[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.

                          ____________________