[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 15, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H980-H991]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4939, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL
APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR, AND HURRICANE
RECOVERY, 2006
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 725 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 725
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. 4939) making emergency supplemental
appropriations 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.
When the reading for amendment reaches title II, such title
shall be considered as read. During consideration of the bill
for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the
Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in
the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and
reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that
the bill do pass, 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 (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Cole) is recognized for 1 hour.
General Leave
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks and to insert tabular and extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, on March 14 the Rules Committee met and granted an open
rule on House Resolution 725, with 1 hour of debate equally divided
between the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations
Committee.
The bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule
and waives all points of order against the bill. Additionally, when the
reading for the amendment reaches title II, such title shall be
considered as read. This rule accords priority of recognition to
Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional
Record and provides one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to be able to manage this rule. The
rule provides for an emergency supplemental funding package to sustain
our troops in the ongoing war on terror and to assist in providing
emergency relief for those affected in the Gulf States by last year's
tremendous hurricanes.
However, Mr. Speaker, the fact that this bill is being brought to the
floor under an open rule should not be overlooked. This means that
anyone in the majority or the minority may bring to the floor any
amendment that is germane to this legislation.
As one of the most important bills that will be brought to the House
floor this year, we should all be able to agree that an open rule is
the right thing to do and will allow the House to work its will.
The supplemental appropriations package is the sixth supplemental
since September 11 that focuses on meeting the challenges imposed on us
by the global war on terrorism. Specifically, this supplemental
provides for replenishing of those accounts that the military has
exhausted during sustained operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other
areas of the world. Additionally, it provides important funding to
assist in our efforts to address the disastrous results of the
hurricanes in the gulf coast communities. Finally, these are important
measures dedicated to improving the benefits due our soldiers and their
families who have often been asked to make the ultimate sacrifice.
Among the important provisions in this bill is a $2 billion effort at
the suppression of technology for so-called IEDs, improvised explosive
devices, in Iraq and other areas. IEDs, rather than direct engagement
with enemy combatants, have caused over half the casualties our forces
have sustained in Iraq. Additionally, the supplemental fully funds the
enhanced $400,000 Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance benefits and the
$100,000 death gratuity benefit for combat-related fatalities.
Mr. Speaker, the Appropriations Committee also addressed several
other issues inside the supplemental that are essential to successfully
continue to prosecute our global war on terror.
Important obligations are met in the underlying legislation. In
particular, this legislation earmarked $850 million over the
President's request to ensure that the National Guard receives upgraded
Bradleys and Abrams when deploying. Additionally, the bill earmarked
another $480 million for new advances in safer up-armoring for Humvees.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4939 takes a number of important steps forward in
addressing the needs of our military. Today we are likely to debate
several amendments that would have a large impact on the effect of the
underlying legislation. I would strongly urge Members to closely
examine such amendments and reject any not pertaining to the subject
matter at hand. The bill we have before us today is an excellent and
timely piece of legislation that deserves strong bipartisan support.
The underlying legislation is ultimately really about supporting our
troops in the field and moving forward in assisting our own citizens
drastically affected by the hurricanes.
With respect to Katrina, the underlying legislation provides $9.9
billion to the Department of Homeland Security, primarily intended for
FEMA, and major additional funding for flood control and coastal
emergencies. Additionally, the Department of Defense would receive $1.8
billion and the Army Corps of Engineers would receive $1.5 billion,
mostly for procurement and construction for flood control and coastal
emergencies.
{time} 1030
$1.3 billion would be set aside for loans to home owners and small
businesses to be administered through the Small Business
Administration.
Mr. Speaker, this is the third supplemental appropriations request
sent to Congress that addresses the fallout from the hurricanes. I am
sure we will deal with this issue in the future as needs are defined.
It is truly a testament to this Nation that we are able to break
through the political logjam and deal with these issues of an emergency
nature when this situation demands.
Mr. Speaker, judging from the debate in the Rules Committee
yesterday, I suspect Members from both sides of the aisle may mention
or attempt to interject into our discussions motions or amendments that
are not germane to the underlying legislation. A number of measures are
things that I personally support. However, the Rules Committee decided,
appropriately in my opinion, that these matters should be dealt with
separately and under regular order.
My good friends on both sides of the aisle have often expressed their
desire to have major legislation dealt with
[[Page H981]]
under an open rule. That is precisely what we have today. It is my hope
that all Members will appreciate that fact and will see the wisdom of
pursuing other issues through regular order. Therefore, 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.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we are truly at a crossroads in the
history of the Nation. Abroad we are engaged in a war that with each
passing day becomes more dangerous, just as our path to victory becomes
more obscured.
At home we are still dealing with the consequence of the colossal
failure of the government to meet its most basic responsibility, to
protect our citizens in a time of dire crisis.
It has been 7 months since Katrina devastated the gulf coast, and
thousands upon thousands of our fellow Americans are still depending on
handouts to survive. They are without their homes, without their jobs,
and without a sense of security.
And here in Washington, the principles of integrity, accountability
and oversight, the cornerstone values of our democratic government,
have been cast aside in favor of political expediency by our elected
leadership.
The American people are losing faith in this government. They believe
we are headed in the wrong direction, and they want change, and it is
not hard to see why. How we ultimately address the challenges before us
as a government and as a people will define the future of this Nation
for better or worse.
In times like these, when we are so focused on what separates us from
each other, it is critical that we remember what binds us together, a
commitment to the same core values and principles. I think we can all
agree that supporting our young men and women in uniform is a priority
for each and every Member of this House, whether we are Democrats or
Republicans, and whether we agreed with the Bush administration's
reason for going to war in Iraq or opposed them.
And just as we continue the age-old debate on the proper role of
government in our society, we should all agree that the kind of
collapse that we witnessed when the government failed to respond to
Hurricane Katrina must never, ever happen again.
We must renew our commitment to take responsibility for the safety
and welfare of the American people in a time of crisis. And we must
agree that government has a role in protecting not only the rights, but
also the dignity and the humanity of every single American.
We cannot accept, nor should we be willing to tolerate, squalor,
abject poverty, and needless suffering in the heart of the United
States. The defense of those who defend us abroad and the protection of
the defenseless here at home, these are guiding principles that we all
share.
Mr. Speaker, how should we go about turning these principles into
action in the days and months ahead? We may disagree on how to overcome
the challenges that lay before us, just as our Founding Fathers hoped
and expected that we would. But all of us here are patriots, and all of
us come to the table with our Nation's best interest in mind. And so we
must remember to always welcome debate and to keep the floor open to
all ideas and proposals, and to subject their merits equally to the
rigors of the democratic process.
To pit the pursuits of an agenda against the perpetuation of our
democratic traditions, that would be a true crime and a true shame. As
we stand up for the principles of democracy here, we must also pledge
to restore the second great tenet of our system of government, the
integrity and accountability of our Congress. We can no longer allow
our leaders to be blinded by the politics of the moment and forget
their commitments to ethics and to oversight.
The short-term gains may be tempting for those who hold strings of
power, but the long-term consequences are devastating to the people of
the Nation as we have already seen. Ethics, integrity and
accountability should not be partisan issues. They should be issues of
survival because the survival of the system depends on them.
It is on this point that I would ask my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to join me today in taking a stand for our future. During the
Second World War, Senator Harry Truman displayed a level of integrity
and a strength of character that has been very rare in today's
Washington. He dared to investigate his own party. He held his fellow
Democrats in Congress accountable for excessive and wasteful war
contracts. He provided a mechanism for accountability and oversight
during an unprecedented war effort. It was called the Truman
Commission.
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. Its success saved many
American lives by ensuring that our tax dollars were spent on what was
most important, that was winning the war. And yet, we in this Congress
have not had the courage to insist on the same level of accountability
that President Truman saw fit to employ over 60 years ago.
Despite the fact that at least $9 billion of money spent on the Iraqi
reconstruction is unaccounted for, and despite the fact that we hear
reports of payroll checks covering employees who do not exist and of
firms being compensated for providing security for flights that never
took off, and despite the fact that the Pentagon contracts for body
armor have gone to companies that never produced it, all the while, 80
percent of the American Marines lost in Iraq to upper body wounds could
have been saved if those soldiers had been provided with the right
armor.
Nor have we demonstrated the real commitment to fully investigate the
Nation's response to the second great challenge of our time, Hurricane
Katrina, and done so again, despite poor planning, misused resources,
and homes and relief that still have to reach those who need it.
The question I have for my colleagues today is where is our bravery?
Where is our commitment to those we protect and to those who protect
us? It is a question that I hope my colleagues who plan to vote for the
rule answer definitively here today. When we squander precious
resources, when we waste time we do not have, when we fail to hold
ourselves accountable, we sacrifice American lives. And when we refuse
to insist upon integrity, oversight, and accountability in our own
government, we undermine our very democracy at a time when we are
trying to spread it abroad. But today we have an opportunity to begin
anew and follow the proud tradition of one of America's greatest
leaders.
We have before us a Democratic proposal to create an oversight
commission, one that will ensure that billions of dollars being spent
on the war in Iraq, and today's expenditure brings that to $400
billion, and that the rebuilding of New Orleans and the gulf coast are
not lost in the black hole of corruption, cronyism, and no big
contracts.
We have an opportunity to restore checks and balances to the system
of government and provide the accountability and oversight, which is
our responsibility as Congresspersons to provide.
Just like in Harry Truman's day, that responsibility transcends the
politics of both Republicans and Democrats. Rather, it speaks to our
willingness to preserve the fundamental values of our democratic system
and the fundamental values of our Nation.
I strongly urge my colleagues, as we prepare to spend $91.7 billion
in taxpayer money, to vote against the rule and in favor of the
previous question. It is a vote that will allow consideration of an
amendment to create a new Truman Commission and to restore a measure of
integrity, accountability, and oversight to this government, values
which are so greatly missed.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to note again for the record, while we are
going to have discussions of many things here today, this is an open
rule, any Member of the majority or the minority is free to bring an
amendment to
[[Page H982]]
matters that are germane to the bill. This is as democratic on the
floor of this institution as it ever gets. And while many will be, on
both sides, disappointed that they didn't get to attach nongermane
items to this particular bill, I think we are well served in this House
by moving through regular order, which is an argument that we all make
from time to time very vigorously on both sides of the aisle, but
particularly the minority side.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Pence).
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I especially thank the gentleman from
Oklahoma for yielding time, inasmuch as I rise today with a heavy heart
having to oppose the rule before the House.
It is a rare occasion indeed where I or any Member would stand to
oppose a rule produced by our Rules Committee. I simply believe I
cannot support a rule that asks Members to choose between supporting
our troops and fiscal responsibility, and this is such a rule.
Mr. Speaker, we have an $8 trillion national debt, a debt that has
grown by $3 trillion and debt ceiling which may be increased, even in
the coming weeks, to nearly $9 trillion. Our record deficit in nominal
terms set a 1-month record just a few short weeks ago. We have to put
our fiscal house in order. And that means even as we go about the
business of funding the war, and funding the ongoing critical
reconstruction efforts in the gulf coast, we must do so in a manner
that reflects a fundamental commitment to fiscal restraint.
House conservatives lobbied consistently over the last several weeks
to allow for this bill to come in the form of two pieces, a vote for
our troops and a vote for Katrina. And the legislation we will have
before us, though there will be a stripping amendment, will very likely
result in a unified bill not giving Members that choice.
But the reason I rise mostly in opposition of the rule is because
there is no amendment that is being allowed under a waiver of the rules
that will permit us to offset even the cost of a part of this bill
through budget cuts. And I simply believe that in this day and age of
record deficit and debts, it is absolutely vital that Members of
Congress be able to register their commitment to fiscal discipline
while we fund the Nation's priorities.
It is for that reason that I was hoping that the Rules Committee
would see their way clear, as they have with other aspects of this
bill, to waive the rules that prevent legislating in an appropriations
bill. In fact, my understanding is that the LIHEAP funding in this
bill, in and of itself, is the result of a waiver. We have waived the
rules many times to increase spending in the Congress. It would be a
welcome change if we waived the rules to cut spending and continue the
process of putting our fiscal house in order.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hensarling) who joins me in opposition to this rule.
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I also thank
the gentleman from Oklahoma for graciously yielding this time and his
good work on the Rules Committee.
I want to associate myself with the gentleman from Indiana's
comments. These are extraordinary times calling for extraordinary
remedies. We must have a remedy for being able to vote for fiscal
responsibility.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Appropriations
Committee.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill, or the bill which will be debated
under this rule, will spend $92 billion of the taxpayers' money. The
largest portion of it will be to fund the continuing war in Iraq. It is
here because of the most spectacular military blunder committed by any
President of the United States in this country's history. We went to
war on the basis of bad information, and we are now mired in that war
because of the spectacular incompetence and stubbornness of the
Secretary of Defense.
We are also going to be asked to fund additional payments to meet the
aftermath of the Katrina hurricane, which is another spectacular
example of the incompetent management of government by this
administration.
{time} 1045
I am going to vote against the previous question on the rule because,
while some 48 amendments have been noticed to the committee for
consideration over the next 2 days, this House has still apparently not
found a way to enable us to consider two other amendments.
The first is the one mentioned by the gentlewoman from New York. We
feel it is an obligation of this Congress to begin to conduct decent
oversight on both the expenditures in Iraq and the expenditures in
Katrina. This Congress has a miserable record on oversight. My
colleague in the Senate, Mr. Feingold, introduced a resolution
censuring the President for various actions that he has taken outside
of the law. I believe that the Congress itself deserves censure for not
meeting its oversight responsibilities.
One way to meet those oversight responsibilities is to repeat what
this Congress did during World War II when it created the Truman
Commission. At that time, you had a Democratic Congress that was not
afraid to investigate the activities of a Democratic administration,
and Harry Truman investigated waste and war profiteering. They held 432
public hearings, 300 executive sessions, went on hundreds of fact-
finding missions, issued 51 reports and saved some $15 billion of the
taxpayers' money.
We have stories that are rampant today about the abuse of taxpayer
money in Iraq and Katrina, and yet this Congress is doing very little
by way of aggressive oversight. I am going to vote against the previous
question because I want to see an amendment creating a new Truman
committee made in order.
The second thing I want to see is I want to see Congress, since the
committee has already voted to block the Dubai port deal, I want to see
the Congress go beyond that and to establish a rational process to
guarantee that in the future our government will know every time a
similar transaction is being contemplated. Right now, the only way our
government knows is if the two parties who have an economic interest in
the deal voluntarily tell the United States Government.
Mr. Sabo tried to get that amendment adopted in committee. It failed.
In my view, if you are going the pass the Lewis amendment, which all
but two members of the Appropriations Committee supported, it ought to
also contain the Sabo amendment so that we do, in fact, establish a
rational process so that we are not just looking like a flock of
chickens every time something happens that panics the Congress. In that
way, we would at least have a systematic way for the administration to
review each and every one of these potential sales or transactions, and
we would have a way for Congress to do the same.
So, unless those two amendments can be considered by this House, I
see no reason why I should support the previous question or the rule,
for that matter.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me first reply to my good friends, the gentleman from Indiana and
the gentleman from Texas, who spoke earlier about their concern about
the rule.
I remind them both, and as I will remind repeatedly everyone on this
rule, we have an open rule today. If my friends on the other side of
the aisle have something they object to, for instance they could strike
title II of this particular bill, and, frankly, it would go right back
to committee, so there is no need to bring down the rule. The
mechanisms are in place, the processes are in place for the House to
work its will.
I would also remind my friends on both sides of the aisle that this
bill ultimately, not the rule, but the bill itself, is ultimately about
providing for the needs of American forces in the field in combat
today, now. We can debate whether the war was wise, whether it is
conducted well, at our leisure. They need what they need immediately,
and we should respond to their needs, regardless of what our opinions
are where the war is concerned or regardless of what our opinions are
in terms of procurement or spending.
And I say the same thing with respect to our fellow citizens along
the gulf coast. They need help now. This
[[Page H983]]
House has responded generously twice already in supplementals. This is
the third one. We will be back here again without a doubt dealing with
that item. I do not think for procedural questions, particularly when
we have an open rule, we should risk slowing down things that our
troops in the field need or that our fellow citizens in need along the
gulf coast require.
My good friend from Wisconsin, and he is my good friend, made the
point which I do not want to leave uncontested that this, quote,
President had engaged in the worst military blunder in American
history. That is a remarkable statement, considering the Vietnam era
where we had Democratic Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson
commit us to a war.
The fact is this war has the lowest casualty rate in American
history, and the stakes are enormously high. Were we to lose in this
particular endeavor, there is no question that our enemies around the
world would gather strength. It would be seen as a victory for
terrorists; it would be seen as a lack of will on the part of the
United States.
I think the stakes here are worth it. I have been to Iraq on five
occasions, and one can always be critical of specific things. I do not
think you can be critical of our forces in the field. Their performance
is brilliant.
And, honestly, let me say a word here on behalf of the Iraqi people.
We did ask them to rise up in 1991, and we did not do a thing.
Thousands of them were slaughtered. Now we have come again. We have
helped them liberate themselves from one of the worst tyrants certainly
in the history of their country and certainly in regional history, and
they have asked our help to stay and work through a difficult process.
They have demonstrated their bravery again and again and again in
three different elections where they came out to vote under very
difficult circumstances. They demonstrate their bravery in the field in
their commitment and their willingness to take on an increasing range
of responsibility. Even when I am occasionally frustrated with
politicians in Iraq, as I sometimes am frustrated with ourselves in
this body, I stop and remember they are exceptionally brave people.
My colleagues and I may worry about losing an election. Most of us do
not worry about losing our life by engaging in a political process to
make our country free. I think when people make that kind of sacrifice
in the pursuit of democracy and freedom, they deserve the support of
this body among all bodies in this world and certainly this country.
Let me add, frankly, one other point on Katrina. I know many of my
colleagues have had the opportunity and taken the opportunity to go
down and visit the gulf coast. Personally, I certainly have done that;
and I would just tell all my friends that have concerns about the
expenditure of funds in that particular area, and sometimes I do as
well, go look at the damage. It is massive. It is massive.
Again, we had a very critical and I think very good report issued by
a special committee of this body, chaired by my good friend,
distinguished chairman of the Government Reform Committee, Tom Davis,
that was unstintingly critical. I remind my friends on the other side
of the aisle, unfortunately, they did not participate in that. They
chose to think it would be a sham, and clearly it was not. There are
mechanisms and means for us to look at and learn the lessons of Katrina
and apply them and let the chips fall where they may in the process.
Rejecting the rule will bring down the underlying bill and, in my
opinion, is not one of them.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, New Orleans is not the only place where
tens of thousands of Americans stand in peril from flooding and
drowning because of defective levees. The good people across three
congressional districts along the Rio Grande River at the southernmost
tip of Texas are just as much at risk with hurricane season only weeks
away. That is why I will be offering today an amendment to prevent the
next Katrina-like disaster.
We Texans in the Valley must rely on the Federal Government, which
has the exclusive, sole responsibility for ensuring the integrity of
our levees and protecting our lives and livelihood from flooding.
Exactly 1,018 days ago, this Administration received an alarming report
from a part of its own State Department that those Federal levees are
up to ``9 feet deficient in height,'' geologically flawed, structurally
unsound, and would ``overtop along 38 river miles.''
So urgent is the problem that last year the Appropriations Committee
asked the Administration to request additional levee money, and I
believe the State Department wants to do this, but the President's
request is strangely silent on this matter.
Recognizing the risk of loss of lives, the disruption of families,
the substantial economic harm that would be caused, 39 local
governments, chambers of commerce and economic development corporations
have called on this administration to act. So have Congressmen Ortiz,
Reyes, Hinojosa and myself, working together, to seek the $7.8 million
requested here which represents the difference between the little bit
that was appropriated last year and what the IBWC says it needs to
prevent a flooding disaster.
A few million in flood prevention today could save billions of
dollars in flood relief. The Federal Government should not shirk its
responsibility, its sole responsibility, to protect the lives and
livelihood of the good Americans who live and work in the Texas Rio
Grande Valley.
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. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, once again we are asked to provide tens of
billions of dollars for the war in Iraq under the pretense that this
war, now entering its fourth year, is a so-called unexpected emergency.
The Iraq war is indeed an emergency, Mr. Speaker, but it is hardly
unexpected.
I support the funds provided in this bill for the continuing
hurricane relief and recovery for the people in the gulf coast. I
support the funding for emergency humanitarian needs, famine relief and
peacekeepers in Darfur, Sudan.
I would like to be clear, Mr. Speaker, I support our diplomatic,
humanitarian, economic and military activities in Afghanistan, but I
simply cannot support a single dime more for the war in Iraq.
Every day, the American people wake up to headlines describing how
much worse the situation grows in Iraq: Iraqi Police Tied to Abuses and
Deaths; Chaos in Iraq; U.S. General Says U.S. Troops Add to
Instability; 72 Percent of U.S. Troops Want Withdrawal Within a Year.
Mr. Speaker, Iraq is in the midst of a spiraling civil war. On
February 26, Pentagon officials said that the number of Iraqi army
battalions capable of fighting the insurgency on their own has slipped
since September from one battalion to none. The newly formed government
is paralyzed by sectarian divisions.
The U.S. has turned its back on rebuilding Iraq. Ironically, the Bush
administration has no problem cutting and running on reconstruction for
Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, did you know that the only new construction aid in this
supplemental is for more prisons in Iraq? Not schools or hospitals or
roads, just prisons.
As both the GAO and the Inspector General have determined, there
never was any systematic plan for stabilization and reconstruction in
Iraq. Now we are paying the price.
Over 2,300 American military men and women have paid the ultimate
price, their lives, trying to do their best to implement this awful
policy, but it cannot be done, Mr. Speaker. And we cannot allow
ourselves to be on the floor of this House next year looking at another
so-called emergency supplemental for Iraq and talking about 5,000 or
10,000 American troops who have lost their lives.
It is time to bring our uniformed men and women home. It is time to
begin a safe, orderly drawdown of our troops, one that we can control.
If the Iraqis are not willing to solve their own problems through less
bloody means, then why on Earth should American troops die for them?
[[Page H984]]
Like so many of my House colleagues, once we were in Iraq, I felt we
had a moral obligation to help the Iraqis rebuild their nation and form
a representative government, but, Mr. Speaker, we are not helping
anymore. Our presence is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Mr. Speaker, it is easy for Members of this House to stand up and
say, stay the course because, quite frankly, none of us are risking our
lives. None of us are in harm's way. None of us are stuck over there
because of the stunning failure and ineptitude of politicians in
Washington.
{time} 1100
If you want to protect our troops, let's bring them home.
So it is with regret, genuine regret, that I must vote against
passage of the supplemental. The House has become addicted to voting
for more money for a policy that has gone terribly, terribly wrong. It
is time to stop.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The Chair would remind Members
to attempt, for the benefit of all, to abide time limits in debate.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I came here this morning,
obviously, to debate the rule. But as is so often the case in rules
debate, we move on to the bill itself and some of the larger purposes.
And I am always content and happy to have that debate. I think it is an
important discussion for the American people to hear.
My good friend from Massachusetts, from the other side of the aisle,
mentioned that essentially things are worse in Iraq. Worse than what?
And worse than when? Worse than having Saddam Hussein in power? I think
not. I would much rather have him where he is, in a courtroom, in jail,
and no longer launching regional wars that claimed over a million
lives.
Worse than 423 mass grave sites that have been uncovered since the
arrival of coalition forces in Iraq? I think not. Worse than 400,000
Iraqis killed in the decade before the liberation of Iraq? Again, I
think not.
I think that we sometimes, on this floor, act as if we are doing a
favor to the people of Iraq by leaving. I think that is dangerously
misguided logic. I do not think it is a favor. I do not think that it
is a favor to the people in Iraq. That is not what their duly elected
representatives have asked us to do.
They, by the way, are running enormous risks for their own freedom.
They rose up to try to get their own freedom in 1991. We didn't do, in
my opinion, what we should have done then. I have been there five
times. I see more and more Iraqis doing more and more things for
themselves, and I see no one that asks the United States to leave
precipitously.
I also would disagree with my good friend on the issue of whether or
not our interests are involved in this. I think they very much are
involved in Iraq. I think that victory is an extraordinarily important
thing for this country to secure. I think staying the course, or
remaining and staying with our friends that are fighting now, in part
because we are there, is a very important message to send to the
region.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his
courtesy.
I would simply say to the gentleman that the situation in Iraq right
now is out of control. There is a civil war. A majority of the Iraqis
want us gone. A majority of our troops believe that we should come
home.
And I know the gentleman has been there. I have been there, too. Let
me tell you something. It is one thing for a United States Congressman
to go over and visit in Iraq and be protected 24 hours while they are
over there; it is another thing for a American soldier to be put in the
middle of a civil war where so many have lost their lives for a policy
that has been based on fiction.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Reclaiming my time, I would disagree with the
gentleman on a number of points, but on one in particular.
It is not easy for anybody in this body to make the decision to send
American troops into harm's way. My father was a career military
person. My uncle spent 3\1/2\ years in a Japanese prison camp. My
brother is a disabled Vietnam-era veteran, although not disabled in
Vietnam. I have 15,000 soldiers at Fort Sill that I am privileged to
represent. I have got another 8,000 or 9,000 airmen at Tinker Air Force
Base that I am privileged to represent. My cousin is a lieutenant
colonel in the United States Air Force, who spent 6 months in
Afghanistan and 6 months in Iraq under very dangerous and difficult
circumstances.
These are not decisions that anybody makes lightly for or against.
Those people who are opposed to the war, as my good friend noted in the
Rules Committee yesterday, initially, when it was ``popular,'' did not
make an easy decision. It is not popular today. Those of us who are
still supportive of that effort are not making an easy decision. We are
making what we think is the right decision. I respect my friend's
motives in that regard. I think he has always been consistent. His
judgment has been consistent, even though we have consistently
disagreed. I would ask for the same sentiment in reverse; that those of
us who hold a different point of view are equally honorable in our
motivation, equally intense about what we are doing, and equally
convinced the course we are advocating is the correct one.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentlewoman, and I just share with my friend
from Oklahoma, too bad we couldn't have had the debate you are now
having at the beginning of the Iraq situation instead of going in on
false information and on false pretenses. I think it would have been a
much more enlightened debate, and I am sure you could have held your
own at that point in time as you are doing here.
The shame of it is, of course, that the country was not told we were
going into Iraq for anything to do with Saddam Hussein, other than
weapons of mass destruction that were never found, connections with al
Qaeda that were never found, and on that basis. That is why many in
this country feel they have been misrepresented in this situation and
that it has been badly prosecuted since then with tremendous
incompetency.
The tremendous incompetency continues in a number of different ways,
one of which is the contracting that has been going on and the loss of
money, the mismanagement of money, the inability to track where money
has gone for the American taxpayer in there, which is why Congressman
Jim Leach of Iowa and I have filed over the last several years a bill
to set up the Truman Commission, based on the commission that happened
during World War II when Senator Truman had a commission investigate
the contracting, and in a Democrat administration, and they did two
things: one was it made sure that the materials got to the troops that
they needed at that time. And it saved lives. It was for their
protection, to make sure the money wasn't wasted and that it went for
the things the troops needed. And the other, of course, was to make
sure the taxpayers' money was being spent as it should.
There are two things that Congress does: one is legislate and the
other is oversight, to make sure the taxpayers' money is being spent
properly and that the policy is being carried out in the way that it
should. This Congress has been incredibly lacking in the oversight
area. We have not done our job, particularly with regard to what is
going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is why I am going to vote
against the motion here for the rule. Because we ought to have waivers
for the motions that Mr. Leach and I brought to make sure that we
investigate, have a separate commission set up to investigate.
Yes, this is an open rule, but it very pointedly leaves out that type
of oversight, both in the Afghan and Iraq situation, and in the Katrina
situation, where we are seeing the same kind of incompetence and waste
and questionable action that might lead to fraud. In both instances,
people will be hurt there if supplies are not gotten to them
immediately, and the taxpayer will be hurt if the money isn't spent
efficiently. So we ought to do that.
And with respect to the gentleman's argument that we are in such a
rush
[[Page H985]]
and this is an emergency, the brief period of time it would take to
make those corrections and put those waivers in are not going to bring
us beyond the period of time for which money already exists that is
protecting our troops and dealing with the people in the gulf area.
So I think it is important that we do our job. It is about time this
Congress stood up. Not one dollar more. Because every dollar that is
wasted is a dollar that isn't being spent on body armor and roadside
jammers for bombs, and up-armor for Humvees. Every dollar wasted is not
getting housing and other services to people in Louisiana and
Mississippi and that region.
It is time we put the waivers in place and we went forward with these
investigatory commissions so that as things are transpiring, we can
know that we are doing our job of oversight and the troops in one area,
and the victims of the storms in the other area are getting the
materials and the things that they need, and that the American
taxpayers' money is being protected.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I want to address several of the
points of my good friend from Massachusetts.
First, in terms of going into war without the information and without
the debate. I was not in Congress when that decision was made, and,
frankly, I looked back and have read the debates very carefully,
watched the debates at that time, and know that, frankly, everybody
that was voting voted on the best information they had available at
that time.
Frankly, I remind my good friend that we were operating with a CIA
that was run by a President Clinton appointee, that he was pretty
adamant in terms of there were WMDs there. That was the shared opinion
of every other intelligence agency in the world. And, again, I don't
question the motives of the decision that was made.
I would also add this. For me, the more compelling figure is not what
we found before we thought we were going, but what we found after. I go
back to those mass grave sites and I go back to those tens of thousands
of people that were killed. And, frankly, I go back to a level of
American responsibility for allowing that to persist, in my opinion,
after 1991.
I relate to my friend a story that I heard on my very first visit to
Iraq, when I was talking to a young American sergeant. It was becoming
evident at that point that the stockpiles we thought were going to be
there weren't there. There was dual-use technology, and perhaps the
potential to recreate something. No question Saddam Hussein was working
his way out of restrictions, but what we thought was there, wasn't
there.
And I asked this young sergeant who had risked his life in the drive
to Baghdad what he thought, given that information. And he first gave
me sort of a nice stock political answer and said basically what I
said: Well, we don't know. We are still looking. And I said, but we
haven't found any. And he looked at me, and I will never, ever forget
what he said when I said, so, was it worth it? And he answered my
question with a question.
He said, sir, have you ever been to a mass grave site? And I said,
no, I haven't. He said, I have. He said, you haven't seen anything
until you see bodies coming out of the ground and hundreds of family
members trying to identify them and wailing. And I have seen that, and
I wonder why the whole world wasn't here 10 years ago. That is a good
question for us to ask ourselves inuring the course of this debate.
I also want to address my friend's point about a commission in two
ways. First, by making the point that there is a good deal of oversight
that goes on in this process. I used to serve on the House Armed
Services Committee. I still do. I have a waiver on that committee now.
But that committee, I can assure you, is very thorough in its
oversight. I think appropriations has an oversight function.
But, finally, and more importantly, I think on this particular piece
of legislation, both sides of the House often ask for an open rule, and
anything germane to this piece of legislation, this supplemental
appropriation, can be brought here. I think that is a very good thing.
Now we are being told we not only want things that are germane to one
of the largest spending bills and one of the most important pieces of
legislation that we will deal with this year, we want things that are
not germane. We want waivers granted.
And, by the way, we are being told that by both sides of the aisle.
This is not an exclusive demand. I think it is a misdirected demand. I
would like to see us move back toward more open rules, more regular
order, and I think this rule is a step in that direction.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I yield 20 seconds to my friend.
Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you.
Well, first of all, I was here when we voted on the Iraq thing, and
believe me, there was plenty of information for people that wanted to
look at it to know which way things were going. And certainly our White
House should have known which way things were going, and they made
representations that turned out not to be accurate. So people can be
responsible for their acts.
Secondly, the mass graves you are talking about are mass graves of
the late 1980s, early 1990s, when members of our present administration
were over there being friendly with the Iraqis and with Saddam Hussein.
It is never not germane for this body to do its oversight duty. It is
always germane.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Reclaiming my time. I disagree with my friend's
characterization of when the mass graves were. There are certainly 35
years' worth of mass graves in Iraq, but a lot of them are from 1991
on, and particularly from the uprising of the Shi'a against Saddam
Hussein, when an American Army was sitting on their border and we urged
them to rise up and did nothing to help them.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to yield 30 seconds to
the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. TIERNEY. I want to clarify that in 1991, the first Mr. Bush was
President, when you were encouraging the uprising to go into that, and
that is a period of time when there were many mass graves in that
situation.
And, secondly, I just want to drive home the point that there is
never a time when oversight for this group is not germane to the
function that we do. We legislate, we have oversight, and there has
been no effective oversight of either the Katrina situation or what is
going on with contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, not from any
committee in this body, and the record is clear on that and it speaks
for itself.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Let me just make a quick point on Katrina.
Actually, there was good oversight there. Chairman Davis had a very
good committee. Unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the
aisle chose largely not to participate in an oversight function.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say
that President Bush's first Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. O'Neill,
wrote a book after he left and commented that the first Cabinet meeting
he went to, in January, they were discussing going into Iraq, to his
great surprise. So that was planned long before September 11.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Sabo).
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
I am disappointed that the Rules Committee has not allowed me to
offer my amendment to strengthen the CFIUS foreign investment review
process during consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill.
Americans deserve a rigorous review of foreign investments that
affect our national security posture. Never again should we find that
the President and the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Treasury and
Defense are unaware of a critical transaction until after it has been
approved.
As you know, the Appropriations Committee voted overwhelmingly last
week to kill the Dubai World Port terminal acquisition, which, it is my
understanding, requires a rule waiver to be made germane. It declined,
however, to address the larger underlying process problem.
{time} 1115
My amendment would strengthen the CFIUS process in the following
ways: all transactions that could result in foreign control of any
person engaged
[[Page H986]]
in interstate commerce would be required to undergo a full review to
determine whether it affects U.S. national security.
Today, foreign firms voluntarily, and let me say that again,
voluntarily notify us of these transactions. I believe notification
must be mandatory to ensure that our government knows about all such
transactions.
My amendment would also retain the Secretary of the Treasury as the
chairperson of the committee. The President would be required to
approve or disapprove of all transactions. Today, if the President
takes no action, the transaction is automatically approved.
The review period would automatically extend to the full 75 days.
Current practice allows most transactions to be reviewed within 30
days, with an additional 45 days only if flags are raised.
Congress must be notified of Presidential decisions. Furthermore,
Congress could overturn approvals within 30 days by a joint resolution.
Today, Congress is notified of a CFIUS transaction only when the
President disapproves one.
Within 90 days of enactment, the administration would also be
required to report to Congress on foreign ownership of all U.S.
critical infrastructure. Today, no one really knows how much of our
critical infrastructure is in the hands of foreign companies and
foreign governments.
Failing to fix the inherent flaws in the CFIUS process leaves our
Nation vulnerable in the future. We should not take that chance. We
should act now to strengthen the foreign investment review process.
I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so this
amendment can be made in order and the House can vote on this important
issue.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his
point. I thought he had a very interesting amendment yesterday in the
Rules Committee. I think it is a topic and amendment that deserves a
great deal of study because I think the reform of that process is very
much in order.
I would prefer that we move through an authorizing committee to do
that, as opposed to simply discussing it in the Rules Committee, where
we have no background, no staff, and then immediately inject it onto
the floor.
My disagreement with my friend is largely over process here, and not
necessarily over substance. I hope we do look at that process and do
take his very thoughtful amendment into consideration through regular
order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. I would simply say, ordinarily, I would agree that the
authorizing committee should deal with this issue. But given the fact
that the Appropriations Committee at the leadership level took the
action to wipe out the Dubai deal, to me it was appropriate that we
make that provision have even more sense by having it attached by the
same committee that did the other deed.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would draw a
distinction here. I think there is a big difference between stopping a
decision that you disagree with, which I think can be done without a
great deal of moving through process, and changing a process itself. I
think that is actually a more difficult, time-consuming, complex
operation. I think it needs an authorizing committee to look at it.
I think it is very appropriate for the Appropriations Committee to
say, stop, we have serious concerns, we do not want to go through with
this; and hopefully at that point we would proceed by regular order and
consider the gentleman's thoughtful amendments that may come along.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
I am going to be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous
question so I can modify the rule and allow the House to consider two
very critical amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the first amendment by Mr. Sabo will
create a new review and approval process to ensure that the secret,
backroom deals, like the irresponsible Dubai Ports World, cannot happen
again. The Sabo amendment strengthens the process by which our
government reviews future foreign takeovers. It will require that all
foreign transactions that could result in foreign control of any entity
engaged in interstate commerce must undergo a thorough review that
mandates the direct involvement of the President and the Congress.
The second amendment, by Ms. Kaptur, will create a select
congressional committee based on the Truman Committee from the Second
World War to investigate and study the awarding and carrying out of
government contracts, to conduct military and reconstruction activities
in Iraq, and for the rebuilding efforts in the gulf coast in the wake
of Hurricane Katrina.
There is ample evidence of the necessity of this modern-day Truman
Committee. Every day, more examples of fraud emerge. Billions and
billions of dollars have been misused both in this country and
overseas, and ensuring vigilant oversight of taxpayer dollars should
not be a partisan issue. We owe it to the American taxpayers. We owe it
to our brave soldiers in harm's way, and we owe it to the citizens in
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama who struggle every day to put their
lives back together after the ravages of Hurricane Katrina.
I want to emphasize that this vote, the vote on whether to order the
previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A
vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the
narrow, inflexible agenda of the majority.
A ``no'' vote will allow those of us concerned about the safety and
security of America to create a more responsible process for
contracting out of our interstate commerce activities to any foreign
entities. It would allow us to investigate the spending irregularities
that have occurred with respect to the war in Iraq and the
reconstruction efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In short,
it is a vote to consider the priorities of the American people, the
priorities blocked by the majority.
Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that a ``no'' vote on the previous
question will not prevent the consideration of the supplemental bill.
The bill will still be considered in its entirety. However, a ``yes''
vote will prevent us from voting on these two important initiatives. I
urge all Members to join with me in supporting our soldiers and vote
``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
In closing, I would like to say I believe we have had an excellent
debate today. What is clear to me is the importance and the timeliness
of this legislation. With that said, I would encourage Members to
listen carefully to the following debate and to vote in support of the
underlying legislation.
Additionally, I would encourage Members to be cautious when
considering the amendments. This bill has been carefully crafted and
worked in a way to ensure that our servicemen receive the best
equipment when they go to war.
Equally important, the bill contains important measures to help our
fellow citizens in the gulf coast as they continue to deal with the
consequences of the worst natural disaster in American history.
Finally, I would ask Members to remember this is not a vote about the
wisdom of the war in Iraq. The President and the Congress made that
decision years ago. This vote is about giving those we have asked to
execute our policy in Iraq the tools they need to do their job. The men
and women serving our cause in Iraq ask for nothing more. In good
conscience, we should give them nothing less.
[[Page H987]]
Similarly, this is not a debate about the nature of the governmental
response to Hurricane Katrina. This matter has been dealt with in a
detailed report issued by a select committee chaired by the chairman of
the Government Reform Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom
Davis).
Finally, this is also not a vote in essence about fiscal discipline.
The process that the rule allows would allowed those concerned about
spending to strip portions of the bill that concern them and send them
back. It would also, of course, allow them at the end to vote against
the bill itself if they thought it was too expensive. The rule allows,
as I wish to remind my colleagues, for an open rule, that is, any
Member of this body, majority or minority, can bring an issue germane
to the bill to the floor, have it heard and have it decided. This is a
movement toward regular order, and I think it is one we should respect
and appreciate by upholding the rule.
To close, I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying legislation.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, we will soon consider a bill that will
provide more than $90 billion for the continued wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan and the continued response to Hurricane Katrina. As we
debate this bill, we must also put in place measures to ensure that
these funds are spent wisely.
As a result of the work of the special Inspector General in Iraq and
the General Accountability Office, we know that billions of dollars has
been wasted, and fraud and abuse is rife in the Katrina rebuilding and
the war in Iraq.
One would presume that after being advised that taxpayer money had
been misused, Congress would make certain that similar misuse would not
occur in the future. Sadly, that presumption would be wrong. Perhaps no
failures have been so regular and so great in the Republican Congress
as the failure to do effective oversight.
Today, we have a chance to reverse this record of lax oversight by
allowing the consideration of the Kaptur-Sabo amendment. The amendment
would add some strength to an oversight process badly in need of it by:
establishing a select committee modeled on the World War II Truman
Committee and ensuring that Congress would have a vote on the adequacy
of the national security review done on any proposed acquisition by a
foreign entity of a business involved in interstate commerce in the
United States.
The Truman Committee taught two important lessons--especially in war
time--contractor performance needs to be closely scrutinized, and that
scrutiny can be provided without partisanship.
Reports that $9 billion in money intended for use in Iraq cannot be
accounted for should be reason enough to create a Truman-like
committee, as envisioned by Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Tierney, and Mr. Leach.
Evidence that money that was supposed to relieve suffering in the areas
devastated by Katrina has been misused offers a strong endorsement.
Our recent experience with the Dubai Ports World acquisition should
have convinced us that Congress has a role in determining whether and
when foreign entities can safely operate elements of our critical
infrastructure. These determinations are simply too important to be
left solely to the judgment of the executive branch. Mr. Sabo proposes
a workable, common-sense process. We should consider it today.
Mr. Speaker, the American people expect Congress to do more than
write blank checks. They expect us to be aggressive in making sure that
money is spent responsibly. Uftfortunately, this Republican Congress
has failed to meet this expectation. With this amendment we could begin
the oversight of taxpayer dollars that should have begun long ago. I
urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and let us adopt the
Kaptur-Sabo amendment.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
previous question so that the House can consider a critical amendment
that would strengthen the CFIUS review process.
As we know all too well from the recent controversy over the Dubai
ports deal, the current process for reviewing foreign takeover of
national infrastructure is deeply flawed. Federal law currently allows
the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) up to
30 days to examine a potential sale and determine whether to begin a
more thorough 45-day security investigation. This process is meant to
examine the national security implications of handing over critical
infrastructure to foreign companies. However, as we now know, far too
often the committee forgoes a deeper review of these deals. CIFIUS has
investigated an estimated 1500 foreign investment transactions since it
was established, of which 25 have gone into the 45 day review and only
one has been blocked.
Defeating the previous question would allow the House to consider an
amendment offered by Mr. Sabo that is blocked by the underlying rule.
The Sabo amendment would strengthen the current CFIUS process by
requiring all foreign transactions that could result in foreign control
of any asset or infrastructure that affects national security to
undergo a full review. It mandates a more critical look at these deals
by ensuring a 75 day security review of CFIUS transactions and requires
the President to either approve or disapprove all deals. The amendment
also requires that Congress be notified of Presidential approvals and
allows for Congress to overturn decisions within 30 days with a joint
resolution. In total, these changes would bring some common sense
reform to a process that is central to the security of our vital
infrastructure and the American people.
The Dubai Port World deal showed that the actions of the Committee on
Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) need to be taken out of
the shadows and brought into the light. Congress should not be rubber-
stamping the Administration's backroom deals, it should be reviewing
them thoroughly. While H.R. 4939 will put an end to the already dead
Dubai Ports World deal, focusing on this one transaction ignores the
larger flaws in the CFIUS review process and the wide gaps in our port
security. This important amendment deserves nothing less than an up-or-
down vote.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 725--Rule on H.R. 4939, March 2006
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq/Katrina
At the end of the resolution add the following:
Sec. 2. Before consideration of any other amendment it
shall be in order to consider the amendments printed in
section 3, which may be offered only in the order specified,
may be offered only by the Member designated or a designee,
shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to
amendment except pro forma amendments for the purpose of
debate, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of
the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
All points of order against such amendments are waived.
Sec. 3. The amendments referred to in section 2 are as
follows:
(a) Amendment offered by Representative Sabo:
Amendment to H.R. 4939, as Reported
Offered by Mr. Sabo of Minnesota
Page 83, after line 16, insert the following new section:
Sec. 3011A. (a) Section 721 of the Defense Production Act
of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 721. INVESTIGATION OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS FOR
NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS.
``(a) Investigations.--
``(1) In general.--Upon receiving written notification, as
prescribed by regulations under this section, of any merger,
acquisition, or takeover proposed or pending on or after the
date of the enactment of this section by or with any foreign
person which could result in foreign control of any person
engaged in interstate commerce in the United States, the
President, acting through the President's designee and the
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States shall
conduct an investigation to determine the effects, if any, of
the proposed or pending merger, acquisition, or takeover on
the national security of the United States.
``(2) Timing.--Any investigation required under paragraph
(1) shall be completed before the end of the 75-day period
beginning on the date of the receipt by the President or the
President's designee of written notification of the proposed
or pending merger, acquisition, or takeover.
``(b) Confidentiality of Information.--
``(1) In general.--Any information or documentary material
filed with the President or the President's designee pursuant
to this section shall be exempt from disclosure under section
552 of title 5, United States Code, and no such information
or documentary material may be made public, except as may be
relevant to any administrative or judicial action or
proceeding.
``(2) Availability to the congress.--No provision of
paragraph (1) shall be construed as preventing the disclosure
of any information or documentary material to either House of
Congress or to any duly authorized committee or subcommittee
of the Congress.
``(c) Committee on Foreign Investment in the United
States.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Committee on Foreign Investment
in the United States established pursuant to Executive Order
No. 11858 (hereafter in this section referred to as the
`Committee') shall be a multi-agency committee to carry out
this section and such other assignments as the President may
designate.
``(2) Membership.--The Committee shall be comprised of the
following members:
``(A) The Secretary of the Treasury.
``(B) The Secretary of State.
``(C) The Secretary of Defense.
``(D) The Secretary of Homeland Security.
[[Page H988]]
``(E) The Attorney General.
``(F) The Secretary of Commerce.
``(G) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
``(H) The United States Trade Representative.
``(I) The Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors.
``(J) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy.
``(3) Chairperson.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall be
the Chairperson of the Committee.
``(4) Other members.--The Chairperson of the Committee
shall involve the heads of such other Federal agencies, the
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and
the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy in any
investigation under subsection (a) as the Chairperson
determines to be appropriate on the basis of the facts and
circumstances of the transaction under investigation.
``(5) Role of the director of national intelligence.--The
Director of National Intelligence shall provide appropriate
intelligence analysis and intelligence briefings to the
Committee.
``(d) Action by the President.--
``(1) In general.--No proposed or pending acquisition,
merger, or takeover, of a person engaged in interstate
commerce in the United States by or with foreign persons may
occur unless the President, on the basis of an investigation
and report by the Committee, finds that such acquisition,
merger or takeover, will not threaten to impair the national
security of the United States, as defined by regulations
prescribed pursuant to this section, and approves the
transaction.
``(2) Enforcement.--The President shall direct the Attorney
General to seek appropriate relief, including divestment
relief, in the district courts of the United States in order
to implement and enforce--
``(A) any finding, action, or determination under this
section of disapproval of an acquisition, merger, or
takeover; or
``(B) any conditions imposed on any approval of any
acquisition, merger, or takeover.
``(3) Finality of determinations.--All actions and
determinations under this section shall be final and not
subject to judicial review.
``(e) Findings by the President.--
``(1) In general.--A finding under this section of
impairment or threatened impairment to national security
shall be based on credible evidence that leads the President
to believe that--
``(A) the foreign interest exercising control might take
action that threatens to impair the national security; and
``(B) other provisions of law do not provide adequate and
appropriate authority for the President to protect the
national security.
``(2) Factors to be considered.--Any investigation under
this section shall take into account the following factors:
``(A) Domestic production needed for projected national
defense requirements.
``(B) The capability and capacity of domestic industries to
meet national defense requirements, including the
availability of human resources, products, technology,
materials, and other supplies and services.
``(C) The control of domestic industries and commercial
activity by foreign citizens as it affect the capability and
capacity of the United States to meet the requirements of
national security.
``(D) The potential effects of the proposed or pending
transaction on sales of military goods, equipment, or
technology to any country--
``(i) identified by the Secretary of State--
``(I) under section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act
of 1979, as a country that supports terrorism;
``(II) under section 6(l) of the Export Administration Act
of 1979, as a country of concern regarding missile
proliferation; or
``(III) under section 6(m) of the Export Administration Act
of 1979, as a country of concern regarding the proliferation
of chemical and biological weapons; or
``(ii) listed under section 309(c) of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Act of 1978 on the `Nuclear Non-Proliferation-
Special Country List' (15 C.F.R. Part 778, Supplement No. 4)
or any successor list.
``(E) The potential effects on the proposed or pending
transaction on United States international technological
leadership in areas affecting United States national
security.
``(f) Report to the Congress.--Upon making any
determination to approve or disapprove any merger,
acquisition, or takeover by or with any foreign person which
could result in foreign control of any person engaged in
interstate commerce in the United States, the President shall
immediately transmit to the Secretary of the Senate and the
Clerk of the House of Representatives a written report of the
President's determination under this section to approve or
disapprove such merger, acquisition, or takeover, including a
detailed explanation of the finding made and factors
considered.
``(g) Congressional Action.--
``(1) In general.--If the determination of the President
contained in the report transmitted to the Congress under
subsection (f) is that the President will approve any merger,
acquisition, or takeover under subsection (d) and not later
than 30 days after the date on which Congress receives the
report, a joint resolution described in paragraph (2) is
enacted into law, then the President shall take such action
under subsection (d) as is necessary to prohibit the merger,
acquisition, or takeover, including, if such acquisition has
been completed, directing the Attorney General to seek
divestment or other appropriate relief in the district courts
of the United States.
``(2) Joint resolution described.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), the term `joint resolution' means a joint
resolution of the Congress, the sole matter after the
resolving clause of which is as follows: `That the Congress
disapproves the determination of approval of the President
contained in the report submitted to Congress pursuant to
section 721(f) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 on
_____.', with the blank space being filled with the
appropriate date.
``(3) Computation of review period.--In computing the 30-
day period referred to in paragraph (1), there shall be
excluded any day described in section 154(b) of the Trade Act
of 1974.
``(h) Regulations.--The President shall direct the issuance
of regulations to carry out this section. Such regulations
shall, to the extent possible, minimize paperwork burdens and
shall to the extent possible coordinate reporting
requirements under this section with reporting requirements
under any other provision of Federal law.
``(i) Effect on Other Law.--No provision of this section
shall be construed as altering or affecting any existing
authority, power, process, regulation, investigation,
enforcement measure, or review provided by any other
provision of law.
``(j) Technology Risk Assessments.--In any case in which an
assessment of the risk of diversion of defense critical
technology is performed by the Committee or any other
designee of the President, a copy of such assessment shall be
provided to any other designee of the President responsible
for reviewing or investigating a merger, acquisition, or
takeover under this section.
``(k) Biennial Report on Critical Technologies.--
``(1) In general.--In order to assist the Congress in its
oversight responsibilities with respect to this section, the
President and such agencies as the President shall designate
shall complete and furnish to the Congress, not later than
May 1, 2007, and upon the expiration of every 2 years
thereafter, a report, both in classified and unclassified
form, which--
``(A) evaluates whether there is credible evidence of a
coordinated strategy by 1 or more countries or companies to
acquire United States companies involved in research,
development, or production of critical technologies for which
the United States is a leading producer; and
``(B) evaluates whether there are industrial espionage
activities directed or directly assisted by foreign
governments against private United States companies aimed at
obtaining commercial secrets related to critical technology.
``(2) Definition.--For the purposes of this subsection, the
term `critical technologies' means technologies identified
under title VI of the National Science and Technology Policy,
Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 or other critical
technology, critical components, or critical technology items
essential to national defense or security identified pursuant
to this section.
``(l) Biennial Report on Critical Infrastructure.--In order
to assist the Congress in its oversight responsibilities, the
President and such agencies as the President shall designate
shall complete and furnish to the Congress, not later than 90
days after the date of enactment of this subsection and upon
the expiration of every 2 years thereafter, a report, both in
classified and unclassified form, which--
``(1) lists all critical infrastructure, as defined under
subtitle B of title II of Public Law 107-296, that is owned,
controlled or dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation,
or a foreign government;
``(2) evaluates whether there is credible evidence of a
coordinated strategy by 1 or more countries or companies to
acquire United States critical infrastructure; and
``(3) evaluates whether there are industrial espionage
activities directed or directly assisted by foreign
governments against private United States companies
controlling critical infrastructure.''.
(b) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to
the review and investigation of any acquisition, merger, or
takeover which is or becomes subject to section 721 of the
Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170) (as in
effect immediately before the date of the enactment of this
Act or on or after such date) that has not become final
before the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Amendment offered by Representative Kaptur:
An Amendment Offered Ms. Kaptur to the FY 2006 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Bill
On page 80, after line 19, insert the following:
TITLE IV--ESTABLISHMENT OF A ``TRUMAN'' INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE TO
PROTECT AGAINST WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE RELATED TO CONTRACTS FOR THE
GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM AND HURRICANES KATRINA AND RITA REBUILDING
EFFORTS
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 military
[[Page H989]]
operations and relief and reconstruction activities related
to the global war on terrorism (including all activities in
Afghanistan and Iraq), and Hurricane Katrina recovery,
relief, and reconstruction efforts (hereinafter referred to
as the ``select committee'').
Sec. 2. (a) The select committee is to be composed of 19
Members of the House, 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. The
Chairmen and Ranking Members of the following committees will
serve on the select committee:
(1) Committee on Armed Services;
(2) Committee on Government Reform;
(3) Committee on Homeland Security; and
(4) Committee on International Relations.
The Chairmen and Ranking Members of the following
subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations will serve
on the select committee:
(1) Subcommittee on Defense;
(2) Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing,
and Related Programs; and
(3) Subcommittee on Homeland Security.
In addition, the Speaker shall appoint 5 members of the
select committee, of which 2 members shall be appointed upon
the recommendation of the minority leader. Any vacancy
occurring in the membership of the select committee shall be
filled in the same manner in which the original appointment
was made.
(b) The select committee shall conduct an ongoing study and
investigation of the awarding and carrying out of contracts
by the Government for military operations and relief and
reconstruction activities related to the global war on
terrorism (including all activities in Afghanistan and Iraq),
and Hurricane Katrina recovery, relief, and reconstruction
efforts 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 designated 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 c1assified
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 Committee Rules.--The select committee shall
adopt additional written rules, which shall be public, to
govern its procedures, which shall not be inconsistent wit
this resolution or the Rules of the House of Representatives.
Sec. 4. (a) 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.
(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 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
that 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.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today my look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer a amendment to the rule, or yield for the
purpose of amendment.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.
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.
[[Page H990]]
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.
Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-minute votes, if
ordered, on adopting the resolution and on suspending the rules and
adopting House Concurrent Resolution 190.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 192, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 40]
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 (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
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
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
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
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
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
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--192
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
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 (FL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
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.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
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
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (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--16
Andrews
Baird
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Duncan
Evans
Ford
Harris
Istook
McCollum (MN)
Norwood
Peterson (MN)
Ruppersberger
Scott (GA)
Sweeney
Weldon (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor) (during the vote). Two minutes
remain in this vote.
{time} 1152
Mr. ROTHMAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. JONES of North Carolina 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. 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. FLAKE. 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 218,
noes 200, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 41]
AYES--218
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
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 (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Case
Castle
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Myrick
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Osborne
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Salazar
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Sullivan
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
[[Page H991]]
NOES--200
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Akin
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Chabot
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Poe
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shadegg
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
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
Westmoreland
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--14
Andrews
Baird
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Duncan
Evans
Ford
Harris
Istook
McCollum (MN)
Norwood
Peterson (MN)
Ruppersberger
Sweeney
{time} 1203
Messrs. PASCRELL, BOREN, JEFFERSON, SCOTT OF VIRGINIA AND MS. CORRINE
BROWN of Florida changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. MARCHANT 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.
____________________