[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 84 (Wednesday, June 22, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H4928-H4934]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2985, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 334 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 334
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2985) making appropriations for the
Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2006, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to
comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. Notwithstanding
clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the bill shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui), 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 334 is a
structured rule that provides for the consideration of H.R. 2985, the
fiscal year 2006 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, as well as five
amendments. The rule provides for one hour of general debate equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member on
the Committee on Appropriations. It also provides for one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today appropriates $2.87
billion for the operations of the legislative branch of government. The
bill is fiscally sound and includes a modest 1.7 percent increase from
the last fiscal year. It provides over a billion dollars for the
operation of this House of Representatives.
{time} 1445
This includes funds for Members' representational allowances,
leadership, and committee offices. These funds will help our Members
fulfill their duties to legislate, represent their constituencies, and
oversee the executive branch. These funds are very important in that
they provide for that possibility, which is constitutionally mandated,
Mr. Speaker, oversight of the executive branch. The Constitution grants
Congress broad powers that include the oversight power. This includes
getting to know what the executive branch is doing, how programs are
being administered, by whom and at what cost, and whether officials are
obeying the law and complying with legislative intent.
For the Capitol Police, the bill appropriates over $239 million. Also
included is an Inspector General for the Capitol Police to help them
with their financial management.
The bill also includes an important piece of legislation, H.R. 841,
the Continuity in Representation Act of 2005. As we all know, on
September 11, 2001, Flight 93 was headed toward Washington, D.C. If it
were not for the truly heroic acts of the passengers on that flight, we
could have been facing a situation where Congress would not have been
able to function.
We have to do everything possible, Mr. Speaker, to prevent this from
being a possibility even in the future. H.R. 841 would accelerate
elections in case of a terrorist attack on the House of
Representatives, in case such a terrorist attack left the House with
over 100 vacancies. It provides for the expedited special election of
new Members to fill seats left vacant in extraordinary circumstances.
The House of Representatives passed this bill earlier this year by an
overwhelming bipartisan margin of 329-68. In the 108th Congress, the
House passed a similar bill, H.R. 2844, by a vote of 306-97. However,
each time the Senate has failed to consider this vital piece of
legislation. I think it is time that we have legislation that can
handle such a horrible possibility and does not leave our
constitutional duty to legislate and oversee in limbo.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2985 was introduced by Chairman Lewis and reported
out of the Appropriations Committee on June 20 by voice vote. It is a
good bill, essential to our continued ability to legislate, to our
power of oversight, and to the continuity of our government. I would
like to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Appropriations
Committee for their leadership on this important issue, as well as the
subcommittee. I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate the rule governing the
debate for the fiscal year 2006 legislative branch appropriations
measure. Through this bill, we will fund the operations for our
institution and the many supporting bodies that we rely upon, such as
the Library of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, and the
Congressional Budget Office.
While I will ultimately support the underlying bill, I would first
like to address a few aspects of the rule about which I have serious
concerns, specifically, the committee's addition of legislative
language providing for the continuity of Congress. One of the results
of September 11, and we all agree, is that we need a mechanism to allow
States to replace Members of Congress in the event of a major disaster.
However, adding continuity language in the manner we are today is
inappropriate.
While I am pleased that the Rules Committee voted to allow debate on
the Baird amendment to remove this language from the bill, I am
disappointed that this language was included in the bill at all.
Legislation that will have a major impact on the representation of the
American people, as this language unquestionably will, should be
completely and thoroughly debated in an atmosphere conducive to debate.
This proposal should be addressed in the same way any other authorizing
legislation would be and as it was when the House passed this measure
earlier this year in a stand-alone bill.
[[Page H4929]]
But the Republican leadership has decided otherwise, and I raise the
question that if we are to discuss this weighty issue today, why then
would the Rules Committee not allow an amendment by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) which would set up a select committee to
look into contracting abuses in the Iraq war? To date, $9 billion is
missing or unaccounted for in appropriated funds for the Iraq war. This
is an issue of equal significance, especially as we consider the tight
budget constraints Congress faces.
Regardless of how one would vote on the amendment itself, this idea
deserves the same consideration and debate as the continuity of
Congress measure. I am disappointed that this amendment was not made in
order as well.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to resuming the debate on the issue of
the continuity of Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
This is an eminently fair rule. With regard to the issue of the
continuity of government, twice before legislation has been brought to
the floor on that issue, and there has been an extensive debate. So we
certainly feel that the House has had a sufficient and very fair
opportunity to consider this issue. In addition, as I stated before,
the legislation we are bringing to the floor today includes H.R. 841,
the Continuity in Representation Act of 2005, that is very specific on
this issue. One of the great leaders in the House on the issue of
making certain that even in a time, God forbid, of great crisis again
in the Nation and specifically in the Congress, the Congress can
function, is the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time
and thank him for his very strong commitment to this institution and
our country. That is really what this legislation is all about. The
legislative branch appropriations bill is about the funding for the
first branch of government. People often do not focus attention on the
realization that article 1 of the U.S. Constitution is in fact the
first branch, and we have a very important constitutional
responsibility, and that is what this legislation is all about.
As we looked at addressing this rule, it is a very fair and balanced
rule which makes in order five amendments, makes in order amendments
that will allow for the opportunity to address a wide range of issues
that we obviously have a responsibility to address institutionally.
One of the amendments that we chose to make in order is an amendment
that was offered by our friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Baird). I believe it important that he again have an opportunity to
address an issue that, frankly, has already been addressed by this
institution. It has to do with the question of the continuity of
Congress. As we sit here, I was just in a meeting with the Attorney
General a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, and we were talking about
September 11 and the PATRIOT Act and the challenges with which we
contend on a regular basis, and one of the great tragic challenges that
we do not even like to ponder is what would happen if there were to be
an attack that would hit this building and that would see the loss of
large numbers of Members of the people's House, the United States House
of Representatives.
We passed, with nearly every Republican and 122 Democrats supporting,
legislation that we call the Continuity of Congress legislation. It
calls for special elections to be held on an expedited basis in the
districts, where, when we have seen in excess of 100 Members of the
United States House of Representatives killed, it would kick into place
the structure that would allow for those special elections to take
place in those States across the country that have been impacted.
Again, we do not like to think about this, we do not like to think
about the possibility of this kind of attack, but we have a
responsibility. We have a responsibility to this institution, to the
Constitution, and to the American people to do just that. So what we
have done is we have said, hold these elections, plan for these
elections, and then the United States House of Representatives will
remain exactly what it was envisaged as by James Madison, the Father of
our Constitution.
He is the author, wrote the Constitution, and spent a great deal of
time thinking about these issues. And one of the things that he was
very careful about was in realizing that every single Federal office
that exists can see someone attain that office by appointment. We all
know that in the other body, the United States Senate, the body of the
States, if a vacancy occurs, if someone resigns, if they are killed,
pass away, whatever, if there is a vacancy, the Governors of States
make those appointments.
We all learned in 1973 with the resignation of Spiro Agnew as Vice
President that the then-minority leader in the House of
Representatives, Gerald Ford, was, by appointment, made Vice President,
and then when the resignation of President Nixon took place in 1974,
Gerald Ford became President of the United States, having never had a
single vote cast for him by the American people other than confirmation
in the United States Senate.
The House of Representatives is the only Federal office where you
must be elected by the people to serve. That is why this Madisonian
vision of making sure that this is the body of the people was
maintained. That is what the legislation that we have passed again with
a very strong bipartisan vote here is designed to accomplish.
Unfortunately, since March, we have seen this legislation languish in
the Senate, and we have not been able to have the kind of success that
we believe is important to get what is a House issue addressed. It is
not even a Senate issue. It is an issue for the House of
Representatives. So what we have done is we have decided that the
Appropriations Committee in its great wisdom include this continuity of
Congress legislation with the legislative branch appropriations bill. I
believe that in so doing, when we pass this bill to the Senate, we will
have a chance to put into place very, very important continuity
legislation for this institution.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) sees it differently. He
would like to amend the U.S. Constitution, an amendment to the
Constitution that would call for Members of the House of
Representatives to serve here in a way that is other than an elective
capacity. They would be appointed to serve here. I just think that that
goes clearly against James Madison's vision for this institution, and I
hope very much that we are able to maintain the language that has
passed again with strong bipartisan support and is included in this.
But there will be an amendment that is offered by the gentleman from
Washington to strike that, and I am going to urge my colleagues to
oppose that amendment that he will be offering.
Again, if you look at the level of funding that we have for the
legislative branch appropriations bill, it is actually lower than was
requested by the President in his budget. So this is a very fiscally
responsible bill. I believe that it is a correct measure for us to
take. I urge support of this rule, it makes a number of amendments in
order, and support of the bill itself.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Regrettably, although
the Rules Committee apparently found it in order to allow in the
continuity of Congress aspect, it did not make in order an amendment
that I offered to establish a special commission, a committee, to
investigate the awarding and carrying out of contracts to conduct
activities in Afghanistan and Iraq. This amendment is critical toward
ensuring that we effectively exercise our congressional oversight
responsibilities.
Congress has already appropriated some $277 billion for military
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and that does not include the $45
billion in so-called bridge funding which was part of the defense
appropriations bill which passed the House on Monday. We have
[[Page H4930]]
repeatedly and rightfully recognized that we have to meet the
operational, technical, and equipment needs of our troops that are
stationed over in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is paramount.
{time} 1500
However, the fact of the matter is that when it comes to ensuring
that those funds that we have appropriated for that purpose are
properly managed and monitored, Congress has been largely silent.
I am heartened the gentleman from Connecticut's (Mr. Shays)
subcommittee held a hearing yesterday, and I am heartened that the
Committee on Armed Services held a hearing in a subcommittee back in
2004. But that is not nearly the amount of activity this Congress
should be taking. We must do much better. Every single dollar that is
wasted or lost in Iraq and Afghanistan because of mismanagement or
fraud in contracting is one less dollar that can go to protect our
troops, one less dollar for body armor, and one less dollar for
protective equipment that can save lives.
To that point, on Monday the Boston Globe cited the Marine Corps
Inspector General's report and reported that the estimated 30,000
Marines in Iraq need twice as many heavy machine guns, more fully
protected armored vehicles, and more communications equipment to
operate in a region the size of Utah.
One of the functions of this select committee that is proposed would
be to see that our soldiers are properly equipped to carry out their
mission. In fact, the original Truman Committee that was put in place
during World War II is believed to have saved thousands of lives as the
result of its success in cutting through the bureaucracy and making
sure that effective weapons and other war supplies were not a part of
the problem in that enterprise. The bottom line in this Congress,
however, is that we have not lived up to our oversight
responsibilities. We have abdicated them. We have relied on the
administration to perform that role for us, and they have not done it,
and we have shunned our responsibilities.
Here is their most recent record: In March and early April, we
learned that the Pentagon auditors found that $212 million was paid to
Kuwaiti and Turkish subcontractors for fuel that the Pentagon auditors
concluded was exorbitantly priced. Halliburton then passed those
payments on to the taxpayer. In late April, according to the Washington
Post, the Government Accountability Office found that officials from
the Departments of Defense and Interior who were charged with
overseeing a contract to provide interrogators at Abu Ghraib ``did not
fully carry out their roles and responsibilities, the contractor was
allowed to play a role in the procurement process normally performed by
the government.''
In May, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq
Reconstruction found that out of $119.9 million allocated for
rebuilding projects, $96.6 million could not be sufficiently documented
or fully accounted for at all.
In June, a Committee on Government Reform report, prepared by the
gentleman from California's (Mr. Waxman) staff, cited an instance of
$600 million in cash being shipped from Baghdad to four regions in Iraq
to allow commanders flexibility to fund local reconstruction projects.
An audit of one of the four regions found that more than 80 percent of
the funds could not be properly accounted for and that over $7 million
was simply missing.
A pattern exists here, whether it is revenues from the Iraqi oil
sales or whether it is funds from the pockets of the American
taxpayers. We are not taking our responsibility, and flagrant lack of
contractor and bureaucratic accountability is taking place under our
eyes. If we do not sufficiently account for these measures and have
vigorous congressional oversight, how can we assure that our troops are
going to get sufficient protection and that our taxpayers' interests
will be protected?
My colleagues know that this is not the first time that we have had
this amendment on the floor. They have now had at least four
opportunities to stand up and be accountable to the American taxpayer,
to make sure that our troops are protected. In every instance it has
been essentially a party-line vote, with only two Members of the
majority standing up for the rights of the taxpayer and the rights of
our troops in this instance.
It is difficult to fathom that tomorrow this majority is going to
bring on the floor of this House a bill for Health and Human Services
and Education where they are going to cut to the bone, saying that
there is no money. There will be less money for Pell grants for kids
that want to go to college. There will be less money for elementary and
secondary schools. We will fall further behind in our commitments to No
Child Left Behind. We will not fund appropriate health care costs, like
health clinics. We will not even fund the President's own commitment to
high school reform and to community colleges. All, ostensibly, because
there is no money. And yet the majority in this Congress refuses to do
the oversight on over almost $300 billion where we know there have been
flagrant abuses.
We need to do the right thing in this Congress. This is time for us
to take the previous question, defeat it, make sure that this amendment
comes on the floor. We will give them yet another opportunity to show
that this House will live up to its responsibilities and protect the
integrity of this fine institution.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this rule. I will be
voting against the previous question on the rule. I will be voting
against the bill itself. I will wait until debate on the bill in order
to explain my vote on the latter.
But let me simply say two things with respect to the rule. The
leadership of this House, the Republican leadership of this House, has
chosen to insist that their continuity of Congress proposal, which is a
totally unrelated matter, be added to the appropriation bill to finance
the operations of the Congress. Our committee gave this all of about 10
minutes of consideration. No alternatives were presented. And what that
means is that the House Republican leadership is insisting that a bill
which the House has already passed once be passed again, because the
Senate has declined to take up the bill that the House sent over in the
first place.
I think they were wise not to take that bill up. I am in a distinct
minority on this proposition. But what this proposition does is to say
that, within 45 days of the Speaker's determining that 100 or more
vacancies exist in the House, that he will call a special election.
A couple of problems with that. Number one, that means that a
national election is left to the discretion of and to the timing
selected by the Speaker. I do not think that is appropriate. Secondly,
it means that for that 45-day period, if there are 100 vacancies in the
House because of death and destruction associated with an attack, for
instance, it means that those 100 districts would be unrepresented at a
time when the most crucial decisions affecting the continuation of the
Republic would be made. I do not think that is a good idea either.
If we are going to be forced to vote on any of those propositions,
then, even though I am a Democrat, I much prefer the alternative
presented by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a
Republican. The alternative that he presented in the last session of
Congress would have provided that each and every year when we are
elected, we also have to supply a list of persons whom we feel are most
qualified to take our place if something happens and we are killed by
such a disastrous attack. I would submit to the Members that it is far
more appropriate to have someone who is revealed ahead of time to be
the person of choice in case a tragedy like that happened. I would
suggest that is a far healthier situation than to have a situation in
which a district was unrepresented for 45 days.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) suggested that it was
important to maintain the distinction the House has that one must be
elected in order to serve in this body. Well, obviously I would much
prefer to have an elected person representing my district, but an
appointed official is preferable to no one at all. And yet that is
[[Page H4931]]
what we are stuck with under this misbegotten attachment that the House
leadership is insisting that we add to this bill in a power play. So
that is one reason I oppose this rule.
The second reason is that the Committee on Rules steadfastly refused
to make in order the creation of a Truman-like committee to review
waste and fraud in the war in Iraq. When Franklin Roosevelt was running
this country, Harry Truman was appointed to lead a congressional review
committee. Truman held 430 hearings. He issued 51 reports. A Democratic
Congress investigating the activities in a Democratic administration.
It was good for the Democratic Party. It was good for the Republican
Party. It was good for the Republic. A lot of money was saved. A lot of
chicanery was exposed and corrected.
But here we have horror story after horror story of waste,
incompetence, fraud, theft in Iraq, all of the taxpayers' money. And
yet what does this Congress do? Virtually zip in terms of the oversight
that it is providing on these matters.
I think this Congress is derelict in its duty by not appointing such
a committee. And for that reason alone, I think we ought to vote ``no''
on the previous question so we can change the rule so we can at least
provide some protection for the taxpayers' money.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington State (Mr. Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
A few moments ago, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Rules was here, and I want to begin by expressing my appreciation that
my amendment will be made in order to extract what I believe is an
inappropriate clause inserted by the majority. The gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I think, articulated the issue well. It is true
that we had a vote in this Congress already on the issue of the
continuity of the Congress, but it is also true that there was not a
hearing on various opportunities to solve this problem. Essentially one
version of the bill was brought forward without adequate hearing. I was
present at the markup of my own bill. The distinguished chair of the
Committee on the Judiciary did not allow me to even speak to my own
bill, though he mischaracterized it.
Now, what the majority is doing is taking what is clearly
legislative, and it is consequential legislation; let us be clear about
this. What they are doing is taking legislation that provides for how
we would replace this very body. Many of us, myself, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and others, tried to get this body, tried
to get the leadership to say that we would have an open debate on
multiple proposals, multiple proposals, with full amendments and full
debate by this entire body. We are now years post-September 11. This
body still does not have an adequate plan to ensure that every person
in this country will have representation if this body is eliminated.
Indeed, this body is fully willing, according to the clause in this
legislation today and appropriately placed in this legislation, to
allow the executive branch to function completely unfettered.
I have to say to the distinguished gentleman from California, the
chair of the Committee on Rules said I was contrary to Madison.
Possibly so, in some ways; but I would warrant that he is even more
contrary because Mr. Madison was absolutely clear that the fundamental
principles of checks and balances are a core of this great Republic.
The legislation being proposed by the majority would undermine that
principle of checks and balances.
More importantly still, the average American needs to understand that
this body is considering legislation which would prohibit them from
having representation in the Congress and prohibit the Congress from
having a check on the executive at a time of national crisis, and that
is disastrous. If Members care about this body, if they believe in the
principles of checks and balances, they should reject this clause,
support the Baird amendment. They should insist not that we ram this
through on an inappropriate appropriations bill, where it should not
belong, but that we have a full and open debate with our colleagues
from the other body.
I have to tell the Members that when I go home and talk to my
constituents, and I would ask the Members to do this: Ask their
constituents if they are comfortable, knowing that three or four people
could serve as the House of Representatives under the rules we passed,
which I believe are blatantly unconstitutional, if they believe that
three or four people should be able to elect a Speaker of the House,
that that person should then become the President of the United States,
could declare martial law with absolutely no checks and no
representation of hundreds of millions of Americans at the time that
happens.
This is irresponsible. Madison and Jefferson and the rest would be
spinning in their graves if they knew what you are up to here.
It is not just about germaneness, but that reason alone should cause
Members to support the Baird amendment.
{time} 1515
A matter of this importance should not be attached to an
appropriations bill as a way to try to jam it through the Senate. It
simply should not be.
Mr. Speaker, we owe it to posterity, we owe it to this institution to
solve this problem, to solve it properly, and this amendment that I
have introduced would at least prevent us from doing something bad.
First, do no harm.
My friend, the gentleman from California, is wrong when he suggests
that we are contrary to Madison.
Let me underscore the agenda here. The chairman of the Subcommittee
on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United
States House of Representatives said on this matter, we are going to
have martial law anyway, we are going to have martial law anyway, so we
do not need continuity provisions.
If that is your agenda, be straight with the American people. If that
is the agenda, let us go home now. If that is the agenda, to believe
that when our Nation has been attacked, we are going to leave the
American people without representation, without a House of
Representatives, with the Senate functioning without a House because
they can be replaced more promptly, with an unelected President,
probably a cabinet member serving, if you believe we would solve this
problem, you are kidding yourselves. You can kid yourselves, but
history will not look kindly upon this body if we have shirked our
obligation. And passage of this legislation today with this provision
in it is an insult to the Framers and an insult to the principles of
representative democracy.
Vote ``no'' on the bill; vote ``yes'' on the Baird amendment.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an
amendment to allow the House to consider the Tierney amendment on the
Truman Commission that got defeated in the Committee on Rules last
night by a straight party-line vote.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in
the Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Feeney). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the Tierney amendment will establish a
select committee to investigate the awarding and carrying out of war-
related contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq. In 1941, with the United
States engaged in a major military buildup as part of World War II,
Senator Harry Truman, a Democrat from Missouri, became aware of
widespread stories of contractor mismanagement in military contracts
and created a committee to investigate such spending.
Since 2003, there have been many examples of the misuse of American
taxpayer dollars and Iraqi contracting. Nearly $9 billion on money
spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of
inefficiencies and bad management, according to the Special Inspector
General for Iraqi Reconstruction. Ensuring vigilant oversight of
[[Page H4932]]
taxpayer dollars should not be a partisan issue. The Truman Committee
was created while Democrats controlled the White House, the House, and
the Senate. We owe it to American taxpayers and to our brave soldiers
to oversee how the billions of taxpayer dollars are being spent in Iraq
and Afghanistan. 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.
As always, Members should know that a ``no'' vote on the previous
question will not stop consideration of the legislative branch
appropriation bill. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to create a
much-needed select committee to investigate government contracts in
Iraq and Afghanistan. But a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will
prevent the House from establishing this important select committee.
Again, vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
We are bringing forth a very important appropriations bill today,
with an issue that has received a tremendous amount of discussion and
study and debate and actually has been voted on twice in overwhelming
fashions by this House favorably. The last time, in the 108th Congress,
the measure on the continuity of government, specifically of this
House, which is included in the underlying legislation, had passed with
329 favorable votes and only 68 negative votes. Mr. Speaker, 122 of our
friends on the other side of the aisle voted for this piece of
legislation.
By the way, the rule, Mr. Speaker, by which we bring forth this
legislation, also is permitting, as an amendment, a motion to strike
that legislation by the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Baird). His alternative was debated previously in this Congress and
received 63 votes; and we are, as I say, we are permitting him, under
this rule, to strike, if he has the provision on the continuity of the
House. So we are bringing this legislation forth in a very fair way.
In addition to the very important legislation which is included that
has to do with, as we have heard debate about today, that has to do
with continuity of this House in case of an emergency, the underlying
legislation also provides for the funding of the legislative branch of
government, and it does so in an efficient and effective way, and in a
way which I think deserves the support of the entire membership of this
House.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask for the support of our colleagues for the rule
and the underlying legislation being brought forth by the rule.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Matsui is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 334 Rule on H.R. 2985 Legislative Branch
Appropriations FY06
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution the amendment specified in section 3 shall be in
order as though printed after the amendment numbered 5 in the
report of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative
Tierney of Massachusetts or a designee. That amendment shall
be debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent.
Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as
follows:
Amendment to H.R. 2985, as Reported Offered by Mr. Tierney of
Massachusetts
Page 6, insert after line 24 the following:
Select Committee
Sec. 102. (a) Establishment.--There is established in the
House of Representatives a select 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'').
(b) Membership and Functions.--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.
(c) Rules and Procedures.--
(1) 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.
(2) Powers.--For the purpose of carrying out this section,
the select committee may sit and act 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
classified materials.
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
(5) Applicability 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 section.
(6) Written committee 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.
(d) Administrative Provisions.--
(1) Appointment of staff.--The select committee staff shall
be appointed, and may be removed, by the chairman and shall
work under the general supervision and direction of the
chairman.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
(5) 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 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.
(e) Reports.-- 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
[[Page H4933]]
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.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. 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. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 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 219,
nays 196, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 297]
YEAS--219
Aderholt
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
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)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
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
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
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
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
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)
Price (NC)
Rahall
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
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--18
Akin
Barton (TX)
Bonner
Boyd
Carter
Conaway
Doggett
Hinojosa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kucinich
Lewis (GA)
McCaul (TX)
Ney
Oxley
Pomeroy
Rangel
Smith (TX)
Thomas
{time} 1548
Messrs. STRICKLAND, MURTHA, LARSON of Connecticut, KANJORSKI, DINGELL
and LEACH changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. MILLER of Florida changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Feeney). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220,
noes 192, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 298]
AYES--220
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
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
[[Page H4934]]
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
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)
NOES--192
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
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)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--21
Barton (TX)
Bonner
Boucher
Boyd
Carter
Conaway
Davis (AL)
Davis, Tom
Doggett
Hinojosa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kucinich
Lewis (GA)
McCaul (TX)
Ney
Oxley
Pomeroy
Rangel
Sabo
Smith (TX)
Thomas
{time} 1601
Mr. WELLER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________