[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 148 (Tuesday, October 21, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H9770-H9775]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE AND FOR THE
RECONSTRUCTION OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN, 2004
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take
from the Speaker's table 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, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the
Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
{time} 1245
Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the bill H.R. 3289 making emergency supplemental
appropriations for defense and for the reconstruction of Iraq
and Afghanistan for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2004, be instructed to insist on the provisions of the Senate
bill:
Regarding medical screening for members of the Ready
Reserve of the Armed Forces (Section 317),
Regarding transitional health care and benefits for 180
days from separation for members of the Armed Forces (Sec.
321)
Regarding the provision that $10,000,000,000 of the
amounts provided for the reconstruction of Iraq be in the
form of loans, subject to certain conditions (Sec. 2319), and
Regarding the provision of $1,300,000,000 to the Veterans
Health Administration for medical care for Veterans (Title
IV).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) will each control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 9\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, we are about to go to conference on a bill which spends
$87 billion. It is the second installment of what will be many
installment payments to deal with the consequences of the war in Iraq.
This motion to instruct attempts to put the House on record in favor of
three provisions which the Senate passed earlier last week.
First, with respect to the issue of loans versus grants, this motion
would provide that after $5.1 billion is set aside for military and
security operations, and after $5.1 billion is set aside for Ambassador
Bremer to deal with other costs associated with the effort in Iraq,
that the remaining $10 billion of the reconstruction portion of the
package be provided in the form of a loan, unless the President
certifies that 90 percent of the bilateral debt owed by Iraq to other
countries is forgiven.
The purpose of this first provision is to recognize that, over the
next 5 years, the per capita foreign debt of the United States will be
larger than is the per capita debt of Iraq, and since foreign debts can
only be paid off by a country running trade surpluses, that means that,
in effect, over the next 5 years Iraq will be in a better position to
repay their foreign debts than we will be.
Secondly, we ask the House to go on record in support of two
provisions that relate to quality-of-life measures for our troops. The
first is to provide medical screening and dental screening for Guard
and Reserve personnel prior to their being mobilized; and, second, to
extend the transitional health care coverage to servicemembers who have
been on active duty in Iraq and are now returning home, to extend that
transitional health care coverage from the existing 60 days to 180
days. Certainly, that is the least we can do for these returning
servicemen and women.
Thirdly, we ask the House to go on record in support of $1.3 billion
in additional funds for veterans health care so that Priority 7 and
Priority 8 veterans can make better use of veterans health care
facilities without having to pay a $250 deductible and without seeing
the cost of their prescriptions virtually doubled. This is, in essence,
the content of the Bond-Mikulski amendment adopted in the other body.
That is what this does, and I would ask Members to support it.
I would also ask that if they do support it, they recognize that they
have an obligation to then insist that these provisions be contained in
the conference report, because they are already in the Senate bill. As
Members know, conference committees are supposed to deal only with
those matters which are in dispute between the two bodies. So I would
urge any veteran or any other interested American citizen watching this
debate to keep close track of how Members vote today, and compare that
vote with how they vote when this conference report comes back. I think
in that way it will in effect mean that they will be acting as a
``hypocrisy detector,'' which is always good for this body, when
someone is looking over our shoulders.
I want to say one other thing. I know that the President of the
United States is a powerful man. I know that in this town he is
probably the biggest man on campus that you can find. But the fact is
that I have never yet met a White House who did not think that Article
I of the Constitution was a drafting error by the Founding Fathers. And
I think that we need to remind all Presidents that we represent the
same citizens that they do. We owe every President our respect, we owe
every President a respectful hearing, but he also owes us the same
thing, and that means that we need to work with each other.
Checks and balances: Mr. Speaker, in my view checks and balances is
not simply an ornamental concept of democracy; it is a core element. It
is the heart of our democratic system, and we have a right to expect
the same respectful hearing from the President if we have an opinion
that differs from his, as we have an obligation to give his views a
respectful hearing.
But I note in today's article by E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post
that the President, in a meeting last week, appears to have provided
something other than that respectful hearing to Members of Congress.
[[Page H9771]]
Now, I know that the President is a business school graduate of a
distinguished university, and I know that he regards himself in many
ways as being an MBA President. He wants to bring business practices to
the White House. Fine. But I would say that if that is the case, then
even under the model that he sees, that means we are the Board of
Directors.
We owe it to the country, it seems to me, to approach issues like
this with great deliberation and great care. When we rubber-stamp the
desires of any President, we, in essence, do not behave like the
greatest deliberative body in the world; we behave instead like a poor
imitation of the Board of Directors at Enron.
I do not think we ought to do that. Yet I notice in Mr. Dionne's
column of today, he is describing a discussion that took place at the
White House between the President and a number of Senators, and he is
quoted by one Senator as saying, ``I'm here to tell you that this is
what we have to do and this is how we have to do it,'' one Senator
quoted the President as saying.
Then that Senator went on to say that after she had asked a question
of the President, ``He looked at me and said, `it is not negotiable,
and I don't want to debate it.' ''
Now, I would suggest that that might be a proper attitude if a parent
is dealing with a minor child. It is not a proper approach when we are
dealing with co-equal branches of government.
So I ask every Member today to use their own judgment and think
through what they think is in the best interests not just of this
country, but of the Guard and Reserve forces who we are asking to fight
our battles over in Iraq and our veterans who have done their duty and
who are looking for some help with health care problems that they incur
along the way.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge support for the motion to instruct.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, motions to instruct are usually a very strong tool of
the minority party, and the reason I know that is because we were in
the minority for a lot of years. As a matter of fact, one party
controlled the House of Representatives for 40 years without a break.
During that time, the minority party, our party, used a lot of motions
to instruct. Most of these never passed, because the majority party has
to manage and has to function and pass bills. So motions to instruct,
although they are not binding, still seem to carry weight in the
conference meeting. We need to move this conference quickly.
After lengthy debate in the House on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday
of last week, and for nearly 2 weeks in the Senate, a lot of debate on
amendments took place. Some amendments were agreed to; some amendments
were adopted, and some were defeated.
Two of the amendments we dealt with seriously through most of the
debate had to do with loans to Iraq. As we all know, the House spoke
rather emphatically that loans are not the way we were going to
proceed. One problem is there is no government in Iraq to whom we would
make a loan. Our own laws require that there be a government
established before we can make a loan to a country.
But what we are dealing with primarily, is to finish the job that was
started in Iraq; and, when we finish the job, that means bringing our
troops home. In order to bring our troops home, we are going to have to
complete what they set out to do.
Saddam is gone, his regime is gone, but we cannot guarantee that
another Saddam will not arise from the ashes of Baghdad if we do not
help the Iraqi people establish a government, if we do not help the
Iraqi people establish a health system, if we do not help the Iraqi
people establish an educational system, and we are doing very well on
the educational system. The health system is ongoing, and we are
providing additional money in the supplemental to provide additional
health systems.
We need to rebuild the infrastructure, electrical generation and
distribution to people of Iraq, and to create a security force, where
the people themselves can own their government, control their
government, and not have to worry about a dictatorial regime raising
its ugly head. When that happens, we can bring our troops home. The
safety of our troops and the bringing of our troops home is important
to me.
I do not know that this motion to instruct would actually delay the
process, but it could. This should be understood, although most of the
debate has been about the construction funds and the reconstruction in
Iraq and Afghanistan, most of the money in the bill supports our own
troops. It provides them with more adequate drinking water and potable
water facilities. We have spoken strongly on several occasions, and we
speak strongly again in this bill, that no American soldier should be
in Iraq or any other place of hostility without body armor. In
addition, having armor on the Humvees and the military vehicles that
are not armored today, also needs to be done for the protection of our
troops.
{time} 1300
So we need to get this country stabilized and get our troops back
home so that they do not have to be deployed constantly, not only our
active duty troops but our Guard and Reserves.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has put together a pretty
interesting motion to instruct. I would have to tell him that I like a
lot of the things he has put in there, but there is one thing that we
are not going to agree to: the conferees will not agree to this loan
provision.
The President has spoken strongly on loans numerous times. The House
has spoken strongly on it. And for those who think that the Senate is
opposed to doing it like the House did, understand that the Senate
already included $10 billion in their bill as a grant to the
construction of Iraq and Afghanistan. And so the Senate is not opposed
to doing it this way. They just have a little different arrangement.
So I am going to vote against this motion to instruct primarily
because of the provision dealing with loans to Iraq, which the
President feels very strongly about. And in the statement of the
administration's position, the director of OMB has said specifically
that the President's leadership, his top leaders and advisors, would
advise for a veto if that loan provision stayed in the bill.
So I am going to vote against this because I am not sure that motions
to instruct have ever had any influence whatsoever, as they are not
binding. But for any Members on our side who feel that this is
something they should vote for to have a symbolic vote, I will have no
problem with that. And I am not going to ask the House to defeat this
motion. I am just going to say that for the reasons that I mentioned I
am going to vote against it and primarily because I am not going to
agree in conference to the loan provision. I am going to support the
President's position on that issue.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking Democrat of the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to
instruct conferees today to add $1.3 billion to the supplemental for
veterans health care. This motion to instruct offered by Mr. Obey
recognizes caring for our veterans is a continuing constant war.
Last week, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs heard testimony from
four veterans who spoke about the terrible injuries they and their
families sustained in combat in the global war on terrorism. The costs
of caring for these veterans, 2,000 who have used VA to date and
hundreds of thousands more who will be eligible for VA health care when
they return to the United States, all should be considered part of the
cost of this war.
I urge my colleagues to support this motion. Let us not let our
veterans down with a budget that will not meet the needs of returning
troops or those it currently serves.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, last week I went to the Committee on
Rules during its consideration of the supplemental request for Iraq in
order to seek protection for an amendment to transfer 1.8 billion to
our veterans when it came from the Iraqi reconstruction to
[[Page H9772]]
veterans health care. My amendment was not protected, thus not found to
be in order. So I greatly appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) for offering this motion, and I urge all my colleagues to support
it.
I would consider this vote, if you look at additional monies that the
Senate has allocated for our veterans at this time, if today, like many
other days since Operation Iraqi Freedom began, wounded troops will
continue to arrive at Walter Reed Army Hospital and other military
facilities on an average of 10 each day, 10 veterans who need services
and who need assistance.
The military lists thousands, in fact, close to 1,600 now, that have
been injured, have lost their limbs. Thousands more may come to our
veterans hospitals in search of medical care for the conditions that
may become evident in days and months after their military service has
ended.
This summer the House broke its promise with our veterans. Our budget
resolution promised to add $1.8 billion for veterans, yet the
appropriations we approved for the VA added nothing. We have another
chance to correct that situation. We have a chance to do the right
thing for our veterans. We have asked them to go to Afghanistan; we
have asked them to go to Iraq. And they have been willing, but we have
to be there for them when they come back home.
This money will allow the military to provide better equipment and
supplies to men and women who also have volunteered to defend our
country. We also need to recognize that these veterans, this additional
resource is not money that is above and beyond; it is for existing
services. So it becomes important that we do the right thing. We ask
that you support the efforts of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
on this motion.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion
to instruct conferees. Let me note I support our President in his
military requests for Iraq, and I applaud his leadership and the great
job that our military has done in Iraq.
The question is not the $66 billion that we are providing in the
supplemental for our military, but the $18.6 billion in reconstruction
money. And the question is should we just give this as a grant or
should half of that $18.6 billion, at least half of it, be in the form
of a loan that will be repaid after 20 years.
Well, I do not see any reason why after bearing such a heavy burden,
it is not like the $66 billion, but so many other billions of dollars,
why the American people have to carry the whole burden. Why do we not
permit half of this, $10 billion of this, to go in the form of a loan
that can be repaid? After all, we are in debt $400 billion a year. That
is our level of deficit spending. We have to borrow that $10 billion to
give it to Iraq as a gift. Why do we not let them repay it after 20
years, put it in the form of a loan? That way our children will not
have to repay this $10 billion 20 years from now. Instead, Iraqi
children, who will have benefited from all of our investment and will
probably be the richest kids in the world because Iraq is one of the
richest oil producing country's in the world, let them pay it back.
Mr. Speaker, I would support this motion to instruct. Let us give the
American people a little break.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time I have
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman has 16\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this clearly is a better bill
than we received from the White House. It specifies that money has to
be used for Kevlar jackets, for example, for the jamming devices. There
is no question but that there are improvements.
What this instruction would do is to improve those improvements so
that this is a bill that is far more in keeping with what our
constituents would like to see. I have no question about that. I know
that from the perspective of Americans who want to protect our troops
overseas, and from the perspective of taxpayers, they would want this
entire body to support this instruction to the conferees. Because that
is what it is about, troops and taxpayers.
First of all, the troops. It provides the kind of quality-of-life
improvements that every single one of our constituents would want us to
include in this bill. Every single one. I would challenge any Member on
the Republican or the Democratic side of the aisle to show me one
constituent who would not want us to have these improvements in this
supplemental appropriations bill.
And then from the standpoint of taxpayers, I have yet to find anyone
of any political persuasion that does not think when you sit down with
them privately that we should not be fronting all this money as grants
when Iraq could conceivably be one of the wealthiest countries in the
world, has potentially $7 trillion of oil reserves, when the money that
we are talking about, which is always used as the excuse for why it has
to be a grant, why it cannot be a loan because they have got $200
billion of outstanding debt.
Who does Iraq owe that money to? Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Russia,
France, some to Germany. How was that money spent? A whole lot of it
was spent to build the palaces. Some we know was taken by Saddam and
his henchmen. That is the way all of that works, that corruption is
pervasive.
And why those countries that were dealing with Saddam should be first
in line before the American taxpayer is beyond me and beyond every
single one of our constituents.
That is why the Senate put this provision in the bill. We know our
constituents want the provision in the bill. I know the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young) wants the provision in the bill. I know I cannot
speak and I should not be speaking for him, but he is doing what the
White House has asked us to. I am saying we have already told the White
House we can fashion a better bill. This fashions an even better bill,
one much more consistent with what our constituents would want us to
do.
Mr. Speaker, vote in the interest of the troops and the taxpayers;
approve this motion to instruct.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the ranking Democrat on the
Military Construction Subcommittee on Appropriations.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is wrong to be making promises to Iraqis
while breaking promises to America's veterans. It is wrong to say
Americans can afford to build new hospitals in Baghdad, but we cannot
afford to keep open veterans hospitals here at home.
This motion is about doing right by America's veterans, veterans such
as Robert Armstrong. I met this brave American, a constituent of mine,
recently at Walter Reed Army Hospital. Sergeant Armstrong was
protecting a children's medical center in Baghdad when a grenade went
off close by. He was badly wounded and near death. Army doctors were so
sure that he would die that they ushered him out of the Army in order
to help his family receive higher death benefits.
But Sergeant Armstrong did not die even though his heart flatlined
five times and he lost an eye and a leg. In and out of consciousness,
Sergeant Armstrong kept repeating the name Mary, Mary, Mary. It turns
out that Mary was his 15-year-old daughter, and he had promised her he
would come home alive.
My wife was with Mary at Walter Reed Hospital when she saw her loving
father for the first time in 5 months. His first words to his daughter
were, ``Mary, I always keep my promises.'' Mr. Speaker, this motion is
about America saying to Sergeant Armstrong that we will keep our
promise to you, the promise to provide you with quality health care
because of your service and sacrifices for our Nation.
The truth is the proposed VA health care budget does not even keep up
with inflation, even during the time of war. It would require cuts in
services that are already stretched to the limit.
{time} 1315
It is $1.8 billion below the VA health care budget promised by
Republicans in this House earlier this year in their budget resolution.
The Senate provides $1.3 billion more than the House bill,
[[Page H9773]]
coming much closer to keeping our promise to veterans. And we should
support that higher level of funding for our veterans hospitals and we
know it. Our veterans deserve no less.
Sergeant Armstrong kept his promise to his daughter. Now, it is time
for America to keep our promise to him. Let us, in a bipartisan
fashion, support this motion to instruct. Let us, on a bipartisan
basis, vote to increase funding for veterans hospitals by $1.3 billion
and then let us mean it, because to vote for this resolution and then
not to push it through conference committee would be breaking a promise
to our veterans one more time. They deserve better than that.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) has 10\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion, and I hope
that everybody on both sides of the aisle will take it seriously. This
issue was debated in the House and our effort was turned down. It was
also debated in the Senate and the issue of a loan was thoroughly
examined and the Senate voted in favor of this approach.
In the Senate, even more so in the House, we heard all the arguments
against it, that there is no government to sign it. They already have a
debt. It would make it clear that we were interested in oil from the
beginning. That is one of the arguments that is given and also that it
would diminish efforts from others. But I think these arguments were
effectively answered within the Senate.
There is a governing council, an entity that is now working. It is
hard to believe that in the next months, if we do our job well and we
get some help from others, that they would not be in a position to
handle this issue. As to their already having a debt, it is possible, I
think, for a loan to be put together to take that into account and
remember the Senate version.
The Senate version would trigger an event if other nations forgave
their debt. In terms of participation of others, I do not see how this
would affect it. What this would bring about if adopted would be that
the Senate would be encouraged to persist in their approach. And the
reason to consider this is it could be amended, perhaps somewhat
differently than the Senate put it together, but it would still be
there. There would be participation more fully by the Iraqis. They
would have greater investment in their own future. And also they would
share the cost of this with the American public.
So I urge that there be support for this motion. This loan provision
needs to be continued in terms of discussion and not simply thrown
aside by an administration that has been headstrong from the very
beginning. We should not allow it to be headstrong about this loan
provision.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, who has the right to close?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
the right to close.
Mr. OBEY. Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) have any other
speakers?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, since I have the right to close, I will let
the gentleman proceed. I have only one speaker.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in my opening comments, the gentleman
from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) motion has a lot of things to feel good
about. The conference on the authorization committee for the Committee
on Armed Services is working on a lot of these details already that the
House is supporting.
We have done a number of good things for quality of life for our
military. To listen to some of the speakers on the other side, you
would think we had done nothing for the members of our military. That
is just not true. That is a little misleading, but then we know in
debate, things get a little misleading. We provided hazard pay and
separation allowances and fully funded them in this bill. We have
authorized travel assistance for military families, that is, continued
payment of per diem for travel of family members of our military
personnel who are ill or injured as a result of active duty service.
Clothing allowances. We provided the Department of Defense authority
to provide monetary stipends to soldiers to purchase civilian clothing
to wear during their hospital stays.
Meal allowances. The House has moved on three separate occasions and
moved very quickly to abolish the outrageous system of soldiers in
military hospitals being billed for the food that they consume while
they are recovering from the wounds on the battlefield. Outrageous.
The House moved quickly on three different occasions to not only
repeal that law but to make it retroactive through September 11, 2001
and to provide for repayment of any of those bills that had already
been collected from wounded military personnel. We are going to pay
them back. The House has moved very quickly on that. And I thank the
House again, because we made it retroactive here when I offered an
amendment for myself and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to not
only make that repeal permanent, but to actually make it retroactive
until September 11.
We have directed the Department of Defense to increase the
availability of modern hydration systems for the soldiers in Iraq. It
gets really hot there, and the soldiers need as much water hydration as
they can get, and we insist on that being provided. We took the
President's request; we made some changes. I think we produced an even
better bill than the President requested. We have a good bill that was
passed by the House after debating for 3 days, and I do not want to do
anything to limit our ability to advance this important bill, and to
have some flexibility in the conference. It is the same thing that they
wanted when they were in the majority party, they wanted flexibility to
negotiate with the other body and we do too.
As I have said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to ask my side of
the aisle to defeat this motion to recommit and this motion to
instruct. It is nonbinding, and it has a lot of good-sounding symbolic
items. I am going to vote against it myself, because I cannot agree to
the provision that talks about the loan provision that the Senate
included that the House defeated on two separate occasions. So I will
be there to defend the position of the House and to negotiate with the
other body to get the best bill that we can and one that will not be
vetoed. And it has been suggested that it could be subject to a veto if
that loan provision remains in the bill.
So other than that, Mr. Speaker, I hope we can get about our
business. We would like to get to conference quickly on this bill. We
would like to be able to conclude a conference early next week and have
this bill to the President as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this motion has nothing to do with the question of
whether the troops will come home sooner or not; but it has a whole lot
to do with how we will treat those troops before they go to Iraq and
after they return home. That is why we provide in this motion that the
House ought to accept the Senate provision providing for
premobilization health care and dental screening for Guard and Reserve
forces and why we extend health coverage, the military health coverage
to them for 4 additional months after they return home, above and
beyond that to which they now are entitled.
This amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with making it harder for
Iraq to repay its debts. In fact, this provision has a huge incentive
for all other countries in the world to forgive their debts, just as
they did with Poland when Poland became a democracy. Because this says
that 50 percent of the reconstruction money to Iraq will be in the form
of a loan unless the rest of the world forgives their debts. And then
if the rest of the world forgives their debts, then we will too.
If we are looking for a way to put Iraq in the strongest possible
position and to make sure that Uncle Sam's
[[Page H9774]]
taxpayers are not the only ones stuck with the bad deal, you need to
vote for this amendment.
I would also say that we have heard the argument that somehow this
proposal might slow down consideration of the bill; just the opposite.
All this motion does is to accept three items that the Senate has
already agreed to. The Senate has already determined that half of the
reconstruction funds ought to be in the form of loans. The Senate has
already determined that we ought to provide the additional health care
to our military personnel that I have just described. The Senate has
already determined that veterans deserve the additional $1.3 billion in
veterans health care that we are trying to provide. So all we are doing
is narrowing the differences between the two Chambers, which ought to
make it faster in terms of the time it takes to deal with there bill.
I do hope, however, that particularly veterans groups, I hope
veterans groups will put out a very large ``Beware'' sign on this vote,
Mr. Speaker, because I am afraid that there will be a number of Members
who will vote for this motion in the belief that it is merely symbolic,
fully intending to support efforts by the Senate and House Republican
leadership to then jettison these provisions as soon as they get to
conference. That would be the ultimate act of insincerity.
And I hope that veterans groups will not let Members of this House
pose for political holy pictures on this vote and then bug out of their
responsibilities to stick to that vote when the bill goes to conference
and comes back from conference.
I also would like to say one other thing. The President, as I said
earlier, deserves the respect of every Member of this House, if for no
other reason than by virtue of the office that he holds. But I want to
say that the President is our leader; he is not a one-man band.
This Congress has an obligation also to weigh in with its own best
judgments. I think this President, rather than telling Members of
Congress that items like this are nonnegotiable, I think, as teachers
often say to parents, he needs to learn to ``work well with others''.
And I think that applies to how well he needs to be able to work with
the Congress, and I think it also applies to how well he needs to work
with our allies. And I would hope that, I would hope that that would
happen.
After all, this is the same administration that did not provide the
needed Kevlar linings for body armor for over 40,000 American troops.
This is the same administration that did not provide enough jammers,
electronic jammers, to our troops in Iraq. And as a consequence, we
have had American servicemen and women killed or maimed because they
could not prevent the remote detonation of bombs and mines.
This is, after all, the same administration that did not see to it
that we had enough armor for the Humvees so that they would not be
vulnerable to explosions from the roadbed.
And this is the same administration that asked for so little money
for clean water for our troops that 80 percent of our troops in Iraq,
right now, are still drinking putrid water.
{time} 1330
So I would say, with all due respect, no one is perfect. This
administration certainly does not have a monopoly on wisdom. Neither do
we on this end of Capitol Hill; but we ought to be able to work
together in an effort to reach reasonable compromises. I think this
recommit motion is, in fact, an effort at a reasonable compromise; and
with that, I would ask for an ``aye'' vote, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. 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.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to
instruct will be followed by a 5-minute vote on the question of passage
of H.J. Res. 73.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 277,
nays 139, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 567]
YEAS--277
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Ballenger
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Chabot
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frost
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Graves
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Renzi
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shuster
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wamp
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--139
Akin
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Castle
Chocola
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Tom
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Dreier
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Feeney
Flake
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Houghton
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murtha
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
[[Page H9775]]
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ryan (WI)
Schrock
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Souder
Sullivan
Sweeney
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Andrews
Ballance
Case
Coble
Doggett
Fletcher
Gallegly
Gephardt
Kelly
Marshall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Sanchez, Loretta
Slaughter
Vitter
Watson
Wexler
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder) (during the vote). There are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1354
Messrs. NUNES, YOUNG of Alaska, HOBSON, BASS, CHOCOLA, ISSA, COLE,
and FRELINGHUYSEN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. KELLER, TANCREDO, ROGERS of Alabama, GRAVES, BALLENGER,
NORWOOD, BACHUS, MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida, HEFLEY, BARTLETT of
Maryland, DICKS, SKELTON, LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida, PETERSON of
Pennsylvania, SHAYS, and Mrs. CUBIN and Ms. DUNN changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. BALLANCE. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently did not vote on the
Democratic Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 3289, Supplemental
Appropriations Act for FY04. This motion directs conferees to keep the
Senate-adopted language to: convert half of the Iraq rebuilding funds
into a loan provided 90 percent of Iraq's bilateral debts are forgiven;
provide quality of life improvements for our troops; and provide $1.3
billion in emergency funds for veterans' health care.
Had I been present, on rollcall Vote No. 567, I would have voted
``aye.''
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, October 21, I was unavoidably
detained and missed a recorded vote number 567 on a motion to instruct
conferees for H.R. 3289, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for
Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan for FY 2004.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________