[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 31 (Tuesday, March 15, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H1427-H1435]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1268, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL 
 APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR, AND TSUNAMI 
                              RELIEF, 2005

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 151 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 151

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1268) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, 
     and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     Points of

[[Page H1428]]

     order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived, except for Sections 
     1113 and 1114. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. In the engrossment of H.R. 1268, the Clerk shall--
       (a) add the text of H.R. 418, as passed by the House, as 
     new matter at the end of H.R. 1268;
       (b) conform the title of H.R. 1268 to reflect the addition 
     to the engrossment of H.R. 418;
       (c) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (d) conform provisions for short titles within the 
     engrossment.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) is recognized for 1 hour.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on H. Res. 151.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), 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, on March 14, the Committee on Rules met and granted an 
open rule on House Resolution 151, with 1 hour of debate equally 
divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations. This rule accords priority of recognition 
to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional 
Record and provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Additionally, this rule attaches the text of H.R. 418, as passed, to 
the base text of the bill. H.R. 418 previously passed the House by a 
bipartisan vote of 261 to 161 on February 10 of this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to be able to manage this rule. This 
rule provides for an emergency supplemental funding package to sustain 
our troops in the ongoing war on terror. Most of these funds are 
directed towards operations in Iraq. Just last week, I returned from 
Iraq where I personally received numerous briefings regarding our 
readiness and our operational capabilities. I heard from our 
commanders, military personnel, and diplomats on the ground in Iraq. My 
colleagues and I also had the opportunity to meet with senior and 
provincial Iraqi political leaders.
  Their collective message was clear, compelling, and optimistic. 
First, things are getting better. Second, our soldiers, Marines, 
sailors, and airmen believe in their mission. Third, continued 
congressional support, both moral and financial, is absolutely 
essential to bring our operations to a successful conclusion. The bulk 
of H.R. 1268 moves us closer to that objective.
  This supplemental appropriations package is the fifth supplemental 
since September 11 that focuses on meeting the challenges imposed on us 
by the ongoing global war on terrorism.
  Specifically, this supplemental provides for the replenishing of 
those accounts that the military has exhausted during sustained 
operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas of the world. 
Additionally, it provides important funding to assist in our efforts to 
address the disastrous results of the recent tsunami in South Asia and 
the Indian Ocean. Finally, there are important measures dedicated to 
improving the benefits due to our soldiers and meeting the diplomatic 
costs that our efforts have necessitated.
  Important obligations are met in this legislation. Specifically, this 
bill provides saving $76.8 billion for total defense expenditures, a 
full $1.8 billion over the President's request, funding other important 
military shortfalls identified by committees of the Congress. The vast 
majority of these dollars will directly support our servicemen in the 
area of operations. These include purchases such as an additional 
47,000 sets of body armor, 1,700 new armored Humvees and $408 million 
to harden the facilities that protect our servicemen from indirect 
fire.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Appropriations also addressed several 
other issues inside the supplemental that are essential to successfully 
prosecuting our global war on terror. Among them are the inclusion of 
Army modularity reform and the construction of a new American embassy 
in Baghdad.
  Specifically, with respect to Army modularity, the committee took 
some important steps to ensure that our troops who will deploy in the 
near future are able to leverage more combat power from their current 
formations by adding a brigade at the division level. This ultimately 
supports the Army's attempt to transform the service to make it 
lighter, faster, more efficient and to reorient itself to its core 
competencies. Put simply, Army modularity, the movement to new brigade 
formations, will put more soldiers in the fight and allow us to use our 
combat personnel much more efficiently.
  With respect to the embassy in Baghdad, the committee took a close 
look at the State Department's request and reduced it by 10 percent. 
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the embassy, I am aware that many Members 
have concerns about its high cost. However, let me be clear about the 
need for this extraordinary expenditure.
  Having visited the Baghdad embassy twice before, it is clear to me 
that a new facility is required. This is not an optional item. The 
United States should not occupy one of Saddam Hussein's palaces 
indefinitely, for to do so only reinforces the impression in parts of 
the Arab world that the United States is an occupying power.
  More importantly, Iraq is a very dangerous diplomatic post. Indeed, 
it is so dangerous that essentially every State Department employee 
based in Baghdad is a volunteer. Like our soldiers, these brave career 
civil servants need and deserve the best security we can provide them 
while they perform their vital functions. A new, secure embassy is 
indispensable to achieving this objective.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1268 takes a number of important steps forward in 
addressing the needs of our military. Today, we are likely to debate 
several amendments that would have a gutting effect on this underlying 
legislation. I would strongly urge Members to closely examine such 
amendments and reject them.

                              {time}  1030

  Our debate today is not over the war. The President and the Congress 
have already made that decision. Our focus should be to give our forces 
the resources they need to successfully complete their dangerous and 
challenging mission.
  The bill we have before us today is an excellent and timely piece of 
legislation with strong bipartisan input and support. Therefore, I urge 
the support for the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the third major supplemental appropriations bill 
Congress has considered for Iraq and Afghanistan. A war and 
reconstruction that the administration told us could be completely 
financed by Iraqi oil revenues has cost the American taxpayer a 
staggering $275 billion, and the end is nowhere in sight. As the price 
of this war continues to climb, we can no longer afford to ignore the 
equally expansive ``accountability'' gap that has developed in the 
White House.
  Harry Truman was famous for saying the buck stops here. After all, he 
was the President, and to him that meant he had to take responsibility 
for his government. He was accountable to the people he served.
  But time and again our current President has demonstrated his 
unwillingness to be held accountable for any decision, or commitment or 
blunder of

[[Page H1429]]

his administration. And what is particularly disappointing is the 
willingness of the Republican leadership to assist the administration 
in its need to avoid accountability.
  Let me give an example. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney) came before the Committee on Rules last night, offered an 
amendment which would have established a select committee to follow up 
on a very disturbing report just released from the Inspector General's 
Office. The report indicates that $9 billion spent on Iraqi 
reconstruction is unaccounted for and no one knows where it is.
  In one case, the Inspector General raised the possibility that 
thousands of ghost employees were on one unnamed ministry's payroll. In 
another case, a firm was allegedly paid $15 million to provide security 
during civilian flights into Baghdad even though no planes flew during 
the term of the contract. In another case, a Pentagon contract for the 
development of bulletproof armor was given to a ``former Army 
researcher who had never mass-produced anything,'' and according to the 
New York Times, the researcher tried for a year to meet the order and 
finally was forced to give up completely.
  These types of incidents squander precious resources, waste time we 
often do not have, and place American's lives at risk.
  Mr. Speaker, we heard of another report just this morning that 
Halliburton has overcharged us, according to the Pentagon, by $100 
million.
  The Tierney amendment would have established a House select committee 
to further investigate the allegations, much like the successful Truman 
Committee was established during the Second World War. The Committee on 
Rules Democrats tried to get the amendment made in order because we 
expect accountability from our government, but we were voted down on a 
party-line vote. Why?
  No one can reasonably suggest that this body does not have time to 
get to the bottom of these unresolved issues. After all, we spend on 
average only 2 days a week in this Chamber, and half the time we do 
spend here we are renaming Post Offices and honoring foreign 
dignitaries, and a few athletic endeavors.
  If we have enough time for that, we certainly have enough time to 
track down $9 billion that the administration seems to have misplaced. 
We have the time and energy to address rampant corruption in the way 
our contracts in Iraq are being administered. Certainly we have the 
will to infuse some accountability into the process, but apparently the 
leadership does not have the time or the will and truly demonstrates 
the hypocrisy of those in the majority who say they are for saving 
taxpayer money, except when it is being wasted by their administration. 
But it raises a more important question, and that is if we in this body 
will not hold the White House accountable for losing $9 billion, then 
who will? If it is not our job in this Chamber, then whose is it?
  There is another disturbing aspect to the lack of accountability in 
Iraq contracting. The administration was supposed to issue two reports 
detailing spending on both military operations and reconstruction 
activities in Iraq. That was done by law, one of the reports due on 
October 31, 2004, the other due January 1, 2005. Neither report has 
ever been delivered to the Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, the Department of Defense has a legal obligation to 
provide the reports to Congress and they are breaking the law by not 
providing them. The majority in this body is breaking its bond of trust 
with the American people by not demanding these reports, and with them 
a measure of accountability for their administration.
  The American people expect the leadership of this Congress to be more 
than a rubber stamp for an administration that has shown itself to be 
secretive and dishonest time and time again. We have a responsibility 
to our fellow Americans, to our Constitution, to ensure that all 
branches of the government are held accountable to the American people.
  And speaking of accountability, this supplemental increases the 
military death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000 and subsidized life 
insurance benefits from $250,000 to $400,000 for families of soldiers 
who died or were killed on active duty from October 7, 2001.
  This is critical language which does two important things for our 
fighting men and women: Expands their life insurance and increases 
their death benefits. But what happened, these benefits, which will be 
legislating on an appropriation bill, require protection from the 
Committee on Rules against a point of order on the floor of the House. 
Sadly, the leadership refused to grant that protection in this rule, 
and those two measures are left open to a point of order.
  Therefore, any single Member of this body can stand up and knock out 
those provisions without any debate, without any vote, without any 
opportunity for dissent. This was no accident. Clearly the rule was 
written this way by design because we had to wait to get the rule after 
they completed those negotiations.
  And why are the benefits of our fighting men and women not worthy of 
protection? The sad truth is these men and women have the courage to 
protect us with their lives, and yet some in this Chamber do not have 
the courage to protect them with even a vote on the House floor.
  The Republican leadership has resorted to setting up a point of order 
to ensure the benefit increases never make it into law because they do 
not have the courage to vote it down themselves and they do not want to 
be accountable for the vote.
  The bill also includes funding for body armor, armored Humvees, 
electronic jammers and other necessary items to protect our troops 
which are long overdue. But as we listen to Member after Member rising 
to pay homage to the sacrifice of our fighting forces, I want my fellow 
Americans to remember who was willing to sacrifice those men and women 
on the House floor today.
  I also want them to remember two very important amendments which were 
not made in order by the Committee on Rules. The amendments by the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) would have expanded veterans' health care and 
mental health care, but they were not included in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why at the conclusion of the debate I will ask 
Members to defeat the previous question to the rule so we can get a 
vote on the Hooley and DeLauro amendments and so we can move to protect 
the language in the bill which increases the benefits for our military 
personnel.
  Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are over in Iraq today 
risking their lives to protect America and the world. The least we can 
do is provide them with decent health care when they return. Once we 
vote, our fellow Americans will know exactly where we all stand on 
health care for our veterans despite the rhetoric and legislative 
tricks, and that is what I like to call held accountable.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just for an informational point, the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter) makes an excellent point about sections 1113 
and 1114. I want to inform the gentlewoman that at the conclusion I 
will be offering an amendment to protect those sections from points of 
order.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support 
including the REAL ID Act in the supplemental spending bill on the 
floor today.
  As we saw post-9/11, Congress must protect our Nation's borders 
against the threat of terrorism. Just last week, my district saw the 
unfortunate confluence of illegal immigration, Social Security fraud 
and potential terrorist threats meeting together.
  In my hometown of Crystal River, Florida, the nuclear power plant was 
found to have contracted with illegal immigrant day laborers through a 
contract who had used fake or stolen ID and Social Security numbers to 
obtain government-issued driver's licenses. Thankfully, these men have 
been arrested by the FBI and fully interviewed by Customs enforcement 
agents.
  Who is to say that the seemingly harmless workers could not have 
really

[[Page H1430]]

been agents of a terrorist group that is intent on blowing up or 
hijacking a nuclear power plant? As we saw with flight schools before 
9/11, it is often the little things that are overlooked in our constant 
fight against terrorism that lead to the biggest problems.
  As President Bush has said time and time again, we have to be right 
hundreds of times each and every day in our fight against terrorism, 
and they only have to be right once.
  I voted against the 9/11 intelligence reform bill primarily because 
it omitted the ID standard reforms that the 9/11 Commission called for 
and that America needed. Had the REAL ID Act been in place, the 
Department of Motor Vehicles would have been required to verify the 
Social Security numbers used by these workers. This check would have 
shown that the numbers were really issued to men that had been deceased 
for 40 years and would have disallowed the men from gaining access to a 
supposedly secure nuclear power facility.
  I would hate to see a future terrorist attack that Congress could 
have prevented by tightening our access to driver's licenses. We need 
the Senate to pass the REAL ID bill, and I am delighted it was added 
onto this supplemental budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these much-needed 
reforms and to vote in favor of the REAL ID Act included in the 
supplemental bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis); 
the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); and the 
chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Defense, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Murtha). They have written a bill that seeks to address the needs 
of our troops and provide needed reconstruction funds to Iraq, 
Afghanistan and those nations devastated by the recent tsunami.
  I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) took special care 
in ensuring that this bill contains adequate vehicle and personal 
protection for our troops in Iraq, and to make sure that our military 
will be adequately equipped and supplied for upcoming troop rotations 
in Iraq.
  It is, therefore, difficult for me to rise and declare my opposition 
to this bill. My opposition is not meant as an affront to their hard 
work and care for the security of our troops. Every single Member of 
this House, including myself, shares their concerns and their 
commitment to the safety and well-being of our men and women in uniform 
who are serving so courageously under such difficult circumstances, nor 
do I object to the foreign aid of this bill.
  So why do I rise in opposition? It is quite simple. Once this 
supplemental is signed into law, Congress will have provided this 
administration with nearly $300 billion for military and reconstruction 
efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two years after we invaded Iraq 
President Bush still asked for these moneys under emergency authority. 
Tomorrow we are going to debate the President's budget. There are no 
funds in his budget or the Republican budget resolution for the 
continuing war in Iraq or security operations in Afghanistan. Why not? 
Is the President telling us that all our troops are coming home next 
year, or is he just saying that we can look forward to year after year 
of so-called emergency bills totaling hundreds of billions of dollars 
because his administration has no idea how long we are going to be 
engaged in Iraq and how much it is going to cost the American people in 
blood and treasure.
  I believe Congress must know the answers to those questions before we 
vote more money for this war. These funds should be in the budget, and 
the cost of these wars should be projected over the next 5 years just 
like every item in the budget. We know we are in Iraq. It is not a 
surprise. It is certainly not an unforeseen emergency. The President 
has told us we are going to be there next year, so why is there no 
money for these operations in the budget? How much do they project 
these wars will cost? How do they propose we pay for it? Right now we 
borrow money to pay for the war, nearly $300 billion worth. We do not 
pay for it, we simply go deeper and deeper into debt and pass the bill 
on to our children.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a profound failure of accountability, the 
failure to level with the American people.
  This week when Congress debates the budget resolution we will be 
asked to vote for a bill which cuts education, cuts health care, cuts 
veterans benefits, economic development for our cities and towns, and 
many other critical projects. But the war, it is not part of the budget 
or subject to cuts or reconciliation. It is all off the books.
  From the very first day when we were told the U.S. had to invade Iraq 
we have been lied to. We were lied to about the weapons of mass 
destruction. We were lied to about Saddam Hussein having ties to al 
Qaeda. We were lied to about how much the war would cost and how long 
it would take to bring stability to Iraq.
  We are here today debating a bill that is filled with armored Humvees 
and personal body armor for our troops. But, Mr. Speaker, we provided 
money for those items in 2002 before we went to war in Iraq, and we 
provided it again in the first supplemental on Iraq and in the second 
supplemental on Iraq and in the third supplemental on Iraq. So why are 
so many of our troops still lacking body armor and still driving 
unprotected vehicles? Congress sent that money specifically to meet 
those needs. So what happened to the money? Why were those needs not 
met? That is a deadly serious question of accountability.

                              {time}  1045

  The Pentagon's own inspector general says that nearly $9 billion in 
reconstruction funds for Iraq cannot be accounted for. Another $15 
million may have been subject to fraud by the very companies the 
Pentagon chooses to give contracts to for services in Iraq. That is 
taxpayer money provided by my constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to have a real debate about our policy in Iraq. 
Every few months we get an emergency supplemental for the war on Iraq. 
We are told we have to vote for it in order to show our support for our 
troops, and I expect that this bill will probably pass overwhelmingly. 
But it is just more of the same.
  There comes a time when you just have to stop and say no more, not 
until we get real answers to hard questions, not until we know where we 
are going in Iraq and how much it is going to cost.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill; and I urge my colleagues to oppose 
it.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time. And, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. 
Last October, 282 Members of Congress voted for landmark legislation 
that fulfilled our duty to our constituents to make America an 
appreciably safer place. H.R. 10 truly reflected the hard-earned lesson 
of 9/11.
  Unfortunately, the other body saw fit to strip from the bill some of 
its most vital provisions, measures designed to ensure that terrorists 
would never again be able to carry out their nefarious plots by abusing 
our immigration system and our identity documents.
  Today, leadership is fulfilling a commitment that it made to the 
American people that these provisions would yet become law. Today's 
rule makes the text of H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act, a self-executing 
amendment to the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) introduced, and 
the House last month passed, the REAL ID Act containing many of the 
provisions stripped from the intelligence reform bill last year. I 
thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for ensuring that the will of 
this House will be done, and that this crucial legislation will be 
enacted into law.
  The goal of the REAL ID Act is straightforward. It seeks to prevent 
another catastrophic terrorist act by deterring terrorist travel. These 
terrorist methods of operation were mentioned

[[Page H1431]]

both in the 9/11 Commission report and the 9/11 staff report on 
terrorist travel. Page 49 of the terrorist travel report states: 
``Abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior enforcement 
were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activities.'' 
Page 59 states: ``Members of al Qaeda clearly valued freedom of 
movement as critical to their ability to plan and carry out the attacks 
prior to September 11.''
  The REAL ID Act contains four provisions aimed at disrupting 
terrorist travel. First, it addresses the use of a driver's license as 
a form of Federal identification. American citizens have the right to 
know who is in their country, that people are who they say they are, 
and that the name on the driver's license is the real holder's name, 
not some alias.
  The REAL ID Act will establish a uniform rule for all States that 
temporary driver's licenses for foreign visitors expire when their visa 
terms expire and establish tough rules for confirming identity before 
driver's licenses are issued.
  Second, this legislation will tighten our asylum system. Some judges 
have made asylum laws vulnerable to fraud and abuse. We will end judge-
imposed presumptions that benefit suspected terrorists so that we will 
stop providing them a safe haven.
  The REAL ID Act will reduce the opportunity for immigration fraud so 
that we can protect honest asylum seekers and stop rewarding the 
terrorists and criminals who falsely claim persecution.
  Third, the REAL ID Act will waive Federal laws to the extent 
necessary to complete gaps in the San Diego border security fence which 
is still unfinished 8 years after congressional authorization.
  The REAL ID Act contains one final commonsense provision that helps 
protect Americans from terrorists who have been able to successfully 
infiltrate the United States: currently, certain terrorism-related 
grounds of inadmissibility to our country are not also grounds for 
deportation. The REAL ID Act makes aliens deportable from the U.S. for 
terrorism-related offenses to the same extent that they would be 
inadmissible to the United States to begin with.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. 
Speaker, there are a number of things that can be said about this bill. 
Let me simply say that I opposed going to war in the first place. I 
think this country was misled into war on the basis of bad information 
and false information. And I believe some of that was purposeful.
  I think that our attack on Iraq is the dumbest American war since the 
War of 1812. But nonetheless, that is past history. We now have the 
question of whether or not we are going to pay for the war which we 
have waged. And at this point, I do not believe we have any choice.
  What I do wish is that the administration would be forthcoming about 
the full cost of the war, because you can bet just as surely as you sit 
here today that the administration will be back for even more money to 
cover the costs which are allegedly being provided for under this bill 
today. I think the administration is giving us the facts about the cost 
of this war on the installment plan. And by the time the full truth 
comes out, the costs will be much higher than this bill implies today.
  I also believe that it is dead wrong for this Congress to decline to 
appoint a Truman-like committee to investigate profiteering and fraud 
by contractors in Iraq.
  Just the story today about Halliburton in The Washington Post ought 
to be enough to prod this Congress into setting up a meaningful 
investigative committee. As has been pointed out, Harry Truman, when he 
was in the Senate, conducted almost 400 hearings and issued over 50 
reports on war profiteering during World War II. That was a Democratic 
Congress investigating a Democratic administration and it did no harm 
to the country. I hope that today this House will still agree to 
appoint that kind of a committee.
  Having said that, I think there is a far more important issue which 
is associated with this bill. Mr. Speaker, as we know, some of what 
appears in the newspaper can be right and some can be wrong, but there 
have been a number of stories which have appeared in the newspaper 
about the activities of the Defense Department which I find highly 
disturbing. I quote from one story Sunday, January 23, Washington Post: 
``The Pentagon expanding into the CIA's historic bailiwick has created 
a new espionage arm and is reinterpreting U.S. law to give Defense 
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld broad authority over clandestine operations 
abroad.''
  That article goes on to say: ``The Pentagon official said they are 
establishing the strategic support branch using reprogrammed funds 
without explicit congressional authority or appropriation.''
  It then goes on to say: ``One Republican Member of Congress with a 
substantial role in national security oversight declined to speak 
publicly against political allies, but he is quoted as saying, `It 
sounds like there's an angle here of let's get around having any 
oversight by having the military do something that normally the CIA 
does and not tell anybody. That immediately raises all kinds of red 
flags for me. Why aren't they telling us?' ''
  I think that question needs to be answered.
  There are a number of other comments in the press which are along the 
same lines. I would simply get to the last one by reading a portion of 
an article that appeared in the New Yorker several weeks ago. I just 
want to read one paragraph: ``The new rules will enable the special 
forces community to set up what it calls action teams in the target 
countries overseas which can be used to find and eliminate terrorist 
organizations. `Do you remember the right-wing execution squads in El 
Salvador?' the former high-level intelligence official asked me, 
referring to the military-led gangs that committed atrocities in the 
early 1980s. `We founded them and we financed them,' he said. `The 
objective now is to recruit locals in any area we want and we aren't 
going to tell the Congress about it.' ''
  Mr. Speaker, I think that the Congress has a right to demand that we 
be told about it. I had originally intended to offer an amendment today 
which would have fenced and prohibited the expenditure of the 
intelligence funds in this bill until we get from the administration an 
understanding about how we are going to be informed on these matters. 
And I do not mean after the fact.
  I had intended to offer that amendment, but yesterday I received a 
phone call from Andy Card, the President's chief of staff, who asked me 
to at least temporarily withhold offering that amendment, and he gave 
me his commitment that the administration would try to work out an 
arrangement to see to it that the leaders of the Intelligence 
Committee, the Armed Services Committee, and the Appropriations 
Committee are given the adequate information that they need to make 
choices around here.
  I told him that I would be willing to withhold that amendment on this 
bill with the understanding that if we have not got this worked out 
very quickly, that we will have an opportunity to deal with this issue 
on the next regular vehicle moving through here, which would be either 
the armed services bill or the defense appropriations bill.
  This, in my view, is the most important issue associated with this 
bill, and I intend to be back here with just such an amendment if we do 
not get the kind of reporting from the administration that we have a 
right to expect under the Constitution.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me just make a couple of quick points. I was not in Congress when 
the decision, on a bipartisan basis, was made to give the President the 
authority to commence hostilities in Iraq, but I do think it was the 
right decision, and I do think that it has been vindicated frankly by 
things that have happened recently not only in Iraq but throughout the 
Middle East.
  Regardless of that, I think my friend makes a good point, and I 
appreciate his support for this particular piece of legislation. I know 
it is very difficult. But the real question here is not the

[[Page H1432]]

war, as I tried to mention in my opening comments. That is a decision 
that has already been made by Congress. The real question on this 
particular piece of legislation on this rule is are we going to provide 
people the resources they need to get the job done that we asked them 
to do. I think it is very important that we do that on a bipartisan 
basis. I think that will be a very powerful message in Iraq and a very 
powerful message around the Middle East.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Last night, I offered 
an amendment before the Rules Committee that would have added $1.2 
billion to this bill for VA health care and $100 million for 
reintegration services for National Guard members being released from 
active duty. Unfortunately, my amendment was not ruled in order.
  America is currently asking more of its all-volunteer military force 
than it ever has before. Yet even as America prepares to continue its 
large and prolonged military campaign in Iraq, it has done very little 
to provide for the veterans of this war. Our obligation to support our 
troops does not end when they leave Iraq. But how are we supposed to 
provide adequate health care to these new veterans when we cannot even 
meet the needs of our current veterans?

                              {time}  1100

  Last year's budget was $1.3 billion short of the amount that VA 
Secretary Principi, as well as the House Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, stated is needed just to maintain the current level of 
veterans' health care services.
  We also need to make sure that our returning soldiers have the 
readjustment assistance they need, particularly for members of the 
Guard and Reserve. Members of the National Guard returning home face 
immense challenges in transitioning out of active duty deployments and 
back to civilian life. They do not go home to a base. They go home. 
They are scattered throughout the State. While the State Guard offices 
are working to provide these returning soldiers with important 
information regarding their health care, employment assistance, and 
other transitional services, they do not have the resources needed to 
complete the education and counseling necessary for a smooth transition 
back to civilian life. Our returning soldiers deserve better.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can 
consider this important amendment and keep our promises to our Nation's 
veterans.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, but 
because it is important to get our troops in the field the equipment 
that they need I will support the supplemental legislation that also 
includes desperately needed aid to Sudan and the victims of the tsunami 
and provides economic development funding for projects in Palestinian 
controlled areas of the West Bank.
  Yet I remain concerned that the legislation provides no funding for 
immediate mental health needs of our troops. The House is not even 
being given a chance to consider an amendment that I wanted to offer 
that would have added $263 million in DOD and VA funding for this 
issue. This at a time when the Army tells us that as many as one in six 
returning soldiers suffer from symptoms of post-traumatic stress 
disorder. If that is not an emergency, then I do not know what is.
  Providing badly needed funding for the Defense Department to improve 
its training programs for military families on the detection of mental 
health problems in service members returning from combat is an issue 
this committee agreed the Defense Department should consider in the 
2005 Defense appropriations bill. As such, this amendment would have 
increased by 20 percent our spending on specialized PTSD programs 
within the DOD, within the Veterans Administration, and go to treating 
the symptoms of PTSD such as substance abuse and homelessness. It would 
have embraced new technology in the Veterans Administration, promoted 
the use of private sector mental health professionals and students to 
be able to reach more troops and their families, especially in rural 
and underserved areas.
  More than 500 soldiers have been evacuated from Iraq for mental 
health reasons since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. We know 
the damage PTSD can do away from the battlefield, ruining families, 
causing alcoholism, drug abuse, and homelessness. Our men and women in 
uniform deserve a better homecoming than that.
  Let us do the right thing for our troops, address this issue soon, 
and give our soldiers the mental health services that they have earned.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I will be asking Members to join with me in voting ``no'' on the 
previous question so that I can modify the rule and allow the House to 
consider two very critical amendments for our Nation's combat soldiers 
that were rejected last night in the Committee on Rules. The first 
amendment by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) will help our 
Iraq and Afghanistan veterans in two important ways: First, it will 
provide an additional $1.2 billion for veterans' health care. 
Additionally, it will provide $100 million for reintegration services 
for the Army and National Guard members being released from active duty 
and returning to civilian life.
  The second amendment by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro) would expand mental health care by providing $238 million to 
the VA for a post-deployment mental health initiative and $35 million 
for the Defense Department to contract with private mental health 
providers for counseling the returning service members.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question will not block consideration of the supplemental. The bill 
will still be considered in its entirety. However, a ``yes'' vote will 
prevent us from voting to help our veterans in these very important 
areas. I urge all Members to join with me in supporting our soldiers 
and vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendments 
be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments just to go through 
some of the specific provisions of this particular legislation because 
I think the vote that we are getting ready to cast is so exceptionally 
important.
  Mr. Speaker, in terms of the defense portion of this particular 
appropriation, it includes a total of $76.8 billion for total defense 
expenditures. That is again $1.8 billion over what the administration 
requested. The additions over the request are in support of deployed 
and soon to be deployed or returning troops and to assist in force 
protection and to increase the survivability of troops in the field.
  Within the total Defense fund, $3.1 billion is provided for 
activities under the jurisdiction of the Military Quality of Life and 
Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. The following 
table summarizes, which I will submit for the Record, the committee's 
addition to the request within the Defense Subcommittee.
  So we have an extensive addition that I think actually improves the 
administration's original request. In addition to the Defense 
expenditures, we have included other moneys for foreign operations. The 
committee has added $1.7 billion in net foreign assistance funds within 
the Foreign Operations,

[[Page H1433]]

Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee. Within these funds, 
the committee has identified $1.7 billion in urgent or critical items 
funded in the bill as an emergency that are directly related to the War 
on Terror or aiding recovery to the tsunami victims. The committee also 
provides $1 billion of important items that further U.S. global 
interests but has offset this spending with a corresponding rescission 
of $1 billion in previously appropriated assistance to Turkey. These 
funds were provided in the first Iraq supplemental of 2 years ago and 
require a positive vote of the Turkish Parliament to be expended. There 
is widespread agreement that this will not take place anytime soon.
  Within the $1.7 billion of emergency assistance, there is $594 
million to the counternarcotics effort and for police training in 
Afghanistan; $400 million is requested to train Afghan police, and $194 
million and $66 million below the request.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I 
want to begin by congratulating the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), 
who has worked long and hard on this and has made four trips to Iraq 
and understands extraordinarily well how critically important it is for 
us to ensure that we get the resources necessary for our men and women 
in uniform there.
  We have many important things that need to be done in this measure. 
The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) talked in his opening remarks 
about the need for us to ensure the completion of our compound. It is 
not just an embassy, our compound, in Baghdad. I am one who would be 
very critical of a massive expenditure for a huge compound like this, 
but we have got to realize, as the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) 
said, that sending a message throughout Iraq that we are taking over a 
former palace of Saddam Hussein would not be the right signal for us to 
send. And that is why it is essential that we proceed with the 
construction of this very important compound.
  I think it is also very important for us to note that we have got to 
provide a reimbursement for the important humanitarian assistance that 
is being provided to those who have suffered, the over 150,000 who were 
killed, the people who have suffered from the tsunami. It is very 
important for us to deal with that.
  And, Mr. Speaker, it is also very important for us to recognize that 
this is the first must-pass piece of legislation. And what does that 
say? It says that we are keeping our word based on a very rigorous 
debate that we had last fall in the 108th Congress, and that had to do 
with implementation of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, the 
intelligence reforms. And just to remind our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, 
there were a number of us, and I was privileged to serve as one of the 
five House Republican conferees on that bill to implement the 9/11 
Commission's recommendations, and one of the things that we focused on 
was border security, realizing that Mohammed Atta, one of the 
individuals who flew a plane into one of the World Trade Center towers, 
had a valid driver's license, as did the 19 others who were involved in 
the terrorist attacks on September 11. But Mohammed Atta was in a 
unique position. He had been pulled over for a traffic violation and 
was actually scheduled to appear in court for that violation after 
September 11, and we all know what he did. He brought down one of the 
World Trade Center towers. And that is why we felt very strongly last 
fall when we were negotiating that conference agreement that we include 
language that this House overwhelmingly voted in support of, and that 
was to deal with this driver's license question, the problem of having 
people get into their hands, people who are here illegally, access to 
driver's licenses. And that is why we took those provisions. And, 
unfortunately, because the other body would not allow us to include 
those in the 9/11 conference, we had gotten to a point where we said we 
would include those in the first must-pass piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the first must-pass piece of legislation. And 
the REAL ID Act, which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and a wide range of other 
Members have offered include, it was a measure that was passed with 
strong bipartisan support here, 260 votes, and it is designed to do a 
number of very important things that are focused on our border 
security, which is tied to our national security, a very important 
aspect of our national security. It says that those States that provide 
driver's licenses to people who are here illegally cannot have those 
driver's licenses used for any Federal purpose, meaning that we 
recognize the importance of federalism, we recognize States rights, 
which is a very important thing for us to do, but what we do say is 
that those States which grant licenses to people who are here 
illegally, those licenses cannot be used for a Federal purpose, meaning 
getting on board an aircraft, meaning going into a Federal courthouse, 
applying for any kind of Federal program. The idea behind it is that we 
hope we will not see States granting driver's licenses to people who 
are here illegally. That is really our goal.
  One of the reasons that I enthusiastically supported Arnold 
Schwarzenegger for Governor of California 1\1/2\ years ago was the goal 
of ensuring that we did not see driver's licenses get into the hands of 
people who are here illegally.
  So this measure which we are going to be voting on here today, I am 
happy to say we have now included this in the rule itself. By voting 
for the rule, we will be including that measure.
  But another provision that is very important happens to be the goal 
that we have of closing the 3\1/2\ mile gap that exists in the 14-mile 
fence that goes from the Pacific Ocean to what is called the Otay Mesa 
on the border between San Diego and Tijuana. We have been able to see a 
great deal of success, based on reports that we have had from our 
border patrol agents, with the existence of this 14-mile fence. But, 
unfortunately, my California Coastal Commission, and I say it is my 
California Coastal Commission because I am a Californian, and I do not 
support what they have done, but they have chosen to sue the Federal 
Government to prevent completion of that 3\1/2\ mile gap in the 14-mile 
fence because of the fact that something known as the Bell's vireo bird 
has chosen to nest on that fence. And, Mr. Speaker, it is very sad that 
in the name of improving the environment and saving this bird, we have 
seen the environment devastated as well as the serious exacerbation of 
the illegal immigration problem across that border. Why? Because now 
through what is known as the Tijuana estuary we see people flowing in 
great numbers and all kinds of waste and devastation is there.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham), and our former colleague, Doug Ose, who worked hard on 
this issue over the past several years.
  Back in 1997, with the support of President Clinton, we passed 
legislation that was designed to build this 14-mile fence, and it is an 
amazing commentary that it took a shorter period of time to win the 
Second World War than it has to complete this 14-mile fence. I believe 
that with passage of this very, very important rule and the legislation 
itself, we will be able to deal with that.
  Mr. Speaker, we have done a number of very important things in this 
measure, aid and support for our efforts in Iraq, and we have enjoyed 
resounding success. Is it still a ``tough slog,'' as the Secretary of 
Defense said? Absolutely. No one ever claimed that war is easy. But we 
are enjoying success now, as we see the people of Iraq, 8.5 million 
strong, casting their ballots; as we see their great appreciation for 
the U.S. support there; as we see this realization with the leadership 
in Iraq, it is not the United States Government, the leadership in Iraq 
or the 275 Members of the Transitional National Assembly.
  So we are in position right now where we are doing the right thing 
with passage of this legislation. It is absolutely essential.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Cole of Oklahoma

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment Offered by Mr. Cole of Oklahoma:

[[Page H1434]]

       On page 2, line 9-10, strike ``, except for Sections 1113 
     and 1114''.



 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  March 15, 2005--On Page H1434 the following appeared: except for 
sections 113 and 1114''.
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: except for 
sections 1113 and 1114''.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, this amendment intends to protect 
sections 1113 and 1114 against points of order. The Committee on Rules 
last night exposed these provisions at the request of the chairman of 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, who has since asked the Committee 
on Rules to protect the provisions.
  The amendment is necessary to protect the important Military Death 
Gratuity Benefits contained in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this particular 
amendment to the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to say that I believe we have 
had an excellent debate on the rule. What is clear to me is the 
importance and timeliness of this legislation. With that said, I would 
again encourage Members to listen carefully to the following debate and 
to support the underlying legislation.
  Additionally, I would encourage Members to be cautious when it comes 
to considering the amendments. This bill has been carefully crafted and 
worked out in a way to ensure that our servicemen receive the best 
equipment when they go forward into war.
  Finally, I would ask the Members to remember that this is not a vote 
about the wisdom of the war in Iraq. The President and the Congress 
made that decision years ago. This vote is about giving those we have 
asked to execute our policy in Iraq the tools they need to do their 
job. The men and women serving our cause in Iraq ask for nothing more. 
In good conscience we should give them nothing less.
  To close, I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying resolution.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    Previous Question for H. Res. 151--Rule on H.R. 1268 March 2005 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq, Afghanistan and Tsunami 
                                 Relief

       At the end of the resolution add the following:
       Sec. 3. Before consideration of any other amendment it 
     shall be in order to consider the amendments printed in 
     section 4, which may be offered only in the order specified, 
     may be offered only by the Member designated or a designee, 
     shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to 
     amendment except pro forma amendments for the purpose of 
     debate, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of 
     the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. 
     All points of order against such amendments are waived.
       Sec. 4. The amendments referred to in section 3 are as 
     follows:
       (a) Amendment offered by Representative Hooley:

                  Amendment to H.R. 1268, as Reported

                (Supplemental Appropriations Bill, 2005)

                    Offered by Ms. Hooley of Oregon

       At the end of title V (page 69, after line 17), insert the 
     following new section:

       Sec. __. (a) In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated 
     in this Act, there is hereby appropriated for fiscal year 
     2005--
       (1) for ``Department of Defense--Military--Military 
     Personnel--National Guard Personnel, Army'', $100,000,000, to 
     be available for the provision of services for the 
     reintegration into civilian life of members of the Army 
     National Guard being released from active duty; and
       (2) for ``Department of Veterans Affairs--Veterans Health 
     Administration--Medical Services'', $1,200,000,000.
       (b) The amounts provided under this section are designated 
     as an emergency pursuant to section 402 of the conference 
     report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

       (b) Amendment offered by Representative DeLauro:

                   Amendment to H.R. ___, as Reported

                  (Supplemental Appropriations, 2005)

                 Offered by Ms. DeLauro of Connecticut

       At the end of title V, insert the following new section:
       Sec. __. (a) In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated 
     in this Act, there is hereby appropriated for fiscal year 
     2005--
       (1) for ``Department of Defense--Defense Health Program'', 
     $35,000,000, of which $25,000,000 shall be available for 
     Department of Defense contracts with private mental health 
     providers for counseling for returning servicemembers and 
     $10,000,000 shall be available for other mental health 
     programs within the Department of Defense; and
       (2) for ``Department of Veterans Affairs--Veterans Health 
     Administration--Medial Services'', $238,000,000, to be 
     available for a post-deployment mental health initiative 
     within the Department of Veterans Affairs.
       (b) The amounts provided under this section are designated 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress).

  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
  This rule adds to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations 
legislative language by Rep. Sensenbrenner that is completely unrelated 
to the Supplemental and will allow millions of people to drive our 
streets and freeways without insurance or a driver's license.
  Yes, we are speaking about undocumented immigrants. Yes, they broke 
the law and are here illegally. But, do we somehow think that denying 
these people the ability to legally drive is going to force them back 
to their home countries?
  That's ridiculous.
  Do we want millions of unsafe, untrained drivers on our streets with 
no insurance?
  This provision does nothing to make America safer.
  It is simply anti-immigrant legislation disguised as homeland 
security.
  No one doubts that our immigration system is broken and needs to be 
fixed.
  The Sensenbrenner provision is not the solution to our immigration 
problems and does not make our country safer.
  The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill is for funding our men 
and women in uniform overseas, not for controversial anti-immigrant 
agendas.
  Our men and women in uniform are risking their lives for our country, 
and need our financial support. They need armored personnel carriers, 
bulletproof vests, and the tools necessary to do their job as safely as 
possible.
  The Senate needs to be able to discuss and vote on the driver's 
license issue on its own merits, and not have this sneaked into our 
emergency war funding.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). 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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 amendment or on final 
passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 195, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 69]

                               YEAS--220

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert

[[Page H1435]]


     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--195

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Abercrombie
     Baird
     Boehlert
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Clay
     Hinojosa
     Jones (OH)
     Knollenberg
     Norwood
     Pascrell
     Rogers (MI)
     Ruppersberger
     Saxton
     Shaw
     Sweeney
     Walsh
     Waters
     Westmoreland


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1144

  Messrs. DAVIS of Tennessee, GORDON, VISCLOSKY, PETERSON of Minnesota, 
AL GREEN of Texas, CLEAVER and CRAMER and Mrs. NAPOLITANO changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, on the legislative day of March 
15, 2005, the House had a procedural vote on H.R. 1268, the FY 2005 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill. On House rollcall vote No. 
69, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is the resolution, as amended.
  The resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________