost 50 times that amount. Is the 
Administration out to lunch?
  Tomorrow, the House is going to consider a budget resolution that, 
like the previous year, fails to include adequate funding for the war 
in Iraq. I'm not a soothsayer, Mr. Speaker, but dare I warn, ``Beware 
of the Ides of March.'' If tomorrow's Republican budget is passed, 
we're going to be here next March writing the Bush Administration 
another check to cover the costs of its campaign of nation building.
  The Bush Administration is hiding behind the rhetoric of supporting 
our troops to escape accountability for the war in Iraq, and the 
American people should be outraged. We should be embarrassed that 
Members in this body are so willing to write blank checks to a 
President who has yet to justify how the $175 billion in already 
appropriated money in Iraq and Afghanistan has been spent.
  Mr. Chairman, I am even more appalled by the manner in which funding 
for clandestine operations is being carried out in this bill. This bill 
allocates a massive amount of money for covert operations, yet the 
Department of Defense did not see fit to go through either of the two 
House authorizing committees of jurisdiction. Congress is creating a 
private bank account for Secretary Rumsfield without any oversight or 
permission from the United States Congress. Is this what the American 
people want--government by fiat?
  Mr. Chairman, our government has a process, and this process is vital 
to preserving the nature of our democracy. I shouldn't have to explain 
that. All of the Bush Administration's rhetoric about global freedom 
apparently does not extend to the United States Capitol Building. What 
is more important for the Bush Administration is that they get their 
money at all and any costs. I guess that means they will sell this bill 
on the altruistic notions of patriotism and humanitarianism in a snide 
attempt to drum up support.
  Why is this bill being dubbed a tsunami relief effort when the entire 
Supplemental is over 120 times the amount allocated for the tsunami? 
What about the six hundred million dollars to build the world's biggest 
embassy in Baghdad? What are they building this thing out of--pure 
lead? That same amount of money could go towards vital security 
upgrades at other embassies and consulates around the world.
  Why don't we just make things easier on everyone by throwing this 
bill out the window and opening up everyone's bank accounts to the 
United States Executive Branch? Now that's privatization.
  This isn't a question of patriotism, nor is it a question of our 
commitment to helping tsunami victims recover. This is an issue with 
short and long-term constitutional and budgetary ramifications.
  I realize that the Bush Administration feels it would be easier to 
simply govern without any input or oversight, but the first three 
Articles of the Constitution suggest otherwise.
  I cannot in good conscience support legislation that, for all we 
know, might pour billions in the pockets of Halliburton while depriving 
our troops of necessary resources. And I can't imagine why the United 
States Congress, led by the Appropriations Committee, is handing a 
leash to the White House and waiting to be taken out for a walk.
  Mr. Chairman, I am outraged by this crass attempt to shirk 
congressional responsibility, and I urge my colleagues to vote against 
this legislation.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fossella). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
preprinted in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1268

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, namely:

                TITLE I--DEFENSE-RELATED APPROPRIATIONS

                               CHAPTER 1

                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army'', 
     $11,779,642,000: Provided, That the amounts provided under 
     this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy'', 
     $534,080,000: Provided, That the amounts provided under this 
     heading are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. 
     Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine 
     Corps'', $1,251,726,000: Provided, That the amounts provided 
     under this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air 
     Force'', $1,473,472,000: Provided, That the amounts provided 
     under this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                        Reserve Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Army'', 
     $40,327,000: Provided, That the amounts provided under this 
     heading are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. 
     Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                        Reserve Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Navy'', 
     $11,111,000: Provided, That the amounts provided under this 
     heading are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. 
     Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                    Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Marine 
     Corps'', $4,115,000: Provided, That the amounts provided 
     under this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                      Reserve Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Air 
     Force'', $130,000: Provided, That the amounts provided under 
     this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                     National Guard Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel, 
     Army'', $430,300,000: Provided, That the amounts provided 
     under this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                  National Guard Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel, 
     Air Force'', $91,000: Provided, That the amounts provided 
     under this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Opera-tion and Maintenance, 
     Army'', $17,366,004,000: Provided, That the amounts provided 
     under this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Opera-tion and Maintenance, 
     Navy'', $3,030,801,000: Provided, That the amounts provided 
     under this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps'', $982,464,000: Provided, That the amounts 
     provided under this heading are designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 402 of the conference report 
     to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force'', $5,769,450,000: Provided, That the amounts 
     provided under this heading are designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 402 of the

[[Page 4675]]

     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress).

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Opera-tion and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', $3,061,300,000, of which--
       (1) not to exceed $25,000,000 may be used for the Combatant 
     Commander Initiative Fund, to be used in support of Operation 
     Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom; and
       (2) up to $1,220,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, may be used for payments to reimburse Pakistan, 
     Jordan, and other key cooperating nations, for logistical, 
     military, and other support provided, or to be provided, to 
     United States military operations, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law: Provided, That such payments may be made in 
     such amounts as the Secretary of Defense, with the 
     concurrence of the Secretary of State, and in consultation 
     with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, may 
     determine, in his discretion, based on documentation 
     determined by the Secretary of Defense to adequately account 
     for the support provided, and such determination is final and 
     conclusive upon the accounting officers of the United States, 
     and 15 days following notification to the appropriate 
     congressional committees: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Defense shall provide quarterly reports to the 
     Committees on Appropriations on the use of funds provided in 
     this paragraph: Provided further, That the amounts provided 
     under this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tierney

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tierney:
       Page 7, after line 10, insert the following new title:

    TITLE VII--ESTABLISHMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE 
    AWARDING AND CARRYING OUT OF CONTRACTS TO CONDUCT ACTIVITIES IN 
         AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ AND TO FIGHT THE WAR ON TERRORISM


                        Membership and functions

       Sec. 701. The select committee is to be composed of 15 
     Members of the House, to be appointed by the Speaker (of whom 
     7 shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the minority 
     leader), one of whom shall be designated as chairman from the 
     majority party and one of whom shall be designated ranking 
     member from the minority party. Any vacancy occurring in the 
     membership of the select committee shall be filled in the 
     same manner in which the original appointment was made. The 
     select committee shall conduct an ongoing study and 
     investigation of the awarding and carrying out of contracts 
     by the Government to conduct activities in Afghanistan and 
     Iraq and to fight the war on terrorism and make such 
     recommendations to the House as the select committee deems 
     appropriate regarding the following matters--
       (1) bidding, contracting, and auditing standards in the 
     issuance of Government contracts;
       (2) oversight procedures;
       (3) forms of payment and safeguards against money 
     laundering;
       (4) accountability of contractors and Government officials 
     involved in procurement;
       (5) penalties for violations of law and abuses in the 
     awarding and carrying out of Government contracts;
       (6) subcontracting under large, comprehensive contracts;
       (7) inclusion and utilization of small businesses, through 
     subcontracts or otherwise; and
       (8) such other matters as the select committee deems 
     appropriate.


                          Rules and procedure

       Sec. 702. (a) Quorum.--One-third of the members of the 
     select committee shall constitute a quorum for the 
     transaction of business except for the reporting of the 
     results of its study and investigation (with its 
     recommendations) or the authorization of subpoenas, which 
     shall require a majority of the committee to be actually 
     present, except that the select committee may designate a 
     lesser number, but not less than two, as a quorum for the 
     purpose of holding hearings to take testimony and receive 
     evidence.
       (b) Powers.--For the purpose of carrying out this title, 
     the select committee may sit and act during the present 
     Congress at any time and place within the United States or 
     elsewhere, whether the House is in session, has recessed, or 
     has adjourned and hold such hearings as it considers 
     necessary and to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the 
     attendance and testimony of such witnesses, the furnishing of 
     information by interrogatory, and the production of such 
     books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, 
     and other things and information of any kind as it deems 
     necessary, including classified materials.
       (c) Issuance of Subpoenas.--A subpoena may be authorized 
     and issued by the select committee in the conduct of any 
     investigation or series of investigations or activities, only 
     when authorized by a majority of the members voting, a 
     majority being present. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed 
     by the chairman or by any member designated by the select 
     committee, and may be served by any person designated by the 
     chairman or such member. Subpoenas shall be issued under the 
     seal of the House and attested by the Clerk. The select 
     committee may request investigations, reports, and other 
     assistance from any agency of the executive, legislative, and 
     judicial branches of the Government.
       (d) Meetings.--The chairman, or in his absence a member 
     designated by the chairman, shall preside at all meetings and 
     hearings of the select committee. All meetings and hearings 
     of the select committee shall be conducted in open session, 
     unless a majority of members of the select committee voting, 
     there being in attendance the requisite number required for 
     the purpose of hearings to take testimony, vote to close a 
     meeting or hearing.
       (e) Applicabilities of Rules of the House.--The Rules of 
     the House of Representatives applicable to standing 
     committees shall govern the select committee where not 
     inconsistent with this title.
       (f) Written Commitee Rules.--The select committee shall 
     adopt additional written rules, which shall be public, to 
     govern its procedures, which shall not be inconsistent with 
     this title or the Rules of the House of Representatives.


                       Administrative provisions

       Sec. 703. (a) Appointment of Staff.--The select committee 
     staff shall be appointed, and may be removed, by the chairman 
     and shall work under the general supervision and direction of 
     the chairman.
       (b) Powers of Ranking Minority Member.--All staff provided 
     to the minority party members of the select committee shall 
     be appointed, and may be removed, by the ranking minority 
     member of the committee, and shall work under the general 
     supervision and direction of such member.
       (c) Compensation.--The chairman shall fix the compensation 
     of all staff of the select committee, after consultation with 
     the ranking minority member regarding any minority party 
     staff, within the budget approved for such purposes for the 
     select committee.
       (d) Reimbursement of Expenses.--The select committee may 
     reimburse the members of its staff for travel, subsistence, 
     and other necessary expenses incurred by them in the 
     performance of the their functions for the select committee.
       (e) Payment of Expenses.--There shall be paid out of the 
     applicable accounts of the House such sums as may be 
     necessary for the expenses of the select committee. Such 
     payments shall be made on vouchers signed by the chairman of 
     the select committee and approved in the manner directed by 
     the Committee on House Administration. Amounts made available 
     under this subsection shall be expended in accordance with 
     regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
     Administration.


                                Reports

       Sec. 704. The select committee shall from time to time 
     report to the House the results of its study and 
     investigation, with its recommendations. Any report made by 
     the select committee when the House is not in session shall 
     be filed with the Clerk of the House. Any report made by the 
     select committee shall be referred to the committee or 
     committees that have jurisdiction over the subject matter of 
     the report.

  Mr. TIERNEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment mirrors in most respects a 
bipartisan bill that has been filed by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Leach) and me.
  It establishes a select committee of the House to investigate the 
awarding and carrying out of contracts to conduct activities in 
Afghanistan and Iraq and to fight terrorism.
  The select committee is to be composed of 15 Members of the House, 
appointed by the Speaker, with seven being made upon the recommendation 
of the minority leader.
  The select committee will make such recommendations to the House as 
it deems appropriate regarding the bidding, contracting, and auditing 
standards in the issuance of government contracts; oversight 
procedures; forms of payment and safeguards against money laundering; 
accountability of contractors and government officials involved in 
procurement; penalties for violations of law and abuses in the awarding 
and carrying out of government contracts; subcontracting under

[[Page 4676]]

large, comprehensive contracts; inclusion and utilization of small 
businesses through subcontracts or otherwise; and such other matters as 
the select committee deems appropriate.
  Mr. Chairman, according to the Congressional Research Service, the 
$81.9 billion that is before us today in the supplemental 
appropriations bill is in addition to the approximately $200 billion 
that has been spent so far since the 9/11/2001 attacks on combat 
operations, on the occupation and on the support of military personnel 
deployed or supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Congress has recognized that we must meet our operational, technical, 
and equipment needs of our troops; and we should acknowledge that the 
funds for those purposes, particularly those for the safety of our 
troops, remains paramount. But when it comes to ensuring that the funds 
are properly managed and monitored, we have been largely silent. Horror 
stories abound. We just heard some by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) as he was talking about yesterday's news about Halliburton, and 
there is ample cause to carefully scrutinize the procurement process.
  Just in January, the special Inspector General for the Iraqi 
reconstruction reported that the Coalition Provisional Authority, CPA, 
could not account for $8.8 billion. The report said: ``Severe 
inefficiencies and poor management by the CPA have left auditors with 
no guarantees the money would be properly used.''
  That same report indicated that auditors were unable to verify that 
the money for which they can account was spent for the intended 
purposes.
  The report raises the possibility of so-called ``ghost'' employees, 
citing 8,206 guards identified as on the payroll at one ministry, 
although only 602 could be verified. At another ministry, payroll 
listed 1,471 security guards when only 642 were working.
  A Center for Strategic and International Studies analysis, which was 
cited in an October 6 Washington Post story, indicated that as little 
as 27 cents of every dollar spent in the Iraqi reconstruction is 
actually filtered down to projects that benefit Iraqis.
  According to the testimony of Steve Ellis of the Taxpayers for Common 
Sense, who was citing a KPMG study, the Commander's Emergency Response 
Program, which is in effect a program designed to allow United States 
military officers to quickly fund small reconstruction projects, 
maintained little documentation of how taxpayers' dollars were spent.
  The study found that 42 cases were worth $13 million where there were 
no contracts on file and for 142 cases totaling $40 million where there 
was no proof that the work was even done.
  Quoting former Coalition Provisional Authority official Frank Willis, 
a February 14 story in The Washington Post told us of how the United 
States officials in post-war Iraq paid a contractor by stuffing $2 
million worth of crisp bills into his gunny sack and routinely making 
cash payments around Baghdad from a pick-up truck. Even if we accept 
one Member's argument that this was because there were no normal 
payment procedures, it certainly cries out for better monitoring and 
better oversight.
  We all may have substantive differences about the merits of the 
military policy, but there should be unanimous agreement about the 
congressional role in ensuring that our constituents' tax dollars are 
being effectively and judiciously spent; and that is what this 
amendment does, Mr. Chairman.
  It is modeled after the original Truman Committee that the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) mentioned a minute ago.
  As Members know, in February 1941, concerned about possible waste and 
favoritism, then-Senator Harry Truman introduced legislation creating a 
congressional committee to investigate how Defense contracts were being 
awarded and managed.
  The Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program, as 
it became known, exposed deficiencies in the bureaucratic procurement 
process, advocating for more effective coordination among the involved 
agencies, and raised important questions regarding production and cost 
of specific war-related materials.
  During its tenure from 1941 to 1948, the Truman Committee convened 
432 public hearings and heard 1,800 witnesses testify. It is estimated 
their work saved taxpayers over $15 billion. Mr. Chairman, by 
successfully identifying and ferreting out other defective weapons and 
other war supplies, they saved thousands of lives.
  The Truman Committee was unanimously respected for its focus on fact-
finding and its refusal to succumb to partisanship; and, in fact, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and I share that view. The Congress has 
oversight responsibility that can be done without succumbing to 
partisanship. It is our responsibility in this institution, and we have 
to maintain this body's integrity by doing that job.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California continue to 
reserve a point of order?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Out of deference to the chairman, I will be very brief, but I want to 
thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for raising this 
at this time; and he has done a wonderful job in leading this effort.
  I would just like to stress the dual dimension of bipartisanship of 
this amendment.
  One, its legislative approach was introduced in the last Congress, 
and with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) I reintroduced 
it in this Congress.
  Secondly, as we think back to the Truman Commission, which the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) referenced, it is very 
impressive that that commission was established by the party in power 
at the time, and so it was the party in power that wanted to look at 
itself.
  Thirdly, the Truman Commission was established at a time that Senator 
Truman was very concerned that a very small number of contracts were 
let to a very small number of companies in a very narrow part of the 
country. At the time, he was concerned about American manufacturing 
being held by too few in a contract sense. Now we are looking at 
services where it looks like a very small number of companies have 
gotten very large contracts. It is more complicated today because, in 
addition, some contracts are going to foreign firms. So this is a very 
delicate area.
  I personally believe that the only way you can maintain a support for 
national policy, however controversial, is to have complete confidence 
that things are being pursued in the most honest way possible.
  I think the time has come for this type of approach. I would hope 
this Congress would look at it.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify one point the 
gentleman from Massachusetts made about the $8.8 billion, and I just 
think we Members need to understand we are talking about funds that 
came not from the United States taxpayers, but those $8.8 billion are 
funds from the Iraqi fund, which was Iraqi dinars that had been 
collected as a result of oil sales. It was a chaotic situation at the 
end of the war, as we all know, and ministries had collapsed. There was 
no communication. There were no accounting systems. The bureaucrats had 
not functioned for years. It was very difficult, at the very best, to 
know how to handle those in the very best way.
  It was really a choice of whether or not we were going to get the 
projects done as quickly as possible and get the country functioning 
again. So I think, to me, the choice was fairly clear.
  I just want to make people understand we are not talking about U.S. 
dollars when we talk about the 8.8.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, we know the right questions to ask: 
about Iraq, the budget, waste, fraud and abuse by contractors including 
Halliburton. After seeing scenes from an Iraqi prison, we know what we 
don't know. What are we going to do about all this?

[[Page 4677]]

  We know the right questions to ask, but we also know these questions 
will not be answered--unless we reach back into recent history and 
reinstitute an independent, bi-partisan internal watchdog.
  In the 1940s, the Truman Committee saved the government and the 
American people $15 billion dollars. They asked the right questions and 
were empowered to get the answers. The American people got what they 
paid for and someone made sure of it. There was truth in government. 
There was trust in government.
  We don't have that kind of faith, confidence, or oversight anymore. 
Instead of scrutiny, there is subterfuge.
  Already, America has spent $200 billion for the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Yet two years after the start of the war, many troops and 
their transports still do not have adequate protection.
  This week, the Administration will use the supplemental process to 
obtain new billions for Iraq. The fact is, the supplemental process 
carries less scrutiny than the normal budget process.
  We know the right questions to ask, but getting the answers is a 
different story.
  Billions of dollars have been awarded in non-competitive contracts. 
Recently, the military acknowledged that 8 billion in cold, hard cash 
is missing in Iraq. It's happened before in Iraq, and unless something 
changes, there is no reason to believe it won't happen again.
  Halliburton has already been found to have overcharged the Pentagon 
by billions of dollars for providing meals to soldiers and importing 
fuel. They're still getting paid and no one really knows if we are 
getting what the American people are paying for.
  On a rare occasion, the Defense Secretary admits there is an issue; 
quoting Secretary Rumsfeld: ``According to some estimates, we (DOD) 
cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.'' The Pentagon's own 
auditors admit that the military cannot account for as much as \1/4\ of 
what it spends. Defense makes up half of all the discretionary spending 
in the budget.
  Standard issue Republican rhetoric decries waste, fraud and abuse. 
Well, it's time to turn the rhetoric into a plan of action.
  The Truman Committee eliminated corruption, profiteering and 
mismanagement. It uncovered defective systems, improved efficiencies in 
existing programs, and freed up billions of dollars for more crucial 
procurement.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law.
  The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect.
  I ask a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair finds that this provision includes language 
imparting direction to an executive official.
  The provision, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tierney

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tierney:
       On page 6, line 7, insert after the dollar figure 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000).''

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds $5 million to the 
operation and maintenance defense-wide account.
  The Secretary of Defense, using existing transfer authority, may 
transfer that money to the legislative branch for the purpose of 
establishing a select committee, in essence along the outlines of the 
amendment that I just reviewed moments ago, and I will not belabor that 
point by going over all of that information, except to say that it 
would be a select committee for the purposes of investigating contracts 
and related materials with respect to things being spent in Iraq and 
Afghanistan and the issue of terrorism.
  As I mentioned earlier, this is and should be a bipartisan effort. I 
think the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) should be commended for his 
leadership on this and for pointing out the fact that, in fact, when 
Harry Truman did it years ago, he was a Democrat and the President was 
a Democrat, and he still found it the patriotic and judicious thing to 
do with respect to the responsibilities of the House of 
Representatives; and if we are to maintain the integrity of this 
Congress and our responsibility of oversight of such huge sums of 
money, it would be the appropriate thing for us to do now in a 
bipartisan way.
  Critics may say that there is no need to create a select committee 
when Congress has standing committees to perform this role. 
Regrettably, those standing committees have not done that, not 
exercised their institutional responsibilities to the extent they could 
in this particular Congress.

                              {time}  1330

  The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the Committee on 
Government Reform has tried, but the full Committee on Government 
Reform has only met four times on related hearings. Similarly, the 
House Committee on Armed Services has taken up this issue once in June 
of 2004 at a Readiness Subcommittee hearing, but beyond that it has not 
delved into the issue.
  Mr. Chairman, there is certainly a need with the billions and 
billions of dollars being spent. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman) has been vocal about his attention to this matter. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) spoke earlier about the $100 
million found in contracts that were questioned just yesterday, and the 
fact that report was kept from us at a time when our taxpayers, our 
constituents and our citizens want to know about these enormous sums of 
money, and want us to do our job.
  There is a need. We in Congress have a responsibility. The 
institution's integrity demands it, and the American taxpayer and our 
troops deserve it. They deserve no less.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment in no small part because essentially the Tierney amendment 
would be changing the rules of the House. That is above the purview of 
the Committee on Appropriations, at least of this chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations. Because of that, I would oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). The point of order is withdrawn.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman's amendment. As the 
gentleman has made quite clear, this is his second choice. He would 
prefer to offer an amendment which directly establishes a Truman-like 
committee to investigate profiteering in Iraq. The fact is that the 
majority has chosen to use the technicalities of the rules to prevent 
that from happening. Given the fact that they have done that, the 
gentleman's only choice is to proceed in the manner he has proceeded in 
the amendment he has just offered.
  It seems to me that the purpose of the amendment is clear. The 
purpose is to see to it that a committee is formed which will have as 
its sole responsibility the reviewing of the use and misuse of taxpayer 
funds in Iraq. This bill seems to me to be a perfectly appropriate 
vehicle to accomplish the end that the gentleman seeks. This bill 
appropriates over $80 billion of taxpayer money. I think the taxpayers, 
many of whom have substantial doubt, not just about the war but about 
the conduct of some of the contractors during and after the war, I 
think the taxpayers would like to know that if we are going into their 
pockets for an additional $80 billion today, at least we are doing the 
utmost possible to see to it that that $80 billion is spent in 
accordance with the law and is spent in accordance with good judgment.
  I, for the life of me, do not understand what the problem is with the 
gentleman's efforts. It seems to me if this Congress is looking for 
ways to achieve the maximum support for the administration's policy, 
they would certainly support efforts to see to it that that policy is 
being conducted in

[[Page 4678]]

such a manner that embarrassment is not eventually brought to the 
President, to this Congress and to our effort in the country and in the 
region.
  So while this certainly is not our preferred solution, it is far 
better than doing nothing and I would urge support for the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the bipartisan amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach). I support this amendment because it 
will address an issue that is of paramount importance to the people in 
my district and I think across the country, supporting our troops while 
being fiscally responsible.
  I recently returned from Iraq and a bipartisan delegation led by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole). My visit convinced me that the 
reestablishment of the Truman committee is the right thing for our 
troops, for the taxpayers and for our country. The original Truman 
committee was a special committee formed on March 1, 1941 to 
investigate the national defense program. It was chaired by Missouri's 
U.S. Senator at that time, Harry Truman.
  Its specific directive was to investigate the terms of defense-
related contracts, the methods of awarding them, the effect on labor 
and the geographic distribution of contracts and facilities. During 
World War II, the committee's principal concern was to monitor and 
improve production programs and contract procedures.
  Its work resulted in the discovery and exposure of waste and 
mismanagement in the wartime production program. By convening public 
hearings at that time and receiving testimony and studying this issue, 
the Truman commission is estimated to have saved American taxpayers $15 
billion.
  Similarly today, we owe it to our troops to carefully watch how we 
are funding the Iraq initiative. It is our responsibility to ensure 
that every man and woman in uniform has the necessary equipment to do 
the job with the best possible support.
  We have an obligation to every troop that no appropriated money is 
misspent or wasted. While the morale of our troops is high and their 
optimism apparent after the recent elections in Iraq, it is imperative 
that we do everything in our power to ensure that they are brought home 
as quickly as possible. Ensuring that there is no waste or 
mismanagement in any of our funding, I have no doubt that a modern day 
Truman committee will help bring our troops home quickly, safely and in 
a fiscally responsible way. I believe we can support our troops, give 
them what they need, and help them return home soon. I strongly support 
this amendment for the funding of the Truman committee.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which is offered by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Leach).
  This is a strong amendment that adds a modest amount of funding for 
an important function, the function of creating a select committee to 
investigate the award and carrying out of contracts as it relates to 
Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Mr. Chairman, we are at war. Taxpayers are looking to Congress to 
spend their money wisely and well. This is an idea that is rich in 
history. As my colleague from Missouri pointed out, this is not the 
first time this has been done. This was modeled after the committee 
created by then-Senator Harry Truman back in 1941, known as the Special 
Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program. This committee 
was bipartisan, and I might point out it was created by a Congress 
controlled by the same party with the same party in control at the 
White House. That is the situation today, and that is why it would be 
well to have a bipartisan committee to do just this.
  We have seen reports in the news media of contract abuse, and I think 
a committee such as this would help tremendously. We could benefit from 
similar oversight as we had in Harry Truman's day today. Outstanding 
committees like the Committee on Armed Services, on which I am 
privileged to serve, have looked at some issues relating to contracting 
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  We have an extraordinary set of mandates at a time of war. At the 
same time, there is a significant amount of money in contracting in 
both those countries. We would benefit from a select committee to 
review the contracting process, and most of all, the accountability of 
the contractors. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) 
and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for their foresight, and urge 
serious support for this amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in strong support of the Tierney amendment, and frankly think 
it would be irresponsible not to vote for the Tierney amendment. All 
the gentleman is asking for is fiscal accountability on over $200 
billion that is being spent far beyond these shores. The gentleman is 
asking for accountability. To not pass the Tierney amendment is to be 
fiscally irresponsible and to continue to be unaccountable to the 
taxpayers of this country.
  Let me remind Members, the amount of money we have now spent in Iraq 
is over $200 billion. We do more checking on the books of churches 
around this country than we do on the expenditure of $200 billion. 
According to a 2003 GAO report, ``Iraq appears to be the first case 
where the United States Government has used private contractors 
extensively for protecting persons and property in potentially hostile 
or hostile situations.''
  Indeed, it is estimated there are as many as 20,000 private military 
personnel in Iraq. What are they all doing? Why are private companies 
protecting some of the highest level officials we have there rather 
than our U.S. military? Who is writing those contracts? What about Abu 
Ghraib? What kind of contract was struck there? What kind of 
accountability existed? Well, it did not, why not? We ought to be 
investigating as a Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, what happens with $200 billion, our people have a right 
to know. Never have we had a military conflict where so many private 
contractors are involved. We should be concerned about this and 
concerned about who is writing these contracts. A recently 
Congressional Quarterly article indicated, ``Neither the Defense 
Department nor private industry says it has exact numbers of how many 
people are on private payrolls under contracts paid by U.S. tax 
dollars.''
  We should do what is right with the money of the American people. 
There does not appear to be any legal framework in place to handle and 
deal with the role of nonmilitary personnel in a war zone. Indeed, the 
liability of contractors who violate the law operating in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay is ambiguous so we have more 
responsibility to have strong oversight over these dollars that are 
being expended.
  I cannot think of a better amendment to pass than this one. Federal 
procurement data suggests that money allocated to military contractors 
via Federal procurement has jumped by more than $70 billion in the last 
3 fiscal years. Someone here should care. We should do what we would do 
within our own families and look at every single line in these 
accounts. There is an awful lot of slippage.
  In January, the Special Inspector General for the Iraqi 
reconstruction reported that the Coalition Provisional Authority could 
not account for over $8.8 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney) for doing what is right, what is fiscally responsible, what 
provides the accountability that we have responsibility for.
  I heard another reference on the radio this morning that Iraq is 
going to be a generational commitment like World War II was. If we are 
going to spend that kind of money, we ought to make doggone sure that 
every dollar is properly accounted for.

[[Page 4679]]

  I was pretty upset when I saw big photos of big stacks of money being 
handed out on the streets over there. I asked one of the top generals 
the other day if we are paying for the training of the Iraqi National 
Guard and these troops that are supposed to replace our troops. He 
said, no, Congresswoman, someone else is paying for that. I am still 
looking and want to know who is paying for some of these units.
  I say congratulations to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney), who has an uphill struggle here. But he is doing what is 
right for America in order to make sure that we are responsible to the 
taxpayer and accountable for every single dollar being expended. Please 
support the Tierney amendment.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise to oppose the amendment. I have to say what I say 
about the administration, about the Defense Department many times. Just 
because you say it, does not mean it is so. Just because we say we are 
going to put $5 million in does not mean it is going to be a Truman 
Commission. We have bill language which says they have to report to us 
at a certain date, and they did not do it. So there is no doubt in my 
mind this is not something that is going to happen. I do not say we are 
wasting time because there is no question accountability is our 
responsibility. But we are not going to get any responsibility this 
way. As far as I am concerned, what we are saying, this language is not 
bill language. It does not mean that they are going to do it. And so I 
oppose the amendment. And I think we ought to get rid of this amendment 
and get on with the rest of the business on the floor.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Tierney amendment. 
This is a lot of money we are talking about. As the late Everett 
Dirksen said, a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you have got 
some real money.
  We are talking about $200 billion. And we all support our 
warfighters. We support our men and women in uniform, but we should not 
throw money at any problem. And all this amendment asks is that we copy 
the Truman Commission where a Democratic Senator investigated a 
Democratic President. This should not be a partisan issue at all. Both 
parties should unite.
  And I congratulate the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for his strong 
work in this worthy effort. Republicans should want a real-time 
bipartisan look at what is really going on.
  I had the good fortune of being in Baghdad last Christmas. Our C-130 
was broken, so we spent a little extra time at the Baghdad airport. A 
shipment came in that our military did not want us to see. But I had my 
video camera handy, and I took pictures. What was it? Six large 
pallets, off-loaded from U.S. aircraft, beautifully packaged, you could 
tell, lots of small boxes on each pallet, very heavy to lift. What was 
in those boxes? Answer, $1.4 billion, billion with a B as in ``boy,'' 
$1.4 billion of U.S. currency shipped in allegedly to replenish the 
Iraqi central bank. Well, I hope and pray that was true. But when our 
own Paul Bremer says he really cannot account for $9 billion of money, 
when eyewitnesses see 300 million in U.S. cash being flown out of the 
country, allegedly to buy arms for the good guys, you have got to 
wonder. All we are asking for here is accountability.
  And I want to pay special tribute to my friend, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson), a leading member of the Blue Dog Coalition. 
What we want is accountability. We are fiscal and defense hawks, but we 
need to know where the money goes. The taxpayers of this country 
deserve no less. This is as far from a partisan issue as you can get. 
All we want is accountability because catching fraud, waste, and abuse 
is the most bipartisan of issues. So I congratulate my friend, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), also the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney). This needs to be in the bill because these 
supple-
mentals, they are becoming a habit, guys. Every year we are going to 
have a major supplemental. And it is high time that we find out where 
the money went. Support the Tierney amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Woolsey

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Woolsey:
       Page 3, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $31,000,000)''.
       Page 3, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $31,000,000)''.
       Page 3, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $31,000,000)''.
       Page 4, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $31,000,000)''.
       Page 4, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $31,000,000)''.
       Page 4, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $31,000,000)''.
       Page 51, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $124,100,000)''.
       Page 51, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,800,000)''.
       Page 51, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.
       Page 52, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $29,150,000)''.

  Ms. WOOLSEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to returning to that portion 
of the bill?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 1268, 
the $81 billion supplemental appropriations bill before the House 
today, that will continue to fund the President's misadventure in Iraq. 
My amendment would cut funds that should never have made it into the 
supplemental in the first place, millions of dollars to finance the 
regular operations of the Department of Defense, which should be paid 
for through normal defense budget negotiations, not through a 
supplemental spending bill that does not even count towards the 
President's incredible budget deficit.
  Once again, by funding the war through another supplemental, the Bush 
administration is pulling a fast one on the budget and on the American 
people.
  My amendment would take $186 million from DOD's operations and 
management, money that is funded every year in the defense 
appropriations bill, and split the $186 million evenly between the 
National Guard and Reserve personnel in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and 
Marine Corps to augment the meager funds that have been allocated for 
each of these branches.
  I offer this amendment today because I support the troops and because 
I have deep admiration for their courage. Our brave soldiers are being 
used as pawns by their civilian superiors whose wastefulness and 
incompetence is betraying their duty to keep us safe. My amendment 
demonstrates the very wastefulness that runs rampant at the Pentagon. 
The fact that the Pentagon depends on an extra $200 billion for its 
regular operations and maintenance at the expense of our troops in the 
field is arrogant, incompetent, wasteful, and

[[Page 4680]]

downright immoral. Let us not forget that Secretary of Defense Donald 
Rumsfeld himself has stated that there is $22 billion of waste in the 
Pentagon's budget every year.
  The Bush administration, and in particular the leaders at the 
Pentagon, have demonstrated a potent lack of support for the troops 
through poor planning for the long military occupation of Iraq, by 
neglecting to provide every soldier with the equipment needed to 
survive military combat, and by failing to adequately support our 
soldiers once they return home.
  Hundreds of lives could have been saved if our troops had not been 
left as sitting ducks on the battlefield for over a year without enough 
body armor and plated armor for Humvees that can save their lives 
during battle.
  Worse, our troops are neglected when they finally get home. Veterans 
health care continues to suffer under the administration's reckless 
fiscal policies, and America has not kept its promise to properly 
provide for the health care of our soldiers once they have returned 
home from the war.
  The most disturbing thing about the President's request for more Iraq 
funding is the lack of accountability. Why are we writing another check 
for a mission that has been so badly botched? Who is being held 
responsible for the misuse of the money we have already approved?
  This practice of funding a war through supplemental spending bills 
underscores the lack of planning and arrogance that have characterized 
this war. A total of $200 billion appropriated for Iraq after Congress 
approves this latest bill, that is about $675 for every American man, 
woman and child.
  So where is this money going? How much of it is enriching war 
profiteers? Why did the Army waive its usual procedures and make full 
payment to Halliburton despite legitimate questions about overbilling 
and financial mismanagement? And why can we not get a congressional 
investigation into the $9 billion that mysteriously disappeared from 
the books at the Coalition Provisional Authority?
  If the President wants more money for this war, he can take it out of 
something he cares about, instead of taking it out of the hides of the 
American people. No more blank checks. If we are going to spend 
billions, let us at least spend billions on the people who deserve it, 
the brave troops in the field, and especially members of the National 
Guard and Reserve who are receiving less for their sacrifices. It is 
time we honor their commitment and that of their families by providing 
them with the resources they need and deserve.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I would hope that the gentlewoman would withdraw this amendment. This 
is a very important amendment. I see what she is trying to do here. But 
the regular forces are just as short. As a matter of fact, this bill 
actually does not provide enough money for the regular forces. I 
understand the technicalities of it, that it should not be in a 
supplemental, it should be in a regular bill; but to put all the O&M 
money in the National Guard would do a disservice to the regular 
forces.
  I just visited three bases. All three bases were short in O&M money. 
They were short in almost every category. So I wish the gentlewoman 
would withdraw her amendment. We will take a look in the conference to 
see if the National Guard needs more O&M money, and we will see what we 
can do.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my amendment. I hope that 
my message has been heard. I thank the Chair for letting me speak out 
of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). Without objection, the amendment is 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia:
       Page 6, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by 
     $1,000,000)''.

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is based upon two 
facts that I think we agree on on both sides of the aisle. One was very 
articulately expressed by the chairman of the defense appropriations 
committee earlier today when he asserted the fact that we are a coequal 
branch of government. We are equally responsible for what military 
activity we engage in. We will be held equally accountable. And the 
fact that we hold the purse strings makes it incumbent upon us that we 
have some expectation of how much a war is going to cost, how we can 
budget for it, and particularly what measurable criteria are we seeking 
to enable us to complete our mission.
  The second fact is one that has been expressed time and again, 
particularly by our senior military officers, that we ought not engage 
in military activity, that we ought not go to war without a plan to win 
the peace. That is what this amendment addresses. It would give nominal 
resources to the Secretary of Defense to be able to give us the kind of 
information that we need to work with the executive branch to evaluate 
how we are doing in terms of succeeding in our mission in Iraq.
  For example, what level of physical infrastructure reconstruction 
does the administration feel is necessary for the Iraqi economy to be 
viable. We have invested billions of dollars in reconstruction. How 
much more might be necessary?
  In terms of political stability, are we waiting for ratification of 
the constitution and then a subsequent election? And if that election 
goes well, will that mean that we can gradually begin completing our 
mission at least in terms of the proportion of the troops that are 
currently committed?

                              {time}  1400

  And, particularly, what level of Iraqi security forces will be 
necessary? We have been given wildly varying numbers, 40,000 to 160,000 
to over 200,000. What does it mean for Iraqi security forces to be 
adequately trained and equipped? Does it mean a 6-week training course 
in human rights, which some have suggested meant that they could be 
considered security forces, or does it mean the kind of intensive 
training for many months that is comparable to what we give our troops 
so that they can engage in battle and can show leadership in the face 
of military confrontation? Those are things we need to discuss 
together.
  What we want are the measurable criteria. It is not an unreasonable 
expectation. And when we pass a supplemental that contains $600 million 
for a new embassy that maintains our substantial force in Iraq, we want 
to make sure we do not give any credence to our enemies who, in 
Secretary Rumsfeld's expression, seem to be able to recruit insurgents 
greater in number than we could ever possibly kill. They are able to do 
so by accusing us of being permanent occupiers, thereby denying Iraqis 
of true sovereignty over their own country.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has good criteria for 
success, and the chairman and I have talked about this, and I think he 
has got a good idea here.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to extend this 
conversation for too much longer. I think it is an amendment that we 
can accept. I think it is the amendment that takes out $1 million and 
puts $1 million back in. I am very happy with that.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it would 
remain in the bill that the administration would have to detail and 
share

[[Page 4681]]

with us what is their strategy for success.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Of course.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Yesterday I went before the Committee on Rules and offered four 
amendments to this supplemental appropriations bill. I rarely offer 
more than one amendment on an appropriation bill, and I understand 
these amendments will be subject to a point of order. However, the 
issues that these amendments address need to be raised.
  First I want to say thanks to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
for putting together this bill and for their hard work. I am pleased 
that this bill increases the military death benefits and subsidized 
life insurance benefits for families of soldiers who have died while on 
active duty. However, there is still more that needs to be done for our 
troops and their families.
  While the troops who are deployed face the horrors of war abroad, far 
too many of their families face tremendous struggles to make ends meet 
here at home.
  As a symbol of our appreciation for their bravery and sacrifice, I 
believe Congress should grant a one-time $1,500 bonus to our servicemen 
and women deployed under Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 
Freedom. This is the same amendment I offered on the last Iraq 
supplemental bill.
  Not since Vietnam has such a large number of our troops had such long 
deployments, especially our National Guard and Reservists, who make up 
approximately 40 percent of the fighting force in Iraq. Forty-nine 
percent of the married Guard members and Reservists who report to duty 
have lost more than $1,000 a month from their civilian jobs. According 
to USA Cares, requests have been coming in from military families. 
Twenty-four percent of them are asking for help to pay the utility 
bills, 30 percent are asking for help for housing, and 70 percent 
request money for food.
  As Members of Congress, we may have differing ideas about U.S. 
involvement in Iraq, but we can all agree that our servicemen and women 
deserve our severe recognition for their courageous effort. In the 
coming years, thousands of our young men and women will not see their 
families. A record number of Reservists and Guardsmen and women will 
put their private sector jobs and opportunities on hold, and thousands 
of children from every part of America will pray for their parents' 
safe return. Give our troops the $1,500 bonus they deserve.
  The second amendment I would have offered ensures that the U.S. 
citizens who were prisoners of war in the first Gulf War, 1991, receive 
the court-awarded compensation that is due to them. Currently, this 
administration is fighting former American prisoners of war in court, 
trying to prevent them from collecting nearly $1 billion from frozen 
Iraqi assets that a Federal judge awarded them as compensation for 
torture at the hands of Saddam Hussein's regime. Many of these POWs 
were tortured in the same prison, Abu Ghraib, where American soldiers 
allegedly abused Iraqis. Those Iraqi victims, according to this 
administration, deserve compensation from the United States. Why then 
are our own brave men and women not being compensated for their 
suffering using the Iraqi assets that the U.S. has already frozen? 
These Americans must now fight its own government for compensation 
legally due them.
  It is imperative that we make sure our 1991 Gulf War POWs are fully 
compensated. My proposal would ensure that any money expended under 
this Act, our American troops who were victims of torture and hostage 
taking, receive the compensation courts have already awarded them from 
frozen Iraqi assets. It does not take an act of Congress to do this. 
All it does take is a compassionate President to release those assets.
  Lastly, I also went to the Committee on Rules to offer two amendments 
that deal with the domestic helicopter industry. The first allows for 
$15 million in assistance to small domestic helicopter manufacturers 
who produce helicopters with not less than 60 percent U.S. content so 
they can compete with foreign-owned and foreign-subsidized helicopter 
manufacturers. The second amendment reinstates the Buy American 
provision requiring at least 50 percent American content in government 
purchases of civilian aircraft. Over the past 20 years, the helicopter 
industry in the United States has dwindled due to competition from the 
foreign helicopter industry which receives government funding for 
product development. It has become increasingly difficult for the U.S. 
helicopter industry to compete against its heavily subsidized foreign 
competition. The end result is a blow to the U.S. economy and our 
workers.
  In my district Enstrom Helicopter Corporation recently lost a bid to 
Eurocopter, a company owned by a French-German conglomerate. The 
Department of Homeland Security awarded a $75 million contract to 
Eurocopter to build 55 helicopters for the U.S. Customs and Border 
Patrol. This contract came at the expense of American companies and 
American workers. This contract not only hurt the workers in my 
district but also 44 other States that supply parts and services to the 
helicopter industry. My amendment would provide financial support for 
the U.S. helicopter industry to try to level the playing field, while 
also reinstating the Buy American provisions.
  I have been informed that these amendments will not be made in order; 
therefore, I will not offer them. I submit for the Record an article 
from the ``LA Times'' dated February 15.

              [From the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 15, 2005]

            White House Turns Tables on Former American POWs

                          (By David G. Savage)

       Washington--The latest chapter in the legal history of 
     torture is being written by American pilots who were beaten 
     and abused by Iraqis during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. And it 
     has taken a strange twist.
       The Bush administration is fighting the former prisoners of 
     war in court, trying to prevent them from collecting nearly 
     $1 billion from Iraq that a federal judge awarded them as 
     compensation for their torture at the hands of Saddam 
     Hussein's regime.
       The rationale: Today's Iraqis are good guys, and they need 
     the money.
       The case abounds with ironies. It pits the U.S. government 
     squarely against its own war heroes and the Geneva 
     Convention.
       Many of the pilots were tortured in the same Iraqi prison, 
     Abu Ghraib, where American soldiers abused Iraqis 15 months 
     ago. Those Iraqi victims, Defense Secretary Donald H. 
     Rumsfeld has said, deserve compensation from the United 
     States.
       But the American victims of Iraqi torturers are not 
     entitled to similar payments from Iraq, the U.S. government 
     says.
       ``It seems so strange to have our own country fighting us 
     on this,'' said retired Air Force Col. David W. Eberly, the 
     senior officer among the former POWs.
       The case, now being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, 
     tests whether ``state sponsors of terrorism'' can be sued in 
     the U.S. courts for torture, murder or hostage-taking. The 
     court is expected to decide in the next two months whether to 
     hear the appeal.
       Congress opened the door to such claims in 1996, when it 
     lifted the shield of sovereign immunity--which basically 
     prohibits lawsuits against foreign governments--for any 
     nation that supports terrorism. At that time, Iraq was one of 
     seven nations identified by the State Department as 
     sponsoring terrorist activity. The 17 Gulf War POWs looked to 
     have a very strong case when they first filed suit in 2002. 
     They had been undeniably tortured by a tyrannical regime, one 
     that had $1.7 billion of its assets frozen by the U.S. 
     government.
       The picture changed, however, when the United States 
     invaded Iraq and toppled Hussein from power nearly two years 
     ago. On July 21, 2003, two weeks after the Gulf War POWs won 
     their court case in U.S. District Court, the Bush 
     administration intervened to argue that their claims should 
     be dismissed.
       ``No amount of money can truly compensate these brave men 
     and women for the suffering that they went through at the 
     hands of this very brutal regime and at the hands of Saddam 
     Hussein,'' White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan told 
     reporters when asked about the case in November 2003.
       Government lawyers have insisted, literally, on ``no amount 
     of money'' going to the Gulf War POWs. ``These resources are 
     required for the urgent national security needs of rebuilding 
     Iraq,'' McClellan said.

[[Page 4682]]

       The case also tests a key provision of the Geneva 
     Convention, the international law that governs the treatment 
     of prisoners of war. The United States and other signers 
     pledged never to ``absolve'' a state of ``any liability'' for 
     the torture of POWs.
       Former military lawyers and a bipartisan group of lawmakers 
     have been among those who have urged the Supreme Court to 
     take up the case and to strengthen the law against torturers 
     and tyrannical regimes.
       ``Our government is on the wrong side of this issue,'' said 
     Jeffrey F. Addicott, a former Army lawyer and director of the 
     Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University in San 
     Antonio. ``A lot of Americans would scratch their heads and 
     ask why is our government taking the side of Iraq against our 
     POWs.''
       The POWs' journey through the court system began with the 
     events of Jan. 17, 1991--the first day of the Gulf War. In 
     response to Hussein's invasion of Kuwait five months earlier, 
     the United States, as head of a United Nations coalition, 
     launched an air attack on Iraq, determined to drive Iraqi 
     forces from the oil-rich Gulf state. On the first day of the 
     fighting, a jet piloted by Marine Corps Lt. Col. Clifford 
     Acree was downed over Iraq by a surface-to-air missile. He 
     suffered a neck injury ejecting from the plane and was soon 
     taken prisoner by the Iraqis. Blindfolded and handcuffed, he 
     was beaten until he lost consciousness. His nose was broken, 
     his skull was fractured, and he was threatened with having 
     his fingers cut off. He lost 30 pounds during his 47 days of 
     captivity.
       Eberly was shot down two days later and lost 45 pounds 
     during his ordeal. He and several other U.S. service members 
     were near starvation when they were freed. Other POWs had 
     their eardrums ruptured and were urinated on during their 
     captivity at Abu Ghraib.
       All the while, their families thought they were dead 
     because the Iraqis did not notify the U.S. government of 
     their capture.
       In April 2002, the Washington law firm of Steptoe & Johnson 
     filed suit on behalf of the 17 former POWs and 37 of their 
     family members. The suit, Acree vs. Republic of Iraq, sought 
     monetary damages for the ``acts of torture committed against 
     them and for pain, suffering and severe mental distress of 
     their families.''
       Usually, foreign states have a sovereign immunity that 
     shields them from being sued. But in the Anti-Terrorism Act 
     of 1996, Congress authorized U.S. courts to award ``money 
     damages . . . against a foreign state for personal injury or 
     death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial 
     killing, aircraft sabotage [or] hostage taking.''
       This provision was ``designed to hold terrorist nations 
     accountable for the torture of Americans and to deter rogue 
     nations from engaging in such actions in the future,'' Sens. 
     Susan Collins (R-Maine) and George Allen (R-Va.) said last 
     year in a letter to Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft that urged him 
     to support the POWs' claim.
       The case came before U.S. District Judge Richard W. 
     Roberts. There was no trial; Hussein's regime ignored the 
     suit, and the U.S. State Department chose to take no part in 
     the case.
       On July 7, 2003, the judge handed down a long opinion that 
     described the abuse suffered by the Gulf War POWs, and he 
     awarded them $653 million in compensatory damages. He also 
     assessed $306 million in punitive damages against Iraq. 
     Lawyers for the POWs asked him to put a hold on some of 
     Iraq's frozen assets.
       No sooner had the POWs celebrated their victory than they 
     came up against a new roadblock: Bush administration lawyers 
     argued that the case should be thrown out of court on the 
     grounds that Bush had voided any such claims against Iraq, 
     which was now under U.S. occupation. The administration 
     lawyers based their argument on language in an emergency 
     bill, passed shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, 
     approving the expenditure of $80 billion for military 
     operations and reconstruction efforts. One clause in the 
     legislation authorized the president to suspend the sanctions 
     against Iraq that had been imposed as punishment for the 
     invasion of Kuwait more than a decade earlier.
       The president's lawyers said this clause also allowed Bush 
     to remove Iraq from the State Department's list of state 
     sponsors of terrorism and to set aside pending monetary 
     judgments against Iraq.
       When the POWs' case went before the U.S. Court of Appeals 
     for the District of Columbia Circuit, the three-judge panel 
     ruled unanimously for the Bush administration and threw out 
     the lawsuit.
       ``The United States possesses weighty foreign policy 
     interests that are clearly threatened by the entry of 
     judgment for [the POWs] in this case,'' the appeals court 
     said.
       The administration also succeeding in killing a 
     congressional resolution supporting the POWs' suit. ``U.S. 
     courts no longer have jurisdiction to hear cases such as 
     those filed by the Gulf War POWs,'' then-Deputy Secretary of 
     State Richard L. Armitage said in a letter to lawmakers. 
     ``Moreover, the president has ordered the vesting of blocked 
     Iraqi assets for use by the Iraqi people and for 
     reconstruction.''
       Already frustrated by the turn of events, the former POWs 
     were startled when Rumsfeld said he favored awarding 
     compensation to the Iraqi prisoners who were abused by the 
     U.S. military at Abu Ghraib.
       ``I am seeking a way to provide appropriate compensation to 
     those detainees who suffered grievous and brutal abuse and 
     cruelty at the hands of a few members of the U.S. military. 
     It is the right thing to do,'' Rumsfeld told a Senate 
     committee last year.
       By contrast, the government's lawyers have refused to even 
     discuss a settlement in the POWs' case, say lawyers for the 
     Gulf War veterans. ``They were willing to settle this for 
     pennies on the dollar,'' said Addicott, the former Army 
     lawyer.
       The last hope for the POWs rests with the Supreme Court. 
     Their lawyers petitioned the high court last month to hear 
     the case. Significantly, it has been renamed Acree vs. Iraq 
     and the United States.
       The POWs say the justices should decide the ``important and 
     recurring question [of] whether U.S. citizens who are victims 
     of state-sponsored terrorism [may] seek redress against 
     terrorist states in federal court.''
       This week, Justice Department lawyers are expected to file 
     a brief urging the court to turn away the appeal.

  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as the daughter of a veteran, 25 years in the Army, I 
want to express my profound respect and appreciation for our brave men 
and women serving on the ground in Iraq. They have a very difficult 
job, and all of us pray for their safe return, and many of us want them 
home very quickly.
  The administration's request for an additional $82 billion brings the 
total war funding to nearly $300 billion. We must continue to ask just 
where has this money gone? For example, the Coalition Provisional 
Authority was unable to account for about $9 billion, and that is just 
what we know. Where did that money go? We deserve to know. The American 
people deserve to know what our tax dollars have paid for. Did that $9 
billion go, for example, to protect our troops? We have no idea.
  Another important question is, are we safer today than when this war 
began? The answer is plainly no. If one believed the administration, 
the goal of the war was to prevent weapons of mass destruction from 
falling into the hands of terrorists and that Iraq posed an immediate 
threat to the United States. Now it appears that this unnecessary war 
may have actually increased that threat.
  Instead of stopping terrorism, this administration's policies have 
allowed it to expand. According to the National Intelligence Council, 
this administration's war has turned Iraq into a breeding ground for 
Islamic terrorists. Before the war on Iraq, there was no connection, no 
connection, between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Now there is.
  Congress requires the administration to give a thorough accounting of 
how our tax dollars have been spent pursuing these policies in Iraq and 
what the administration's expectations are for future expenses. And 
despite this law, the administration has flatly refused to make this 
accounting to us, to the American people, or to determine what the 
future costs will be. We know, however, what has been overlooked. There 
is a documented failure to provide our troops with both body armor and 
armored vehicles. There are documented cases of waste and fraud 
perpetrated by contractors like Halliburton.
  Mr. Chairman, it is the height of hypocrisy for Members of Congress 
to say that they support our troops and then fail to insist on the 
accountability of how these funds are being spent and whether or not 
the previous resources allocated were spent to protect our troops. If 
one asks me, the Bush administration just wants another blank check. No 
oversight, no accountability, and they have failed to provide a 
concrete plan for how our troops will stabilize the situation in Iraq 
and to bring our troops home.
  Mr. Chairman, this administration has much to account for. There have 
been too many blank checks and not enough accountability. I will vote 
against the supplemental and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
the remainder of title I be considered as read, printed in the Record, 
and open to amendment at any point.

[[Page 4683]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of title I from page 7, line 11 to page 35, 
line 14 is as follows:

                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army Reserve'', $8,154,000: Provided, That the amounts 
     provided under this heading are designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 402 of the conference report 
     to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy Reserve'', $75,164,000: Provided, That the amounts 
     provided under this heading are designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 402 of the conference report 
     to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

            Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps Reserve'', $24,920,000: Provided, That the 
     amounts provided under this heading are designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress).

             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army National Guard'', $188,779,000: Provided, That the 
     amounts provided under this heading are designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress).

             Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid

       For an additional amount for ``Overseas Humanitarian, 
     Disaster, and Civic Aid'', $10,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2006: Provided, That the amounts provided 
     under this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                    Afghanistan Security Forces Fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the ``Afghanistan Security Forces Fund'', 
     $1,285,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006: 
     Provided, That such funds shall be available to the Secretary 
     of Defense, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     the purpose of allowing the Commander, Combined Forces 
     Command-Afghanistan, or the Secretary's designee to provide 
     assistance, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, 
     to the security forces of Afghanistan including the provision 
     of equipment, supplies, services, training, facility and 
     infrastructure repair, renovation, and construction, and 
     funding: Provided further, That the authority to provide 
     assistance under this section is in addition to any other 
     authority to provide assistance to foreign nations: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Defense may transfer the funds 
     provided herein to appropriations for military personnel; 
     operation and maintenance; Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, 
     and Civic Aid; procurement; research, development, test and 
     evaluation; and defense working capital funds to accomplish 
     the purposes provided herein: Provided further, That this 
     transfer authority is in addition to any other transfer 
     authority available to the Department of Defense: Provided 
     further, That upon a determination that all or part of the 
     funds so transferred from this appropriation are not 
     necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may 
     be transferred back to this appropriation: Provided further, 
     That contributions of funds for the purposes provided herein 
     from any person, foreign government, or international 
     organization may be credited to this Fund, and used for such 
     purposes: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense 
     shall, not fewer than 5 days prior to making transfers from 
     this appropriation, notify the congressional defense 
     committees in writing of the details of any such transfer: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall submit a report no 
     later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal quarter to 
     the congressional defense committees summarizing the details 
     of the transfer of funds from this appropriation: Provided 
     further, That the amounts provided under this heading are 
     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 
     (108th Congress).

                       Iraq Security Forces Fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the ``Iraq Security Forces Fund'', $5,700,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2006: Provided, That 
     such funds shall be available to the Secretary of Defense, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the purpose 
     of allowing the Commander, Multi-National Security Transition 
     Command--Iraq, or the Secretary's designee to provide 
     assistance, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, 
     to the security forces of Iraq including the provision of 
     equipment, supplies, services, training, facility and 
     infrastructure repair, renovation, and construction, and 
     funding: Provided further, That the authority to provide 
     assistance under this section is in addition to any other 
     authority to provide assistance to foreign nations: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Defense may transfer the funds 
     provided herein to appropriations for military personnel; 
     operation and maintenance; Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, 
     and Civic Aid; procurement; research, development, test and 
     evaluation; and defense working capital funds to accomplish 
     the purposes provided herein: Provided further, That this 
     transfer authority is in addition to any other transfer 
     authority available to the Department of Defense: Provided 
     further, That upon a determination that all or part of the 
     funds so transferred from this appropriation are not 
     necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may 
     be transferred back to this appropriation: Provided further, 
     That contributions of funds for the purposes provided herein 
     from any person, foreign government, or international 
     organization may be credited to this Fund, and used for such 
     purposes: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, from funds made available under this 
     heading, up to $99,000,000 may be used to provide assistance 
     to the Government of Jordan to establish a regional training 
     center designed to provide comprehensive training programs 
     for regional military and security forces and military and 
     civilian officials, to enhance the capability of such forces 
     and officials to respond to existing and emerging security 
     threats in the region: Provided further, That assistance 
     authorized by the preceding proviso may include the provision 
     of facilities, equipment, supplies, services, training and 
     funding, and the Secretary of Defense may transfer funds to 
     any Federal agency for the purpose of providing such 
     assistance: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense 
     shall, not fewer than 5 days prior to making transfers from 
     this appropriation, notify the congressional defense 
     committees in writing of the details of any such transfer: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall submit a report no 
     later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal quarter to 
     the congressional defense committees summarizing the details 
     of the transfer of funds from this appropriation: Provided 
     further, That the amounts provided under this heading are 
     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 
     (108th Congress).

                              PROCUREMENT

                       Aircraft Procurement, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, 
     Army'', $458,677,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2007: Provided, That the amounts provided under this heading 
     are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. 
     Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                       Missile Procurement, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Missile Procurement, Army'', 
     $340,536,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007: 
     Provided, That the amounts provided under this heading are 
     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 
     (108th Congress).

        Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Weapons and 
     Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'', $2,678,747,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2007: Provided, That the 
     amounts provided under this heading are designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress).

                    Procurement of Ammunition, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition, 
     Army'', $532,800,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2007: Provided, That the amounts provided under this heading 
     are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. 
     Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                        Other Procurement, Army


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Army'', 
     $6,634,905,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007, 
     of which $85,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from ``Iraq 
     Freedom Fund'': Provided, That the amounts provided under 
     this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, 
     Navy'', $200,295,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2007: Provided, That the amounts provided under this heading 
     are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. 
     Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                       Weapons Procurement, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Weapons Procurement, Navy'', 
     $71,600,000, to remain

[[Page 4684]]

     available until September 30, 2007: Provided, That the 
     amounts provided under this heading are designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress).

            Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition, 
     Navy and Marine Corps'', $141,735,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2007: Provided, That the amounts provided 
     under this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                        Other Procurement, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Navy'', 
     $78,372,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007: 
     Provided, That the amounts provided under this heading are 
     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 
     (108th Congress).

                       Procurement, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Marine Corps'', 
     $3,588,495,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007: 
     Provided, That the amounts provided under this heading are 
     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 
     (108th Congress).

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $279,241,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2007: Provided, That the amounts provided under this 
     heading are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. 
     Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                  Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition, 
     Air Force'', $6,998,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2007: Provided, That the amounts provided under this 
     heading are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. 
     Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                      Other Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $2,658,527,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2007: Provided, That the amounts provided under this 
     heading are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. 
     Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'', 
     $646,327,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007: 
     Provided, That the amounts provided under this heading are 
     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 
     (108th Congress).

               RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Army'', $25,170,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2006: Provided, That the amounts provided 
     under this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

           Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test, 
     and Evaluation, Navy'', $202,051,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2006: Provided, That the amounts provided 
     under this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

         Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Air Force'', $121,500,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2006: Provided, That the 
     amounts provided under this heading are designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress).

        Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', $159,600,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2006: Provided, That the 
     amounts provided under this heading are designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress).

                     REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

                     Defense Working Capital Funds

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Working Capital 
     Funds'', $1,411,300,000: Provided, That the amounts provided 
     under this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                     National Defense Sealift Fund

       For an additional amount for ``National Defense Sealift 
     Fund'', $32,400,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the amounts provided under this heading are 
     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 
     (108th Congress).

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

         Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Drug Interdiction and 
     Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'', $257,000,000, to remain 
     available until December 31, 2005: Provided, That these funds 
     may be used for such activities related to Afghanistan and 
     the Central Asia area: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     of Defense may transfer the funds provided herein only to 
     appropriations for military personnel; operation and 
     maintenance; procurement; and research, development, test and 
     evaluation: Provided further, That the funds transferred 
     shall be merged with and be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriation to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That the transfer authority 
     provided in this paragraph is in addition to any other 
     transfer authority available to the Department of Defense: 
     Provided further, That upon a determination that all or part 
     of the funds transferred from this appropriation are not 
     necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may 
     be transferred back to this appropriation: Provided further, 
     That not to exceed $70,000,000 of the funds provided herein 
     may be used to reimburse fully this account for obligations 
     incurred for the purposes provided under this heading prior 
     to enactment of this Act: Provided further, That the amounts 
     provided under this heading are designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 402 of the conference report 
     to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For an additional amount for ``Office of the Inspector 
     General'', $148,000: Provided, That the amounts provided 
     under this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                            RELATED AGENCIES

               Intelligence Community Management Account

       For an additional amount for ``Intelligence Community 
     Management Account'', $250,300,000, of which $181,000,000 is 
     to remain available until September 30, 2006: Provided, That 
     the amounts provided under this heading are designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress).

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER


                          (Transfer of Funds)

       Sec. 1101. Upon his determination that such action is 
     necessary in the national interest, the Secretary of Defense 
     may transfer between appropriations up to $2,000,000,000 of 
     the funds made available to the Department of Defense in this 
     chapter: Provided, That the Secretary shall notify the 
     Congress promptly of each transfer made pursuant to this 
     authority: Provided further, That the transfer authority 
     provided in this section is in addition to any other transfer 
     authority available to the Department of Defense: Provided 
     further, That the authority in this section is subject to the 
     same terms and conditions as the authority provided in 
     section 8005 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
     2005, except for the fourth proviso: Provided further, That 
     the amounts made available by the transfer of funds in or 
     pursuant to this section are designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 402 of the conference report 
     to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).
       Sec. 1102. Section 8005 of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-287; 118 Stat. 969), 
     is amended by striking ``$3,500,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$5,500,000,000'': Provided, That the amounts made available 
     by the transfer of funds in or pursuant to this section are 
     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 
     (108th Congress).


                          (Transfer of Funds)

       Sec. 1103. During fiscal year 2005, the Secretary of 
     Defense may transfer amounts in or credited to the Defense 
     Cooperation Account, pursuant to section 2608 of title 10, 
     United States Code, to such appropriations or funds of the 
     Department of Defense as he shall determine for use 
     consistent with the purposes for which such funds were 
     contributed and accepted: Provided, That such amounts shall 
     be available for the same time period as the appropriation to 
     which transferred: Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
     report to the Congress all transfers made pursuant to this 
     authority: Provided further, That the amounts provided under

[[Page 4685]]

     this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).
       Sec. 1104. (a) Authority To Provide Support.--Of the amount 
     appropriated by this Act under the heading, ``Drug 
     Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'', not to 
     exceed $34,000,000 may be made available for support for 
     counter-drug activities of the Government of Afghanistan, and 
     not to exceed $4,000,000 may be made available for support 
     for counter-drug activities of the Government of Pakistan: 
     Provided, That such support shall be in addition to support 
     provided for the counter-drug activities of said Governments 
     under any other provision of the law.
       (b) Types of Support.--(1) Except as specified in 
     subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section, the support 
     that may be provided under the authority in this section 
     shall be limited to the types of support specified in section 
     1033(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85, as amended by Public Law 
     106-398 and Public Law 108-136) and conditions on the 
     provision of support as contained in section 1033 shall apply 
     for fiscal year 2005.
       (2) The Secretary of Defense may transfer vehicles, 
     aircraft, and detection, interception, monitoring and testing 
     equipment to said Governments for counter-drug activities.
       (3) For the Government of Afghanistan, the Secretary of 
     Defense may also provide individual and crew-served weapons, 
     and ammunition for counter-drug security forces.
       Sec. 1105. The paragraph under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' in title II of the Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-287; 118 
     Stat. 954), is amended in the first proviso by striking 
     ``$32,000,000'' and inserting ``$40,000,000''.
       Sec. 1106. For fiscal year 2005, the limitation under 
     paragraph (3) of section 2208(l) of title 10, United States 
     Code, on the total amount of advance billings rendered or 
     imposed for all working capital funds of the Department of 
     Defense in a fiscal year shall be applied by substituting 
     ``$1,500,000,000'' for ``$1,000,000,000''.
       Sec. 1107. Section 1201(a) of the Ronald W. Reagan National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 
     108-375; 118 Stat. 2077), as amended by section 102 of title 
     I of division J of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 
     (Public Law 108-447), is further amended by striking 
     ``$500,000,000'' in the matter preceding paragraph (1) and 
     inserting ``$854,000,000''.
       Sec. 1108. Section 8090(b) of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-287), is amended by 
     striking ``$185,000,000'' and inserting ``$210,000,000''.
       Sec. 1109. (a) During calendar year 2005 and 
     notwithstanding section 5547 of title 5, United States Code, 
     the head of an Executive agency may waive the limitation, up 
     to $200,000, established in that section for total 
     compensation, including limitations on the aggregate of basic 
     pay and premium pay payable in a calendar year, to an 
     employee who performs work while in an overseas location that 
     is in the area of responsibility of the Commander of the U.S. 
     Central Command, in support of, or related to--
       (1) a military operation, including a contingency 
     operation, or
       (2) an operation in response to a declared emergency.
       (b) To the extent that a waiver under subsection (a) 
     results in payment of additional premium pay of a type that 
     is normally creditable as basic pay for retirement or any 
     other purpose, such additional pay shall not be considered to 
     be basic pay for any purpose, nor shall it be used in 
     computing a lump-sum payment for accumulated and accrued 
     annual leave under section 5551 of title 5, United States 
     Code.
       (c) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management may 
     issue regulations to ensure appropriate consistency among 
     heads of executive agencies in the exercise of authority 
     granted by this section.
       Sec. 1110. Section 1096(b) of the Intelligence Reform and 
     Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``in 
     the fiscal year after the effective date of this Act'' and 
     inserting ``during fiscal years 2005 and 2006''; and
       (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``500 new personnel 
     billets'' and inserting ``a total of 500 new personnel 
     positions''.
       Sec. 1111. Section 1051a(e) of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``September 30, 2005'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2005''.
       Sec. 1112. Notwithstanding subsection (c) of section 308e 
     of title 37, United States Code, the maximum amount of the 
     bonus paid to a member of the Armed Forces pursuant to a 
     reserve affiliation agreement entered into under such section 
     during fiscal year 2005 shall not exceed $10,000, and the 
     Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     with respect to the Coast Guard, may prescribe regulations 
     under subsection (f) of such section to modify the method by 
     which bonus payments are made under reserve affiliation 
     agreements entered into during such fiscal year.
       Sec. 1113. (a) Increase in SGLI Maximum.--Section 1967 of 
     title 38, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(3)(A)(i), by striking ``$250,000'' 
     and inserting ``$400,000 or such lesser amount as the member 
     may elect in increments of $50,000'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(3)(B), by striking ``member or 
     spouse'' in the last sentence and inserting ``member, be 
     evenly divisible by $50,000 and, in the case of a member's 
     spouse''; and
       (3) in subsection (d), by striking ``of $250,000'' and 
     inserting ``in effect under subsection (a)(3)(A)(i)''.
       (b) Spouse Consent and Beneficiary Notification.--Section 
     1967(a)(3)(B) of such title is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(B)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new clauses:
       ``(ii) A member who is married may not, without the written 
     concurrence of the member's spouse--

       ``(I) elect not to be insured under this subchapter or to 
     be insured under this subchapter in an amount less than the 
     maximum amount provided for under subparagraph (A)(i); or
       ``(II) designate any other person as a beneficiary under 
     this program.

       ``(iii) Whenever a member who is not married elects not to 
     be insured under this subchapter or to be insured under this 
     subchapter in an amount less than the maximum amount provided 
     for under subparagraph (A)(i), the Secretary concerned shall 
     provide a notice of such election to any person designated by 
     the member as a beneficiary or designated as the member's 
     next- of-kin for the purpose of emergency notification, as 
     determined under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of 
     Defense.''.
       (c) Limitation on Spouse Coverage to Amount of Member 
     Coverage.--Section 1967(a)(3)(C) of such title is amended by 
     inserting before the period at the end the following: ``as 
     applicable to such member under subparagraph (A)(i)''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments to VGLI Provisions.--Section 1977 
     of such title is amended by striking ``$250,000'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``$400,000''.
       (e) Military Death Gratuity.--Section 1478 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``$12,000 (as adjusted 
     under subsection (c))'' and inserting ``$100,000''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (c).
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to deaths occurring on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 1114. (a) Special Death Gratuity for Certain Prior 
     Deaths in Service.--In the case of the death of a member of 
     the uniformed services that is a qualifying death (as 
     specified in subsection (b)), the Secretary concerned shall 
     pay a death gratuity of not more than $238,000. Of that 
     amount--
       (1) $150,000 shall be paid in the manner specified in 
     subsection (c); and
       (2) $88,000 shall be paid in the manner specified in 
     subsection (d).
       (b) Qualifying Deaths.--The death of a member of the 
     uniformed services is a qualifying death for purpose of this 
     section if--
       (1) the member died during the period beginning on October 
     7, 2001, and ending on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (2) for the purpose of section 1114(a)(2), the death was a 
     direct result of an injury or illness (or combination of one 
     or more injuries or illness) incurred in Operation Enduring 
     Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom, as determined under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense; and
       (3) for the purpose of section 1114(a)(1), the death was a 
     direct result of an injury or illness (or combination of one 
     or more injuries or illness) incurred by any active duty 
     military member in the performance of duty.
       (c) SGLI Beneficiaries.--A payment pursuant to subsection 
     (a)(1) by reason of a covered death shall be paid--
       (1) to a beneficiary in proportion to the share of benefits 
     applicable to such beneficiary in the payment of life 
     insurance proceeds paid on the basis of that death under the 
     Servicemembers Group Life Insurance program under subchapter 
     III of chapter 19 of title 38, United States Code; or
       (2) in the case of a member who elected not to be insured 
     under the provisions of that subchapter, in equal shares to 
     the person or persons who would have received proceeds under 
     those provisions of law for a member who is insured under 
     that subchapter but does not designate named beneficiaries.
       (d) Military Death Gratuity Beneficiaries.--A payment 
     pursuant to subsection (a)(2) by reason of a covered death 
     shall be paid equal shares to the beneficiaries who were paid 
     the death gratuity that was paid with respect to that death 
     under subchapter II of chapter 75 of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       (e) Status of Payments.--A death gratuity payable under 
     this section by reason of a qualifying death is in addition 
     to any other death gratuity or other benefit payable by the 
     United States by reason of that death.
     (f) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, the term 
     ``Secretary concerned'' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 101 of title 37, United States Code.''.

[[Page 4686]]

       Sec. 1115. Funds appropriated in this chapter, or made 
     available by transfer of funds in or pursuant to this 
     chapter, for intelligence activities are deemed to be 
     specifically authorized by the Congress for purposes of 
     section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
     414).
       Sec. 1116. None of the funds provided in this chapter may 
     be used to finance programs or activities denied by Congress 
     in fiscal year 2004 and 2005 appropriations to the Department 
     of Defense or to initiate a procurement or research, 
     development, test and evaluation new start program without 
     prior written notification to the congressional defense 
     committees.

                               CHAPTER 2

                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                      Military Construction, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, 
     Army'', $930,100,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2006: Provided, That $669,100,000 of such additional amount 
     may not be obligated until after that date on which the 
     Secretary of Defense submits to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate the 
     comprehensive master plans for overseas military 
     infrastructure required by House Report 108-342: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     such funds may be obligated or expended to carry out planning 
     and design and military construction projects not otherwise 
     authorized by law: Provided further, That the amounts 
     provided under this heading are designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 402 of the conference report 
     to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

              Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, Navy 
     and Marine Corps'', $92,720,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2006: Provided, That $32,380,000 of such 
     additional amount may not be obligated until after that date 
     on which the Secretary of Defense submits to the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate 
     the comprehensive master plans for overseas military 
     infrastructure required by House Report 108-342: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     such funds may be obligated or expended to carry out planning 
     and design and military construction projects not otherwise 
     authorized by law: Provided further, That the amounts 
     provided under this heading are designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 402 of the conference report 
     to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                    Military Construction, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, Air 
     Force'', $301,386,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2006: Provided, That $301,386,000 of such additional 
     amount may not be obligated until after that date on which 
     the Secretary of Defense submits to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate the 
     comprehensive master plans for overseas military 
     infrastructure required by House Report 108-342: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     such funds may be obligated or expended to carry out planning 
     and design and military construction projects not otherwise 
     authorized by law: Provided further, That the amounts 
     provided under this heading are designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 402 of the conference report 
     to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army'', 
     $1,542,100,000: Provided, That the amounts provided under 
     this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'', $66,300,000: Provided, That the amounts provided 
     under this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                         Defense Health Program

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Health Program'', 
     $175,550,000 for operation and maintenance: Provided, That 
     the amounts provided under this heading are designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress).

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as the Members know, all of us in our country want to 
have our troops to have what they need when they go into harm's way. 
Sadly, that was not the case in the last 2 years. I hope that the $82 
billion in this bill will redress some of those shortcomings, 
shortfalls, that our troops have had to suffer because they did not 
have the proper equipment. Never again should America send our troops 
into harm's way without the equipment they need to keep them safe and 
to bring them home as soon as they have finished their job.
  I rise, Mr. Chairman, to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Tierney) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for putting forth 
a very critical amendment to appropriate funds for a select committee 
to study the awarding and carrying out of government contracts in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. As I said, we want our troops to have what we need. We 
must be sure that the taxpayer's dollar is spent wisely.
  In their bipartisan work, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) have made clear that 
accountability in government is not a partisan issue. Their leadership 
has set the right tone for this vital debate.
  In 1941, Mr. Chairman, Senator Harry Truman got in his car and drove 
all across the United States, making unannounced visits to defense 
plants and corporate offices. The people running the plants did not 
recognize then Senator Truman. They did not bother to hide the 
corruption and waste that characterized their operations.

                              {time}  1415

  This was at a time when Senator Truman was in a Democratic-majority 
Senate, there was a Democratic majority in the House, there was a 
Democrat in the White House, and our country was in a world war. But 
when he came home to Washington, Truman called the trip ``an eye 
opener,'' and he soon introduced a resolution to create the Special 
Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program. I repeat, at a 
time of a Democratic House and Senate and White House, this Democratic 
Senator said we must subject this spending to investigation. It was 
estimated that by spending only $400,000 at the time, this Truman 
committee saved $15 billion. And it earned Senator Truman the gratitude 
of the entire Nation.
  Today we are considering whether to appropriate another $80 billion 
to the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is in addition to the 
more than $200 billion that has already been made available. Spending 
of this magnitude demands strict accounting.
  Today it would be impossible to walk into a defense plant 
unannounced, of course; but while security measures have changed, our 
American values of accountability have not. There are honest 
differences about defense policy, but we should all agree in a 
bipartisan way that taxpayer money should always be spent efficiently 
and effectively.
  Sadly, the stories of abuse on contracts in Iraq are everywhere:
  Nearly $9 billion spent on Iraq reconstruction is unaccounted for 
because of inefficiencies and bad management.
  The Pentagon's own auditors have now concluded that Halliburton 
overcharged by more than $100 million under its no-bid Iraqi oil 
contract. $100 million.
  A firm was paid $15 million to provide security for civilian flights 
into Baghdad, even though no planes flew during the term of the 
contract. This is a disgrace.
  This may be just the tip of the iceberg, though. We simply do not 
know. That is what we want to find out. We do know who has paid the 
price for this waste and corruption: American troops and American 
taxpayers.
  Our first priority must always be to force protection; yet sloppy 
contracting has meant that money has been wasted that could have been 
spent to provide our troops the equipment they need to do their jobs 
and protect themselves.
  Recently, we learned that a contract for bulletproof ceramic plate 
inserts was awarded to a contractor who had no practical means of 
producing them. It took 167 days for troops in Iraq to start receiving 
the insert, 167 days. How many injuries? How many deaths? We do not 
know.
  For taxpayers, every dollar that is wasted on corruption, and that is 
what this is, profiteering on the war is corruption, and incompetence, 
is one less

[[Page 4687]]

dollar to pay down record deficits or to make Social Security solvent.
  Harry Truman led the way for a Democratic Congress to conduct 
oversight of a Democratic administration. In doing so, he created a 
bipartisan consensus that gave the public confidence in the war effort. 
We can and we must do the same today.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) would allow Congress 
to monitor the contracting process better, to meet the needs of our 
troops better, and to safeguard taxpayer dollars better.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and in doing so to 
support accountability in government spending and to stop the 
profiteering on the war in Iraq.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to discuss one critically important component of 
this bill, the $200 million in aid to the Palestinians. The President 
has requested $350 million for the Palestinians, and he asks that $200 
million be included in today's supplemental bill.
  The President believes, as do I, that it is imperative to deliver 
U.S. assistance quickly to improve Palestinians' quality of life and 
empower their democratically elected leadership. I am pleased this bill 
funds the Palestinian assistance request. This money will be used on 
critical projects, such transportation infrastructure, drinking water, 
business and trade, education and democratic and legal reforms.
  Mr. Chairman, on January 9, I was privileged to witness the 
remarkable Palestinian presidential election firsthand. I saw democracy 
taking hold in Palestine. I saw the mandate being handed to President 
Abbas. The Palestinian people support their new president's goals, to 
end the armed intifadah and to create a viable state living in peace 
alongside Israel.
  Mr. Chairman, the Arafat era is over. The new Palestinian president 
and his government are making great strides. They are committed to 
political reform. Their financial reform efforts, which are led by 
Minister Salaam Fayyad, have produced profound accountability and 
transparency.
  On the critical question of security, President Abbas is also off to 
a good start. He has clearly and unequivocally condemned terrorism. 
With the exception of one horrific bombing in Tel Aviv, the cease-fire 
has held. The Palestinian security forces have begun to fight terror 
and incitement. They have arrested terrorists for the first time in 
many years.
  Yesterday, here on Capitol Hill, the ambassador of Israel sat next to 
the Palestinian ambassador and praised the Palestinian Authority for 
their security efforts. Prime Minister Sharon has welcomed the 
Palestinian moves as well.
  Mr. Chairman, the real question before us today is not whether to 
keep the $200 million for Palestinian assistance in this bill. Clearly, 
this package serves U.S. national interests and will enhance Israel's 
security and the quality of life for the Palestinians. But the real 
question is whether the U.S. Congress is serious about working with 
President Bush, Prime Minister Sharon, and President Abbas to seize 
this historic opportunity.
  The excessive conditions and limitations placed on this package may 
undermine progress toward peace. Of course, we must secure transparency 
and accountability; but the requirements in this legislation go far 
beyond what we demanded in the Arafat era.
  Imagine that. President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon are helping to 
strengthen and empower President Abbas, but at the same time Congress 
will slap more conditions on them than they ever did on Arafat.
  One especially troubling provision in the bill strikes the national 
security waiver under which the President could provide some of this 
aid directly to the Palestinian Authority. President Bush has decided 
in the past that some U.S. aid be directed to the authority. This bill 
would prevent him from doing that, tying his hands at the very moment 
that he most needs flexibility to promote our interests in the Middle 
East.
  My colleagues should understand this bill puts more restrictions on 
the President than we ever placed on President Clinton.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a broad consensus in the American pro-Israel 
community in support of the President's aid request for the 
Palestinians. The Jewish Council For Public Affairs, the umbrella group 
of 13 prominent national organizations and 122 local Jewish 
communities, has recently urged Congress to fund the Palestinian 
request in its entirety.
  The Union For Reform Judaism, representing 1.5 million American Jews, 
believes the aid should go directly to the Palestinian Authority.
  Americans for Peace Now wants us to support this package and remove 
the excessive conditions that the committee has placed on it.
  In asking us to support a clean aid package, M.J. Rosenberg of the 
Israel Policy Forum states the following: ``Israel wants a strong 
Palestinian Authority that can and will liquidate the suicide bombers 
and build a democracy that will live in peace with Israel.''
  The Arafat years are over. Fragile as it may be, a new flame of hope 
and optimism has been kindled in the Middle East. Shame on us as 
Americans if we do not do whatever we can to seize this historic 
opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the $200 million in 
Palestinian assistance, I urge us to reject any amendments to strip 
this aid, and I hope in the conference with the Senate that we can give 
back to the President the flexibility he needs to promote U.S. security 
interests in the region.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns about provisions in section 1113 
of the bill relating to Service Members Group Life Insurance, which I 
will now referral to as SGLI.
  Neither the Department of Veterans Affairs nor the House Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, the authorizing committee with jurisdiction over VA 
insurance programs, was consulted prior to the administration's 
submitting the insurance proposals in the war supplemental. I recognize 
that it placed the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in very difficult positions, 
because they always come to the floor to talk about authorizing on 
appropriations bills; but that is what you are doing exactly here.
  There are two primary points of concern with regard to these 
sections. Number one, it would authorize retroactive insurance coverage 
in cases of servicemembers who die having declined insurance coverage; 
and, second, it would require a spouse to concur with the 
servicemember's insurance coverage election.
  The administration proposed to provide for a retroactive payment to 
give the same level of benefits proposed for prospective maximum SGLI 
to those who have died since the beginning of combat operations on 
October 7, 2001. At the appropriations markup, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offered an amendment, which was accepted, to limit 
retroactive payment to those who died in performance of duty.
  By restricting payments to deaths that the Service Secretary 
concerned determines in the performance of duty, we would then expect 
that deaths which occurred during the performance of an assigned 
military duty would be compensated, but that deaths not associated with 
assigned military duties would not qualify.
  Another qualifier, though, that perhaps should have been considered 
during this markup, would have been in addition to dying in performance 
of military duties, the servicemember must have had maximum insurance 
coverage at the time of death. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs has 
established a record in this regard.
  When we increased the SGLI coverage from $200,000 to $250,000 with a 
delayed effective date in Public Law 106-419, then in reaction to the 
terrorist attack on the USS Cole we did, in fact, make a retroactivity 
in Public Law 107-14 for servicemembers who died in performance of duty 
that had

[[Page 4688]]

maximum SGLI at the time of their death. We should not be providing the 
maximum amount of insurance posthumously if the servicemember declined 
coverage, hence, never paid premiums, or elected a lesser amount.
  This is a policy change that could have detrimental effects. The 
bottom line is that it changes the identity and substance of the SGLI 
program. SGLI is neither an indemnity nor a gratuity program. It is an 
insurance program.
  Second, I have great concern regarding the administration's proposal 
to include in H.R. 1268 that a spouse must concur with a 
servicemember's insurance election. Life insurance is a contract. 
Requiring a spouse who is not a party to the contract to assent to a 
servicemember's decision concerning whether to enter into a contract 
and the amount of that contract violates the principles of contractual 
law and the nature of life insurance. Requiring the spouse to concur 
with the servicemember's decision, as included in H.R. 1268, would in 
fact make SGLI a volunteer program for single servicemembers, and an 
involuntary program for married servicemembers.
  Life insurance policies are fundamentally different from the 
protection to surviving spouses rightfully provided under some other 
retirement programs.
  There are plenty of substantive concerns with regard to this 
provision: one, giving the spouse veto power over the amount of 
insurance that gives him or her greater say than the servicemember. 
Number two, SGLI would in fact be a voluntary program for singles, 
involuntary for married. Three, the concurrence policy would force the 
servicemember to pay premiums and keep the spouse as a beneficiary, 
even in situations of pending divorce, spousal abuse, drug abuse, child 
abuse. I mean, let your mind go. Fourth, the spousal concurrence as 
drafted in the bill would prevent a servicemember from naming children, 
children from a previous marriage, parents, grandparents, guardians of 
grandchildren, let your mind go, from participating in insurance.
  The Supreme Court has upheld the right of the insured to name whoever 
he or she wants as a beneficiary, even if it is in violation of a State 
court divorce decree.
  There are administrative concerns as well, the substantial 
administrative costs that would be added in the day-to-day running of 
this program, as well as has been added to its greater complexity. If a 
servicemember there says that there is no spouse or names another 
beneficiary and declines coverage, a spouse could come forward after 
the servicemember's death.
  Another concern is the program may be liable to pay maximum amounts 
if no premiums were collected or if a separate beneficiary already had 
been paid. And if there is a delay in getting a spouse to agree to 
insurance coverage or the amount and the servicemember dies, then who 
receives the benefits?
  These are many, many issues that need to be resolved, and I look 
forward to working with the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) 
as we proceed forward to the conference to address many of these 
issues.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following letter from the Military 
Officers Association of America for the Record.

                                     Military Officers Association


                                                   of America,

                                   Alexandria, VA, March 11, 2005.
     Hon. Steve Buyer,
     Chairman, Committee on Veterans Affairs, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the 370,000 members of the 
     Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), I am writing 
     to inform you that, after discussing the issue extensively 
     with the Committee's majority and minority staff, MOAA has 
     reconsidered its position on the Servicemen's Group Life 
     Insurance (SGLI) spousal consent requirement, as included in 
     the Appropriations Committee's markup of the FY2005 Defense 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act.
       We believe there is merit to the staff's view that the 
     Appropriations Committee's language is excessively stringent 
     and could inappropriately preclude servicemembers' ability to 
     make reasonable insurance decisions--especially in 
     circumstances where it may be reasonable and appropriate for 
     a member to designate children as beneficiaries instead of 
     the current spouse.
       MOAA believes Congress is doing the right thing in 
     expediting passage of improved death benefits coverage in the 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, and we have no wish to slow 
     that process in any way.
       Therefore, MOAA urges your support for a floor amendment 
     that would either substitute a provision requiring spousal 
     notification (instead of spousal consent) or strike the 
     spousal consent requirement to allow the Committee to develop 
     more appropriate language that could be offered in conference 
     or another appropriate legislative venue.
           Sincerely,

                                          Steven P Strobridge,

                                              Colonel, USAF (Ret),
                                   Director, Government Relations.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, if the previous speaker is going to describe something 
I did in committee, I wish he would get his facts straight. The fact 
is, contrary to what the gentleman said, when the majority brought its 
recommendations to the full committee with respect to the provision in 
the bill which raised life insurance benefits from $250,000 to 
$400,000, with respect to that provision, the committee had applied it 
retroactively only to those persons who died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

                              {time}  1430

  Contrary to what the gentleman said, my amendment did not restrict 
what the committee was doing, it expanded what the committee was doing. 
We added coverage for what was estimated to be 2,400 additional 
American service people who died but were not in Iraq or Afghanistan. 
We did that, for instance, on the theory that if you are a member of 
the Reserve, you are called up to go to Iraq, but you are killed in a 
training accident before you can get there, that you are just as dead, 
your family is just as much in need as would be the case with someone 
who went to Iraq and then died in an accident.
  Now, the gentleman is the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs. I respect his responsibilities. I hope he respects ours. I 
would simply say that what the committee has tried to do is to take a 
vehicle which is going to spend $80 billion of the taxpayers' money, 
and use that as an opportunity to expand benefits to deserving 
servicemen and women. I make no apology whatsoever for doing that.
  Dick Bolling, who was my mentor when I came here and chaired the 
Committee on Rules, used to talk disdainfully of people who looked at 
this House through the prism of what he called ``dung hill politics''; 
in other words, focusing on jurisdiction of different committees, 
forgetting that we have a larger responsibility to the body as a whole 
and to the country as a whole.
  Now, I make no apology for the fact that the Committee on 
Appropriations might have stepped on a few toes in expanding benefits 
for deserving servicemen and women. I am glad they did. I hope the toes 
did not hurt too much. But the fact is if the gentleman has objections 
to what the administration has suggested then I would suggest the 
majority party needs to get its act together rather than risking these 
expanded benefits by doing what they almost did in the Committee on 
Rules today, which is to make these two sections of the bill subject to 
a point of order which could have lost those benefits for deserving 
servicemen and women.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BUYER. I had a very good discussion with the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis). I did not come here to the floor to strike 
these provisions from the bill. I will work with the administration. I 
will work with the Committee on Appropriations. I am going to do that 
as an authorizer. I am not claiming jurisdictional grounds. I am not 
going to play games with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) at 
all.
  Mr. OBEY. With all due respect, the gentleman just misquoted.
  Reclaiming my time, with all the due respect, the gentleman misquoted 
and mischaracterized my amendment in committee. The gentleman described 
it as an amendment limiting benefits when in fact it expanded them, and 
I do not appreciate that.
  Mr. BUYER. I thought what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) did

[[Page 4689]]

by making a performance of duty was a wise thing. I think that was a 
wise move of the gentleman. I do not know why the gentleman would be 
upset with regard to my remarks on performance of duty because what the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) did is followed what we, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and I, had also recommended. 
Performance of duty is a good thing.
  Mr. OBEY. That is what we tried to do.
  Mr. BUYER. I do not have a problem with the performance of duty. I 
have come to the floor to express some concerns with regard to the 
identification of an insurance product. We are turning it into an 
indemnity and a gratuity with regard to an insurance product. We have 
to be smart about our business with regard to how we proceed. That is 
my purpose of being here. It is not to reach into the Treasury and just 
say we are going to give this money out.
  Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, let me simply say I appreciate that. My 
only point is if the gentleman is going to come to the floor and 
characterize what I did please do so accurately. What the gentleman 
said, he may not have meant to but what he said was my amendment 
limited--I believe the word used was ``restricted.'' We did not. We 
expanded it.
  Mr. BUYER. But it does and I gave the example because you can have 
someone who has an accidental death or a duty nonperformance in the 
service.
  Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, with all due respect, the effect of my 
amendment as scored by CBO was to add $95 million in costs.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus). The time of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. OBEY. What we did was to provide $95 million in additional 
benefits to persons who had died who were not living in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. That was the effect of my amendment. The gentleman may be 
talking about restrictions that the committee action took.
  Mr. BUYER. No, the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. My amendment expanded. It did not restrict, and the 
gentleman needs to reread it if he does not understand that.
  Mr. BUYER. I will be more than happy to get the gentleman legal 
counsel so he can understand what he has written.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I do so in order to have a very brief discussion with the gentleman 
who is chairman of the authorizing committee. I think many of you in 
the House know that I spent a lot of years in my life making an honest 
living in the life and health insurance business so I know a little bit 
about this subject.
  The gentleman is raising a number of questions that are very 
legitimate questions. I do not think there is a conflict here. I just 
wanted the gentleman to know that it is my intention to examine these 
serious questions between now and the time we go to conference. I am 
absolutely certain we can at least clear the air on any remaining 
problems between now and then.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman. What the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) did with regard to performance----
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, let us not describe what 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) did. We will be here for hours. 
Either we do this my way or we do not.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BUYER. I believe that the performance of duty that is in the 
bill, what it does, it does identify with regard to who will receive 
payment and who do not receive payments. That was why I used the word 
``limited'' or ``restricted'' because you could have an individual, Mr. 
Chairman, of whom died in an auto accident, was murdered, or something 
happened to them and they do not qualify.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman can then, 
in this complex field, understand when he used the term ``restrict'' 
that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) might be a bit 
disconcerted.
  Does the gentleman see what I am saying?
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BUYER. Absolutely. That is why what we have here are two 
individuals of whom understand what we are talking about but probably 
have a, well, anyway, let us not use semantics.
  What I do wish to do as we proceed forward as we go to conference 
working with the Senate is work also with the administration, work with 
the Department of Defense, the VA and OMB to make sure that we bring a 
proper identity with regard to service and group life insurance that 
also subsidizes veterans group life insurance, and that is what I want 
to work with the chairman on.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, it would be my intention 
for us to have serious discussions including the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and his staff and our people so that we know that 
the air is cleared.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say that I find it ironic, Mr. Chairman, and 
I thank the gentleman for yielding, because the entire history of the 
development of this expanded benefit demonstrates that both the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and this gentleman from Wisconsin 
were aiming to expand benefits, not to contract them.
  When I first drafted my first proposal we were told that the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs itself was concerned that we might have 
gone too far in providing benefits to people because, for instance, the 
example used to me was we do not want to pay someone who was killed in 
a drunken driving accident because he had five martinis at a bar. We 
want to make sure that this occurred in the line of duty. So that is 
the way we drafted the amendment. But the overall effect of the 
amendment was to add benefits for 2,400 people who had died, who had 
not been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that was estimated to cost 
$95 million.
  How an expansion of benefits can be described as a restriction is 
beyond me. It certainly does not fit my definition.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) point. In the meantime, I believe 
we will have some work to do in the weeks ahead and I look forward to 
working with the gentleman and with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) and others to solve this problem.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE II--INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS AND ASSISTANCE FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND 
                           THE WAR ON TERROR

                               CHAPTER 1

                     BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT

           UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

              International Disaster and Famine Assistance

       For an additional amount for ``International Disaster and 
     Famine Assistance'', $44,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, for emergency expenses related to the humanitarian 
     crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan: Provided, That the 
     amounts provided under this heading are designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress).


             Amendments Offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments and ask 
unanimous consent they be considered en bloc.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois.

[[Page 4690]]

       Page 35, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 38, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendments be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to reaching ahead in the 
bill?
  There was no objection.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) is recognized.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. 
It adds $50 million for disaster assistance and $50 million for refugee 
assistance in Sudan and other African countries.
  If this amendment passes, the House product would still be $550 
million below the President's request. So for colleagues that argue we 
are spending too much money, this amendment is fiscally prudent. But 
more importantly, adopting this amendment is quite frankly the right 
thing to do.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment could be the most decent, moral and 
effective $100 million spent in this bill. This $100 million in 
disaster relief and refugee assistance would go very far in alleviating 
the multiple disasters and refugee crisis in Africa. Most of Africa's 
urgent humanitarian needs are shockingly affordable. Sadly, what we 
have been missing is the political will to stand up and do something.
  Mr. Chairman, the President speaks often about ending evil, about 
reaching into your heart and doing the right thing. The number of 
deaths, over 1,300 a day in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the 
Congo, that could be prevented would truly be ending evil and we know 
this is the right thing to do.
  Mr. Chairman, the only way for evil to succeed is for good people to 
do nothing. I urge a ``yea'' vote on the Jackson amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) knows, I spoke in 
committee against this amendment which was then part of a larger 
amendment and these two were combined at that point. I made the point 
that I was not at all sure that this additional money was needed in 
Darfur, Sudan in light of the amount of money that is already in the 
2005 bill and the amount of money that is in the supplemental for this 
region.
  However, I understand the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) feels 
very strongly about this. He and I traveled together to the Darfur 
region. We saw the terrible, terrible suffering that the people there 
are going through.
  We are in complete agreement on our need to take every step that we 
can to provide not only for a peaceful solution in the area, but also 
to provide for humanitarian relief for the people who live in that 
region, and therefore I am prepared today with concurrence of the 
chairman of the committee to accept this en bloc amendment, and we will 
take a very good look at this in the conference with the Senate and see 
where we are at that point. We will be a little bit further down the 
road and have some time to get a better handle on this at that point.
  I again want to commend the gentleman for his commitment, his 
dedication, his passion in offering this amendment today.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for addressing 
this important amendment that my friend, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Jackson), introduced. I feel strongly about the urgency of this 
issue and I look forward to working with the gentleman in the committee 
as we approach conference to ensure that this emergency that the 
gentleman has addressed in his amendment is certainly placed in the 
conference and we can provide the needed assistance.
  I thank the gentleman so much for his willingness to work with us to 
make sure that this happens.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his extraordinary leadership on 
this issue. I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf) for his extraordinary steadfast commitment to encouraging Members 
of this Congress to stand up and do the right thing. This would not be 
possible without the leadership of the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and the 
thoughtful consideration that the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), has given to this very critical part of the 
world.
  I thank the gentlemen for their support of this bipartisan amendment.

                              {time}  1445

  The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), my ranking member, for 
her commitment throughout this project and throughout this process has 
been nothing short of stellar, and extraordinary as well. I thank the 
gentlewoman, and I do apologize for interrupting the regular order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the amendments 
offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

   Operating Expenses of the United States Agency for International 
                              Development

       For an additional amount for ``Operating Expenses of the 
     United States Agency for International Development'', 
     $24,400,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006.

   Operating Expenses of the United States Agency for International 
                              Development

                      Office of Inspector General

       For an additional amount for ``Operating Expenses of the 
     United States Agency for International Development Office of 
     Inspector General'', $2,500,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2006.

                  OTHER BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                         Economic Support Fund

       For an additional amount for ``Economic Support Fund'', 
     $684,700,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006, 
     of which up to $200,000,000 may be provided for programs, 
     activities, and efforts to support Palestinians.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Maloney

  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Maloney:
       In chapter 1 of title II of the bill, in the item relating 
     to the ``Economic Support Fund'', after the first dollar 
     amount, insert ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
       In chapter 1 of title IV of the bill, in the item relating 
     to the ``Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction Fund'', after 
     the first dollar amount, insert ``(increased by 
     $3,000,000)''.

  Mrs. MALONEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment moves $3 million from the 
Economic Support Fund, which has over $1 billion available, to the 
Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction Fund, which now has over $600 
million available. It is not subject to a point of order and is both 
budget authority and outlay neutral.
  The reason for this amendment is very simple. It is to help pregnant 
women impacted by the tsunami. The intent of my amendment is to give $3 
million to the U.N. Population Fund to assess tsunami victims in 
Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives for very specific, pressing 
needs that I am very sure we can all agree are absolutely necessary at 
this time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, can the gentlewoman clarify which amendment 
we are talking about here?

[[Page 4691]]


  Mrs. MALONEY. Yes.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I think I heard the reading of two 
amendments. Which one are we on here at this point? Are we on the one 
that is $3 million or the one that was the larger one that I heard read 
first?
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, $3 million.
  Mr. KOLBE. Is that the one we are considering? Is that the 
understanding of the Chair?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. Without objection, 
the Clerk will re-report the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Maloney: In Chapter I of title II 
     of the bill, in the item relating to the ``ECONOMIC SUPPORT 
     FUND'', after the first dollar amount, insert ``(reduced by 
     $3,000,000)''.

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am now clear which amendment we are 
talking about. I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding for that purpose.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the further reading is 
waived.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) may 
proceed.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, more than a 150,000 women are currently 
pregnant in the tsunami-affected areas, including 50,000 anticipated to 
give birth during the next 3 months.
  UNFPA is determined to enhance the likelihood of deliveries occurring 
in safe and clean conditions by providing emergency care, basic 
supplies, and helping to rebuild health care facilities. They are 
uniquely qualified to provide these services. In fact, they are and 
have been on the ground since that tragic day, helping save the lives 
of women, children, and families.
  With these funds, UNFPA can provide safe delivery kits, such as the 
one I have here. It includes basic supplies such as soap, plastic 
sheeting, razor blades, string and gloves, laundry detergent, dental 
supplies. These are supplies that are needed to prevent and treat cases 
of violence against women and youth. They also offer psychological 
support and counseling and promote access of unaccompanied women to 
vital services.
  Each of these areas is a serious problem and will go a long way 
towards helping save the lives of thousands of women and their 
children.
  Disasters put pregnant women at greater-than-normal risk because of 
the sudden loss of medical support.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I have looked at the amendment, and I 
understand what the gentlewoman is talking about, what her intentions 
or how it would be used in the Tsunami Recovery Fund. It does not, of 
course, specifically provide for that, and I am prepared to accept this 
amendment if the gentlewoman would be willing to move the discussion 
along as quickly as possible.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for accepting the 
amendment, and I would like to note that because of the tsunami most of 
the midwives lost their lives. Fully 30 percent of them died in the 
tsunami, and many of those who survived are still dealing with personal 
trauma.
  So it is incredibly important that this funding be moved to UNFPA, 
the U.N. Population Fund, to help the tsunami victims and particularly 
those who need maternal health care services.
  Many of my colleagues, including the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey), who has worked so hard on helping women and children, she 
traveled to the region early this year and was able to witness 
firsthand the horror along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) and 
others, and they were able to see the work UNFPA has been doing to help 
these people.
  I thank the leadership for accepting the amendment. It is an 
important one. We appreciate the consideration.
  My amendment moves $3 million from the Economic Support Fund, which 
has $1.06 billion available to the Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction 
Fund, which now has $656 million available. It is not subject to a 
point of order and is both budget authority and outlay neutral.
  The reason for this amendment is very simple: it is to help pregnant 
women impacted by the tsunami.
  The intent of my amendment is to give $3 million to the U.N. 
Population Fund UNFPA, to assist tsunami victims in Indonesia, Sri 
Lanka, and the Maldives for very specific, pressing needs that I am 
sure we can all agree are absolutely necessary at this time. More than 
150,000 women are currently pregnant in the tsunami-affected areas, 
including 50,000 anticipated to give birth during the next three 
months.
  UNFPA is determined to enhance the likelihood of deliveries occurring 
in safe and clean conditions by providing emergency care, basic 
supplies and helping to rebuild health care facilities. They are 
uniquely qualified to provide these services. In fact, they are and 
have been on the ground since that tragic day, helping save the lives 
of women and children.
  With these funds, UNFPA can provide safe delivery kits: soap, plastic 
sheeting, razor blades, string and gloves; personal hygiene kits: 
sanitary napkins, soap, laundry detergent, dental supplies; reestablish 
maternal health services; prevent and treat cases of violence against 
women and youth; offer psychological support and counseling; and 
promote access of unaccompanied women to vital services.
  Each of these areas is a serious problem and will go a long way 
toward helping save the lives of thousands of women and their children.
  Disasters put pregnant women at greater than normal risk because of 
the sudden loss of medical support, compounded in many cases by trauma, 
malnutrition, disease or exposure to violence.
  In times of high stress, pregnant women are more prone to miscarriage 
or to premature labor, both of which require medical care.
  The infrastructure for helping pregnant women in the tsunami region 
is severely damaged. 1,650 of the Indonesian Midwife Association's 
5,500 members--fully 30 percent--died in the tsunami. Many of those who 
survived are still dealing with personal trauma and the loss of 
equipment used to safely deliver babies.
  About 15 percent of pregnancies under normal conditions require 
urgent assistance from midwives or doctors to ensure the health and 
survival of the babies and mothers. Many maternity hospitals, women's 
health clinics, and other infrastructure for providing health services 
to women, maternal health assistance, safe delivery, contraceptives, 
emergency obstetric care, and preventing sexually transmitted diseases 
have been destroyed by the tsunami.
  Mr. Chairman, to date, the United States has provided no funding to 
the U.N. Population Fund to help tsunami victims. The last time the 
United States contributed resources to UNFPA was $600,000 for similar 
kinds of emergency assistance in Afghanistan in 2001.
  We have several colleagues who traveled to the region earlier this 
year and witnessed the horror of the tragedy. They were able to see the 
work UNFPA has been doing to help these women. I hope that they will be 
able to relay their experiences today.
  It is time to put politics aside. These people have suffered enough. 
We must do everything we can to help them.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for accepting this amendment, and 
I rise in support of the Maloney amendment.
  With experience and success in saving lives and helping to ensure the 
safe delivery of tens of thousands of babies in more than 50 countries 
and territories, UNFPA is uniquely qualified to assist victims of the 
tsunami devastation. A small transfer of $3 million to the UNFPA would 
go a long way in making an immediate and tangible impact on the lives 
of women and children in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives.
  I again thank the chairman for accepting this language, and I thank 
my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), for placing 
the language.
  The UNFPA currently has a flash appeal for $28 million, of which they 
have received almost 70 percent. Our contribution would represent 
approximately 11 percent, bringing them much closer to meeting five 
pressing needs in the region.
  First, UNFPA is providing safe delivery kits, hygiene kits, medicines 
and supplies, including

[[Page 4692]]

soap and sanitary napkins. These basic items help stem the transmission 
of HIV/AIDS and ensure safe childbirth and emergency obstetric care. In 
communities ravaged by natural disaster, the lack of such important and 
simple supplies as these can result in serious life threatening health 
crises.
  Second, UNFPA works to reestablish maternal health care clinics and 
services destroyed by the tsunami such as prenatal care and delivery 
assistance and post-natal care. As we know, disasters put pregnant 
women at much greater risk for miscarriage or premature labor. 
Approximately 150,000 women in the tsunami affected region are 
pregnant. Fifty thousand women alone will give birth in the next 3 
months.
  Third, UNFPA would work to prevent and treat cases of violence 
against women. It is a sad fact that women are more likely to be 
victims of sexual assault and violence in times of crisis. We have 
already heard disturbing cases of widespread sexual violence in Sri 
Lanka. UNFPA programs help to provide emergency response, security and 
legal services to better protect women and children.
  UNFPA programs would also offer psychological counseling to women and 
children still suffering from the horror of the tsunami. In countless 
cases, mothers are dealing with the nearly unfathomable pain of losing 
their husbands and children or, conversely, children are trying to make 
sense of a world without their families. Many women are now faced with 
being the head of their household and their mental well-being will be 
paramount as they gather the strength to rebuild their communities.
  And finally, UNFPA will help unaccompanied women and other vulnerable 
people access vital services such as water, food, health care and 
sanitation facilities.
  UNFPA is especially well placed to do this life-saving work as it 
already has offices in all the tsunami-affected countries and long-
standing relationships with local governments and non-governmental 
organizations. We all know that confusion and discord often stymies our 
efforts to get relief and support to those who need it most. Supporting 
organizations with a proven track record and programs in place is one 
of the most successful and cost-effective ways to make our generous 
contributions go farther.
  I urge my colleagues to do everything we can to help the women and 
children who have already been through so much with the destruction 
brought by the tsunami. Please join me in voting to support UNFPA's 
important work in saving lives.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order 
so we can accept the amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  I want to rise as well to support the gentlewoman from New York's 
amendment dealing with the efforts the UNFPA is engaged in because we 
got a chance to see firsthand in visiting Sri Lanka the work that has 
been done.
  It is true that many children were lost. It is true that 15,000, at 
the time that we were there, women were expecting; and it is certainly 
true that they lost a large infrastructure of health care, particularly 
the women's hospital that we were able to visit. The women's maternity 
hospital was completely destroyed, and so these dollars will be crucial 
in helping to ensure good health care, good intervention, and safe 
deliveries.
  I want to commend all of the leadership that is focused on this 
particularly narrow issue, though it may seem. It is vital that we 
provide the support, and I would like to encourage our colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
the requisite number of words.
  I rise in support of the Maloney-Sanchez-Crowley amendment. Let me 
tell my colleagues a little bit about what this amendment is about, and 
I will try to be brief.
  It is about providing women with hygiene kits that include soap, 
aspirin, sanitary napkins. I, like some of my colleagues before me, had 
a chance to travel there and see what the UNFPA is doing there, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Sanchez-Crowley amendment.
  This is what the UN Population Fund distributes to women devastated 
by the tsunami. By voting for this amendment, you. will affirm your 
support for women and children in dire need of our help.
  The Maloney Amendment will aid the tsunami recovery effort by 
providing UNFPA with much-needed funding. It's a shame that the U.S. 
Government has not offered their support to this organization.
  I've traveled to some of the areas hardest hit by the tsunami, and I 
can attest to their tremendous work. Our support for the UN Population 
Fund should be a top priority, because it's one of the few 
organizations that provides resources for the care of women and newborn 
children. Again, we're talking about soap, toothpaste, and sanitary 
napkins--basic needs.
  UNFPA also distributes birthing kits, which are vital. Nearly half of 
all women give birth without a skilled attendant present, or any 
medical care whatsoever. These kits are sometimes all that's available 
to birthing women. For women who have no access to hospitals, we must 
support organizations that provide these kits. It's a matter of 
protecting life.
  UNFPA provides the bare essentials. These supplies are critical to 
stopping the spread of diseases, like malaria.
  Today, Congress can make a, statement to those hit hardest by the 
tsunami. We can show our commitment to the recovery effort by 
supporting UNFPA funding. Today we have a chance to put politics aside 
and support the' work of an organization that is pro-mother and pro-
child care.
  Helping those in need is the right thing to do. This shouldn't be a 
political issue, this is a moral issue. I urge you to vote yes on the 
Maloney/Sanchez/Crowley Amendment to help the victims of the tsunami.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, for the last two decades, the 
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), has shockingly defended the 
coercive Chinese population control program. By refusing to give 
American tax dollars to the UNFPA, the United States stands solidly 
with the victims and against the oppressors. We must continue to do so 
as long as UNFPA insists on supporting the Chinese program.
  Today, Representative Maloney offered an amendment to H.R. 1268, the 
``Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War 
on Terror, and Tsunami Relief'', and she described the amendment as 
something that would give $3 million to UNFPA. Even though she 
explained it as a UNFPA Amendment, I want to clarify that the language 
of the amendment could in no way be construed to support or give 
funding to UNFPA. In fact, the amendment does not even mention UNFPA. 
The Maloney amendment says,

       In chapter 1 of title II of the bill, in the item relating 
     to the ``Economic Support Fund'', after the first dollar 
     amount, insert ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
       In chapter 1 of title IV of the bill, in the item relating 
     to the ``Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction fund'', after 
     the first dollar amount, insert ``(increased by 
     $3,000,000)''.

  Since the Maloney amendment simply transferred $3 million from one 
account to another, thereby providing aid funding without funding 
UNFPA, I did not oppose the amendment.
  Victims of the Chinese one-child-per-couple policy have told me 
horrific stories. At one religious freedom meeting in China I asked 
what the participants knew about forced abortion policies. All three 
women in the group broke down in tears as they shared with me how they 
all had been forced to have abortions--one woman talked about how she 
thought God was going to protect her baby, but she was not able to 
escape the abortion. Other women who have gained asylum in the United 
States because of China's coercive population control program have told 
me terrible stories of crippling fines, imprisonment of family members, 
and destruction of homes and property-- all to force abortion and 
sterilization upon millions of women. According to last year's State 
Department Human Rights Report, one consequence of ``the country's 
birth limitation policies'' is that 56 percent of the world's female 
suicides occur in China, which is five times the world average and 
approximately 500 suicides by women per day.
  Mrs. Gao Xiao Duan, a former administrator of a Chinese Planned Birth 
Control Office, testified before Congress about China's policies. She 
explained, ``Once I found a woman who was nine months pregnant, but did 
not have a birth-allowed certificate. According to the policy, she was 
forced to undergo an abortion surgery. In the operation room I saw how 
the aborted child's lips were sucking, how its limbs were stretching. A 
physician injected poison into its skull, and the child died, and it 
was thrown into the trash can. . . . I was a monster in the daytime, 
injuring others by the Chinese communist authorities' barbaric planned-
birth policy, but in the evening, I was like all other women and 
mothers, enjoying my life with my children. . . . to all those injured 
women, to all those children who were killed, I want to repent and say 
sincerely that I'm sorry!''

[[Page 4693]]

  While Mrs. Gao acknowledged her part in these human rights atrocities 
and courageously told her story, UNFPA continues to side with the 
Chinese government.
  Since 1979, UNFPA has been the chief apologist and cheerleader for 
China's coercive one child per couple policy. Despite numerous credible 
forced abortion reports from impeccable sources, including human rights 
organizations like Amnesty International, journalists, former Chinese 
population control officials and, above all, from the woman victims 
themselves, high officials at UNFPA always dismiss and explain it all 
away. UNFPA has funded, provided crucial technical support and, most 
importantly, provided cover for massive crimes of forced abortion and 
involuntary sterilization.
  Time and again, high officials of UNFPA have defended the 
indefensible and called voluntary that which is anything but. The 
former Executive Director of UNFPA Nafis Sadik said, ``China has every 
reason to feel proud of and pleased with its remarkable achievements 
made in its family planning policy. The country could offer its 
experiences and special expert to help other countries.'' On CBS 
Nightwatch she said, ``The UNFPA firmly believes, and so does the 
government of the People's Republic of China, that their program is a 
totally voluntary program.'' And Sven Burmester, UNFPA's man in 
Beijing, gushed over China's achievements, ``In strictly quantitative 
terms, it was the most successful family-planning policy ever 
developed.''
  Make no mistake that China covets UNFPA financial and verbal support 
of their program as a ``Good-Housekeeping seal of approval'' to 
whitewash their human rights violations. I traveled to China and met 
with the head of their population control program, Peng Peiyun. In our 
lengthy conversation, Madame Peng Peiyun told me over and over again 
that there was no coercion in China, and then she cited UNFPA's 
participation in the program and UNFPA's public statements where UNFPA 
leaders have defended it. The United States should not help UNFPA cover 
up China's crimes against women and children.
  In 2001, the Department of State determined that UNFPA's activities 
in China violated our human rights law, thereby making them ineligible 
for U.S. funding. On July 21, 2001, Secretary of State Powell wrote, 
``Regrettably, the PRC has in place a regime of severe penalties on 
women who have unapproved births. This regime plainly operates to 
coerce pregnant women to have abortions in order to avoid the penalties 
and therefore amounts to a `program of coercive abortion.' . . . 
UNFPA's support of, and involvement in, China's population-planning 
activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively 
its program of coercive abortion. Therefore, it is not permissible to 
continue funding UNFPA at this time.'' The funds that would have gone 
to UNFPA were instead given to aid organizations.
  In 2002, China explicitly stated its Draconian population control 
program in law, but UNFPA still continues to support the Chinese 
program. The Bush Administration has consistently found UNFPA 
ineligible to receive funding, most recently releasing a July 15, 2004 
letter where Secretary Powell said, ``China continues to employ 
coercion in its birth planning program, including through severe 
penalties for `out of plan births'. . . . UNFPA continues its support 
and involvement in China's coercive birth limitation program in 
counties where China's restrictive law and penalties are enforced by 
government officials.''
  UNFPA remains guilty of shamelessly supporting and whitewashing 
terrible crimes against humanity, and the United States must have no 
part in subsidizing them. In refusing to fund UNFPA, President Bush and 
this Congress have taken the side of the oppressed and have refused to 
cooperate with the oppressor. UNFPA has aggressively defended a 
barbaric policy that makes brothers and sisters illegal, and makes 
women the pawns of the population control cadres. If UNFPA lobbied the 
Chinese government to stop forced abortion as aggressively as they 
lobby the United States to overturn human rights policy, there would be 
less suffering in China today.
  An organization like the UNFPA that continues to support China's one-
child per couple coerced abortion policy should not be rewarded with 
any new funding, and the Maloney Amendment provides them no new 
funding.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Maloney Amendment 
because we must break the deadly political impasse that endangers the 
health of women around the world. The United Nations Population Fund 
(UNFPA) has the ability to provide health services and promote maternal 
health globally. Yet we deny them funding, choosing to focus on narrow 
ideological disagreements and not the lifesaving potential of their 
work. We simply cannot afford more delay. We must seek common ground 
and that is what the Maloney Amendment will do.
  Disasters put pregnant women at greater than normal risk because of 
the sudden loss of medical support, compounded in many cases by trauma, 
malnutrition, disease or exposure to violence. We all know that the 
tsunami took away valuable medical care for women across the affected 
areas in southeast asia. Without UNFPA we wouldn't have been able to 
calculate that 150,000 women are currently pregnant in this region.
  Without UNFPA these women would not have the guarantee of safe, clean 
environments to deliver their babies. They would not have access to the 
medical support and medicines they need to ensure a healthy birth. Safe 
and healthy childbirth should not be a political issue. While 
disagreements about UNFPA will certainly remain, continuing to ensure 
this program is there to rely on has never been more important.
  In such a polarized political environment, we must not sacrifice this 
opportunity to move forward and renew our commitment to promote the 
health of women around the world. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting the Maloney Amendment.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this Amendment that 
aims to commit $3 million to the United Nations Population Fund 
(UNFPA). The UNFPA has asked its donor countries for about $28 million 
for women who were victims of the tsunami. The money in this amendment 
is about 11 percent of what they are asking for.
  In January, I visited areas devastated by the tsunami. I visited what 
was left of a three-story maternity hospital. Three hundred women and 
infants were located here when the first wave hit. The rush of water 
toppled a high cement fence, knocked down utility polls like 
toothpicks, and shattered all of the glass windows in the front facade. 
Of the 300 women and their babies, all but one--a newborn--was saved 
from the crashing waves. We met with one doctor who finished a C-
Section--in absolute darkness, after the generators were underwater, as 
the rest of the building was evacuated. The hospital was practically 
destroyed. The beds were pushed and piled against each other by the 
flooding, and shards of glass crunched under our feet. The sheets were 
strewn about like wet rags, and saturated packages of medicine were 
thrown in useless piles.
  Natural disasters are particularly harsh on pregnant women. The loss 
of medical care and its infrastructure is compounded by malnutrition, 
disease and the trauma of the disaster. These issues can cause 
miscarriage or early labor, which both require medical care that is 
unavailable. The result can be maternal death.
  The situation that women face in the areas is dire. The Indonesian 
Midwife Association has also reported that 1,650 of their 5,500 
members, that is about 30 percent of their members, died in the 
tsunami. Many of the surviving midwives are picking up the pieces of 
their own lives and dealing with their personal loss. Reestablishing 
maternal health services will be a main use of this money, which is of 
great concern to the region.
  There are 150,000 pregnant women in the tsunami-affected areas--
50,000 are scheduled to give birth in the next three months. They need 
personal hygiene kits in refugee camps; and safe-birthing kits in 
hospitals, clinics and health centers. They need soap and sterile 
cotton cloth, antibiotics, emergency obstetric equipment, and drugs for 
treating sexually transmitted infections. Relief efforts often overlook 
these supplies, and the UNFPA is uniquely prepared to provide them.
  The UNFPA has experience working with women in disaster areas: They 
have participated in emergency projects in more than 50 countries and 
territories. They already have offices in tsunami-affected countries, 
and they understand the distinctive ways that disasters affect women 
and children. Women are more vulnerable to sexual assaults during times 
of disaster. Women who are pregnant, nursing, or caring for small 
children do not have the capacity to stand in line for long periods of 
time for supplies.
  The funds in this amendment are intended to be used by the UNFPA to 
help women in these circumstances by: Providing tools and medicines 
needed for safe childbirth; preventing and treating sexual assault; 
promoting access to clean water, food and healthcare; providing 
sanitary supplies; and providing psycho-social counseling.
  The tsunami devastated an entire region, and I am glad that this 
Congress is appropriating funds to help address the many issues that 
the people in region now face. It is my hope that my colleagues will 
vote for this amendment, which will help some of the most vulnerable of 
the region.

[[Page 4694]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       For an additional amount for ``Economic Support Fund'', 
     $376,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006: 
     Provided, That these funds are hereby designated by Congress 
     to be emergency requirements pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress).

    Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union

       For an additional amount for ``Assistance for the 
     Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' for 
     assistance for Ukraine, $33,700,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2006.

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

          International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement


                     (Including Transfer of Funds)

       For an additional amount for ``International Narcotics 
     Control and Law Enforcement'', $594,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2007, of which not more than 
     $400,000,000 may be made available to provide assistance to 
     the Afghan police: Provided, That the amounts provided under 
     this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                    Migration and Refugee Assistance

       For an additional amount for ``Migration and Refugee 
     Assistance'', $53,400,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2006: Provided, That the amounts provided under 
     this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

    Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs

       For an additional amount for ``Nonproliferation, Anti-
     Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs'', $17,100,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2006: Provided, That the 
     amounts provided under this heading are designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress).

                          MILITARY ASSISTANCE

                  FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT

                   Foreign Military Financing Program

       For an additional amount for the ``Foreign Military 
     Financing Program'', $250,000,000.

                        Peacekeeping Operations

       For an additional amount for ``Peacekeeping Operations'', 
     $10,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006: 
     Provided, That the amounts provided under this heading are 
     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 
     (108th Congress).

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 2101. Section 307(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 is amended by striking ``Iraq,''.


                              (Rescission)

       Sec. 2102. The unexpended balance appropriated by Public 
     Law 108-11 under the heading ``Economic Support Fund'' and 
     made available for Turkey is rescinded.
       Sec. 2103. Section 559 of division D of Public Law 108-447 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Subsequent to the certification specified in 
     subsection (a), the Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct an audit and an investigation of the treatment, 
     handling, and uses of all funds for the bilateral West Bank 
     and Gaza Program in fiscal year 2005 under the heading 
     `Economic Support Fund'. The audit shall address--
       ``(1) the extent to which such Program complies with the 
     requirements of subsections (b) and (c), and
       ``(2) an examination of all programs, projects, and 
     activities carried out under such Program, including both 
     obligations and expenditures.''.
       Sec. 2104. The Secretary of State shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations not later than 30 days after 
     enactment, and prior to the initial obligation of funds 
     appropriated under this chapter, a report on the proposed 
     uses of all funds on a project-by-project basis, for which 
     the obligation of funds is anticipated: Provided, That up to 
     10 percent of funds appropriated under this chapter may be 
     obligated before the submission of the report subject to the 
     normal notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided further, That the report shall be 
     updated and submitted to the Committees on Appropriations 
     every six months and shall include information detailing how 
     the estimates and assumptions contained in previous reports 
     have changed: Provided further, That any new projects and 
     increases in funding of ongoing projects shall be subject to 
     the prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of State shall submit to 
     the Committees on Appropriations, not later than 210 days 
     following enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, a 
     report detailing on a project-by-project basis the 
     expenditure of funds appropriated under this chapter until 
     all funds have been fully expended.
       Sec. 2105. The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct an audit of the use of all funds for the 
     bilateral Afghanistan counternarcotics and alternative 
     livelihood programs in fiscal year 2005 under the heading 
     ``Economic Support Fund'' and ``International Narcotics 
     Control and Law Enforcement'': Provided, That the audit shall 
     include an examination of all programs, projects and 
     activities carried out under such programs, including both 
     obligations and expenditures.
       Sec. 2106. No later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall submit a report to 
     the Congress detailing:
       (1) information regarding the Palestinian security 
     services, including their numbers, accountability, and chains 
     of command, and steps taken to purge from their ranks 
     individuals with ties to terrorist entities;
       (2) specific steps taken by the Palestinian Authority to 
     dismantle the terrorist infrastructure, confiscate 
     unauthorized weapons, arrest and bring terrorists to justice, 
     destroy unauthorized arms factories, thwart and preempt 
     terrorist attacks, and cooperate with Israel's security 
     services;
       (3) specific actions taken by the Palestinian Authority to 
     stop incitement in Palestinian Authority-controlled 
     electronic and print media and in schools, mosques, and other 
     institutions it controls, and to promote peace and 
     coexistence with Israel;
       (4) specific steps the Palestinian Authority has taken to 
     ensure democracy, the rule of law, and an independent 
     judiciary, and transparent and accountable governance;
       (5) the Palestinian Authority's cooperation with U.S. 
     officials in their investigations into the late Palestinian 
     leader Yasser Arafat's finances; and
       (6) the amount of assistance pledged and actually provided 
     to the Palestinian Authority by other donors:

     Provided, That not later than 180 days after enactment of 
     this Act, the President shall submit to the Congress an 
     update of this report: Provided further, That up to 
     $5,000,000 of the funds made available for assistance to the 
     West Bank and Gaza by this title under ``Economic Support 
     Fund'' shall be used for an outside, independent evaluation 
     by an internationally recognized accounting firm of the 
     transparency and accountability of Palestinian Authority 
     accounting procedures and an audit of expenditures by the 
     Palestinian Authority: Provided further, That the waiver 
     authority of section 550(b) of the Foreign Operations, Export 
     Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2005 
     (Public Law 108-447) may not be exercised with respect to 
     funds appropriated for assistance to the Palestinians under 
     this chapter: Provided further, That the waiver detailed in 
     Presidential Determination 2005-10 issued on December 8, 
     2004, shall not be extended to funds appropriated under this 
     chapter.

                               CHAPTER 2

                 DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCY

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

                   Administration of Foreign Affairs

                    Diplomatic and Consular Programs

       For an additional amount for ``Diplomatic and Consular 
     Programs'', $748,500,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2006: Provided, That the amounts provided under this 
     heading are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. 
     Res. 95 (108th Congress).

            Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance

       For an additional amount for ``Embassy Security, 
     Construction, and Maintenance'', $592,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the amounts provided 
     under this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                      International Organizations

        Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities


                     (Including Transfer of Funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Contributions for 
     International Peacekeeping Activities'', $580,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2006: Provided, That the 
     amounts provided under this heading are designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress): Provided further, That up to $55,000,000 provided 
     under this heading may be transferred to ``Peacekeeping 
     Operations'', to be available for costs of establishing and 
     operating a Sudan war crimes tribunal.

                             RELATED AGENCY

                    Broadcasting Board of Governors

                 International Broadcasting Operations

       For an additional amount for ``International Broadcasting 
     Operations'' for activities related to broadcasting to the 
     broader Middle East, $4,800,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2006: Provided, That

[[Page 4695]]

     the amounts provided under this heading are designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress).

                               CHAPTER 3

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                      Foreign Agricultural Service

                     Public Law 480 Title II Grants

       For an additional amount for ``Public Law 480 Title II 
     Grants'', $150,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the amounts provided under this heading are 
     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 
     (108th Congress).

        TITLE III--DOMESTIC APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE WAR ON TERROR

                               CHAPTER 1

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Nuclear 
     Nonproliferation'', $110,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the amounts provided under this 
     heading are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. 
     Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                               CHAPTER 2

                    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

                       UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

                           Operating Expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Operating Expenses'', 
     $111,950,000: Provided, That the amounts provided under this 
     heading are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. 
     Res. 95 (108th Congress).

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

       For an additional amount for ``Acquisition, Construction, 
     and Improvements'', $49,200,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2007: Provided, That the amounts provided under 
     this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).


          Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 46, after line 20, insert the following:

                  Immigration and Customs Enforcement


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     hereby derived from the amount provided in this Act for 
     ``United States Coast Guard--operating expenses'', 
     $40,000,000.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentlewoman's amendment.

                              {time}  1500

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me acknowledge the full 
committee and the members of the appropriate subcommittee dealing with 
Homeland Security and, as well, the full committee chairman's just 
recent statement on this issue.
  But Mr. Chairman, I would hope that if a point of order is in order, 
I would hope that that point of order could be waived. And let me share 
with you why. This amendment is a very narrow amendment, very limited 
in its request. But it is documented and based upon testimony given by 
the very principals who are entrusted with the responsibility of 
Homeland Security.
  Former outgoing DHS Deputy Secretary James Loy indicated that in 
testimony to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland 
Security, that ICE, the Immigration, Customs and Enforcement, needed an 
additional 300 million in order to finish the fiscal year 2004. This is 
an emergency.
  Officer Callahan came before the Judiciary Committee just a few days 
ago on March 10 and indicated that in 5 days we might see the closing 
of the operations of ICE. That is the internal enforcement agency that 
deals with protecting the homeland internally.
  Now, I have stood on the floor of this House over and over again, and 
I have said that immigration does not equate to terrorism. There are 
hard working individuals who are undocumented in this country who 
clearly have come here for economic reasons.
  But we also know that coming across the southern border there are 
what we call OTMs, Other Than Mexicans, and they come across the 
border. They are not detained. They are given a document to retain to 
come back to court for a court date, and they are released on their own 
recognizance.
  And do you realize that many of them, some who are coming from 
countries that have terrorist activities and attitudes toward the 
United States, and they are able to come up through the southern 
border, cross into the United States with absolutely no punitive 
measures whatsoever. Why? Because we are shortened at the border and we 
are shortened in terms of immigration enforcement inside the country, 
and there are no detention beds.
  And so I rise today to be able to submit an amendment to ask for $40 
million, that is all, to be able to carry this entity for a few more 
days and to be able to respond to the need for more Immigration, 
Customs and Enforcement Officers.
  Immigration Enforcement Agent Randy Callahan testified on ICE's 
financial difficulties, and I realize that there is still a need to be 
able to fix the financial problems at ICE. But fixing the financial 
problems, which I understand the agency is proceeding under the new 
Secretary of Homeland Security, does not in any way give reason to deny 
extra funds for an organization that is entrusted with the security of 
this Nation. We can find common ground on security and immigration. 
This happens to be one, to provide the resources for this agency in 
order for it to avoid closing its doors.
  His description of the problems ICE is having financially confirm the 
concern that I have had for some time. We do not have enough officers. 
We do not have enough training, and certainly we do not have enough 
staff in order to do their job.
  Training programs have been postponed. They have halted training for 
approximately 2000 former Detention Enforcement Officers who are 
reclassified and combined with the Immigration Agent position called 
Immigration Enforcement Agent.
  Do you realize, Mr. Chairman, that these officers are still carrying 
the old IDs and old ID cards and old badges? Why? Because we do not 
have enough money to give them new badges and new cards. Can we not 
include them in this emergency supplemental? This is an emergency.
  You have officers who are carrying incorrect identification and 
officers who have not been trained who have been transferred into 
Homeland Security who are now supposed to be Immigration, Customs 
Enforcement Officers.
  Tragically, one of our officers lost his life in the Atlanta 
courthouse killings, a man who had served for a good number of years. 
We owe officers who are willing to put their life on the line, no 
matter what way they have lost it, to be able to provide them with the 
resources necessary.
  ICE has approximately 900 agents who have not yet been trained. 
Without this training, ICE cannot use these officers for any type of 
law enforcement function except transportation officer and possibly 
some computer work. And as I said to you, they have no badges, and they 
have no ID cards.
  There is no money for uniforms, so un-uniformed Immigration 
Enforcement Agents are not able to order replacement uniforms. In fact, 
the uniforms being used nationwide right now still have Immigration 
Naturalization Service patches on them despite the fact that the INS no 
longer exists. Lack of funds appears to be causing detention facilities 
problems in San Diego, California and other places.
  Let me just simply say we have the documentation, Mr. Chairman. I 
rise to ask my colleagues to support this amendment to ICE, and I also 
will add that I support the Palestinian money and the Sudan money. But 
I hope that we will know that we have to secure the homeland by 
providing extra dollars to respond to the needs of our own staff here 
in the Department of Homeland Security.
  Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, I have learned of a budget

[[Page 4696]]

 crisis in the Homeland Security Department's Bureau of Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, ICE. At a hearing last week on Interior 
Immigration Enforcement Resources, Immigration Enforcement Agent Randy 
Callahan testified on ICE's financial difficulties. His description of 
the problems ICE is having financially confirms the concern I have had 
for some time now.
  For instance, training programs have been postponed. This has halted 
training for approximately 2,000 former Detention Enforcement Officers 
who were reclassified and combined with Immigration Agent into a 
position called, ``Immigration Enforcement Agent,'' IEA. ICE has 
approximately 900 agents who have not been trained yet. Without this 
training, ICE cannot use these officers for any type of law enforcement 
function, except transportation officer and possibly some computer 
work.
  There is no money for uniforms, so uniformed Immigration Enforcement 
Agents are not able to order replacement uniforms. In fact, the 
uniforms being used nationwide right now still have Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, INS, patches on them despite the fact that INS 
no longer exists.
  Lack of funds appears to be causing a detention facility in San 
Diego, CA, to release detainees from custody. Apparently, ICE 
management told its employees that the office had to reduce its adult 
detentions from several hundred to around 100. Additional funding is 
needed nationwide to maintain the approximately 17,000 detention beds 
currently in use.
  ICE's financial problems have resulted in a hiring freeze since last 
March and severe spending restrictions. In September, ICE ordered its 
offices to refrain from nonessential spending such as travel, temporary 
duty assignments, equipment and supply purchases, and permanent change-
of-station moves.
  ICE is a bureau in financial crisis. They do not have enough money to 
hold people in custody, buy new uniforms and equipment for employees, 
or even issue badges and credentials with the correct department on 
them. Emergency funds are essential to correct this problem.
  Former DHS Deputy Secretary James Loy said recently that ICE needs 
$280 million to finish out the year. It is not feasible to address that 
entire need with the emergency supplemental, H.R. 1268. My amendment, 
therefore, just seeks $40 million, which can be offset in the Coast 
Guard allotment.
  For the reasons stated above, Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues 
accept the Jackson-Lee amendment to fund the Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement needs. It is a shame that this amendment could not get a 
waiver of the point of order for the crisis in our Department of 
Homeland Security.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reluctantly I make a point of 
order against the amendment because it is in violation of section 
302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on 
Appropriations filed a suballocation on budget totals for fiscal year 
2005 on July 22, 2004. The amendment would provide new budget authority 
in excess of the committee allocations and is not permitted under 
section 302(f) of the act. I ask for the ruling of the Chair.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield for just a moment?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I have asked for a ruling of the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus). The Chair will hear each member on 
his or her own time. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) to speak on the point of order.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my understanding of an 
emergency supplemental is to deal with emergency funding situations in 
the government. I realize that the present language speaks directly to 
Coast Guard, which is part of now the Department of Homeland Security. 
This amendment amends that section and asks and has a viable offset and 
asks simply to allow $40 million of that amount to be able to be 
utilized for the underfunded ICE agents that do not have uniforms, that 
do not have badges, that do not have IDs.
  Frankly, I believe if we are to do our work in Iraq, whether we agree 
or disagree with the war in Iraq, we do know that it is represented to 
us by the administration to be a war on terror. How can we fight the 
war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq and not fight the war on terror 
in this country within our boundaries?
  The Immigration Customs and Enforcement helps us do that. It 
separates out those who intend to do us harm from those who are here 
who may be undocumented but are here simply for economic reasons.
  We need to be able to thwart those who may come across the border to 
do us harm and are not caught at the border. We need to be able to have 
the agency well equipped to protect us by securing those individuals 
and detaining them. Without those resources they cannot even continue.
  Do not take my word. Take the word of Admiral Loy, who indicated that 
they needed more dollars to finish out the fiscal year in question.
  I would ask my colleague, and I would also ask at this moment, that 
if he pursues his point of order, whether or not we will have the 
opportunity, whether in conference or as we continue the appropriations 
process, to focus on the lack of funding for the Immigration and 
Enforcement Officers, Immigration, Customs and Enforcement Officers, 
the Border Patrol, which I think you are aware of, and the detention 
beds.
  I would like very much to yield to the chairman, and on this issue I 
think we are all in common agreement about the need to secure our 
homeland.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California wish to be 
head further on the point of order?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say it is our 
intention to pursue the questions the gentlewoman is asking. It may 
very well be in conference on the supplemental that it is appropriate, 
but frankly in some ways we take from Peter to pay Paul. We can pursue 
this is regular order, and I prefer to use the supplemental process for 
those emergencies that we cannot deal with in regular order. Because of 
that, I am not pursuing the recommendations at this time. We will 
follow through, however, on the questions that the gentlewoman is 
asking.
  Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
order.
  The Chair is authoritatively guided under section 312 of the Budget 
Act by an estimate of the Committee on the Budget that an amendment 
providing any net increase in new discretionary budget authority would 
cause a breach of pertinent allocation of such authority.
  The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 
will increase the level of new discretionary budget authority in the 
bill. As such, the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               CHAPTER 3

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                    Federal Bureau of Investigation

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $78,970,000: Provided, That the amounts provided under this 
     heading are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. 
     Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                    Drug Enforcement Administration

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses,'' 
     $7,648,000: Provided, That the amounts provided under this 
     heading are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. 
     Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                 TITLE IV--INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI RELIEF

                               CHAPTER 1

                  FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT

                       OTHER BILATERAL ASSISTANCE

                Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction Fund


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961, for emergency relief, rehabilitation, and 
     reconstruction aid to countries affected by the tsunami and 
     earthquakes of December 2004, and for other purposes, 
     $656,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006: 
     Provided, That these funds may be transferred by the 
     Secretary of State to any Federal agency or account for any 
     activity authorized under part I (including chapter 4 of part 
     II) of the Foreign Assistance Act, or under the Agricultural 
     Trade Development and Assistance Act

[[Page 4697]]

     of 1954, to accomplish the purposes provided herein: Provided 
     further, That upon a determination that all or part of the 
     funds so transferred from this appropriation are not 
     necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may 
     be transferred back to this appropriation: Provided further, 
     That funds appropriated under this heading may be used to 
     reimburse fully accounts administered by the United States 
     Agency for International Development for obligations incurred 
     for the purposes provided under this heading prior to 
     enactment of this Act, including Public Law 480 Title II 
     grants: Provided further, That the amounts provided under 
     this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress): Provided further, That of 
     the amounts provided herein: up to $10,000,000 may be 
     transferred to and consolidated with the Development Credit 
     Authority for the cost of direct loans and loan guarantees as 
     authorized by sections 256 and 635 of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 in furtherance of the purposes of this heading; 
     up to $15,000,000 may be transferred to and consolidated with 
     ``Operating Expenses of the United States Agency for 
     International Development'', of which up to $2,000,000 may be 
     used for administrative expenses to carry out credit programs 
     administered by the United States Agency for International 
     Development in furtherance of the purposes of this heading; 
     up to $500,000 may be transferred to and consolidated with 
     ``Operating Expenses of the United States Agency for 
     International Development, Office of Inspector General''; and 
     up to $5,000,000 may be transferred to and consolidated with 
     ``Administration of Foreign Affairs Emergencies in the 
     Diplomatic and Consular Service'' for the purpose of 
     providing support services for U.S. citizen victims and 
     related operations.

                           GENERAL PROVISION

       Sec. 4101. Amounts made available pursuant to section 
     492(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to address 
     relief and rehabilitation needs for countries affected by the 
     tsunami and earthquake of December 2004, prior to the 
     enactment of this Act, shall be in addition to the amount 
     that may be obligated in fiscal year 2005 under that section.
       Sec. 4102. The Secretary of State shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations not later than 30 days after 
     enactment, and prior to the initial obligation of funds 
     appropriated under this chapter, a report on the proposed 
     uses of all funds on a project-by-project basis, for which 
     the obligation of funds is anticipated: Provided, That up to 
     10 percent of funds appropriated under this chapter may be 
     obligated before the submission of the report subject to the 
     normal notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided further, That the report shall be 
     updated and submitted to the Committees on Appropriations 
     every six months and shall include information detailing how 
     the estimates and assumptions contained in previous reports 
     have changed: Provided further, That any proposed new 
     projects and increases in funding of ongoing projects shall 
     be reported to the Committees on Appropriations in accordance 
     with regular notification procedures: Provided further, That 
     the Secretary of State shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations, not later than 210 days following enactment 
     of this Act, and every six months thereafter, a report 
     detailing on a project-by project basis, the expenditure of 
     funds appropriated under this chapter until all funds have 
     been fully expended.

                               CHAPTER 2

                    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy'', $124,100,000: Provided, That the amounts provided 
     under this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps'', $2,800,000: Provided, That the amounts 
     provided under this heading are designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 402 of the conference report 
     to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force'', $30,000,000: Provided, That the amounts provided 
     under this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', $29,150,000: Provided, That the amounts 
     provided under this heading are designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 402 of the conference report 
     to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

             Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid

       For an additional amount for ``Overseas Humanitarian, 
     Disaster, and Civic Aid'', $36,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2006: Provided, That the amounts provided 
     under this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                               CHAPTER 3

                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                         Defense Health Program

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Health Program'', 
     $3,600,000 for operation and maintenance: Provided, That the 
     amounts provided under this heading are designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress).

                                CHAPTER 4

                    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

                       UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

                           Operating Expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Operating Expenses'', 
     $350,000: Provided, That the amounts provided under this 
     heading are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. 
     Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                               CHAPTER 5

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                    UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

                 Surveys, Investigations, and Research

       For an additional amount for ``Surveys, Investigations, and 
     Research'', $8,100,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2006: Provided, That the amounts provided under this 
     heading are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. 
     Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                               CHAPTER 6

                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

                  Operations, Research, and Facilities

       For an additional amount for ``Operations, Research, and 
     Facilities'', $4,830,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2006, for United States tsunami warning capabilities and 
     operations: Provided, That the amounts provided under this 
     heading are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. 
     Res. 95 (108th Congress).

               Procurement, Acquisition and Construction

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Acquisition and 
     Construction'', $9,670,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2007, for United States tsunami warning 
     capabilities: Provided, That the amounts provided under this 
     heading are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. 
     Res. 95 (108th Congress).

         TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS AND TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS

       Sec. 5001. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.


                     (Including Transfers of Funds)

       Sec. 5002. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall make 
     the following transfers of funds previously made available in 
     the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public 
     Law 108-287): Provided, That the amounts transferred shall be 
     made available for the same purpose and the same time period 
     as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, 
     That the authority provided in this section is in addition to 
     any other transfer authority available to the Department of 
     Defense: Provided further, That the amounts shall be 
     transferred between the following appropriations, in the 
     amounts specified:
     To:
     Under the heading, ``Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation, Air Force, 2005/2006'', $500,000;
     From:
     Under the heading, ``Other Procurement, Air Force'', 
     $500,000.
     To:
     Under the heading, ``Other Procurement, Air Force, 2005/
     2007'', $8,200,000;
     From:
     Under the heading, ``Other Procurement, Navy, 2005/2007'', 
     $8,200,000.
       Sec. 5003. Funds appropriated by this Act may be obligated 
     and expended notwithstanding section 15 of the State 
     Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, section 313 of the 
     Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 
     1995 (Public Law 103-236) and section 10 of Public Law 91-672 
     (22 U.S.C. 2412), and section 504(a)(1) of the National 
     Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414(a)(1)).
       Sec. 5004. The last proviso under the heading ``Operation 
     and Maintenance'' in title I of division C of Public Law 108-
     447 is amended by striking ``Public Law 108-357'' and 
     inserting ``Public Law 108-137''.
       Sec. 5005. Section 101 of title I of division C of Public 
     Law 108-447 is amended by striking ``per project'' and all 
     that follows through the period at the end and inserting 
     ``for all applicable programs and projects not to exceed 
     $80,000,000 in each fiscal year.''.

[[Page 4698]]

       Sec. 5006. The matter under the heading ``Water and Related 
     Resources'' in title II of division C of Public Law 108-447 
     is amended by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That $4,023,000 of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be deposited in the San 
     Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund established by section 110 of 
     title I of division B of the Miscellaneous Appropriations 
     Act, 2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-554)''.
       Sec. 5007. In division C, title III of the Consolidated 
     Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447), the item 
     relating to ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Nuclear 
     Waste Disposal'' is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund 
     and'' after ``$346,000,000,''; and
       (2) striking ``to conduct scientific oversight 
     responsibilities and participate in licensing activities 
     pursuant to the Act'' and inserting ``to participate in 
     licensing activities and other appropriate activities 
     pursuant to the Act''.
       Sec. 5008. Section 144(b)(2) of title I of division E of 
     Public Law 108-447 is amended by striking ``September 24, 
     2004'' and inserting ``November 12, 2004''.
       Sec. 5009. In the statement of the managers of the 
     committee of conference accompanying H.R. 4818 (Public Law 
     108-447; House Report 108-792), in the matter in title III of 
     division F, relating to the Fund for the Improvement of 
     Education under the heading ``Innovation and Improvement''--
       (1) the provision specifying $500,000 for the Mississippi 
     Museum of Art, Jackson, MS for Hardy Middle School After 
     School Program shall be deemed to read ``Mississippi Museum 
     of Art, Jackson, MS for a Mississippi Museum of Art After-
     School Collaborative'';
       (2) the provision specifying $2,000,000 for the Milken 
     Family Foundation, Santa Monica, CA, for the Teacher 
     Advancement Program shall be deemed to read ``Teacher 
     Advancement Program Foundation, Santa Monica, CA for the 
     Teacher Advancement Program'';
       (3) the provision specifying $1,000,000 for Batelle for 
     Kids, Columbus, OH for a multi-state effort to evaluate and 
     learn the most effective ways for accelerating student 
     academic growth shall be deemed to read ``Battelle for Kids, 
     Columbus, OH for a multi-state effort to implement, evaluate 
     and learn the most effective ways for accelerating student 
     academic growth'';
       (4) the provision specifying $750,000 for the Institute of 
     Heart Math, Boulder Creek, CO for a teacher retention and 
     student dropout prevention program shall be deemed to read 
     ``Institute of Heart Math, Boulder Creek, CA for a teacher 
     retention and student dropout prevention program'';
       (5) the provision specifying $200,000 for Fairfax County 
     Public Schools, Fairfax, VA for Chinese language programs in 
     Franklin Sherman Elementary School and Chesterbrook 
     Elementary School in McLean, Virginia shall be deemed to read 
     ``Fairfax County Public Schools, Fairfax, VA for Chinese 
     language programs in Shrevewood Elementary School and 
     Wolftrap Elementary School'';
       (6) the provision specifying $1,250,000 for the University 
     of Alaska/Fairbanks in Fairbanks, AK, working with the State 
     of Alaska and Catholic Community Services, for the Alaska 
     System for Early Education Development (SEED) shall be deemed 
     to read ``University of Alaska/Southeast in Juneau, AK, 
     working with the State of Alaska and Catholic Community 
     Services, for the Alaska System for Early Education 
     Development (SEED)'';
       (7) the provision specifying $25,000 for QUILL Productions, 
     Inc., Aston, PA, to develop and disseminate programs to 
     enhance the teaching of American history shall be deemed to 
     read ``QUILL Entertainment Company, Aston, PA, to develop and 
     disseminate programs to enhance the teaching of American 
     history'';
       (8) the provision specifying $780,000 for City of St. 
     Charles, MO for the St. Charles Foundry Arts Center in 
     support of arts education shall be deemed to read ``The 
     Foundry Art Centre, St. Charles, Missouri for support of arts 
     education in conjunction with the City of St. Charles, MO'';
       (9) the provision specifying $100,000 for Community Arts 
     Program, Chester, PA, for arts education shall be deemed to 
     read ``Chester Economic Development Authority, Chester, PA 
     for a community arts program'';
       (10) the provision specifying $100,000 for Kids with A 
     Promise--The Bowery Mission, Bushkill, PA shall be deemed to 
     read ``Kids with A Promise--The Bowery Mission, New York, 
     NY'';
       (11) the provision specifying $50,000 for Great Projects 
     Film Company, Inc., Washington, DC, to produce ``Educating 
     America'', a documentary about the challenges facing our 
     public schools shall be deemed to read ``Great Projects Film 
     Company, Inc., New York, NY, to produce `Educating America', 
     a documentary about the challenges facing our public 
     schools'';
       (12) the provision specifying $30,000 for Summer Camp 
     Opportunities Provide an Edge (SCOPE), New York, NY for YMCA 
     Camps Skycrest, Speers and Elijabar shall be deemed to read 
     ``American Camping Association for Summer Camp Opportunities 
     Provide an Edge (SCOPE), New York, NY for YMCA Camps Skycrest 
     and Speers-Elijabar''; and
       (13) the provision specifying $163,000 for Space Education 
     Initiatives, Green Bay, WI for the Wisconsin Space Science 
     Initiative shall be deemed to read ``Space Education 
     Initiatives, De Pere, WI for the Wisconsin Space Science 
     Initiative''.
       Sec. 5010. In the statement of the managers of the 
     committee of conference accompanying H.R. 4818 (Public Law 
     108-447; House Report 108-792), in the matter in title III of 
     division F, relating to the Fund for the Improvement of 
     Postsecondary Education under the heading ``Higher 
     Education''--
       (1) the provision specifying $145,000 for the Belin-Blank 
     Center at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA for the Big 
     10 school initiative to improve minority student access to 
     Advanced Placement courses shall be deemed to read 
     ``University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA for the Iowa and Israel: 
     Partners in Excellence program to enhance math and science 
     opportunities to rural Iowa students'';
       (2) the provision specifying $150,000 for Mercy College, 
     Dobbs Ferry, NY for the development of a registered nursing 
     program shall be deemed to read ``Mercy College, Dobbs Ferry, 
     NY, for the development of a master's degree program in 
     nursing education, including marketing and recruitment 
     activities'';
       (3) the provision specifying $100,000 for University of 
     Alaska/Southeast to develop distance education coursework for 
     arctic engineering courses and programs shall be deemed to 
     read ``University of Alaska System Office to develop distance 
     education coursework for arctic engineering courses and 
     programs''; and
       (4) the provision specifying $100,000 for Culver-Stockton 
     College, Canton, MO for equipment and technology shall be 
     deemed to read ``Moberly Area Community College, Moberly, MO 
     for equipment and technology''.
       Sec. 5011. The matter under the heading ``Corporation for 
     National and Community Service--National and Community 
     Service Programs Operating Expenses'' in title III of 
     division I of Public Law 108-447 is amended by inserting 
     before the period at the end the following: ``: Provided 
     further, That the Corporation may use up to 1 percent of 
     program grant funds made available under this heading to 
     defray its costs of conducting grant application reviews, 
     including the use of outside peer reviewers''.
       Sec. 5012. Section 114 of title I of division I of the 
     Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447) is 
     amended by inserting before the period ``and section 303 of 
     Public Law 108-422''.
       Sec. 5013. Section 117 of title I of division I of the 
     Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447) is 
     amended by striking ``that are deposited into the Medical 
     Care Collections Fund may be transferred and merged with'' 
     and inserting ``may be deposited into the''.
       Sec. 5014. Section 1703(d)(2) of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``shall be available for the 
     purposes'' and inserting ``shall be available, without fiscal 
     limitation, for the purposes''.
       Sec. 5015. Section 621 of title VI of division B of Public 
     Law 108-199 is amended by striking ``of passenger, cargo and 
     other aviation services''.
       Sec. 5016. Section 619(a) of title VI of division B of 
     Public Law 108-447 is amended by striking ``Asheville-
     Buncombe Technical Community College'' and inserting ``the 
     International Small Business Institute''.
       Sec. 5017. (a) Section 619(a) of title VI of division B of 
     Public Law 108-447 is amended by striking ``for the continued 
     modernization of the Mason Building''.
       (b) Section 621 of title VI of division B of Public Law 
     108-199, as amended by Public Law 108-447, is amended by 
     striking ``, for the continued modernization of the Mason 
     Building''.
       Sec. 5018. The Department of Justice may transfer funds 
     from any Department of Justice account to ``Detention 
     Trustee'': Provided, That the notification requirement in 
     section 605(b) of title VI of division B of Public Law 108-
     447 shall remain in effect for any such transfers.
       Sec. 5019. The referenced statement of managers under the 
     heading ``Community Development Fund'' in title II of 
     division K of Public Law 108-7 is deemed to be amended--
       (1) with respect to item number 39 by striking ``Conference 
     and Workforce Center in Harrison, Arkansas'' and inserting 
     ``in Harrison, Arkansas for facilities construction of the 
     North Arkansas College Health Sciences Education Center''; 
     and
       (2) with respect to item number 316 by striking ``for 
     renovation of a visitor center to accommodate a Space and 
     Flight Center'' and inserting ``to build-out the Prince 
     George's County Economic Development and Business Assistance 
     Center''.
       Sec. 5020. The referenced statement of the managers under 
     the heading ``Community Development Fund'' in title II of 
     division G of Public Law 108-199 is deemed to be amended--
       (1) with respect to item number 56 by striking ``Conference 
     and Training Center'' and inserting ``North Arkansas College 
     Health Sciences Education Center'';

[[Page 4699]]

       (2) with respect to item number 102 by striking ``to the 
     Town of Groveland, California for purchase of a youth 
     center'' and inserting ``to the County of Tuolomne for the 
     purchase of a new youth center in the mountain community of 
     Groveland'';
       (3) with respect to item number 218 by striking ``for 
     construction'' and inserting ``for design and engineering'';
       (4) with respect to item number 472 by striking ``for 
     sidewalk, curbs and facade improvements in the Morton Avenue 
     neighborhood'' and inserting ``for streetscape renovation''; 
     and
       (5) with respect to item number 493 by striking ``for land 
     acquisition'' and inserting ``for planning and design of its 
     Sports and Recreation Center and Education Complex''.
       Sec. 5021. The referenced statement of the managers under 
     the heading ``Community Development Fund'' in title II of 
     division I of Public Law 108-447 is deemed to be amended as 
     follows--
       (1) with respect to item number 706 by striking `` a public 
     swimming pool'' and inserting ``recreation fields'';
       (2) with respect to item number 667 by striking ``to the 
     Town of Appomattox, Virginia for facilities construction of 
     an African-American cultural and heritage museum at the 
     Carver-Price building'' and inserting ``to the County of 
     Appomattox, Virginia for renovation of the Carver-Price 
     building'';
       (3) with respect to item number 668 by striking ``for the 
     Town of South Boston, Virginia for renovations and creation 
     of a community arts center at the Prizery'' and inserting 
     ``for The Prizery in South Boston, Virginia for renovations 
     and creation of a community arts center'';
       (4) with respect to item number 669 by striking ``for the 
     City of Moneta, Virginia for facilities construction and 
     renovations of an art, education, and community outreach 
     center'' and inserting ``for the Moneta Arts, Education, and 
     Community Outreach Center in Moneta, Virginia for facilities 
     construction and renovations'';
       (5) with respect to item number 910 by striking ``repairs 
     to'' and inserting ``renovation and construction of''; and
       (6) with respect to item number 902 by striking ``City of 
     Brooklyn'' and inserting ``Fifth Ave Committee in Brooklyn''.
       Sec. 5022. Section 308 of division B of Public Law 108-447 
     is amended by striking all after the words ``shall be 
     deposited'', and inserting ``as offsetting receipts to the 
     fund established under 28 U.S.C. 1931 and shall remain 
     available to the Judiciary until expended to reimburse any 
     appropriation for the amount paid out of such appropriation 
     for expenses of the Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and 
     Other Judicial Services and the Administrative Offices of the 
     United States Courts.''.
       Sec. 5023. Section 198 of division H of Public Law 108-447 
     is amended by inserting ``under title 23 of the United States 
     Code'' after ``law''.
       Sec. 5024. The District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 
     2005 (Public Law 108-335) approved October 18, 2004, is 
     amended as follows:
       (1) Section 331 is amended as follows:
       (A) in the first sentence by striking the word 
     ``$15,000,000'' and inserting ``$42,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended,'' in its place, and
       (B) by amending paragraph (5) to read as follows:
       ``(5) The amounts may be obligated or expended only if the 
     Mayor notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and Senate in writing 30 days in advance 
     of any obligation or expenditure.''.
       (2) By inserting a new section before the short title at 
     the end to read as follows:
       ``Sec. 348. The amount appropriated by this Act may be 
     increased by an additional amount of $206,736,000 (including 
     $49,927,000 from local funds and $156,809,000 from other 
     funds) to be transferred by the Mayor of the District of 
     Columbia to the various headings under this Act as follows:
       ``(1) $174,927,000 (including $34,927,000 from local funds, 
     and $140,000,000 from other funds) shall be transferred under 
     the heading `Government Direction and Support': Provided, 
     That of the funds, $33,000,000 from local funds shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided further, That of the 
     funds, $140,000,000 from other funds shall remain available 
     until expended and shall only be available in conjunction 
     with revenue from a private or alternative financing proposal 
     approved pursuant to section 106 of DC Act 15-717, the 
     `Ballpark Omnibus Financing and Revenue Act of 2004' approved 
     by the District of Columbia, December 29, 2004, and
       ``(2) $15,000,000 from local funds shall be transferred 
     under the heading `Repayment of Loans and Interest', and
       ``(3) $14,000,000 from other funds shall be transferred 
     under the heading `Sports and Entertainment Commission', and
       ``(4) $2,809,000 from other funds shall be transferred 
     under the heading `Water and Sewer Authority'.''

                              {time}  1515


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
       At the end of title V (relating to general provisions), 
     insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Offsetting Government-Wide Rescission.--Of the 
     discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2005 provided 
     in appropriation Acts for fiscal year 2005 (other than this 
     Act), there is rescinded the total amount determined by the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget to be 
     required to offset the discretionary budget authority that is 
     provided in titles II and IV of this Act (relating to 
     international programs and tsunami relief) and designated as 
     an emergency requirement.
       (b) Application.--The rescission made by subsection (a)--
       (1) shall take effect upon the enactment of this Act;
       (2) shall not apply to the discretionary budget authority 
     provided for the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, 
     and Veterans Affairs; and
       (3) shall be applied proportionately to the discretionary 
     budget authority provided for each other department, agency, 
     instrumentality, and entity of the Federal Government.
       (c) Report.--Within 30 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate a report 
     specifying the reductions made to each account, program, 
     project, and activity pursuant to this section.

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the question before us 
today, I believe, is how now shall we live within the confines of the 
budget that we have to deal with? Shall we live within the boundaries 
that we have set for ourselves and set an example for our generation 
today and the future, or should we ignore those boundaries that we have 
imposed upon ourselves and spend in excess?
  Right now we are in the process, as we know, of doing the budget for 
next year, the 2006 budget. We are setting up the framework of what we 
will be spending for next year. And so I think it is fitting and 
appropriate that we look at the supplemental today and the amendment 
that I have presented to see whether or not we will fit within that 
budget confines, whether or not we will fit within that area or, 
instead, will we exceed it and say that a budget really is nothing more 
than a charade and not explain exactly what we will be spending for any 
point in time.
  Let me just say that I applaud the chairman, and I applaud the 
members of the committee for doing what they said they would do as has 
been reported in the paper. To use the chairman's own words, they have 
taken the President's proposal and scrubbed it thoroughly for many 
points that they thought appropriate to remove from that spending 
proposal. My question, though, is, can we do a little bit better? Can 
we go a little bit further? Can we do exactly what we ask families to 
do back at home?
  Think for a moment. What would a family do today if they faced 
emergency expenditures like we are looking at in the supplemental right 
now, families who maybe have to see extra car payments or medical 
expenses? What would a family do? A family would probably have to do 
what we should be doing right here, and that is limit our spending 
elsewhere, reduce some other unnecessary spending so that we have that 
money for the emergency spending.
  If we look in the supplemental, there are a number of points in there 
that have already been raised by others. I will just point to one of 
them, the aid for tsunami victims. That started at $35 million, went up 
to $150 million, then $350 million, and now we are looking at $950 
million. Some would question whether we can even spend all that before 
the end of this fiscal year.

[[Page 4700]]

As a matter of fact, I spoke with people from the World Bank and they 
said that they are not even sure where the money would all be going to. 
They do not have an exact figure as to what we should be spending on 
long-term needs, so we can question whether or not we should be 
spending that money.
  But given that we can argue that back and forth, let us take that as 
a given that we should spend the entire $950 million for tsunami 
relief. I would ask this, as we stand here before the world as a body 
saying that we are going to do the charitable thing and give money to 
the tsunami victims, are we really exercising any charity there when 
we, in fact, say, we're not going to be paying for it, we're asking our 
kids and our grandkids to pay for it in excessive spending and deficit 
spending in future generations?
  Again, I applaud the chairman for the good start that they have done 
in this committee by scrubbing the budget and trying to find some 
offsets. I would simply say, can we not do a little bit better and find 
completely all offsets for all of the spending that we are doing, aside 
from the military defense spending, for all the excessive spending in 
the bill? It is around $4 billion. How much would it really come out to 
be? If you are looking at the budget that we have right now that we are 
living under, $2.5 trillion, and you are trying to find savings or 
offsets of around $4 billion, that is only two- tenths of 1 percent. I 
would ask, can we not find two-tenths of 1 percent of waste, fraud and 
abuse in the entire fiscal budget that we are operating under right 
now? I think we can.
  We ask families to do it for their budgets, we ask businesses to do 
it for their budgets, I think we can find that entire amount of 
approximately $4 billion of waste, fraud, and abuse in the entire 
budget, offset it, and then we can truly stand before the world and say 
that when we are making charitable contributions to the tsunami relief 
victims, that it is truly coming from this generation and not being 
passed on to future generations.
  I shall end where I began. How now shall we live? We shall live 
within the means, by the parameters that we have set down upon 
ourselves. We shall live within the budget that we have set for 
ourselves and not outside that budget.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, while I am very empathetic to 
the gentleman's concern, for I have many a grandchild myself, I make a 
point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change 
existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and 
therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' In 
this case, the amendment addresses funds in other acts, and so I have 
to reluctantly ask the Chair to rule.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I should have 
stepped in before the gentleman stood up to say, in light of knowing 
the rules of the House, that I was about to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, in that event, I withdraw my 
point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California withdraws the 
point of order; and without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey 
withdraws the amendment.
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as 
follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Filner:
       At the end of title V (page 69, after line 17), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated in 
     this Act, there is hereby appropriated for fiscal year 2005, 
     for ``Department of Veterans Affairs--Veterans Health 
     Administration--Medical Services'', $3,100,000,000: Provided, 
     That the amounts provided under this section are designated 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress).

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order 
against the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment which I am labeling an 
emergency amendment. It is an emergency amendment because the money is 
needed for the veterans of this Nation, especially those who are 
returning from the war in Iraq and Afghanistan who may not be able to 
get the services they need for a variety of wounds, both physical and 
mental.
  Let me first say where I got the number of $3.1 billion. It is not 
just a figure grabbed from the air. Every year the veterans service 
organizations of this Nation put together a budget called the 
Independent Budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs. This is the 
one for 2006. What it says is that just to keep meeting the needs for 
our current veterans and those who we expect to see in the coming year, 
we will need an additional $3.1 billion than was allocated by the 
President in his budget. We do not know what this House will adopt yet, 
so this figure is drawn from the inadequacies of the President's budget 
as he gave it to Congress recently.
  This is a supplemental budget for those fighting in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. At least that is the title. Let me make sure all the 
people of the House understand the relevance of the veterans budget for 
the war that we are fighting abroad. Here is what our first President, 
George Washington, said and it has never been done more eloquently: 
``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in 
any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to 
how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and 
appreciated by their country.''
  Mr. Chairman, the morale of our troops overseas depends on how we are 
going to treat their comrades when they return and how we treat their 
comrades who served in earlier battles. We are not treating them to the 
level that is worthy of their sacrifice. Whether you look at the amount 
of nurses, whether you look at research funds, whether you look at the 
resources for post-traumatic stress disorder for which virtually every 
returning soldier, Marine who is in Iraq and Afghanistan may have, 
wherever you look, there is a deficiency in this veterans budget.
  I call that an emergency. I call that important to the struggle that 
is being waged overseas. If you are voting for that struggle, you have 
to vote to make sure the veterans who come back from that struggle are 
well treated.
  Right now we have a proposal from the President which advocates a 
mere one-half of 1 percent increase in the veterans health care budget 
over the previous year. That is a real cut, because of health inflation 
and the advancing age and the needs of the population, to about a 14 or 
15 percent cut by the administration's own figures. So we are cutting 
in real terms 15 percent from the veterans health care budget.
  How does the administration want to fund that cut? Doubling the 
copayments for prescription drugs, adding an enrollment fee of up to 
$250 for those in the so-called lower categories of veterans 
preference. That is outrageous. That is unconscionable to charge the 
veterans of this Nation for their own health care and to balance the 
budget on the backs of these veterans.
  The chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs was not satisfied 
with having a $250 enrollment fee. He proposed doubling it to almost 
$500 for some of these veterans. These veterans are supposedly in lower 
categories, either because of the nature of their illness or their 
income. But, Madam Chairman, this Nation, this Congress has the funds 
to help all of these veterans to get the care that they need.
  Let me remind my colleagues, this is a $2.5 trillion budget that we 
are operating within our Nation. We have about a $400 billion deficit, 
a $7.5 trillion debt. We are spending several billion dollars a week in 
Iraq. Yet someone is going to say that we do not have the $3 billion 
that is necessary for our veterans? I reject that argument because this 
is a Nation that is worthy of

[[Page 4701]]

its veterans. This a Nation that could put the money where it is 
needed. And this is a Nation that can do what is required for our 
veterans.
  We simply cannot charge these copayments. We simply cannot charge 
this enrollment fee. We simply cannot continue to have a VA that is 
gagged from informing veterans of their rights under law. That is what 
is happening in the VA today. My amendment to provide $3 billion extra 
will correct that injustice.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chairman, I am very empathetic to the 
concerns of the gentleman from California. We expect fully to address 
those concerns in regular order. Therefore, I make a point of order 
against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates 
clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment 
to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing 
existing law.'' The amendment includes an emergency designation and as 
such constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

                              {time}  1530

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Biggert). Does any Member wish to be heard 
on the point of order?
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Chairman, I know how reluctant the chairman is. 
This is a supplemental budget. By definition it goes beyond whatever we 
did in the previous year. That is why it is called a supplemental. And 
by some technical mumbo jumbo, he has managed to say that this 
supplemental is not subject to the rule that he just read. Through 
technicalities, through arcane kinds of things, he is saying that the 
veterans of this Nation are not entitled to this care because he is 
using a rule which is not being used for the $81 billion that we have 
on the floor but is used for this $3 billion that we are trying to use 
for our Nation's veterans.
  Madam Chairman, I understand these rules, and I understand these 
technical points of order. They are designed to protect certain 
amendments and not have others. Fine. But when one uses that rule to 
shut out the veterans of this Nation, to shut out the troops that are 
coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan, from the care that they deserve 
and will need, we are going to shut down PTSD programs, Madam Chairman, 
all across this Nation, and yet every soldier and Marine is going to 
come back with potentially that disorder.
  So one can use all the rules, but what we are doing here is immoral, 
it is unconscionable, it is outrageous that we would be treating the 
veterans in this way.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chairman, speaking further on the 
point of order, I would simply, calmly say to the gentleman that I very 
much agree, as the entire House agrees, that we must be responsive to 
the medical needs of our veterans, especially those who are coming back 
at this very moment. There is not any doubt that the new Military 
Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee 
is designed in the fashion to be very responsive to the needs of 
veterans. I urge the gentleman to recognize that we have begun hearings 
in connection with that already. It is our intention in regular order 
to move these bills very quickly, and there is absolutely no doubt that 
the needs of these veterans, beyond money that is already in the 
pipeline, will be met as a result of regular order.
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Chairman, I understand what the chairman is saying. 
I have been around here long enough. I do not have confidence in that 
regular order. I know what is going to happen then. Then we will be 
accused of legislating on appropriations or some other rule will be 
brought up. So I do not accept the ruling. I intend to challenge the 
ruling, and I think we owe this to our veterans.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. If no other Member wishes to be heard, the Chair 
is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes an emergency 
designation. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Chairman, I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair 
stand as the judgment of the Committee of the Whole?
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FILNER. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224, 
noes 200, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 71]

                               AYES--224

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)

[[Page 4702]]


     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Hyde
     Istook
     Leach
     Millender-McDonald
     Oxley
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Terry
     Walsh
     Waters

                              {time}  1602

  Ms. PELOSI, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California and Messrs. HONDA, 
DAVIS of Florida, STRICKLAND and LYNCH changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Committee.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Madam Chairman, I wish to extend my gratitude on behalf of the entire 
Florida delegation to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Mike Rogers) for entering into this 
colloquy with us regarding a very crucial issue to Florida as well as 
this Congress.
  Last fall the State of Florida withstood an historic four hurricanes 
causing enormous devastation and damage to property, waterways, homes 
and individuals' lives. I commend the relief efforts on the ground in 
the immediate aftermath of the hurricane as well as the willingness of 
Congress to step forward and offer meaningful relief to hurricane 
victims. But there are two issues for which the Department of Homeland 
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency should recognize under 
their current statutory authority to effectively address Florida 
hurricane-related damage.
  Congress appropriated funds to respond to the hurricane devastation 
through the Military Construction Appropriations and Emergency 
Hurricane Supplemental Appropriations Act 2005, Public Law 108-324, and 
the Emergency Supplemental of 2004, Public Law 108-303.
  At this time, Madam Chairman, I yield to the distinguished chairman, 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), to ask how was Florida 
hurricane disaster aid reflected in the designation of FEMA disaster 
relief funds?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PUTNAM. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, House Report 108-773 which 
accompanied the Military Construction Emergency Hurricane Supplemental 
Bill stated, ``The conferees agree to provide an additional $6.5 
billion for disaster relief activities associated with declared 
disasters such as Hurricanes Frances, Ivan and Jeanne.''
  Supplemental funds appropriated in the wake of the four hurricanes 
may be used by FEMA in administering relief to stricken communities and 
victims in areas such as Florida where the President declared disaster 
areas that meet current statutory eligibility under the Stafford Act.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman.
  I would ask the chairman, is it his understanding that the 
administration has the authority under the Stafford Act to remove 
debris from the private lands when it is in the public interest?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, it is my understanding that 
the Stafford Act authorizes the removal of wreckage and debris 
resulting from a major disaster from both public and private lands when 
the President determines that it is in the public interest.
  Mr. PUTNAM. I thank the chairman for his time and attention to this 
most important effort. It is my hope that this colloquy brings clarity 
and direction to FEMA as it administers the critical disaster relief 
funds.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Biggert). The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

           TITLE VI--HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE CODE OF CONDUCT

     SECTION 6001. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Humanitarian Assistance 
     Code of Conduct Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 6002. CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE PROTECTION OF 
                   BENEFICIARIES OF HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Prohibition.--None of the funds made available for 
     foreign operations, export financing, and related programs 
     under the headings ``Migration and Refugee Assistance'', 
     ``United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance 
     Fund'', ``International Disaster and Famine Assistance'', or 
     ``Transition Initiatives'' may be obligated to an 
     organization that fails to adopt a code of conduct that 
     provides for the protection of beneficiaries of assistance 
     under any such heading from sexual exploitation and abuse in 
     humanitarian relief operations.
       (b) Six Core Principles.--The code of conduct referred to 
     in subsection (a) shall, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     be consistent with the following six core principles of the 
     United Nations Inter-Agency Standing Committee Task Force on 
     Protection From Sexual Exploitation and Abuse in Humanitarian 
     Crises:
       (1) ``Sexual exploitation and abuse by humanitarian workers 
     constitute acts of gross misconduct and are therefore grounds 
     for termination of employment.''.
       (2) ``Sexual activity with children (persons under the age 
     of 18) is prohibited regardless of the age of majority or age 
     of consent locally. Mistaken belief regarding the age of a 
     child is not a defense.''.
       (3) ``Exchange of money, employment, goods, or services for 
     sex, including sexual favors or other forms of humiliating, 
     degrading or exploitative behavior, is prohibited. This 
     includes exchange of assistance that is due to 
     beneficiaries.''.
       (4) ``Sexual relationships between humanitarian workers and 
     beneficiaries are strongly discouraged since they are based 
     on inherently unequal power dynamics. Such relationships 
     undermine the credibility and integrity of humanitarian aid 
     work.''.
       (5) ``Where a humanitarian worker develops concerns or 
     suspicions regarding sexual abuse or exploitation by a fellow 
     worker, whether in the same agency or not, he or she must 
     report such concerns via established agency reporting 
     mechanisms.''.
       (6) ``Humanitarian agencies are obliged to create and 
     maintain an environment which prevents sexual exploitation 
     and abuse and promotes the implementation of their code of 
     conduct. Managers at all levels have particular 
     responsibilities to support and develop systems which 
     maintain this environment.''.

     SEC. 6003. REPORT.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, and not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall transmit to the 
     Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate a detailed report on the 
     implementation of this title.

     SEC. 6004. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICABILITY.

       This title--
       (1) takes effect 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act; and
       (2) applies to funds obligated after the effective date 
     referred to in paragraph (1)--
       (A) for fiscal year 2005; and
       (B) any subsequent fiscal year.


                   Amendment Offered By Mr. Tancredo

  Mr. TANCREDO. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       Page 72, after line 17, insert the following:

               ``TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       ``Sec. 7001. None of the funds made available under the 
     heading `TITLE IV--INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI RELIEF--CHAPTER 1--
     FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT--OTHER BILATERAL 
     ASSISTANCE--Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction Fund 
     (including transfers of funds)' may be used to provide 
     emergency relief, rehabilitation or reconstruction aid.''

  Mr. TANCREDO. Madam Chairman, my amendment would strike all of the

[[Page 4703]]

taxpayer funded relief provided in the bill to the countries affected 
by the Indian Ocean tsunami.
  After reviewing information from the Center on Philanthropy at 
Indiana University detailing the level of private American 
contributions to the tsunami relief, I am not sure we need to spend 
extra taxpayer dollars for that purpose. Already some 130 private 
organizations are providing tsunami relief. Several private companies 
are also providing relief through their local offices in the region.
  According to the report, some $800 million has already been provided 
by these organizations in cash. In addition, another $101 million has 
been provided in kind donations. That brings the total to $1 billion 
already, close to $1 billion, and that total does not include all the 
person-to-person aid that is not accounted for in the study.
  Since the disaster many Americans have looked into their hearts and 
reached into their wallets in an effort to help alleviate the suffering 
in Thailand, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and other affected nations.
  One of these companies, as a matter of fact, a company called CH2M 
Hill, was one of the first on the scene to provide critical services to 
victims ever since. They partnered with other countries to provide a 
clean drinking water purification system to people in Indonesia. The 
quality of the water is equivalent to bottled water and is currently 
being provided throughout the country, including to the U.N. compound 
and more than 10 refugee camps.
  The system is currently purifying water at the rate of 600 gallons 
per minute, producing 864,000 gallons of purified water each day, 
helping nearly a quarter of a million people each day.
  I am proud of the efforts of CH2M Hill. I am proud of all of the 
Americans who have given so much to alleviate the suffering. Their 
efforts and indeed all of the efforts are to be commended. They help 
demonstrate that the strength of America's compassion is best measured 
by the efforts of individual citizens and private organizations and 
companies, not by the number of government programs we create or the 
amount of Federal appropriations we dole out.
  Given this era of tight budgets and the need to provide for disasters 
here at home like the hurricanes that ravaged Florida, wildfires that 
burned through the West, tornados that hit middle America, we simply 
cannot ask Americans to be all things to all people.
  People have already donated what they can. We should not exact 
further tax dollars from them for this purpose.
  Madam Chairman, I do not approach this in a light or frivolous way. I 
believe that the issues are significant and serious. I believe that, in 
fact, if more money is needed, we need to do it as a result of a study 
and careful examination of exactly what needs are still out there. 
Recent reports have indicated that in fact NGOs are saying that there 
is more money than they can even deal with. Some of the NGOs have 
indicated that people are running into each other essentially. Too many 
people, too much money flooding the country at the present time.
  If more money is needed, I suggest it be provided in a later 
appropriation under a regular rule. I do not believe that any longer we 
can consider it to be ``an emergency'' and I certainly do not think 
that it qualifies for a categorization under this supplemental.
  I have no illusions about the possibility of the passage of this 
amendment. I know it will probably fail and probably fail pretty 
dramatically. I recognize that entirely. But I do feel it is important 
to at least bring to the attention of my colleagues and to the Nation 
that I think a great deal has been done. I am proud of every single 
American who has donated. It does come from their heart. That is the 
way we should provide for these things. That is not the way this bill 
intends to do it.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. I think most of my 
colleagues know that there were at least 225,000, maybe many more than 
that, people who were killed in the countries affected by the December 
2004 tsunami, most particularly Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India and other 
countries as well. There were 1.1 million displaced persons, 1.1 
million displaced persons. This is a disaster and it is an emergency.
  The President has outlined a recovery plan. This amendment, although 
it does not strike the dollars, makes funding ineligible to be spent 
for these purposes. Some of these funds would go to reimburse accounts 
already depleted, USAID accounts, emergency disaster relief accounts, 
that have been previously spent. So it is very important that we retain 
those accounts and that we retain the money for those.
  The rest of the funds are for a reconstruction plan that has been I 
think fairly well thought out. It is not, I do not think, extraordinary 
given the size of the catastrophe that we have experienced, $340 
million to rebuild infrastructure, roads, ports, bridges, water 
treatment plants and a signature project which would be the 
construction of a 250 kilometer stretch of road from the capital, Banda 
Aceh, at the north end of Sumatra down the west coast to Meulaboh in 
Indonesia.
  This road is the only link that these little communities that are 
utterly devastated and destroyed by the tsunami--this road is the only 
link that these communities will have with the outside world.
  These reconstruction projects needs to get under way immediately. 
Until that happens, the only contact, the only way to get relief 
supplies to these little valleys which on the back side has a very high 
ridge of mountains and no access by road, the only way to get supplies 
to them is by air or by sea, a very expensive project. The road needs 
to be constructed. I think it is an emergency and I believe most of my 
colleagues would agree with that.
  The U.S. has had a history of responding in a very compassionate way 
to disasters wherever they occur, here in the United States and also 
abroad, and I believe that this compassion is something that marks 
Americans and makes us who we are. And I would certainly hope that my 
colleagues would agree that these funds are a relatively small amount 
of money, given the total level of devastation of the disaster there, a 
relatively small amount of money to help this area recover and to 
replenish the money that was already spent in relief.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I heard my good friend from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) say that this 
amendment likely will not pass, but I hope maybe the debate will seek 
and help to convince him of the enormity of the crisis or at least the 
need in places like Sri Lanka, Indonesia and many other countries that 
are impacted by the tsunami.
  If I might draw the gentleman's memory to the video that showed a 
single train that had been the lifeline of Sri Lanka, an opportunity 
that I took in visiting Sri Lanka with a number of my colleagues, to 
see the enormous devastation in terms of the infrastructure of these 
countries, then the gentleman would realize that in addition to the 
charitable heart that Americans have and the private contributions that 
have been made, and might I acknowledge the many donations given from 
the City of Houston and the Houston Tsunami Relief Effort and the 
Vietnamese Relief Effort and Sri Lankans and those from Thailand and 
many, many others in the City of Houston and the effort waged by 
President Clinton and President Bush, and in my community, Jim 
Mackinvale, and many others who worked hard to draw monies out of 
Houston, and I know many other cities and States did the same.

                              {time}  1615

  But the infrastructure dollars are so very important. So I would hope 
that my colleagues would oppose this amendment because you cannot 
imagine, I believe, the depth of the amendment and the need to rebuild 
those countries, and those dollars will help to do so.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of

[[Page 4704]]

words. I am troubled by the amendment that we have before us today. 
There is, I think, a wide range of opinion that is available for us to 
debate the merits of a wide range of things in this bill. And I 
appreciate that people are coming forward in good spirit. But I 
appreciate the comment of the gentleman from Arizona. It was, I want to 
say, I do not want to say it was my privilege, but I had the 
opportunity to spend time after the tsunami a couple of weeks after it 
hit with a bipartisan delegation led by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Leach), Senator Brownback, touring the area.
  I assure you that the testimony about the devastation is, if 
anything, understated. The pictures that we saw on CNN did not do 
justice. But I was struck by the impact of the generosity that was 
shown by Americans in uniform, civilian employees, members of NGOs who 
were there.
  There was some bad publicity initially, surrounding what appeared to 
be a lack of compassion on the part of the United States with its 
initial response. But that never interfered in terms of the publicity 
with the work that was done by the United States and our agencies. We 
built amazing goodwill for this country while we helped these 
traumatized areas heal.
  I think what has been offered by the President, by the committee, is 
the least that we can do. It will pay dividends many times over. I 
think that it would be unfortunate even to bring this proposal to a 
vote. It is sending the wrong signal about the United States' 
intention.
  We are certainly, on a per capita basis, not giving more than 
Australia, Scandinavia, Germany. For us to indicate that there is a 
sense here could only be interpreted as our being callous and 
unfeeling, I think, is the wrong message to send to these people in 
these traumatized countries. I think it is the wrong thing to send to 
the international community.
  I will say, Mr. Chairman, in the course of the visit, I had people 
who were Americans in business, people from the NGO communities, 
foreign parliamentarians, all talking about the damaged relationship 
that the United States has, the image that we have in this region, and 
how amazing they felt the progress was being made by the work that was 
being done by our country.
  This amendment and any support for it, I think, is sending the wrong 
signal. And I strongly urge its rejection. I sincerely hope that it is 
rejected, if necessary, on a voice vote, if not withdrawn. But I hope 
people make no mistake about how people are watching our actions for 
the signals we send around the world.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Camp). Is there further debate on the 
amendment?
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo.)
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments which I will be 
sending to the desk, and I move to strike the last word and talk about 
the issue while they get the amendments up there. Mr. Chairman, last 
night I testified before the Rules Committee in support of two 
amendments I had hoped to offer to the supplemental appropriations bill 
being considered by the House today.
  The first of these amendments would add $772 million in funding for 
border security to hire an additional 1,000 border patrol agents, 
provide 8,000 beds for immigration and detention removal operations, 
and install radiation portal monitors at all ports of entry.
  As a Member representing a district on the United States/Mexico 
border, and as the only Member of Congress with a background in 
immigration and experience in actually defending our Nation's borders, 
I have firsthand knowledge of the kinds of resources that we need to 
keep America safe.
  Since coming to Congress, I have heard a lot about how we need to 
crack down on illegal immigration in this country, but have seen very 
little action when it comes to providing adequate funding for the 
programs that we know will work in dealing with this problem.
  Most recently, with the passage of the Intelligence Reform Bill, 
Congress promised to provide funding to hire thousands of new border 
patrol agents and create thousands of beds for immigration detention 
and removal activities.
  Unfortunately, the President proposed his FY 2006 budget and it falls 
woefully short of meeting these needs. And I fear that Congress will 
once again fail to keep its commitment.
  Meanwhile, every day foreign nationals from over 150 different 
countries who are here in the United States illegally are being 
apprehended and turned back on to our streets because we lack the space 
to detain them. At the same time, we hear of known terrorists who are 
training recruits to infiltrate our country in order to do us harm. The 
time has long since come to make good on our border security promises 
or to continue to risk the safety of the American people.
  The second of my amendments deals with funding for veterans health 
care. Specifically, it would provide an additional 1.3 billion for 
veterans health care programs for fiscal year 2005.
  This increase is required in order to maintain existing service 
levels within the VA health care system and would bring spending in 
line with the recommendations of the bipartisan leadership of the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  The VA is the largest health care network in the United States, and 
it is increasingly overburdened by a large military retiree population, 
principally of World War II and Korean veterans. That burden will only 
increase with new veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
  America's veterans have made great sacrifices for us. Now it is time 
that we keep our promise to them to ensure that they get the health 
care they need and that they deserve. The only way to do this is to 
give the VA the resources they require to get the job done.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer these two amendments because I truly believe 
that funding these two priorities is a matter of urgent need for the 
good of our Nation, and I ask for my colleagues' support.


                    Amendments Offered by Mr. Reyes

  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, and I ask unanimous 
consent they be considered en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendments.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Reyes:
       At the end of chapter 2 of title I (page 35, after line 
     14), insert the following:

                     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                     Veterans Health Administration


                            medical services

       For an additional amount for ``Medical Services'', 
     $1,300,000,000: Provided, That the amounts provided under 
     this heading are designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).
                                  ____

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. (a) In fiscal year 2005, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall increase by not less than 1,000 the 
     number of positions for full-time, active-duty border patrol 
     agents within the Department of Homeland Security above the 
     number of such positions for which funds were allotted for 
     2004.
       (b) There are authorized to be appropriated, and there are 
     appropriated, $180,000,000 to carry out subsection (a).
       Sec. 702. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     increase by not less than 8,000, in fiscal year 2005, the 
     number of beds available for immigration detention and 
     removal operations of the Department of Homeland Security 
     above the number for which funds were allotted for fiscal 
     year 2004. The Secretary shall give priority for the use of 
     these additional beds to the detention of individuals charged 
     with removability under section 237(a)(4) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)) or inadmissibility 
     under section 212(a)(3) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)).
       (b) There are authorized to be appropriated, and there are 
     appropriated, $375,000,000 to carry out subsection (a).
       Sec. 703. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     ensure radiation portal monitors are installed at all ports 
     of entry into the United States not later than September 30, 
     2005.
       (b) There are authorized to be appropriated, and there are 
     appropriated, $217,000,000 to carry out subsection (a).


[[Page 4705]]

  Mr. REYES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Camp). Is there objection to the request of 
the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to considering the amendments 
en bloc?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to returning in the reading 
to page 35, line 14?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment, and since the gentleman from Texas has already 
spoken, I do not know whether he intends to speak again before I make 
the point of order or whether he is prepared to go forward at this 
time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) for bringing us 
these two amendments. Again, these are for national security emergency 
issues, border patrol agents at our border.
  I represent all the California-Mexico border. I know that we need 
these agents. The President asked for them, and yet he did not put the 
money in to pay for them.
  In addition, every veterans group and the VA itself say to complete 
the year, giving the services they need, they need another $1.3 
billion. This is truly an emergency.
  The rules that will be used once again to say that our national 
defense at the border, our veterans to get their adequate health care, 
somehow we violate the rules, but let us not violate common sense. 
Common sense says we need these funds. We need this protection. We need 
these services for our veterans.
  Let us dispense with the technical objections and fund what we need 
for our veterans and for our border defense.


                             Point Of Order

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to be recognized on his 
point of order?
  Mr. KOLBE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I make the point of order, as the 
chairman of the full committee has said on several occasions. I am more 
than sympathetic. He is more than sympathetic to some of these 
amendments. I especially feel that way with this amendment, given the 
fact that it deals with something that is very dear to me, the issue of 
border security.
  However, I would make a point of order against the amendment which is 
not the humdrum of little technicalities. This is the rules of the 
House.
  It proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an 
appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part that an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if in changing existing law it 
gives affirmative direction in effect.
  This amendment would do that, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate what I said about 
nitpicking and arcane rules. This whole bill is a violation of the 
rules of the House except for the fact that it says in the bill it does 
not violate the rules. So telling us that we should have respect for 
the rules, my colleagues ought to show some respect for the good sense 
of the American people, for common sense. This whole bill is a 
violation of the rules without a waiver. Is that not true, Mr. 
Chairman? Would this bill be a violation of the rules if there was not 
a waiver involved in the rules?
  As I said, the rules are being used to damage common sense and to 
damage our Nation's security and damage our health care to our 
veterans. I think it is a disgrace to use those rules for these 
purposes.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
order.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting 
direction to an executive official.
  The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendments en bloc are not in 
order.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Upton

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Upton:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for embassy security, construction, and maintenance.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 20 
minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
myself, the opponent.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) is 
recognized for 10 minutes.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment with the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) in a 
bipartisan amendment for two main reasons: The first is cost.
  What this amendment does, it says that none of the funds made 
available in this act may be used for embassy security, construction 
and maintenance. In essence it is about a $592 million savings 
amendment. I would note in a CRS document printed a couple of weeks 
ago, it states that the State Department has identified $990 million 
thus far for the new embassy in Baghdad. Fiscal year 2003 and fiscal 
year 2004 supplementals provided $35 million from the State's 
Diplomatic and Consular Program account, another $105 million came from 
the fourth quarter fiscal year 2004 Coalition Provisional Authority 
appropriations, and another $184 million of the Iraqi relief and 
reconstruction funds was designated for the embassy. This bill provides 
yet another some $590 million for this building.
  The second reason that I support the amendment and oppose this 
provision in the bill is that we knew years ago that we were going to 
need a new embassy, and yet last summer when plans were laid for 
construction of this particular site it was not included in the omnibus 
appropriation bill taken up in November. The 2006 budget request which 
came up in February, no moneys were included in the President's budget 
request for that as well.
  I would note that the National Taxpayers Union supports this 
amendment. I would also note that time and time again I supported more 
support for our troops, body armor, supported the President's request, 
but this embassy stuck into this bill with this process is not right.
  We need regular order and that is why the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and 
I are offering this amendment on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, Members should ask themselves how would they 
like if their children, their son, their daughter, or their husband or 
their wife was in this embassy here. Now we have talked a lot, and this 
committee has done a lot on body armor and Humvee armor. Forty-five 
people have been killed in the embassy in Iraq. From Irvine, 
California, Keith Taylor, rocket attack; Tracy Hushin, Long Island, New 
York, suicide bomber; Leslie Davis from Magnolia, Texas, suicide

[[Page 4706]]

bomber; Rosharon, Texas, suicide bomber; Astoria, Oregon, suicide 
bomber; Chickasaw, Alabama, suicide bomber; Myrtle Beach, South 
Carolina, near Fallujah attack; Cleveland, Ohio; Copperas Cove, Texas; 
North Branch, Minnesota; South Windham, Connecticut.
  This embassy was not built to be an embassy. This was Saddam 
Hussein's palace. It is a symbol of torture. It is not to be the symbol 
of the United States Government. We need to act quickly. We need to act 
quickly. If this amendment, if the Upton amendment passes, there will 
be a 6-month period whereby they will not have the protection.
  I will put this listing out so Members can review them. Fire in a 
wooded area, electrical fire in Saddam Hussein's palace, again the 
structure was not built for it. Fire in Saddam's palace, August, 2004. 
I will not mention the woman's name, blood on the wall of a rocket 
attack whereby this young woman was killed. And here is a picture of 
two Americans killed the day before the Iraqi election.
  We have had 1,500 military people die in the war in Iraq. It is help 
bringing about freedom. It is making a difference in the Palestinian 
area. It is making a difference in Egypt. It is making a difference in 
Lebanon. It is inappropriate for us not to fund a safe workplace for 
American citizens who are going to work in harm's way.
  Lastly, people say this is an expensive embassy. This is an embassy, 
but it is a village. There is a power plant. There are housing 
facilities. The Beijing embassy cost $434 million. There is no threat 
to American citizens in Beijing. There are no terrorist attacks.
  In Lebanon, 1983, 241 Marines were killed in a barracks with no 
setback. That same year in the American embassy in Lebanon, a number of 
Americans killed. There was the American bombing of the embassies in 
Tanzania and Kenya 1989. We have a moral obligation to the people that 
we are sending in this region to live in a situation and work where 
they will be protected.
  I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. As the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham) said as I was walking down to the well, how 
would Members like it if your children, your son or daughter or husband 
or wife had to work in this facility. I urge a no vote on the 
amendment.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing forth this 
amendment, with myself and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick).
  With all due respect to the previous speaker, this is not about 
debating the merits of the necessity or the needs for a new embassy in 
Baghdad. Having traveled to Baghdad twice, certainly there is a strong 
case that can be made that we do need to be moving forth on a new 
embassy, but this is how we are going to pay for that new embassy, 
getting back to regular order and procedure around here, and how we are 
going to afford the cost of this new embassy rather than just going 
into deficit spending.
  This amendment speaks to a larger issue. The last time I was in Iraq, 
which was last fall, I noticed one thing, we are dropping a lot of 
concrete in Iraq today, which is an indication that we are going to be 
there for a very, very long time. And year after year coming forward 
with more multibillion supplemental spending requests, all deficit 
financing, is not a sustainable policy.
  We need to get back to regular procedure and regular order around 
here, and what better place than to start on a nonemergency creation, 
the siting of a new embassy to get it to the appropriate committee for 
proper oversight and hearings of deliberation, and then finding the 
appropriate offsets to pay for this.
  I am going to support the supplemental today, as I have past 
supplementals. I believe our troops need to get all of the tools and 
resources to do their job safely and effectively. They have been doing 
a terrific job under very dangerous circumstances, including our State 
Department personnel, who are working in the current embassy within the 
Green Zone in Baghdad which is also at times a free-fire zone.
  But at some point we as a Chamber and as a body need to get back to 
the regular process of starting to anticipate these costs, starting to 
appropriate it and budget for it so we do not leave a huge legacy of 
debt for future Congresses and for our children and grandchildren to 
inherit. That is what this amendment speaks to.
  I want to especially commend a couple of units serving us so well 
from western Wisconsin, the 128th Infantry Guard as well as the 1158th 
Transportation Unit. In fact, earlier this morning I got up and ran 
over to Walter Reed Hospital to visit with some of our troops, 
including Specialist Andrew Carter from the 128th who almost had his 
foot blown off due to an RPG that was fired at him during one of his 
passing patrols.
  Just last week we lost another member from western Wisconsin who was 
shot down in the line of duty, Staff Sergeant Andrew Bossert. He will 
be buried in Wisconsin this Thursday. I am sure Members will join me in 
sending our thoughts and prayers to his family, his parents, but 
especially to his wife Olya who lives in Wisconsin.
  What we need to start considering at some point is whether or not the 
ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan should be paid for as part 
of the normal budgeting process. These are no longer surprises and no 
longer emergencies. We know we are there. We know what the mission is 
going to entail and the costs we are facing. I think this is a good 
place to start by having this embassy go through the regular process 
where we can find offsets and an ability to pay for it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sure all Members are very concerned about the 
proposed embassy compound in Iraq and the number of dollars that are 
involved. I think it is very important that I share with Members our 
discussion with the Secretary of State. She feels it is absolutely 
critical that we move forward very quickly with this money, first and 
foremost because we have almost 4,000 American personnel whose lives 
are in jeopardy under current conditions. Indeed, if this compound goes 
forward quickly, their security will be assured.
  The Secretary has been given great assurance that the compound can be 
completed in 24 months. There is only one small hook, and that is in 
order to get a contractor to bid on such a job in this territory, the 
money has to be there in the pot. So within this bill we are providing 
the funds to make sure the funds are available and we can move quickly. 
This embassy and the compound are designed to solidify our mission, 
allowing us to be successful in Iraq as well as the Middle East. It is 
very important that we go forward with this money now.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), a coauthor of the amendment.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, we are all grateful to our troops and 
those serving in Iraq. We are grateful for what we are seeing happening 
there, and we want to do what we can to support those efforts and make 
sure that our troops have what they need.
  But every time when I go home, no matter what the subject is that we 
are talking about in any meeting, the thing that always comes up is the 
deficit. Somebody always says, ``But what are you doing about the 
deficit?''
  My concern with the embassy being in the supplemental is exactly 
that, it is over and above the regular process. I have no problem with 
building an embassy in Iraq. We need an embassy in Iraq, but we have 
also known we need an embassy in Iraq, and why did it not come through 
earlier if it is that much of an emergency.
  Yes, it is a huge amount of money and I understand it is not just a 
building, it is a compound, but it is three times what we have spent in 
Afghanistan already.

[[Page 4707]]

  If we do not start getting some discipline in this body in what we 
are doing, we are never going to get back to where we all want to be, 
and that is what we did in 1997 was start to balance the budget, and we 
were well on the way. Sure, we have had a lot of problems. We had the 
war, the recession, other problems which have interfered with that, but 
we have to have some fiscal discipline and just putting things that are 
not actual emergencies in a supplemental spending bill in my opinion is 
not to be done. A supplemental is for emergencies and I do not consider 
an embassy to be an emergency.
  My constituents at home agree with this. As I said before, whenever I 
am anywhere they always say what are you doing about cutting spending, 
what are you doing about the deficit?
  I hope we can bring this embassy back through regular order and make 
it happen because we want to be sure the people are protected, and then 
pass the supplemental today. The other things in the supplemental are 
needed. There is no question about that. Our chairman has done a very, 
very good job with this bill, but I have a problem with funding the 
embassy in a supplemental.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I thank my coauthors, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick). I want to say it is not 
an easy task taking on the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  I too would like to say I am voting for final passage of the 
supplemental. It is important that we have adequate resources for all 
of our troops. I have been to Iraq twice. I have been to the current 
embassy in Baghdad twice as well. I have seen the improvements. We have 
spent something like $100 million already trying to make that facility 
safe. It is within the Green Zone.

                              {time}  1645

  This new embassy where they want to build is just down the river. 
Frankly, I would have preferred to see it go where Camp Victory is. I 
asked that question, in fact, yesterday. I was not very pleased with 
the answer that I got, but maybe in a few more months we will get it 
right and put it someplace that would be truly safe for all of our 
folks that are there. At the end of the day, those are the questions 
that all of us should be asking.
  Whether it be in an authorization bill that came through this 
Congress the last year or in the omnibus bill or in the President's 
budget for fiscal year 2006, this bill no matter what train track it is 
on will not get to the President until May. We ought to take the time 
to do this right, to ask the right questions and to make sure that all 
of our people, whether they work for the State Department or whether 
they work for the armed services, have the right resources; but it 
ought to go the regular order. That is the way this House ought to 
operate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I think this is about as 
dumb a thing as we can do. I think to take the money away from people 
who are doing the hard work, these are our people. These are people 
that are there because they care about our country and they care about 
freedom and they care about bringing hope and opportunity to the people 
of Iraq. And the idea that we do not want to provide safe haven to them 
and the idea that we want to micromanage where this place is going to 
be is nonsense. We cannot do that.
  We are asking people to go over there and bring hope and freedom and 
opportunity. These are Americans. These are people that we sent there. 
And so we are saying to them that we do not want to give them safe 
haven; we do not want to give them an opportunity to have a safe place 
to live and do their work, the work that we have asked them to do? We 
need an embassy there. I cannot think of a dumber thing that we could 
do as to take this money away and to try and micromanage the way that 
we are going to establish an embassy and an opportunity for people to 
live safely over there.
  Those of you that have been there know what a dangerous place it is. 
These are the people that are doing the hard work. I would urge every 
Member to vote against this amendment and to send a message to the 
Americans that are over there, the people that are doing the hard work 
to bring democracy, we care about their safety, we care about the work 
they are doing.
  Vote against the Upton amendment and say to our friends over there, 
we care about your safety, we care about what you are doing, and we 
thank you for the tough, tough job you are doing in an area that is 
probably as dangerous as anywhere in the world.
  Vote against the Upton amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I appreciate the remarks of my colleague from Illinois. I would 
suggest that in voting for this amendment, Members would be voting 
against the view of our Commander in Chief, the President of the United 
States. The Secretary of State has spoken very strongly about the 
urgency of this matter. There is little doubt that we have the 
appropriate place, we have the plans in place, we can get it done 
quickly. We need the money up front. That is why it is here. Because of 
that, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Upton amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Camp). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Upton) will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner

  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Weiner:
       Insert at the end of the bill, before the short title, the 
     following:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 7001. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be obligated or expended to finance 
     any assistance to Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment, and any amendments thereto, be limited to 10 minutes, to be 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the 
opponent.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, just so I 
understand, I can under this agreement be able to reserve time. Unlike 
the 5-minute rule, I would be able to reserve portions of my 5 minutes?
  Mr. KOLBE. If the gentleman will yield, of his 5 minutes, that is 
correct.
  Mr. WEINER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. OWENS. If the gentleman will yield, does that mean we cannot rise 
to strike the last word?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. WEINER. I would say to the gentleman from New York, this is just 
on this amendment.
  Mr. OWENS. He said all future amendments. Correct?
  Mr. WEINER. Amendments thereto, meaning to this.
  Mr. KOLBE. That is correct. When you make the unanimous consent 
request, it is all amendments to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair would state it would be limited to the 
Weiner amendment.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Weiner) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) each will 
control 5 minutes.

[[Page 4708]]

  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a similar amendment that we have passed 
recently, as recently as July of 2004; and it restricts any money in 
this bill, not a single dollar, not a single dime going to the Kingdom 
of Saudi Arabia. We have had the debate many times in this Chamber; and 
on a few occasions some of my colleagues have posited, oh, no, this is 
not the right time to do it, the Saudis are getting better, they are 
becoming more cooperative, they are not exporting Wahabism, they are 
not exporting terrorism, they are not funding terrorism, they are not 
restricting human rights as much as they had, they are on the path to 
reform.
  I am offering the amendment again today because in the last 7, 8 
months since we have offered this amendment last to restrict moneys in 
the foreign aid bill, it has gotten worse and worse and worse still. 
Just in recent months, the State Department issued its annual country 
reports on human rights practices. Here is what it said about Saudi 
Arabia: ``There were credible reports of torture and abuse of prisoners 
by security forces, arbitrary arrests and incommunicado detentions. The 
religious police continue to intimidate, abuse and detain citizens and 
foreigners. Most trials were closed.''
  That was not years ago. That was just in the last couple of months. 
The State Department also issued its report on anti-Semitism on the 
30th of December. Of course, it reports about how there is an explosion 
of anti-Semitism in Europe and throughout the world funded by the Saudi 
kingdom.
  Just in February of this year, Freedom House, an organization, sent 
Muslim volunteers to 15 prominent mosques in New York, from New York to 
San Diego, and collected hundreds and hundreds of books paid for by the 
Saudi Arabian Government that said things like, quote, any Muslim who 
believes that, quote, churches are houses of God and that God is 
worshipped therein is an infidel.
  Another quote from these Saudi publications: Be disassociated from 
the infidels. Hate them for their religion. Leave them. Never rely on 
them for support. Do not admire them and always oppose them in every 
way according to Islamic law.
  And here is what these Saudi documents say about America: It is 
forbidden for a Muslim to become a citizen of a country governed by 
infidels because it is a means of acquiescing to their infidelity and 
accepting their erroneous ways.
  Also, these documents published by the Saudis, this is what it says 
about war against America, not years ago but weeks ago: ``To be true 
Muslims, we must prepare and be ready for jihad in Allah's army. It is 
the duty of every citizen and the government.''
  Mr. Chairman, there should not be any money in this bill, and there 
is not presently any money that specifically says it can go to the 
Saudis; but we have seen again and again how money gets reprogrammed 
without a full vote of this Congress. If we vote today to say no aid to 
the Saudis, the President could not come back and ask for any of this 
money to be reprogrammed.
  I think that the time has come for us to start sending an 
unambiguous, clear message to the Saudis that we understand, 
particularly in the post-9/11 world, that we are going to judge people 
based on what they do, not on what they say, on their record, not just 
on their glossy public relations campaign.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I really do not understand the need for this amendment 
that is offered by the gentleman from New York. Surely as he knows, 
there are not any funds in this bill for Saudi Arabia in the foreign 
operations chapter. Additionally, there are reporting requirements to 
ensure that the funds are spent exactly as the committee intends. We do 
not intend that any of the funds should go to Saudi Arabia. So the 
gentleman from New York is incorrect when he says this is similar to 
the legislation that was passed last year on the regular appropriation 
bill. There was some money in last year's bill that went to Saudi 
Arabia. This bill does not have any money for Saudi Arabia, so it is 
completely unnecessary. It is a gratuitous kind of amendment. It is an 
absolute slap in the face to everybody that has been involved. The 
gentleman himself has talked about the changes that have taken place in 
Saudi Arabia. When there is no money in this bill, for us to include 
this kind of provision is not only absolutely unnecessary; it is 
completely wrong.
  I would also point out, as I just mentioned, that we included the 
prohibition in the 2005 regular appropriation bill. Section 575 of 
Public Law 108-447 states: ``None of the funds appropriated or 
otherwise made available pursuant to that act shall be obligated or 
expended to finance any assistance to Saudi Arabia.'' The prohibition 
that is in that legislation extends to the fiscal year 2005 
supplemental bills. Supplemental legislation includes appropriations 
that are added on top of the regular appropriations. So the underlying 
prohibition also applies here.
  There are no funds in this bill that could be used for Saudi Arabia. 
This is simply repeating something that has already been added into the 
regular legislation. The gentleman from New York is simply wrong when 
he says that the President could come and reprogram funds for Saudi 
Arabia. The underlying prohibition would prohibit that. The 
administration can reprogram funds, but they cannot reprogram them to 
spend them in Saudi Arabia. The gentleman is simply wrong about that.
  I am sure the gentleman is aware of these facts and I am sure he is 
aware, as he has pointed out, of how helpful Saudi Arabia has been very 
recently in helping to defuse the situation in Lebanon, the very direct 
statements that were made to President Assad about how his troops 
should depart from Lebanon. If the gentleman wants to make his 
statement, fine, I would encourage him to do so; but the appropriation 
bills include the substance of what is in his amendment; and since 
there is no money in this bill for Saudi Arabia, this amendment is not 
only redundant, it is unnecessary, it is a slap in the face, it is just 
simply absolutely wrong for us to do this.
  I strongly urge the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just quote what the gentleman from Wisconsin said in the last 
debate: ``The government of Saudi Arabia has greatly increased its 
effort to root out terrorism. It has greatly increased its cooperation 
in intelligence matters and others with the United States.''
  The facts that I read just now were within the last months. It is 
simply not true. Do not believe the hype.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by my colleague from New York. It boggles my mind that the 
United States provides any funding to the Saudi kingdom. With all of 
its oil and all of its wealth, it is nothing short of insanity.
  It is no secret, in spite of what the last speaker said, that the 
Saudi regime is a leading exporter of terrorism worldwide; it is a 
leading financier of terrorism worldwide. The thought that one cent of 
American money is being spent in Saudi Arabia is an insult to every 
American taxpayer. The Saudis continue to declare to the world that 
they are a progressive-thinking nation and they are our partners in the 
global war on terrorism. That is what their PR firm says, anyway. 
Nothing could be further from the truth.
  This is our partner in peace? Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi 
nationals. That did not happen by accident. This is the same Saudi 
Arabia that has the worst record for religious tolerance on the planet, 
the same Saudi Arabia that exudes racism and anti-Semitic hatred.

[[Page 4709]]

  Our partners in peace? How shameful for the United States. The Saudis 
claim that they are prosecuting terrorists. Who are they kidding? Saudi 
efforts to prosecute terrorists are inept at best and more accurately 
nonexistent. If they are doing anything in Lebanon, it is for 
themselves, not for the people of the United States of America.
  I ask everyone to support the Weiner amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose my friend's amendment. 
I will tell you why personally. I spent a lot of time in Saudi. They 
can either go the wrong way or the right way.
  We talk about not putting foreign troops in foreign countries. Do 
they have problems? Yes. But when you talk about the government itself, 
I know from the intelligence community, I also know how they are 
helping us there; but I have been into their banks where they have 
Canadian and U.S. and British auditors to make sure there is no money 
laundering. The government itself, I have met with King Aziz, I have 
met with the crown prince, I have met with almost every one of the 
Shura council, which is their Congress. The majority of Saudis support 
the United States.

                              {time}  1700

  So to say that their government is against us is wrong. Are there 
people that preach Wahabism? Yes. But they have changed their inside 
curriculum. They have arrested and jailed over 1,000 Imams which preach 
intolerance.
  So I would oppose the gentleman's amendment. I did not know when we 
were on the floor that we had an amendment when I went over there. It 
really hurts people when we do things, and I think that this could hurt 
our relationship instead of bettering it with Saudi Arabia. I oppose 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Camp). The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Weiner) has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I will close by saying just two things in points of clarification. 
One, the gentleman, despite the best efforts of this House, is 
incorrect. Despite our amendment saying no money can go to Saudi 
Arabia, moneys were allocated to Saudi Arabia; so they are now entitled 
to discount on purchasing for our military. So our will was not 
followed.
  Secondly, to the previous speaker, this notion that they are not 
exporting Wahabism has been debunked by the State Department as 
recently as 1\1/2\ months ago. They are exporting terrorism, exporting 
Wahabism. I would say they are two-faced except they have so many 
members of the Royal Family, they are several hundred Fahds, and the 
time has come for us to start judging people on what they do, not what 
they say.
  I have 5 additional seconds to make my punchline point. This 
amendment will say that we believe that Saudi Arabia should be treated 
not as an ally but as an enemy in the War on Terror because that is 
what they have been.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I will not even take all that time. I simply want to repeat the 
arguments against this amendment. There are no funds in this bill that 
go to Saudi Arabia. There is a prohibition in the fiscal year 2005 
Foreign Operations bill that prohibits any funds from going to Saudi 
Arabia, and that prohibition applies to this bill.
  This amendment is totally unnecessary. This amendment has absolutely 
no bearing. It is simply repeating what is already in the existing law 
that applies to this bill. To add another prohibition here now is 
simply to add insult to injury. It is gratuitous. It has absolutely no 
reason to be in this bill, and I would urge my colleagues to defeat 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Weiner) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order:
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney);
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton); and
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tierney

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 236, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 72]

                               AYES--191

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

                               NOES--236

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot

[[Page 4710]]


     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bachus
     Kennedy (RI)
     Leach
     Sweeney
     Thornberry
     Walsh
     Waters


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Duncan) (during the vote). Members are 
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1729

  Messrs. GILCHREST, COBLE, LARSON of Connecticut, TERRY, PASCRELL, 
ROYCE, STEARNS and HALL changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Upton

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Upton) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 258, 
noes 170, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 73]

                               AYES--258

     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Feeney
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walden (OR)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--170

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Carter
     Case
     Cole (OK)
     Costa
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Granger
     Graves
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Honda
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Mica
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Northup
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Stupak
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Tiahrt
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bachus
     Leach
     Sweeney
     Thornberry
     Walsh
     Waters


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Duncan) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1738

  Messrs. TAYLOR of North Carolina, NADLER, ENGEL, FORD and ROSS 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

[[Page 4711]]


  Mr. LoBIONDO, Mr. ROHRABACHER and Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Weiner) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196, 
noes 231, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 74]

                               AYES--196

     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Goode
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kind
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Platts
     Porter
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--231

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Stark
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bachus
     Leach
     Smith (WA)
     Sweeney
     Thornberry
     Walsh
     Waters


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1752

  Ms. DeGETTE changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BLUMENAUER and Mr. HINCHEY changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, during roll call vote number 74 on H.R. 
1268, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted 
``yes.'' I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the record 
immediately following roll call vote number 74.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is filled with many worthwhile expenditures, 
and I have heard my colleagues all day make various adjustments and 
amendments. However, the overwhelming amount of this appropriation will 
be wasted in the continuing financing of the war in Iraq.
  The war in Iraq is an expensive blunder with costs now approaching 
the level of $300 billion. In the name of security, we are throwing 
dollars at a problem which will yield the least amount of security here 
in the homeland.
  We are left vulnerable within our own borders, while there is no 
honest accounting for billions which could make our ports safer, which 
could increase our first response capacities, which could train expert 
translators, anti-demolition experts, communications personnel and many 
others that are vital for maximum homeland security.
  In general, our Federal expenditures for education, including school 
construction and modernization, could be increased greatly in order to 
guarantee that America has the most valuable ingredient to secure its 
future, that is, an educated population. Nothing is more vital for the 
existence of this Nation than an educated populace.
  We neglect these vital needs while we continue to throw dollars into 
a bottomless pit. This present appropriation might be justified if 
there were a timetable and a clear plan for withdrawal.
  Through the election process, the Iraqi people let it be known that 
they reject the suicide bombers. The Iraqi people reject the fanatics 
and the zealots. The Iraqi people reject the extremists. The extremists 
can be isolated and paralyzed if we build on this goodwill and desire 
for freedom among the Iraqi people. They demonstrated that in the 
election in which they went out to participate.

[[Page 4712]]

  To build on this foundation, we must offer the Iraqi people justice. 
Justice means a plan to show them how their oil revenue ought to be 
used to help their economy, and justice means a clear timetable for the 
withdrawal of American troops. We must strengthen the partnership with 
the Iraqi people. Let us stop the waste of dollars and stop the waste 
of lives of American heroes. We cannot continue to dig blindly down 
into this deep pit of more war.
  I would like to close with a quotation which I hope all of my 
colleagues will allow to settle on their minds for a few minutes: 
``Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of 
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are 
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and 
exposing their country to danger. It works the same in any country.'' 
That quote was from Air Marshall Herman Goering.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this entire appropriation bill which is 
mostly for the continuation of the war in Iraq.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word 
and enter into a brief colloquy with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe).
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it is important that all groups and 
organizations that want to assist in the recovery are allowed to 
participate. The United States Agency for International Development 
issued a regulation on October 19, 2004, that ensures religious 
organizations are allowed to compete on an equal footing with other 
nongovernmental organizations for USAID funding, in the case of this 
bill, funding to help tsunami victims.
  Can the chairman clarify whether the appropriations under this bill 
fall under such regulation?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman raising this 
point, and I want to make it very clear that religious organizations 
may compete on an equal footing for USAID funding in this bill, as they 
may for USAID funding in other bills. So the answer to the gentleman's 
question is yes.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman. I appreciate his response, and I am very pleased to know 
that faith-based groups will have the same opportunity to compete for 
these important dollars with other nongovernmental entities so that 
together this funding can be used to alleviate the suffering of the 
tsunami victims. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill.
  One of the solemn honors that I have had as a Member of Congress is 
to visit our soldiers who have been wounded in Iraq. I have visited 
with them at Walter Reed Army Hospital here in Washington and at the 
Veterans Hospital at Palo Alto, California.
  It is rewarding and shocking to meet our troops under these 
circumstances. Theirs are the stories of courage under fire. Their 
wounds are almost unimaginable to those of us who are not sharing their 
world of combat.
  The treatment that they receive from the moment they are attended to 
on the battlefield, taken to battlefield hospitals, transported to 
Germany and stabilized and brought home to the United States for 
specialized care and rehabilitation is a tribute to our magnificent 
military and veterans medical system.
  Each time that I have left these brave men and women, I have had to 
confront my role as a policy-maker and whether or not I have done all I 
can to serve and protect them in their mission.
  I voted not to go to war in Iraq because I believed at the time of 
the vote, and I believe now, that the case had not been made; that the 
intelligence we had did not support what the Bush administration was 
telling the American people was the threat that we faced from Iraq.
  Tragically, since that time, it has become clear that there was not 
only no imminent threat to the United States from Iraq, but there was 
no plan for what our troops would encounter after the war was 
supposedly won.
  The duty this government owed to its soldiers when they were sent 
into combat was not met: not in the justification, not in the 
preparation and not in the planning. Our obligation to them was simply 
not met.
  All Americans now understand that the reasons that the Bush 
administration gave to go to war in Iraq were not true. The evidence 
did not exist. In spite of the advice of many in our military, in our 
State Department and among our allies, the administration remained 
determined to wage a war in Iraq. In short, the administration failed 
to be truthful with the American people and with the Congress.
  As a result, since the first day of that war, Americans have been 
paying 90 percent of the costs and suffering 95 percent of the 
casualties beyond those of the Iraqi people.
  Today, we are being asked to vote for another $81 billion for the war 
in Iraq.
  This is the third supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq since the 
war started, totaling nearly $200 billion; and without a change in 
course, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the war 
in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost an additional $458 billion over the 
next 10 years.
  Astoundingly, this additional request has no change in strategy 
forthcoming from the President to address the absence of control and 
continued violence against our troops and the Iraqi people.
  The President and his advisers cling to the idea that America is just 
one major battle away from victory, or that with just one more capture 
of a significant insurgent leader we will break the back of the 
opposition to our occupation and to the formation of a democratic 
government in Iraq.
  Those who continue to attack our troops and the Iraq people have been 
described in many different ways as the war has dragged on. First, we 
were told the resistance was under the command and control of Saddam 
Hussein. Then they were described as disaffected Baathists, and later 
they were just a bunch of ``bitter enders.''
  We were told that a heavy battle attack of Fallujah would break the 
back of the resistance. What happened instead was that we made 300,000 
people homeless by flattening their city with little or no impact on 
the resistance. In fact, the violence rapidly spread to other major 
cities.
  While it has become clearer to those with both diplomatic and 
military experience that we must now develop a new strategy for 
success, it is resisted by the very same top command in the White House 
and the Pentagon who have made so many errors and so many 
miscalculations that have continued to place so many of our military in 
circumstances in which they are not able to prevail.
  The opposition to change comes from the very same people that failed 
to carry out the due diligence to properly plan and prepare for the war 
and its aftermath.
  Their failure to anticipate, plan, and train for the mission that our 
soldiers were faced with was a failure of the first duty of care owed 
by the Commander in Chief and the Defense Secretary to our troops, the 
duty to provide for the protection of our forces. This was not done, 
and the results have been thousands of wounded and killed, at the same 
time that the Pentagon resists change and fails to transform its 
approach to fighting terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere.
  So, today, nearly 3 years after 9/11, we still have no comprehensive 
policy to support the war on terror declared by the President. As a 
result, both our Nation and our troops continue to face an unacceptable 
level of threat and danger.
  Today, as we consider this request for supplemental appropriations, 
the dishonesty by the Bush administration continues.
  This request itself is dishonest. It is labeled as an emergency, as 
if somehow the administration did not know what money it was going to 
need for the war in this year's budget or in next year's budget.
  Yet we know the war has been costing between $5 and $7 billion a 
month

[[Page 4713]]

and is likely to continue to do so under the current policy.

                              {time}  1800

  The administration will not take responsibility for the cost of the 
war or how to pay for it. At the end of the day, the President and his 
advisers simply do not have the courage of their convictions. If they 
did, they would be honest with the American people about the real cost 
of war and the lack of progress being made on the ground, about the 
plan for drawing down our troops and about the real reason American 
soldiers were sent to Iraq in the first place.
  I cannot in good conscience vote to approve a supplemental 
appropriations bill that offers no strategy for success, that has no 
plan to draw down our troops in a responsible manner, and that fails to 
makes a compelling case to the American people about why the haunting 
sacrifices of lives, limbs and money have been necessary.
  I know that some of my colleagues, in very good conscience and with 
honorable intentions, believe that supporting this bill is the 
equivalent of supporting our troops. I would very respectfully have to 
disagree with that view today.
  Rather, in my view, to vote for this supplemental is to expose our 
troops to the same leadership in the White House and the Pentagon that 
refuses to tell the truth, that refuses to take responsibility for its 
actions, and that refuses to hold a single person accountable for the 
failed decisions that have been made for this war.
  And it exposes them to the same leadership that refuses to provide 
the kind of change that will start to remove the central organizing 
principal of the guerrilla war in Iraq--the presence of nearly 150,000 
American troops viewed as occupiers by those who oppose us.
  To say that we must remain in the current configuration in Iraq 
because the situation will get worse is to ignore the facts on the 
ground, facts that have been acknowledged by many of our field 
commanders, by Members of Congress who have visited Iraq, and by 
members of the news media covering the war.
  This is a very difficult vote, I understand that.
  But let us be clear that this is not a vote about whether I or any 
other Member of Congress supports American troops. Of course we do. And 
this is not a vote about the heroism shown by the thousands of Iraqis 
who risked their own lives by voting in the national elections in 
January. They have my admiration and support.
  We support the troops by arguing against the kind of failed 
preparation and planning that sent National Guard and Reserve troops 
into battle without flak jackets and reinforced Hum-vees.
  We support our troops by arguing in favor of a strategy for success.
  We support our troops by arguing against the President's budget that 
dishonors our veterans by undermining the system of care and benefits 
they need and deserve.
  But we do not honor our troops simply by approving yet another 
allegedly emergency bill that offers no promise of success in an area 
of the world where success is not just critical, it is literally a 
matter of life and death.
  We can provide for the needs of our troops in a bill that also 
provides for success in this war. Tragically, that bill is not before 
us today.


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Kelly

  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Kelly:
       Page 72, after line 17, insert the following:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 7001. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to provide assistance to the Government of the 
     Federal Republic of Nigeria.

  Mrs. KELLY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gilchrest). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is offered to force the 
government of Nigeria to transfer the indicted war criminal Charles 
Taylor to the United Nations Special Court in Sierra Leone. Mr. Taylor 
is currently residing in Calabar, Nigeria and maintaining his active 
role fomenting terror and crime throughout West Africa from this base. 
The United States Government has asked that Mr. Taylor be turned over 
to the U.N. court, but the government of Nigeria has refused.
  Charles Taylor has been the leading force for evil in West Africa 
since his overthrow of the Doe government in 1990. Hundreds of 
thousands of Liberians were killed during his reign of terror, or 
forced to flee. Mr. Taylor enabled Liberia to become a base for 
international organized crime and has subverted the governments of his 
neighbors.
  In 2003, Mr. Taylor was overthrown by the people of Liberia and 
sought sanctuary in Nigeria, despite his indictment by the U.N. Special 
Court for Sierra Leone in the light of his terrorist activities in his 
own country. The government of Nigeria has promised to keep Mr. Taylor 
contained, but reliable sources have confirmed political operations in 
Liberia, transfer assets in Europe and receive funds from crime in West 
Africa. Recently Mr. Taylor traveled to Burkina Faso to meet with 
Islamist groups in that country. Most disturbing of all, Charles Taylor 
organized and paid for an assassination attempt against the President 
of Guinea earlier this year.
  Peace in West Africa will not come until Charles Taylor is brought to 
justice for his crime and removed as a threat from the region. The 
Nigerian government must be shown that harboring a war criminal and a 
terrorist is not in their best interest. I urge the House to join me in 
passing this amendment and standing for justice and the rule of law in 
West Africa.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Kelly). The gentlewoman is right, Charles Taylor has been responsible 
for having dealings with al Qaeda and conflict diamonds. Charles Taylor 
was the one responsible for cutting off arms and legs of young people 
in Sierra Leone and in Liberia. I think the gentlewoman is right, 
Nigeria should return Charles Taylor so he can have a fair trial. I 
think the administration has a moral obligation to ask the Nigerians 
and get him back to go before the court.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lantos).
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
gentlewoman's amendment. It is long overdue that action be taken on 
this criminal and mass murderer, and I hope all of my colleagues will 
vote for this amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The gentlewoman has raised some very important points, and I know she 
has done a great deal of work in this area as it relates to Charles 
Taylor and West Africa. There is no question it is a very troubled 
area, and Charles Taylor has certainly contributed to the instability 
in the region.
  There are no funds in the legislation that deal with Nigeria, and 
there are a lot of circumstances around this issue that I think are 
difficult in the sense that the United States has played a role in all 
of this as to where he is at the moment. We do want this person brought 
to justice, and I know that is the intention of the United States.
  I would hope, however, that the gentlewoman would withdraw this 
amendment because I believe that would be in the best interest of 
United States foreign policy. We will certainly work with the 
gentlewoman and her staff to try to resolve the situation, and work 
with the State Department and the gentlewoman to get a satisfactory 
explanation of what is being done.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his point of order.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do 
now rise.

[[Page 4714]]

  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pearce) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gilchrest, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1268) 
making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________