[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.

                          ____________________