Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 60 (Saturday, April 12, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 60 (Saturday, April 12, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H3385-H3404]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1559, EMERGENCY WARTIME SUPPLEMENTAL
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of
the House, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1559)
making emergency wartime supplemental appropriations for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the
House of today.)
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
might consume. I want to begin, Mr. Speaker, by thanking the Speaker
for all of the tremendous effort that he put into this process to let
us get to where we are today and also to the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) and especially to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer),
who played an important role in the process of getting us where we are.
Mr. Speaker, we visited with the President just a little over 2 weeks
ago, and we promised the President that we would deal with his
supplemental request to, number one, pay for the war that has already
taken place, provide additional money to fight the Iraqi Freedom
operation.
In just about three weeks, we have done that, Mr. Speaker. We have
produced the legislation in the House. Our colleagues in the Senate
produced a similar bill, although they added some extraneous material,
most of which we were able to take out in conference, but Mr. Speaker,
this conference report, I have been on this Committee on Appropriations
for a long, long time. This is probably the cleanest supplemental
conference report that this House has seen, and so I feel pretty good
about the product that we have, and we did what the President asked.
He asked for certain amounts of money for the war. He asked for
certain amounts of money for homeland defense. He asked for certain
amounts of money to deal with our colleagues in the coalition, and Mr.
Speaker, we provided that, while at the same time preserving some of
the constitutional responsibility of the Congress to be involved in the
appropriation and to have some knowledge of how the appropriation was
going to be used.
So, all in all, I think we have a great product here and over 400
Members voted for bill when it went through the House early on so I
think that we can move this bill expeditiously, get it to the
President, and then, Mr. Speaker, begin our work on the 13 regular 2004
appropriations bill.

[[Page H3386]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12AP03.001

[[Page H3387]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12AP03.002

[[Page H3388]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12AP03.003

[[Page H3389]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12AP03.004

[[Page H3390]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12AP03.005

[[Page H3391]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12AP03.006

[[Page H3392]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12AP03.007

[[Page H3393]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12AP03.008

[[Page H3394]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12AP03.009

[[Page H3395]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12AP03.010

[[Page H3396]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12AP03.011

[[Page H3397]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12AP03.012

[[Page H3398]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12AP03.013

[[Page H3399]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12AP03.014

[[Page H3400]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12AP03.015

[[Page H3401]]

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to express my gratification that we are, in fact,
here with this legislation today. Frankly, it had many shortcomings. We
fought out a lot of them on the floor earlier when the bill was first
before us, and among the most serious shortcomings, in my view, would
be what I consider to be still serious lack of funds for homeland
security, but we fought that fight and lost.
This bill is focused on other fights which I think are
institutionally just as important for the Congress.
This bill began when the administration asked for a series of blank
checks totaling almost $70 billion. The bill that is here today does
not provide the administration with those blank checks and, instead,
reintroduces them to the concept of checks and balances, and I would
like to explain how.
The administration requested total flexibility and unaccountability
for roughly $59.9 billion for the Pentagon's defense emergency response
fund. This conference report reduces that fund to $15.7 billion and
requires 5-day prior notification to the Congress before the Pentagon
can obligate any of that money. That preserves to the Congress the
right to review proposals for the spending of taxpayers' money.
The reason that is important is because almost the sole reason for
Congress' existence is so that somebody outside of that narrow circle
of people who run any administration will have an opportunity to review
the way the administration wants to spend public money and be able to
say to the administration, wait a minute, we think that is a mistake,
we want you to look at it again. That is why it was so important to
have that 5-day prior notification requirement, and I am pleased that
the conferees provided it.
Second, the administration asked for what they call an indigenous
forces fund. The President requested $150 million for the Pentagon to
support so-called indigenous forces, which are forces other than the
formal military units of a nation, in countries where the Department of
Defense felt such support would be appropriate. This conference report
eliminates that $150 million.
Third, the administration asked for what they called an allied
nations fund. In plain language, they wanted authority for the
Department of Defense to establish a new and parallel military
assistance program, parallel to that which already exists, which is
under, at least initially under the authority of the State
Department. This conference report reduces that request to $25 million,
limits it only for military counterterrorism training and requires 15-
day prior notification to Congress and requires that the Secretary of
State concur in any such obligation.

Also, the administration asked for a $2.4 billion Iraqi rebuilding
program. The President asked for $2.4 billion in money to rehabilitate
Iraq. He asked that money be directly appropriated to him for
obligation to any agency. The conference report, in contrast, provides
the money to the President but restricts it to the authorities under
the Foreign Assistance Act and designates specific agencies that can
receive direct apportionment of funds. It also requires, again, a 5-day
prior notification to Congress before that money can be obligated,
which is as it should be.
Next, the administration asked for a $1.5 billion unallocated fund
under the total control of the Secretary of Homeland Security. In other
words, they wanted us to just give them a blank check to spend a
billion and a half dollars on anything he wanted. In contrast, the
conference report reduces this to $150 million instead of a billion and
a half, and it appropriated the remaining $1.35 billion to specific
accounts within the Department of Homeland Security so that this
amounts to congressionally-determined funding rather than the agency
determining it.
Next, the conference report rejected the President's request to have
a $250 million fund under the control of the President, no questions
asked, and I think the Congress was right to do that.
Lastly, the administration requested a $500 million fund to be under
the total discretion of the Attorney General. The conference report
reduces that to $20 million and requires that the Justice Department
must make a reprogramming request to the Congress before disbursing any
funds from this account. The remaining $480 million requested for the
Justice Department, again, was specifically appropriated to other
specific accounts by the Congress, not by an anonymous agency
bureaucrat.
So I believe that for those Members, and I assume it is all of us,
for those Members who are concerned with protecting our constitutional
obligation to maintain firm control of the power of the purse, I think
that this legislation lives up to that responsibility, and I think that
Members of both parties can be highly pleased for that performance.
I have never yet met an administration that did not think that
Article I of the Constitution was not a mistake, and I think it is
helpful from time to time that the Congress remind all administrations
that we have obligations which we have to meet, also.
I would also like to take just a moment to discuss the unemployment
compensation provision in this bill. The bill provides $3.8 billion in
assistance to airlines. As Members know, I have minimum high regard for
the idea that the airline industry even constitutes an industry. In my
belief, the airline industry is composed of let-us-pretend capitalists.
Every couple years, they come to the Congress for another bailout, and
I think that instead of pretending that they are independent business
operations, I think they ought to be regulated as a publicly necessary
public utility, but they are not, and in order to keep the economy
functioning, the Congress had to provide something.
The problem was that the Congress took care of business, but they did
not take care of the workers who were losing their jobs. So we included
a provision which guarantees an additional 26 weeks in all States in
the Union for workers in the airline industry and associated
industries, at least upstream associated industries, and I think that
that again represented the minimum of economic justice that was
required.
So, in my view, this is not a perfect package. There are a number of
items that we had to accept from the Senate as part of the negotiating
process. When you negotiate in these circumstances, you are not dealing
with an empty chair. You do have people on the other side of the table,
and they do have opposite views sometimes, and we might like to not
take that into account, but we have no choice.
So there are five provisions originating in the Senate that the
committee had to accept, but we turned down far more, and I expect that
in the end there will be far more gnashing of teeth on the Senate side
of the Capitol than there will on the House side of the Capitol with
respect to the committee's disposition of those provisions.
I want to say to my Republican friends on the committee that I think
every Member of Congress can feel good about the way this conference
proceeded because it was one of the few times in recent years when I
have seen legislators able to behave like legislators rather than
politicians, and that is important.

{time} 1215

We all come here as politicians, but then we need, especially in
committee, to deal with a lot of complicated issues requiring give and
take, and it sometimes gets very heated. But I think we made decisions
which were in the public interest. They were certainly in the interest
of the Constitution.
I am sure the administration does not like the fact that we did not
give them the blank check which they requested, but they have ample
flexibility to meet their requirements under the Constitution, and we
have maintained our prerogatives. That is not important to our egos,
but it is important to the system of checks and balances that we are
sent here to preserve.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the very distinguished
majority leader, and I thank him for scheduling this bill for
consideration today.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report.

[[Page H3402]]

I rise in support of it because I want to keep an eye on the big
picture. The big picture is that we have men and women that are giving
the ultimate sacrifice and dying in Iraq. We have spent an incredible
amount of time and money bringing freedom to the Iraqi people, and the
American people support this effort. We need to support our troops, and
this bill does that. We need to support our troops and replace the
ammunition, the resources that have been expended so that we do not put
our Armed Forces in a vulnerable position.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this because I support the chairman
of the Committee on Appropriations and the ranking member. I do not
think I have ever been as proud as I am now of the Committee on
Appropriations and the chairman and the ranking member. The chairman
and the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations understood
how important this effort was. When the President of the United States
sent up his request for additional moneys to fight the war, they went
right to work and put together a package that we can all be proud of,
kept it clean and focused on the war, on homeland security, on our
responsibilities around the world in order to fight the war on
terrorism, and they brought a very good bill to this floor.
This House of Representatives passed that clean bill and sent it to
the other side of the rotunda. Now, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, in this
town, we have people that will take advantage of even a war situation
and a war supplemental. Mr. Speaker, we have people in this town that
just cannot stop their appetite for spending money.
In the other body, Mr. Speaker, in the bill that they passed, they
loaded the war supplemental, the bill that is to support our troops,
with items such as a dairy provision in California, an item such as $5
million for a communications system in Louisville, Kentucky, an item
such as a dam in Vermont, an item such as a $1 million earmark for jobs
of America's graduates in Alexandria, Virginia, an item such as
$529,000 for local law enforcement costs related to the nightclub fire
in Rhode Island, not exactly a Federal responsibility, an item such as
a land exchange in Nevada, an item such as a provision on ginseng
labeling. What does ginseng have to do with fighting the war in Iraq?
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, probably for the rest of the
afternoon, listing the items that were put in the war supplemental. Yet
our chairman and our ranking member stood up and said, this is not
going to happen. We are not going to allow this to happen and we are
going to try our best to send the President of the United States a
supplemental appropriation that supports our troops and our homeland
security. They fought into the wee hours of the night in trying to
maintain not only the integrity of the work done by the House of
Representatives, but also to provide the President with what he was
requesting.
I have to tell the Members they did an outstanding job at getting
most of this stuff out. But in the end there are two bodies and there
has to be something left because the other body just insists on having
little, parochial spending. So I have to inform the Members that there
is a provision in this bill for a lab in Ames, Iowa, that there is a
provision relating to wild seafood being deemed as organic, a provision
relating to payments to State agriculture to pay catfish farmers, a
provision related to Forest Service grazing, and some provision, I
cannot figure out, relating to an Indian school.
But that is all that we can be upset about. And we have to really
focus on what this is all about, my colleagues, and remove the appetite
of some in this body, not in this body, in this town, and understand
that the most important part about this is to support our troops and
support the war in Iraq. So I urge my Members to vote for this bill and
I urge our Members to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
this time, and I rise on behalf of those on my side of the aisle, and I
join the majority leader in urging all our Members to vote for this
piece of legislation. I stand with him also in congratulating our
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
There are no two more faithful Members to this institution than the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey). They have worked together, they have overcome disagreements
to bring to this floor a piece of legislation that deserves bipartisan
support.
There are differences, deep differences, in this body, deep
convictions held by Members on both sides of the aisle with respect to
the war and the rectitude of our action, but that is not what this bill
is about. This bill is about ensuring the support for the troops that
we have sent abroad to carry out objectives of the United States of
America and, indeed, of a large number of the international community.
We will be united in that support of our troops and united in support
of the success of that effort. We see countless Iraqis waving and
welcoming American troops to their land, and we have seen the fact that
there is also distress in that land and we want to assist, assist
quickly, the humanitarian relief and assist quickly in the rebuilding.
So on behalf of my side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, I want to
congratulate you, as well, for your leadership. Today is a day of
bipartisanship. Today is a day when we will reflect to America that we
are united in our commitment to support our troops.
There will be, Mr. Speaker, I am sure, after we pass this
legislation, a number of Members who will want to make some comments,
and we expect them to do so. It is right and proper that they do so in
this Democratic institution. But I urge all our Members, as the
majority leader has urged his Members, to support this legislation
which supports our troops, supports our effort and does so in a way, as
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed out so eloquently,
that is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
Our Founding Fathers did not draft that document by mistake. It was
their considered judgment that the collective wisdom in a democracy is
what preserved freedom, is what preserved a Nation, a free people, as
opposed to a people who would be overseen by one individual or one
small group of individuals in the executive department.
In closing, let me say that there is a picture in the Rotunda of the
Capitol of the United States. It is of particular significance to me,
as the former President of the Maryland Senate. It depicts the old
Senate Chamber in Annapolis. In that picture, George Washington on
December 23, 1783, is resigning his commission as commander in chief of
the Continental Army. My colleagues will note, when they look at that
picture, that the members of the legislature of the Continental
Congress are seated. They are seated at the request of General
Washington, so that they would indicate their superior stature to
General Washington.
Of course, at that point in time, there was no superior person to
General Washington, perhaps in the history of our country, but
certainly at that time. But it was his conviction that it was the
Representatives of the people who ought to rule. And it has been stated
over and over in this House, the people rule.
This bill preserves that principle, an important principle for
democracy.
I thank the chairman and the ranking member, I thank the Speaker on
behalf of all the Members for bringing us to this point where we can
together, as Americans, not as Democrats, not as Republicans, support
our troops, support our country.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the chairman if he is
prepared to yield back? If he is, I have just 1 minute of closing
comments and I would be happy to yield back.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman
that I have one member of the leadership, a subcommittee chairman would
like a brief period, and then I would be prepared to make a final
closing statement and yield back the time.
Mr. OBEY. So the chairman has a subcommittee chairman who wants to
make a comment?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes.
Mr. OBEY. In that case, we will have a subcommittee ranking member
who

[[Page H3403]]

wants to make a comment, and then I will be prepared to yield back.
Mr. YOUNG OF Florida. And then I will reserve the balance of the time
for closing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to emphasize what the majority
leader said. If Members will recall that long list of projects that he
referred to that the other body came to conference with, that first
long list, we took them out. We did not accept them. It was quite a
battle, but we took those out.
So in case there was any doubt as to what was on the list he was
reading, they are gone. They are not in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh), the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent
Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this emergency war
supplemental and to congratulate and thank our leadership, the
chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and ranking member,
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for the way they conducted
themselves in that conference last night. They brought great credit
upon this House, and I think that the will of the House was ably
defended in that conference.
This bill provides billions of dollars for our national defense, for
the rebuilding of Iraq, and for homeland security. What a remarkable
statement by a nation, a nation 227 years old and yet still altruistic,
idealistic, idealistic enough to provide funds to complete the defeat
of the Hussein regime, to liberate the people of Iraq, and then to
provide the funds to rebuild that country. And what a great debt we owe
to our soldiers and sailors who fought so brilliantly throughout.
There are funds for homeland security that will go to all States and
localities, with major help for my State, New York State and New York
City, $800 million to high-density, high-risk urban areas to protect
critical infrastructure and to make sure an attack like September 11
never happens again.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, an additional $100 million has been provided to
the Secretary of the Veterans Administration to provide health care and
disability compensation for our returning soldiers and sailors. That is
the very least we can do.
And in closing, I would just like to again congratulate the House
leadership, the Committee on Appropriations leadership, both parties,
for the remarkable job they did in keeping this bill on course.

{time} 1230

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for the bipartisan way they approached this very
critical war supplemental. We understood the urgency of getting this
bill passed and getting the money out to the region, and it truly has
been a privilege for me as a ranking member on one of the subcommittees
working with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I thank them for their leadership.
I am pleased in the bill in addition to the money for humanitarian
aid and reconstruction, there is over $7 billion for our critical
allies in the region, and I think this is very important because they
are in a hot spot, and they are very important, and I think it is
important that we acknowledge their role and assistance to us.
I just want to make one point as we close out the debate. I certainly
preferred the House-passed language on Iraq relief and reconstruction
to what we decided on yesterday. However, as the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) stated,
there was some compromise and I am very pleased that the role of the
Congress and the oversight function of the Congress was finally
acknowledged in giving us 5 days to review so many of the provisions
that were included in the bill.
I felt that the House language stated more clearly that carrying out
United States foreign policy is primarily the responsibility of the
Secretary of State, not OMB or any other agency. That said, prosecuting
the war and managing its aftermath is serious business, and the White
House was explicit that it wanted the President to have flexibility in
carrying out both of these important functions.
In the end, I think we did provide that flexibility to the
administration. That is why at one point in the debate yesterday it
really seemed nonsensical to me that the ultimate sticking point on
this language was over the mere mention of the Foreign Assistance Act,
the skeleton of the United States foreign assistance programs. This set
of laws which has been developed and fine-tuned by Congress in
consultation with various administrations since the 1960s provides the
basic framework to carry out foreign aid, including relief and
reconstruction. It has governed every United States relief and
reconstruction effort in recent years, and the assertion that it hemmed
in the President did not make any sense to me. We all acknowledge that
the President is the Commander in Chief and has the ultimate authority
and responsibility.
Appropriating these funds pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act
simply keeps the Secretary of State under the President, at the
direction of the President, as the primary overseer of our foreign
assistance program.
We have to ask, in conclusion, why the administration made such a big
deal about this once they had gotten most of the concessions they
wanted on the issue already. It makes no difference, frankly, one way
or the other in terms of the President's ability to provide funding to
any government agency he chooses. So I felt dropping the language would
have been a pointed rebuke of the Secretary of State's important key
role in foreign policy.
Let me conclude by saying thank you again. I think we are putting
forth an excellent bill that is important to address the current
situation today. I thank our chairman and our ranking member for their
leadership on these issues.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to say thank you to the people who
are really responsible for putting this package together. That would be
the staff of the committee on this side of the Capitol, certainly led
by Jim Dyer, the most able staff chief on the Republican side of the
aisle, and led by Scott Lilly, the staff chief on our side of the
aisle, and all of the staff who work with them.
It has become routine on the committee for that staff to be without
sleep for one or two days in the row. I appreciate how hard they work.
I would like to say a special thank you to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young), who has performed in his gracious and effective manner,
helping us to balance the many equities involved, and a special thanks
to the subcommittee chairs on that side, especially the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), for helping us through some very
tough problems, and Senators Byrd, Stevens and Leahy.
To those Members who are unhappy about the fact that we were not able
to eliminate all of the Senate proposals, let me say batting 750
percent is not bad. Even Babe Ruth struck out 1,300 times, and I do not
think any Member in this House comes close to Babe Ruth or pretending
to be Babe Ruth.
I would also say to the Department of Defense because I know they do
not like the fact that they did not get all of the authority that they
wanted, I would simply say to them the Department of Defense may not
get all of the money and all the power that they asked for, but they
would do well to remember that every bit of money and every bit of
power that they have gotten they have gotten from this institution. I
think they would be well off to remember that.
Let me simply say again as I said at the beginning, this proposal
came to the Congress as a blank check. It leaves here as a
reaffirmation of checks and balances. That is the way it ought to be.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.

[[Page H3404]]

Mr. Speaker, since September 11 and our war against terrorism and the
injuries to our troops coming from Afghanistan, my wife and I, and
actually my wife more than I, have been regular visitors to the Army
Hospital at Walter Reed and to the Naval Hospital in Bethesda to
provide gifts, provide some comfort, and to do what they need and their
families need in a time of real crisis in their life.
It brings tears to my eyes when I see these young kids with a leg or
arm missing. One soldier was blinded. There are a lot of them out there
now, sailors, soldiers, Marines, and even some Air Force folks. It is a
sad time. But the sadness goes away when I talk to these kids. They are
unbelievable. They are laying there with their whole life changed for
the balance of their life. They love this country. They believe in the
defense of this country, and they want to get back to the action,
although many of them will not be able to because of their injuries.
But throughout the many, many conversations that we have through the
day or on the weekends, one thing comes to the fore: How does my
country feel about me? Am I going to come back and be ridiculed like
some of my colleagues were from Vietnam?
Mr. Speaker, they worry about how does America feel about them. We do
our best to convince them that America loves them, America appreciates
them. I think a strong vote on passage of this bill is a strong message
to those injured in our hospitals today and those still on the
battlefield today risking their lives, a strong message to them, young
Americans, young soldiers, your country loves you and respects you and
appreciates you.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, the previous question on the
conference report is ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the conference report.
The conference report was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________