[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 134 (Wednesday, October 1, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8271-H8278]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 1757, FOREIGN RELATIONS
AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 1998 AND 1999, AND EUROPEAN SECURITY
ACT OF 1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the motion to
instruct conferees on the bill H.R. 1757 offered by the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Doggett moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the bill, H.R. 1757, be instructed to reject
section 1601 of the Senate amendment, which provides for
payment of all private claims against the Iraqi Government
before those of U.S. veterans and the U.S. Government (i.e.,
U.S. taxpayers).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Doggett] and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield]
each will control 30 minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we limit
debate on this issue to 15 minutes per side.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I object. It has been delayed long enough
and we need the full 30 minutes as provided for in our rules.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes and 10 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the men and women of our Armed Forces gave America their
best in the gulf war against Saddam Hussein, and now these brave
veterans deserve nothing less than our best from this Congress.
Unfortunately, many of our Desert Shield and Desert Storm veterans
will never be able to forget their experience, because they have the
lingering effects of illness and disability: fatigue, muscle and joint
pain, severe headaches, and other limitations as a result of their
defense of our national interests. They call it Persian Gulf syndrome
from being exposed to biological and chemical weapons.
About 3,000 of our Desert Storm and Desert Shield veterans have filed
claims concerning the illnesses against frozen Iraqi Government assets.
Following the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990, the United States
Government froze $1.3 billion of Iraqi assets in this country. This
motion is to assure that our veterans are not forgotten with reference
to those claims.
In 1991, the U.N. Security Council resolved that Iraq is liable,
under international law, for the injury that it caused to foreign
nationals as a result of its unlawful invasion of Kuwait. The claims of
our veterans were clearly contemplated by this internationally approved
resolution.
Accordingly, in 1994, when the Democrats were in control of this
House, legislation was approved by an overwhelming majority under the
leadership of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] that
established an Iraqi claims fund and gave first preference, as we
should, to the claims of our veterans. This House went on record as
saying, we give our priority to those who sacrificed their life and
limb for the future of our Nation. Unfortunately, the Senate did not
act on this bill.
This year, 1997, the Senate has acted. The Senate version of the
State Department or foreign authorization bill, which is now pending in
conference committee, would place these same Desert Shield and Desert
Storm veterans out in the storm without one red cent being recoverable
from the frozen assets of Saddam Hussein.
This injustice is imposed on our veterans by subordinating their
claims to the separate commercial claims that existed before the war
ever took place and they made their sacrifices, claims that those who
did business with Saddam Hussein like the seven largest tobacco
companies, and undoubtedly among those enterprises that were doing
business with Saddam Hussein were some of those who provided the very
materials that were used in the war against our veterans. Who would
like to go on record supporting a provision which turns out to benefit
corporations at the expense of our soldiers? But that is exactly what
the Senate provision would do. It puts our veterans in last place with
no practical way to access the frozen assets of the Iraqis.
Fortunately, the House has not yet acceded to this outrageous demand.
Additionally, I would note that this is not only a veterans' issue,
it is a taxpayer issue. Why is it that the American taxpayer should be
placed in last place behind the claims of the tobacco companies? But
the same Helms amendment that does damage to veterans also subordinates
the rights of the American taxpayer to reclaim money owed to the United
States Government by the Iraqis.
This was first reported in a front-page story in USA Today entitled,
``Helms Bill Favors Tobacco Firms Over Vets,'' referring to the
authorization bill in conference, and recognizing that across the Hall
in this Capitol building, it is apparently possible for one person and
one person alone to deny a hearing to block individually the
appointment of an Ambassador to Mexico. But please, Members of the
House, do not allow one individual to block 3,000 vets from asserting
their claims against the Iraqi Government.
Amazingly, I say to my colleagues, this morning's AP, this very
morning, reports the author of the Helms amendment continuing,
continuing this morning to defend his total bar to our veterans and
American taxpayers against these Iraqi assets.
My motion would quite simply instruct our House conferees, who are
meeting even today, to not accede to the demands of the tobacco
companies and the other commercial claims and put those ahead of
veterans. As the National Gulf War Resource Center has told this House,
the Helms amendment, if passed, would amount to a grotesque injustice
against gulf war veterans. Let us not have that injustice.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that today we have the opportunity to
talk about very serious issues facing the American veterans. All of us
obviously support the American veterans. There is no question about
that. In this House on July 16, we passed an appropriation bill, $90.7
billion for the VA, and that was more than the Clinton administration
had asked for.
[[Page H8272]]
Of course, we want to do more than that, and there are bills pending
in the House right now that would give veterans and retirees the
opportunity to go to military bases, be treated, and have Medicare
reimburse them both at the VA and also at the military bases. In
addition to that, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs favorably
considered H.R. 2206, the Veterans Health Program Improvement Act of
1997, and it was reported out favorably. It would improve the VA's
ability to provide health care to Persian Gulf veterans by authorizing
as many as 10 VA facilities to establish demonstration projects aimed
at improving care to Gulf veterans with undiagnosed illnesses.
In addition, and this is particularly important, this bill would also
specify that Persian Gulf veterans are eligible for VA health care for
any problem related to service in the Gulf, not just those problems
that may be linked to exposure to toxic substances or environmental
hazards.
One of the great histories of our country is that we have been always
supportive of our veterans. I also represent a district that has over
30,000 veterans, and Fort Campbell, home of the 101st Airborne, is in
my district.
But I rise today in opposition to this amendment for many reasons.
First of all, even if the amendment is adopted, it is not going to mean
one thing for the American veteran. They will not receive one benefit,
even if the amendment of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] is
adopted. So let us look at the facts of this case, and of course we all
want to be emotional about veterans' issues, because they have
dedicated their lives, and they have sacrificed for this country.
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts here. We are talking about
establishing a mechanism so that money frozen in Iraqi assets after the
Persian Gulf War or at the start of it, $1.2 billion, which has been
sitting in a fund, untouched by anyone, since 1990, would be given back
to individuals and companies who provided commerce to Iraq. Many of
these were small businesses. Many of them have gone bankrupt, and there
are over 813 individuals who also are asking to be reimbursed for their
expenditures and their losses.
Now, if we do not adopt section 1601 as a part of this legislation,
if the conferees kick it out, then in essence what is going to happen
is nothing. The money is still going to be there, the veterans still
are not going to be able to get to it, and let me also say this: The
argument has been made that if we do not allow private claims to go
over the Government claims, then the veterans somehow are going to get
all of this money. But if we look at the Treasury Department's
statement on this and the document that they provided, all of the
claims, there is only $1.2 billion, and the priority for reimbursement
by this administration is not the veteran, but it is the Commodity
Credit Corporation of America. It is OPEC, it is the Export-Import
Bank.
So this is not about veterans, this is not about tobacco companies,
but I would commend the gentleman for his ability to cloud the issue.
We do not want to mislead the veterans and make them think that they
are going to get something that they are not going to get, because even
if his motion is adopted, even if the conferees agree to it, it does
not change anything about the veterans' ability to get any of this
money that belongs to small businesses, large businesses, and
individuals who did business.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman saying this
issue should be based on the facts. Did I understand the gentleman
correctly to say that the veterans' programs were appropriated $90
billion this year?
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, $90.7 billion.
Mr. EDWARDS. $90 billion this year?
Mr. WHITFIELD. Right, for 1998.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman were off by a factor of
about $40 billion to $50 billion, would he agree that his facts were
not correct? Because I know he would not want to mislead the veterans
and make them think they are going to get something they are not going
to get.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me say this. I
looked at the Congressional Quarterly this morning, and the figure that
I saw set out in there was $90.7 billion for the VA. If the gentleman
is saying that I am wrong, and I am wrong, then I would apologize about
that.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield further, I
know it was not intentional, but I appreciate the gentleman saying that
we should not make veterans think they are going to get something that
they are not going to get. Last year the appropriation was in the
approximate range of $37 billion. If they receive $90 billion this
year, I want to commend the chairman of the VA appropriations
subcommittee and the chairman of the authorizing committee for their
tremendous work on behalf of the veterans.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time once again, I would
just say this to the gentleman. I would be happy to look this up and I
will get back to the gentleman on it, because I do not want to mislead
anybody on the amount of money available, and of course whatever is
available is really not enough for veterans, but in trying to balance
all of the demands on the taxpayer dollars, we have a great difficulty.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
The gentleman who claims to represent so many veterans, while at the
same time opposing an amendment in their vital interest, should have
his facts correct. There is no reason why veterans should not be able
to access this money and the conference committee able to adjust the
differences under this instruction.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. McHale], a member of this body who serves on the Committee on
National Security, who had the courage to resign his seat in the
Pennsylvania House to serve our country in the gulf war, who is a
marine and remains active not only as a veteran of that war, but as a
colonel in the Marine Reserve.
{time} 1030
Mr. McHALE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for the
promotion. It is lieutenant colonel, not colonel. There are many fine
reasons why it will never be colonel.
Mr. Speaker, beginning in August, 1990, our Nation deployed 540,000
men and women in uniform to the Persian Gulf. They answered the call to
service. Of those who answered that call, 211 did not come home, 357
were wounded, for a total of approximately 550 casualties during the
course of that war.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as the gentleman from Texas indicated, as
a veteran of that war to urge strong support for the Doggett motion.
In addition to those who were wounded and killed in that war, we now
recognize that as many as 100,000 of our forces may have been exposed
to nerve gas. And, finally, there are currently 28,000 gulf war
veterans receiving disability compensation.
I listened to the comments from the gentleman who spoke earlier in
defense of the tobacco interests and other commercial activities, and I
appreciate the defense that he has to raise. But I am holding in my
hand an article from the September 10 issue of USA Today, which
headline reads, in part, ``Bill favors tobacco firms over vets.''
Mr. Speaker, USA Today got it right. Tobacco firms over vets. We can
reverse that priority today Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of
the Doggett motion. That motion would simply instruct the conferees on
the foreign relations authorization bill to strike section 1601, which
very clearly and intentionally places our veterans in line behind the
tobacco interests in making claim on the $1.2 billion fund that is
available for compensation.
Mr. Speaker, the two largest groups of claimants against the Iraqi
funds are the tobacco companies and our veterans. I once stood in a
chow line in northern Saudi Arabia and looked at the helmet of the
marine who was in front of me and it said, ``It's not about oil.'' I
would say today, Mr. Speaker, it is about tobacco.
There are 3,000 gulf war veterans who have indicated formally that
they wish to pursue a claim against this again. In 1991 we needed the
help of our men and women in our Nation's uniform. Today they need
ours.
[[Page H8273]]
Mr. Speaker, the tobacco industry sells $49 billion worth of tobacco
products each year, generating profits of approximately $7 billion,
thereby continuing the single greatest cause of preventable death in
the United States. Four hundred thousand graves dug each year by the
tobacco industry. How dare we tell our brave men and women in uniform
that they must stand in line behind the tobacco profiteers. That is
outrageous. Shame on this body if we allow that to happen.
Mr. Speaker, this measure was surreptitiously inserted in the bill in
the Senate. The Doggett motion simply says to our conferees: Remove
that provision. Stand by our men and women in uniform.
Based on that principle, and frankly the tremendous moral obligation
that I feel toward my fellow veterans of that war, I urge on both sides
of the aisle overwhelming support for the Doggett motion.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to point out that there are
over 400 companies that have claims against these funds that the Iraqi
Government owed money to. There are over 832 individuals. In addition
to that, there were many Government agencies.
This is not a debate about tobacco. Now, I know that in this Congress
tobacco is not in favor, and I respect that. But this is not about
tobacco. This is about a process to free up Iraqi funds to small
businesses, large businesses, and individuals who are owed the money
for services provided. Many of them have gone bankrupt.
The largest claimant is the Commodity Credit Corporation for $900
million. Now, if we paid the Commodity Credit Corporation $900 million,
there is only $1.2 billion in the fund and no one else would even be
considered.
Now, I would also like to point out, not that I am here to defend
anyone in the Senate, but I do respect the body, and I respect the
Members. They were all elected like we are. But there has been the
impression left today that this was some sinister move by the senior
citizen, or the senior Senator and citizen from North Carolina. I would
like to point out to the body that this legislation was first proposed
in 1993, and some of the cosponsors were Senator Robb, a Democrat from
Virginia, Senator Patty Murray from Washington State, and others.
Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here dated September 29, 1997, from
Chuck Robb and Chuck Hagel, both in the U.S. Senate, saying that they
support this section 1601.
Mr. Speaker, if this were really an issue about veterans, of course
we all would be there, we would want to help veterans. But the bottom
line is there is not any way they are going to get any of this money,
unless this body takes up the measure again and tries to go forward
with it, and there has been no effort to do that by anyone.
But simply adopting the amendment of the gentleman from Texas does
not do anything except put us back where we are with Iraqi funds frozen
and many small businesses, many individuals, sitting there without
being reimbursed.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Skelton], a leading member of our Committee on National
Security, a strong defender of our national defense, and someone who
has indicated deep personal and professional commitment to our service
men and women.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield]
spoke about us clouding an issue. This issue is not clouded. It is as
clear as day.
The purpose of our military in this country is to protect our
freedoms and to protect American interests. Today I speak for the
veterans, I speak for those in uniform, I speak for the military who
fought for America against Saddam Hussein and against Iraq. Some of
those Americans died. Some were injured. Some came home very, very sick
and still suffer as a result of toxics obtained in that area and from
that war.
What kind of a message are we sending the troops that now stand guard
in Macedonia, in Korea, Ft. Leonard Wood, anywhere else around the
world, if we do not adopt this resolution unanimously? That is what I
call upon us to do.
We should not put business interests ahead of those who fought for
and sacrificed for our country, whether those business interests be
tobacco or otherwise. Our American military should come first. It is up
to the Congress under the Constitution to raise and maintain the
military. I stand by them. Let us work with them. Let us support them.
This is an opportunity to do just that.
Mr. Speaker, I heard in testimony in our committee some of these
young soldiers who were suffering from what is known as gulf war
syndrome. Not just fatigue. Some had deformed limbs, some had scars on
their bodies, very difficult anxiety that they are going through.
I say this, Mr. Speaker, let us look at those veterans and listen to
those veterans and then cast our vote in favor of them. They deserve no
less.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Skelton] and we know that he has been a defender throughout his career,
not only of the active military, but also those retired and veterans
everywhere, and I commend the gentleman for that.
I would also like to point out, however, that during the
consideration of this, the Disabled American Veterans testified
relating to this issue, and I would just like to read a statement that
they made. In fact, the statement was made by Mr. Violante, who was
representing the Disabled American Veterans.
``While the DAV is certainly supportive of the principle of ensuring
that there is just compensation for any damages or injuries received by
a veteran or his or her family as a result of the war in the Persian
Gulf, we are very concerned about the precedent established here. In
recent history, veterans have always been cared for by the VA
(previously Veterans' Administration, currently the Department of
Veterans Affairs) with respect to the injuries received in services to
their country.''
And that is true. That is the obligation of VA. That is the
obligation of this Congress to provide adequate funding to take care of
them. And then he goes on to say, ``However, the Iraqi claims
legislation establishes a procedure whereby veterans could be
compensated directly from the assets of the `foreign enemy' government.
This precedent could have far-reaching ramifications which could
adversely impact upon the current VA system.''
Mr. Speaker, it would be a first time that we have reacted in this
type of way. We know that the U.S.S. Stark, which there were injuries
and death on the U.S.S. Stark before the start of the Persian gulf war,
the Iraqi Government agreed to compensate in that incidence and those
people were compensated. Their families were compensated.
But I would simply point out that there are veterans and members of
veterans groups who are very concerned about the new direction that we
are moving off here, diverting responsibility away from this government
into the hands of some foreign power that we have defeated in a
military endeavor.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Kentucky is referring to testimony
given in 1994. This Congress made it clear that in no way would the
right to claim against Saddam Hussein's assets interfere with the right
of every veteran to the rights assured under the Veterans
Administration, which were preserved. The Veterans of Foreign Wars took
exactly the opposite direction.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney], a Member of this body who has expressed
significant concerns on behalf of our veterans, some 67,000 that he
represents in Massachusetts.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Doggett] for drawing to the attention of the House this serious matter.
I also acknowledge the interest of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr.
Whitfield], our colleague across the
[[Page H8274]]
aisle, and his concern for the veterans and want to draw a distinction
between the legitimate claims our veterans have to health care services
within the system and within the processes, and a separate matter of
having a legal claim for wrongs and injustices done to them when Iraq
violated international law.
Mr. Speaker, I think people need to know the distinction we are
talking about here is $1.3 billion in assets frozen when Iraq entered
into Kuwait, and those assets are there and available now. The U.S.
Government has them for claims by people who feel they are legitimately
pursuing some injustice to them, whether it be a contractual matter or
personal injury.
What we stand to see happen over in the Senate and now in the
conference committee is that veterans would be precluded from pushing
their claims, but other corporations and other entities, in particular
tobacco companies, would be allowed to exclude the veterans and go
forward with their claims.
Mr. Speaker, what this particular resolution on behalf of my
colleague from Texas says is that the veterans will at least have the
ability to put forward their claims to stand there with the others and
make their case for the wrongs that were done to them.
We have to remember that these were violations of international law
that people are suffering from problems that have manifested
themselves, sometimes very much later after their service was done.
Veterans in my district and throughout this country have the continuing
feeling that sometimes their concerns are lost. This is one way of
assuring that they are given equal footing and a right to pursue the
claims that they have.
{time} 1045
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to point out that under existing law that is there
today, veterans are precluded from pursuing any of this. As you know,
there is a United Nations Commission with funds available and the U.S.
Government has made claims against it but has never made any claims on
behalf of veterans. As I said earlier, even if we adopt the gentleman's
amendment from Texas, it is not going to make any difference.
My whole point is, of course, we all support veterans. But this
amendment does nothing. If it eliminates it, all we are is where we
began; that is, the money is still frozen. It is not going to be
distributed to anyone.
What about the fact of this? In America, America was built on the
free enterprise system where people went out and earned money and they
worked hard and they were either successful or they were not
successful. But as I said, we have 813 individuals; we have various
commercial enterprises who did business; they are owed the money. In
many ways, it is their money. They are going to be denied any
opportunity of getting it.
Under section 601, there is a procedure for private claims with the
Commission and then there is a procedure for the Government. As I said
earlier, even if the Government makes the claim on behalf of veterans,
they have already prioritized it in such a way that the Commodity
Credit Corp., OPIC, and Eximbank would get the money first, leaving the
veterans without anything.
That is why I think we need to do everything we can, as I said
earlier, to support these bills reported out by the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs that would address in a real way some of the problems
of Persian Gulf syndrome. These bills provide real relief, not
imaginary relief.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Evans]. I can think of no one better able to respond
about the Committee on Veterans' Affairs than the ranking member.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Doggett
motion to instruct conferees concerning H.R. 1757, the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act.
It is very clear that our Senate colleagues, in this Helms amendment,
have established an Iraqi claims fund to provide a means to handle
conflicting claims for frozen Iraqi assets stemming from the Persian
Gulf war. Among those who have filed claims for such frozen assets are
gulf war veterans and tobacco companies. In determining who has
priority to such claims, the Helms amendment would give preference to
private corporate interests, such as tobacco companies, over our
veterans.
It is inconceivable that Americans would support such priorities at
the expense of our Nation's veterans. We should instruct the conferees
to reject the Helms amendment to the foreign relations bill. Many
veterans who served our Nation during that conflict have been afflicted
with undiagnosed illnesses that many people call Persian Gulf syndrome
since they returned home.
As forcefully stated by veterans service organizations and veterans
advocates, this ill-conceived provision which pits gulf war veterans
against tobacco would add insult to the illnesses many veterans contend
with daily.
To suggest we have done enough to help those veterans of that war
with the problems that they are facing I think is to ignore the facts.
Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, I am afraid to
say, we have not done enough for our Persian Gulf veterans.
Having access to these assets, perhaps as a result of a class action
suit, the same way that Vietnam veterans sued the chemical companies
dealing with the agent orange issue, is something that could be a real
possibility for these veterans to obtain assistance they have not
received from the Federal Government under those Democratic or
Republican administrations.
While I have supported the legislation that has dealt in small part
with the Persian Gulf veterans, I think it is woefully inadequate
today. Our Government has not honored the claims of those people who
fought and defended those people in the Persian Gulf region. This at
least offers them one other fund, one other road, one other avenue that
they can take to get the help they need.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would just say once again that of course we want the veterans to
pursue any legal remedy that they have. I know that there is an
attorney in Houston by the name of Gary Pitts who is working with a lot
of veterans to pursue claims in various ways. But the bottom line, as I
have said before, is that the money will not be there.
Let us work on real solutions to this problem. Let us get this
legislation through that I have referred to. Let us take concrete
action that will not raise false hopes for veterans, because we are
raising false hopes here. That is my whole point.
These men and women have devoted an important part of their life.
Their families have suffered. Many of them continue to suffer in the
Persian Gulf syndrome. Why should we raise false expectations over this
particular issue? We need to be involved with real solutions to this
problem.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Doggett] has 16 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr.
Whitfield] has 14\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Reyes] a new Member of this body who has already
distinguished himself as a member of the Committee on National Security
and as a representative for the many men and women at Fort Bliss, TX,
and the many veterans in the El Paso area.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the
time.
This morning I rise, regrettably, as a member of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs representing a district containing nearly 60,000
veterans and as a veteran myself, because I think it is a sad day,
indeed, when we have to debate such a clear issue as this as we are
today.
Thousands of our soldiers served honorably in the Persian Gulf and
secured freedom for that part of the world. However, this did not come
without a high cost. As we are all aware, Persian gulf war veterans
came back with undiagnosable conditions suffering
[[Page H8275]]
from a variety of ailments as a price for their service. Our country
has an obligation to these men and women who risked life and health for
the safety and security of our country and for freedom throughout the
world.
One result of the Persian Gulf war was that Iraqi assets were frozen
during the course of that conflict. These funds amounted to $1.3
billion. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which is currently in
conference, establishes the Iraqi Claims Fund which allows claims
against these frozen assets. Our veterans should not be placed in the
back of the line in making claims against these assets. A provision
provided from the Senate would put veterans behind other interested
claimants, including tobacco companies and other commercial claimants.
While commercial entities certainly must be allowed to file for
compensation, our veterans must come first, for they paid the heaviest
price.
I join today with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] and the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans] and others to stand firmly with all
veterans of this country in urging the conferees to strike the Senate
provision favoring commercial entities over veterans.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther], an advocate for veterans.
Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Doggett motion and
first want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] for his
outstanding leadership on this issue.
Specifically, I oppose the process where a provision is inserted in a
bill giving any priority to commercial interests over veterans when it
comes to these frozen Iraqi assets. This provision was inserted without
any hearings in committee or subcommittee. We recently saw, just a
couple of months ago, where a $50 billion tax break for special
interests was inserted in the budget bill, and now, just as we are in
the process of repealing that, we see this provision. These are
examples of why the American public has lost confidence in their
Government, why they are disgusted with the political process, why many
of them refuse to even vote any longer.
When I came to Congress, I promised to change the old way of doing
things and to have openness in this body. That is what this provision
is about. I urge fellow House Members to reject the old way of doing
things. Support openness in government, support ordinary Americans, and
support this motion.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Turner], another distinguished member of the Committee on
National Security, an advocate for veterans.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for his
leadership on this very important issue.
It is very clear to me that the Senate has put our veterans at the
end of the line in making their claims against the $1.3 billion fund
frozen in the gulf war. Under the Senate amendment, those who served on
the front lines will be at the back of the line when it comes to making
their claims. Veterans who courageously served in the gulf war deserve
better. Our Nation owes a debt to those veterans that we must try to
repay, and we certainly are moving in the wrong direction if we put
them at the back of the line in making their claims.
It is amazing to me that we did not even at least see the Senate give
veterans equal access to these funds but, rather, they put them at the
back of the line.
The American people have a long tradition of supporting our veterans
who have served us so courageously. I urge the Members of this body to
join in supporting this motion to instruct our conferees to give our
veterans their fair share of these funds.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Would the gentleman from Texas enter into a dialog for a moment? What
I would like to ask the gentleman is: Let us say we adopted the
amendment without anything else; is there a mechanism, would veterans
be able to get to this money?
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman raising the
question. As the gentleman well knows, to be more specific in this
motion, which is not truly an amendment, it is the Helms amendment by
Senator Helms of North Carolina that is the problem here. The House
bill does not speak to this issue. The only motion I could offer, after
consulting with the parliamentarian, was of the nature here.
I would like to have spelled out the entire mechanism for veterans
recovery, but I believe that if we instruct our conferees in this
fashion, the conference committee will be authorized to continue its
negotiations, as it is negotiating now, to give veterans first
preference, I would prefer, or at least treat them equally to the
tobacco companies. I think they have earned that. I believe that that
is the effect of this motion.
To not approve this motion, even under the statement of Senator Helms
as reported in Stars and Stripes by his explanation, we are assuring
that veterans will never recover one penny of Saddam Hussein's assets
if the Helms amendment sticks. That is why all these veterans groups
are coming out against the Helms amendment and speaking out so
vigorously against it and in favor of the motion that I am offering.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
I would just simply say that adopting this motion, as I said, does
nothing. If we go through this process, the Government continues, this
administration continues, to go by the priority that it has
established: The veterans are not going to get anything. So the
administration would have to change its position on this.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow], a woman in this body, because
there are women who fought for this country in the gulf war as well, an
outspoken advocate for veterans, especially those suffering from gulf
war syndrome.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I first would like to thank my colleague
from Texas who has brought the attention of the House to this issue
that is so critical to our veterans.
It has been said earlier today, and I feel compelled to respond, that
this body, that our Government, has always been there for the veterans.
I can assure my colleagues that the veterans in my district believe
they have to be vigilant, fighting to make sure they have VA benefits,
fighting to make sure they have the health care that they need, and
especially those who fought in the gulf war.
The families in my district, the men and women who came back exposed
chemically to illnesses that have ruined their lives, I have
individuals in my district whose health will never be the same, who
have been impacted so severely, they do not feel that their Government
has been with them. They are fighting every day.
We are making small steps forward in finally recognizing what
happened to them and creating some health care. But this amendment by
Senator Helms, the Helms language, takes us a tremendous step backward.
It says to all of those who fought, who came home sick, whose lives
have been forever changed because they served our country, that they
are at the back of the line, that tobacco companies and others are more
important.
{time} 1100
Shame on us as a Congress if we allow the Helms language to stand. I
urge my colleagues to support this very important motion.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from San
Antonio, TX, Mr. Rodriguez, a member of the Committee on National
Security, one of our new Hispanic Members who ably represents many
Hispanic veterans who made the ultimate sacrifice. And I might note,
Mr. Speaker, that our Hispanic population has contributed more
congressional honor winners than any other group in this country.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, let me first of all thank the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Doggett] for his efforts in ensuring that veterans are
prioritized as No. 1.
I have sat back and listened to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr.
[[Page H8276]]
Whitfield] indicate that it does not make any difference. If it does
not make any difference, I would ask him to reconsider and accept the
amendment and do the right thing.
I think it is unfair that as we move forward and listen to Senator
Helms and his prioritizing, there is no doubt that businesses out there
have suffered. There is no doubt that the industry and construction has
suffered, but we need to just ask one question: Who suffered the most
in the Persian Gulf? It was our veterans who were out there. They were
the ones out there on the front line. They were the ones that made the
difference. They were the ones that made it happen, and we need to be
there for them.
For us to not consider them as our first priority when we look at
that $1.2 billion is not appropriate and it is unfair. We need to make
sure that we are fair and that we are not insensitive, and so I will
ask for my colleagues' support to make sure the conference committee
takes into consideration and puts veterans No. 1.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Mr. Doggett's motion to
instruct conferees concerning H.R. 1757, the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act.
There is not enough money from the $1.2 billion Iraqi frozen assets
to pay all the claims of our citizens, businesses, and Government.
Therefore, we have to decide who should take first, and how much they
can potentially get. This is a tough decision. I recognize that many
individuals and businesses who have dealt with Iraq have faced losses
on shipments, commodities, and unpaid consulting and construction
contracts. We must ask ourselves: Among us, who paid the highest price
in the Persian Gulf war? I do not even have to leave my district to
answer--the gulf war veteran suffering from disease and illness. I can
think of several cases off the top of my head, one even involving birth
defects to a veteran's child.
The other side argues that care for veterans has traditionally been
the sole responsibility of the Government, which it is. But what do you
do when the Government does not recognize the illness as service-
connected? What do you tell the veteran whose own Government is telling
him that he or she does not have a problem? I believe that telling the
veteran that he or she will not get a chance to collect on a claim is
adding insult to injury. While our Government deliberates on whether
and how to compensate those so clearly affected by their service in the
gulf war, how can we break the bank for anyone else?
I respectfully advise the conferees to look beyond the heated and
sometimes misleading rhetoric on priorities of businesses versus
veterans. Then, I believe, they will do the right thing.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to say that I think this debate has been quite helpful today
because it has truly focused the issue of the importance of veterans to
the American people and to the sacrifices that they have made.
My purpose in having this debate today was to bring attention to this
whole process of how, as is usual in wars, they always set up these
commissions to distribute money owed to people who provided services,
and they allow governments to come in and make claims against them.
This administration and this Congress, they have not done anything in a
positive way to make sure that veterans are compensated and, as I said
before, if the Doggett amendment is adopted, it still does nothing.
So I would urge the committee and the House to work diligently on
Medicare subvention so that retirees can go to military bases and have
Medicare reimburse them, because they can provide the services more
economically. I would urge this House to allow veterans to go to VA
hospitals, as they do, and when they are reimbursed through CHAMPUS or
by private insurance, allow VA hospitals to keep that money instead of
sending it back to the general fund.
I would also urge this House to move H.R. 2206, that would improve
the VA's ability to provide health care to Persian Gulf veterans; and,
more importantly, would specify that Persian Gulf veterans are eligible
for VA health care for any problem related to service in the gulf, not
just to those problems that may be linked to exposure to toxic
substances or environmental hazards.
It is obvious to me that we all want the same thing, and I am
delighted that the gentleman from Texas raised the issue, and I would
like to say I hope that we will adopt it by unanimous consent.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 25 seconds to say that I
think this is the first time I have found a debate here maybe really
persuades an opponent, who is still opposing a measure but says we
should adopt it by unanimous consent.
I would join the gentleman in urging Speaker Gingrich to set every
measure the gentleman mentioned on this calendar. I do not understand
why Medicare subvention has not been set out here. I do not understand
why a mechanism for our gulf war veterans to make claims against Saddam
Hussein has not been put on the calendar.
I do not understand why this motion was tucked away at midnight last
night and then adjourned instead of addressed. I think our veterans
should be put first instead of last again and again by this Republican
leadership.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Haven, CT
[Ms. DeLauro], who has been an articulate spokesperson not only on the
needs of our veterans but on the tremendous dangers of nicotine
addiction.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me.
We have a responsibility as public servants. That is what our job is
here as the U.S. Government, as Democrats, as Republicans. This is not
a partisan issue. This is a national issue.
We need to reward our veterans for their brave actions and their
sacrifice. Veterans must come first. And it is very interesting this
morning to take a look at what is going on, on this floor and who is
speaking on this side of the aisle, on the Democrat side of the aisle.
The gentleman is a lone voice on the other side. Where are his
Republican colleagues to come here this morning and to talk about what
veterans have done to protect our rights and our liberties in this
country?
We stand here. We have the opportunity to serve this country because
veterans fought for this great Nation of ours. I support this motion. I
thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] for bringing it before the
House.
I oppose what the tobacco companies would be allowed to do in making
their claims before veterans in this country. It is wrong and we should
vote for the Doggett amendment.
Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas, [Mr. Chet Edwards]. We are fortunate, indeed, to have in this
body someone who represents more members of our military in a populated
area than anyone else in the world, I believe, Fort Hood, TX, the
former chair of the Veterans Health Subcommittee within the Committee
on National Security, I believe, and now on the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, sometimes silence says a lot and,
frankly, I am disappointed that out of over 200 Republican House
Members, not 1 Republican has come to the floor of this House to stand
up for veterans versus tobacco companies this morning.
Most Americans will never know a young man named Arden Cooper. He was
22 years old, fighting against the Iraqi Forces in Kuwait. He saw a
comrade of his lying in the sand wounded by Iraqi fire, and despite
murderous fire, he went to his friend's aid and put his body over that
of his comrade's in order to try to save his life. In doing so, Arden
Cooper gave his life to his friend and to his country. When he was
given a Silver Star for his bravery, his parents had to accept it
posthumously.
To me Arden Cooper represents the very best of American veterans.
Ordinary citizens, Americans, willing to fight and, if necessary, yes,
die for their country. And while not all Americans died on the sands of
Kuwait like that 22-year-old young American, many of Arden Cooper's
comrades breathe every breath today in pain because of the injuries and
the illnesses sustained in standing up to Saddam Hussein.
The choice today is very clear. It is a choice of whose side we are
on, the side of those who made profits selling cigarettes to Saddam
Hussein and his citizens, or do we want to side with those who put
their lives on the line to fight for America's freedom and stand up to
Saddam Hussein and his forces?
I am outraged that a Republican leader from the other body would be
so
[[Page H8277]]
bold as to put the interests of tobacco companies or any company ahead
of the interests of the men and women who fought, were injured, yes,
even those who died in Desert Storm. To put the interests of tobacco
companies in front of the interests of veterans is absolutely, in my
book, morally wrong. I think it is a slap in the face not only to
Desert Storm veterans but to all veterans in America who have ever
served this Nation.
The gentleman from Kentucky, and I respect his privilege to stand and
speak for the other side on this issue, but I must take objection to
his comment that we are only talking about $1.2 billion here. Well,
maybe $1.2 billion is not a whole lot to the richest tobacco companies
in the world, but to one of my constituents living in my hometown of
Waco, who lives in a tent, confined in his own bedroom because of
illnesses sustained in Desert Storm, to someone like that, a few
thousand dollars, not $1.2 billion, could be the difference between
living life in dignity and respect and just surviving.
Madam Speaker, in just a few days, on Veterans Day, Members from both
sides of the aisle will go back home and ride in Veterans Day parades.
They will give patriotic speeches thanking our veterans for their
service to our country. Well, I do not think that is good enough. It is
not good enough to just support veterans on Veterans Day or to pay
tribute to those who died on Memorial Day. We ought to stand up for our
veterans every day, and certainly we ought to stand up for them today.
I will join with any Member of this House to see that American
veterans are put at the front of the line, not the back of the line,
when it comes to claiming frozen Iraqi assets in America.
Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mrs. Emerson]. The gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Doggett] has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Members, with this motion, we probe once more the influence of the
powerful tobacco lobby on this Congress: The same tobacco companies
that begin the addiction of 3,000 children in America every day to
nicotine; the same tobacco companies that rank among the top soft money
contributors to soften up the political leadership of this Congress;
the same tobacco companies that give that soft money to produce a hard,
bad deal for the ordinary working American; the same tobacco companies
that snuck into this Congress earlier this summer and got themselves a
$50 billion tax break, masquerading under the title ``Technical
Amendments to the Small Business Job Protection Act,'' and then were so
ashamed of it, they could not find anyone to claim authorship of that
provision urged on by former Republican chair Haley Barbour.
That same group seems to have no shame, because not having gotten
enough in the past from this Congress with their audacity, they come
forward today through the senior Senator from North Carolina, and they
ask to have their claims put on top of the heroic men and women who
fought our Nation's battles in the gulf war.
The gentleman from Kentucky keeps referring to our clouding the issue
this morning. Well, my colleagues, the only cloud here is a smoke
cloud, a cloud of smoke that lingers over this Congress as long as the
tobacco industry has a stranglehold on it.
A vote for this motion is simply a vote to assure an opportunity, not
a guarantee, an opportunity for our gulf war veterans to make their
case before the commission and to have a decision rendered based on the
evidence that they are entitled to some payment for the illness and the
disability that they are suffering.
As my colleague from Texas just pointed out, $1.2 billion is probably
just pocket change to the seven largest tobacco companies that have
been blocking, since Democrats were in control of this Congress, that
have been blocking the access of our veterans to get to these funds.
Let me emphasize, contrary to what we heard from the opposition, from
the gentleman from Kentucky, that in no way does this motion interfere
with the obligation of the Federal Government to meet the needs of our
veterans. I am merely suggesting that a young veteran who suddenly
finds himself without the capacity to provide for his or her family,
cut down in his youth, ought not to have to rely solely on a Veterans
Hospital and on veterans disability payments, which often are not
adequate to meet the true needs of a family; and that that veteran
ought to have the right to say Mr. Saddam Hussein violated
international law, as the United Nations even concluded, in invading
Kuwait, and I ought to be able to get back some of the loss that my
family has suffered as a result of his violation of international law,
and my claim is every bit as legitimate as the seven tobacco companies
that sold the cigarettes that the Iraqi soldiers were smoking there in
the desert, and may still be laying around the desert somewhere, when
they dealt with Saddam Hussein before he started this war.
{time} 1115
It is my contention that these disabled veterans, as the VFW has
concluded, as the State Department has concluded, will get nothing
unless they have priority.
The front page of the ``Stars and Stripes'' magazine tells it all:
``Our veterans await the decision of this Congress, even as Senator
Helms speaks out today that he would bar every cent of their claim.''
I ask my colleagues to stand first with our gulf war veterans because
they stood first for this country. We have a simple decision on this
record vote. Stand with GI Joe, stand with GI Jane, who defended our
democracy, not Joe Camel, who continues to exploit our children.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would rise in support of my
colleague from Texas, Mr. Doggett, to instruct the conferees on the
Foreign Policy Act (H.R. 1757). Representative Doggett's motion
instructs conferees to reject a Senate provision which would position
private claims ahead of U.S. Government claimants--including gulf war
veterans--against frozen Iraqi assets. The provision authored by
Senator Helms prioritizes the claims in such a way that tobacco
companies and other commercial claimants would be paid from the fund
before our veterans.
Mr. Speaker, as a friend of veterans I must urge my colleagues to
vote in favor of Mr. Doggett's motion which would prevent any money
taken from our veterans. Many of our soldiers have been afflicted with
undiagnosed illnesses since defeating Saddam Hussen's forces in the
Persian Gulf region. The U.S. Government has a duty to take care of its
veterans. Their claims against available assets do not relieve the
Government of its obligations to veterans, but rather provide
additional compensation to veterans who have suffered at the hands of
Iraq's violations of international law.
Instead of gulf war veterans, tens of thousands of whom are ill,
Senator Helms wants those with contracts, including seven large tobacco
companies, to have priority to receive the funds. I must urge my
colleagues to reject section 1601 of the Senate amendment, which
provides for payment of all private claims against the Iraqi Government
before those of U.S. veterans and the U.S. Government.
Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, I move the previous question on the
motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the motion
to instruct offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 412,
nays 5, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 480]
YEAS--412
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
[[Page H8278]]
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
NAYS--5
Barr
Johnson, Sam
Scarborough
Stearns
Taylor (NC)
NOT VOTING--16
Bereuter
Bliley
Conyers
Fazio
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Granger
Linder
McInnis
Ros-Lehtinen
Schiff
Smith (OR)
Stokes
Visclosky
Waxman
Young (FL)
{time} 1135
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________