[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 58 (Thursday, May 5, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H2985-H2995]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1268,
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR
ON TERROR, AND TSUNAMI RELIEF ACT, 2005
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 258 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 258
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 1268) making Emergency Supplement Appropriations
for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief,
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other
purposes. All points of order against the conference report
and against its consideration are waived. The conference
report shall be considered as read.
Sec. 2. The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is
authorized, on behalf of the Committee, to file a
supplemental report to accompany H.R. 748.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). 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.
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 Wednesday the Committee on Rules met and reported a
rule for consideration of the conference report on H.R. 1268, the
Emergency Supplemental Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and
Tsunami Relief Act, 2005. The rule waives all points of order against
the conference report and provides that the report shall be considered
as read. Additionally, it authorizes the chairman of the House
Committee on the Judiciary to file a supplemental report to accompany
H.R. 748.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1268, the emergency supplemental appropriation, is
intended to fully fund our forces overseas and at home. It helps to
ensure the full funding of the important accounts which have been
depleted during our global war on terror and our effort to assist the
Iraqi and Afghan people in their efforts to establish functioning
democracies in their countries.
Additionally, the bill includes important funding for Afghan
reconstruction and counter-terrorism assistance, counternarcotics
efforts, international food aid, and relief to address the terrible
tragedies resulting from the massive tsunami that struck the Southwest
Pacific and Indian Oceans in December of 2004.
Mr. Speaker, additionally, this rule provides important increases in
coverage for the servicemembers' group life insurance and increases
coverage for individual soldiers from $250,000 to $400,000. It also
increases the one-time death benefit from $12,000 to $100,000. While
neither of these benefits can ever replace the lives of brave American
service personnel lost in action, they can assist their families
through the hard times they will face while recovering from the loss of
their loved ones.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 258 allows us to fully debate the
important issues surrounding the war on terror. Just yesterday we saw
on the front page of The Washington Post a graphic photograph that
captured the terrible effects of the war on an innocent victim and the
courage and compassion of the American soldiers who are engaged in the
battle. We should keep this image in mind as we commence the debate on
the conference report today. More than any words I could ever utter,
that picture illustrates the nobility of our effort, the valor and
decency of our soldiers, and the evil and fanaticism of our enemies.
Many may wish to raise policy issues in this debate. That is
certainly appropriate. Others may want to discuss issues that, however
important, are superfluous to the war on terrorism. Mr. Speaker, I
believe in this discussion we should focus our remarks on what truly
counts. We have committed 170,000 of our servicemen and -women to fight
terrorism and advance the cause of freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. We
owe them our full support in the battles they wage on behalf of the
American people and the cause of liberty. This rule and the underlying
bill represent the efforts of Congress to keep that solemn commitment
to the sons and daughters of America.
Mr. Speaker, to that end I urge 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.
I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that supporting our young men
and
[[Page H2986]]
women in uniform is a priority for each and every Member of this House.
Whether we are Democrats or Republicans, whether we have agreed with
the Bush administration's reasons for going to war in Iraq or opposed
them, we all want the United States to be successful in the Middle
East.
We may disagree on how we overcome the challenges that lay before us,
just as our Founding Fathers hoped and expected we would. But all of us
here are patriots, and all of us come to the table with our best
intentions in mind.
Our troops in uniform throughout Afghanistan and Iraq have
consistently performed their duty with courage and great integrity. It
is incumbent upon us here in the people's House to honor those
sacrifices in the only real way we can, by providing leadership for
this Nation that is as principled and as courageous as each of our
fallen soldiers.
We have a responsibility to live up to their example and have the
courage to perform our duty with integrity. We must insist on
accountability and honesty in this government, and we, too, must always
be accountable and honest.
But I fear that in this body, in this Congress, we have not risen to
that challenge. Yesterday, while walking through the Senate halls, I
saw a picture of Senator Harry Truman conducting a meeting of the
Truman Commission, and under that picture there is a statement that
says that the Truman Commission saved the taxpayers of the country
millions of dollars during the Second World War by ferreting out waste
and corruption in the American war effort. And let me remind my
colleagues that Senator Truman was investigating his own
administration.
The commission's purpose was to maximize every dollar we had to
spend, to ferret out corruption and mismanagement, and to infuse a
sense of accountability into the American war machine. By all accounts
they were successful in their noble endeavor. Their good work saved
many American lives by ensuring that our tax dollars were spent on
where they needed to be spent, on winning the war. One more helmet, one
more bullet, one more tank, it made the difference.
And yet we in this Congress do not have the courage to insist on the
same level of accountability today that our forefathers saw fit to
employ over 60 years ago.
When this same supplemental was brought before the House earlier this
year, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) offered an
amendment that would have established a select committee to follow up
on a very disturbing report which had been released from the Inspector
General's office. The report indicated that $9 billion of money spent
on Iraqi reconstruction was unaccounted for. And for those who are
counting out there, that is 9,000 million dollars. We heard reports of
payroll checks covering employees who did not exist and firms being
compensated for providing security for flights that never took off. We
even heard a report that a Pentagon contract for the development of
bullet-proof armor was given to a former army researcher who never
delivered a single piece of armor.
These types of incidents squander precious resources, waste time we
do not have, and, worse, they place our American soldiers' lives at
risk. But the majority in the House defeated our attempts to bring a
measure of accountability into the process. And today, 9 months later,
that $9 billion is still missing and none of those incidents I have
just mentioned have been investigated, none of them.
And still today we have no Truman Commission of our own to speak of
and no language in this conference report that will create one. The
question I have for my colleagues today is, why not? Surely the
leadership of the House understands that missing $9 billion of taxpayer
money could benefit our troops had we the sense to go and look for it.
And without any oversight commission to investigate and prevent the
issues of taxpayer dollars by the Pentagon or some unscrupulous
government contractors, how can we be sure that the $82 billion check
we are cutting today on behalf of the American taxpayers will actually
reach its destination or be used to protect our troops in the line of
fire? After all, it is our young men and women in uniform who pay the
price for the inability of this body to enforce any standard of
accountability.
But this is not the only failure of accountability we see here today.
All one had to do was open a newspaper this morning and read that Dr.
Ahmed Chalabi, who was honored by sitting there with the first lady in
the State of the Union Address, has been named the deputy prime
minister of the country and the acting oil minister in the provisional
government in Iraq. Do I have to remind this House that just months ago
Dr. Chalabi was under intense scrutiny for feeding the U.S. Government
bad intelligence, which ultimately led us to invade Iraq? Do I have to
remind my colleagues that just months ago Dr. Chalabi was suspected of
passing U.S. intelligence to the Iranian Government? Can anyone
possibly explain how this man has been allowed to accept such a high-
ranking position in the Iraqi provisional government?
We know what should be in the bill: language to create a modern
version of the Truman Commission so we can ensure that men like Chalabi
do not undermine the war and reconstruction effort, place American
soldiers at risk, and rob American taxpayers blind as we continue to
pump more and more money into Iraq.
But now I want to touch on what should not be in the bill. The
majority believes in instituting a national identification card program
for the country, which is in the legislation. Creating a national
identification card is serious business and could have profound
implications for all Americans. It should be debated on the floor
openly with opportunity for ample discussion and amendment. Instead,
the leadership has shoved this extreme measure down our throats as part
of the supplemental, knowing full well that many Members would never
support the measure in its current form but will be forced to vote for
it because we want to support our troops. That is not accountability;
that is arrogance.
How dare they hide behind our men and women in uniform as the brave
souls risk their lives every day to protect us from danger. How could
the leadership of this body use them to protect themselves and their
agenda from debate, from democracy, and accountability? This is just
the latest example of misuse of power.
Members should be aware that the rule contains a section that
authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary to file a supplemental report
on H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. Members
may recall that during the markup of H.R. 748 in Committee on the
Judiciary last month, five defeated Democrat amendments were included
in the committee report with descriptions that blatantly and grossly
mischaracterized the amendments. While the rule will provide for a
supplemental report to be filed, it does not require or direct the
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to apologize to the authors
of the amendments, nor are we sure that it will never happen again.
So just as the leadership concedes the issue and recognizes action
must be taken, they are still not accepting the responsibility. I am
sure we are supposed to be grateful for this small token, but it would
mean much more if those responsible for maligning our colleagues here
in the House would accept the responsibility for their actions and fix
the report.
I am going to support the conference report because I am supportive
of my troops abroad, but it has to be noted that our brave men and
women are being used as a tool to cover for the underhanded attempt to
institute a national ID card, but also for last week's misguided use of
power that maligned several of our colleagues. At the same time, they
have failed to infuse the much-needed accountability into the process.
This is not the principled leadership we owe the men and women the bill
is supposed to protect. This is not courageous. We can do better. We
owe our fighting men and women at least that much.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
For the purpose of clarification, I want to quickly address the
matter involving the supplemental report on H.R. 748, the Child
Interstate Abortion
[[Page H2987]]
Notification Act. The purpose of this supplemental report is to change
the description of certain amendments considered during the committee
markup and process. It is my understanding that the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary has already prepared the supplemental report
and shared its contents with the committee's ranking minority member.
I further understand that the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary is prepared to file a supplemental report immediately after
the adoption of this resolution and also to place it in the
Congressional Record. This supplemental report will be part of the
official legislative history of the bill and will amend the
descriptions contained in the original report.
This supplemental report responds directly to the questions of
privilege raised by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), both of which call for the
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary ``to report to the House a
supplement to House Report 109-51 that corrects the record by
describing the five amendments with nonargumentative, objective
captions.'' The text of the proposed supplemental report also includes
additional dissenting views from the committee's ranking minority
describing his disagreements with the interpretation of the amendments
by the majority.
{time} 1045
The filing of the supplemental report represents the regular order
for correcting problems in earlier committee reports filed with the
House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, since September 11 of 2001, we have been a Nation at
war. We are engaged in a worldwide war on terror, a battle against the
forces of terror, terrorists who hate our freedoms, who hate democracy.
But the fact of the matter is that the forces of freedom are winning.
We have liberated Afghanistan and brought democracy to that Nation for
the first time in its history. Afghanistan has gone from a haven for
terrorists to an ally in the War on Terror.
We have liberated Iraq. In January, we saw the dramatic results when
the people of Iraq defied the terrorists and went to the polls to elect
a new government. We saw another major step with the formation of a new
democratic government in Iraq just the other day, and we have seen
democratic movements break out in Lebanon. We have seen the Libyan
government renounce terror and weapons of mass destruction, and we have
seen the leaders of al Qaeda rounded up, including just yesterday, when
the number three terrorist in that organization was captured in
Pakistan.
Yes, war is difficult, but as we have found throughout our Nation's
history, freedom is not free.
That is why we in Congress must take this step today and approve the
emergency wartime supplemental. We have a responsibility to ensure that
our men and women in uniform have the tools that they need to take the
fight to the enemy, and we have an obligation to the families of those
brave men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of
freedom and security to ensure that they are cared for.
We have an obligation to the newly democratic allies that we have to
ensure that they will survive and not revert to repression and to
terror.
We have a responsibility to keep the heat on the terrorists. They can
run and they can hide, but not forever.
For those who say that we are spending too much on this war, I would
ask what price do you put on freedom and on security?
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and this measure. We owe our
troops, our allies, and the American people no less.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I expect this conference report to pass overwhelmingly.
I am troubled, however, that the conferees failed to include the
provision sponsored by Senator Byrd urging Congress to fund operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan through the normal budget process.
Our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer unforeseen
expenses; they are known, and they are anticipated. They should be in
this budget. This bill is nearly $82 billion, bringing the total amount
the President has received off-budget for Iraq and Afghanistan to
nearly $300 billion in just 2 years.
We cannot keep digging ourselves into this deficit hole. Unless our
policy changes, and I hope it does, these operations are going to be
long-term. And even though no one at the White House or the Pentagon is
willing to admit it, everyone in this House knows it. We have to get
this spending back into the regular budget process so that it is paid
for and does not bankrupt the Federal budget for decades to come. We
should be paying these costs like grownups, not passing them on to our
children and our grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, I am relieved that the conferees reinstated the
President's ability to waive the restrictions on the economic aid for
Palestine. I recently traveled to Israel and the Palestinian territory
with our distinguished Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi). It became clear to me that what we need out of
any agreement is not just a separate state for the Palestinians, but an
economically viable State, where Palestinians can make a decent living,
feed their kids, and live with dignity.
The House bill would have made it all but impossible for the U.S. to
help create that kind of confidence in the future. At least now the
President has some flexibility to show that the U.S. is willing to
invest in a secure and dignified future for Palestinians and Israelis
alike.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this supplemental, because I
cannot support any more money for the policy in Iraq. Over 138,000
troops are serving in Iraq, and I was there over the recess and had the
privilege of meeting some of them. These men and women are in Iraq
because of lies, because of deceit, and half-truths, and they deserve
better than more of the same.
I cannot support ever-increasing funding for the war in Iraq without
a clear understanding from this administration about when and how it
will bring our own troops home. I am tired of the spin, I am tired of
the lack of accountability, and I am tired of the lack of candor. I
believe the time to stand up and call for that kind of clarity is now.
Every Member of Congress, liberal or conservative, Democrat or
Republican, loves this country, supports our troops, and is doing
everything possible to help military families make it through difficult
times. This is not in question.
Our policy in Iraq, Mr. Speaker, is what is in question, and I, for
one, simply cannot support it.
Mr. Speaker, I expect this conference report to pass overwhelmingly,
but there are a number of issues in this bill that I find troubling.
First, I am troubled that the conferees failed to include the
provision sponsored by Senator Byrd urging Congress to fund our
military, security and reconstruction operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan through the normal budget process.
Our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer unforeseen
expenses; they are known and anticipated. They should be in the budget.
This bill is nearly $12 billion, bringing the total amount the
President has received off-budget from the Congress for Iraq and
Afghanistan to nearly $300 billion in just two years.
Mr. Speaker, we can't keep digging ourselves into this deficit hole.
Unless our policy changes--and I hope it does--these operations are
going to be long term. And even though no one at the White House or the
Pentagon is willing to admit it, everyone in this House knows it. We
have to get this spending back into the regular budget process, back
into the regular authorization and appropriations process, so that it
is paid for and doesn't bankrupt the federal budget for decades to
come.
We should be paying these costs like grown-ups--not passing them on
to our children and grandchildren.
Second, I commend the conferees for providing funding to meet
critical shortfalls in basic equipment for our troops in Afghanistan
and Iraq, especially for the Army, the Marines,
[[Page H2988]]
and our National Guard and Reservists. I just hope this time the
funding works and the shortfalls are met. This is not the first time
the Congress has specifically provided funding above and beyond the
President's request for body armor, up-armored Humvees, trucks, radios,
and the like. But somehow, this equipment never gets to the men and
women whose lives are on the line. So I thank the conferees for their
work on this matter, and I just hope this time the equipment gets to
where it's needed most.
Third, I strongly support the increased life insurance and death
benefit payments for our troops, including our Guard and Reservists.
But, Mr. Speaker, we could have done this over a year ago when my
colleague from Arizona, Mr. Renzi, and I succeeded in doubling the
death gratuity and restoring its tax exempt status. We would have done
more, but we were told at that time, in no uncertain terms by the
Pentagon, that increasing the benefit to $100,000 was unacceptable. So
I am pleased to see this matter satisfactorily resolved.
Fourth, I am very disappointed that the conferees failed to include
in the final conference report the Senate-approved amendment offered by
Senator Durbin to close the pay-gap for Federal employees who are
National Guard and Reserve members and are now serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Representatives Lantos, Graves, Shays and I have
introduced H.R. 838, the HOPE at HOME Act, which would help close the
pay gap for all activated and deployed Guard and Reservists, including
those who work for the Federal government. Senator Durbin's provision
focused solely on Federal employees, which is the largest employer of
National Guard and Reservists, and cost only $170 million over 5 years.
Right, the Federal government praises those private sector employers
that by their own choice do the right thing and make up the difference
between a Guard or Reservist's civilian pay and their military pay.
Rather than just praising others, I believe the Federal government
should be a leader in closing the pay-gap, and I am angry that once
again the Congress failed to take positive action on this matter.
Fifth, I am pleased that the conferees reinstated the president's
ability to waive the restriction on the economic aid for Palestine. I
recently had the privilege of traveling to Israel and the Palestinian
territories with our distinguished Democratic Leader, Congresswoman
Pelosi. It became clear to me that one of the most important things we
need out of any peace agreement is not a separate state for the
Palestinians, but an economically viable state. We need a Palestinian
state where people can make a decent living, feed and care for their
children, and live with dignity.
The House-passed bill would have made it all but impossible for the
U.S. to help create that kind of confidence in the future. While the
restrictions remain, at least now the president has the same
flexibility to show that the United States is willing to invest in a
secure and dignified future for Palestinians and Israelis alike.
And sixth, I strongly support the funding provided in this
supplemental for the tsunami disaster relief and reconstruction, the
international peacekeeping missions in Haiti and Darfur, Sudan, and for
international food aid programs.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this supplemental for two
major reasons. The first is that it still contains the Real ID Act. The
conferees did not increase the funding levels for border security, as
they were instructed to do under the House-passed motion to instruct.
Instead, the conferees have chosen to impose these highly restrictive,
punitive measures that will burden our states and, I believe, fail to
have any meaningful effect on stemming illegal immigration, but will do
great harm to those immigrants fleeing persecution, regardless of how
they come to our shores seeking protection.
But most importantly, I cannot support this supplemental because I
cannot support any more money for the policy in Iraq. Over 138,000
American troops currently serve in Iraq. I had the privilege of meeting
some of them when I was in Iraq during the Easter recess.
These men and women are in Iraq because of lies, deceit and half-
truths. They deserve better than just more of the same.
I can no longer support ever-increasing funding for the war in Iraq
without a clear understanding from this Administration about when and
how it will bring our own troops home. I am tired of the spin. I am
tired of the lack of accountability. I am tired of the lack of candor.
I believe the time to stand up and call for that kind of clarity is
now. For others of my colleagues, that time may come 2 years from now,
or 4 years from now, or 6 years from now, or maybe never--but for me,
the time is now.
Every Member of Congress, liberal or conservative, Democrat or
Republican, loves this country, supports our troops, and is trying to
do everything possible to help military families make it through this
difficult time. This is not in question.
Our policy in Iraq, Mr. Speaker, is what is in question. And I, for
one, can simply not support it.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in strong support of the emergency war supplemental, and I
commend in particular the new chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and all the
members of his committee, for masterful and disciplined work on this
important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, last year I traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan to meet
with troops and local leaders. I witnessed firsthand the challenges and
opportunities they face, and I can tell my colleagues with conviction
that heroes and a future of freedom are being forged every day in Iraq
and Afghanistan. And while much work remains, I am more confident than
ever in the justice and the ultimate success of our cause.
And, Mr. Speaker, I remain confident that we here in Congress must do
our duty, demonstrating the idealism and the perseverance of the
American people, stand with the men and women serving in our Armed
Forces, and speed the passage of this emergency supplemental bill
without rancor or without delay.
The men and women who liberated Iraq and Afghanistan deserve our very
best. They deserve the resources they need to get the job done and come
home safe.
It was just this morning I received an e-mail from Dawn Heister, the
courageous widow of Master Sergeant Mike Heister, who fell in
Afghanistan along with four other Hoosiers just the day before Easter.
The courage in her e-mail inspired and moved my wife and I to such an
extent that I rise today and dedicate my humble efforts and my vote
today in favor of this emergency war supplemental in the memory of
Master Sergeant Mike Heister and his brave wife.
But just like our troops, the American people deserve the very best
protection, and the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the
members of his committee, have succeeded in adding $635 million in
budgetary resources for increased border security and enforcement, and
this also is a critical advance in the war on terror. The money, just
like what we will invest in Iraq and Afghanistan, will help hire,
train, and equip and support an additional complement of over 500
Border Patrol agents and relieve current facility overcrowding.
We also will provide resources for training. It will provide the
Department of Homeland Security with additional resources to train and
hire criminal investigators and immigration enforcement agents,
recognizing that the 9/11 Commission concluded that for the terrorists,
travel documents are every bit as powerful and important as weapons.
This legislation will require all States to prove lawful presence in
the United States if their driver's licenses are to be accepted as a
form of identification as a travel document to a Federal official,
including Federal officials working at airports for the Transportation
Security Administration.
So I say, we are doing our part to provide for the common defense. We
are standing with our soldiers abroad as they fight on the front lines
of the war on terror. But this legislation also importantly and
urgently speeds additional resources to the fight here at home, with
its increased complement of support for border security and travel
security.
I applaud, again, the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and
the House Committee on Appropriations for their disciplined and
principled manner of approaching this legislation. I urge my colleagues
to affirm their leadership with a yea vote, and I urge the passage of
the emergency war supplemental.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
[[Page H2989]]
Let me simply say that I intend to support this legislation when we
actually get to it, but that does not mean I am happy with the contents
of it.
There are clearly more than seven or eight items, major items that I
find very problematic. But what I want to do at this time is to alert
the House to the contents of the motion that we would make on the rule
if the previous question is not adopted.
If the previous question is not adopted, we would be offering a
request to establish a select committee such as the Truman Committee
back in World War II to investigate and study the awarding and carrying
out of government contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and
Iraq. I would simply point out, all one has to do is to read the
newspapers daily to understand how badly this is needed.
The Washington Post this morning has the most recent story: ``Audit
of Iraq Spending Spurs Criminal Probe,'' and then it talks about
opening a criminal inquiry into millions of dollars missing in Iraq
after auditors have uncovered indications of fraud and nearly $100
million in reconstruction spending that could not be properly accounted
for. The article goes on to say, the audit of U.S. funds found that the
contract files were ``unavailable, incomplete, inconsistent and
unreliable.'' Other than that, they were terrific. And the article
points out that as a result, auditors have said the U.S. Government may
have trouble making a case against contractors who overbill or do not
do what they are supposed to do.
Now, we have been virtually begging on bended knee to get this
Congress to establish a committee with teeth to look into this problem.
We met with no success. I would point out that stands in stark contrast
to what happened in 1941 when then Senator Harry Truman became aware of
similar stories, and he saw to it that a committee was created in the
Congress to investigate that situation. That committee held 432 public
hearings and 300 executive sessions and issued 51 reports and saved the
taxpayers a load of money.
I would also point out, that was a case where a democratic Congress
was investigating a democratic administration, and no great harm was
done to the republic in the process. A lot of good was done.
So I just want to urge Members to vote against the rule because, in
my mind, this Congress is derelict in its duty and, in my mind, any
Member of Congress who refuses to recognize how the taxpayers' dollars
are being siphoned off every day by these operations, by these sloppy
operations in Iraq, they are contributing to the fact that the
taxpayers are being fleeced. They may not be wanting to do that, but
that is the practical effect of their actions.
So I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, sooner or later, we are going to
have this committee, because we are going to be stuck in Iraq for
another 5 years, and we are going to see stories like this headline
every week. It is about time we got around to setting up a cleanup
brigade to deal with the problem before we are all acutely embarrassed
by it.
So with that, Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that while I would
urge support for the underlying bill, I would urge that the rule not be
supported until we have had an opportunity for this House to meet its
oversight responsibilities. We ought to be acting like a watchdog in
this case. Instead, we are acting like puppy dogs. That is not going to
help the taxpayer very much.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as
he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of not only this
rule, but the conference report as well. I want to congratulate my
colleagues, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), and I know we are
going to be hearing from the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) in
just a few minutes some very thoughtful remarks.
But I want to begin by saying that this is the first supplemental
appropriations bill that our very good friend, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis) has brought to the House floor. And I take my
hat off to him, as I know both Democrats and Republicans will, for the
phenomenal job that he is doing as the new chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations.
This bill is one which encompasses, as we all know, the very
important aspect of ensuring that our men and women in uniform, as we
are in the midst of the war on terror, including Iraq, have what they
need. It also is focused on ensuring that we provide some relief to
those who were hit so badly by the tsunami that took place at the end
of last year. This also is, Mr. Speaker, a very great testament to the
commitment that was made by the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker
Hastert) last fall.
{time} 1100
I had the privilege of serving with a number of our colleagues as a
conferee on the intelligence reform package, the implementation of the
recommendations from the 9/11 Commission.
And we know that border security is a very important aspect of that.
Those of us who were House conferees on the Republican side pushed very
hard to make sure that we could deal with the driver's license issue,
the asylum issue, and the effort to close the 3\1/2\-mile gap in the
border fence which has been discussed here many, many times.
We had an amendment that was offered by our then former colleague,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), to complete that 3\1/2\-mile
gap. We worked very hard to ensure that when it came to the issues of
driver's licenses, that we did not impose a mandate on the States. We
simply said to the States, as is included in this measure, that if a
State chooses to give driver's licenses to people who are here
illegally, then those driver's licenses cannot be used for any Federal
purpose: getting on board an aircraft, going into a Federal courthouse,
applying for any Federal program.
So States are still free to do whatever they would like; but this
provision is addressed, I think, very adequately, focusing on our
security. Well, these issues that we discussed and tried to include in
the 9/11 Conference last fall unfortunately were not able to be
included because our colleagues in the other body chose to resist. And
we had a commitment from Speaker Hastert that the first must-pass piece
of legislation would include the very important border security items
which are so important for us.
And I am happy to say that Speaker Hastert and Chairman Lewis have
included these provisions. I also wanted to compliment President Bush
who has strongly supported the effort to include the Real ID Act in
this measure. This is a very important first step towards dealing with
the issue of border security. I am pleased, we are planning next week
to hold hearings on H.R. 98, our goal of putting into place a
counterfeit-proof social security card, so that we can also play a role
in diminishing that magnet which draws people illegally across the
border; and in so doing, we can allow the Border Patrol to focus their
attention on the potential terrorist threat coming across our borders
and other criminals.
And so we have got very important things that we are doing. No one
knows whether this is a panacea. It is still a problem with which we
have to contend, but the measures that are included in this
supplemental appropriations bill are critical to dealing with that
challenge that we face.
I thank my friends for their hard work on this. I generally
congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and all who have
been involved on both sides of the aisle in implementation of this
important measure.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could give my full
congratulations. I appreciate the leadership of our members of the
Appropriations Committee; but might I say, Mr. Speaker, that there are
a lot of Achilles heels in this particular legislation.
I will quickly say that my good friend, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier), talks about security.
[[Page H2990]]
And, frankly, this bill and the President's mark and budget cuts border
security in half, cuts the ICE officers in half. So, really, there is
no border security in this bill.
And then they try to patchwork immigration. Today I am going to
introduce the Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act that really
confronts the question that Americans are concerned about, getting in
front of the immigration concern and not behind it.
The Real ID bill takes away Americans' rights, denies asylees the
opportunity to come into this country where for years we have brought
those that have been mutilated and raped. It is not a bill that
confronts the values of America.
And then, of course, it is a back-door way to correct the abuse that
was rendered in the Committee on the Judiciary characterizing Members'
amendments that dealt with protecting children and providing rights to
clergy and grandparents as having to do with a criminal act. There is
no response to that, other than a back-door opportunity to clarify the
Record.
Where is the apology? Why were these amendments mischaracterized in
the first place? Particularly since the same amendments, dealing with
clergy, dealing with taxicab drivers, dealing with grandparents and
aunts and uncles, providing teenagers that opportunity to consult with
them, were also in 2002, and never characterized as wrongly as they
were characterized now.
This is a wool-over-your-eyes. Unfortunately, the tragedy in Iraq
continues to grow, now almost 160 people killed in the last 4 days.
When is the administration going to speak to the issue of a solution in
Iraq. This bill does not answer the question.
Certainly we support our troops. We wish for them the best. These
moneys are necessary, but they are clouded with a lot of baggage that
does not help the American troops. This is a ``no'' on the rule, and
this certainly is worthy of consideration of this appropriation that
does not answer the concerns of Americans. While our soldiers are
fighting, Rome is burning. This is a bad bill, and it is a bad rule.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Rule in H.R. 1268, the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, The Global War on Terror,
and Tsunami Relief for 2005 purports to do and I thank the Chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary for what Section 2 of the rule proposes
to do. For Representative Nadler, Representative Scott, Ranking Member
Conyers, and me, Section 2 of this rule represents an effort to appease
aggrieved Members of Congress. The cure is not complete, and I plan to
offer a point of personal privilege to highlight this unfortunate
action by the majority next week.
Section 2 of H. Res. 258
Section 2 of the rule provides that ``The Chairman of the Committee
on the Judiciary is authorized, on behalf of the Committee, to file a
supplemental report to accompany H.R. 748.'' While I thank the
Gentleman from Wisconsin for his effort, unfortunately, this language
is neither hortatory nor fully protective of the privileges offered by
House Report 109-51.
Previous Question on Rule H. Res. 258
Mr. Speaker, we must include in the underlying conference report a
concurrent resolution adding the Tierney-Leach accountability
amendment.
The Tierney-Leach accountability amendment would create a Select
Congressional Committee--based on the Truman Committee that existed
from 1941 to 1948 during World War II--to investigate and study the
awarding and carrying out of Government contracts to conduct military
and reconstruction activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We must look to our history, Mr. Speaker, and look to the Truman
Select Committee as a precedent for a select committee to investigate
government contracting during wartime. In 1941, with the United States
engaged in a major military build-up as part of World War II, Senator
Harry Truman (D-MO) became aware of widespread stories of contractor
mismanagement in military contracts. Senator Truman rightly called upon
Congress to create a select committee to study and investigate
contracting, which Congress did on March 1, 1941. From its creation in
1941 until it expired in 1948, the Truman Committee held 432 public
hearings and 300 executive sessions, went on hundreds of fact-finding
missions, and issued 51 reports. Throughout, the Truman Committee
earned high marks for its thoroughness and efficiency and ensured that
taxpayer dollars were being well-spent.
There is ample evidence of the necessity of a modern-day Truman
Committee. Since 2003, numerous questions have arisen about U.S.
government contracting in Iraq. From the start of our involvement in
Iraq, questions have arisen about how contracts have been awarded, the
size of those contracts, the quality of contractor work, and the use of
taxpayers dollars.
Since 2003, there have been many examples of the misuse of American
taxpayer dollars in Iraqi contracting. Nearly $9 billion of money spent
on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies
and bad management, according to the Special Inspector General for the
Iraqi Reconstruction. In one case, the Inspector General raised the
possibility that thousands of ``ghost employees'' were on an unnamed
ministry's payroll. Furthermore, a government contractor defrauded the
Coalition Provisional Authority of tens of millions of dollars in Iraq
reconstruction funds and little is being done to try to recover the
money, according to the reports of whistleblowers. For example, the
firm was paid $15 million to provide security for civilian flights into
Baghdad even though no planes flew during the term of the contract.
Ensuring vigilant oversight of taxpayer dollars should not be a
partisan issue. Vigilant congressional oversight of large sums during
wartime should not be a partisan issue. The Truman Committee was
created at a time when Democrats controlled the White House, the House
and the Senate. A Democratic Congress was demanding careful oversight
of a Democratic Administration. Democrats are pleased that this select
committee is being cosponsored by a Democrat and a Republican--Rep.
Tierney and Rep. Leach.
We owe it to American taxpayers to oversee how taxpayer dollars are
being spent. Billions are being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed,
according to CRS, this $81.3 billion supplemental appropriations bill
being considered by the House is in addition to the $201 billion that
the Department of Defense has received, since the 9/11 attacks, for
soldiers deployed or supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What is in question is how taxpayer dollars are being spent, whether
taxpayers are getting their money's worth, and whether the high-quality
equipment and services that warfighters deserve and require are being
delivered. A new Truman Committee would allow us to get the facts on
U.S. contracting in both military and reconstruction activities and to
fix whatever problems exist.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I oppose the rule.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to
my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule for the
emergency supplemental appropriations act and the underlying bill.
In addition to the needed funds to sustain military operations and
reconstruction efforts in the Middle East, this legislation contains
two key provisions that I would like to highlight. The first is
language that ensures that funds in the bill will not be used to cancel
the multiyear contract for C-130J procurement.
Currently more than half the fleet of combat-ready C-130s is over 30
years old. Although their longevity is clearly a testament to the value
of these critical aircraft, we should be very concerned that the C-130E
and H models continue to age at alarming rates, putting our tactical
airlift capability at risk in the near term.
In fact, several weeks ago, the Air Force announced that they are
grounding much of the C-130E models because of severe fatigue in their
wings, including a dozen that have been flying missions in and out of
Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Speaker, some of these planes were used in Vietnam, and we are
literally flying their wings off in the Middle East. The Air Force has
long anticipated the aging of the older models, which only makes it
more remarkable that the multiyear contract to replace these planes has
been carved out of the 2006 budget.
Mr. Speaker, because of the growing problem that the Air Force faces
in its tactical airlift program, I support the C-130J language, and I
would like to express my sincere thanks to the appropriations chairman,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and the conferees for
retaining this language.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the conferees for protecting
the Real ID provisions of H.R. 1268. As our Rules Committee chairman,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), just mentioned, this would
establish and rapidly implement voluntarily regulations for State
driver's licenses and identification document security standards.
[[Page H2991]]
It would increase the burden of proof of claiming asylum. It would
synchronize terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal,
and also facilitate the completion of the San Diego border fence.
These provisions were recommended by the 9/11 Commission, bipartisan,
10 members; and they are important for securing our borders from
illegal entry and possible terrorist activity. Our immigration laws are
in need of reform, and I believe these provisions are a positive step
in the right direction.
So I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am sad that a bill that the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
worked so hard on, which contains $82 billion, would still be more an
example of how not to do business.
First of all, it is a testimony to the lack of planning on behalf of
this administration for conducting the war in Iraq. They still could
not give us, after 3 years of planning and activity, could not give a
reasonable number in advance, to be able to budget properly, instead of
putting together a supplemental effort.
It continues to give, in my judgment, too much money to the wrong
people to do the wrong things. And we have been slow to, despite the
attention of this Congress, the lavish amount of money and expressions
of concern by individual Members to protect our troops, we have still
been slow to meet their needs on simple things like armoring their
vehicles.
But one of the worst things for me in this supplemental is that we
have grafted onto it the Real ID Act. This element that we debated here
contains what I think is the worst single example of legislative
precedent in the 10 years that I have been here, where in order to deal
with a 3\1/2\ mile gap in constructing a fence. For 10 years Congress
and the administration has been willing to provide waivers for specific
problems, where two administrations have been circling it, where rather
than deal with the specifics and solve the problem, this legislation
incorporates section 102 which waives all rules and regulations along
not just this 3\1/2\ mile gap, but along the entire 7,514 border with
Canada and with Mexico.
It is not just an environmental problem. It waives all rules, all
regulations, all Federal standards for an indeterminate width along
7,500 miles, and vests it in the hands of the Homeland Security
Department, hardly a paragon of efficiency and sensitivity.
Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge my colleagues to take a hard look
at this. You do not want to establish a precedent like this in Federal
legislation.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), my good friend.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, this supplemental bill is a good bill. I
was privileged to go with my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Cole), to Iraq. We visited with the troops. And some of the troops
indicated that they got the satellite transmissions, some of the news.
They had heard some of our friends on the other side of the aisle
saying they were wasting their lives. They had heard some of
newscasters saying that they were wasting lives.
But they said after the election they knew why they were there: they
were setting a historical precedent in the cradle of civilization. They
were doing good and they knew it, and they know it today. And we owe it
to our troops to make sure that they have everything they need to make
Iraq, or give them the opportunity to create that democracy.
In talking to Sunnis, the Sunnis were upset with their leadership
that told them not to vote. They said, please, if you would just stand
behind the Iraqi police and armed services to make sure we get one more
chance to vote. One former general under Saddam Hussein said, if you
will do that, I believe you will see 95 percent of the violence in Iraq
go away.
Folks, this is historic, what we have undertaken; and it does not
just help Iraq. It deals with terrorism around the world. It sends that
message. It has already sent shivers throughout the Middle East, and it
has helped us right here in America. That is why we are doing it. So we
need to support that.
Also, I want to address one other thing that has been brought up. I
have heard people on television, I have heard colleagues across the
aisle, some folks I have great respect for, indicating that there is
nothing in the Real ID bill that would have changed anything on 9/11.
And I have respect for some of these people that I have heard say
that, and I wish that they would read the bill instead of just relying
on talking points or something from the leadership. Because, if you
look, under evidence of lawful status, which is required in order to
have a driver's license that will be an acceptable form of
identification to get on an airplane, it says, you cannot use a
driver's license if it does not come from a State that makes sure you
are in lawful status.
And if you are in a temporary status, it must be a temporary driver's
license that says on there the same date your permit to be in this
country expires. If we had had that in place on 9/11, then every one of
the hijackers would have tried to get onboard an airplane with an
invalid, out-of-date driver's license, and should have been stopped.
Folks, this goes in a number of directions, all coming together to
help with the fight against terrorism. It would have helped on 9/11; it
will help prevent 9/11s in the future. I would encourage everyone to
support it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to respond to
the previous speaker and to remind him that the hijackers, many of
them, had driver's licenses from the State of Virginia, and others had
visas and passports. So I do not think this national ID card would have
stopped them.
{time} 1115
Also, if he is referring to Members on our side saying that we are
not safer than we were on 9/11, I would report that was a government
report saying that TSA has made us no safer than it was before.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of the supplemental. I do believe
that we need to provide our troops with the tools and the resources
that they need to do their job safely and effectively.
I have had an opportunity on two separate occasions now, Mr. Speaker,
to travel to Iraq to visit our troops in the field, and nothing has
made me feel prouder to be an American than seeing our troops in
action. They are well trained. They are well motivated. They are the
best that we have to offer. I know we all hope and pray for the safety
of their mission and their safe return home to be reunited with their
families.
I also want to commend the troops and the families of the 1158
Transportation Unit and the 128 Infantry Guard Unit in western
Wisconsin that are currently serving in the Iraq theater right now.
But I do have some concerns in regard to the supplemental. I do
believe that we owe a higher responsibility to our troops and their
families and our taxpayers by supporting more oversight and
accountability in this bill, such as the creation of a Truman
Commission that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) has been
advocating for some time. We need more accountability on how the money
is being used or misused in Iraq right now. We need to fix that.
I also have a concern that we are not paying for anything. It is
awfully easy to come to the House floor and puff ourselves up and claim
that we are supportive of the troops, we are doing all of these nice
things for them and the families when we do not have the responsibility
to pay for it. $82 billion today, well over $300 billion and counting,
all deficit financing and we are mortgaging our children's and
grandchildren's future. This is exactly why the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Upton) and I offered an amendment to strip funding for the
creation of an embassy in Iraq, not because we do not agree that one is
necessary, but because we wanted to make the point
[[Page H2992]]
that that is not an emergency item. None of this is unexpected
emergency circumstances, and, therefore, we need to start budgeting and
practice fiscal responsibility again. Miraculously, the embassy is back
in this bill, another $600 million, none of it paid for.
Finally, I am concerned that there is no objective criteria to
measure progress in Iraq. During the Second World War, you could pretty
much put pins on maps and see the progress of the front lines. You
could do that in Korea. In Vietnam, we had body counts that did not
work very well, nor was it an appropriate measure to use. Today we have
no objective criteria for us to understand whether we are succeeding
and making progress there. I think that's one of the reasons why public
support is dropping. I think we need to get some type of criteria for
ourselves, for the troops, for their families and for the American
people.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to quickly respond to a couple of points that my
good friend made. First, I would remind him that we did not pay for
World War II or Korea or Vietnam out of current revenue. It is not
unusual to finance wars in this particular fashion.
Second, as to the point on the embassy, I have been to Iraq four
times and have met with our folks there and, frankly, I think they
deserve the very best protection they can get as quick as we can get
it. They are every bit as much at risk as people that wear the uniform
of the United States. They are all volunteers. They have done a
wonderful job representing our country. They deserve and need a safe
place to operate out of. I am very glad that that particular measure
was put back in during conference.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield ten seconds to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) to respond.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's comments, but just to
correct the historical record, you may recall in the 1960s, President
Johnson did decide to pay for the war. There were some tax increases in
order to support the ongoing military operation. It can be done. It
should be done in this instance as well. We have been there for a
couple years now. We are going to be there in future years. We need to
start paying for this.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) for yielding me time.
Let me say as President Reagan used to say, Here we go again. Another
supplemental spending bill for the war in Iraq and why?
Because time and time again, the Republicans refuse to spend one cent
for this war in their sham budget, a budget every Democrat opposed this
year and last year; because we need these so-called off budget bills to
cover up the exploding deficits the Republicans have given, not to us,
but to our children and grandchildren totaling $27,000 for every
American.
We are going to need a death tax relief just to pay for the birth tax
that our children and grandchildren will have to pay.
To add insult to injury, the Republicans have added to this must-pass
spending bill for our troops the REAL ID Act. These provisions, which
are supposed to make our country more secure, will do nothing but place
more anti-immigrant restrictions making it harder for honest people
fleeing religious prosecution from entering our country, and added a
$100 million unfunded mandate onto our States. If this were in place,
it would not have prevented the attacks of 9/11. That is purely false.
The 9/11 Commission has said they are unwarranted. It was added by
the right wing extremist from the Republican conference. This
legislation, which, again, the 9/11 Commission has called
``unwarranted,'' was added by the right wing extremists in the
Republican caucus whose joy in bashing immigrants is exceeded only by
their zest for tax cuts for the wealthy in this country.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
(Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose any rule that does not allow for
consideration of an amendment to investigate the government contracts
with regard to our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This supplemental that we are talking about under the rule is $82
billion in additional spending, bringing it to almost $300 billion for
spending on combat operations, occupation and support for our military
personnel.
Congress rightfully is trying to meet its operational and technical
and equipment needs of our troops. But it also has to ensure that these
funds are properly managed and that they are monitored, and in that
regard, we have been largely silent in this Congress.
We should make no mistake about it, there is more than enough reasons
to be careful and to scrutinize the procurement process. The Center for
Strategic and International Studies made an analysis and said as little
as 27 cents of every dollar spent on Iraqi reconstruction has actually
filtered down to projects benefiting Iraqis.
Taxpayers for Common Sense cited a KPMG study. It said that the
Commander's Emergency Response Program, which is a program designed to
allow U.S. military officers to quickly fund small reconstruction
projects, maintain little documentation on how tax dollars were spent:
42 cases worth, $13 billion, where there were no contracts on file; 142
cases totaling $40 million, where there was no proof that the work was
even done.
These are only a few of the examples. We have a situation where it is
reported by BBC News that Transparency International warns that post-
war Iraq reconstruction is in danger of becoming the biggest corruption
scandal in history. They said there is evidence of high levels of
corruption in post-war Iraq, and it is critical of the United States'
handling of reconstruction programs. And they said they favor a small
number of large firms who they awarded public contracts, and they were
all too secretive.
We have report after report of Halliburton and other corporations not
having enough oversight. The Wall Street Journal reports that the
Pentagon auditors are questioning $212 million that Halliburton company
billed Washington to deliver fuel to Iraq saying that it may well
constitute overbilling. This criticism continues to go on about sole-
source contracts and other issues that ought to be explored.
We can have substantive differences about the merits of the way we
are conducting military policy. But there ought to be unanimous
agreement in this Congress ensuring our role that taxpayer dollars are
effectively and judiciously spent.
We should establish a select committee. That is why the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and I filed a Truman Commission measure that
should be included as an amendment to this bill. It would put a select
committee to study, among other things, the bidding, the contracting,
the auditing standards, and issuance of government contracts, the
oversight procedures, and the forms of payment and safeguards against
money laundering, the accountability of contractors and government
officials involved in procurement, and the allocation of contracts to
foreign companies and small businesses.
Yes, we modelled it after the original Truman Commission. In 1941,
that Truman Committee saved about $15 billion in taxpayer money; 432
public hearings; 1,800 witnesses.
Mr. Speaker, the American people have a right to have oversight done
by this body. It is our job to do it. It is demanded by it. We should
craft a rule that protects this amendment and ensures the public
resources are safeguarded.
The Truman Committee was also unanimously respected for its focus on
fact-finding and its refusal to succumb to partisan considerations. Mr.
Leach and I share that view and believe that congressional oversight of
these huge sums should not be a partisan issue. Critics may say that
there is no need to create
[[Page H2993]]
a select committee when Congress has standing committees to perform
this role. Regrettably, those standing committees have not vigorously
exercised their institutional oversight role. While Mr. Shays's
Subcommittee on National Security has attempted to draw attention to
this issue, the full Government Reform Committee has convened only four
hearings on the Iraq contracting process.
Similarly, the House Armed Services Committee touched on this issue
during a June 2004 Readiness Subcommittee hearing, however--beyond
that--they have not pursued the issue. To that point, highlighting the
need for such a select committee, the Ranking Democrat on the House
Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton, has co-sponsored the bill from
which this amendment is based.
Critics may disqualify this amendment on a technicality, suggesting
it authorizes on an appropriations bill. To that, I would respectfully
point out that there are other provisions of this bill--some of which
strengthen the underlying text--that include authorizing language.
I would ask that this Committee craft a rule that protects this
amendment and ensures that our ever-scarce public resources will be
safeguarded.
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
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) for yielding me time and for her leadership.
Mr. Speaker, as the daughter of a veteran, I want to first express my
profound respect for our brave men and women serving in Iraq, but we
are not helping these brave troops if we blindly sign yet another blank
check for this unjust and unnecessary war in Iraq.
This $82 billion supplemental would bring the total war spending to
over $300 billion. How can we sign off on another $82 billion check
when the Bush administration has failed to provide the proper
accounting of where the taxpayer money is going? How can we sign off on
this check when our own government reported yesterday that another $100
million cannot be accounted for?
This is on top of the $9 billion from last year that is still
missing. How can we sign this check if the Bush administration has
offered no plan to bring our troops home?
Furthermore, are we safer today than we were before this unnecessary
war started? Iraq is now a breeding ground for terrorists. We are less
safe as a result of this war. Members know and I know. Before the
invasion of Iraq, there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and
Osama bin Laden. Still, this administration would have us also believe
that adding the unrelated anti-immigrant provisions to this
supplemental bill would make us safer, but the fact is REAL ID will do
nothing to make us safe.
This administration has much to account for. They are cutting Section
8 for our seniors and our poor. They are cutting the budget for housing
for people living with AIDS. They are cutting housing for the disabled.
They are cutting Medicaid. When you look at $13.5 billion over the next
5 years for our veterans, they are cutting that. They are making the
least of these pay for this war. That is wrong.
This is a whole new level of immorality that I have ever seen. This
distortion of the facts with regard to Iraq and the fact that they told
us that weapons of mass destruction were there, we know that is not the
case. We know that. You know that. Yet another $82 billion to fund this
war that has not made this country any safer. It has made us less safe.
When you look at what is happening in our own country, when you look
at health care, when you look at the people out there in the street
that are suffering, why do they have to pay for this war? I ask for a
no vote.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to respond to some of the points my
good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) made.
Not helping our soldiers? A blank check? This bill is anything but a
blank check. Let me read a couple of things in here. Just running down
operations and maintenance, Navy, $3.4 billion; operations and
maintenance, Marine Corps. There is line after line of great
specificity my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations was very careful in crafting a bill that will meet the
needs of our personnel.
The immoral thing to do would be to commit 170,000 people to combat
and not resupply them and not reequip them and not give them the things
they need on a daily basis to not only be successful, but to provide
for their own safety and security.
It is very legitimate to debate the war. Although I remind my good
friend on the other side of the aisle, this body and the other body
vote on a bipartisan basis to make the commitment in Iraq. I could read
off name after name, including the distinguished nominee from the other
body, of my friends on the other side of the aisle, a candidate for
President last time, who voted in favor of this particular contest.
Having made that decision, once we place people on the line under
fire and in danger, we owe it to them to provide them what they need.
We can continue to debate policy. That is a very legitimate point, but
I think it would it be the height of folly and irresponsibility to not
fund people when they are in the field in action. Frankly, it would
send the wrong signal to our adversaries, and more importantly, the
wrong signal to our own men and women and their families. And not to
support the rule, and certainly not to support the supplemental
appropriations, I believe, would be a grave and terrible mistake for
this country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1130
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from my colleague if he is
ready to yield back, then I will close.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I certainly am prepared.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If
the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the
rule to instruct the enrolling clerk to make an important addition to
the conference report.
This addition will establish a select committee to investigate the
awarding and carrying out of war-related contracts in Afghanistan and
Iraq.
Nearly $9 billion of money spent on the Iraq reconstruction is
unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according
to the Special Inspector General for the Iraqi Reconstruction. Ensuring
vigilant oversight of taxpayer dollars should not be a partisan issue.
I want to stress that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not
stop consideration of the emergency supplemental report. A ``no'' vote
will simply allow the House to create a much-needed select committee to
investigate government contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from
establishing this important select committee.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, again, I urge a ``no'' vote on the
previous question, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
The 9/11 Commission was constituted in order to tell the American
public what we could do to avoid or stave off another attack like the
one that occurred on 9/11. I rise in support of this rule taking up the
conference report because I think the components that we have included,
recommended by the 9/11 Commission, are vital for the purpose of
national security for the United States.
Let us look at the consequences of the 19 hijackers who, by violating
procedures with respect to identification, were able to shop from State
to State, from California to Virginia to Florida, and obtain between
them over 60 different types of IDs. I will remind the body that in
terms of the aliases used
[[Page H2994]]
just by those 19 individuals, they used 364 aliases between them. So as
a consequence, it was virtually impossible for authorities to follow or
detect as they changed their identities, as they used these documents
in order to rent cars, as they used these documents in order to take
flight training lessons, to learn how to fly here in the United States,
as they used these fraudulent documents even to board airplanes and
crash them into the Twin Towers and into the Pentagon. We have to ask
ourselves is there something we, as an institution, could do to make
certain that this did not occur again?
The 9/11 Commission has laid out a strategy for a secure
identification system, and basically what we are talking about is
simply minimum standards so that all States know the rudimentary
requirements to make certain that people are who they say they are.
Because the 9/11 hijackers abused the process and went from State to
State, we know for a fact that we need minimum standards.
We know that it only makes sense that when Mohamed Atta was given a
visa that was valid for only 6 months but could use it to obtain a
driver's license that was valid for 6 years, that, in fact, we were not
tailoring our laws to fit our national security concerns.
There are other provisions as well, the reform of amnesty, the
completion of the border fence, the expedited approval. But as we look
at the border security issue with respect to completion of the border
fence, I talked to a border agent who had stopped an individual
originally from Kyrgyzstan who had trained in Afghanistan, who had
trained there in Jihad, at the fence. What this particular border guard
told me was that there is a 3-mile gap in that triple barrier fence,
and it was within that area of that gap that this individual tried to
come into the U.S. and was apprehended and returned.
I think we need to give our border security personnel the assets that
they have requested. We need to help them do their job, and the
completion of this triple barrier fence will achieve that objective
because it is in the interest of national security.
I think it is proper we bring it up and include it in this bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me take the time I have remaining to just say that we are not
doing what the 9/11 Commission asked. They wanted us to negotiate with
our States on whether they wanted to do this or not; and what we have
done is impose upon the States, without any hearings or any discussion
with them, from top down, an unfunded mandate requiring them to change
their driver's license at our whim. So this is not that at all. We are,
in fact, undoing what the 9/11 Commission said.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
In closing, I would like to say that I believe we have had a good
debate on the rule today. I believe the importance and timeliness of
this legislation could not be more self-evident. This bill has been
carefully crafted and worked in a way to ensure that our service men
and women receive the best supplies and equipment when they go to war
and that those supplies and equipment are replenished and replaced in a
timely fashion.
Finally, I would ask Members to recall that this is a vote about our
willingness to support our service men and women, not about other
policy issues. The men and women serving our cause in Iraq ask for
nothing more. In good conscience, we should give them nothing less.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 258--Rule on Conference Report for H. R.
1268 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global
War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief Act, 2005
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
``That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill
(H.R. 1268) making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for
Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other
purposes. All points of order against the conference report
and against its consideration are waived. The conference
report shall be considered as read.
Sec. 2. The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is
authorized, on behalf of the Committee, to file a
supplemental report to accompany H.R. 748.
Sec. 3. (a) A concurrent resolution specified in subsection
(b) is hereby adopted.
(b) The concurrent resolution referred to in subsection (a)
is a concurrent resolution
(1) which has no preamble;
(2) the title of which is as follows: ``Providing for
Corrections to the Enrollment of the Conference Report on the
bill H.R. 1268''; and
(3) the text of which is as follows:
At the end of the (conference report) bill add the
following new title:
TITLE --
Sec. 1. There is hereby created a select committee on the
model of the Truman Committee to investigate the awarding and
carrying out of contracts to conduct activities in
Afghanistan and Iraq and to fight the war on terrorism
(hereinafter referred to as the ``select committee'').
Sec. 2. The select committee is to be composed of 15
members of the House, to be appointed by the Speaker (of whom
7 shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the minority
leader), one of whom shall be designated as chairman from the
majority party and one of whom shall be designated ranking
member from the minority party. Any vacancy occurring in the
membership of the select committee shall be filled in the
same manner in which the original appointment was made. The
select committee shall conduct an ongoing study and
investigation of the awarding and carrying out of contracts
by the Government to conduct activities in Afghanistan and
Iraq and to fight the war on terrorism and make such
recommendations to the House as the select committee deems
appropriate regarding the following matters:
(1) bidding, contracting, and auditing standards in the
issuance of Government contracts;
(2) oversight procedures;
(3) forms of payment and safeguards against money
laundering;
(4) accountability of contractors and Government officials
involved in procurement;
(5) penalties for violations of law and abuses in the
awarding and carrying out of Government contracts;
(6) subcontracting under large, comprehensive contracts;
(7) inclusion and utilization of small businesses, through
subcontracts or otherwise; and
(8) such other matters as the select committee deems
appropriate.
Sec. 3. (a) Quorum--One-third of the members of the select
committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of
business except for the reporting of the results of its study
and investigation (with its recommendations) or the
authorization of subpoenas, which shall require a majority of
the committee to be actually present, except that the select
committee may designate a lesser number, but not less than
two, as a quorum for the purpose of holding hearings to take
testimony and receive evidence.
(b) Powers.--For the purpose of carrying out this
resolution, the select committee may sit and act during the
present Congress at any time and place within the United
States or elsewhere, whether the House is in session, has
recessed, or has adjourned and hold such hearings as it
considers necessary and to require, by subpoena or otherwise,
the attendance and testimony of such witnesses, the
furnishing of information by interrogatory, and the
production of such books, records, correspondence,
memoranda, papers documents, and other things and
information of any kind as it deems necessary, including
relevant classified materials.
(c) Issuance of Subpoenas--A subpoena may be authorized and
issued by the select committee in the conduct of any
investigation or series of investigations or activities, only
when authorized by a majority of the members voting, a
majority being present. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed
by the chairman or by any member designated by the select
committee, and may be served by any person designated by the
chairman or such member. Subpoenas shall be issued under the
seal of the House and attested by the Clerk. The select
committee may request investigations, reports, and other
assistance from any agency of the executive, legislative, and
judicial branches of the Government.
(d) Meetings--The chairman, or in his absence a member
designated by the chairman, shall preside at all meetings and
hearings of the select committee. All meetings and hearings
of the select committee shall be conducted in open session,
unless a majority of members of the select committee voting,
there being in attendance the requisite number required for
the purpose of hearings to take testimony, vote to close a
meeting or hearing.
(e) Applicabilities of Rules of the House--The Rules of the
House of Representatives applicable to standing committees
shall govern the select committee where not inconsistent with
this resolution.
(f) Written Committees Rules--The select committee shall
adopt additional written rules, which shall be public, to
govern its procedures, which shall not be inconsistent with
this resolution or the Rules of the House of Representatives.
SEC. 4. (a) Appointment of Staff--The select committee
staff shall be appointed, and
[[Page H2995]]
may be removed, by the chairman and shall work under the
general supervision and direction of the chairman.
(b) Powers of Ranking Minority Member--All staff provided
to the minority party members of the select committee shall
be appointed, and may be removed, by the ranking minority
member of the committee, and shall work under the general
supervision and direction of such member.
(c) Compensation--The chairman shall fix the compensation
of all staff of the select committee, after consultation with
the ranking minority member regarding any minority party
staff, within the budget approved for such purposes for the
select committee.
(d) Reimbursement of Expenses--The select committee may
reimburse the members of its staff for travel, subsistence,
and other necessary expenses incurred by them in the
performance of the their functions for the select committee.
(e) Payment of Expenses--There shall be paid out of the
applicable accounts of the House such sums as may be
necessary for the expenses of the select committee. Such
payments shall be made on vouchers signed by the chairman of
the select committee and approved in the manner directed by
the Committee on House Administration. Amounts made available
under this subsection shall be expended in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Committee on House
Administration.
Sec. 5. The select committee shall from time to time report
to the House the results of its study and investigation, with
its recommendations. Any report made by the select committee
when the House is not in session shall be filed with the
Clerk of the House. Any report made by the select committee
shall be referred to the committee or committees that have
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the report.
Sec. 6. None of the unobligated or unexpended funds
available for public affairs activities within the Office of
the Secretary of Defense under the heading ``Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' may be obligated or expanded
until the requirements to transmit reports under section 9010
and 9012 of P.L. 108-287 are met.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
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 resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 196, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 159]
YEAS--224
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
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
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
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
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
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--196
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
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
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Leach
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
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
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
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--13
Brown (OH)
Capps
Clay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Gordon
Hyde
Istook
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Larson (CT)
Platts
Solis
{time} 1157
Messrs. WYNN, HOYER and PALLONE changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announed as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________