[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 146 (Friday, October 17, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H9643-H9652]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3289, EMERGENCY 
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE AND FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION 
                     OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN, 2004

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 401 ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 401

       Resolved, That, during further consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 3289) making emergency supplemental appropriations for 
     defense and for the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other 
     purposes in the Committee of the Whole, the bill shall be 
     considered as read and no further motion or amendment shall 
     be in order.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 401 provides that H.R. 3289, the 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and the 
Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, shall be considered as read, 
and that no further motion or amendment shall be in order.
  Mr. Speaker, the House began debate 3 days ago on this emergency 
appropriations bill that provides for the needs and protection of our 
troops in Iraq. The unanimous consent agreement provided for 5 hours of 
general debate that began on Wednesday. The House resumed debate 
yesterday morning with discussion and consideration of amendments 
lasting well into last night. The House began a third day of debate 
this morning with consideration of 13 amendments.
  After hours and days of debate, delay of a final vote on the 
emergency supplemental bill means a delay in getting the men and women 
in our military the resources and the equipment that they need. This 
rule, H. Res. 401, would end the delay and give our troops the funding 
they require and the support that they deserve.
  I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, this rule is a travesty, but certainly no 
surprise. In the years since the Republican Party took control of this 
body, their leadership has made a concerted effort to strip away the 
rights of Members of the House of Representatives, bit by bit by bit. 
This rule is just more of the same, and every Member of this House who 
believes in the small ``d'' democratic process should vote to defeat 
it.
  The Republican Party's leadership has been nothing short of 
disingenuous about the debate on this supplemental.
  Mr. Speaker, this has been anything but an open process. There have 
been some very important discussions on the floor, but those 
discussions have been truncated. Over 120 amendments were noticed to 
this bill, yet, despite the fact that there is obviously so much 
interest on the part of Members of the House in this $87 billion bill, 
the Republican leadership is now cutting off the last opportunity to 
bring over half of those amendments to the floor.

[[Page H9644]]

  Mr. Speaker, I voted in favor of the resolution authorizing the 
President's action in Iraq. I still believe my vote was the right vote 
to take. But, if I recall correctly, one of the many reasons the 
President and the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State gave 
the American people about why we should take military action against 
the regime of Saddam Hussein was to bring democracy to the Iraqi 
people.
  Quite frankly, I think it is time we bring democracy back to the 
United States House of Representatives. The way the Republican Party 
runs this House makes a mockery of the President's laudable goal of 
bringing democracy to Iraq and its people.
  Mr. Speaker, in September the President requested $87.5 billion in 
emergency funding for the continuing military operations in Iraq as 
well as to fund reconstruction projects in that country. He made the 
request and expected the Congress to rush it back to him ready to be 
signed into law.
  We have no authorization for legislation for these funds. In fact, 
the committees with jurisdiction over the programs funded here have not 
even been given the chance to add their views to the bill.
  On Wednesday, the Committee on Rules reported a so-called open rule, 
but I have to point out that the Republican Party's version of an open 
rule is one that does not allow Members the right to amend this bill in 
a way that affects the policies it moves forward. In fact, the chairman 
of the Committee on Rules told the committee that an open rule could 
and should waive all points of order against the committee bill, but 
not against Member amendments. And why? Why can legislative language 
offered by other Members be made in order? Because, Mr. Speaker, as the 
chairman said, ``We are considering this in the same manner which the 
Democrats did before 1995.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. In fact, if we just take the 
emergency supplemental for fiscal year 1994, the Committee on Rules, 
controlled by the Democrats, reported a rule for that supplemental that 
waived all points of order against two Republican amendments. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) expressed his opposition to the 
rule at that time because two other Republican amendments were not 
allowed to be considered under the rule. We may have cut off those two 
amendments during the consideration of that supplemental, but we did 
waive points of order against other Republican amendments because, as 
my chairman so ably pointed out on Wednesday evening, ``We are the 
Committee on Rules. We do have the authority to do that.'' So I have to 
ask, why did the Republican Party's leadership not grant waivers to at 
least some of the thoughtful and constructive policy amendments brought 
to the Committee on Rules on Wednesday?
  As reported by the Committee on Appropriations, the funds for 
reconstruction in Iraq are $1.4 billion more than were contained in the 
entire foreign operations appropriation passed by the House and $500 
million more than the Senate's foreign operations bill. That represents 
every single foreign assistance program this country participates in 
for the entire fiscal year. Yet the Committee on International 
Relations was not given an opportunity to consider the President's 
request in a legislative forum and amendments that sought to impose 
policy in this bill were denied the opportunity to be voted on during 
this debate.
  The Committee on Appropriations has reported funds for the military 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that amount to 56 percent of the 
funds for all operations and maintenance in the Department of Defense 
for fiscal year 2004.

                              {time}  1245

  I strongly support this funding, but certainly the Committee on Armed 
Services should have been given an opportunity to fully examine the 
request and report legislation that would set some policy about how 
this money is to be spent. Perhaps amendments offered by the members of 
that committee who have great expertise in these matters might have 
added substantive policy limits to ensure that these funds are going to 
be used in the best interests of the men and women in uniform who are 
on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.
  Yesterday I heard far too many Members on the other side of the aisle 
come to the floor and impugn the motives and perhaps the patriotism of 
Members who sought to reprioritize the funds in this bill. Mr. Speaker, 
those kinds of remarks are a shameful blemish on this institution. 
Every Member of this body is entitled to hold his own opinions. We are 
not elected to march in lockstep with the dictates of the Republican 
Party's leadership.
  No, indeed, Mr. Speaker. We are all here to do what we think is best 
for the United States of America and its citizens. I hold a different 
view on going to war in Iraq than do many of my colleagues on this side 
of the aisle. I cannot and I do not hold them in any less regard for 
holding views that differ from mine. I believe that a vibrant and vital 
democracy requires that all of these views be heard, not hidden or 
muffled to escape the withering attacks of ideologues. I also believe 
that these views should be brought to this floor and discussed in a 
civil atmosphere, not subjected to the partisan pot shots that have 
been lobbed by the other side of the Chamber during this debate.
  This rule shuts off debate, pure and simple. This rule cuts Members 
out of the discussion. By denying Members waivers to bring up 
amendments that address policy in addition to money, Members were shut 
out of the process in the first rule. But at least there was a chance 
for Members to bring up those issues before a point of order would be 
lodged against them. Now, the autocratic Republican Party leadership, 
for whatever reason, be it to go home for the weekend or to leave on a 
CODEL, or perhaps even to cut off debate so that the American people 
could not find out what the Congress is up to, has brought to the floor 
a rule that says, That's all, folks. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is just 
wrong.
  In one last attempt to try to give the House an opportunity to set 
policy, it is my intention to oppose the previous question in order to 
give the House one last chance to discuss a matter that is of grave 
concern to millions of Americans who are deeply alarmed about using so 
many American tax dollars to rebuild Iraq. If the previous question is 
defeated, I would amend this rule to allow the House to vote on an 
amendment adopted by the Senate, by the other body, yesterday. That 
amendment, which is similar to the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) yesterday in his substitute, is identical to 
the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Texas, a Republican, 
and would require half of the reconstruction funds of this bill to be 
funded through the World Bank. That passed in the United States Senate 
yesterday on a vote of 51 to 47. Under this rule, we will not even be 
permitted to vote on that measure on the floor today.
  The House should go on record on this language; and if the previous 
question is defeated, it will have the opportunity to do so. Otherwise, 
it is, That's all, folks. What a mockery we will make of ourselves.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the 
majority whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in support of the rule. We have had hours of debate on 
this legislation. It started 3 days ago. There have been plenty of 
opportunities to discuss what needs to happen and what this House needs 
to do. Our appropriators have done a great job. They have asked the 
hard questions. The gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the 
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) in the subcommittee and in the 
full committee have asked questions. We have not given the President 
everything he asked for, because part of our job is to put the 
difficult questions to the administration and try our best to do the 
right thing.
  We all know the right thing here is to continue to work for peace and 
freedom in Iraq. The international community is beginning to respond. 
This is exactly the moment when this House should step forward, when 
our country should step forward and show we have a commitment that will 
not stop. The

[[Page H9645]]

message we send to others in the international community who can help 
needs to be sent today. The message we send to the donor conference to 
meet later this month is important that we send and we send it strongly 
and clearly.
  Iraq is not a nation that needs to be saddled down with debt that 
they cannot deal with. The President has asked us to make a commitment 
not just to bullets and ammunition, but to the basic services that keep 
our troops alive. I had someone from St. Louis in my office the other 
day; and as he was leaving, talking about a totally different topic, he 
pulled out a picture of his son in his pilot's outfit who is in Iraq 
and said, all of the money the President asked for will keep my kid 
alive.
  So this is a country where people have not had basic services for 25 
or 30 years. But for the last 25 or 30 years when they came up and they 
were mad in the morning and they got out on the streets, the tyrants 
that worked for Saddam Hussein just killed them or put them in jail. We 
do not do that any longer. We can make a commitment to the fundamental 
infrastructure of this society. We can make a commitment to our troops. 
We need to do that here today.
  Afghanistan and Iraq are now central to the war on terrorism. This is 
a war that we all knew months ago would not be over in a short period 
of time. We have to engage the terrorists where they are. We have to 
show the kind of resolve that the world respects and people in all 
parts of the world respect.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not just the American soldier and sailor, Marine 
and airman who is a target in Iraq; it is anyone who wants to bring 
stability to that country. It is policemen in their headquarters. It is 
Iraqi policemen lined up to get their paychecks. It is a Muslim cleric 
who sends signals he wants to work with us for peace and stability. We 
need to do what we can to win this war on terror, and an important part 
of that is to show our commitment to those who live in the center of 
this most dangerous part of the world.
  The committee has brought a product that allows us to do that. We do 
not need to continue to debate this for more than 3 days. This debate 
has gone on for hours. I urge not only support of this rule, but quick 
and speedy action that sends a message to the world; and that action 
needs to happen today.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding 
me this time.
  My friend who just spoke and I are going to vote together on final 
passage of this bill, but my friend and I disagree on the process that 
we are pursuing to accomplish the objectives of which he speaks. He 
speaks of the objectives and not the process because he feels 
comfortable defending the end result, but obviously not comfortable 
discussing the process. Why?
  This bill that we are considering is larger than 10 of the 13 
appropriation bills. As a matter of fact, it is almost 100 times larger 
than the District of Columbia appropriation bill which we spent in 
debate in committee and in hearings 10 times longer to consider. Hear 
me. The District of Columbia bill is 1/100ths of the dollars that we 
are appropriating in this bill, yet we spent 10 times the time of 
Congress and Members and allowing the public to have input as we have 
on this bill.
  Now, we passed a bill, I tell the gentleman from Missouri, just a few 
months ago, almost $70 billion. It tragically has not made our men and 
women safe, as the gentleman says this bill will. I hope the gentleman 
is right. But we have over 100 amendments and a number particularly 
that are very substantive in nature that ought to be considered on 
their merits, because it may make the bill better. It may make the men 
and women in our armed services safer. It may more cheaply accomplish 
the objective of reconstruction in Iraq that will pursue our progress 
and make our success more probable.
  So I say to my colleagues that we ought to reject this rule, this gag 
rule that shuts down the consideration on one of the largest bills we 
will pass this year for just a few more hours to give Members, elected 
by 600,000 Americans, the opportunity to offer their alternatives.
  Now, in committee, we considered some of those alternatives; but that 
committee is but a portion of the House of Representatives. In 
particular, I say to my colleagues, the ranking member who would be the 
chairman of this committee if his party, my party, were in control, so 
he is not just a back-bencher, has a very substantive alternative that 
got a lot of votes in committee. And what it says is, yes, we need to 
take responsibility. And, yes, we need to sacrifice. But guess what? We 
who are here at home, safe in our sanctuary, ought to make a little 
sacrifice too, and we ought to pay for this bill and not pass it along 
to our children and to our grandchildren. That is responsible. That is 
fair. That is the moral position, in my opinion, we ought to be taking.
  But the gentleman from Wisconsin who has that amendment is being 
precluded from offering that amendment, along with 30 or 40 other 
Members who have substantive, important proposals to bring before this 
House, the people's House, the people's representatives, to consider 
the alternatives available. Is that not sad? Does it not undermine our 
democracy and our product?
  Let us reject this rule. Let us vote against the previous question. 
Let us consider in full the proposals made by the Members elected to 
this House by the American public.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel).
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. We are 
talking a lot about a reconstruction of Iraq, our commitment to bring 
democracy in this area; and all I can see is war, war, war and read 
about the numbers of Americans that are in harm's way that are losing 
their lives. All we are saying is that we have the responsibility to 
share with our constituents why we are making this second down payment 
on a war which we have no idea as to when, if ever, it is going to 
conclude, how many lives are going to be lost, where is it going to be 
spread. Most of us accept the fact that the decision to unilaterally 
attack Iraq was made before 9-11, but how many other countries are on 
the list? Where do we go from here?
  It just seems to me that somewhere along the line we were looking for 
Osama bin Laden and then we were looking for Saddam Hussein. God knows 
how long the President's list is. We should be able to ask these 
questions. We should not leave here until every Member of this House 
feels satisfied that they have explored the direction in which our 
country is going.
  It bothers me that what we are talking about today is rebuilding a 
country that we started bombing. I do not remember coming here to 
rebuild Iraq, Baghdad, or any other place in the Middle East, and yet 
we are supposed to feel guilty if we do not fulfill this obligation, as 
though our mail is coming in from the GIs and the Marines that are 
overseas saying, for God's sakes, send some money to rebuild Iraq if 
you love me, because the quicker you rebuild Iraq, the quicker I will 
be able to get home. That is not my mail. My mail is, I want to come 
home because, guess what? They started the draft. No, not the draft 
that I advocated. But if you volunteer to serve this country, either in 
the active service or in the Reserves or in the National Guard, you are 
being drafted. Your time is being extended. They are taking you away 
from your home and your family. And these families are not talking 
about rebuilding Iraq; they want their lives rebuilt.
  So give us some time to better understand the President's position, 
and we might find out where he is going to take us from Baghdad.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the 17 years I have been in 
Congress, most of that time on the Committee on Rules, that things have 
changed in such an incredible way, I can hardly recognize it. I 
remember the times when just the defense budget alone, we

[[Page H9646]]

would take testimony from the beginning of the morning until late at 
night for days at a time, hundreds of amendments. We thought that was 
just fine. It was wonderful. We wanted everybody to get a chance to 
talk about what was one of the most important things we do in the 
country, and certainly one of the most expensive.
  But it seems to me lately that because we can only work 2 days a week 
in Washington, next week I think we are going to be here a day and a 
half, that we have to condense everything. It is sort of the Reader's 
Digest version of the House of Representatives.

                              {time}  1300

  And so we cut out everybody's rights to speak. We make sure that 
nobody has a chance to be in any way distasteful by saying something 
that another person may not like.
  We are elected by the people of the country to come down here and 
speak for them, nobody here, nobody in the gallery, nobody else can get 
up on this floor and speak except those of us they sent here to do it 
for them. And yet we are being stifled at every turn. And, believe me, 
I have never seen anything so egregious to us as what happened last 
night at about 1 a.m. in the morning when they said that this, the 
largest bill, the money we pass and what many of us believe is a 
debacle, and for reconstruction and so much malfeasance going on that 
it almost rivals Teapot Dome, that we will not be able to discuss it, 
and we will not be able to do much about it.
  I want to close with a quote that is one of my very favorites here. 
Quote, ``I rise in strong opposition to this rule. It is unfair, 
undemocratic and elitist, disenfranchising nearly every Member of 
Congress and the voters whom they were elected to represent.'' This 
description was from the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) the 
chairman, of a rule from 1994, and, boy, is it applicable today.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. 
Once again, the Republican leadership that runs this House is 
attempting to stifle debate. Once again, they are trying to rush 
important legislation through without adequate deliberation. And, once 
again, they are wrong. And I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to reject their tactics.
  It saddens me to say this, but the United States House of 
Representatives has become a place where trivial issues are debated 
passionately and important ones barely at all. And this is an important 
issue. We are talking about the war in Iraq. We are talking about an 
enormous, complicated $87 billion supplemental appropriations bill. We 
are talking about providing the resources our soldiers need to do their 
jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we are talking about the financial 
health of our Nation and about the priorities of this Congress.
  Now, at least we were talking about those things until the Republican 
leadership decided just after midnight last night that they did not 
want to listen anymore. The Committee on Rules is intended to be a 
place where debate is structured. It can, and it should be, a tool to 
manage the House. But under this leadership, the Committee on Rules has 
become a weapon, a weapon that does not manage debate but smothers it.
  Now, here is the situation: Yesterday, we passed what the chairman of 
the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and 
other Republican leaders described as an open rule. In reality, the 
rule was not all that open since it did not allow us to offer very 
thoughtful and important amendments. Amendments to pay for the $87 
billion without passing the debt on to our kids, amendments to require 
the administration to actually come up with a plan for winning the 
peace in Iraq. Those amendments and so many others, Republican and 
Democrat, were not made in order. But they said even though we could 
not vote on our amendments, we could at least talk about them. They 
called it an open rule. So let us go with that.
  Now, we are told by the Republican leadership that the Republican 
leadership is tired. They do not want to debate. They do not want to 
vote past 2 or 3 today. They are tired or they have trips to take or 
planes to catch or somewhere else to be.
  With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, too bad. This is one of the most 
important pieces of legislation we will consider this year, and we need 
to get it right. Is this the new standard for appropriations bills? You 
use an open rule that really is not open until you get sleepy, and then 
you shut off debate and go home? You muzzle Members of Congress and the 
people they represent?
  There has been a lot of rhetoric in this Chamber this week about 
establishing democracy in Iraq. I want to say to the Republican 
leadership that you are setting a lousy example for the Iraqi people to 
follow. We spent one day authorizing this war, one day as legislatures 
of parliaments from London to Berlin, to Ankara to Santiago spent 
significant and meaningful time discussing the issue of war and peace. 
The United States House of Representatives rushed to a war resolution 
in a single day.
  We did not ask the tough questions, we did not get the straight 
answers. I do not think there is a Member in this House who really 
believes that we met our responsibilities, and here we go again.
  Now, the leadership tells us you have had 3 days. Well, I do not care 
if it takes 3 weeks. Let us stay here all weekend for the soldiers in 
Iraq, for their families, for the people we represent, we cannot afford 
to get this wrong.
  Let me say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, many of 
you had important amendments and thoughtful things to say. If this rule 
passes, you will be silenced. You know this is wrong. Please take a 
stand. Do not be a cheap date. Vote no. Because if you do not, this is 
going to happen again and again and again. Reject this rule and let us 
get back to work.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have an inquiry of the other side. Is the 
other side going to just play rope-a-dope here and not have any 
speakers? I guess the answer to that is yes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member, for yielding the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule. Not only 
does this second rule prohibit further amendments to the supplemental, 
but it also shortchanges the substance of debate on a bill that costs 
$87 billion: $200 million per congressional district that will not be 
used to build schools, provide health care or improve the Nation's 
infrastructure.
  My objection to this rule is as much about substance as it is about 
process. It is as much about the needs of the American people as it is 
about the needs of the Iraqi people. It is as much about democracy as 
it is about tyranny. As we deliberate an $87 billion supplemental 
appropriations request from the President, House Republicans are saying 
that we cannot ask questions. We cannot ask what the money is going to 
be used for and how we are going to pay for it. We cannot ask because 
the Republicans do not know. They do not know because the President 
will not tell them.
  Mr. Speaker, if we allow the dictatorial Republican majority to 
decide what is worthy to debate, then the House will quickly become an 
insignificant Constitutional trophy sitting on the President's mantle.
  Do my colleagues realize that the other body has been debating this 
bill for 15 days? Some Senators have spoken more, each one, more than 
all of the Members of the House, while the House has not spent 15 
hours, and we have more than four times as many Members.
  So I echo what Mr. Rush said last night: It ain't Christmas, it ain't 
New Years, and it ain't Easter. Why not work through the weekend and 
all the Members be heard? American troops will be working this weekend. 
Why cannot Congress? Our soldiers are fighting and dying, three last 
night, while Republicans are cutting and running.
  When Democrats ask questions about cost, strategy, and 
accountability, Republicans label us as unpatriotic. As I see it, the 
only unpatriotic thing about

[[Page H9647]]

this debate is the majority's abandonment of the House's Constitutional 
responsibility to, as Mr. Madison put it, have a will of its own.
  As written, H.R. 3289 gives the President carte blanche to spend 
nearly $87 billion before he has explained how he spent $79 billion we 
appropriated a few months ago. As I said yesterday, we have seen what 
happens when we relinquish our oversight authority and fail to hold 
this administration accountable ahead of time for its actions.
  Last night, when America was sleeping, Republicans on the Committee 
on Rules dredged out the familiar formula of pushing their self-serving 
agenda by oppressing debate, deliberation and dialogue. There is an 
acronym in the United States Armed Forces that best describes what 
Republicans are saying to the American people today: The soldiers say 
BOHICA, B-O-H-I-C-A. Bend over, here it comes again.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I gather in this time of the World Series 
that my friend on the other side is the designated ``sitter.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this legislation before us provides $87 
billion to pay for the consequences of our war against Iraq, and the 
$20 billion reconstruction section provides $872 per capita aid to 
every single person in Iraq; 872 bucks. That is the size of this 
package. That ought to merit a lot more debate than we have had.
  The bill before us got to the floor only because the majority went to 
the Committee on Rules and made a number of exceptions to the House 
rules so that this bill could come to the floor. And then the 
leadership guarantees that they are not going to lose any votes, the 
Republican leadership, by denying to the alternative to their proposal, 
those same exceptions to the rule.
  That is what you did yesterday. Then yesterday you said any Member 
who had a germane amendment was given the grand total of 5 minutes to 
discuss it before the hammer came down. And now today, you are saying 
that the rest of the Members, who have not yet been able to even offer 
an amendment for consideration, are going to be denied the opportunity 
to do so.
  Now, this happens in this Chamber, in Washington D.C., the capital of 
the greatest democracy in the world, supposedly, at the same time we 
are all supposed to swoon at the thought of how quickly Iraq is going 
to become a beacon of democracy and the second imitation of New 
Hampshire on the Presidential primary circuit.
  Well, I am sorry, I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), what a lousy example you are setting for the Iraqis. You got 
a rigged game in this House. And any time you see an amendment you 
cannot beat, you solve it the easy way. You say we cannot even vote on 
it. Incredible. Where is your fairness? Where is your guts? If you 
cannot beat us fair and square, you should not be in this Chamber at 
all.
  Now, last night eight of your Republican colleagues in the Senate 
voted for a proposal that provided a good portion of this aid in the 
form of loans. It does not matter whether you agree with that or not, 
we ought to be able to vote on that same proposition. But you do not 
think you can beat it, and so you are denying us the opportunity to 
even vote on it. Where is your guts?
  So, Mr. Speaker, the only way we have a chance of a snowball in you 
know where of getting a vote on an amendment to protect the interest of 
the taxpayers is for us to vote down this antidemocratic rule so that 
we have an opportunity to change it. And that is why you need to vote 
against the previous question on this rule so that while we are 
prattling on about how much democracy we are going to bring to Iraq, we 
occasionally provide a little in this Chamber.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker I would inquire as to the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings) has 26 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I gather the other side is not intending to 
use any time at this point.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule 
because it blocks amendments such as the one I would like to introduce 
which would increase the pay by $1,000 a month for anybody who is 
serving in excess of 6 months in Iraq.
  Extended deployment strains all families, especially Reservists and 
those in the National Guard who have seen their deployments extended to 
12 months. USA Today recently reported that one-third of Reservists and 
National Guard members suffered a cut in pay when called to active 
duty, especially those called up on short notice, those who have made 
personal business arrangements for a 6-month leave only to be told 
later that it is going to be a full year.
  The cost of this amendment would be a drop in the bucket. If you 
figure that a third of those over there will be on extended deployment, 
that would cost about $50 million a month, $600 million a year, less 
than 1 percent of the cost of this bill.

                              {time}  1315

  Moreover, the amendment will not cost anything if the deployments are 
limited to 6 months, and at the same time it discourages the 12-month 
deployment.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that the rule be defeated so that amendments like 
this can be considered. Defeat the rule and allow other amendments.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished ranking member of 
the Committee on Rules for yielding me time and the fight he and the 
other members of the Committee on Rules are making in that venue for 
openness on the floor of this House.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a solemn and serious matter that we have before 
the House today. And the question is what is the best way for us to 
provide for our troops, help with the reconstruction in Iraq, and 
accomplish our mission so that we can bring our troops home safely and 
soon. We know that it is not about cutting and running. We take our 
responsibilities seriously that we have inherited in Iraq, and it is 
not about cutting and running. It is about accomplishing our mission. 
But cutting and running is what is happening here in this House of 
Representatives.
  The debate on these issues relating to the $87 billion supplemental 
is just too painful for the Republicans to hear. The fact that there 
was no plan for postwar Iraq is just too painful for them to listen to.
  The amendments that have been thoughtfully considered and presented 
here by our colleagues on both sides of the aisle point out the 
shortcomings of this supplemental to begin with. The gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) had an excellent amendment earlier talking 
about paying for transportation for our men and women in uniform, that 
we would pay for that. Why would that not have been in the President's 
proposal to begin with? Why is it not the law now? The list goes on and 
on.
  We said it over and over again that, without the intervention of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the cooperation of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), our troops would still not have 
funding for Kevlar in their jackets, jammers to stop the detonation of 
explosive devices, spare parts for their equipment, and armor for their 
Humvees. They still do not have it. It will hopefully be in this 
package. But it was not there in the summer after we gave the 
administration $63 billion, and it was not in the President's proposal. 
And that is why these amendments are important, but they again show the 
concern for the troops was much less than it should be on the part of 
the administration.
  So we come to the floor with this very important matter, a matter 
relating to war, how we support our troops, how we reconstruct and 
bring stability to Iraq so that we can accomplish our mission. And we 
are told that we have an open rule, that the discussion will consider 
what people propose. And immediately the rule becomes restrictive in 
terms of what it will allow to be brought to the floor for a vote.
  It is beneath the dignity of this House for us to have a debate on 
the war and not allow the proposal of the Democrats, the Democratic 
substitute,

[[Page H9648]]

to come to this floor. And the main reason it could not come to this 
floor is because it paid for, it paid for what we would do for the 
troops and the reconstruction of Iraq. So it is against the rules here 
to be fiscally responsible to pay for the proposals that we are putting 
forth.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) put forth some saying that 
he heard in the Army. I cannot repeat it and I would not repeat it if I 
could, but I want to go to the Marines. The Marines have an expression, 
``Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance.''
  Our men and women were properly prepared and they performed their 
duties excellently, but there was no planning for after the military 
action, which still continues but which the President declared over May 
1. There is no plan. There has been no plan. And to quote General 
Zinni, ``The level of sacrifice has not been met by the level of 
planning.''
  How can we ask our troops to make those sacrifices when we are not 
really willing to have a plan? And if there was a plan, it is a 
failure. And if there is a plan, nobody knows what it is. And if there 
is a plan, it did not take into consideration the risks in postwar Iraq 
and, therefore, properly protect our troops. It misunderstood the 
conditions in Iraq and the challenges that we would face, again, 
endangering our troops. And it misrepresented what the cost would be to 
the American people.
  Again, we have heard Secretary Wolfowitz's statement about how 
quickly Iraq would be able to provide for its own reconstruction. So 
that is why there is some level of disapproval of what is happening 
here. It is an open rule except we will restrict what we can hear and 
besides, we are sick and tired of hearing what is wrong with this 
policy.
  That is cutting and running. We are opposed to it in anything we 
undertake.
  We are professional people. We have the privilege of representing the 
American people. They have serious questions about this, and we are 
cutting and running and stifling debate.
  So I hope that the opportunity that is presented under this rule, 
under the consideration of the previous question, will enable this 
House to vote on what happened in the Senate in a bipartisan way last 
night, which basically said that the American people should not be 
taking all the risks as far as their troops are concerned and paying 
all the bills. And this amendment specifically addresses the bills. It 
says if those oil fields get gushing, this is what it means, if these 
oil fields get gushing and Iraq amasses resources, then and only then 
would they pay back the loan. If they cannot, there is consideration 
for that. It could not be more fair. It could not be more reasonable. 
It should be voted upon by this body. But it is really unfortunate 
because time is what we were sent here to use for the American people; 
and if we cut and run, if we cut and run on a matter of this solemnity 
and this seriousness to the American people, shame on us.
  I urge our colleagues to support the motion that the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost) will be making in regard to the previous question.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have only one concluding speaker, and I 
would ask if the other side intends to close. If they have any other 
speakers, do they intend to close after our concluding speech.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman 
to use his speaker.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, I would offer an amendment to the rule. 
This will give Members an opportunity to vote on an amendment by the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), which is 
identical to the bipartisan amendment passed in the other body last 
night by a vote of 51 to 47. That amendment will require that a portion 
of the money for reconstruction efforts will be in the form of a loan.
  The amendment provides $5 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraqi 
security services, and it provides $5.2 billion as a grant for water, 
power and other critical infrastructure facilities. Congressional 
notification would be required for any projects in excess of $250 
million; $10 million would be considered as a loan but would convert to 
a grant upon 90 percent forgiveness of prewar debt by other countries.
  I want to stress that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from voting 
on this supplemental. But a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on 
the identical language that will be included in the Senate bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this amendment 
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote ``no'' on the previous question 
so we can have an opportunity to vote on the Senate loan amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned in different forms earlier in this 
debate, this is serious business. It is serious business. And I believe 
knowing that we are engaged in this war on terrorism, which we have 
been now for over 2 years, we have to respond in a timely manner to 
those Americans that we put at risk. And I would remind my colleagues 
that three-fourths of this bill, or slightly more, goes to support our 
troops. And we have focused on other parts. Probably that is good for 
the debate, but we should not lose sight of the fact that three-fourths 
of this goes directly to our troops.
  Now, we have some difference of opinion between the other House with 
their supplemental budget. The quicker we can get this into conference, 
the quicker we can get a bill passed; and the quicker we can get the 
President to sign it to support our troops, frankly, the better off we 
are.
  I would just make one observation that I found rather interesting, 
because we spent a great deal of time debating before I was here on the 
Gulf War resolution. I was not here. But I understand that was a debate 
that was inspiring for the Congress. That really, when we look at that 
from a historical standpoint, is why we are here today, because of 
whatever reasons and agreements were made following the Gulf War, 
Saddam remained in power.
  Now we are in a situation where we have to complete that. We had a 
long debate when we decided to go to war in Iraq this year, properly 
the right thing to do. And now we have debated this supplemental to 
support our troops for into the third day.
  From a historical standpoint, I would just like to remind Members 
that sometimes this body moves extremely fast on important issues. 
Right after December 7, 1941, when we declared war on Japan and 
Germany, the U.S. House of Representatives allocated 40 minutes for 
each of those resolutions. I think it is important for us to get this 
done as quickly as we possibly can. So I urge my colleagues to vote for 
the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this new rule to recklessly cease debate and 
eliminate all opportunity for amendments on behalf of the American 
people. I now will speak to H.R. 3289 before us. The task of 
stabilizing and reconstructing Iraq may end up being one of the 
greatest challenges of our generation. Although we are getting rosy 
reports of progress in Iraq from the administration, the fact that we 
have 130,000 troops in the area and are now being handed an $87 billion 
tab paints a fully different picture. It is now obvious that the 
administration grossly underestimated the cost and difficulty of 
stabilizing Iraq, almost to the same extent that they overestimated the 
threat posed to the American people by Saddam Hussein. Even the so-
called ``soft costs'' of the war and its aftermath are enough to 
cripple some nations.
  This is not revisionist history; at least a hundred of us in 
Congress, millions of citizens who took to the streets, and even a 
handful of brave souls in the administration itself, tried to warn the 
administration of what it was getting into with its pre-emptive strike 
on Iraq. We were ignored, and those in the administration--the 
Shinseki's and the Lindsey's have been encouraged to move on. But the 
problems in Iraq have not gone away so gracefully. We are now at an 
important crossroads. We can continue to beat this dead horse with the 
same policies of isolation from our allies around the world and 
partisanship here in the

[[Page H9649]]

United States or, we can start working together--employing the 
collective wisdom of all of us here and around the Nation with the 
experience and expertise to be of service in this endeavor--and who are 
committed to our troops, and to fulfilling the promise the President 
made to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and to the world.
  As this debate comes to the Halls of Congress, the people who marched 
us into this war will try to paint this vote as a vote for or against 
our troops. This is absolutely a false picture. For one thing, our 
military is extremely well funded. As I just described, including the 
Iraq supplementals, the Defense budget will be approaching $500 
billion. Furthermore, Iraq is not an indigent nation.
  If they wanted to, they could take better care of our troops. 
Secretary Rumsfeld wants to spend billions of dollars on a Star Wars 
defense system, while we are getting reports that our soldiers risking 
their lives in Iraq don't have adequate body armor, or clean water 
supplies, or basic human necessities like feminine hygiene products for 
our women soldiers. Six months after this battle started, we still have 
soldiers without kevlar body armor and water purifiers. What did they 
do with the first $79 billion war supplemental? We now have a new 
request for money, but we still have not heard details of how they 
spent the first money, what progress has been made, and what challenges 
remain.

  I visited the As-Sayliyah Central Command Base in Doha, Qatar last 
weekend and heard the concerns of the troops from their own mouths. I 
heard testimony about how a ground soldier, watched his partner and the 
operator of a military vehicle get tossed out as the vehicle was thrown 
airborne by a land mine. ``Why did you hit this mine,'' I asked. ``It 
was just one of those mines that was missed in the sweep . . .,'' said 
the soldier. Because there isn't enough personnel or specialists to 
assign to technical tasks, unskilled or untrained technicians 
frequently get asked to do jobs that they have not mastered enough to 
guarantee the lives of those who must traverse the sands of Baghdad. 
The soldier misses his wife and newborn baby dearly. Because there 
hasn't been a change in the personnel on the front lines in several 
months, many reservists and active duty servicemen and women have spent 
a longer time in Iraq than was promised by the Administration. May 1, 
2003 was supposed to have been a day of hope and homecoming; instead, 
it was a sham. Some of these troops feel like ``sitting ducks'' out in 
the foreign terrain. They don't speak Arabic. They don't know Tikrit 
like they know their hometowns. When I asked them if they have seen any 
troops of other coalition nations, they responded, ``what coalition 
troops?'' They need support and they need continuous relief.
  The President and his friends in Leadership in Congress did not 
listen to the warnings of the Congressional Black Caucus, or our 
international allies, or hundreds of thousands of like-minded citizens 
who took to the streets. Some of my Democratic colleagues voted for 
this war, because they believed in the institution of the Presidency, 
and thought they had to give this administration the benefit of the 
doubt. I did not. Regardless, now the President has cut open this 
patient, and the patient is laying on the surgical table. The President 
has made a promise to the people of Iraq and to the world that we will 
leave the patient better than we found it--and it is up to our American 
soldiers and the American taxpayers to fulfill that promise.
  Much of the toughest burden will fall on the shoulders of the 
families of our troops overseas. Therefore, I have submitted amendments 
that speak to alleviation of this burden. (1) I firmly believe that 
before any further funds are sent to Iraq to rebuild that country, we 
need to ensure that our men and women in the armed forces--reservists 
as well as active servicemen and women are receiving the money and 
services that they deserve and in a timely fashion. Dr. Jones, who 
works under Lt. Col. Corbett shared this concern with me during my 
visit. (2) I also believe that the Pentagon needs to develop a plan to 
ensure that none of our troops or government employees must remain 
stationed in Iraq for more than 6 months at a time. (3) Furthermore, 
the administration must announce a definite and clear exit plan for the 
troops to give them real hope and a notion that an end to the fighting 
is truly near. (4) There should also be more trained military policemen 
and women stationed in Iraq to mitigate the vulnerabilities experienced 
by these men and women. (5) Similarly, they need proper job allocation 
so that lives are not lost due to erroneous assignment of duties. (6) 
Moreover, as to the national guard servicepersons, the scheduled end of 
deployment should be honored rather than making them continue fighting 
until their respective units are released. Despite their frustrations, 
I encouraged them with the following phrase, ``you are as much 
defenders as you are peace-keepers'' to let them know that their work 
truly matters the most for the people of Iraq as well as the people at 
home in the United States.

  I sincerely wish the President had not put us in this situation, but 
he and his administration did. And now we have to deal with it. If we 
are going to deal with it, I feel at this point it is critical to take 
some of the control away from the people who have made horrible 
misjudgments at every step of the way, who misled the American people 
and the Congress about the need for war, and who ignored warnings from 
inside and outside the administration. Either they knew the truth, 
chose to mislead us, or they did not take the time to adequately assess 
and plan for the true situation. Either way, senior members of this 
administration were not doing their jobs.
  That is why before any appropriations are sent to rebuild Iraq, the 
Congress and the American people need to see an independent 
investigation in progress, looking deeply into several questions: 
whether U.S. intelligence reports were manipulated in order to 
misrepresent the threat Saddam Hussein posed to American interests; 
whether the costs and dangers of invading and occupying Iraq were 
deliberately understated; whether American officials who offered 
differing views of Iraq became the victims of inappropriate or illegal 
retaliation; and whether one or more individuals within the 
administration is or are responsible for the leak of classified 
information regarding intelligence reports and the veracity of accounts 
as to the purchase of ``yellowcake'' for nuclear weapons production.
  If any of these allegations are proved true, those responsible must 
be held accountable. I am concerned that there has been a methodical 
and undemocratic effort to mislead and intimidate the American people 
and the world in order to march us into this war. And now we are being 
given an $87 billion bill to pay for that effort.
  As we move forward in Iraq, unfortunately, we have severely limited 
options. Because people like Secretary Rumsfeld have used reckless 
speech that has angered and exasperated our allies, many of our most 
staunch allies are now reluctant to get involved in stabilizing and 
reconstructing Iraq. While our State Department has been reaching out 
around the world with a hand of cooperation and partnership, Mr. 
Rumsfeld has proudly displayed his arrogance and disdain for anyone not 
walking lockstep with him.

  Too much is at stake to distance ourselves from those whose help we 
need. People from democracies around the world are now being asked to 
trust this administration with the lives of their sons and daughters in 
the military, by sending them to fight under a U.S. command whose 
leaders show them blatant disrespect. They are being encouraged to send 
their hard-earned money to reconstruct Iraq under the authority of this 
administration that gives the largest contracts to its political 
supporters, that seems to have no credible plan for the future, and 
that ignores the advice of even the most trusted experts on the world 
stage. It is not surprising that they are not stepping up with money 
and troops.
  I think the problem is basically a lack of trust. I can't blame them. 
I do not trust this administration to do the right thing in Iraq 
either. I do not intend to vote to send another dime to Iraq until the 
President takes some dramatic steps to restore credibility to his 
Administration:
  First, I want to see new faces in top positions, starting with Donald 
Rumsfeld. We need people who choose integrity over politics and respect 
over arrogance. Second, I want to see a full accounting of how they 
spent the first $79 billion, and exactly how they came up with this $87 
billion figure. Our sources say that the armed services were barely 
consulted on those numbers--that some critical needs were totally left 
out, and others grossly exaggerated. We need honest accounting. And 
third, once we have a true picture of what funds are necessary to 
support our troops, Congress should be able to vote on that funding 
alone--separate from the money needed for reconstruction of Iraq. That 
``bifurcated vote'' will allow us to quickly get money to protect our 
brave soldiers, but will also give us the time we need to thoughtfully 
craft a plan for reconstruction--a plan that will include our allies, 
and the World Bank, nongovernment organizations (NGOs), and oil and 
natural resources from Iraq itself.
  Those are the three things I want to see before I can consider giving 
any more money to this administration for the United States effort in 
Iraq. This does not mean that I do not want to support our troops. And 
this does not mean that I want to break the president's promise to the 
Iraqi people and to the world that he would make things better in Iraq.
  Instead, it is a call for action. I want to get the appropriate 
amount of money to the people who deserve it--but right now I am not 
confident that $87 billion is the right amount or that it would be 
spent in a way that would help our troops, help the Iraqi people, 
stabilize the region, or prevent terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, there are just too many questions and not enough 
answers. Why do we need $950 million for recruiting and training of

[[Page H9650]]

police forces in Iraq, when we need more money for police and 
firefighters in Houston, New York, Washington, DC, and Philadelphia? 
Why do we need $209 million for prison and detention facilities, and 
$100 million for construction of a new prison in Iraq, when our Federal 
prisons are overcrowded and severely underfunded. Too many questions, 
and not enough answers, Mr. Speaker. Do we really need $100 million for 
a witness protection program, and $5.65 billion to repair and 
rehabilitate the infrastructure in Iraq, when a few months ago the 
whole Eastern seaboard was without power? Are we really serious?
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, are we really serious about supplying Iraq with 
$793 million for health care programs, when we still have children 
without health insurance, elderly without health insurance, and our 
poor citizens without health insurance. There are just too many 
questions, and not enough answers.
  There will be many thoughtful amendments offered that could ensure 
that the funds that we do not bankrupt our Treasury, while failing our 
troops and the people who need our help. I urge all of my colleagues to 
put politics and pride aside and consider them, so that together we can 
get our efforts in the Middle East back on track.
  I have several amendments that I think will help get our policies 
back on track.
  My first amendment states that none of the funds made available in 
this act may be obligated or expended until Government personnel 
policies have been implemented to ensure that no members of the Armed 
Forces or Government employees are being required to be stationed in 
Iraq continuously for a period greater than 6 months. The President has 
stated that the war on terror will be a long and involved one. 
Therefore we must pace ourselves, and we must ensure that our armed 
services can continue to recruit good people in the future. This 
amendment will help ensure that our troops and their families remain 
mentally fit and rested, and that military tours will remain a 
reasonable commitment in service to this Nation.
  The second states that of the funds made available in this act may be 
obligated or expended until all Reserve and National Guard personnel 
are paid in full.
  The third amendment requires that none of the funds made available in 
this act may be obligated or expended until the President has submitted 
to Congress a report setting forth in detail the strategy and projected 
timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces in Iraq. Without goals, I am 
concerned that our efforts in Iraq could drift indefinitely. Congress 
and the American people must know what lies ahead, so that we can plan 
appropriately.
  The fourth is a sense of the House of Representatives that, before 
any appropriation under this act is obligated, a special counsel should 
be appointed to investigate the propriety and legality of actions by 
the administration in connection with the unauthorized release of 
classified information. We have a complex mission ahead of us in the 
Middle East. To succeed we will need to take advantage of every single 
national security asset at our disposal. Recently, one of our top CIA 
operatives was ``outed'' by White House employees, thus compromising 
her work and even the lives of her sources and acquaintances overseas. 
If we do not show the appropriate immediate vigorous response, we could 
undermine our efforts in the Middle East, by discouraging people to 
come to American officials with assistance or information.
  Finally, I have two amendments that will help refocus some of our 
energy and resources on Afghanistan. The supplemental continues to 
shortchange Afghanistan's reconstruction and security, and it does this 
at the peril of jeopardizing the rights of Afghan women and girls and 
hopes for a peaceful, democratic Afghanistan. The proposed funding 
levels neither adequately make up for the small amounts of 
reconstruction funding thus far nor do they meet the country's needs.
  In the last 2 years only 1 percent of Afghanistan's reconstruction 
needs have been met. The country remains in shambles from two decades 
of war and lack of development. Most people in the country do not have 
access to electricity, health care, schools, and sanitation. Not only 
is the lack of reconstruction depriving people of very basic services, 
but it is contributing to instability in the country and a lack of 
confidence in the central government.
  The transitional government in Afghanistan estimates that between $20 
to 30 billion is needed over the next five years. In other post-
conflict settings, an average of $250 per person was spent per year in 
aid. But in Afghanistan, donors spent only $64 per person in 2002.
  The proposed $800 million Afghanistan reconstruction supplemental 
spending request represents less than 1 percent of the total $87 
billion Iraq and Afghanistan package. The $20 billion request for Iraq 
reconstruction funding is 25 times as large as the Afghanistan request. 
Yet Afghanistan has approximately the same population size as Iraq and 
suffered more destruction over 23 years of war.
  House Chairman Young's mark to increase reconstruction funding for 
Afghanistan by $400 million is a step in the right direction. But still 
more must be done. My first Afghanistan amendment will shift $20 
million from the Iraq budget toward Afghanistan to be used for 
developing electricity-generation and transmission infrastructure. If 
Afghanistan is ever going to thrive and progress, it will need 
consistent sources of energy, to power its factories, hospitals and 
homes. These funds will help.

  The other amendment will improve the plight of Afghan women and 
girls. Women and girls continue to face severe hardship and violations 
of their rights in Afghanistan. Yet the Afghanistan request does not 
specify funds for programs to improve the status of women and to remedy 
the tremendous injustices they faced under the Taliban regime. My 
amendment proposes designating $300 million for women's programs in the 
area of political rights and human rights, health care, education and 
training, and security, protection and shelters. I also propose 
earmarks of $10 million of the Afghan Independent Human Rights 
Commission and $24 million for the Ministry of Women's Affairs. We must 
provide direct support to help strengthen those women-led, permanent 
Afghan institutions whose mission it is to promote women's rights and 
human rights. These are funds already authorized in the Afghan Freedom 
Support Act of 2002, but which still for the most part have not been 
appropriated.
   Some girls have gone back to school in Afghanistan, but the majority 
have not because there are not enough schools and those that do exist 
are in very bad shape. The Asian Development Bank estimates that an 
additional 13,851 primary schools need to be constructed, but the 
administration request is only for 275 schools. Some 40 percent of 
schools in Afghanistan were completely destroyed during the war, 
another 15 percent were heavily damaged, and in many areas of the 
country there were no schools for girls.
   What's more, the advances in girls' education that have been made 
are under attack. In the past year, fundamentalist extremists have 
burned down, bombed, and otherwise violently attacked more than 30 
girls schools. At most of the sites of these attacks, leaflets have 
been distributed threatening the families of girls who attend school or 
the teachers who teach them. Flyers distributed at the site of one of 
the first attacks read ``Stop sending your women to offices and 
daughters to schools. It spreads indecency and vulgarity. Stand ready 
for the consequences if you do not heed the advice.'' Some families are 
now afraid to send their daughters to school. Our Nation promised to 
help free Afghan women; we cannot allow the extremists to take back 
these newly won freedoms.
   I hope my colleagues will support these amendments. We must look 
toward a brighter future in Iraq, and work together to make that vision 
happen.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, and thank you to my colleague on the Rules 
Committee for your leadership and for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule to gag the 
strong, growing, and justified opposition to this $87 billion blank 
check bill and to prohibit its amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, if the Republican majority had not issued this 
draconian, unfair rule to prohibit amendments to this wrong, blank 
check to President Bush, I would have offered a very important 
amendment that deserves this body's consideration.
  My amendment was simple. It would have added $1 billion to our global 
AIDS initiative this year, in order to reach the original $3 billion 
authorization that this Congress and the President approved in May.
  If the President can ask for a blank check of $87 billion, for the 
life of me I don't understand why he won't ask for this $1 billion.
  He promised it, he traveled to African and touted his commitment, but 
in what has become his MO (modis operandi) he has mislead us again.
  And in failing to live up to his commitment on AIDS, he is also 
neglecting a vital matter of national security.
  Make no mistake about it, in Sub-Saharan Africa, the region worst hit 
by AIDS, the disease has contributed to the destabilization of whole 
communities, tearing at the very fabric of society by killing mothers, 
fathers, teachers, farmers, health professionals, business-people, and 
soldiers, and undermining the governing authority and political 
stability of entire nations. In short, AIDS is creating chaos.
  Secretary of State Colin Powell has already described the global AIDS 
pandemic as something far worse than terrorism. And even our own 
national intelligence council has already concluded that a wholesale 
political, social, and economic collapse is very likely to occur in 
those countries that are already severely affected by AIDS.
  Millions of lives are hanging in the balance, and we have the power 
to save them. We

[[Page H9651]]

cannot allow further delay, and AIDS will not wait for us to act. I 
urge the Republican leadership and the administration to wake up to 
this reality.
  And I urge all members to join me in voting ``no'' on this rule which 
denies us the opportunity for continued debate on this and denies 
members the opportunity to offer important amendments, like the one I 
would have offered today.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That during further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3289) 
     making emergency supplemental appropriations for defense and 
     for the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, in 
     the Committee of the Whole, it shall be in order to consider 
     the amendment specified in section 2 of this resolution if 
     offered by Representative Obey of Wisconsin or his designee, 
     which shall be in order without intervention of any point of 
     order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent.
       Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section of 
     this resolution is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill add the following new 
     section:
       Sec.   . (a) Of the amounts appropriated under the 
     subheading ``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund''--
       (1) the $5,136,000,000 allocated for security, including 
     public safety requirements, national security, and justice 
     shall be used to rebuild Iraq's security services;
       (2) $5,168,000,000 shall be available for the purposes, 
     other than security, set out under such subheading; and
       (3) $10,000,000,000 shall be available to the President to 
     use as loans to Iraq for the purposes, other than security, 
     set out under such subheading until the date on which the 
     President submits the certification described in subsection 
     (c).
       (b) The President shall submit a notification to Congress 
     if, of the amounts referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of 
     subsection (a), an amount in excess of $250,000,000 is used 
     for any single purpose in Iraq.
       (c)(1) The certification referred to in subsection (a)(3) 
     is a certification submitted to Congress by the President 
     stating that not less than 90 percent of the total amount of 
     the bilateral debt incurred by the regime of Saddam Hussein 
     has been forgiven by the countries owed such debt.
       (2) On the date that the President submits the 
     certification described in paragraph (1)--
       (A) the unobligated balance of the $10,000,000,000 referred 
     to in subsection (a)(3) may be obligated and expended with no 
     requirement that such amount be provided as loans to Iraq; 
     and
       (B) the President may waive repayment of any amount made as 
     a loan under subsection (a)(3) prior to such date.
       (d) The head of the Coalition Provisional Authority shall 
     ensure that the amounts appropriated under the subheading 
     ``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund'', are expended, 
     whether by the United States or by the Governing Counsel in 
     Iraq, for the purposes set out under such subheading and in a 
     manner that the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority 
     does not find objectionable.
       (e) It is the sense of Congress that each country that is 
     owed bilateral debt by Iraq that was incurred by the regime 
     of Saddam Hussein should--
       (1) forgive such debt; and
       (2) provide robust amounts of reconstruction aid to Iraq 
     during the conference of donors scheduled to begin on October 
     23, 2003, in Madrid, Spain and during other conferences of 
     donors of foreign aid.
       (f) In this section:
       (1) The term ``amounts appropriated under the subheading 
     `Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund' '' means the amounts 
     appropriated by chapter 2 of this title under the subheading 
     ``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund'' under the heading 
     ``OTHER BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO 
     THE PRESIDENT''.
       (2) The term ``Coalition Provisional Authority'' means the 
     entity charged by the President with directing reconstruction 
     efforts in Iraq.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting, if 
ordered, on the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 199, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 559]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns

[[Page H9652]]


     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Paul
       

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Capps
     Clay
     Conyers
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Marshall
     McKeon
     Putnam
     Souder
     Waters


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1346

  Messrs. HILL, CARDOZA, RODRIGUEZ, FORD, NEAL of Massachusetts and 
WEINER and Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall 
No. 559, because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``Nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 221, 
noes 201, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 560]

                               AYES--221

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Boehlert
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Capps
     Clay
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (OH)
     Marshall
     McKeon
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Souder
     Wynn


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1354

  Mr. DICKS and Mr. RUPPERSBERGER changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. OXLEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________