Skip to main content

tv   House Appropriations Panel Debates 2021 Defense Spending  CSPAN  July 14, 2020 12:54pm-2:14pm EDT

12:54 pm
>> mr. lee is recognized. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will read the amendment. >> i ask for unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. >> without objection the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. >> thank you. let me thank chairman visclosky and mr. calvert for your very hard work on this bill. let me take a moment to say thank you to our chairman and i am going to miss you tremendously. when i think about you and how you will remain in my thoughts,
12:55 pm
i think of smart, i think of decent, someone with integrity, someone who is honest, and someone who has provided myself much counsel. it has been very wise and also i want to do just thank you for your support on many of the provisions of this bill. moment oft take a personal privilege to say to you one of my fondest memories was my visit to your district in gary, indiana and you were bringing me a bag of white castle hamburgers. i mean a bag. i will always be indebted to you, mr. chairman. i value our friendship and look forward to visiting you again in gary, indiana and get two bags next time. [laughter]
12:56 pm
your leadership and expertise is going to be missed. madam chair, my amendment is straightforward as i introduced it for several years and it has received support over the years from both sides. three years ago it passed on a bipartisan basis under republican majority and i hope we can do that again. my amendment would sunset the eight broad 2001 aumf months after enactment of the act. while in place it gives congress and the administration plenty of time to vote and debate on a new aumf. this is not only timely, but necessary. from pulling out of the iran deal to moving u.s. carriers to the region, we have issued fake threats of military action. it even floated the idea of using the 2001 authorization for the use of military force as a basis to go to war with iran. congress cannot allow this to happen and it is a stark
12:57 pm
reminder the danger of leaving the 2001 aumf on the books indefinitely could cause another unfortunate war. voteptember 14, 2001 i did against the 2001 aumf. it was a 60 word authorization i knew would provide a blank check to wage war anywhere, anytime for any length. in the last 19 years it has been increasingly clear the aumf has provided the president, any president, the authority to rage war against anyone, any nation, anywhere, at any time. as our brave servicemen and women are deployed congress is missing in action. our failure to debate and vote on these is up a trail of the american people and our constitutional duty. -- a betrayal of the american people and our constitutional duty. i encourage my colleagues to read this report. it has beenlays out cited 41 times in 19 countries
12:58 pm
to rage war with little or no congressional oversight. reported in it was 16 countries. this looks at unclassified incidents. how many other times it was it used without the knowledge of congress or the american people? not only is this used to justify military action thousands of miles away, it has been used as legal justification for wiretaps, indefinite detention practices at gitmo, killing by drones including those of american citizens, and the open ended expansion of military operations. in addition to the activities i mentioned, this aumf has reportedly invoked -- it has been invoked to deploy troops in andanistan, syria, yemen, other places. any president can unilaterally 2001war under the outdated
12:59 pm
authorization without congressional authority. this administration, like previous administrations, continues to be engaged in a proxy war in yemen despite the passing of a war powers resolution to end of the u.s. role in that war. it has already been publicly floated the idea of use in the 2001 aumf go to war with iran. congress did not debate or authorize. this is outrageous and dangerous. it is not just the wars. the administration has launched unauthorized strikes against syria twice without congressional authorization in violation of the constitution. i know that while we may not share a common position i what should replace the aumf, many agree the overly broad authority is a major and concerning deterioration of congressional oversight and warmaking authority. i think many of us can agree a
1:00 pm
robust debate and vote is necessary, long overdue, and must take place. we voted to adopt the same amendment eight months after the bill was signed into law, leaving congress to debate and vote on a new one. my amendment will not be inactive immediately. our troops will not be exposed. enacted immediately. our troops will not be exposed. three days is what it took. only about 20% of congress was serving when we took that fall. 20%. this is an education of congress . we need to step up and do our job. let me be clear, with the 2001 aumf still in the books with its
1:01 pm
current form, any administration can continue to rely on this to wage endless wars. that is why my amendment to prohibit funding for the 2001 aumf after eight months is so important. in the past -- it is far past time to bring almost two decades of nonstop war to an end. the forever wars have spammed wider and wider across the globe and prompt us -- kostas costmately $5 trillion -- trillion,mately $5 -- cost uss -- cost lives. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i support the gentlewoman's amendment. it is overly broad. the world has changed in the last 19 years.
1:02 pm
some of those 19 countries include not only syria, but yemen, the philippines, other parts of africa. i strongly support the amendment. i strongly oppose this amendment, which would repeal the legal authority used by armed forces to fight against al qaeda and isis. as we all know, the 2001 provides authority for the use of military force against al qaeda, the terrorists that committed the 9/11 attacks, as well as the taliban and provided sanctuary to al qaeda. it authorizes all necessary and appropriate force against not only these terrorist groups, but also associated forces, such as the islamic state. isis. al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. interest toe u.s.'s reveal the authority without
1:03 pm
having an adequate replacement. it will be signed into law. degraded, both al qaeda and isis continue to pose a serious threat and remain committed to targeting the united states and our interests around the globe. repeal theally would be a significant mistake am deeply harmful to our national security. urge the amendment. thank you, madam chairwoman.
1:04 pm
i want to thank congresswoman lee on the fight to bring oversight and accountability to the executive military force. it is extremely frustrating that we are here, yet again, having this debate when congress should have long ago listened to congresswoman lee and inserted our constitutional power to determine when and with home our nation engages in military conflict. .his is not a partisan issue no matter who wins the presidential election in november. it is critical that the 2001 aumf be repealed so we do not continue surrendering our powers to the executive branch. there are many national security challenges around the world. we have seen repeatedly that presidents have to often relied on military responses to the challenges. the american public has made it clear that they want an end to our forever wars.
1:05 pm
adopting this amendment would bring us closer to that. supporty colleagues to the amendment. i yield back. thank you, madam chair. >> ms. granger is recognized. too, strongly oppose this amendment. it would repeal the 2001 authorization for the use of military force, 240 days after this bill is signed into law. should beiority protecting the american people. however, this amendment would undermine our national security by repealing the authority to continueed terrorist threats against the united states. aumf combatsf -- global threats from al qaeda and associated forces such as al qaeda and isis in the arabian peninsula. these groups remain a continuing
1:06 pm
threat to the u.s. and to the safety of the american people. more are few things irresponsible than removing a critical legal authority for the u.s. military operations without having an agreement on what will replace it. as secretary of defense mattis stall ourrepeal would operations, immediately reduce ally commitment and support, and create significant opportunities for our enemies to seize the initiative. this amendment would eliminate of the men and women of the armed forces to be safe. i urge a no vote. >> i rise in strong support of
1:07 pm
the amendment but forward by our colleague, barbara lee. assesses the use of military force after 240 days of the signing of this act. it encourages the congress to follow their constitutional duty and debate the use of military force. president trump has stretched the aumf to its limits. four american soldiers died years ago. when the news broke, it was the first to many members of congress or members of the public realized america was at war and northern africa. the justification for the deployment? the 2001 aumf. the 2001 aumf has become a blank check for war.
1:08 pm
the united states is deployed troops to afghanistan, iraq, somalia, libya and niger. we should not wage war unless we revisit the 2001 aumf. congress cannot stand idly by. some of the most fun metal issues facing our nation. congress must make its voice heard. it is our responsability to debate the use of military force. i urge my colleagues to support congresswoman amendment. we've done so repeatedly and in a bipartisan fashion. let's do it again. preserving our freedom and values and way of life. we owe them so much more. i yield back. mr. cole is recognized. >> thank you very much, madam
1:09 pm
chair. i want to thank my friend for offering the amendment and i think it is on the topic we ought to be talking about. while i oppose this amendment i think she makes many good points. i'm one of the people who do believe it needs to be replaced. i worked with my colleagues including my good friend in california on occasion to do that. i will add for the record i'm strangely more comfortable with this president not using military force than either the last two. he's actually done more to reduce our presence and in more -- and been more cautious than either president obama or president bush. that ought to be noted for the record. he is not the problem here. the aumf is the problem. i am working with representative craft and others to something and get is beyond this. my friend makes a good point. at the end the day, you have to replace this with something.
1:10 pm
because we do have troops deployed in the area. and it's important if legal -- if they have legal justification and authorization from being there. saying we get it done in 240 days is nice, the problem is we haven't been able to get it done in 18 years. i think it flies in the face of our own experience. this is a very difficult thing. but it doesn't change the basic reality that we need to look at this particular document. we do need to reclaim our warmaking authority. my friend has been a leader in that. i look forward to working with her as we find a way to replace what i think is a flawed authorization that went further in scope than i think any intended. in terms of giving away congressional war power to the executive branch regardless of who the president is.
1:11 pm
but find a way to recapture it in a way that's responsible and does not jeopardize the lives and safety of american troops that are performing important tasks. so i am working with another group of members, thing we would should seewe something. it may or may not be the right way, but the debate is an important debate for us to have and the reclamation of authority to the congress of the u.s. is an important thing for us to achieve. it should be accomplished in placing american troops in the field at risk and counting on us being able to come up with an appropriate authorization into hundred 40 days when we haven't -- in 240 days when we haven't been able to do it so far 19 years. -- so far in 19 years. i applaud my friend but i don't support the resolution and back my time. >> the chair has a personal
1:12 pm
plea. as the markup go along, i know the masks get uncomfortable, but i need all of you to wear them over your nose and mouth. as chair, it is my responsibility to keep you safe. if you remove the masks to speak, please put them back on. if there is no further debate, the member from california is recognized on the amendment for one minute. thank you very much. i would like to thank all the members who spoke and those supporting this amendment and those who don't support. let me just say one thing. as the daughter of a career military officer, i would never propose any amendment or any legislation that would put the lives and safety of american troops in jeopardy. secondly, the authorization to use military force was written
1:13 pm
and passed in three days. three days. thirdly, congress has been missing in action for 19 years -- and eight months is plenty of time for this body to come up with a new authorization based upon what we believe constitutes the use of military force. while we may not agree on what the replacement should look like, many of us do agree any replacement should include the scope, size, objective, and duration of any military operation. the house adopted language last summer outlined boundaries of time, scope, and geography should be to any new aumf. it's time we sunsetted repeal -- sunset and repeal this and
1:14 pm
put congress back into ensuring we do our job, because we have not in 19 years, we have been totally missing in action. vote.for an aye >> the questions on the amendment offered by the member from california. all those in favor say aye. aye. those opposed say no. no. >> i ask for recorded vote. >> a recorded vote is requested. in the opinion of the chair, and thes have it amendment is adopted. >> i ask for a recorded vote. >> a recorded vote has been requested. all those in favor, raise your hand. a sufficient number being supported of a recorded vote.
1:15 pm
the clerk will call the roll. [rollcall]
1:16 pm
1:17 pm
1:18 pm
>> on this vote, the yeas are 30, the nays are 22, the amendment is adopted. for what purpose does the member from florida rise? >> [indiscernible] on the desk. >> the clerk will read the amendment. >> i ask the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. >> the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. >> let me also add my words of respect and praise to the chairman. you mentioned you are in -- an appropriator.
1:19 pm
you are a model appropriator. hadare one that all of us the privilege of working with you would do well to try and emulate and follow, i thank you for your service to your country and your loss here is the loss to the country. -- is a loss to the country. i'm glad you are going to be moving on in doing other things. thank you for your service. i'm offering this amendment to add several provisions to the bill related to our facility at guantanamo bay, cuba. ry amendment would restore wa provisions on guantanamo that have been standard in this bill for many years. bipartisan provisions which were not included in this. these provisions would put a limitation on the transfer of remaining detainees at guantanamo bay or a foreign country or to use the department of defense funds very domestic u.s. facility or imprisonment of guantanamo detainees.
1:20 pm
or again, to carry out the closure or realignment of the facility. even though the last president planned to close the detention center, congress in a bipartisan way resisted those plans. today, only 40 terrorist remain in gitmo, but they are the worst of the worst, and that's why this president has signed an executive order reversing the previous president's executive order issued in 2009 to try and close down that military prison. the executive order notes a number of the remaining individuals are being prosecuted in military commission while others must be detained to protect against continuing significant threats as security -- to the security of the united states. in addition, the population represents the most difficult and dangerous cases, but among those historically there, there
1:21 pm
is a significant reason for concern regarding their re-engagement in hostilities should they get the opportunity. in fact, my understanding -- and i don't think anybody will doubt or correct me on this -- is that of those previously released, over 200 individuals resumed their hostility, their terrorist career. my understanding and i don't -- this is an amendment to bring back bipartisan language that has been in the bill to protect the american people from this group of individuals, this dangerous group of individuals that was there and i would ask for your favorable consideration. i yield back. >> the chair is recognized. i appreciate the gentleman's kind words and can't believe he would offer an amendment to the bill. [laughter]
1:22 pm
but reluctantly would express my opposition. i would simply note as he rightfully points out, the bill is silent on the issues that are very important to him. the trump administration was silent on this issue because they did not request that the committee include these provisions. except for the request and amendment offered by the gentleman today, in markup of this legislation, we received no written request from any member of the house to include this language in the bill. i would also point out that the trump administration has not requested a move of the detainees were suggested they will shut down the prison. the committee has no indication the administration wants to work plans to do anything about these amendments to seek to stop. the committee does fund the prison and we do have asked for language seeking to bring down the extraordinary costs in future years.
1:23 pm
each participant in guantanamo, each of those 40 individuals are costing the american taxpayers about $10 billion per year. it is a security issue, but there is a monetary issue, as well. so i would ask opposition to the gentleman's amendment. >> mr. calvert is recognized. >> i strongly support the amendment. we traveled to naval station guantanamo bay earlier this year and saw firsthand some of the challenges. and heard from the admiral and his staff, reviewing our base size and the number of personnel serving there. the detention facility opened in 2002 to hold detainees affiliated with al qaeda and the taliban. now it only holds 40 remaining hard-core terrorists. charged in connection with the
1:24 pm
september 11 terrorist attacks and the strike on the uss cole. i realize the administration did not request these revisions included in the bill. it did so not because it opposes -- not only opposes the language, but because all department of defense under every administration resists congressional limitations that reflexively seek maximum flexibility. president trump issued an executive order in 2018 reversing the prior administration's efforts to end u.s. detention operations and close guantanamo bay facility. -- close of the -- close the guantanamo bay facility. it's collected in a long-standing provision is my friend from florida seeks to put back in the bill, the executive order recognizes the inherent dangers associated with potentially putting enemy combatants back on the battlefield to threaten our forces by transferring them abroad.
1:25 pm
as the executive order states, given that some of the current detainee population represent the most difficult and dangerous cases among those historically detained at the facility, there is significant reason for concern regarding their re-engagement in hostilities should they have the opportunity. i don't think many of our friends on the other side actually want the executive branch to transfer any of the remaining terrorists, the worst of the worst, to a foreign country, where they could potentially escape and again threaten homeland security. likewise, i doubt many of our constituents support the transfer of detainees like khalid sheikh mohammed to a prison or other facility here in the united states. in that context, i would respectfully suggest it doesn't make sense for this commander -- for this committee to give a blank check to the executive branch regarding the transfer of those remaining hard-core guantanamo terrorists or close the facility there, which is why
1:26 pm
the limitations are reflected a consensus of congressional policy for nearly a decade and why i strongly support the amendment. i yield back. >> ms. wasserman schultz is recognized. >> while have i have the utmost affection for my colleague, i do oppose the amendment. it bears repeating that the president not only excluded this language from his proposed budget for the last two fiscal years, he affirmatively dropped it two fiscal years ago, and we should continue that practice. as the bill does. given what we know about the cost and efficacy of remaining in guantanamo bay, we should see it closed. the military prison was set up nearly 20 years ago and was envisioned to be a temporary holding facility. its continued existence today
1:27 pm
serves as a recruiting tool for terrorists and endangers our troops serving on foreign soil. the very existence poses a significant challenge to the human rights and due protection they give us influence abroad. the cost of the facility is not only a deficit to our national security, according to the not -- to the new york times, it costs $13 million per prisoner a year to keep. it resulted in desert convictions for accused terrorists. our system of justice works effectively. it is somewhat ludicrous to hear a suggestion that if they were transferred to the mainland and tried here in the united states, we would risk their escape. it should be utilized to prosecute heinous murders to the fullest extent of the law and we should show, as we repeatedly
1:28 pm
have, that it works. i urge a no vote on this amendment. we should close the most expensive detention program and make the united states and more just nation at the same time. i yield back. ms. granger is recognized. >> thank you. i strongly support the amendment . the remaining 40 detainees held at guantanamo bay are the worst of the worst. they are more dangerous than most people can comprehend, they are pure evil, cannot be rehabilitated, and can never be released. there is every reason to believe these detainees would reengage in executing attacks against the united states and our allies if they had the opportunity. i find it difficult to believe that any of us support the transfer of dangerous detainees such as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks to a facility in the united states.
1:29 pm
the provisions this would add to the bill are not new. two of them were in the house first and all were in the bill signed into law by the president. these provisions are too important to national security to just allow them to fall away. i strongly support the amendment and urge adoption. >> if there is no further debate, the member from florida -- >> dr. harris seeks recognition. >> dr. harris is recognized. >> thank you. i find it interesting the arguments against it is that this administration has not requested it or does not intend to pursue this policy for getting there is an election coming up. -- getting that there is an election coming up. and that this bill, and these amendments, would be enforced by different administration
1:30 pm
-- by a different administration. this is a policy decision by congress to say, should we allow guantanamo bay to close or not? and to use an argument that could vanish in four months. again, negates the fact there could be an administration coming in and on the first day say, we are closing guantanamo bay. congress has the opportunity right now to take a position on that. i think the gentleman from florida is correct. congress should continue the position it has taken regardless of this administration's stance, because the majority of americans, i do not think, what these people in their backyard. i yield back. >> if there is no further debate, the member from florida is recognized on the amendment for one minute to close. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. let me just quote the director
1:31 pm
of national intelligence. "some detainees at gitmo will seek to reengage in insurgent activity after they are transferred. transfers to countries with ongoing conflict, as well as recruitment by insurgent and terrorist organizations, could pose an increased risk of engagement." there is no reason, no compelling reason, do not put not put thisto language in there that has been there for a long time in a bipartisan way when there is no other plan. this is to keep the american people safe. this is language that has been there before and we should put it there one more time. i ask for your consideration. i yield back. >> the question is on the amendment offered by the member from florida. all those in favor say aye. aye. those opposed say no. no. >> in the opinion of the chair,
1:32 pm
the no's have it. >> i ask for a roll call vote. >> a roll call vote has been requested. all those in favor of a recorded vote, raise your hand. sufficient number being in support, a recorded vote is ordered. the clerk will call the vote. [rollcall]
1:33 pm
1:34 pm
1:35 pm
1:36 pm
>> on this vote, the aye's are 24, the nays are 28. the amendment is not adopted. for what purpose does the member from california rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk will read the amendment. i ask for unanimous consent to discuss with the reading. the reading is dispensed with. the member from california is recognized for five minutes on the amendment. thank you. this amendment, once again, is simple. it would terminate the outdated, but still dangerous, authorization for the use of military force. i say outdated because the 2002 amendment no longer serves operational purpose. the u.s. military deployment and operations carried out under the 2002 iraqi freedom bill officially concluded in 2011.
1:37 pm
and i say dangerous, because the 2002 contains no sunset provisions, leaving this authorization on the books and allows presidents to use it for military action congress never intended to authorize. something we have already seen in prior administrations and this administration. need to send a clear message the president must seek specific authorization from congress for any use of force against iran or any country. the claim we heard earlier this year from the president, that the 2002 aumf can authorize attacks against iran, has no basis in reality. the house is already voted twice to repeal this. -- the house has already voted twice to repeal this. we cannot afford to leave outdated aumf in place definitely. it is past time for congress to
1:38 pm
do our constitutional duty and and exercise our congressional responsibility and vote on matters of war and peace. i ask for a aye vote. mr. visclosky. >> i support the amendment as she pointed out in her remarks. in october, 2011, president obama confirmed all u.s. combat troops would withdraw from iraq after negotiations. nevertheless, nine years later the authorization, despite the secession of hostilities, continues to be used. it is time for the repeal. i support the gentlewoman's amendment. >> mr. calvert is recognized. >> thank you. i strongly oppose this amendment. although the threat posed by saddam hussein's regime was the initial focus of the act the united states has relied on this
1:39 pm
2002 aumf to authorize use of force to support a stable, democratic iraq and address militia groups and terrorists that posed threats after the fall of saddam hussein. although the physical caliphate of isis has been destroyed, the organization remains a threat and the u.s. forces remain in country to support the enduring defeat of isis. in addition, iran has remained a malign presence and during the -- in the region. and during the iraq war, used iranian militia to attack and kill u.s. troops. according to general mackenzie, since may of 2009, they have attacked diplomatic targets dozens of times. including a seizure of the embassy in baghdad. they conducted scores of unmanned aerial system
1:40 pm
reconnaissance flights near u.s. and iraqi security forces. enables us to protect our servicemen and women in iraq not only through self-defense, but pursuit of terrorists that should not be repealed without being simultaneously replenished by an updated authority. as the pentagon's general counsel reminds us, use of force under the 2002 aumf was not solely adjusted saddam hussein, but threats to the united states posed by militia, terrorist groups, and other armed groups in iraq. the obama administration invoked the 2002 and 2001 aumf's for conducting military operations against isis in iraq and operations in syria. repealing the 2002 aumf with no
1:41 pm
replacement would only embolden iran and support ambitions in iraq and undercut efforts by our military and the president to safeguard our national security. there may be a case to update the 2002 aumf. this seems to be more about partisan point scoring. i therefore oppose this amendment and urges defeat. -- and i urge its defeat. i yield back. >> mr. quigley is recognized. >> i think the simplest response to those who who respectfully say we have nothing to replace these is we never do anything here unless we are absolutely, positively, forced to do it. so in, what, 18 or 19 years we have not done it with most of these?
1:42 pm
i think this amendment makes sense, because, hopefully, it will absolutely force us to finally face this issue and do something that we should have done a long time ago. thank you. >> ms. granger is recognized. >> i strongly oppose the amendment. this amendment would repeal the 2002 authorization of military has helped, which protect military servicemembers. iran has continually used militias to attack u.s. forces, killing hundreds of servicemembers, troops targeted repeatedly in recent months. we should not repeal this authority unless we agree a new -- agree on a new aumf that will allow us to combat them effectively. repealing the 2002 aumf will send the wrong symbol to iraq.
1:43 pm
-- signal to iran and iraq. it will undercut the efforts of the administration to keep america safe. it may be time for a serious bipartisan discussion about modernizing the aumf. it is not likely to occur this year. i strongly oppose the amendment. itsge it's defeat -- defeat. >> if there is no further debate, the member from california is recognized on the amendment for one minute to close. >> thank you, madam chair. this is not about this is not about scoring any partisan points. the war in iraq officially ended in 2011. the war in iran was based on the notion that there were weapons of mass destruction, which of course, we knew were not there. this congress authorized it anyway.
1:44 pm
when you talk about a replacement for the iraq resolution, for a war against iraq, a replacement should be debated and updated based on the wars this congress believes are authorized or should be authorized. we need to assert our article one responsibility to define when and how her country goes to war. we have been to war with iraq. that is what the 2002 authorization authorized. for the life of me, it does not make any sense to continue to keep this authorization on the books. it is over. it concluded in 2011. it was called operation iraqi freedom. i asked for a aye vote.
1:45 pm
-- i ask for an aye vote. i want to remind members, before i continue, that we will break for food at 1:00. the question is on the amendment offered by the member from california. all those in favor say aye. aye. those opposed say no. no. in the opinion of the chair, the have it, and the amendment is adopted. for what purpose does the member from maryland rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will read the amendment. >> i move to waive the reading. >> without objection, the reading is dispensed with. the member from maryland is recognized for five minutes on the amendment. >> thank you, madam chair.
1:46 pm
this amendment, part of it, is similar to last year, but the situation has changed greatly since last year and needs to be expressed again. you know, the problem is a lot of drugs move across our southern border and an article in the los angeles times, september 1, 2019, subsequent to the last time we discussed this, , "traffickers embrace fentanyl." if you look at the statistics it says, in 2018, and it has gotten worse, more than 31,000 died after taking fentanyl or a close chemical relative, according to the cdc. no other modern drug has killed more people in a year. we are talking about fentanyl. fentanyl started appearing on u.s. streets in significant quantities in 2013.
1:47 pm
most of it, produced in china and shipped in the mail. but then, officials say -- this is almost a year ago today -- officials say the majority is smuggled from mexico where it is remaking the drug trade as traffic is embrace it over heroin, which is more difficult and expensive to produce. if you talk about profitability, it costs $32,000 to produce one kilogram of fentanyl, and that 2.2 pounds can manufacture one million pills with a street value of $20 million. this drug trade has to be stopped. it is killing tens of thousands of americans, and most of it comes from mexico. let's move to the amendment. the amendment does two things. it strikes section 8134 and 8136.
1:48 pm
i will remind the committee, when i spoke on the gentleman from florida's amendment, we are actually discussing a fiscal year constraint. not just president trump. it could be a different president after january, and i question why we would want to tie the next administration's hands with 8134 and 8136. because 8134 does not just prohibit a wall, it prohibits any funds on border security infrastructure. border security infrastructure involvede the dod is -- that is by statute. border security infrastructure could include things like roads, lights, or things that the port of entry, because this is anywhere along the southern border. the gentleman from texas made the point that fentanyl crosses
1:49 pm
the point of entry. section 8134 says the dod cannot do anything at a port of entry. not only this administration, but a future administration because eight months of this bill will pertain to the mr. -- to the next administration. section 8136 says you cannot use the national guard on the border. it does not say for immigration purposes. it just says you cannot use them. that means you cannot use them for drug interdiction at the border. why in the world, when we are in the midst of a horrendous fentanyl epidemic, why would we want to tie anyone's hands on drug addiction? -- drug interdiction? some people do not like this president. i get it, but this bill may not pertain just to this president. it might pertain to a different president. that president coming into office could say, i do care about the fentanyl issue and may
1:50 pm
the -- and maybe by then, the passage across the border has gotten worse, and the president says, i am going to throw everything added. -- everything at it. i am going to do border infrastructure. i do not believe in walls, but i believe in lights and roads. i believe the national interest is benefited by putting national guard on that border to stop every single milligram of fentanyl from crossing the border, because it is so profitable and so deadly. sections 8134 and 8136 tie the president's hands on doing that. they tie the president's hands to fight a war on drugs by whatever means they feel is necessary. i would urge the committee to seriously consider removing sections 8134 and 8136. they are too broadly written, they go far beyond the wall, and
1:51 pm
they could impede our ability to stop the war on fentanyl. i yield back. >> mr. visclosky. >> i appreciate the sentiment and could not disagree we have a drug problem in the united states of america. however, i am opposed to the amendment for several reasons. one, if congress voted to use defense money to build a wall any place, that would be a -- that would not be an unconstitutional act. article one section nine says no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but a consequence of appropriations made by law. the fact is, after those laws were signed by the president of the united states twice this administration, i believe, illegally transfer those funds that were not enumerated by congress for a wall.
1:52 pm
recently, there was a federal appeals court that ruled last month the administration did not have that authority. i would point out to my colleagues, there is nothing in this bill that prohibits the administration from building a wall any place. what we are saying is, you cannot use dedicated defense dollars to do so. the gentleman also indicates the guard cannot be deployed to the border. we say in the bill that you have to reimburse the guard if they are deployed and that is a long-standing tradition. if the guard is deployed in a national emergency, under fema, for example, they are reimbursed. under covid, they are reimbursed. they should be reimbursed if they are deployed to the border.
1:53 pm
that is all we are saying. we have dedicated defense dollars that should not be used for unintended purposes, and i would oppose the amendment. >> mr. calvert is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman. i strongly support the amendment which would strike sections 8134 and 8136. i have the greatest respect for the chairman. he has been a great leader in crafting the bill, but i disagree on sections 8134 and 8136, which prohibit the use of funds to construct a wall, fence, border, barrier, or infrastructure along the southern border, and limit the department ability to provide assistance to other agencies and drug smuggling corridors along the border. i yield back. i speak against the amendment. with all due respect to my friend from maryland, let me
1:54 pm
give you some of the reasons why. again, i live at the border. i do not just visit. i am familiar with the situation down there and what we are seeing. again, i want to emphasize that last week, the president of mexico was at the white house -- and we know what the president had promised. walle going to build this and have mexico pay for the wall. i did not hear the spanish word for, "where's the check?" from the mexican president. i believe in private property rights, and i want to make sure we understand the facts here. first, we have had a wall that even the wind knocked down. i think it was in central california, madam chair, an agent said the wall had not been set correctly.
1:55 pm
so there are issues with the wall itself. but let me give you the facts on two things. let me first talk about how people come across, and then i will talk about the drugs. if you look at how people come across, i would say for the last 10 years, the primary mode of entry of the undocumented population into the united states have been visa over stays. if you look at this, you will see dhs numbers from 2016 to 2017, the people who overstayed their visa accounted for 62% of the newly undocumented immigrants. so they are totally coming across the river.
1:56 pm
they are coming in through visa over stays. and it is not central america, it is canada. canada itself. let's talk about drugs. i certainly want to see more border patrol. i want to see technology. i want to make sure that we stop the trucks coming in. but again, i'm not quoting a newspaper, but the official numbers from ccp. looking at what comes in between ports of entry, what comes through the ports of entry. if you look at the drugs that have come in, you will see in fy of the cocaine -- 89% to thecocaine that came u.s. came in through ports of
1:57 pm
entry. if you look at the heroin, 84% came through ports of entry. if you look at what you have been emphasizing, 95% came through ports of entry. -- 92% of the fentanyl came through ports of entry. i emphasize, 92% of the fentanyl you keep talking about has come in through ports of entry. we want to stop all the drugs coming in, whether they are from mexico, china, or india. 92% has come in. when you look at meth, 81% has come through ports of entry. so, yes, i want to make sure att we have law and order
1:58 pm
the border, but looking at fbi statistics, i could pick almost any city in maryland and tell you that the border cities are safer than almost any city in maryland. i can venture that safely. i want to make sure we have law and order at the border. i want to make sure we stop the drugs, but if we are going to put resources -- and we will have a chance tomorrow on homeland -- that we put it where it belongs. 92% of the fentanyl coming into the united states comes through ports of entry. not in between. so again, with all due respect to my friend from maryland, those are the facts. don't want to confuse anybody with the facts. but we need to make sure we do this correctly. i want to make sure we stop drugs from coming in, but let us do it in the right way. for those reasons, i oppose, with all due respect, the amendment. >> ms. -- >> ms. granger is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. i strongly support the amendment.
1:59 pm
the appropriations bills we are considering must be enacted into law. writers like this make it more difficult for congress to get their work done. i have been to the border countless times and seen firsthand the important impact the wall is having. if members are focused on securing our border and not on political messaging, i think we can all agree on what has been accomplished. as of last week, 229 miles of new border wall system have been completed. customs and border protection officials have confirmed that the wall stops most border crossings in areas where it is built. it is also dramatically slowing down those who attempt to get around it, allowing agents more time to respond. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and i yield back. >> ms. herrera-butler is recognized. >> thank you. everybody here probably has a
2:00 pm
lock on their door, if not a fence, and we lock it to protect -- to choose who comes and goes. i don't understand any objection whatsoever to construction of a wall or boundary barriers. i definitely support the gentleman's amendment. i would like to yield the rest of my time to dr. harris. chair lowey: dr. harris is recognized. >> thank you for yielding, but i don't think a minute is going to be enough to address with the gentleman from texas said. my entire point is not about a wall. reading of the clear the language of section 81-34 and 81-36, for instance, affects ports of entry. it is clear reading. it says border security infrastructure along the southern land border of the u.s.
2:01 pm
those ports of entry are on the southern land border. 81-36 says no funds made available to be used for members of armed services for active duty supportive security or immigration at the southern border. that includes ports of entry. my argument is that those who are fixated on stopping this administration from building a wall should have left it at that. but it didn't. this language is far broader than that. -- thects any ability chairman of the subcommittee did not mention that it clearly sets up the dod has one of the drug enforcement agents in the united states. clearly, under congressional authority, the dod can spend
2:02 pm
money to stop drugs. the problem is that section 81-34 and 81-30 six go after that authority as well. not only building a wall, but the authority to spend money for instance, the national guard. it is a bridge too far. 92% of drugs coming to ports of entry. why would you want to tie the hands of the department of defense to help in the war on drugs at the ports of entry? why? i agree. this is a horrendous war. we can mention methamphetamine, whatever, but mexico is the leading source of fentanyl. peoplel killed 32,000 two years ago, maybe 40,000 this year. most of it comes across the border. i understand the zeal in stopping this president from building a wall, but why would
2:03 pm
you tie the president's hands on other means of drug interdiction and more importantly, the next president potentially. this bill extends through the entire fiscal year. i yield back. chair lowey: miss wasserman-schultz is recognized. rep. wasserman-schultz: thank you. i rise in opposition. this would strike 8134 and 8136 as subscribed and they are important for holding this administration accountable and using our military and responsible way. the section would establish a prohibition on the use of funds on this bill for the construction of any unnecessary and ridiculous border wall as the president is trying to do. the president has siphoned billions of dollars from the military to attempt to build the border wall and these were appropriated for uses that were requested by the military services. enough is enough.
2:04 pm
as an appropriater, i am tired of this president moving funds around as he sees fit, ignoring the article one branch of government. we cannot continue to let the executive branch usurp our protected authority over spending taxpayer dollars. it is time to reassert authority and to get back from a rampant executive that is run amok. if not, we will look back and regret it. it would also strike 8136 which would prohibit armed forces from serving on active duty in support of immigration enforcement. unless the secretary of defense enters an agreement with the requesting agency to reimburse cost incurred by dod. i do not believe we should be militarizing our border. i believe our troops time, effort, and resources could be better spent elsewhere because
2:05 pm
they are needed for true military purposes. guarding a border with mexico is not. we have a border patrol that is responsible, by definition, for that purpose and we get into dangerous territory when we allow the administration to use the military for law enforcement or in pursuit of a politically motivated stunt that is only meant to excite the president's xenophobic state. there is no emergency on the southern border and no need for troops. dod should be reimbursed for the help it provides for the homeland security which does not occur now. these provisions should not be stricken from the bill and i encourage the committee to vote against it. i yield back. chair lowey: if there is no further debate, the member from maryland is recognized on the amendment for one minute to close. >> thank you. i will be brief. there is an emergency on the southern border. fentanyl is flowing across it and killing tens of thousands of americans every single year.
2:06 pm
if that is not an emergency, i do not know what is. i do not understand why 8136 and 8134 were not drafted more narrowly to prevent only wall funding, not to prevent spending on drug interdiction at the southern border either through border security infrastructure in 8134 or with the use of national guard, if necessary, under 8136. i yield back. chair lowey: the question is on the amendment offered by the member from maryland. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed say no. >> no. >> the no's have it. the amendment is not adopted. vote has been asked for. all those in favor, raise your hand. a sufficient number being in support. the clerk will call the roll.
2:07 pm
>> mr. aderholt, aye. mr. aguilar, no. mr. amodei, aye. mr. bishop, no. mrs. bustos, no. mr. calvert, aye. mr. carter, aye. mr. cartwright, no. mr. case, no. ms. clark, no. mr. crist, no. ms. delauro, no. mr. fleischmann, aye. mr. fortenberry, aye. ms. frankel, no. ms. granger, aye.
2:08 pm
mr. graves, aye. dr. harris, aye. ms. herrera-butler, aye. mr. hurd, no. mr. joyce, aye. ms. kaptur, no. mr. kellner, no. ms. kirkpatrick, no. ms. lawrence, no. ms. lee, no. ms. lowey, no. ms. mccollum, no. mr. moolenarr, aye. mr. palazzo, aye. ms. pingree, aye. mr. rutherford, no. mr. serrano, no. mr. simpson, aye. mr. stewart, aye.
2:09 pm
ms. torres, no. mr. visclosky, no. ms. wasserman schultz, no. mrs. watson-coleman, no. mr. womack, aye.
2:10 pm
chair lowey: on this vote, the amendment is not adopted. for what purpose does the member
2:11 pm
from illinois rise? a reading at the desk. i wish to dispense with the reading of the ammendment. chair lowey: the clerk will read the amendment -- oh. the reading is dispensed with. >> i will offer and withdraw this an attempt to increase funding in conference. and i want to thank mr. visclosky and majority and minority staff working with me and my staff towards that end and provided the commitment to work on this as we move forward through the process. chairman visclosky, they have said wonderful things about you based on you being from indiana. once a hoosier, always a hoosier, and i was born there as well. thank you for your service. yesterday, representative fortenberry talked about als. he has been a bipartisan partner and continues his efforts.
2:12 pm
as many of my fellow appropriators are members of the als caucus the bill before us today includes funding for many important congressionally directed medical research. i support this, however, the als line has been historically underfunded for decades despite als disproportionately impacting our military and veteran communities. last year we worked with the chair and under his leadership were able to double the research funding from $10 million to $20 million. we are very grateful for that increase.
2:13 pm
considering context, $20 million to help cure als is simply not enough. while i was eager to double this budget adding $20 million in an effort for more parity across research communities, the amendment would increase funding by $5 million. the current als program at dod has laid out a strategic plan that is working exceptionally well and has worthy research that can support funding for up to $40 million. the program is bridging basic research and clinical trials that support the war fighter and additional funding that would help them move toward the trials they need. again, i thank the chairwoamn lowey. and further willingness to work with me going forward to secure additional funding. i would like to withdraw my amendment. chair lowey: i thank the gentleman.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on