[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7806-7808]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1630
     APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 1268, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL 
 APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR, AND TSUNAMI 
                              RELIEF, 2005

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1268) making emergency 
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2005, to establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's 
license and identification document security standards, to prevent 
terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify 
terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, to ensure 
expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence, and for other 
purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.


                 Motion to Instruct Offered By Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendments, to the bill, H.R. 1268, be 
     instructed to insist on the highest levels of funding within 
     the scope of conference for Customs and Border Protection, 
     Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement and to agree to the Senate provision 
     regarding including requests for future funding for military 
     operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in the annual budget of 
     the President.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lewis) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion is very simple. It does two things. First of 
all, it instructs the conferees representing the House to accept the 
Senate increases in the Byrd and other amendments that would strengthen 
our customs and border protection; it would strengthen our immigration 
and customs enforcement and fund the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
Center.
  Secondly, it instructs the conferees to agree with the Senate 
amendment, again, the Byrd amendment, which would require that all 
future administration requests for funding the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan be presented within the context of the regular budget 
rather than being funded as they have been so far through the 
supplemental process.
  Let me address briefly both issues. With respect to the border 
protection issue, let me point out that many years ago the Rudman-Hart 
Commission had effectively warned this Congress that our borders were a 
sieve.
  In the immediate days after this House was hit with the anthrax 
scare, shortly after 9/11, I went down to the White House with the 
then-chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), and we proposed to the President a bipartisan list 
of supplemental additions to antiterrorist activities that we believe 
should be funded in order to strengthen homeland security. Included in 
those recommendations were added dollars for our ports, added dollars 
for our border protection. When we laid out what we were interested in 
doing, the President simply ended the conversation by saying to us, ``I 
am sorry but my good friend here, Mitch Daniels,'' who was then the 
Director of OMB, he said, ``my good friend Mitch Daniels here tells me 
that the administration has requested more than enough money for 
Homeland Security. And so I want you to know if you include one dollar 
more than we have asked for in our budget submission, I will veto the 
bill.''
  That is essentially what he said. Ever since that day, we have been 
strained in the Congress to overcome the White House's reluctance to 
provide adequate resources to secure our borders.
  I would point out that the PATRIOT Act itself called for a tripling 
of inspectors and agents on the northern border alone, and yet no Bush 
administration budget has ever proposed to meet that goal. Only because 
of congressional insistence have we finally been able to meet that 
goal, and I would say it has been a long time in coming and it was long 
overdue.
  On March 30 the administration announced that they were putting 500 
agents in Arizona, but those agents were not new agents; 135 of them 
were simply transferred from other sources and the rest of them were 
simply new trainees to take the place of agents who were retiring or 
leaving the service. That is why we believe that the added funding 
provided in the Byrd and other amendments in the Senate to add funds 
for securing our borders, that is why we believe that money is 
necessary.

                              {time}  1645

  With respect to the second provision, the reason this second 
provision is necessary is to end the administration practice of hiding 
the true cost of the war in Iraq. We have spent, to this point, about 
$280 billion on that war. CBO estimates that the 10-year cost of our 
efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan will wind up being about $460 billion, 
and yet all of that money has been spent through a supplemental 
process, rather than the process of having the President submit in his 
regular budget their estimated cost for those activities for the year.
  When you cut through all of the bull gravy, there is only one reason 
why the White House has done that, because they are trying to obscure 
the full cost of those military operations.
  Now, I would simply remind this House that President Roosevelt 
included the cost of funding World War II in his 1943 budget request. 
President Johnson included the cost of paying for the war in Vietnam in 
his 1966 budget request. President Clinton, at the insistence of this 
Congress, provided in the regular budget for the costs for financing 
our Bosnia operations and the enforcement of the no-fly zone edict in 
the 1997 budget.
  People think that the President this year has submitted a budget 
which contains a deficit of $390 billion. In fact, that budget deficit 
does not include $1 of the more than $80 billion that this House voted 
to add to pay for the war in Iraq just a couple of months ago.
  So I would say this provision simply is in pursuit of truth in 
budgeting, and I see no public policy reason why either of these 
provisions should be resisted. I ask for a ``yes'' vote when the vote 
occurs.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I do not intend to use a lot of my time, but I think our public knows 
that both sides of the aisle, Democratic and Republican sides of the 
aisle, are struggling with the question of how we provide adequate 
funding to make certain, absolutely certain, that we are protecting our 
borders.
  Just following 2001, the past administration had difficulty trying to 
figure out exactly what those costs should be. We should be willing to 
do whatever is necessary within the limits of what is sensible, to 
secure those borders.
  It is my intention to support that position, and I do not intend to 
resist this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

[[Page 7807]]

  Mr. Speaker, could I inquire, after her 5 minutes, how much time do I 
have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). The gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will have 18 minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lewis) will have 29 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member 
for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) motion to instruct conferees on the emergency 
supplemental.
  This motion declares that all future funding requests for the war in 
Iraq and Afghanistan should be included in the President's budget, not 
in emergency supplemental spending bills.
  This provision enjoyed wide bipartisan support and was included in 
the Senate bill. The House needs now to follow this track to fiscal 
responsibility.
  While I support using emergency funds to pay for real emergencies, 
continued reliance on emergency spending for the war in Iraq and 
Afghanistan is fiscally irresponsible. Congress should stop bailing out 
the Pentagon for its inability to pay for the costs in Iraq.
  On top of over $400 billion in defense appropriations every year, 
Congress has provided $268.7 billion in emergency supplemental funding 
for the war in Iraq and the war on terror. The new emergency 
supplemental will bring total war-related supplemental spending to $350 
billion.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) motion would not prevent 
this emergency supplemental from going through, but it would make sure 
that the administration and the Pentagon, like millions of Americans, 
budget according to their means. We can afford to fight and win the war 
on terror, but the public should not be misled into believing that 
these costs are an emergency or unexpected or that there is not an 
imperative for the Pentagon to look at its existing budget and deal 
with the war inside that budget.
  For example, we know that the war in Afghanistan and Iraq operations 
cost roughly $6 billion a month. Those costs have been somewhat fixed 
for well over a year. It is perfectly capable and necessary for the 
Pentagon to look inside its own operations, find savings and find a way 
to put this in the budget.
  These costs can be planned for and considered by Congress in regular 
order, instead of saddling our children with billions of dollars of 
debt and cutting vital domestic programs.
  Last February, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), my friend 
and colleague and chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, 
sent a strong letter to the Committee on the Budget for what he called 
funding certain items in the supplemental ``inappropriate.'' The 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) also agreed with many of us that 
some supplemental costs should be included in the annual budget process 
for consideration and action by the Congress.
  Not budgeting for the war in the regular Pentagon budget is an 
abrogation of our responsibilities as stewards of the taxpayers' trust.
  I urge support of the Obey motion.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Homeland Security.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I rise in support of the Obey motion to instruct. ICE simply needs 
more money, and I think we all understand that. For some reason, their 
budget has been in shambles ever since the Department was created. 
Their bookkeeping has been in shambles more so than their budget, and I 
am not sure if it is their fault or the fault of the central 
Department, but it is somebody's fault. It is all screwed up.
  It is not because Congress has not provided the money they asked for. 
Last year, we provided slightly more than they asked for, and so they 
were in hiring freezes and training freezes and one problem after the 
other. Now they want to take money away from lots of other good 
programs to make up for their budget shortfall. We simply need to get 
ICE's funding straightened out, and this supplemental does it.
  The other thing this supplemental does is add border agents. Whatever 
one's views are on all the controversies relating to immigration and 
other issues, one thing is evident, and that is, we need to strengthen 
our law enforcement on our borders, whether it is the northern border 
or the southern border.
  I was out this winter and visited the southern border in California 
where clearly we have made significant process; but what seems to 
happen, we plug a hole someplace and the pressure comes other places. 
So we need to add border patrol people.
  We were told in our committee that they should have the capacity to 
train about 1,200 people a year; and clearly, this bill provides less 
than 1,200, but even I think the President's request is an additional 
200 for next year. So, clearly, they have the capacity to begin the 
process of training and hiring additional border patrol agents.
  It is not something that happens. You do not say we want more agents 
and it happens tomorrow. You have to recruit them, you have to hire 
them, and you have to train them. The need is obvious, I think, to 
everyone; and this bill clearly moves us in the right direction.
  So I hope we adopt the motion to instruct and adopt the policies 
implemented in the Senate bill on funding for ICE and for border patrol 
agents.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Let me say that I feel this discussion is a very healthy discussion 
in terms of the preliminary work we have to do here. The most important 
reason for this supplemental is because in line and waiting are the 
troops who are representing us so well in the Middle East.
  It is critical that we get this bill on to conference and move it 
quickly to the President's desk. So, today, I would hope with all of 
our discussion, above and beyond everything else we make every effort 
to make certain we get this bill to the President as quickly as 
possible.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the gentleman if he has any 
other remaining speakers.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I do not.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me simply say I think I have already chewed the cud 
quite enough, and I think anyone who cares to listen understands what 
this motion does. These motions were accepted by wide margins in the 
Senate. I see no reason why they cannot be accepted here; and if the 
gentleman is prepared to yield back, so am I.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important 
motion to instruct conferees on the fiscal year 2005 Supplemental 
Appropriations bill.
  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 defending our Nation's borders, I have 
firsthand knowledge of the kinds of resources we need to help 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 seen very little 
action when it comes to providing adequate funding for the programs 
that we know work in dealing with the 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, however, the President's 
proposed FY2006 budget falls woefully short of meeting these needs.
  During House consideration of the Supplemental Appropriations bill, I 
offered an amendment to add $772 million 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 Ports of 
Entry. That amendment, which would have provided essential border 
security

[[Page 7808]]

funding, was ruled out of order on procedural grounds. Unless we insist 
on the highest possible levels of funding for border security in this 
conference, Congress will once again fail to keep its commitment on 
this vital issue.
  Meanwhile, every day foreign nationals from over 150 countries who 
are here in the United States illegally are being apprehended and 
turned back out onto 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.
  Mr. Speaker, the time has long since come to make good on our border 
security promises--or continue to risk safety of the American people. I 
urge my colleagues to support Mr. Obey's motion to instruct.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Obey motion to 
instruct conferees on H.R. 1268, Wartime supplemental, to insist on the 
highest possible funding for more border patrol agents and to insist on 
the Senate provision calling for requests for future funding for 
military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq to be included in the 
annual budget of the President.
  As a member representing a border community--and a senior member of 
the House Armed Services Committee--I am grateful for Mr. Obey's 
leadership and his work to include these important provisions in our 
Wartime supplemental. As so many of our colleagues know, I have been 
lifting my voice to get the word around to members that our border 
security is profoundly lacking. Members can go to my web page for more 
information about the dangerous practices ongoing along the U.S. Mexico 
border.
  Currently, the United States does not have room to hold the large 
number of illegal immigrants--called OTMs, Other than Mexicans--caught 
by border law enforcement. So we are releasing--on their own 
recognizance--into the population of the United States--very large 
numbers of OTMs. Very few released OTMs return for a mandatory 
deportation, meaning there is a large number of OTMs at large in the 
U.S., immigrants who have passed through the hands of law enforcement. 
Border law enforcement officers routinely call the detention centers, 
discover there is no more room to hold OTMs, so they are processed and 
released into the general population on their own recognizance.
  The OTMs are given a ``Notice of appear,'' paperwork that allows them 
to travel freely in the United States through the time they are to 
return for deportation. Law enforcement officers then take the released 
OTMs to the local bus station by the vanload, where they head elsewhere 
in the U.S. The number of ``absconders''--those who never appear for 
deportation--is over 90 percent of those released, a number now 
estimated to be approaching 75,000. Already the number of OTMs captured 
and released is more so far this year, then for all of last year.
  The Southern Border is being left utterly unprotected, and there is 
the real possibility that terrorists can--or already are--exploting 
this series of holes in our law enforcement system along the southern 
border. These are the things we know. There is no way of even guessing 
how many others are entering the country, but who are not passing 
through the hands of government law enforcement officers, so Mr. Obey's 
instructions to our appropriators is extremely timely.
  This is a clear and present danger inside the United States, and the 
number of released illegal immigrants not returning for deportation 
grows by the hundreds each week. This is willfully ignoring a complex 
problem that undermines our national objective: to take the war to the 
enemy so we do not have to fight the war on terror inside our country. 
It is little wonder that private citizens are taking the law into their 
own hands to try to stem the tide of OTMs coming into our country. But 
private militias--operating without the color of law--is not the 
answer. We must secure our borders so private citizens do not feel the 
need to do so.
  Our budget reflects the values and priorities of the American people. 
Consider what the 2005 budget did not include:
  The Intelligence Reform bill that became law in December, 2004, 
mandated 10,000 Border Patrol agents over 5 years, 20,000 annually. The 
President's budget funded 210 BP agents, the senate added 1,050 agents. 
The House must stand up and add the full 2,000.
  Intelligence Reform mandated an increase of 8,000 beds in detention 
facilities annually for the next 5 years, still not nearly enough to 
hold all those coming in the U.S. . . . yet the President's budget 
proposal provides for only about 1,900 new detention space beds--over 
6,000 beds short of the congressional mandate passed in December, 2004. 
We can add all the Border Patrol agents we want, but without a place to 
hold these OTMs, the problem remains.
  Grants to reimburse local law enforcement officers that also hold 
illegal immigrants for the federal government were slashed, adding to 
the problem. I was a law enforcement officer in my previous life. If we 
don't have the border officers to stop the OTMs crossing the border . . 
. if we don't have the room to hold the ones we catch . . . if we don't 
put our money where our mouth is, we are sending a dangerous signal to 
those who may wish to do us harm. Until we send a signal that those who 
cross our borders illegally . . . until we send a signal that when we 
catch you we will hold you until you are deported . . . until we 
honestly face the amount of money it will take to deal with these 
things, OTMs will continue to flock to the U.S.
  We must send that signal today. Homeland security must be about the 
security of our people and our property, it cannot be budget driven as 
it is today.
  Lastly, as a fiscal conservative and member of the Armed Services 
committee, I know it is ultimately the responsibility of Congress--not 
the Administation--to properly spend money on military operations. To 
that end, I thank our Ranking Democrat on appropriations for including 
in this motion a provision requiring future funding for our military 
operations to be included in the President's budget.
  All the money we appropriate here is the people's money and we must 
be good stewards of it. To rush through special bills to fund the 
military when committees of jurisdiction have not had the opportunity 
to review the bills is an abdication of our responsibility.
  I encourage the members to support this motion to instruct our 
conferees on the Supplemental appropriations bill to include funding 
for border security and to require further military funding requests 
move through our regular authorization process for the fullest scrutiny 
by the authorizing committees.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________