Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2346, Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009
Floor Speech
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2346, SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009 -- (House of Representatives - May 14, 2009)
Mr. DREIER. First, let me express my appreciation to my very good friend from Golden, a hardworking and thoughtful member of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that today we will be considering legislation that represents a true bipartisan effort on a critically important issue. The underlying bill, an emergency supplemental funding bill for our troops, was largely developed through bipartisan consensus, and we as Republicans are very happy to have had the opportunity to work with President Obama on this issue.
The President has repeatedly said that he would like to work with Republicans to develop real solutions for the challenges that we face as a country. So far, unfortunately, the Democratic leadership has done a less than perfect job in dealing with the request for bipartisanship, shutting out Republicans and injecting a greater and greater amount of partisanship into the legislative process.
But today we have before us our first real opportunity to come together and work in a bipartisan way. This occasion is all the more significant because the issue at hand is the funding of our troops.
I'm very proud that we're able to demonstrate to the men and women who voluntarily, voluntarily put their lives on the line for our country, that the support for them in Congress is unified and unequivocal. We owe a great debt to them and to their families, and it is very fitting that we should be joining together in this show of support just before Memorial Day.
Our troops in Afghanistan are facing rapidly increasing threats. Our troops in Iraq are working to fully turn responsibility for security over to the Iraqis. Thousands of others are deployed in dangerous places, as we all know, around the world.
We must ensure that they have the resources, protection, and support they need to do their jobs effectively and, as my friend from Golden said in his statement, to come home safely. The underlying appropriations bill will help to ensure just that.
But this is not, by any means, Mr. Speaker, a perfect bill. There are some key improvements that I believe need to be made. Unfortunately, the rule that we are considering today prevents any amendments from being considered. Even amidst this great bipartisan effort, the Democratic leadership has chosen to tarnish the outcome by refusing to allow debate on a number of key issues. Allowing amendments to be debated and considered would enable us to take this important bill and make it even more effective.
One such amendment which my friend and colleague Mr. Rogers, the gentleman from Kentucky, has offered, would have redirected some funding to very important border security efforts. This is a critical national security issue. Violent drug wars have been escalating, as we all know, on our border for months, and we need to ensure that we have adequate homeland security resources. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this rule does not allow us to ensure the needed additional funding to deal with border security.
Another key issue that must be addressed, as we all know because it has been the center of a great deal of controversy, is the question of how the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay will be shut down.
The President has made it clear that he intends to close this facility, and his administration has already begun to move forward on this. Yet Congress has been presented with no clear plan as to how the facility will be closed and, most important, what will be done with the detainees. Will they be moved to American soil? Tried in jail or--God forbid--released here in the United States?
The Guantanamo detainees include Khalid Sheik Muhammad, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks; Hambali, al Qaeda's operation chief for Southeast Asia who planned the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 200 people; Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists, who helped plan the 1998 bombings of our embassies at Dar es Salaam and Nairobi.
These are Guantanamo detainees, and we have received no plan for where they will be moved if the facility is shut down. We have received no commitment, no commitment at all, for congressional oversight. This bill should explicitly require planning and consultation with Congress so we can ensure that unacceptable security risks will not be borne by our communities and our constituents.
Republicans have repeatedly raised this issue, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership, apparently feeling the pressure to address this issue, would like to self-execute an amendment in this rule to the bill that will place restrictions on the process for closing the detention facility at Guantanamo.
But there are two key problems with their approach here, Mr. Speaker. First, the substance of their amendment does not adequately address the risks that we must guard against. It does not guarantee that governors and State legislators will have the final say on whether terrorists can be housed in their States.
Under the Democratic plan, States can be forced to allow the world's most
dangerous terrorists to be held in their communities.
Second, by self-executing this flawed and inadequate amendment, they are circumventing the debate and scrutiny that an issue of this magnitude demands. The issue of bringing committed terrorists onto American soil--not people who perpetrated crimes who are American citizens, but foreign-born terrorists--on American soil should not be dealt with haphazardly, nor cloaked in secrecy. It must be considered extremely carefully, thoroughly, and openly. This rule denies us that opportunity and fails to ensure the protection of Americans.
There are other issues that should be dealt with, Mr. Speaker. The large increase of foreign assistance funding, while important to long-term efforts to combat the roots of terrorism, should not be considered emergency funding. This funding should be included in the regular budget subject to regular budgetary considerations. Designating them as emergency funds just skirts the tough choices that responsible budgeting demands.
All of these issues should be addressed in an open debate with an amendment process, which is standard operating procedure for appropriations. As I said in the Rules Committee yesterday, appropriations bills are considered privileged resolutions. They come straight to the floor. We don't even need to go to the Rules Committee for consideration of appropriations bills. It is done traditionally to simply protect the bill and the work product of the Appropriations Committee, and then allow for an open amendment process.
Fixing these problems, Mr. Speaker, would make a good and important bill all that much more effective. It would allow the legislative process for this bill, which has developed in such a bipartisan way, to finish in the same cooperative spirit in which it began.
During my tenure as chairman of the Rules Committee for 8 years, every single wartime supplemental was considered under an open rule. Not even one has been open over the last 3 years since the new Democratic majority has been in charge. It is very unfortunate that the Democratic leadership once again is trying to thwart the best efforts of President Obama and congressional Republicans to work together and build consensus.
But despite their disdain for bipartisanship and open debate, we as Republicans will join with the President in support of this troop funding bill, and we welcome this opportunity to work with him on this issue.
We sincerely hope that we can continue to come together on other very pressing issues that we will want to address effectively and responsibly in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and I will be explaining throughout this debate time what it is that we hope to do if we are able to defeat the previous question as it relates to Guantanamo. If by chance we are not successful in defeating the previous question, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying rule so we can, in fact, continue with the spirit of bipartisanship to make this important bill even better.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr PERLMUTTER. For about 15 seconds. I have a lot of speakers.
Mr. DREIER. On border security, it continues to be a high priority, and the situation has gotten worse since we provided that level of appropriations.
On the issue of Guantanamo, Mr. Wolf, a member of the committee, has come forward with a very thoughtful amendment. We are going to seek to make that in order if we are able to defeat the previous question. I know that the chairman of the committee has said that he doesn't believe that State legislators and governors should be able to preempt Federal law. We know, as Mr. Wolf said in his testimony, that there are a number of States that have already indicated an interest in having an opportunity to receive these detainees.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
I would like to say, the gentlewoman has offered an extraordinarily thoughtful amendment which reaffirms our dedication to our men and women in uniform. Especially as Memorial Day approaches, it seems to me that we should have an open amendment process that would allow us to fully debate the Biggert amendment. And it saddens me that this structure around which we are considering this issue is so restricted.
I thank my friend for yielding.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I know that I speak for my Republican colleagues when I say that when President Obama said that he wanted to work in a bipartisan way, we would agree when it was the right thing to work with him in a bipartisan way.
Clearly, supporting our men and women who are daily stepping forward and volunteering to help us in the effort to prosecute this ongoing struggling against radical extremism deserves bipartisan support. So we are pleased that President Obama has made this request. We all hope, as Memorial Day approaches 1 week from Monday, we all hope very much that we are able to see this war come to an end. And we all want to see our men and women come home just as soon as we possibly can.
It is unfortunate that while President Obama has agreed to work with Republicans in our quest to ensure that we have adequate funding and support for our troops, that the Democratic leadership has chosen to use a procedure that is, unfortunately, one that we never once used when we were in the majority in dealing with a wartime supplemental. This is a closed rule that denies us a chance to offer the very, very thoughtful amendment that Mr. Wolf has come forward with.
It's clear, for those who heard our colleague from Vienna speak from this well about the deliberation that he took in crafting this amendment, that it's one that should be considered by this full House. But, unfortunately, the rule that is before us denies that.
Our colleague from Hinsdale, Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) had a very, very needed amendment that would increase the compensation level for our men and women in uniform. Unfortunately, this rule denies a chance for that to be considered.
The distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Somerset, Kentucky, of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security (Mr. Rogers), had his amendment that would have allowed for a transfer to deal with the pressing need that exists on our southern border, to secure it so that the drug cartels that are moving throughout Mexico killing literally thousands and thousands of people, so that we're able to protect ourselves from that. We are not even allowed to debate that amendment that Mr. Rogers, a hardworking member of the Appropriations Committee, brought forward.
So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that what we should do is defeat the previous question. And if Members who are committed to allowing for congressional involvement to deal with this difficult issue of Guantanamo, if they share that concern, Democrats and Republicans, we should join to defeat the previous question.
If I'm successful in my quest to defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to substitute Mr. Obey's inadequate language on the Guantanamo detainees with Mr. Wolf's far more robust solution to the detainee problem.
And, again, to be very specific, Mr. Speaker, the Wolf amendment would require real risk assessments on the dangers of releasing Guantanamo detainees into our local communities. It would require the consent of governors and State legislatures before the Guantanamo detainees are sent here, and it would require a certification that bringing detainees on U.S. soil won't create legal repercussions that could result in terrorists roaming freely on our streets.
Mr. Speaker, most importantly, the application of the Wolf amendment has the effect of extending beyond the end of this fiscal year by requiring a detailed report in advance of any releases or transfers, while Mr. Obey's language would allow terrorists to be released into the wild of our local communities without a second thought anytime after October 1.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the full language of the amendment in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question if they're committed to dealing responsibly with the Guantanamo issue and, if we're not successful with that, to vote ``no'' on the rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Source