Waiving Points of Order Against Conference Report on H.R. 1268, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror,...
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1268, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR, AND TSUNAMI RELIEF ACT, 2005 -- (House of Representatives - May 05, 2005)
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 258 and ask for its immediate consideration.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.
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 Wednesday the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule for consideration of the conference report on H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief Act, 2005. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and provides that the report shall be considered as read. Additionally, it authorizes the chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary to file a supplemental report to accompany H.R. 748.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1268, the emergency supplemental appropriation, is intended to fully fund our forces overseas and at home. It helps to ensure the full funding of the important accounts which have been depleted during our global war on terror and our effort to assist the Iraqi and Afghan people in their efforts to establish functioning democracies in their countries.
Additionally, the bill includes important funding for Afghan reconstruction and counter-terrorism assistance, counternarcotics efforts, international food aid, and relief to address the terrible tragedies resulting from the massive tsunami that struck the Southwest Pacific and Indian Oceans in December of 2004.
Mr. Speaker, additionally, this rule provides important increases in coverage for the service members' group life insurance and increases coverage for individual soldiers from $250,000 to $400,000. It also increases the one-time death benefit from $12,000 to $100,000. While neither of these benefits can ever replace the lives of brave American service personnel lost in action, they can assist their families through the hard times they will face while recovering from the loss of their loved ones.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 258 allows us to fully debate the important issues surrounding the war on terror. Just yesterday we saw on the front page of The Washington Post a graphic photograph that captured the terrible effects of the war on an innocent victim and the courage and compassion of the American soldiers who are engaged in the battle. We should keep this image in mind as we commence the debate on the conference report today. More than any words I could ever utter, that picture illustrates the nobility of our effort, the valor and decency of our soldiers, and the evil and fanaticism of our enemies.
Many may wish to raise policy issues in this debate. That is certainly appropriate. Others may want to discuss issues that, however important, are superfluous to the war on terrorism. Mr. Speaker, I believe in this discussion we should focus our remarks on what truly counts. We have committed 170,000 of our servicemen and -women to fight terrorism and advance the cause of freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. We owe them our full support in the battles they wage on behalf of the American people and the cause of liberty. This rule and the underlying bill represent the efforts of Congress to keep that solemn commitment to the sons and daughters of America.
Mr. Speaker, to that end 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.
For the purpose of clarification, I want to quickly address the matter involving the supplemental report on H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. The purpose of this supplemental report is to change the description of certain amendments considered during the committee markup and process. It is my understanding that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has already prepared the supplemental report and shared its contents with the committee's ranking minority member.
I further understand that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is prepared to file a supplemental report immediately after the adoption of this resolution and also to place it in the Congressional Record. This supplemental report will be part of the official legislative history of the bill and will amend the descriptions contained in the original report.
This supplemental report responds directly to the questions of privilege raised by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), both of which call for the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary "to report to the House a supplement to House Report 109-51 that corrects the record by describing the five amendments with nonargumentative, objective captions." The text of the proposed supplemental report also includes additional dissenting views from the committee's ranking minority describing his disagreements with the interpretation of the amendments by the majority.
The filing of the supplemental report represents the regular order for correcting problems in earlier committee reports filed with the House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), my good friend.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to quickly respond to a couple of points that my good friend made. First, I would remind him that we did not pay for World War II or Korea or Vietnam out of current revenue. It is not unusual to finance wars in this particular fashion.
Second, as to the point on the embassy, I have been to Iraq four times and have met with our folks there and, frankly, I think they deserve the very best protection they can get as quick as we can get it. They are every bit as much at risk as people that wear the uniform of the United States. They are all volunteers. They have done a wonderful job representing our country. They deserve and need a safe place to operate out of. I am very glad that that particular measure was put back in during conference.
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 feel compelled to respond to some of the points my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) made.
Not helping our soldiers? A blank check? This bill is anything but a blank check. Let me read a couple of things in here. Just running down operations and maintenance, Navy, $3.4 billion; operations and maintenance, Marine Corps. There is line after line of great specificity my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations was very careful in crafting a bill that will meet the needs of our personnel.
The immoral thing to do would be to commit 170,000 people to combat and not resupply them and not reequip them and not give them the things they need on a daily basis to not only be successful, but to provide for their own safety and security.
It is very legitimate to debate the war. Although I remind my good friend on the other side of the aisle, this body and the other body vote on a bipartisan basis to make the commitment in Iraq. I could read off name after name, including the distinguished nominee from the other body, of my friends on the other side of the aisle, a candidate for President last time, who voted in favor of this particular contest.
Having made that decision, once we place people on the line under fire and in danger, we owe it to them to provide them what they need. We can continue to debate policy. That is a very legitimate point, but I think it would it be the height of folly and irresponsibility to not fund people when they are in the field in action. Frankly, it would send the wrong signal to our adversaries, and more importantly, the wrong signal to our own men and women and their families. And not to support the rule, and certainly not to support the supplemental appropriations, I believe, would be a grave and terrible mistake for this country.
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.
In closing, I would like to say that I believe we have had a good debate on the rule today. I believe the importance and timeliness of this legislation could not be more self-evident. This bill has been carefully crafted and worked in a way to ensure that our service men and women receive the best supplies and equipment when they go to war and that those supplies and equipment are replenished and replaced in a timely fashion.
Finally, I would ask Members to recall that this is a vote about our willingness to support our service men and women, not about other policy issues. The men and women serving our cause in Iraq ask for nothing more. In good conscience, we should give them nothing less.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov