Providing for Consideration of H.R. 4939, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery 2006

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4939, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR, AND HURRICANE RECOVERY, 2006 -- (House of Representatives - March 15, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to insert tabular and extraneous material.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?

There was no objection.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, on March 14 the Rules Committee met and granted an open rule on House Resolution 725, with 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

The bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule and waives all points of order against the bill. Additionally, when the reading for the amendment reaches title II, such title shall be considered as read. This rule accords priority of recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to be able to manage this rule. The rule provides for an emergency supplemental funding package to sustain our troops in the ongoing war on terror and to assist in providing emergency relief for those affected in the Gulf States by last year's tremendous hurricanes.

However, Mr. Speaker, the fact that this bill is being brought to the floor under an open rule should not be overlooked. This means that anyone in the majority or the minority may bring to the floor any amendment that is germane to this legislation.

As one of the most important bills that will be brought to the House floor this year, we should all be able to agree that an open rule is the right thing to do and will allow the House to work its will.

The supplemental appropriations package is the sixth supplemental since September 11 that focuses on meeting the challenges imposed on us by the global war on terrorism. Specifically, this supplemental provides for replenishing of those accounts that the military has exhausted during sustained operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas of the world. Additionally, it provides important funding to assist in our efforts to address the disastrous results of the hurricanes in the gulf coast communities. Finally, these are important measures dedicated to improving the benefits due our soldiers and their families who have often been asked to make the ultimate sacrifice.

Among the important provisions in this bill is a $2 billion effort at the suppression of technology for so-called IEDs, improvised explosive devices, in Iraq and other areas. IEDs, rather than direct engagement with enemy combatants, have caused over half the casualties our forces have sustained in Iraq. Additionally, the supplemental fully funds the enhanced $400,000 Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance benefits and the $100,000 death gratuity benefit for combat-related fatalities.

Mr. Speaker, the Appropriations Committee also addressed several other issues inside the supplemental that are essential to successfully continue to prosecute our global war on terror.

Important obligations are met in the underlying legislation. In particular, this legislation earmarked $850 million over the President's request to ensure that the National Guard receives upgraded Bradleys and Abrams when deploying. Additionally, the bill earmarked another $480 million for new advances in safer up-armoring for Humvees.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4939 takes a number of important steps forward in addressing the needs of our military. Today we are likely to debate several amendments that would have a large impact on the effect of the underlying legislation. I would strongly urge Members to closely examine such amendments and reject any not pertaining to the subject matter at hand. The bill we have before us today is an excellent and timely piece of legislation that deserves strong bipartisan support. The underlying legislation is ultimately really about supporting our troops in the field and moving forward in assisting our own citizens drastically affected by the hurricanes.

With respect to Katrina, the underlying legislation provides $9.9 billion to the Department of Homeland Security, primarily intended for FEMA, and major additional funding for flood control and coastal emergencies. Additionally, the Department of Defense would receive $1.8 billion and the Army Corps of Engineers would receive $1.5 billion, mostly for procurement and construction for flood control and coastal emergencies.

$1.3 billion would be set aside for loans to home owners and small businesses to be administered through the Small Business Administration.

Mr. Speaker, this is the third supplemental appropriations request sent to Congress that addresses the fallout from the hurricanes. I am sure we will deal with this issue in the future as needs are defined. It is truly a testament to this Nation that we are able to break through the political logjam and deal with these issues of an emergency nature when this situation demands.

Mr. Speaker, judging from the debate in the Rules Committee yesterday, I suspect Members from both sides of the aisle may mention or attempt to interject into our discussions motions or amendments that are not germane to the underlying legislation. A number of measures are things that I personally support. However, the Rules Committee decided, appropriately in my opinion, that these matters should be dealt with separately and under regular order.

My good friends on both sides of the aisle have often expressed their desire to have major legislation dealt with under an open rule. That is precisely what we have today. It is my hope that all Members will appreciate that fact and will see the wisdom of pursuing other issues through regular order. Therefore, I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to note again for the record, while we are going to have discussions of many things here today, this is an open rule, any Member of the majority or the minority is free to bring an amendment to matters that are germane to the bill. This is as democratic on the floor of this institution as it ever gets. And while many will be, on both sides, disappointed that they didn't get to attach nongermane items to this particular bill, I think we are well served in this House by moving through regular order, which is an argument that we all make from time to time very vigorously on both sides of the aisle, but particularly the minority side.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me first reply to my good friends, the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from Texas, who spoke earlier about their concern about the rule.

I remind them both, and as I will remind repeatedly everyone on this rule, we have an open rule today. If my friends on the other side of the aisle have something they object to, for instance they could strike title II of this particular bill, and, frankly, it would go right back to committee, so there is no need to bring down the rule. The mechanisms are in place, the processes are in place for the House to work its will.

I would also remind my friends on both sides of the aisle that this bill ultimately, not the rule, but the bill itself, is ultimately about providing for the needs of American forces in the field in combat today, now. We can debate whether the war was wise, whether it is conducted well, at our leisure. They need what they need immediately, and we should respond to their needs, regardless of what our opinions are where the war is concerned or regardless of what our opinions are in terms of procurement or spending.

And I say the same thing with respect to our fellow citizens along the gulf coast. They need help now. This House has responded generously twice already in supplementals. This is the third one. We will be back here again without a doubt dealing with that item. I do not think for procedural questions, particularly when we have an open rule, we should risk slowing down things that our troops in the field need or that our fellow citizens in need along the gulf coast require.

My good friend from Wisconsin, and he is my good friend, made the point which I do not want to leave uncontested that this, quote, President had engaged in the worst military blunder in American history. That is a remarkable statement, considering the Vietnam era where we had Democratic Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson commit us to a war.

The fact is this war has the lowest casualty rate in American history, and the stakes are enormously high. Were we to lose in this particular endeavor, there is no question that our enemies around the world would gather strength. It would be seen as a victory for terrorists; it would be seen as a lack of will on the part of the United States.

I think the stakes here are worth it. I have been to Iraq on five occasions, and one can always be critical of specific things. I do not think you can be critical of our forces in the field. Their performance is brilliant.

And, honestly, let me say a word here on behalf of the Iraqi people. We did ask them to rise up in 1991, and we did not do a thing. Thousands of them were slaughtered. Now we have come again. We have helped them liberate themselves from one of the worst tyrants certainly in the history of their country and certainly in regional history, and they have asked our help to stay and work through a difficult process.

They have demonstrated their bravery again and again and again in three different elections where they came out to vote under very difficult circumstances. They demonstrate their bravery in the field in their commitment and their willingness to take on an increasing range of responsibility. Even when I am occasionally frustrated with politicians in Iraq, as I sometimes am frustrated with ourselves in this body, I stop and remember they are exceptionally brave people.

My colleagues and I may worry about losing an election. Most of us do not worry about losing our life by engaging in a political process to make our country free. I think when people make that kind of sacrifice in the pursuit of democracy and freedom, they deserve the support of this body among all bodies in this world and certainly this country.

Let me add, frankly, one other point on Katrina. I know many of my colleagues have had the opportunity and taken the opportunity to go down and visit the gulf coast. Personally, I certainly have done that; and I would just tell all my friends that have concerns about the expenditure of funds in that particular area, and sometimes I do as well, go look at the damage. It is massive. It is massive.

Again, we had a very critical and I think very good report issued by a special committee of this body, chaired by my good friend, distinguished chairman of the Government Reform Committee, TOM DAVIS, that was unstintingly critical. I remind my friends on the other side of the aisle, unfortunately, they did not participate in that. They chose to think it would be a sham, and clearly it was not. There are mechanisms and means for us to look at and learn the lessons of Katrina and apply them and let the chips fall where they may in the process. Rejecting the rule will bring down the underlying bill and, in my opinion, is not one of them.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I came here this morning, obviously, to debate the rule. But as is so often the case in rules debate, we move on to the bill itself and some of the larger purposes. And I am always content and happy to have that debate. I think it is an important discussion for the American people to hear.

My good friend from Massachusetts, from the other side of the aisle, mentioned that essentially things are worse in Iraq. Worse than what? And worse than when? Worse than having Saddam Hussein in power? I think not. I would much rather have him where he is, in a courtroom, in jail, and no longer launching regional wars that claimed over a million lives.

Worse than 423 mass grave sites that have been uncovered since the arrival of coalition forces in Iraq? I think not. Worse than 400,000 Iraqis killed in the decade before the liberation of Iraq? Again, I think not.

I think that we sometimes, on this floor, act as if we are doing a favor to the people of Iraq by leaving. I think that is dangerously misguided logic. I do not think it is a favor. I do not think that it is a favor to the people in Iraq. That is not what their duly elected representatives have asked us to do.

They, by the way, are running enormous risks for their own freedom. They rose up to try to get their own freedom in 1991. We didn't do, in my opinion, what we should have done then. I have been there five times. I see more and more Iraqis doing more and more things for themselves, and I see no one that asks the United States to leave precipitously.

I also would disagree with my good friend on the issue of whether or not our interests are involved in this. I think they very much are involved in Iraq. I think that victory is an extraordinarily important thing for this country to secure. I think staying the course, or remaining and staying with our friends that are fighting now, in part because we are there, is a very important message to send to the region.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Reclaiming my time, I would disagree with the gentleman on a number of points, but on one in particular.

It is not easy for anybody in this body to make the decision to send American troops into harm's way. My father was a career military person. My uncle spent 3 1/2 years in a Japanese prison camp. My brother is a disabled Vietnam-era veteran, although not disabled in Vietnam. I have 15,000 soldiers at Fort Sill that I am privileged to represent. I have got another 8,000 or 9,000 airmen at Tinker Air Force Base that I am privileged to represent. My cousin is a lieutenant colonel in the United States Air Force, who spent 6 months in Afghanistan and 6 months in Iraq under very dangerous and difficult circumstances.

These are not decisions that anybody makes lightly for or against. Those people who are opposed to the war, as my good friend noted in the Rules Committee yesterday, initially, when it was ``popular,'' did not make an easy decision. It is not popular today. Those of us who are still supportive of that effort are not making an easy decision. We are making what we think is the right decision. I respect my friend's motives in that regard. I think he has always been consistent. His judgment has been consistent, even though we have consistently disagreed. I would ask for the same sentiment in reverse; that those of us who hold a different point of view are equally honorable in our motivation, equally intense about what we are doing, and equally convinced the course we are advocating is the correct one.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I want to address several of the points of my good friend from Massachusetts.

First, in terms of going into war without the information and without the debate. I was not in Congress when that decision was made, and, frankly, I looked back and have read the debates very carefully, watched the debates at that time, and know that, frankly, everybody that was voting voted on the best information they had available at that time.

Frankly, I remind my good friend that we were operating with a CIA that was run by a President Clinton appointee, that he was pretty adamant in terms of there were WMDs there. That was the shared opinion of every other intelligence agency in the world. And, again, I don't question the motives of the decision that was made.

I would also add this. For me, the more compelling figure is not what we found before we thought we were going, but what we found after. I go back to those mass grave sites and I go back to those tens of thousands of people that were killed. And, frankly, I go back to a level of American responsibility for allowing that to persist, in my opinion, after 1991.

I relate to my friend a story that I heard on my very first visit to Iraq, when I was talking to a young American sergeant. It was becoming evident at that point that the stockpiles we thought were going to be there weren't there. There was dual-use technology, and perhaps the potential to recreate something. No question Saddam Hussein was working his way out of restrictions, but what we thought was there, wasn't there.

And I asked this young sergeant who had risked his life in the drive to Baghdad what he thought, given that information. And he first gave me sort of a nice stock political answer and said basically what I said: Well, we don't know. We are still looking. And I said, but we haven't found any. And he looked at me, and I will never, ever forget what he said when I said, so, was it worth it? And he answered my question with a question.

He said, sir, have you ever been to a mass grave site? And I said, no, I haven't. He said, I have. He said, you haven't seen anything until you see bodies coming out of the ground and hundreds of family members trying to identify them and wailing. And I have seen that, and I wonder why the whole world wasn't here 10 years ago. That is a good question for us to ask ourselves inuring the course of this debate.

I also want to address my friend's point about a commission in two ways. First, by making the point that there is a good deal of oversight that goes on in this process. I used to serve on the House Armed Services Committee. I still do. I have a waiver on that committee now. But that committee, I can assure you, is very thorough in its oversight. I think appropriations has an oversight function.

But, finally, and more importantly, I think on this particular piece of legislation, both sides of the House often ask for an open rule, and anything germane to this piece of legislation, this supplemental appropriation, can be brought here. I think that is a very good thing. Now we are being told we not only want things that are germane to one of the largest spending bills and one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will deal with this year, we want things that are not germane. We want waivers granted.

And, by the way, we are being told that by both sides of the aisle. This is not an exclusive demand. I think it is a misdirected demand. I would like to see us move back toward more open rules, more regular order, and I think this rule is a step in that direction.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Reclaiming my time. I disagree with my friend's characterization of when the mass graves were. There are certainly 35 years' worth of mass graves in Iraq, but a lot of them are from 1991 on, and particularly from the uprising of the Shi'a against Saddam Hussein, when an American Army was sitting on their border and we urged them to rise up and did nothing to help them.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Let me just make a quick point on Katrina.

Actually, there was good oversight there. Chairman Davis had a very good committee. Unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle chose largely not to participate in an oversight function.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his point. I thought he had a very interesting amendment yesterday in the Rules Committee. I think it is a topic and amendment that deserves a great deal of study because I think the reform of that process is very much in order.

I would prefer that we move through an authorizing committee to do that, as opposed to simply discussing it in the Rules Committee, where we have no background, no staff, and then immediately inject it onto the floor.

My disagreement with my friend is largely over process here, and not necessarily over substance. I hope we do look at that process and do take his very thoughtful amendment into consideration through regular order.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. OBEY. I would simply say, ordinarily, I would agree that the authorizing committee should deal with this issue. But given the fact that the Appropriations Committee at the leadership level took the action to wipe out the Dubai deal, to me it was appropriate that we make that provision have even more sense by having it attached by the same committee that did the other deed.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would draw a distinction here. I think there is a big difference between stopping a decision that you disagree with, which I think can be done without a great deal of moving through process, and changing a process itself. I think that is actually a more difficult, time-consuming, complex operation. I think it needs an authorizing committee to look at it.

I think it is very appropriate for the Appropriations Committee to say, stop, we have serious concerns, we do not want to go through with this; and hopefully at that point we would proceed by regular order and consider the gentleman's thoughtful amendments that may come along.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

In closing, I would like to say I believe we have had an excellent debate today. What is clear to me is the importance and the timeliness of this legislation. With that said, I would encourage Members to listen carefully to the following debate and to vote in support of the underlying legislation.

Additionally, I would encourage Members to be cautious when considering the amendments. This bill has been carefully crafted and worked in a way to ensure that our servicemen receive the best equipment when they go to war.

Equally important, the bill contains important measures to help our fellow citizens in the gulf coast as they continue to deal with the consequences of the worst natural disaster in American history.

Finally, I would ask Members to remember this is not a vote about the wisdom of the war in Iraq. The President and the Congress made that decision years ago. This vote is about giving those we have asked to execute our policy in Iraq the tools they need to do their job. The men and women serving our cause in Iraq ask for nothing more. In good conscience, we should give them nothing less.

Similarly, this is not a debate about the nature of the governmental response to Hurricane Katrina. This matter has been dealt with in a detailed report issued by a select committee chaired by the chairman of the Government Reform Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Finally, this is also not a vote in essence about fiscal discipline. The process that the rule allows would allowed those concerned about spending to strip portions of the bill that concern them and send them back. It would also, of course, allow them at the end to vote against the bill itself if they thought it was too expensive. The rule allows, as I wish to remind my colleagues, for an open rule, that is, any Member of this body, majority or minority, can bring an issue germane to the bill to the floor, have it heard and have it decided. This is a movement toward regular order, and I think it is one we should respect and appreciate by upholding the rule.

To close, I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov