[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10827-10848]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
857, I call up the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4939) 
making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 857, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
June 8, 2006, at page H3587.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The supplemental provides $94.5 billion for the global war on terror, 
disaster assistance, border security and avian flu preparedness. This 
measure provides significant funding to fight the global war on 
terrorism and support the troops. Funding for Operation Iraqi Freedom 
and Operation Enduring Freedom are provided at $65.8 billion. This 
includes funding earmarked by Congress for Humvees, Abrams tanks and 
Bradley fighting vehicles.
  Additionally, the conference report includes roughly $2 billion to 
develop and procure countermeasures to prevent Improvised Explosive 
Devices attacks on our troops.
  Funding for disaster assistance is at the President's request of 
$19.8 billion. Included in the funding is the following: $6 billion for 
FEMA disaster relief; $5.2 billion for community and economic 
development; $3.7 billion for various flood control repairs by the Army 
Corps of Engineers; as well as $500 million for agriculture disaster 
assistance for farmers, ranchers and producers affected by the 2005 
hurricanes. The total is $3.4 billion below the Senate-passed bill.
  Avian flu preparedness is funded at the President's request of $2.3 
billion. Border security is funded at $1.9 billion. This funding 
provides $708 million to deploy National Guard troops along the 
Southwest border.
  Additionally, $1.2 billion is provided to the Department of Homeland 
Security to enhance border security. This funding also assumes the 
hiring of 1,000 new Border Patrol agents, 4,000 additional detention 
beds and various tactical and logistics support activities for the 
Secure Borders Initiative.
  Finally, the border security package also earmarks $20 million to 
increase judges and attorneys at the Department of Justice to better 
process violation of immigration laws.
  The conferees worked exhaustively to knock out items not related to 
the global war on terror and disaster assistance, as well as to reduce 
the overall funding for this package.
  You may recall the Senate-passed bill was $108.9 billion. The House-
passed bill was $91.9 billion. The House bill was passed on March 16. 
Remember that, Mr. Speaker, March 16, prior to the President's formally 
requesting funding for border security, avian flu preparedness or 
levees. This package is $94.5 billion. The final conference report 
before us is $14.4 billion below the Senate-passed bill.
  The conference report excluded funding for a $700 million railroad 
relocation project and no language compelling the DOD to cover 
hurricane damage to shipyard facilities otherwise covered by private 
insurance.

[[Page 10828]]


TH12JN06.001


[[Page 10829]]

TH12JN06.002



[[Page 10830]]

TH12JN06.003



[[Page 10831]]

TH12JN06.004



[[Page 10832]]

TH12JN06.005



[[Page 10833]]

TH12JN06.006



[[Page 10834]]

TH12JN06.007



[[Page 10835]]

TH12JN06.008



[[Page 10836]]

TH12JN06.009



[[Page 10837]]

TH12JN06.010



[[Page 10838]]

TH12JN06.011



[[Page 10839]]

TH12JN06.012



[[Page 10840]]

TH12JN06.013



[[Page 10841]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and 
for his very strong leadership on so many issues.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have abused their power. The 
House and Senate voted to not have an open-ended commitment in Iraq by 
unanimously passing the Lee-Allen amendment to not allow funding to 
enter into formal military basing rights.
  By eliminating this amendment from this conference report, the 
Congress and the administration are admitting that they have no 
intentions of ever bringing our troops home. If there are no plans for 
a permanent military presence, as the President and the Defense 
Secretary have repeatedly declared, then why in the world did the 
Republican leadership strike this provision?
  Once again, democracy has been thwarted. The majority of Americans 
and Iraqis do not want permanent military bases in Iraq. By the end of 
the year, this war will have cost over $350 billion and climbing.
  By eliminating this provision, once again, we have given the 
administration a blank check to stay in Iraq permanently.
  Mr. Speaker, our amendment sent a strong signal that the United 
States has no designs on Iraq permanently. Removing it behind closed 
doors says just the opposite. Once again, this administration is 
misleading the American people. This abuse of power must stop. The 
House, the Senate, both bodies voted for this amendment. How in the 
world could it be taken out when the majority of Americans do not want 
to see a permanent presence in Iraq? It is time to get real about this 
war, and it is time to ask the hard questions with regard to what our 
long-term intentions are, and I believe that this would have said just 
that. I think the American people deserve to know what our long-term 
plans are.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and proud to 
yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on National 
Security, my permanent chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the 
gentleman from Florida, Bill Young.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be very brief here 
and suggest that the chairman has already specified some of the details 
of the defense part of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say that it is long past time for the Congress 
to have completed action on this legislation. The global war on terror 
is going on every day. It is costing considerable money every day.
  I want to remind the Members that the House passed our version of 
this supplemental emergency supplemental on March 16, 3 months ago. It 
is high time that we got to conference with the other body and 
concluded this work.
  The defense part of this package is basically what the House adopted 
12 weeks ago. So I think it is a good product, and I hope that the 
Members will find it acceptable and get us a nice, substantial vote.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement on the programs under the 
jurisdiction of the Defense Subcommittee for the global war on terror 
totals $65.792 billion, which is $1.765 billion below the House-passed 
level and $103.9 million above the President's request.
  The conference agreement provides $708 million for the National 
Guard's border security support to the Department of Homeland Security.
  As the House is aware, the President amended his original 
supplemental budget submission in order to fund border security 
activities. This resulted in a cut of almost $1.9 billion in Defense 
spending for the global war on terror. I sincerely regret that 
decision. However, the conferees were left with little choice but to 
reduce the House-passed level in order to accommodate the President's 
request.
  Despite this reduction, we have still been able to meet the urgent 
needs of our Armed Forces, including:
  $805 million to ensure that Army tracked combat vehicles such as 
Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles will be upgraded for the 
units that will be rotating into Iraq in the next year, including $230 
million for the Abrams Tank Integrated Management, or AIM program, to 
support fielding of National Guard brigade combat teams;
  $230 million for 3 V-22 aircraft and $126.6 million for 2 KC-130J 
tanker aircraft, both for the Marine Corps;
  $2.577 billion in additional equipment for the Marine Corps, based on 
an assessment of their most pressing shortfalls;
  $227.5 million in advance procurement for seven C-17 aircraft, a down 
payment on maintaining production of this aircraft in fiscal year 2008;
  A total of $37.9 billion in operation and maintenance funding for all 
the services, in order to maintain war operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan; and
  Almost $2 billion to procure and develop equipment to counter 
Improvised Explosive Devices, or IEDs.
  Let me also indicate for the record that the statement of the 
managers incorrectly identifies the dollar level for the Tactical 
Unmanned Aerial System program under the account, Other Procurement, 
Army. The correct amount is $150,200,000, not $50,200,000 as specified 
in the statement of the managers.
  Regarding the provision in the Senate bill on Gulf shipyards, we've 
dropped all the Senate language that would have abrogated existing 
shipbuilding contracts and that would have required the Federal 
Government to pay business interruption costs that should properly be 
covered by private insurance companies. Instead we've provided funding 
to improve the infrastructure of all Gulf Coast shipyards that have 
Navy contracts and were affected by Hurricane Katrina. This will assist 
those yards in recovering from the effects of the Hurricane, and lead 
to efficiencies in shipbuilding that will help the companies, the 
shipyard workers, the Navy, and ultimately the taxpayer.
  Mr. Speaker, it is far past time the Congress completed action on 
this legislation. The services need funding immediately, and I urge 
adoption of the conference report in the House and swift action in the 
other body.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, a few months ago this House passed a bill to 
get tough with illegal immigration. It stiffened sanctions, it 
increased penalties, and it promulgated a new get-tough approach to 
illegal immigration.
  It lacked, however, one essential, the resources to carry out this 
new step-up in enforcement that it proposed. The bill took steps to 
open up the door to State and local law enforcement so that you could 
have local sheriffs and local law enforcement personnel more involved 
in criminal alien assistance, but it still left the program proposed 
woefully underfunded.
  Some years ago I called Atlanta, the regional office of the INS, to 
report what I thought was a serious immigration violation and to ask 
for an investigation. I was told there were only two investigatory 
agents in all of South Carolina, and they had to be used for criminal 
matters, for really serious deportations.
  The supplemental that came through this House in March, was passed on 
March 16 and then went to the Senate, offered a golden opportunity to 
do something about that shortcoming. The Senate, for its part, seized 
that opportunity, beefed up enforcement and helped bolt down our 
borders far better than they are now. The Senate seized the 
opportunity. Senator Gregg offered an amendment. When the bill was 
finally finished in the Senate, it added $2.548 billion for border 
security and for port security in this country, both of which are 
woefully underresourced at the present time.
  The bill, as I said, included $1.9 billion of the $2.5 billion for 
sealing off and securing our borders far better than they are now. The 
Bush administration then proposed an additional amendment of $1.9 
billion, but insisted that it supplant, not supplement but supplant, 
the proposal that Senator Gregg had passed by a substantial margin on 
the Senate floor.
  Now, what is in the Bush package we don't oppose. We have, in fact, 
been proposing more detention beds and more border security agents and 
more effort there for some time now. So we don't oppose that $1.9 
billion. But look at what Senator Gregg put in the bill, which was not 
pulled out of thin air, basic meat and potatoes, practical requirements 
that are needed if we are really going to bolt down our borders.

[[Page 10842]]

  The P3 fleet, which serves as our border security's primary air 
surveillance, is 40 years old. That is a Lockheed Electra platform, an 
old turboprop plane, 20 years beyond the average life of even this type 
of plane.
  Two months ago the entire fleet was grounded due to a safety issue 
uncovered during a routine inspection. Senator Gregg would have put 
money here, and emphatically we believe it should be put here. Outdated 
vehicles, this is a harsh environment, this is a border, roadless 
terrain that vehicles have to travel. There are nearly 1,700 vehicles, 
virtually unusable due to the wear and tear of the desert, extreme 
environments and high use. Senator Gregg's amendment would have put 
money there.
  Lack of sufficient patrol aircraft. We currently detect three out of 
every 10 boats carrying smugglers. Of the boats detected by patrol 
aircraft, 75 percent are stopped, apprehended. More aircraft obviously 
are needed to act on actionable intelligence regarding human and drug 
smuggling activities.
  Finally, armed helicopters. You want to get tough? Only nine out of 
150 helicopters are armed, allowing human and drug traffickers to cross 
our maritime border virtually unimpeded. Armed helicopters could stop 
100 percent of the illegal smugglers whom they encounter.
  This is what is lacking and missing in this bill. It was there, taken 
out in conference. As a result, this bill leaves security gaps, serious 
gaps in our national security and our national borders and ports 
underfunded. This is a real deficiency and a missed opportunity that 
unfortunately this conference report did not seize.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this measure, not 
only because it provides important support for our troops overseas, but 
dramatically accelerates the security of our border here in America.
  As importantly, because of the leadership of Chairman Lewis, because 
of the leadership here in the House, this bill also includes critical 
help for people and families and communities in east and southeast 
Texas devastated by Hurricane Rita. This measure provides much needed 
help to fund the Katrina students who are in our schools, provides much 
needed help to reimburse our local governments at the same rate as 
Louisiana, which will save our taxpayers and our smaller counties tens 
of millions of very important dollars.
  Finally, it provides help to rebuild the homes and roofs and 
communities in south and east Texas devastated by Rita. Most people 
don't know, we had almost 75,000 homes damaged or destroyed. Many of 
them have temporary roofs today. Ten percent of our evacuees have not 
yet returned due to Hurricane Rita.
  Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Lewis, and subcommittee chairs, 
Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Young, of the support of people 
like my colleagues in east Texas, Congressmen Poe and Gohmert, freshman 
legislators who have done a tremendous job representing their district, 
the House leadership and our Texas appropriators, thanks to all of 
them, our families and communities in east Texas are going to get the 
help that they sorely need, truly deserve, and we are all very 
grateful. Again, on behalf of the families and residents of east Texas, 
I want to thank our appropriations leaders for their help. This is good 
news this day for east Texas and southeast Texas.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if I can borrow this Republican mike, I yield 
2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I like that bipartisan 
approach. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding.
  I represent another component of the disaster impact of Hurricane 
Katrina and Hurricane Rita, representing the city of Houston, and 
certainly, we can put on the record the increased funding will go a 
long way on what is a questionable issue, and that is, the framework 
that FEMA has in dealing with the aftermath of any disaster, the 
disaster recovery that continues on and on and that disaster recovery 
includes the ongoing impact and need for funding for Katrina and Rita 
survivors who are in the Houston area that are in our schools; the 
continuing need for funding for senior citizens who are living in the 
city of Houston who are now without ongoing funding for housing; the 
questionable elimination of employment benefits that was requested in 
terms of funding that was cut off just about a week or so ago, and then 
the reimbursement that is necessary.
  So I rise today to acknowledge the hard work of the appropriators in 
particular on hurricane relief but also to raise the specter of concern 
that there are still cities who have not benefited with respect to the 
reimbursement; and in this instance, I would make the inquiry and the 
request that if this is an emergency supplemental, these funds are 
going to be disbursed, that we have an immediate response 
administratively by FEMA to be able to address the reimbursement 
requests that have already been made by cities such as Houston.
  I am grateful that the collaborative work of the Harris County 
delegation, which included Members from Houston, worked on vast areas 
like southeast Texas; but I am making a request officially on this 
floor on behalf of the city of Houston and other cities who have yet to 
be reimbursed. Mr. Speaker, I would like to see these matters 
reimbursed.
  I simply close by saying that I hope in the supplemental that we will 
find a way to increase the funding for border security, if necessary, 
for all of our States.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express, once again, my disappointment, 
and my chagrin, that we are sending forward a bill that so desperately 
lacks funding for our most urgent national needs.
  I appreciate the difficult work that my colleagues have engaged in 
over the last few months. I acknowledge that at $94.5 billion, this is 
the largest supplemental appropriations measure ever considered by 
Congress. However, more than ever, this supplemental bill clearly 
communicates where our country's priorities are right now, and where 
they are not. Having just returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, I know 
our troops and returning veterans need our help, and we will help!
  Seventy percent of the funding in this report is for military 
spending. I support our troops--however, I am disturbed that language 
that would prohibit permanent borders in Iraq was eliminated. This is 
outrageous.
  This report appropriates $126 million to sustain the African Union 
peacekeeping missions and eventual transition to an international 
security force in western Sudan. The report also appropriates $24 
million for migration and refugees assistance to respond to the 
humanitarian crisis for Sudan and Chad.
  Conference report includes $1.9 billion for border security needs, 48 
million less than requested. This includes $1.2 billion for the 
Department of Homeland Security and $708 million for the Defense 
Department for the costs of deploying 6000 National Guard troops to the 
border.
  Appropriates $37.9 billion for activities related to military 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, $808 million LESS than the 
president's request. This total includes $3 billion to train and equip 
Iraqi security forces and $1.9 billion for Afghan personnel and the new 
Afghan Army. The total is roughly $1 million less than requested.
  The agreement provides a total of $19.8 billion for hurricane relief 
and recovery, $6 billion of which is for FEMA. But I need to reaffirm 
the need for cities such as Houston to be timely reimbursed for 
expenditures used to help people in need.
  The agreement provides $5.2 billion for the Housing and Urban 
Development Department's Community Development Block Grant program, 
with $4.2 billion dedicated to Louisiana, and another $1 billion 
available to other states on a pro-rated basis.
  Instead of pulling from a healthy account, such as Defense, 
appropriators decided to pull money out of Veterans in order to help 
hurricane recovery. Veterans health was hit by a blow from a measure 
rescinding the $198 million in supplemental funds provided by the FY 
2006 Defense Appropriations law and appropriates the funds instead to 
the VA Medical Services account for expenses related to hurricane 
recovery.
  Among the provisions dropped from the report completely were measures 
providing for

[[Page 10843]]

port security funding, slated by the Senate for $648 million, and House 
language that blocked the use of funds to prohibit registered and 
legal, but displaced, residents of the Gulf Coast region from the right 
to legally vote in any official designated election of the Gulf Coast 
region. We worked very hard for this lanaguage--this deletion slaps the 
Voter Rights Act in the face.
  The Defense Department's current monthly expense for Iraq is around 
$8 billion, and $1 billion for Afghanistan. We should be budgeting 
these expenses, not supplementing them again and again.
  I am pleased that so many of the needs of my neighbors in Houston are 
addressed, such as housing and hurricane recovery funding, but I am 
saddened by the story that the numbers depict. Someday, I want to say 
that the Emergency Supplemental bill support unexpected needs of the 
country in times of crisis, rather than a supplemental and overdue bill 
of items that should have been debated with the rest of the budget 
resolution.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mass death on the installment plan, that is what this supplemental 
vote to keep our troops in Iraq is all about.
  Today, Iraqi civilian casualties number well over 100,000. Iraqi 
civilian injuries could be over 1 million, but who is keeping track? 
Some act as though the Iraqis are not real people with real families, 
real hopes and real dreams and loves of their own.
  We have lost nearly 2,500 of our own brave soldiers. Up to 48,000 
troops have suffered physical or emotional injuries, which could scar 
them and their loved ones for life.
  Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Steglitz says the war could cost 
$2 trillion; $2 trillion for war while the American people are told we 
do not have enough money for job creation, education, health care, and 
Social Security.
  The administration went into Iraq without an exit strategy, not 
because they are incompetent, but because they have no intention of 
leaving.
  We are spending hundreds of millions building permanent bases in 
Iraq. The administration recently announced deployment of no less than 
50,000 troops far into the future. We are looking at a permanent 
occupation of Iraq.
  And so a long cadence of lies has led to Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and 
Haditha, soon to be replaced by more lies and more tragedies.
  What can you say when you are watching your Nation descend sleep 
walking into something like the lower circles of hell in Dante's 
Inferno?
  You can say stop it: enough blood is enough blood. You can say stop 
it: bring our troops home. You can say no to any more funds for this 
war and begin a period of truth and reconciliation about 9/11 and Iraq. 
Begin the healing of the soul of America.
  The Bible says: ``He who troubleth his own house shall inherit the 
wind.'' Our House has been troubled by this war based on lies. What 
will our inheritance be?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for this piece of legislation because I 
think we do need to distinguish between supporting our troops and 
supporting the war in Iraq. I continue to believe that the war in Iraq 
is the dumbest war since the War of 1812; but at the same time, we 
obviously want our troops to be as well-equipped as is humanly 
possible, and we hope that this bill will take a decent step in that 
direction.
  Having said that, I want to make three points about my concerns about 
this bill. Number one, it continues a fiction that this war must be 
financed through ``emergency spending.'' That is simply a gimmick that 
allows the entire cost of this war, some $450 billion by the time the 
defense bill, which is going to be considered by the Appropriations 
Committee tomorrow, is spent. By that time we will have spent $450 
billion, and yet we continue to pretend that it is an unexpected 
contingency which means that it is handled outside of the normal limits 
of the budget. That does not fool anybody except the American people, 
unfortunately; and that is what it is designed to do, to mask the full 
costs of the war.
  Secondly, it is outrageous, in my view, that this Congress eliminated 
both Senate provisions and the single House provision which made it 
clear that the Congress did not want in any way to allow the impression 
to continue to exist that we intend to have a permanent presence in 
Iraq. The fact is over 70 percent of Iraqis continue to believe, 
despite the protestations of the President and the Secretary of 
Defense, they continue to believe that America intends to have a long-
term permanent presence in Iraq, and we need to disabuse them of that 
fact in order to take the target off the backs of our soldiers.
  Thirdly, as the gentleman from South Carolina has indicated, we will 
have spent $450 billion on this war by the end of the year, and yet the 
Congress is refusing to spend an additional $2.5 billion to provide 
further strengthening and thickening of our efforts at border security 
and port security.
  This bill has a significant increase in funds for personnel as far as 
border security is concerned; but it shortchanges the equipment, it 
shortchanges the aircraft, it shortchanges the facilities, it 
shortchanges the construction efforts, it shortchanges all of the 
nonpersonnel items that go into providing solid border security on both 
the northern and southern borders.
  There is no excuse whatsoever for this Congress to be providing over 
$40 billion in tax cuts to people who make over $1 million a year, 
while refusing to spend adequate amounts of money to secure our borders 
both the north and the south.
  I want to make one other point.
  It infuriates me to hear the White House say we will do whatever is 
necessary to secure the borders of the United States at the same time 
that the President has consistently refused to support adequate 
appropriations to do just that.
  And I want to tell, I want to close by telling a story that I have 
told many times because I think the American people need to know about 
it.
  Right after 9/11, when this Capitol Hill was hit by anthrax, this 
committee was then chaired by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), 
and when we could not get into our offices, I called Bill and I said, 
Bill, as long as we cannot do anything useful in our office, why do we 
not consult each of the security agencies of our government to see what 
they think we need on an emergency basis to deal with homeland security 
problems. We talked to the CIA, the FBI, the CDC, the NSA, you name it; 
and we got from each of them their estimate of what we needed to 
provide immediately to beef up our homeland security, border security, 
and port security operations.
  We then went down to the White House to talk to the President. The 
President came in. We were seated around the table. Before we could say 
a word, he said, well, I understand some of you want to spend more 
money than I do on homeland security. I just want you to know, if you 
appropriate $1 more than I have asked for, I will veto the bill. I have 
got time for four or five comments and I am out of here.
  So Senator Byrd made clear what he thought of that attitude. Senator 
Stevens pointed out to the President that we had already agreed that if 
there was any item on the list that the President did not want we would 
automatically strike it.
  And then finally it came my turn to speak, and I said to the 
President, Mr. President, I have been coming down here for over 30 
years. This is the first time any President has ever told me his mind 
was closed before the subject was even open, and I want you to know 
since you are being hard nosed on the subject, I am going to be too. I 
asked him four questions about Federal installations that we had been 
told by his own security people were gravely at risk of terrorist 
attack, their words not mine, and I asked the President if he had been 
briefed; if he had, I wanted to know what he had been told because I 
know what I had been told and it scared the dickens out of me. And to 
put it kindly, if he had been briefed, he

[[Page 10844]]

gave no evidence thereof. I did not expect him to. He is a busy man, 
but I did expect him to have an open mind.
  And we walked out of that room after the President said that, without 
listening to a single argument, he would veto any money we added for 
homeland security, and that has been the case ever since.
  Each year, whatever strengthening we have had on the border, of ports 
has come at the insistence of the Congress of the United States, 
overcoming the objections of the President; and we have tried on both 
sides of the aisle from time to time, we have tried to add more money 
than the President asked for for border security and for port security.
  This is just the latest chapter in the efforts of some Members of 
Congress to almost get a double hernia trying to do enough heavy 
lifting in order to get sufficient money into this budget so we do have 
a secure border on the south and a secure border on the north, and we 
still are a long way from being there.
  So while I will vote for this bill, I regret very much that it is 
woefully short in terms of the funding that it needs to truly provide 
full security on either border. I hope this country does not some day 
pay a very high price for that, but I worry each day that it will.
  With that, I would ask the gentleman if he has any more speakers. If 
not, I am prepared to yield back.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. 
I would yield back as well except just to make a comment about your 
comment, and that is to say first and foremost, the gentleman made some 
very interesting comments that I have a good deal of empathy for, but 
beyond that, this bill would not be here in this timely fashion, in 
this form, in a bipartisan spirit if the gentleman had not been very, 
very cooperative in this effort, and I appreciate that.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the latest 
supplemental appropriation for hurricane relief.
  We cannot move forward with rebuilding our city unless we are sure 
that such a disaster cannot happen again. For this reason, we must 
ensure the integrity of our flood control and hurricane protection 
system, which so disastrously failed during Katrina last year. To date, 
the Corps of Engineers has been directly appropriated a total of $3.3 
billion. This amount not only funds the reconstruction of flood control 
projects that were damaged by Hurricane Katrina, but also the 
restoration of these projects to their design specifications of 
Category Three protection, which had lapsed over the course of time. 
Over $500 million of this total will go to the construction of 
previously authorized new projects. The current supplemental provides 
$3.7 billion, which more than doubles the amount previously given to 
the Corps. This funding will help to ensure that the city is protected 
against future storms of Katrina's magnitude.
  Our long-term goals for rebuilding and improving the community can 
only be achieved with significant support from the Federal government. 
The Community Development Block Grant program has been used with great 
success in the past when confronting disaster-stricken areas and has 
proven to be an invaluable tool for recovery. A total of $11.5 billion 
went to the five states impacted by last year's storms, of which 
Louisiana received $6.2 billion. The flexibility of this program 
provides our local government officials with the resources they need to 
aid businesses and provide services to residents. Over 220,000 homes 
were damaged as a result of this storm and are in continuing need for 
relief. In this bill, an additional $5.2 billion in overall CDBG funds 
is allocated. $4.3 billion tent to fund Louisiana's ``Road Home'' 
project enabling our citizens to return to their homes and begin 
rebuilding their lives. This funding is a welcome addition to the 
recovery efforts and will assist all those affected by the storms in a 
very real and profound manner.
  This bill provides $285 million for hurricane-related education 
programs. Funding will focus on direct assistance to displaced 
elementary and secondary school students, a group that is perhaps the 
most helpless of all the hurricane's victims. Previously, $1.6 billion 
was provided in the last supplemental to aid the devastated educational 
system not only in New Orleans, but in I the entire Gulf South. The 
relocation of much our city's population into other areas has placed a 
strain on school systems across the country. This funding bolstered the 
school systems that were kind enough to take in large numbers of 
displaced students.
  Department of Defense personnel, along with the Coast Guard and other 
Homeland Security agencies, performed much of the heroic search and 
rescue operations that saved the lives of thousands of citizens. 
Because of their sacrifices and hardships, and our appreciation for 
those actions, we are assuring that their needs will be met. DoD 
received $4.4 billion in previous supplemental appropriations, covering 
their storm-related activities as well as repairs to damaged facilities 
and equipment. This bill gives them an additional $1.5 billion to 
ensure the presence of the Armed Services in the Gulf South.
  The medical community in New Orleans has been decimated by the 
effects of Hurricane Katrina. The capacity of hospitals in the city is 
down to less than a thousand beds, a reduction of over 75 percent from 
its capacity prior to the storm. Today's supplemental provides $550 
million for a new VA Hospital in New Orleans. Not only will this assure 
that New Orleans remains a viable outlet for the health needs of 
veterans across the Gulf coast states, but it will also serve as a 
valuable training outlet in conjunction with the Tulane and LSD medical 
centers. Together with the $550 million previously allocated to the 
Social Services Block Grant program, the healthcare infrastructure of 
the city is well on its way back to full strength.
  Mr. Speaker, the challenges we face in rebuilding our community 
demand a great deal of attention. This supplemental appropriation is a 
welcome addition to the recovery process and an indication that we in 
Congress are committed to helping those affected in New Orleans and in 
all other hurricane-affected areas.
  But Mr. Speaker before I close I would be remiss if I did not remind 
my colleagues the challenges remaining after Katrina are still 
daunting. Moreover there is one aspect in terms of our recovery and 
rebuilding that has not been addressed fully by this Congress and that 
is healthcare in New Orleans. According to a recent issue of U.S. News 
& World Report, the New Orleans area is now home to one million people, 
just under the pre-Katrina population of 1.3 million. But the 
healthcare resources necessary to adequately serve that level of 
population have not returned: only half of the previous 4,000 hospital 
beds are available; there is no Level I trauma center; there are 34 
nursing homes, down from 63; and 19 clinics, down from 90.
  The area's only certified Level I trauma unit is still closed (the 
35-bed, limited trauma unit opened recently cannot provide full Level I 
trauma services), and the number of staffed hospital beds in the City 
of New Orleans was estimated to be about 80 percent less in February 
2006 than before Hurricane Katrina. Moreover, to date, many patients 
are still getting primary care and rudimentary emergency services 
provided in tents that have now been set up by Charity Hospital in an 
old department store.
  Mr. Speaker we cannot allow for New Orleans's healthcare system to 
die-on-a-vine. For as the statement goes: ``Justice delayed is Justice 
denied.'' Healthcare delayed is healthcare denied. Thus, Mr. Speaker I 
implore my colleagues on the relevant committees to hold hearings and 
investigate the problems we are facing. Furthermore, I ask that 
Congress consider one more legislative package that would focus solely 
on rebuilding our health care system and the associated social 
services.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my strong support 
for the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the 
Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery conference report. I 
especially want to thank Speaker Hastert, Chairmen Lewis and Chairman 
Kolbe for providing critically needed funding in this bill to help the 
Colombian Navy fight the war against drugs and global terrorism in our 
own hemisphere.
  The bill provides monies to purchase one fully and properly equipped 
DC-3 Marine Patrol Aircraft (MPA) for maritime interdiction of drugs 
headed towards the United States. This DC-3 will be flown by the 
professional and proven Colombian Navy, and it will help better monitor 
and interdict drugs which are killing our kids and financially 
supporting internal terrorism in Colombia--often aimed at Americans--
and violence along the Mexican border where an estimated 90 percent of 
the cocaine from Colombia is entering our country.
  Unfortunately, because budget limitations are always a major factor 
in conference, the Conferees were unable to fund the two properly and 
fully equipped DC-3s added to the House passed War Supplemental on a 
strong 250 to 172 bi-partisan vote last March 30th. Two aircraft would 
have enabled the Colombia Navy to cover both their Pacific and 
Caribbean coasts.

[[Page 10845]]

  One aircraft is infinitely better than no aircraft, but we know that 
one MPA is not enough since the drug traffickers move narcotics north 
to the USA both from the Pacific an Caribbean coasts. If we cover only 
one coast, they will just move their deadly trade to the other coast. 
We need two Marine Patrol Aircraft in the region and I appreciate the 
assurances we have received from both Appropriations and House 
leadership staff that the Fiscal Year 2007 foreign operations FMF 
monies for Colombia, in addition to the plus-up of the aid for the 
Colombian National Police helicopters, will also obligate the monies or 
the second MPA for the Colombian Navy. Again, I want to thank Speaker 
Hastert, Chairman Lewis and Chairman Kolbe for making this happen.
  Two MPAs will get the job done on both the Eastern Pacific and 
Caribbean coasts and once in place, I am confident these aircraft will 
help indict these illicit drugs long before they reach the Mexican 
American border and the street of our communities.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the conference 
report.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
disappointment that the Republican Leadership caved to political 
pressure and failed to protect critical mental health funds for 
treatment of our Veterans, as originally provided by the Senate in the 
emergency supplemental spending bill.
  Although this supplemental bill will fund many important priorities, 
it also includes billions of dollars in wasteful spending while 
ignoring the very practical, immediate mental health needs of our 
veterans returning from service in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I commend my colleague, Senator Akaka, for his leadership in amending 
the original House passed version to include an additional $430 million 
to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The $430 million sum was 
specifically designed to supplement direct health care, mental health 
care, and transition services at the VA, but was misguidedly removed by 
conferees and is no longer present in this final conference report.
  To assist our veterans in readjusting to civilian life, the amendment 
would have included $80 million for Vet Centers, a readjustment 
counseling service provided by the VA. Over the years, Vet Centers have 
provided services to a total of 118,811 Operation Iraqi Freedom/
Operation Enduring Freedom veterans. So far this fiscal year, Vet 
Centers have provided services to 70,547 of these veterans. 
Unfortunately, this conference report virtually flat-lines the Vet 
Center budget.
  The Senate amendment also included $168 million for the VA's 
comprehensive Mental Health Plan. This plan establishes a stronger 
network of primary and mental health care providers in order to better 
care for the over one third of our returning veterans who have 
experienced some sort of readjustment issue.
  Finally, the Senate amendment provided $182 million for the shortfall 
in service at VA hospitals, where new veterans waiting for their first 
clinic appointment to be scheduled has doubled this year. Over the 
course of 2 years, the number of new enrollees waiting for veterans' 
health care has increased by over 400 percent.
  Time after time, we have been told by mental health advocates that 
the VA's capacity is simply inadequate. Recent studies have shown that 
35 percent of Iraq veterans have sought mental health services, with 
19.1 percent of Iraq veterans and 11.3 percent of Afghanistan veterans 
reporting a mental health problem. We must be prepared for the VA to 
handle this demand.
  Our returning men and women in uniform deserve adequate healthcare 
and transition assistance, which our country promised to them when they 
volunteered to serve, and is our duty as a nation to provide.
  Mr. Speaker, this failure to provide comprehensive assistance for 
veterans' healthcare should be a wake-up call for those in support of 
our troops who cannot count on this Administration or the Republican 
leadership to look out for our veterans needs.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support the 
conference report on the Iraq/Afghanistan War. I welcome this chance to 
especially thank both Speaker Hastert, along with Chairmen Lewis and 
Kolbe for their strong support to also provide aid to the Colombian 
Navy to fight yet another war against drugs and global terrorism in our 
own hemisphere.
  The bill provides monies to purchase one fully and properly equipped 
DC-3 Marine Patrol Aircraft (MPA) for maritime interdiction of drugs 
headed our way. This asset will be utilized by the professional and 
proven Colombian Navy. This asset will help better monitor and 
interdict drugs supporting the internal terrorism in Colombia often 
aimed at Americans, violence along the Mexican border where an 
estimated 90 percent of the cocaine from Colombia is entering our 
country, and in our communities.
  While in the original House-passed war Supplemental we provided on a 
strong 250 to 172 bi-partisan vote last March 30th enough monies for at 
least two properly and fully equipped DC-3s for the MPA function for 
the Colombian Navy so that they could cover both their Pacific and 
Caribbean coasts, we know budget limitations became a major factor at 
the conference.
  We also know that one MPA is not enough since the drug traffickers 
move narcotics north to the USA both from the Pacific and Caribbean 
coasts. If we cover only one coasts, they will just move their deadly 
trade to the other coast. We cannot let that happen. We need two Marine 
Patrol Aircraft.
  However, we have assurances from both Appropriations and House 
leadership staffs that the FY `07 foreign operations FMF monies for 
Colombia in addition to the plus-up of the aid to the Colombian 
National Police helicopters, will also obligate the monies for the 
second MPA for the Colombian Navy. That is good enough for me.
  This will get the job done to promptly fill the MPA gap on both the 
Eastern Pacific and Caribbean with two MPAs, and help get these illicit 
drugs long before they reach the Mexican border and our communities 
here at home.
  I urge adoption of the conference report.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this defense 
supplemental without hesitation, but with a number of concerns.
  As I've said in the past, I opposed the resolution authorizing the 
use of force in Iraq because I thought President Bush's decision to 
begin military action in Iraq was premature. I thought it would have 
been better to allow more time for other measures, including coercive 
inspections, to accomplish the goal of disarming Saddam Hussein. 
However, Congress--by adopting the resolution authorizing the use of 
force--left it to the President to decide if and when military action 
would begin.
  But with our troops still in the field, actively engaged in 
operations that Congress has authorized, we have an obligation to fund 
those operations. I won't make our soldiers the victims of my regrets 
by failing to support this bill to provide them what they need to carry 
out those operations.
  It's too bad the Republican leadership evidently didn't see the 
urgency in getting this funding to our troops to pay for key equipment 
and benefits. The president requested this funding back in February, 
but somehow the Republican leadership couldn't get it done until now. 
In the interim, the Army was forced to cut back on ordering spare parts 
and supplies and freeze civilian hires, among other constraints.
  So I'm glad we're finally focusing on this legislation today, which 
includes funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as 
well as funding to train and equip the military and police forces of 
those countries. I'm pleased that the conference report funds more up-
armored Humvees, provides nearly $2 billion to procure and develop 
countermeasures to prevent improvised explosive device attacks on our 
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and funds the recently enhanced 
$100,000 death benefit for soldiers' families.
  I'm also pleased that--more than 9 months after Hurricane Katrina 
struck--the conference report includes funding for levee improvements 
and for Community Development Block Grants for the Gulf Coast States. 
The report also includes important funding for pandemic flu 
preparedness and for border security.
  I do have strong concerns about some things that are in this 
conference report and some things that were left out.
  I am disappointed that it does not include the additional funds that 
the Senate approved for work to reduce the increased danger of severe 
wildfires in Colorado forests caused by prolonged drought and insect 
infestations.
  After the Senate acted, I wrote the House conferees to point out that 
these factors have raised to emergency levels the risk to our 
communities. I noted that hazardous-fuel reduction projects can reduce 
that risk, and our State has hazardous fuels projects waiting to be 
implemented but lacking adequate funding to do so. Unfortunately, the 
conferees did not include in the conference report the Senate-passed 
increase to the National Forest System to reduce the risk of 
catastrophic fires and mitigate the effects of widespread insect 
infestation.
  I am also disappointed that the conference report does not include 
language prohibiting permanent military bases in Iraq. The House-passed 
bill contained a provision that I supported--H. Amdt. 750--which would 
ensure that no funds in the bill would be used to enter into a base 
agreement with the government of Iraq. The Senate-passed bill also 
contained a similar amendment--S. Amdt. 3855--which

[[Page 10846]]

would prohibit funds to establish permanent military bases in Iraq or 
to exercise control over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of 
Iraq.
  But the conference report includes neither version of this language, 
which I find baffling, since the clear will of both bodies was 
expressed through the passage of these amendments. Policymakers and 
experts across the political spectrum agree that the U.S. should make 
clear that it does not seek a permanent military presence in Iraq. GEN. 
George Casey has testified that gradually lowering the visibility of 
U.S. troops will remove one of the elements fueling the insurgency. And 
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has testified that, ``We have no 
desire to have our forces permanently in that country. We have no plans 
or no discussions under way to have permanent bases in that country.'' 
I believe that Congress should have joined the administration in 
affirming this principle to send a clear signal to the Iraqi people 
that we fully support their efforts to establish democracy and exercise 
sovereignty.
  Finally, I believe the administration must begin to take 
responsibility for the full cost of the war in Iraq and consider these 
costs through the regular appropriations process. With the enactment of 
this supplemental, Defense Department spending for operations in 
Afghanistan and Iraq will reach $400 billion, with the majority of that 
provided for Iraq. Even though we are now more than 3 years into the 
conflict, virtually all of this money has been provided for Iraq as 
``emergency'' funding and has not been offset. But there is no 
``emergency'' here. So much of the costs are predictable. Instead, by 
funding this war through supplementals, the Bush administration avoids 
having to make tough choices--like raising taxes or making deep 
spending cuts. The American people deserve greater candor from the 
administration about both the predictable costs as well as the 
anticipated benefits of our undertakings in Iraq. I've attached a May 
editorial from the Rocky Mountain News that amplifies this point.
  Nonetheless, as I said, I will vote for this bill without hesitation 
because its prompt passage is needed not just to support our men and 
women in uniform as they fight, but also to continue to lay the 
foundation for the harder mission of stabilizing Iraq.

              [From the Rocky Mountain News, May 4, 2006]

A Crazy Way to Fund the Wars: Iraq Spending is No longer an `Emergency'

       A congressional emergency spending measure is meant to be a 
     quick response to sudden, unexpected and generally one-time 
     events, the Gulf Coast hurricanes being an excellent example. 
     The emergency bills are handled outside the regular budget 
     process and under much looser rules.
       The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although obviously 
     serious, hardly qualify as emergencies in the normal sense. 
     Yet that is how the Bush administration and Congress insist 
     on funding them, even though we're in our fifth year on one 
     and fourth year on the other.
       The result is that Congress has a poor grip on the wars' 
     costs and how they fit in with other competing budget 
     priorities. And the process has allowed Congress to avoid the 
     question of how we are going to pay for those wars.
       The Senate took advantage of the urgency of the latest 
     emergency funding bill for Iraq, Afghanistan and hurricane 
     relief to load it up with money for Hawaiian sugar growers, a 
     Northrop Grumman shipyard, riverbank erosion in California 
     and farm relief, among other largesse. A $92 billion bill is 
     now around $108 billion.
       The wars are not going away. The president himself has 
     indicated we are likely to be in Iraq at least another 3\1/2\ 
     years. Its annual cost has risen from $51 billion in 2003 to 
     $102 billion this year, and the meter is running at about $9 
     billion a month. In a few weeks the total will surpass $320 
     billion, and Congress' analysts estimate that even if troop 
     withdrawals begin this year, a best-case scenario, the costs 
     of a phase-out in Iraq and Afghanistan will run an additional 
     $371 billion.
       As was done in previous wars, the expected cost of Iraq and 
     Afghanistan should be submitted as part of the regular annual 
     federal budget, and Congress should give it the regular line-
     by-line scrutiny it gives every other part of the budget. 
     This might have prevented the squandering in Iraq of the vast 
     sums meant for reconstruction.
       Congressional researchers complain that the Pentagon has 
     refused to give them data on current and cumulative cost 
     obligations for the wars as well as one-year and five-year 
     estimates. In the normal budget process, the Pentagon would 
     have to provide those figures.
       Incorporating war costs in the regular budget, Congress 
     would no longer be able to compartmentalize, treating those 
     expenditures as an aberration while going about business as 
     usual elsewhere. Those expenditures are no aberration, and 
     it's not business as usual.

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is a disservice to the American 
people that the toughest challenges to our Nation at home and abroad 
are not addressed in a straightforward manner.
  More than 1,000 days after the war in Iraq began, we continue to fund 
it on an emergency basis deceiving the American taxpayer of the true 
cost of this war through a budgetary maneuver that simply pushes the 
enormous cost onto the next generation. It is no longer appropriate for 
Congress to approve this funding as an emergency. We must account for 
this through the normal budget process to ensure that taxpayer money is 
spent responsibly and with accountability.
  As for our response to protecting Americans at home from disasters, 
75 percent of the American public is at risk from one or more natural 
disasters, such as floods, fires, or earthquakes--yet the Federal 
Government continues to pour money into disaster-prone areas without 
any forward thinking plans. Instead of funding upfront mitigation, 
planning, and preparedness for disaster-prone communities, we spend 
even more money in emergency supplemental for things that we should 
know by now to expect. Our bizarre budget rules make it cheaper to 
appropriate billions after the fact than to invest millions in proven 
prevention programs.
  This emergency supplemental demonstrates Congress's complacency in 
dealing with tough choices and avoids fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, when is enough, enough? I rise in opposition 
to H.R. 4939 because there is no limit to the amount of money 
Republicans are willing to spend on this counterproductive war in Iraq.
  When the Bush administration beat the drums of war, it promised the 
American people that the total cost would be $50 billion. More than 3 
years later, the price tag for the Iraqi civil war stands at more than 
$320 billion. Before the invasion, neoconservatives told us Iraq was an 
oil-rich country that could finance its own reconstruction. Yet this 
latest supplemental includes billions more for the ``stabilization'' of 
Iraq that could have instead gone to rebuild New Orleans.
  The Vietnam war required only a single supplemental, after which it 
was financed through the regular budget process. But virtually all of 
this money for the war in Iraq has been provided in so-called 
``emergency'' supplementals that do not require budgetary tradeoffs 
such as spending cuts or tax increases. As a result, every dollar spent 
in Iraq is a dollar of debt for our children and grandchildren.
  For their money, future generations are getting a terrible return. 
Thanks to our seemingly open-ended occupation of Iraq, anti-American 
forces are growing stronger, not weaker. Despite parliamentary 
elections and limitless American aid for democracy building, Iraq is in 
the midst of a civil war. Though even the rubber stamp Republicans in 
Congress have shown a real interest in transferring authority to Iraqi 
security forces, their training proceeds at a snail's pace.
  This emergency supplemental bill does provide badly needed funds for 
Katrina reconstruction. Particularly worthwhile is this legislation's 
support for levee improvements, the rebuilding of the Veterans 
Administration hospital in New Orleans, alternative housing for 
hurricane survivors, and community development block grants.
  But the numbers speak for themselves. The bill provides more than 
three times more funding for defense-related expenditures than it does 
for Katrina-related aid. Because I cannot support additional spending 
for a war that has already claimed nearly 2,500 American servicemen and 
women and countless Iraqi citizens, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no.''
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, 
and Hurricane Recovery Conference Report, H.R. 4939. This supplemental 
bill, totaling $94.5 billion, is the largest that the House of 
Representatives has ever considered. This is almost $3 billion more 
than the bill the House considered earlier this year.
  As I have said repeatedly on the House floor, I strongly oppose using 
so-called ``emergency supplementals'' to fund nonemergency, clearly 
foreseeable expenditures. This bill provides $72 billion for continued 
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact that our troops 
are on the ground in these dangerous places is not a surprise. They 
have been in Iraq for almost 3 years. Their needs are well known to 
everyone, except, it seems, the President and his budget staff. Every 
year, the President fails to budget for the cost of military 
operations, and every year he pretends that the war is an unforeseen 
``emergency.''
  Funding our soldiers this way is dangerous because it leaves them 
ill-equipped and subject to last minute actions like this by Congress. 
If, by contrast, we funded military operations through the normal 
budget process,

[[Page 10847]]

funding decisions would be made in the open and with the appropriate 
scrutiny they deserve. It would also allow for long-term planning and 
more thoughtful budgeting. We have all read about the contracting waste 
and fraud that has occurred in Iraq. A number of no-bid and open-ended 
contracts have wasted billions of taxpayers' dollars. This waste 
probably has made a few crooked businessmen wealthy and done nothing to 
protect our troops or help build a more stable democracy in Iraq.
  Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I refuse to continue to fund a 
failed policy. I opposed this war because I did not think the President 
had made a convincing case for the existence of weapons of mass 
destruction in Iraq and I opposed his illegal doctrine of preemption. 
Since then I have only been heartbroken by the utter incompetence of 
the planning and execution. Our service members are doing outstanding 
work, and I salute their sacrifice. But the policymakers in Washington 
have let them down and put them in an impossible situation. As I said 
in a letter to Secretary Rice last September, it is time to begin 
bringing our soldiers home. Spending good money after bad on a failed 
policy puts our troops and our national security in even greater risk.
  Let me talk for a moment about the other good portions of this bill 
which were attached by the majority in a cynical attempt to buy votes 
for the overall bill.
  There is true emergency funding in this bill. But it is money for 
Sudan and the gulf coast, and the preparation for the avian flu, not 
Iraq. This bill contains $1.9 billion to meet the pressing border 
security needs that exist because the President has not made funding 
for border security a priority. Unfortunately, the bill contains $708 
million to pay for the deployment of National Guard troops to the 
border. This is a bad idea that will further burden National Guard 
units across America at a time when they are stretched historically 
thin.
  This bill also contains $19.8 billion to help ensure that we meet our 
commitments to rebuild and restore the gulf coast. As we begin another 
hurricane season, my prayers are for the safety of all Americans who 
live near the coast. Yet prayers alone will not prevent flooding and 
help towns recover from hurricane related destruction. A strong federal 
commitment is needed to ensure that we remain at the highest state of 
readiness possible and that we can respond to all hurricane related 
natural disasters.
  Finally, this bill includes desperately needed funds for the Sudan. I 
am glad that this bill will provide $350 million in emergency 
humanitarian food assistance. There is additional funding for 
international disaster assistance and famine assistance, and $126 
million to sustain the African Union Mission in Sudan peacekeeping 
forces.
  I am sorry that these true emergency funds were attached to the 
foreseeable spending for the ongoing operations in Iraq. I have voted 
in the past for rebuilding the gulf coast and ending the genocide in 
Darfur, and I will continue to do so. But I will not fund a failed 
policy in Iraq that is jeopardizing our soldiers needlessly, stoking 
the insurgency, draining our national resources, and doing nothing to 
protect Americans from terrorism at home.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Conference Report 
of the ``Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the 
Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006.'' This is the 
largest supplemental spending bill in the history of the United 
States--and all of this spending is off the books. All supplemental 
bills by definition are deemed ``off-budget'' and thus the dollars 
spent are not counted by the General Accounting Office when compiling 
annual deficit figures, nor are they included in annual budget figures. 
They thus obscure the true levels of spending and debt, and much of the 
``emergency'' spending is not at all in response to any emergency.
  When this bill was first before the House, I offered an amendment to 
redirect to Texas for Hurricane Rita recovery some $546 million from 
such non-emergency ``emergency'' items funded in this bill as the State 
Department ``Democracy Fund,'' aid to foreign military forces, 
international broadcasting funds, and others. This spending was not in 
any way a response to legitimate emergencies and therefore I believed 
it would be better spent helping the Texas victims of Hurricane Rita. I 
also redirected some of this nonemergency spending to go toward our 
crippling deficit. Unfortunately this amendment was not allowed. Thus, 
recovery from true emergencies that have caused terrible destruction to 
the lives and property of American citizens is woefully underfunded 
while pork-barrel projects and wasteful foreign aid are funded most 
generously.
  Mr. Speaker, our priorities in this are really backward. We need to 
look seriously at this incredible--unimaginable--level of spending. We 
are driving this country toward bankruptcy and it is bills like this 
that put us in the fast lane.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the FY2006 Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations bill, which provides $2.325 billion for 
international assistance programs, $162 million above the House-passed 
level. The bill provides $1.485 billion for Iraq reconstruction and 
fully funds the administration's request for Afghanistan.
  I am particularly pleased that the conference report provides $50 
million above the President's requests for Sudan, Liberia and Jordan as 
well as $20 million for Haiti. I am also pleased that we were able to 
include an additional $25 million for refugee assistance and $25 
million in disaster assistance above the request level.
  In light of the escalating security costs in Iraq and Afghanistan, I 
regret that we were not able to fully fund the administration's request 
for operating expenses, but I am pleased that the conference report 
significantly increases funding above the House-passed level.
  While the conference report fully funds the President's request for 
assistance to Afghanistan, $46 million in program funds for that 
country is not even a drop in the bucket. In light of the increasing 
violence and fragile political situation in Afghanistan, it is shameful 
that the administration failed to push for the $600 million that 
Ambassador Neumann indicated was necessary.
  I applaud the funding in this bill for Sudan and for other 
humanitarian needs in Africa. However, I was disappointed that the 
administration did not seek robust funding for the fledgling democracy 
in Liberia and the critical transition in Haiti. The funding added by 
Congress--an additional $50 million for Liberia and $20 million for 
Haiti--will provide critical short-term support to meet refugee and 
humanitarian needs as well as help to stabilize these countries during 
the initial months of their transitions.
  I regret that our conference allocation only allowed us to maintain 
half of the $100 million for Jordan that was passed by the Senate. 
Jordan has been a steadfast and important ally in the war on terror, as 
was clearly demonstrated by the assistance of Jordanian intelligence in 
the targeting of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It is a shame that arbitrary 
limits placed on this supplemental have prevented us from fully funding 
this priority country.
  Finally, let me speak to the bulk of the funding in the Foreign 
Operations section of the bill, which is for activities in Iraq. I 
support the additional funding because I think we owe our men and women 
in uniform in Iraq every chance to enhance their safety and return home 
speedily. To this end, I am glad that the conference report includes at 
least $50 million for democracy and governance activities and $50 
million for the Community Action Program. These programs are having a 
tremendous impact and are more cost effective than many of the 
investments we have made thus far.
  However, I am dismayed that neither the House nor the Senate included 
placed these additional funds under the oversight mandate of the 
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. By failing to 
include this language, the House and Senate majority sent a clear 
message to American taxpayers that while Congress expects them to bear 
the burden of reconstructing Iraq, we are not interested in taking 
every precaution necessary to ensure that their money is accountably 
and effectively spent.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the 
conference report.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, from the beginning, the Bush 
Administration's policy on Iraq has been based on distortions and 
misjudgments. Prior to the invasion, I fought to prevent this war. I 
parted with most members of Congress and cast a vote against the 
resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. The President 
misled the American people into believing there was a link between Iraq 
and the terrorist attacks of September 11.
  I understand the frustration and heartbreak that have led many 
Americans to conclude that it is now time for us to remove ourselves 
from this misguided quagmire and bring our troops home. That is why I 
have called on the President to change course. America simply cannot 
continue indefinitely to pay the high costs in both lives and dollars 
to stay on the same failed course in Iraq.
  In December 2005, I voted for H.R. 1815, the FY 2006 Defense 
Authorization bill, which the President signed into law in January 
2006. Section 1227 of that bill, United States Policy on Iraq, states 
that it is the sense of Congress that ``calendar year 2006 should be a 
period of significant transition to full Iraq sovereignty, with Iraqi 
security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and 
sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased 
redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.''

[[Page 10848]]

  It is time for the President to implement this policy. We should not 
have American troops in the middle of a civil war. President Bush is 
wrong to say that we should stay the course in Iraq. We need a new 
direction in Iraq.
  The President must present a strategy to Congress to draw down 
American troops from Iraq and return them home to their families. This 
strategy must ensure that our National Guard troops are the first to 
come home, as they were never intended as our primary force for 
overseas military missions. We need our National Guard troops to be 
home and available for our local needs.
  Military experts have recommended a drawdown of 10,000 troops per 
month. Although we should not announce a specific timeline for troop 
withdrawal, it is reasonable to expect that we should have half of our 
combat troops home by the end of 2006, and all of our combat troops 
home by the end of 2007. Even with such a drawdown of American troops 
in Iraq, this supplemental appropriations is necessary in order to 
insure the proper funding of our military operations during such a 
drawdown.
  Bringing our troops home allows us to achieve certain necessary 
objectives. First, we will bring our troops home safely to their 
families and remove them from being in the middle of a civil war. 
Second, we should send an important message to the Iraqi government to 
take responsibility for their government--after they ratified a new 
constitution, held elections, and installed a new government--because 
American troops cannot and should not remain in Iraq indefinitely. 
Third, we would remove a powerful propaganda and recruitment tool for 
Al Qaeda that the United States is an occupation force. Fourth, we 
would be able to stage our troops outside of Iraq to work with our 
allies and the international community to fight the war against 
international terrorism. The repositioning of our troops would help us 
to regain our focus on the war on terror. Finally, bringing our troops 
home would help us preserve the strength of our all-volunteer military 
by improving troop morale and boosting our efforts to improve 
recruitment of new soldiers.
  I have repeatedly called for a change in America's policies so that 
we can bring our troops home as soon as possible. In December 2004, I 
visited our troops in Iraq. I thanked them for their service and 
listened to their stories. It was a moving experience for me. I honor 
the sacrifices they and their families are making each day.
  The men and women of our armed forces are demonstrating tremendous 
dedication to our nation through their performance in Iraq. These brave 
soldiers have put their lives in harm's way for our country, and we are 
forever grateful for their service.
  This bill also contains crucial provisions, which I support, that 
would provide nearly $20 billion for Hurricane Katrina relief, 
including funds for housing, community planning and development, flood 
control, and small business loans. In addition, the House should take 
up H.R. 4197, a comprehensive Hurricane Katrina recovery bill 
introduced by the Congressional Black Caucus.
  I am encouraged that the bill provides nearly $500 million to address 
the ongoing genocide in southern Sudan and Darfur. These funds are 
critical to meeting the immediate needs of victims of the Darfur 
crisis, such as shelter, health care, and access to water and 
sanitation. Sudanese government-backed Arab militias have slaughtered 
hundreds of thousands of villagers, and they have burned entire 
villages. Up to two million refugees have fled this genocide to 
neighboring countries, but the small, poorly-equipped, and underfunded 
African Union (AU) force cannot offer them adequate protection. This 
bill provides needed funding to help transition the AU peacekeeping 
operation to a United Nations mission. It is also encouraging that in 
April the House passed H.R. 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability 
Act, which I co-sponsored, and which I urge the Senate to take up 
without delay.
  Mr. Speaker, this emergency supplemental is a necessary measure that 
will provide essential support for our troops in their arduous mission 
in Iraq, vital funding for the global war on terror, and desperately 
needed assistance for our own Gulf region and the many Americans who 
have been uprooted by Hurricane Katrina.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, the supplemental appropriations legislation 
passed by the House will spend nearly $95 billion of taxpayer money yet 
will not help our veterans, will not secure peace in Iraq, and will not 
make our homeland safer and better for working families.
  The Bush administration continues to underfund the health care 
services for veterans and sent our troops to war without a plan to 
secure the peace. When our servicemen and women return home they are 
returning to a system that cannot care for them or provide the benefits 
they so greatly sacrificed for and deserve. And the hurricane season 
began again on June 1 but this Nation is no closer to be prepared for a 
hurricane under this administration than it was the day before 
Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma struck land. This bill will not resolve 
these issues.
  Instead of passing the biggest supplemental ever passed by Congress, 
Congress should take real steps to help protect our country and ensure 
our veterans and their families receive the care they need. We should 
pass the GI bill of rights for the 21st century to ensure affordable 
and accessible health care, education benefits and job training. We 
need to take seriously the impact of the war on veterans and their 
families and pass legislation I have introduced to ensure access to 
needed mental health counseling. We should develop a real plan to bring 
our troops home safely and secure the peace.
  I strongly support our troops, our veterans and their families and 
will continue to fight to ensure they receive the well-deserved support 
of their country. I will continue to fight to improve the quality of 
life for working families. And I will continue to make sure America is 
a safer place.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________