[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.''

                          ____________________