Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 34 (Thursday, March 16, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 34 (Thursday, March 16, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H1097-H1118]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR
ON TERROR, AND HURRICANE RECOVERY, 2006

The Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for
the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman of the full
committee for yielding to me for purposes of this colloquy. I would
like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr.
Royce).
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, this goes to the issue of $50 million in
economic support funds for Liberia. What I wanted to say, on this
issue, is that the United States has been very generous with Liberia.
We have committed nearly $1.5 billion, and that includes the funding
for U.N. peacekeeping, and of course President Bush deployed U.S.
Marines in Liberia to end the fighting there. My concern is that the
former Liberian President, Charles Taylor, frankly, is first among
warlords. He faces a 17-count indictment by the U.S. backed Special
Court for his crimes against humanity, and yet he is living in cushy
exile in Nigeria.
This is a problem on several counts. Taylor must face justice for the
killing and maiming that he engineered. Bringing him to the Special
Court will end the cycle of impunity that destabilizes West Africa, and
most pressing to today's business, Taylor remains a threat to the
progress that the U.S. has done so much to achieve. It is probable that
left in exile, Taylor will return to Liberia, as he has pledged to do,
and knock over all that we have helped build up, throwing that region
back into chaos.
Congress passed a resolution calling for Taylor to be sent to the
Special Court. Yesterday, Liberia's new President addressed this
Congress. She had an inspiring message. But what many human rights and
civil society groups were hoping to hear was a loud and clear call for
Taylor to be turned over to the court now before it is too late. While
Taylor is in Nigeria, Nigeria's president has said he would honor an
extradition request made by Liberia's new president. We are waiting for
that request.
This bill would tack on an added $50 million in emergency spending
for Liberia. I am worried about the message this sends about our
seriousness of purpose regarding Charles Taylor. We continue our
generosity, yet the Liberian president continues to defy the wishes of
many Liberians by not acting to bring Charles Taylor to justice.
So, Mr. Chairman, I considered offering an amendment to strike or
condition this $50 million. What I seek instead is to hear from you on
this issue.
Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I particularly
thank him for his longstanding effort on behalf of West African nations
and the people of West Africa, and certainly Liberia. I share his
concern about a long lasting peace for Liberia, as I know all in this
body do, and we also share the concern that Charles Taylor represents a
threat to everything that the United States is trying to accomplish
through its aid efforts and its commitment of troops to bring about
peace and stability in Liberia.
I will tell the gentleman as this process unfolds, the committee has
been and will continue to closely monitor developments with Charles
Taylor.
I think I have some good news I can bring to the gentleman. Just
before this series of votes, Mrs. Lowey, my ranking member, and I
completed a meeting with President Sirleaf, who, of course, addressed
this body yesterday. We asked this question specifically, will there be
an extradition request? I asked it three times, and got the same answer
three times, that it has been done. She used the word ``done'' three
times. So the request for extradition has been done. We believe and she
has said that he needs to be brought to justice in an appropriate
court.
So the request to the President of Liberia has been made. She went on
to tell us that President Olusegun is now consulting with African
leaders from the African Union and the Economic Community of West
African Countries, ECOWAS, to make sure that the extradition will not
in any way destabilize

[[Page H1098]]

the very fragile peace that now exists there. Once that is done, we
would expect to see this accomplished.
The request for extradition has been done, and we will continue to
remain engaged and watch this very, very closely, as this process of
the supplemental unfolds.
Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentleman from Arizona and the gentlewoman
from New York, and certainly the chairman of the committee.

Amendment No. 26 Offered by Ms. Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 26 offered by Ms. Kaptur:

H.R. 4939

On page 84, after line 17, 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. 401. 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 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. 402. (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 minority 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 minority 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.
(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.
(8) Such other matters as the select committee deems
appropriate.
Sec. 403. (a) Quorum.--One-third of the members of the
select committee shall constitute a quorum for the
transaction of business except for the reporting of the
results of its study and investigation (with its
recommendations) or the authorization of subpoenas, which
shall require a majority of the committee to be actually
present, except that the select committee may designate a
lesser number, but not less than two, as a quorum for the
purpose of holding hearings to take testimony and receive
evidence.
(b) Powers.--For the purpose of carrying out this title,
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 title.
(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 with
this title or the Rules of the House of Representatives.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday,
March 15, 2006, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California, the chairman,
reserves a point of order.
The gentlewoman from Ohio may proceed.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, offered with its very able
champion, Congressman John Tierney of Massachusetts, will create a
select House committee modeled on the Truman Commission created during
World War II to exercise due diligence and proper congressional
oversight on the over half a trillion dollars of expenditures by the
government of the United States to conduct the global war on terrorism,
as well as those contracts let for rebuilding of the gulf region after
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The original Truman Commission recouped over $15 billion to our
taxpayers. That is big money in our time. But it was huge money back
then, returned to our taxpayers from those interests that were
conducting their business above and beyond the letter of the law.
We are asking for a thorough investigation of any waste, fraud and
abuse in government contracts associated with the Iraq war and the
global war on terrorism, as well as Katrina-Rita recovery and
reconstruction.
Our amendment is responsible. It is a good government amendment. It
provides real means for oversight that is thorough, not anecdotal.
Currently, no committee in this House has full investigative
authority to probe growing public concerns about where our tax dollars
are being spent in this contracting. The charges are legion of cost-
plus contracts, contractor fraud, as contracts below $500,000 are
purposely kept at that level to circumvent review. Criminal operatives
like Rob Stein have been charged and arrested for manipulating Iraqi
Coalition Provisional Authority accounts in bribery and kickback
schemes, waste and abuse.
This administration is moving billions of dollars with no audit
trails, even back to the Appropriations Committee, which should receive
those audits. In Iraq, no-bid contracts of enormous proportions are
let, like to Halliburton. In Iraq, rebuilding contracts, amounting to
millions are missing. A few wrongdoers have been arrested, but they are
just the tip of the iceberg. Companies like Custer Battles, given
contracts to secure Baghdad Airport, is a company that never did
security work. Indeed it submitted invoices for electricity that were
only valued at $74,000, but they got $400,000. Broken trucks bought in
local markets cost $228,000, yet Custer Battles billed for $800,000. In
our Gulf region, no-bid contracts need Congressional oversight.

{time} 1530

Over 10,000 manufactured houses sit on the ground in open fields in
Hope, Arkansas, costing more than $300 million.
Our amendment aims to protect the taxpayer. It will save money. It
will

[[Page H1099]]

save lives as we bring back inferior equipment that is discovered
during this oversight.
This amendment will allow Congress to do its job, to oversee exactly
how billions in taxpayer dollars are being spent in Iraq and our Gulf
coast. The American people deserve this kind of responsible government.
It is critical that Congress curtail the opportunities for waste,
fraud and abuse in future Federal contracting and bring those to task
who are not meeting the letter and spirit of the law.
Mr. Chairman, I will be pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts and any remaining time I may have to himself as well
as to Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina for their stellar work
on this effort.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make mention, without
repeating what the gentlewoman has said, this Government Reform
Committee, the full committee in the House, has only had four hearings
on Iraq contracting during this entire process.
In the other body, despite Senator Lautenberg's repeated requests,
the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs over there
has not held a single hearing on this issue.
In the House Armed Services Committee, they have conducted oversight
hearings on some issues related to military operations and protecting
our troops, but they have not explored the issue of contracting since
it was touched upon in June of 2004. That is quite a contrast with the
original Truman Committee, which held 432 public hearings, 300
executive sessions, had 1,800 witnesses testify and issued 51 reports,
all the while saving the taxpayer $15 billion and saving countless
lives in the process.
The Truman Committee was unanimously respected for its focus on fact-
finding and its refusal to succumb to partisan consideration, and that
is what this commission would do as well. It is needed, because last
week a Federal jury found two employees of Custer Battles had cheated
the government on a contract to provide Iraq with new currency, and
some $10 million in damages.
In December the Boston Globe reported that the Congressional Research
Service put out a publication stating the Pentagon has not provided an
overall reckoning of these funds by mission or by military operation.
It went on to say that Congress has yet to receive a transparent
accounting of money that is allocated so far for the war.
Kellogg, Brown & Root's employees last summer pleaded guilty of
$100,000 in kick-backs, and it recently was reported that KBR did not
do its job under the contract with purification of water for our
troops, leaving them in a dangerous situation over there.
The General Accountability Office has purported to have found that
the Department of Defense officials and Interior officials charged with
overseeing the contract to provide interrogators at Abu Ghraib did not
fully carry out their roles. And in March of 2005, we learned that the
Pentagon auditors found that $212 million was paid to Kuwaiti and
Turkish subcontractors for fuel and that overcharging was charged back
by Halliburton.
We need this commission. It is the right thing to protect our troops
and the storm victims. The American public deserves open and
transparent government.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Foley). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
The gentlewoman from Ohio's time has expired as well.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the
gentleman for the time. The reason I am on the floor, I am like anyone
else in Congress. It is a privilege to serve in the United States House
of Representatives. And every time I go home, like all other Members of
Congress, and I see the people of the Third District of North Carolina,
the home of Camp Lejeune, 60,000 retired military, they want to know
why we are not doing a better job with oversight.
When you read in the papers that a DOD inspector says we cannot find
$8 billion, and yet here we are in the Congress owing $8.2 trillion in
debt, and the American people are out there working hard trying to do
their best, they support our troops, they want us to support our
troops.
But we have a responsibility, and that is to rebuild public trust.
The public has lost faith in the Congress of meeting its responsibility
for oversight. And I join the gentlewoman from Ohio and my other
colleagues, and there are those on the Republican side too, that want
to have an accountability to the American taxpayer.
It is time that we do so. So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the
political aisle, for goodness sakes, let us support the American
taxpayer. Let us do what Truman did, saying to the people during World
War II, we are going to fight this war, and we are going to defeat the
enemy, but we are going to do it in a wise way, we are going to protect
the investment of the taxpayer.
Let's do the same thing in 2006 that he did during the 1940s. I thank
the gentleman for this time, and I close by saying, let's do what is
right. This is a good-government issue. It is time that we have
accountability to the American people.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, with this bill, we will now have spent as
much money in Iraq as we did in Vietnam. If you adjust for inflation,
it is now just about the equivalent.
It seems to me that spending almost half a trillion dollars of the
taxpayers' money is indefensible unless we are willing to see to it
that that money is spent as well as we can possibly accomplish that
fact.
I guess it boils down to this: if Members are happy with reading day
after day about stories that are published about waste and fraud and
ripoffs by contractors in Iraq, if they are tired of reading about the
insider deals and the single-source contracts for work to be done in
Iraq, if a Republican-controlled Congress cannot bring itself to
conduct a really vigorous investigation of a Republican administration,
then they ought to vote ``no.''
But if you think that we ought to be doing now exactly as we were
doing in World War II, when Harry Truman conducted the kind of
investigation the gentleman from Massachusetts mentioned, if you think
we ought to replicate that effort, then you vote ``yes.''
I would submit that the Roosevelt administration was not damaged by
the investigations done by the Truman Committee, they were strengthened
by it, because that meant they had more resources available to get the
job done in defeating the Japanese and defeating the Nazis.
I want to congratulate the gentleman from Massachusetts for the
leadership that he has shown on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Point of Order

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order
against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part: an amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.
This amendment gives affirmative direction in effect.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to speak on the point of
order?
Hearing none, the Chair finds that this amendment includes language
imparting direction. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Nadler

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Nadler:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

SEC. __. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO ENTRY OF OCEAN SHIPPING
CONTAINERS INTO THE UNITED STATES.

(a) Requirements.--Section 70116 of title 46, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(c) Requirements Relating to Entry of Ocean Shipping
Containers.--
``(1) In general.--An ocean shipping container may enter
the United States, either directly or via a foreign port,
only if--
``(A) the container is scanned with equipment that meets
the standards established

[[Page H1100]]

pursuant to paragraph (2)(A) and a copy of the scan is
provided to the Secretary, and
``(B) the container is secured with a seal that meets the
standards established pursuant to paragraph (2)(B),

before the container is loaded on the vessel for shipment to
the United States.
``(2) Standards for scanning equipment and seals.--
``(A) Scanning equipment.--The Secretary shall establish
standards for scanning equipment required to be used under
paragraph (1)(A) to ensure that such equipment uses the best-
available technology, including technology to scan a
container for radiation and density and, if appropriate, for
atomic elements.
``(B) Seals.--The Secretary shall establish standards for
seals required to be used under paragraph (1)(B) to ensure
that such seals use the best-available technology, including
technology to--
``(i) detect any breach into a container;
``(ii) identify the time and place of such breach;
``(iii) notify the Secretary of such breach before the
container enters the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United
States; and
``(iv) track the time and location of the container during
transit to the United States, including by truck, rail, or
vessel.
``(C) Review and revision.--The Secretary shall review and,
if necessary, revise the standards established pursuant to
subparagraphs (A) and (B) not less than once every two years.
``(D) Definition.--In subparagraph (B), the term `Exclusive
Economic Zone of the United States' has the meaning given the
term `Exclusive Economic Zone' in section 2101(10a) of this
title.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out section 70116(c) of title 46,
United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this
section, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2007
and each subsequent fiscal year.
(c) Regulations; Effective Date.--
(1) Regulations.--
(A) Interim final rule.--The Secretary of Homeland Security
shall issue an interim final rule as a temporary regulation
to implement section 70116(c) of title 46, United States
Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section, not later
than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this section,
without regard to the provisions of chapter 5 of title 5,
United States Code.
(B) Final rule.--The Secretary shall issue a final rule as
a permanent regulation to implement section 70116(c) of title
46, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this
section, not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this section, in accordance with the provisions
of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code. The final rule
issued pursuant to that rulemaking may supersede the interim
final rule issued pursuant to subparagraph (A).
(2) Effective date.--The requirements of section 70116(c)
of title 46, United States Code, as added by subsection (a)
of this section, apply with respect to any ocean shipping
container entering the United States, either directly or via
a foreign port, beginning one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, March 15, 2006, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to attach to
this bill, the Sail Only If Scanned Act, the SOS Act. This act was
developed by me and Mr. Oberstar, with the support of Minority Leader
Pelosi, to address the issue of shipping container security.
This amendment would require that every shipping container be scanned
with the most modern technology and sealed with a tamper-proof seal
before it is placed on a ship bound for the United States so that we
can have absolute assurances that no nuclear weapons or radiological
bombs are being brought into our ports.
Only 1 percent of the more than 11 million shipping containers
destined for the United States are scanned before they are loaded on a
ship overseas. This is unacceptable.
The United States cannot own or control the entire global trade
network, but we can and should ensure the security of every single
container destined for this country. The controversy over the proposed
Dubai Ports World deal has woken up the American people and made them
think about how critical our ports are for national security. But who
owns the ports and who operates the ports, while important, is far less
important than what comes into the ports.
Ninety-five percent of all of the 11 million, 40-foot boxes that come
into our ports are uninspected, not scanned. Not scanned by x-rays, not
examined for radioactivity before they get here. Any one of them could
have an atomic bomb or radiological bomb. That is unacceptable.
If there is a bomb inside a container, it is too late to discover
that in Newark or Miami or Los Angeles. Reading the manifest is not
enough. Having shipments only from low-risk shippers is not enough,
because any one container could have a catastrophic bomb inside it.
My amendment is quite simple. It would require that all containers
must be scanned using the best available technology, including scanning
for radiation and density before they are loaded on a ship bound for
the United States.
The scans must be submitted to U.S. Government officials for review
before the container is loaded, and the containers must be sealed with
a device that indicates if the container is tampered with in transit,
and automatically notifies U.S. officials of any breach before the
containers come within a few hundred miles of the United States.
Steve Flynn of the Council of Foreign Relations and a port security
expert wrote in the New York Times a few days ago: ``This is not a pie-
in-the-sky idea. Since January 2005, every single container entering
the truck gates of two of the world's busiest container terminals in
Hong Kong has passed through scanning and radiation detection devices.
Images of the containers' contents are then stored on computers so they
can be scrutinized by American or other customs authorities almost in
real-time. Customs inspectors can then issue orders not to load a
container that worries them. The Department of Homeland Security has
greeted this private sector initiative with only tepid interest.''
Mr. Chairman, we cannot simply stand by while the Bush administration
twiddles its thumbs and fails to secure the movement of containers
before they reach the United States. The terminal operations in Hong
Kong prove we can scan 100 percent of the containers without disrupting
the economy or the flow of goods. The cost to scan a container is
$6.50.
The entire cost to amortize all of the equipment is $20 a container.
Given that it costs $4,000 to ship a container across the Pacific if
there is between 50 and $500,000 worth of merchandise in each
container, a $20 cost is trivial.
Congress needs to make 100 percent scanning the policy of the United
States. This amendment would do that. I realize, Mr. Chairman, this
amendment may not be allowed under the rules of the House.
I fully expect the Republicans to raise a point of order against it.
I would note, however, that the underlying bill includes a provision
blocking the proposed takeover of U.S. terminals by Dubai Ports World.
I support that provision.
But if we can include language on the Dubai deal in this bill, then
certainly the Republican majority should allow us to include language
that secures shipping containers and prevents atomic bombs from going
off in port cities.
At the very least, they could easily waive the rule and allow a vote
on this amendment. If they care more about these rules that they waive
every day than they do about protecting the American public from
nuclear bombs and shipping containers, I truly fear for our safety.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment to
attach the Sail Only if Scanned Act, the SOS Act, to this bill. The
only way we will adequately protect our citizens is if the Republicans
in Congress join with us to force the Bush administration to take
seriously the issue of container security and make sure that every
single container is scanned and sealed with a tamper-proof seal before
being placed on a ship bound for the United States.

Point of Order

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order
against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore violates
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part: an amendment to a general
appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.

[[Page H1101]]

This amendment directly amends existing law.

{time} 1545

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Foley). Does any Member wish to speak on the
point of order?
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations raises a point of order that this legislates on an
appropriations bill. And it might.
But I would challenge the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations
and the Republican majority, if you are going to insist on a technical
interpretation of the rule on this amendment, I would challenge the
Republicans to allow this bill to the floor for a vote or allow this
bill as an amendment on some other bill. Because to fail to do that, to
insist on a technical reading of this rule, and not allow this or
something like it on the floor, is to jeopardize the lives of every
single American for a trivial cost. And I urge that the Republicans
allow, we have been trying some version of this for 3 years now. We
have never been able to get a vote. But the safety of the American
people is at risk if we allow 11 million shipping containers, 40-foot
boxes into the ports of our country without scanning them, and knowing
only what someone says is in them, not what is really in them.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of
order.
The Chair finds that this amendment directly does amend existing law.
The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Waxman:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be obligated or expended by the
Secretary of the Army or his designee to award a contract to
any contractor if the Defense Contract Audit Agency has
determined that more than $100,000,000 of the contractor's
costs for contracts involving work in Iraq under one or more
Army contracts were unreasonable.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday,
March 15, 2006, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognize the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Three years ago, Congress and the American people were told that the
Iraq War would be quick and inexpensive. Senior administration
officials told us that rebuilding Iraq would cost less than $2 billion.
And we were told that Iraq would be able to finance its own
reconstruction with its oil revenues.
Well, 3 years later, we know that these assurances were completely
unfounded. The war has cost hundreds of billions of dollars. We
squandered over $20 billion on reconstruction projects that have left
basic services below prewar levels. And these massive costs have
contributed to record budget deficits at home.
There are multiple causes for the enormous burden placed on the
taxpayer. President Bush and his advisors grossly underestimate the
insurgency. They failed to engage our allies in the rebuilding effort,
and they vastly overestimated the amount of oil Iraq could sell to
funds its reconstruction.
The amendment I am offering with Mr. Dingell addresses part of the
problem, rampant waste, fraud and abuse in Federal contracting under
the Bush administration. The largest contractor operating in Iraq is
Halliburton. Government auditors have repeatedly caught Halliburton
red-handed. They have found over a billion dollars in unreasonable and
unsupported charges.
Let me repeat this. Federal auditors have found Halliburton's
unreasonable and unsupported bills exceed $1 billion. Yet over and over
again, this administration has ignored its own auditors. The Pentagon's
auditors have found over $260 million in unreasonable and unsupported
costs when they examine Halliburton's no-bid contract to restore Iraq's
oil field.
Independent industry experts call Halliburton's charges ``highway
robbery.'' But as this chart shows, the Bush administration ignored
these findings and paid Halliburton for 97 percent of its overcharges
and then gave Halliburton millions in additional bonuses. These same
Pentagon auditors rejected $200 million in dining hall expenses because
Halliburton charged for meals it never served to the troops. But the
Bush administration ignored the auditors and paid 75 percent of the
challenged costs and tripled Halliburton's profit on the contract.
The auditors got so frustrated with Halliburton that they warned
Pentagon officials not to enter into any more contracts with the
company. But 3 days later, the Bush administration gave Halliburton a
new $1.2 billion contract in Iraq. And these are not the only problems.
More than 50 cases of contract fraud in Iraq are currently under
investigation. And administration officials cannot account for over $8
billion in Iraqi oil proceeds. This kind of incompetent and egregious
mismanagement is hard to believe. No matter how many times they bilk
the taxpayer, politically favored companies keep getting more and more
Federal contracts.
The administration has a duty to safeguard taxpayer dollars, but it
is shirking that responsibility. We need to pass this amendment to end
this costly cycle.
This is an amendment that is very simple. It will prohibit the
administration from using the funds in this bill to award new contracts
to any company that has overcharged the government by $100 million or
more in Iraq.
This is just common sense. No company that squanders over $100
million of taxpayers money should be rewarded with new contracts. If
the administration will not protect the taxpayer against waste, fraud
and abuse, the Congress must act. For the sake of the taxpayers and the
troops, I urge support for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, on the surface of this amendment, it is sort of
interesting, because none of us want to see any money wasted or any
money spent improperly. The problem that we have here, Mr. Chairman, is
that we just got a copy of this amendment late last night and other
Members only got it this morning. This could have very far reaching
effects, not only on future contracts, but on existing contracts. And I
would hate to see the logistical flow of supplies to our troops in the
field interrupted because of this amendment.
Frankly, I was tempted to accept the amendment, but having thought
about it, we just really have not had time to know exactly what the
effect is going to be. So I rise to oppose the amendment and I would be
happy to work with the gentleman as we proceed through this bill or the
regular defense bill to try to work with him to accomplish what he
wants, but we need to know what it is that this amendment does and it
is a little bit complicated.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you we were very careful
in drafting this amendment. It is prospective. It would not affect the
funding of existing contracts for troop support. They will continue
untouched. The amendment simply says we will not reward companies with
new contracts after they overcharge the taxpayers by $100 million. I
hope that will allay the gentleman's concerns.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for
his comments, but it is important that the defense committees know for
a fact as opposed to the debate on the floor. So we have got to oppose
the amendment at this time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hunter), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is

[[Page H1102]]

aimed at the company Halliburton. That is very clear.
The papers are awash with Halliburton and have been for several
years. Halliburton employs lots of Americans. And I do not have the
exact number of KIA, but they, like our soldiers in the field, the
people that drive those trucks and work those logistics to support our
Marines out in the western area of operations out in Fallujah and our
Army personnel out in Mosul and Tikrit and other remote parts of Iraq,
those people risk their lives every day.
I will say to the gentleman, as I recall, over 20 of them have been
killed in action, people like the Halliburton drivers. People have been
captured by the enemy and some of them held hostage, unable to escape.
Most of the people, the vast majority of the people that work for this
contractor, like lots of contractors that support our American military
overseas, are good, hardworking people. And if you look, if you go up
and eat with the Stryker brigades up in Mosul, or the 101st in Tikrit
or the Marines in Fallujah, and you go into their mess halls and you
look at the operation and you see the fuel that is delivered, you see
the ammunition that is delivered, you see the treatment, the quality of
life for our military people, you will understand then that is
primarily a result of American corporations which support the war
effort. And that is a fact of life.
Now, the idea that prices have been unreasonable and that there are
contracts where they have abused the American taxpayer or abused the
contract process, let us take that under the regular order. And if that
is true, let's hold people accountable. Let's hold the corporation
accountable. But the idea that we single out a group of people which is
thousands and thousands of Americans who support our fighting personnel
and basically paralyze that operation is unreasonable.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We have been working on this investigation about Halliburton for
years, and we have written letters asking for hearings over and over
again. The committee has not held a hearing on these overcharges. I do
not know why the Armed Services Committee has not held a hearing on it,
but it sounds to me a bit disingenuous when they say we have not had a
chance to look at this matter.
I support hardworking people on the ground that are working for
Halliburton and other private contractors, but I do not think they
would support the idea of their own corporate CEOs and shareholders
getting rich unfairly for charges that are not reasonable. That is what
this amendment is all about.
So it seems to me that it rings a bit false when we hear these kind
of arguments against the amendment. Oh, we have not looked at it. Why
haven't they looked at it? Oh, it might affect people serving the
troops now. Well, that is just absolutely untrue.
So I continue to urge support for the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time. I rise in support of the Waxman-Dingell amendment which is about
waste, fraud and abuse. That is it. And this is the full extent of the
amendment, eight lines, very simple.
All it says is that none of the funds appropriated or made available
by this Act shall be obligated or expended by the Secretary of the Army
to any contractor if the Defense Contract Audit Agency has determined
that more than $100 million of the contractor's costs for contracts
involving work in Iraq under one or more Army contracts were
unreasonable.
So we have set up a process to get rid of waste, fraud and abuse. How
long does it take to figure that out?
I cannot imagine that anybody in this body wants to fund waste, fraud
and abuse, particularly in excess of $100 million. That is what this is
about.
Last June, Congressman Waxman released a report documenting a
stunning $1.4 billion in questioned and unsupported charges by
Halliburton in Iraq. Don't we want to know about that?
Last month, The New York Times reported that the Bush administration
ignored 97 percent of the recommendations made by Pentagon auditors and
awarded Halliburton over $250 million under its Iraq oil contract. And
just last week, a Federal jury found that another firm, Custer Battles,
defrauded the government by millions of dollars under just one of its
Iraq contracts.

{time} 1600

So how does this Congress justify ignoring blatant stealing? Do we
not all want to get at that? I mean, too many of our soldiers have been
asked to do without proper body armor and equipment, and they come home
to reduced benefits, and this Congress has found it easy enough to say
no to our soldiers; and yet every single time we have been able to say
yes to Halliburton.
Is it not time that all of us agree that it is wrong to have this
kind of waste, fraud and abuse and to pass this simple amendment?
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 2 minutes
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished
chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let me just say to my colleagues here who have stated that we should
hold up our contracts and not give new contracts until past contracts
are found to be reasonable versus unreasonable, Members have stood on
this floor and have called every weapons system since the first Persian
tank unreasonable in cost. The B-2 has been called unreasonable. Every
ship in the navy has been called unreasonable in the cost. Every
fighter aircraft has been called unreasonable in the cost.
The idea that you are not going to have any action on these contracts
unless you have a congressional hearing is not true. There is no
committee here that has the ability to enforce or not enforce a
contract. You have dozens, in fact hundreds, of government lawyers who
have every opportunity, indeed have the charge, of going through
complex contracts, and where they find that the contract was violated
by the contractor, and there are lots of contractors around who are
bankrupt to attest to this, that that contract is then acted upon,
damages are extracted; and all these are things that we have put in our
system of laws.
Now, the idea that you are going to take a major part of the support
of an ongoing shooting war and you are going to paralyze it and say,
well, it is only for present contracts, the next one that comes up next
month, that is going to be different, but you are going to allow
present contracts to continue. That could mean that you have got a
hiatus in capability, a hiatus in the expertise of these people who
have gone out, wearing the uniform of American contractors, put
themselves in harm's way and, over the last several years in this war,
developed a real expertise.
So I know the gentleman's amendment may play well politically in some
quarters, but I think it is bad for the men and women who wear the
uniform of the United States because the contractors we are talking
about are the people supporting them right now in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California, the chairman of the
Armed Services Committee, says that reasonableness is something that
could be subjective. Some people think that certain weapons systems may
not be reasonable. Well, reasonableness is not some vague standard we
picked out of the air. It comes directly from section 31.201-3(a) of
the Defense Contract Audit Agency's ``Contract Audit Manual.'' That
provision reads: ``A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount,
it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in
the conduct of competitive business.''
Every government auditor knows this standard. It is a standard that
the Pentagon's own auditors apply to Halliburton. It is the standard
that was flouted by the Bush administration, and it is the standard
that my amendment would reaffirm.
Now, this last argument, Halliburton's got an expertise and,
therefore, they should get future contracts

[[Page H1103]]

because we may not be able to find someone else with the expertise,
and, therefore, we should ignore overcharges, unreasonable charges in
excess of $100 million dollar in the past, that is an incredible
argument. No matter how many times we may be the victims, or our
taxpayers may be the victims, of waste, fraud and abuse, we should
continue to pay? That is absurd.
Now, I just submit that we are following the very clear standard in
the law, and our amendment does not plow any new ground, and I would
urge support for the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) has 4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman) has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
One thing my distinguished friend from California (Mr. Waxman) has
not shown us is how American laws, existing laws in contract, that
govern the acquisition of systems and the acquisition of services, how
those laws are not applicable to this American corporation, and so,
therefore, we have to say, stop, we are not going to do anymore
business with this corporation.
In fact, all the laws that go toward the enforcement of contracts and
the contract itself, of course, are enforceable. Fines can be
extracted. Other remedies can be extracted; and if there is, in fact,
fraud, and I have heard the term ``fraud'' used in this debate, if
there is fraud, that is a crime in contracting. If you commit crime in
contracting, you can go to jail. There is no Member of this Chamber
who, if a contract is broken between the United States Government and
any of our contractors over there, there is no one in this Chamber who
is going to say that we should not extract our full remedy under the
laws we create and if people are involved in criminal action that they
should not be prosecuted.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, $40 for a case of soda, $100 for a bag of laundry,
torching an $80,000 truck instead of replacing flat tires, charging 40
times more to transport fuel than reasonable, these are some of the
things that Halliburton has been called to task for, not by Democrats,
but by the auditors, the professional auditors at the Department of
Defense; and they should have been penalized for doing that.
Now, what was, was; but let's don't in the future give them contracts
to abuse us again.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the very distinguished
ranking member on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I am nervous about the amendment. I am
nervous because I am not sure, when we have got people out there making
contracts for the troops out in the field, there is no question all of
us want to take care of the fraud and abuse, all of us. Nobody's done
more of a job than you have, the gentleman from California; but I get
nervous when we are doing something prospectively. We are not sure of
the impact.
I think we would have to change this in conference anyway because we
just do not know enough about the impact. You assure us. They are
worried about it. So I am very worried about this amendment. I think we
would be better off letting the system take care of it. I think when
you have fraud and abuse, it has got to be taken care of.
The Congress has the oversight responsibility, but I am not sure
legislating for the future is going to solve the problem. That is the
thing that worries me.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the system has failed because the Bush
administration paid 97 percent of the charges that the Pentagon
auditors found to be unreasonable. So our amendment is structured to
apply in the future.
We will have a chance to continue to look at this. I feel comfortable
that this is not going to jeopardize anything that is going on in Iraq
today and certainly not the existing contracts such as the ongoing
logistical contract which Halliburton still has; but for the future, if
any company has overcharged by $100 million, we should not be rushing
out there and giving them a new contract.
Existing contracts are existing contracts. They should not be
rewarded for that overcharging.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just worry when we do
something like this prospectively, we might affect what is going on in
the field. None of us want to stop a contract for services to the
troops in the field right now, and I think you agree with that.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I respect
that. I agree with you. That is why we were very careful in the way we
drafted this amendment.
Mr. MURTHA. I know you believe that, but I would err on the side of
trying to prevent it. So at this point I would be against the
amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
I would like to say that this is not about a particular company. This
is about a policy change, a policy change that we have not had any
opportunity to review, with no hearings. We only learned about this
amendment late last night, and it is a policy that should not be
changed here on the floor without the benefit of some backup hearings
and actual review.
Like I said, it sounds like a good idea; but we have just got to be
sure. We do not want to interrupt the logistical flow of what our
troops need to carry out their mission. There is a major mission under
way in Iraq as we speak, Operation Swarmer, and it is the biggest air
operation since the war started. We cannot afford to upset an ongoing
operation like that.
We have got to support our troops, and if a policy change like this
has a negative effect, that is just not good. It is not good for our
troops. So I would hope we would oppose this amendment.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to
deny further awards of contracts to contractors that have been found by
the Defense auditors to have billed the government for more than $100
million in unreasonable costs.
From the moment Representative Waxman and I learned about secret no-
bid contracts given to large companies like Halliburton in 2003, for
activities in Iraq, we have tried to get the facts on the matter. And
it has not been easy to get those facts.
In the course of our investigation, with the help of the Government
Accountability Office, we have learned of some pretty terrible things.
First, we found that Halliburton was importing oil into Iraq at
extremely high prices. We were particularly concerned about the
company's decision to import gasoline from Kuwait at a price far above
market levels.
Eventually, Defense auditors agreed and found that there were $263
million in unsupported and questioned costs in these contracts. Yet
last month, the Corps of Engineers ignored their auditors and
reimbursed Halliburton for $254 million--all but $9 million of the
questioned costs.
This follows a pattern with Halliburton. The Defense auditors had
previously questioned $200 million in costs for meal services provided
by the company, which again was overruled by the Army, which gave the
company $145 million.
This amendment to deny new contracts to companies that have a history
of billing the government for questionable costs is hardly novel. In
January, 2004, the Defense Contract Audit Agency itself recommended
that the Corps not enter into new contracts with Halliburton, but 3
three days later the Army awarded Halliburton a new $1.2 billion
contract.
The amendment before us will ensure that taxpayer money will go to
support the troops and help rebuild infrastructure and not fatten the
pockets of contractors that have a history of questionable billing
practices. I emphasize this amendment will not take any funds away from
troop support, but will help support the troops.
It is an embarrassment that there have been virtually no
Congressional hearings on the matter. Instead, we must act
legislatively.
The best course of action to ensure that our money is going where it
is needed in support of the troops is to put an end to future contracts
with companies that are serial overchargers. Vote for this amendment.

[[Page H1104]]

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Velazquez:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

Sec. __. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to enforce a deadline described in subsection (b)
under section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(b)).
(b) Subsection (a) applies to any of the following
deadlines:
(1) The deadline of April 10, 2006, for physical loan
applications and the deadline of May 29, 2006, for economic
injury disaster loan applications, as noticed by the Small
Business Administration for Major Disaster Declaration
numbers 1603 and 1604.
(2) The deadline of March 11, 2006, for physical loan
applications and the deadline of May 29, 2006, for economic
injury disaster loan applications, as noticed by the Small
Business Administration for Major Disaster Declaration number
1605.
(3) The deadline of April 10, 2006, for physical loan
applications and the deadline of June 26, 2006, for economic
injury disaster loan applications, as noticed by the Small
Business Administration for Major Disaster Declaration
numbers 1606 and 1607.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday,
March 15, 2006, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
As we all know, the recovery process in the gulf area continues to be
ongoing. Victims are still digging out from debris, and many are unable
to even get back to their homes and businesses. Unfortunately, these
problems have been compounded by the failure of the SBA to provide
disaster assistance to these victims.
I offer this amendment today to ensure that the thousands of homes
and business owners in the gulf area are not unfairly denied the
opportunity to file for a disaster loan. This amendment will give the
victims of the hurricanes in the gulf the time they need to assess
their situation and make informed decisions about applying for disaster
loans.
Without this change, the SBA, by imposing an arbitrary deadline, will
create additional and unnecessary hardships on a group of people who
have already suffered enough.
The SBA's failures are clearly documented. In response to the
hurricanes in the gulf, the SBA issued 2.1 million applications to
businesses, homeowners and individuals seeking financial assistance. As
of just a few weeks ago, only 400,000 of these applications have been
submitted to the SBA for processing. The balance of the applications,
1.7 million, or 80 percent, remain outstanding.
The reasons for these low return rates are plentiful. SBA has failed
to supply the necessary assistance to fill out the massive application
forms. Potential applicants are being incorrectly told that they are
not eligible. On top of this, SBA has also failed to implement an
outreach plan in communities to make eligible applicants aware of this
program.
Rather than recognizing these problems, the SBA has set March 11 and
April 10 application deadlines for physical injury loans, which are the
main source of assistance for homes and businesses with physical
damage. If these deadlines are maintained, it would have the effect of
leaving many potential applicants without the ability to secure Federal
financial assistance.
This amendment will make sure that SBA stays in the gulf until the
job is done.
The failures of the SBA have already created unnecessary hardship and
frustration in the gulf region. SBA has declined an unprecedented 65
percent of loans. The agency has a backlog of over 60,000 loans. SBA
has a processing time of 80 days, nearly triple the normal time. All of
these issues have created confusion and consternation among residents.
By voting for this amendment, we will make sure the victims of this
disaster are not punished for the failures of our Federal Government.
We cannot turn our back on these victims.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1615

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The chairman of the Small Business Committee opposes this amendment,
the chairman of the authorizing committee. This amendment keeps the
application period for SBA disaster loans open indefinitely. This could
expose the disaster loan program to waste, fraud, and abuse that would
virtually be impossible for the SBA to accurately verify losses as more
time elapses from when the hurricanes struck the gulf coast.
This amendment is also unnecessary because the administration has
already had the ability to extend the application deadline, and has
done so three times. So if they have the ability to do it, and they
have done it, and they have done it three times, and your authorizing
chairman would oppose it, why would you want to do it? In fact, the
deadline was just extended for another 30 days, to April 10, for
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
So, if there was a need, the administration would do it again. If the
gentlewoman wants to change the parameters of the disaster loans, she
should work within her position and with the ranking member and come up
with something that everyone could agree on.
In the interest of time, I would just say that I oppose the
amendment. It can lead to a lot of problems.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Let me just say that SBA, before we start talking about deadlines, we
need to get SBA to process the 60,000 applications that are in backlog.
They need to do a better job in educating people so that we can get
more than 19 percent of the applications back.
They need to fix the system where they have been declining 60 percent
of all the loans that have been submitted to SBA. They need to do the
job before they pull out, and that is an excuse for them not to do the
job.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. The administration has extended this several times.
Secondly, the gentlewoman seems to constantly be criticizing SBA at
every turn. We are going to ask the National Academy for Public
Administration, somebody, to find truth out here and then begin. If you
constantly browbeat and it is not accurate, you should be careful when
you say things, because words mean things.
The chairman was before our committee yesterday. And so what we are
going to do is, we are going to ask the National Academy of Public
Administration to take a look at all these charges that go back and
forth, because if we are constantly attacking Federal employees in
program after program after program, I mean words matter. We just can't
use this institution to attack people.
This place has turned into a partisan pit and it is time to bring
some objectivity. So what we are going to do, we are going to take all
of your charges, all of your comments, all of your complaints, all of
your criticisms, all your condemnations and ask the National Academy of
Public Administration to look at it to find out some truth.
This is a bad amendment. You are on the authorizing committee. You
could do it. If we are going to do everything here, why do we even need
an authorizing committee?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The gentlewoman has 90
seconds.

[[Page H1105]]

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Well, let me just say this. Isn't it true that there
are 60,000 applications in backlog? Isn't it true that 19 percent, only
19 percent have been processed? Isn't it true that there is 65 percent
declined on loans approval?
This is not about partisanship, this is about victims who are
suffering, who are losing their businesses, who are losing their jobs.
This is what this amendment is all about.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. WOLF. Then I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York has 1 minute
remaining.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, in a hearing yesterday on the disaster
loan program, we heard two different stories on this equation in the
gulf. We heard from the SBA administrator who said that everything is
great. He told the committee that they are processing record numbers of
loans and that there are virtually no problems. At the same time, we
have a small business owner, Patricia Smith, who came in from New
Orleans and told her story.
She told the committee how she could not find a Federal official to
help her apply for a loan and how she spent hours working through
paperwork. She told us that it took months to hear back on the status
of her loan and that she was wrongly denied. The woman also shared that
there are thousands out there with the same story.
The view from Washington, and what is actually going on in the gulf
coast region is very different. By extending the deadline for disaster
loans, we will give victims the ability to assess their situation and
make an informed decision about getting an SBA loan.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. WOLF. Several years ago, you said if we abolished the loan
guarantees, the world would come to an end. We abolished them, and now
the number of loans are up. They are at a record number.
So what we are going to do, and I think the body should know, we want
the SBA to work well, we want them to make the loans, but if we are
constantly hammering and criticizing and condemning and governing by
press release we don't get very far. So what we are going to do is we
are going to ask the National Academy of Public Administration, a
nonpartisan group, to come in and look at the gentlewoman's charges and
all these things and come back and give us an honest report so we will
know. But if we are just harassing Federal employees and criticizing
them at every step of the way, we really don't accomplish very much.
And I would say that you did say, and I will submit for the record
what you said about abolishing the loan guarantees, but by doing that,
we saved the taxpayer about $170 million. The loans are up. That was
basically a subsidy for the bankers. The banking lobby wanted that and
we took it away and now we saved the taxpayers money.
This is a bad amendment. Vote it down.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Velazquez:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to make or guarantee a loan under section 7(b) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)) other than a loan for
which the borrower is charged an interest rate in accordance
with section 7(c)(5) of such Act, as in effect on the date of
the enactment of this Act.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday,
March 15, 2006, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, while the House will begin debating the
budget resolution in the coming weeks, this amendment offers the first
vote on one of the initiatives introduced in the President's 2007
budget. This amendments provides Members the opportunity to send a
clear message that victims of disasters should not be subject to
additional and unnecessary burdens by the Federal Government.
Buried in the President's budget submission was a proposal to raise
the interest rates on SBA's disaster loans. This initiative will
eliminate the current caps on interest rates and allow for the SBA to
charge higher rates on disaster loans. This could mean that interest
rates go up by as much as 50 percent.
The end result will force those who had their homes or businesses
destroyed to pay for our budget problems here in Washington. I offer
this amendment today to ensure that we stop this wrongheaded proposal
in its tracks. It puts Congress on record making it clear that an
attempt to create additional hardships on disaster victims will not be
tolerated.
Given all the missteps by FEMA and SBA in the gulf, Congress should
not be adding to the problems of those hit by a natural disaster.
Findings by the General Accounting Office, various inspector generals
and congressional panels have revealed the numerous ways the Federal
Government has failed our citizens in the gulf. By supporting this
amendment, Congress will be saying that we stand together in these
difficult times.
I am a firm believer in balancing our spending priorities, but this
proposal is beyond the pale. I find it hard to believe, particularly
given all the wasteful spending in Washington, that the only place to
find funding is on the backs of disaster victims. Whatever happened to
compassionate conservatism?
The effect of the administration's proposal will mean increased costs
by thousands of dollars for disaster victims. It is alarming that
despite all the problems with the management of the disaster loan
program the only change the President offered in his budget was to
increase the cost on disaster victims.
We agree that changes need to be made to the disaster loan program,
but this is not one of them. By voting for this amendment, Congress
expresses its commitment to rejecting this bad idea. I urge a ``yes''
vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This
amendment has absolutely, positively, categorically nothing to do with
an emergency supplemental bill that we are considering today. It is an
attempt to stop a legislative proposal related to the fiscal year 2007
budget, which, as an authorizer, you will get to have that opportunity.
And it will come out on the floor one way or the other, and the
Congress will have the opportunity to vote on it.
The proposal will have to be considered by the committee. SBA cannot
unilaterally make the changes. So the Congress should know that the
authorizers in the Congress set the rate. It is not the administration.
So we are going to have that opportunity when Mr. Manzullo and the
members, minority and majority, make it.
Lastly, it is not necessary and it will have no effect, because it is
just simply an attempt to prejudge a proposal by the administration for
next fiscal year, and that is not something that you would do in a
supplemental. If you would do that in a supplemental bill, we should
just abolish every other bill and put everything in a supplemental
bill, because then everything is a supplemental.

[[Page H1106]]

So it is a bad amendment, and I urge you to vote ``no.''
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I would simply note, given what the gentleman just said, that is
exactly what we have done with Iraq. Every dollar of the Iraq war has
been financed through a supplemental appropriation. That is the way the
administration has been able to hide from the taxpayers the full long-
term cost of this war. That is the way they have been able to avoid
systematic oversight. They put it in a supplemental, and then it is a
must-pass, hurry-up, piece-at-a-time operation. Eventually you get the
whole pie, but you get it in pieces, and the public doesn't know what
the total picture is.
So I would simply say that I was kind of amused by that comment
because the administration is way ahead of all of us. They decided a
long time ago that they are going to supplemental the Congress to
death, and they put every possible dollar they can into supplementals.
They have yet to spend $1 in a regular defense appropriation bill for
Iraq.
So I just find it interesting that one person is expected to live up
to a standard that the administration itself won't live up to.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Let me just say that this is a cornerstone of the President's budget
for SBA, and I think it is important that Congress go on record on this
issue, particularly for us Democrats. And what we are saying today is,
it is a bad idea, and we need to make it clear from the beginning, from
the start, that we want to balance the budget but not at the expense of
disaster victims.
And that is exactly what we are doing with this amendment today. We
must prevent any of these funds from being used for higher interest
loans in disaster loans for victims. We have to make sure that if money
is carried over, that it will not be used for higher interest loans
that will impact disaster victims.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has 1\1/2\ minutes.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would ensure that the disaster loan
program remains an affordable source of capital for those affected by
future disasters. When the program works, it has served to create the
public-private partnership that balances the needs of fiscal constraint
and compassion for our fellow Americans.
The administration's proposal to raise interest rates on disaster
loans will simply leave the victims to fend for themselves.

{time} 1630

In the end, it is in our best economic interest to get these
communities back up and running and creating the jobs they have proven
they can create. By voting ``yes,'' we are telling the administration
that raising interest rates on disaster loans is a bad idea and
Congress will not support it. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We would like to work with your staff and have our staff sit down so
we can ask NAPA questions that you think are important, issues like
this and other issues. What we want to do is work with you, get the
National Academy of Public Administration to answer these questions and
so we can find out one way or the other. Would that be appropriate?
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to do that; but I have
to tell you, victims in the gulf region cannot wait until we have such
a discussion, and that is why this amendment is important to be voted
on today.
Mr. WOLF. But if there is something wrong with regard to the SBA, I
think it is important to find that out and identify that with Mr.
Manzullo and ask any questions you want to have NAPA answer so we can
put it together and finally get to the bottom.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Lee:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to
implement, administer, or enforce the termination of the
hotel and motel emergency sheltering program established by
FEMA for families displaced by Hurricane Katrina and other
hurricanes of the 2005 season.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday,
March 15, 2006, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment is very simple. This amendment would prevent FEMA from
evicting from hotels and motels the thousands of families who were
affected by the hurricanes on the gulf coast last summer.
Mr. Chairman, 6 months ago, the entire world watched the wealthiest,
most powerful country on Earth turn its back on those who couldn't
afford to evacuate their homes in advance and during the hurricanes.
People were left to fend for themselves on rooftops, trying to save
their lives and the lives of their families.
We cannot sweep under the rug the faces and the images of those who
were disproportionately abandoned by their government. Unfortunately,
today, 6 months after the storm, the majority of these people are still
fending for themselves. The people of New Orleans and the gulf coast
have experienced more tragedy and more suffering in the last 6 months
than anyone should have to face in a lifetime. It is bad enough that
they suffered through one of the worst natural disasters in the history
of United States, it is bad enough that they lost their homes and their
jobs and their livelihoods, it is bad enough that they are suffering
mental breakdowns, high suicide rates and high rates of post-dramatic
stress. And it is bad enough the insurance companies are trying to
dodge their obligations to pay out claims to property owners.
But now to add insult to injury, yesterday their own government, our
government, ended payments for hotel and motel rooms for thousands of
displaced Katrina evacuees. Where will all of these people go? We
already have a huge homeless population in this country. Why are we
creating a new generation of Katrina homeless?
This lacks morality and is about as low as you can go. What benefit
does the Federal Government have in kicking people when they are down?
Today, the newspapers are filled with accounts of people who were
kicked out of their rooms and have no place to go. There are reports of
families piling their possessions out of hotels and motels and into
trucks, but with nowhere to go. This is just disgraceful. What kind of
a message do we send with these evictions? What do we say to the rest
of the world? What does it say about our values and our priorities and
really what we believe in terms of putting people first?
I believe we have to send a different message, and we can do that
today. We

[[Page H1107]]

have to reject the actions of FEMA and this administration and prevent
people from getting kicked out of their hotel and motel rooms.
By passing my amendment, we would block FEMA from using any money in
this bill to evict people living in hotels and motels as a result of
Hurricane Katrina. We should not allow FEMA to dump people on the
streets. That is just plain wrong. That is all it is, it is wrong. That
should not be done. This is unjust.
Let us help at least stabilize their lives and give them a safe place
to sleep without worrying about being on the streets. Mr. Chairman, I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise in opposition to this amendment which would prohibit FEMA from
terminating its hotel and motel emergency sheltering program. This
language is overly restrictive. At its peak, FEMA had more than 85,000
hotel rooms rented per night. The current subsidized hotel-room
population is 3,780 households with the vast majority being in
Louisiana.
FEMA is now in the process of transitioning these remaining hotel/
motel residents into more appropriate housing. We do not want families
living in motels. We all want to see those families in a better
environment, longer term housing solutions such as apartments and the
like.
This transition will occur over the coming weeks. To date, over 2,500
have already been matched up against not-yet-ready temporary housing,
trailers, apartments and the like. The remainders include hard-to-place
individuals, the disabled and people like that; and FEMA will continue
to provide hotel/motel assistance to those people until a suitable
temporary housing solution is identified and prepared.
Members should be assured that people are not being thrown out in the
streets. FEMA is working with families to place them in appropriate
housing solutions. This amendment would keep in place a program in the
long term that is not good for the recipients or anyone else. So I urge
Members to vote against the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters), who is a real leader and was down there
helping people save their lives during this tragedy.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to come down here and
support the gentlewoman's amendment because yesterday 4,007 codes
expired. We do not know where those people are. We do not know if they
have housing. As a matter of fact, there are news reports this morning
that are telling us there are people who have nowhere to go.
I thank the gentlewoman for attempting to send some direction to
FEMA. It is shameful and outrageous what has happened with the poor
victims of Hurricane Katrina. From the time they started with the
shelters until now, they have not come up with a reasonable program by
which to provide housing.
I thank the gentlewoman for everything she has done, and I simply
hope we can get support for this amendment so that the $88 billion that
we have appropriated to deal with this catastrophe can be used. I know
FEMA has used 25 percent of this money on administrative costs. That is
outrageous. We want that money to be used to provide shelter to the
people who need it.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This issue speaks to who we are as a country. We know there are
people living on the streets, and we know there are people who have
been really just played around with in terms of you have to evict, you
do not. You have 5 more days; you have 10 more days. You have to call
this number and get a voucher. Maybe we will extend it another week;
maybe it will be 2 weeks. The deadline is tomorrow.
What in the world are these people supposed to do, Mr. Chairman? I
think until we fix this where everybody has decent transitional
housing, we should just say ``no'' to evictions. That is what this is
about. ``No'' to evictions to people who have already been traumatized
and hurt.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Chairman, it is not true that the time is up. Eligible Hurricane
Katrina victims with no other housing means may be eligible for 3
months' worth of housing assistance. And the deadline application for
individual assistance has been extended until April 11. So I would urge
defeat of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Lee:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ----. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Government of the United States to enter into
a basing rights agreement between the United States and Iraq.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday,
March 15, 2006, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and a Member
opposed each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I would like to thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for
working with me on this amendment and for his leadership and for being
here to speak on this today.
This amendment is not about the war, although I offered an
alternative to keep us out of Iraq when this war began. This amendment
is not about bringing our troops home, although I believe we should do
that and do it right away.
This amendment is not about holding the President accountable for
misleading us into an unjust and unnecessary war, although he should.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering is very simple. It would
provide that no funds would be used under this bill to enter into
military base agreements between the United States and Iraq. Stating
this will clearly indicate that the United States has no intention of
making military bases permanent.
Mr. Chairman, can't we all agree on that right here and now, that we
should not be in Iraq permanently? Unfortunately, this administration's
position is unclear.
The President shares our views and said as much, I thought. On April
13, 2004, President Bush said, ``As a proud and independent people,
Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation, and neither does
America.''
But just yesterday, General Abizaid, the general in charge of U.S.
troops in Iraq, told a Defense Appropriations Committee that the U.S.
could end up having bases in Iraq. So I think we need to be clear. The
aim of my amendment is to simply codify the sentiment that the
President and many of our constituents and many of us strongly believe
here.
As we stand here today, the United States has renewed a bombing
campaign against the insurgents, the largest assault since the
invasion; and this is taking us in exactly the wrong direction.
Destroying villages in the hopes of routing out insurgents only creates
more insurgents.
In adopting this amendment, we can take the target off our troops'
backs by sending a strong and immediate signal to the Iraqi people, the
insurgents, and the international community that the United States has
no designs on Iraq.
This very simple point is supported by a poll conducted by the
University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes
earlier this year. They found that 76 percent of Iraqis believe that
the United States

[[Page H1108]]

will maintain bases in Iraq permanently even if the newly elected
government asks the United States to leave Iraq.
Mr. Chairman, we need to be on record that we must not have permanent
military bases in Iraq. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1645

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine
(Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
time and also for her leadership on this issue. She and I both have
bills to make U.S. policy that there be no permanent military bases in
Iraq; and that is what we are, an amendment to that effect is here
today. It reads that none of the funds made available under this act
may be used by the government of the United States to enter into a
basing rights agreement between the United States and Iraq.
It is true that the administration is unclear on this. Secretary
Rumsfeld has said we have no plans or no discussions under way to have
permanent bases in that country. But I just got off the phone with a
reporter from Maine who said his son served there and those aren't
temporary bases that we have there.
General Casey has said that we should gradually reduce the visibility
of coalition forces across Iraq because that would take away one of the
elements that fuels the insurgency.
What we have learned in a very painful way is that the opinions of
other people matter. The opinions of the Iraqis matter. They believe we
came there to take their oil, and they believe that we are going to
stay there permanently. We have to make an official U.S. policy that we
will not stay in Iraq on a permanent basis, that we are going to
withdraw our troops, that we will not have military bases there; and
that will help diminish somewhat the insurgency that is raging there
today.
Just last week General Abizaid testified that the United States may
still wish to maintain a long-term presence in the region. It is that
kind of confusion, those kinds of mixed signals that we need to clear
up with this amendment today.
The Zogby poll recently indicated that 70 percent of American troops
believe we should be out of Iraq within the year. Our troops deserve to
be told that we are not going to stay. The Iraqis need to be assured
that we are not going to say, and this amendment is the path to that
result.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to cosponsor the Lee
amendment to prohibit any funds from the supplemental from being used
to enter into a basing rights agreement between the United States and
Iraq. It is clear that the Iraqis, Shiites and Sunnis alike, in
overwhelming numbers, do not want us to stay there. And the Secretary
of Defense has said that there are no plans or discussions under way to
have permanent bases in that country. So this would codify that. This
would make sure that that is true.
And yet it has been suggested by top military leaders, including
General John Abizaid, as recently as this week, that the United States
may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq. If true, this
is a scheme fraught with danger. As anyone knows that watches
television or reads the paper, the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq has
been a powerful recruiting tool for the Iraqi insurgency. And General
George Casey has agreed with that, saying that by getting our troops
out of there that we would take away one of the elements that fuels the
insurgency. Please support this amendment. It is good for our troops
and good for our country and theirs.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the House, this is
a great opportunity in the amendment brought forward by the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee). The reason this is a good opportunity, it
gets to the heart of what is tearing us apart and preventing us from
being as effective as we could in the Middle East. The best way to do
that is to clearly express, by statute, the fact that we are not there
to build military permanent bases. And the reason is that when we do
that we will alleviate a lot of the problem and suspicions that
currently exist.
Join us in this bipartisan effort to make sure that American
intentions in the Middle East are for the first time explicitly stated
by law.
Ms. LEE. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, in December 2004, I requested the
Congressional Research Service to compile a report on military
construction in both Iraq and Afghanistan. On April 11, 2005, I
received the final report. Here is what it said: the Congressional
Research Service found projects that suggest a longer term U.S.
presence in Iraq. These included $214 million for the Balad Air Base
and $49 million for the Taji military complex.
This is the first congressional report that identified specific
locations in Iraq where the U.S. is possibly constructing a permanent
military presence in Iraq. At the appropriate time, I will enter this
in the Record.
Now I want to know, did anyone here vote to establish permanent bases
in Iraq when they voted to invade that country? Did anyone here vote to
send U.S. troops permanently to Iraq? Weren't we going to war on the
belief Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Weren't we going to war on
the belief that Iraq was an imminent threat of a mushroom cloud the
administration warned about? All that proved to be false. If the
President had told you he wanted to spend over $300 billion and 2,300
American lives, plus tens of thousands of maimed servicemembers to
build new military bases, permanent deployment of U.S. troops in the
Mesopotamian Valley, would anyone here have supported that? I don't
think so.
That is why this administration had to fabricate a pretense for the
invasion, and that is why you have to support the Lee amendment today.
Do not allow this ill-conceived war to lead to a permanent deployment
of troops in Iraq. Bring them home. Close down those bases.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman).
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, this month marks the third anniversary of
the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Our troops, who have performed heroically,
want to finish their mission and return home.
Success in Iraq depends on true power-sharing, and that will not
happen so long as Iraqis suspect that the United States will maintain
permanent military bases. That is why I strongly support the Lee
amendment, which will send a clear signal to the Iraqi people that the
United States does not seek a permanent presence.
Mr. Chairman, I have spoken to the President, the Vice President, the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about this. Statements by
Secretary Rumsfeld alone are not sufficient. Only when the President
makes clear that we intend to leave Iraq, not to referee a civil war,
will Iraqis realize that power-sharing is their best and last hope.
I thank my good friend, Congresswoman Lee, for introducing this
important amendment, and I thank her for her courageous stands all the
time in the House.
Ms. LEE. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this is an important
statement that we are making. And again I am sure that we will
experience ridicule because I will stand here and say that I believe
that the troops have done their job, their patriotic job, the job of
defending America. They have won the victory, and it is time for them
to come home.

[[Page H1109]]

We must redeploy our troops. And for all of those who say that many
of us do not have a plan, we do. And that plan incorporates the
gentlewoman's amendment, and I thank her for her leadership, and that
is that we want to redeploy and we want to vest in Iraq and the Iraqi
people and soldiers the defense of their nation. Therefore, we want to
insure that there will be no basing rights between the United States
and Iraq, no permanency, no establishing of our obligation to defend
and defend and defend.
We just had a debate about avoiding the eviction of thousands of
Americans from places where they are living because they have no place
to live because of the hurricane disaster. It is time now to redeploy.
We do have a plan for Iraq to control their government and to be able
to defend themselves and to bring our troops home and to disestablish
any relationship of a base in Iraq.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Price).
(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Lee amendment prohibiting the use of funds to establish permanent
American bases on Iraqi soil. We must make clear to the Iraqi people
and to the American people that our operations in Iraq are not open-
ended and that we have no designs on Iraqi oil and territory.
Earlier this week, in a hearing of the Military Quality of Life and
Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, I asked General John
Abizaid, the top American general in the Middle East, if he could make
an unequivocal commitment that the U.S. does not intend to establish
permanent bases in Iraq. His answer was that he could not.
Two days after our Ambassador to Iraq said that the U.S. has, ``no
goal of establishing permanent bases in Iraq,'' General Abizaid said
that the policy on long-term presence in Iraq had not been formulated.
Three years into this war, if administration officials cannot make up
their minds and articulate a coherent policy, it is time that Congress
did it for them. Support the Lee amendment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. President, we need a sign. The American people
believed you when you told us that you had to have a preemptive strike
because there were weapons of mass destruction. There were no weapons
of mass destruction.
You told us we would be welcome, our soldiers would be welcome with
open arms. They are not welcome with open arms. The Sunnis, the Shiites
and the Kurds all want to end this occupation. They want us out of
there.
Mr. President, you told us that the oil that you would pump from the
oil wells in Iraq would pay for the rebuilding of Iraq. They are
pumping less oil now than they were before the war.
You claimed that you were training soldiers to take over the security
of the country. But we are finding bodies every day. In the last 2
days, there were 85 bodies found. In the last couple of weeks, there
have been over 2,000 bodies found. The civil war has begun. The IEDs
are exploding every day.
And Mr. President, you said that you would redeploy. We need you to
give us a sign. All of those people who support him, you need to give
us a sign. You can do that with this amendment by simply supporting the
Lee amendment that will not allow for permanent bases. You have let us
down on everything else. You can do this one. Support the Lee
amendment. No permanent bases in Iraq.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
Northern California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Every single Member of Congress should be able to
support this amendment, unless, of course, the goal is to have
permanent presence in Iraq. We can demonstrate to the Iraqi people that
we won't occupy their country indefinitely by voting ``yes'' today.
In fact, the Iraqi insurgency is largely incited by the very fact
that after 3 full years of war, we show no intention of leaving. Our
military presence must end. We must bring our troops home. We must give
Iraq back to the Iraqi people. And in so doing, no permanent bases and
no control over their oil.
Mr. Chairman, ending the war and helping the Iraqi people get back on
their feet is absolutely possible, and it must start now. We can start
this process by making a strong statement that the United States of
America has no plan to maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq.
I urge all of my colleagues vote for the Lee-Allen amendment.

{time} 1700

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the
gentlewoman from California for this amendment, which prevents funding
for permanent bases in Iraq, and also because it draws our attention to
other consequences.
One is the tragic occupation, which has been going on in Iraq now for
almost 3 years, and the consequences of that tragic occupation, which
has been endorsed and supported by this Congress over and over again.
It also draws our attention to the rationale for the invasion of Iraq
and the subsequent occupation, a rationale which was presented to this
Congress and to the American people in the most fraudulent and
deceitful way.
It draws attention to the fact that it is a criminal violation of
Federal law to present false and misleading information to the Congress
in order to get them to take action. Most importantly, it draws our
attention to the fact that the Congress has done nothing about it. We
are now facing the third anniversary of the invasion and subsequent
occupation of Iraq, and we must face the fact that this Congress has
failed in its obligations and responsibilities to oversee the executive
branch.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Poe). The gentlewoman from California has 1
minute remaining.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentlewoman a
question on my time.
Do you know how many additional speakers you may have?
Ms. LEE. I believe Mr. Hinchey needs another minute and Mr. Moran
needs 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Frankly I will be glad to yield to the two
of them some of my time and I presume that you might want to use the
last minute to close and we can close this up.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from the
committee.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from the
Appropriations Committee and my good friend from California. I want my
colleagues to consider some facts.
One is with this amendment that we will have now spent as much as we
did in the entire Vietnam War. Does anybody think that that $400
billion was well spent in retrospect? Consider the fact that 82 percent
of the Sunnis and 69 percent of the Shi'a want us to withdraw
immediately. In fact, the majority say that our presence is hurting
rather than helping Iraq's future. Consider what happened when the
British concluded their occupation.
The first people the Iraqis went after were those who cooperated with
the British, considering them collaborators. Then they went after the
foreigners that were trying to exploit the situation. We have a
responsibility to get those foreign terrorists, al-Zarqawi and all of
the al-Qaeda.
But the Iraqi people were never a threat to the United States. They
are not now. Let us work with the Iraqis, get rid of the foreign
terrorists, but not establish any permanent bases in Iraq.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I will just close by thanking you, Mr. Lewis, for giving us time and
for allowing for those who have a real perspective, the passion, the
understanding to speak on this issue tonight. It is so important that
the country understand that whether we agreed or disagreed with the
war, that many of us believe there should be no permanent presence in
Iraq.
We support our troops. We want them out of harm's way. We know that
any notion of a permanent occupation or permanent bases continues to
put our young men and women in harm's way. It is about time now that
these signals be clear to the rest of the world. As I

[[Page H1110]]

said, we get mixed signals from the administration.
I think it is now the time for this House to say that whatever we
believed, when this war started, we do not want to be a permanent
occupying force, and we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq.
Thank you for being so generous, Mr. Lewis.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, in the time I have spent in
and around Iraq I have seen a fabulous facility at Camp Doha that is
meeting most of our challenges in the region. I see it developing
significantly in the future. I don't see a need for a permanent
facility in Iraq. I doubt there will even be a suggestion of that. On
the other hand, I think the discussion was very healthy.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
offered by my distinguished colleague from California.
When the president took our country to war, he promised that victory
would be swift and that our troops would not stay in Iraq one day
longer than necessary.
Three years and 300 billion dollars later, with over 2,300 American
soldiers dead and more than ten thousand wounded, victory is nowhere in
sight.
The president and vice president, the secretary of defense and high
ranking generals have continued to assure the American people that our
presence in Iraq is temporary.
Yet, at the same time, the Department of Defense is paying
Halliburton subsidiary Kellog Brown and Root billions of dollars to
build 14 ``enduring'' bases in Iraq.
The Iraqis see what is happening on the ground, and they haven't
fallen for the Administration's misrepresentation.
According to recent opinion polls, a large majority of Iraqis believe
that the U.S. military has no intention to leave Iraq, and that it
would stay even is asked by the Iraqi government to leave.
The presence of American troops is fueling the insurgency in Iraq, as
acknowledged by General Casey and numerous other experts, and is
helping terrorist recruiters build their numbers across the globe.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to continue sending these mixed
signals.
If we want to build the Iraqis' confidence about our intentions in
their country, if we want to stop adding fuel to the fire of insurgency
and terrorism, we must clarify our intent.
Because the Administration is unable to send a clear message about
America's intentions in Iraq, Congress must take this responsibility.
We must make our policy of no permanent bases explicit by force of
law.
Mr. Chairman, the concern raised in the gentlelady from California's
amendment is the same concern that has determined my vote on the
underlying bill. The Administration and the majority in this body
continue to evade the question of how long we will remain in Iraq, and
how much we plan to spend on this war.
It is with deep regret that I vote against passage of this
supplemental.
Since Hurricane Katrina wrought havoc on our Gulf coast, I have
decried the federal government's stingy approach to aid and
reconstruction.
I have joined with my colleagues for years in urging the
Administration to provide more funding for veterans' benefits.
I fully support increased LIHEAP funding, as well as aid to Liberia
and Sudan.
But, Mr. Chairman, I will not be held hostage by the majority's
cynical two-step trick to ensure continued funding for their failed
policy in Iraq.
The majority continues to separate Iraq funding from the overall
defense budget so that they can hide the true cost of the war and then
force the Congress to pass these so-called ``emergency'' supplemental
appropriations.
And the majority has bundled this war appropriation with funding for
numerous important programs that we all favor, in order to force the
legislation through and do an end run around real debate.
I am a Korean War veteran. I support our troops as much as anyone in
this body, but I do so by advocating redeployment out of Iraq as soon
as it can be safely done. I would vote any time for additional funds to
pay for such safe redeployment. For this reason I have signed on to the
proposal of my colleague Mr. McGovern, H.R. 4232, the End of the War in
Iraq Act.
Mr. Chairman, this vote is not about ``supporting the troops.'' This
bill is just one more attempt to tie the Congress' hands by forcing us
to give up our only means of control over the war, the power of the
purse. I will not be blackmailed into approving funding for an open-
ended continuation of our participation in hostilities in Iraq. If the
Congress acquiesces on this vote, it is in effect agreeing to fund this
disastrous policy for as long as this Administration sees fit. From all
indications, no end is in sight.
Mr. Chairman, the price for continuing this war is too high, not only
in budgetary terms, but in American lives, Iraqi civilian casualties
blamed on America and in the steady increase in the terrorist ranks
that this war is provoking around the globe.
The American taxpayers should not have to send one more penny on the
Administration's Iraq misadventure. Let's give our troops the supplies
they need to get out of Iraq safely. Let's bring our troops home.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I seek time to enter into a colloquy
with the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Chairman, the rules prevent us from offering an amendment to the
underlying bill to address health problems arising in the aftermath of
Katrina. Thus I thank the gentleman for yielding the time to enter into
a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of
the Appropriations Committee, who has worked very hard on Katrina
issues, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) who has likewise
been a stalwart supporter of those of us who are working so hard to
bring our region back.
Mr. Chairman, rebuilding the Medical Center of Louisiana at New
Orleans as a comprehensive public health hospital is a number 1
priority for public health and health care infrastructure of New
Orleans since Katrina. Compared to most cities, New Orleans has a large
percentage of poor and unhealthy residents.
Mr. Chairman, this perspective is not shared by FEMA. To date, FEMA
has authorized $23 million out of $258 million requested. I thank the
gentleman very much for permitting me to enter into this colloquy.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just say I am very happy to work with
the gentleman to try to deal with the problem.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, further, I look forward to
working with both the gentlemen and am anxious to do everything we can
to make this thing work as we deliver aid and support to the people in
and around New Orleans.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments?

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of Rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Amendment by Mr. Waxman of California.
The first amendment by Ms. Velazquez of New York.
The second amendment by Ms. Velazquez of New York.
Amendment by Ms. Lee of California.
Under the previous order of the House of today, the Chair will reduce
to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in
this series.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Waxman

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193,
noes 225, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 60]

AYES--193

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)

[[Page H1111]]

Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Salazar
Sa;nchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Vela;zquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--225

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--14

Boren
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Duncan
Evans
Ford
Hastings (FL)
McHenry
McMorris
Radanovich
Ryan (OH)
Shimkus
Sweeney
Weldon (FL)

{time} 1732

Messrs. CALVERT, GARRETT of New Jersey, LARSON of Connecticut, GOODE,
TOWNS and SAM JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. CAPUANO, MEEK of Florida and GRIJALVA changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 60
on the Waxman amendments to H.R. 4939, I was on a leave of absence due
to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Stated against:
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 60 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Poe). The pending business is the demand for
a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Velazquez) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201,
noes 213, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 61]

AYES--201

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
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
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
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
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Salazar
Sa;nchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--213

[[Page H1112]]

Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
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
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)

NOT VOTING--18

Boren
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Duncan
Evans
Hastings (FL)
Hunter
Issa
Kennedy (RI)
Larsen (WA)
Lewis (KY)
McMorris
Radanovich
Ryan (OH)
Shimkus
Sweeney
Waters
Weldon (FL)

{time} 1736

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 61, I was
in a meeting with the Minister of Northern Ireland and missed the 2
minute vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 61
on the Velazquez amendment to H.R. 4939, to prohibit the use of funds
from being made available to enforce deadlines regarding economic
injury disaster loan applications and physical loan applications, I was
on a leave of absence due to illness. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``aye.''

Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 62]

AYES--200

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
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
McCollum (MN)
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
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sa;nchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Vela;zquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Whitfield
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--219

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Boyd
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
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
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
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
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
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
Weller
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--13

Boren
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Duncan
Evans
Hastings (FL)
Kirk
McMorris
Radanovich
Shimkus
Sweeney
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)

{time} 1740

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 62
on the Velazquez amendment to H.R. 4939, to prohibit the use of funds
from being available to make or guarantee a loan under section 7(b) of
the Small Business Act other than a loan for which the borrower is
charged an interest rate in accordance with section 7(c)(5), I was on a
leave of absence due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye.''

personal explanation

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall Nos. 60, 61, and 62,
I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``no.''

Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.

[[Page H1113]]

The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 63]

AYES--189

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costa
Costello
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
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
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
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
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
Reichert
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sa;nchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Vela;zquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--230

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
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
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
Cooper
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
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
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
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
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
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
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--13

Boren
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Diaz-Balart, M.
Duncan
Evans
Harris
Hastings (FL)
McMorris
Radanovich
Shimkus
Smith (TX)
Sweeney

{time} 1745

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 63
on the Lee amendment to H.R. 4939, to prohibit the use of funds from
being available to implement, administer, or enforce the termination of
the hotel and motel emergency sheltering program established by FEMA
for families displaced by Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes of the
2005 season, I was on a leave of absence due to illness. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Jack Murtha from Pennsylvania, a
decorated Marine from the Vietnam War and the most respected person in
the House of Representatives on military affairs, has the Iraq
situation just about right. A free and stable Iraq cannot be achieved
militarily. We should not be suffering casualties nearly three years
after that fateful day on the carrier off San Diego when President Bush
declared ``Mission Accomplished,'' and yet 93 percent of our casualties
have occurred since that day.
The Iraqis must make hard political decisions. They must decide if
they want a unified country with shared power and responsibility
proportionate to population and protected rights for all. As long as we
run the military operations and bear the brunt of casualties, the
political decisions are avoided. We must make it clear that we will not
be caught in their civil war if the Iraqis do not want a unified
country enough to avoid a civil war politically.
We must make a concerted effort to persuade the EU, NATO and the rest
of our allies to help train Iraqi security forces and establish a
judicial system so Iraqis can regain their lives. President Bush's
repeated claim that nearly 200,000 Iraqi police and army personnel have
been trained to secure Iraq has been disputed for months, even by our
own military leaders. However, those Iraqis, whatever their numbers,
must stand up for a unified Iraq if that is what they want and believe
in. Finally, we need to withdraw from Iraq expeditiously within 2006.
I am voting against this supplemental budget because it simply
enables the president to continue his totally flawed and incompetently
managed misadventure without forcing the Iraqis to reach political
accommodations that can end the insurgency and create a stable, unified
country. This war supplemental will be followed by another equally
large one as soon as our November elections have passed. You can bet on
it.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the
supplemental budget despite reservations about parts of this
legislation. While I think this bill could be substantially improved, I
also believe that, on balance, it does more good than harm. This bill
provides funds for a number of important purposes, including the
equipment necessary to support and protect our troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan; emergency relief for the victims of hurricane Katrina; and
funds to support international efforts to stop the mass killings of
innocent people in Sudan. I will address each of these in turn.
Let me start with Iraq. While I opposed the President's decision to
go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I am supporting this bill because I
believe we must provide our troops with the necessary equipment while
they are there. I also believe, however, that the President has failed
to provide the American people with a viable plan for success in Iraq.
This bill fails to include benchmarks to hold the Administration
accountable. The bill also fails to include adequate safeguards to
ensure that the funds are spent responsibly.
Millions of dollars have already been lost or wasted in Iraq due to
poor oversight. Every effort must be made to prevent another
Halliburton from growing fat at the expense of the American taxpayer. I
recently supported an amendment in the Government Reform Committee that
would have held the federal government responsible for overspending and

[[Page H1114]]

general mismanagement of federal funds. Despite the common sense nature
of this amendment, it failed on a party line vote. This Congress has
totally failed in its oversight responsibilities with respect to these
funds.
Let me now turn to Afghanistan. I supported the decision to take
military action against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I
believe we have not yet completed our mission there. Osama bin Laden
remains at large, al Qaeda continues to operate and the Taliban have
stepped up their attacks. In the face of these realities, the funds
provided for U.S. and international efforts in Afghanistan are
inadequate.
During a recent hearing before the House Appropriations Committee,
Ronald Neumann, our Ambassador in Afghanistan testified that not enough
was being been appropriated for our efforts there. I agree. This bill
fails to meet the commitments we have made to Afghanistan. It defers
the promised cancellation of Afghanistan's $11 million debt owed to the
United States; it cuts $16 million from USAID for mission security in
Afghanistan and reduces by $2.2 billion Department of Defense funds for
Afghan security force training. The bill also cuts funds for counter-
narcotics activities in Afghanistan from $193 million to $157 million.
As U.S. commanders prepare to devolve more responsibility for
security to other coalition partners and to the Afghans, they must
account for the fact that it could take years and billions of dollars
to achieve the level of self-sustainability necessary to provide for
Afghanistan's infrastructure and national security needs.
A critical test will occur this summer as the U.S. military
officially hands over control of the dangerous southern region to NATO
forces. Counter-insurgency has never been NATO's job and there are
questions about whether it is ready and willing to take on this new
role. The volatile southern region has the highest incidents of
terrorism, drug trafficking and organized crime in the country. Of the
more than 100 American soldiers killed in insurgency attacks in the
last year--most of the deaths occurred in the southern region.
We must recognize that it is in our national security interest to
work with the Afghan people. We must work to accelerate efforts to
build and strengthen national institutions, the economy and Afghan
security. By reducing the funding for Afghan operations at this
critical time we are sending the wrong message to our troops, to our
allies and to the people of Afghanistan.
Next, to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina, the bill contains $19
billion to aid recovery and reconstruction efforts. Most of the funds
will go to the Federal Emergency Management Agency but $4 billion will
go towards community development and for loans to homeowners, renters
and businesses. Months after the hurricane, thousands of people are
still looking for permanent homes. This funding will help citizens
displaced by Hurricane Katrina rebuild their lives.
This bill also contains emergency funding to help those suffering in
Sudan. The United States and the international community have failed to
take adequate steps to stop the genocide. This bill at least attempts
to alleviate the suffering. It includes $66 million for humanitarian
support, $11 million to assist refugees in Darfur and Chad to return to
their homes, $150 million for food, $123 million to support African
Union troops and, with the adoption of the Capuano amendment, $88
million to prepare for the transition to UN peacekeepers.
Mr. Chairman, despite the reservations I have raised, I believe the
bill deserves our support.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror,
and Hurricane Recovery, H.R. 4939. This supplemental bill, totaling
$91.8 billion, is the largest that the House of Representatives has
ever considered.
As I have said repeatedly on the House floor, I strongly oppose using
so-called ``emergency supplementals'' to fund non-emergency, clearly
foreseeable expenditures. This bill provides $72 billion for continued
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact that our troops
are on the ground in these dangerous places is not a surprise. They
have been in Iraq for almost three years. Their needs are well known to
everyone, except, it seems, the President and his budget staff. Every
year, the President fails to budget for the cost of military
operations, and every year he pretends that the war is an unforeseen
``emergency''.
Funding our soldiers this way is dangerous because it leaves them
ill-equipped and subject to last minute actions like this by Congress.
If, by contrast, we funded military operations through the normal
budget process, funding decisions would be made in the open and with
the appropriate scrutiny they deserve. It would also allow for long
term planning and more thoughtful budgeting. We have all read about the
contracting waste and fraud that has occurred in Iraq. A number of no-
bid and open ended contracts have wasted millions of taxpayer's
dollars. This waste has made a few crooked businessmen wealthy and done
nothing to protect our troops or help build a more stable democracy in
Iraq.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I refuse to continue to fund a
failed policy. I opposed this war because I did not think the President
had made a convincing case for the existence of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq and I opposed his illegal doctrine of preemption.
Since then I have only been heartbroken by the utter incompetence of
which it has been planned. Our soldiers are doing outstanding work, and
I salute their sacrifice. But the policy-makers in Washington have let
them down and put them in an impossible situation. As I said in a
letter to Secretary Rice last September, it is time to begin bringing
our soldiers home. Spending good money after bad on a failed policy
puts our soldiers, and our national security in even greater risk.
There are portions of this bill that should have been in the
President's budget last year. For example, I fully support up-armoring
HUMVEE's and tanks in Iraq. I also support investing $59 million to
fund foreign language proficiency pay. I also support the $1.4 billion
in the bill to fund family separation allowances, hardship duty, and
combat pay.
Yet, all of these funds could have, and should have, been included in
the regular budget process. But they were not.
Let me talk for a moment about the other good portions of this bill
which were attached by the Majority in a cynical attempt to buy votes
for the overall bill.
There is true emergency funding in this bill. But it is money for
Sudan and the Gulf Coast, not Iraq.
This bill also contains money to help in the recovery of another
emergency, one that struck our own shore. Just over six months ago, the
Gulf Coast was struck by Hurricane Katrina. I have visited the Gulf
Coast and found that the destruction was terrible, with hundreds of
thousands uprooted only to return and discover their homes were
obliterated. The debris is still being cleaned. The people of the Gulf
Coast region are looking to rebuild and continue their lives, and this
bill provides $19 billion in needed funds to assist in financing the
rebuilding effort. This money helps us to keep faith with those who
were failed by their government in the days and weeks following
Hurricane Katrina. I am voting for an amendment that would increase by
$2 billion community development funds available to assist local
communities rebuild.
The genocide that continues to this day in Darfur, in the Sudan, is
unconscionable. The President has said this, the Secretary of State has
said this. Further, I have said a number of times that America needs to
do everything it can to end the Darfur genocide. This bill contains
$514 million for Sudan, with a large portion going to the Darfur region
to fund the African Union peace keeping mission. I strongly support
this funding. There is a true emergency in Sudan and I am glad that
this money will be provided to end the genocide and provide
humanitarian assistance to devastated people in the region. I am voting
for the Capuano Amendment to add an additional $50 million to help fund
extra peacekeepers in Darfur.
I am sorry that these true emergency funds were attached to the
foreseeable spending for the ongoing operations in Iraq. I have voted
for rebuilding the Gulf Coast and ending the genocide in Darfur in the
past, and I will continue to do so. But I will not fund a failed policy
in Iraq that is jeopardizing our soldiers needlessly, stoking the
insurgency, draining our national resources, and doing nothing to
protect Americans from terrorism at home.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my strong objection
to the House Republican Leadership combining two separate emergency
supplementals into a single bill. The response to Hurricane Katrina and
the Iraqi war deserve separate debates and significant oversight and
deliberation.
The human suffering that our neighbors along the Gulf Coast
experienced and continue to experience seven months later cannot be
underestimated. It will take a sustained federal and state, public and
private commitment to help those affected get back on their feet. While
I support a long-term reconstruction of the Gulf region, I cannot in
good conscience vote for this bill.
I strongly believe we need better oversight of supplemental funding
bills, particularly those that fund ``the long war.'' There were
excellent amendments offered on the floor today that I supported that
should have passed if Congress had been exercising its Constitutional
oversight role. For instance, I supported an Iraqi contracting
amendment and one to prevent permanent bases in Iraq. We cannot become
occupiers.
On this third anniversary of the war, our soldiers, our national
guard, their families and all Americans deserve better than platitudes
from

[[Page H1115]]

the Administration. I have repeatedly called for greater Congressional
oversight and an exit strategy, while recognizing that our troops have
done an excellent job, despite often lacking sufficient body armor or
equipment. I welcome the President's statements that troops will be
drawn down by the end of the year, but I believe that our soldiers are
being placed in an untenable situation, and need to be brought home as
soon as possible.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R.
4939. I would like to thank the Appropriations Committee leadership for
their efforts to provide our men and women in uniform with the
equipment that they need as they continue their efforts in Iraq,
Afghanistan and throughout the world. My colleagues on the House Armed
Services Committee and I have fought for enhanced force protection
equipment, much of which is included in this bill. H.R. 4939 includes
$410 million for up-armored Humvees and $2 billion to develop and
procure jammers for improvised explosive devices. Given the number of
U.S. casualties resulting from IEDs, jammer technology is one of the
most important investments this Congress can make to protect our
troops.
I am also pleased that this legislation provides more than $19
billion in much-needed assistance to the victims of Hurricanes Katrina,
Rita and Wilma. Months after those storms battered our Gulf Coast, many
Americans are still displaced, and basic services are not available in
places like New Orleans. Given the federal government's insufficient
efforts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, it is our responsibility to
provide the affected residents and businesses with the resources and
assistance they need to rebuild.
This measure will also greatly assist those facing exorbitant heating
bills this winter. After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita damaged domestic
energy sources, all Americans experienced higher energy costs, but the
burden was particularly heavy for low-income residents in cold
climates. H.R. 4939 will allow states to access $1 billion in Low
Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP) funding more quickly, which will
be welcome news to states such as Rhode Island that are struggling to
help families in need.
I greatly appreciate the Committee's inclusion of assistance to the
victims of genocidal violence in Darfur and to train and equip the
African Union peacekeeping troops. To date, at least one hundred
thousand people have been killed, with millions more displaced. It is
impossible to view the images from Sudan without being outraged at the
cruelty and injustice of the situation. Our nation must do more to
prevent further violence. Last year, I advocated for funding for
African Union peacekeepers in the Defense Appropriations bill, and
though that was not successful, H.R. 4939 funds peacekeeping missions
in Sudan and encourages greater involvement by the United Nations.
Finally, in welcome news to the American people, the legislation
blocks Dubai Ports World from assuming control over six U.S. ports as
part of their acquisition of P&O Steam Navigation Company. As a member
of the Homeland Security Committee, I strongly opposed the sale because
of the lack of a comprehensive investigation into the national security
implications. We need to ensure that foreign investment decisions are
based on real national security considerations and not just financial
gain. I have been working to enhance port security in our nation, and
the Dubai ports deal reminds Americans that until appropriate measures
are taken, our ports will continue to be vulnerable. I am pleased that
H.R. 4939 contains this commonsense provision, but we must do more to
secure our infrastructure and improve Congressional oversight of
foreign investment decisions.
Again, I thank my colleagues for their efforts on this important
bill, and I urge all Members to support its passage.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to tell a tale of two
Republican disasters, the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina. It is a story
with no best of times, only the worst of times. This tale is why I
oppose the Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 4939).
The main characters in my story are an incompetent President and a
corrupt Congress. The setting is an America desperate for honest
leadership. But the plot involves lies and cover-ups. The problem is
misplaced priorities. But the solution is not this supplemental, which
provides another $67.6 billion for a failed war but only $19 billion to
help the victims of Katrina.
The first disaster, the Iraq War, was predicated on lies. Iraq had no
weapons of mass destruction, had never attempted to buy uranium from
Niger, and was not about to welcome American soldiers with open arms.
An incompetent President failed to prepare America for the postwar
period. As a result, looting of stores and museums began shortly after
the United States military gained control of Baghdad. Months later,
sectarian violence has pushed Iraq to civil war, with Shiite militia
and security forces clashing with Sunni citizens and insurgents.
Yet our troops remain in Iraq and in harms way. Two American soldiers
and 40 Iraqi soldiers and civilians are killed every day. As long as we
stay in Iraq, the insurgency will continue, even as the so-called Iraqi
democracy experiment goes nowhere. Three months after parliamentary
elections, the Iraqi parliament has yet to form a government.
Finally, large Republican donors including Halliburton have looted
the American treasury. Using their connections to secure no-bid
contracts for services in Iraq, these firms overcharge American
taxpayers and underserve our troops. All the while, Republicans' blind
allegiance to the President causes them to write blank checks, throwing
good money after bad at a war that is making America less secure.
The second disaster was the Republican response to Hurricane Katrina.
Several days before Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast, the President was
briefed on the severity of the storm and the likelihood levees would be
breached. But after failing to cut short his extended vacation to help
with the response, the President told ABC News and the American public
he was not advised the levees were likely to collapse.
After years of underfunding levee construction and maintenance,
Republicans attempted to shift the blame for the disaster and the
inadequate response onto state and local officials. But it was
President Bush who nominated unqualified campaign hacks to head FEMA
and congressional Republicans who rubber-stamped the appointment of
Michael Brown.
As a result of insufficient preparation and incompetent
administration, tens of thousands of hurricane victims went without
adequate food, water, and shelter in the storm's aftermath. Six months
after Katrina, relief workers are still finding bodies of victims.
In an attempt to atone for their sins, the Republicans have finally
brought forth additional legislation to help Katrina victims. But in a
pathetic and transparent attempt to prevent full debate on the
disastrous Iraq War, President Bush's Republican cronies in Congress
combined two supplementals into one.
Although I support additional funding for hurricane victims, I cannot
vote for a supplemental that appropriates 74 percent of its funds, or
$67.6 billion, to a misguided Iraq war on which we have already wasted
$350 billion--and the lives of 2,310 American soldiers and at least
37,000 Iraqi citizens.
It is time to tell a new tale, about bringing home our troops and
rebuilding homes for Katrina victims. Let's get this Iraq monkey off
our back and supplement housing rather than Halliburton.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, and help me to tell a
new tale about American successes rather than Republicans disasters.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in protest at this
Administration's egregious treatment of tens of thousands of families
of survivors who were displaced by and continue to suffer in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Today, on the Ides of March, some ten
thousand families are being evicted from temporary housing in hotels by
FEMA.
This would have happened months ago but for cries of protest and
legal injunctions that forced FEMA to keep rolling back the eviction
deadline: December 15th, January 7th, January 31st, February 15th,
February 28th, and now March 15th--on each of these dates, families
were evicted.
So to the 10,000 families being evicted today, we must add some
30,000 families already evicted, giving us a figure of some 40,000
families who will have been evacuated from temporary housing in hotels.
FEMA and DHS have not provided any comprehensive plan to transition
these survivors out of temporary and into permanent shelters, and while
tens of thousands are already living in tents and cars, thousands more
are being thrown out to sleep on the streets, because the shelters are
already full.
Last week, during one of his rare visits to the Gulf Coast, the
President bluntly accused Congress of moving too slow in providing
funds for housing and reconstruction.
Let me read to the House a passage from the Stafford Act. This is
from Section 407:
The President is authorized to provide assistance on a temporary
basis in the form of mortgage or rental payments to or on behalf of
individuals and families who, as a result of financial hardship caused
by a major disaster, have received written notice of dispossession or
eviction from a residence by reason of a foreclosure of any mortgage or
lien, cancellation of any contract of sale, or termination of any lease
entered into prior to such disaster. Such assistance shall be provided
for the duration of the period or financial hardship but not to exceed
18 months.
So under the Stafford Act, survivors being evicted from temporary
housing are entitled to 18 months of housing assistance, that means
another full year, of rental assistance, but only if the President
authorizes the necessary sums.

[[Page H1116]]

Rather than stepping in and taking charge, the President is passing
the blame back to the Congress for a ``Failure of Initiative,'' the
title of a report coming from his own party, which delivered stinging
criticism of the Administration's handling of the aftermath of Katrina.
Mr. Chairman, the failure to take initiative did not arise from this
side of the aisle. We now have 77 signatures on H.R. 4197, the
Hurricane Katrina Recovery, Reclamation, Restoration, Reconstruction
and Reunion Act, which sets out a comprehensive plan to provide
housing, health care, education, environmental clean-up, and to meet
nearly all of the still urgent needs of the Gulf Coast survivors. And
we are calling out to our colleagues across the aisle to join our
initiative and do what is just and right for our fellow Americans
caught up in the largest population displacement our Nation has seen
since the Great Depression and slavery.
As we consider yet another supplemental request for tens of billions
for a military occupation of Iraq, where violence is spinning out of
control and toward all-out civil war under our watch, let us ask
ourselves the hard questions:
How can we deny housing, education and health care to American
citizens displaced by Katrina and yet continue to build homes, schools
and hospitals in Iraq?
How can we refuse to provide satellite voting for hundreds of
thousands of displaced New Orleaneans and yet spend hundreds of
millions on satellite voting stations for Iraqis in America?
Why are survivors in Mississippi and Texas entitled to trailers
whilst those in Louisiana are not?
Why are hurricane survivors in Florida and Texas entitled to maximum
benefits under the Stafford Act whilst Katrina survivors from
Mississippi and Louisiana are told they must fend for themselves?
And finally, Mr. Chairman, was the decision to send the poorest and
most traumatized survivors of the flooding of New Orleans into diaspora
simply an ad hoc decision, or part of an overall strategic plan to keep
as many poor and minority residents as possible from returning to New
Orleans, in order to lay the groundwork for an urban real estate
bonanza? Is this the reason our government is so intent upon refusing
New Orleans survivors their basic rights under law?
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, from the beginning, the Bush
Administration's policy on Iraq has been based on distortions and
misjudgments. Prior to the invasion, I fought to prevent this war. I
parted with most members of Congress and cast a vote against the
resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. The President
misled the American people into believing there was a link between Iraq
and the terrorist attacks of September 11, and he distorted and
misrepresented intelligence data about weapons of mass destruction.
I understand the frustration and heartbreak that have led many
Americans to conclude that it is now time for us to remove ourselves
from this misguided quagmire and bring our troops home. That is why I
have called on the President to change course. America simply cannot
continue indefinitely to pay the high costs in both lives and dollars
to stay on the same failed course in Iraq.
In December 2005, I voted for H.R. 1815, the FY 2006 Defense
Authorization bill, which the President signed into law in January
2006. Section 1227 of that bill, United States Policy on Iraq, states
that it is the sense of Congress that ``calendar year 2006 should be a
period of significant transition to full Iraq sovereignty, with Iraqi
security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and
sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased
redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.''
It is time for the President to implement this policy. We have no
choice but to approve this spending bill. We cannot put our troops at
greater risk. If the President does not heed the intent of Congress and
the American people, Congress should take more direct action to bring
our troops home promptly and safely. We should not have American troops
in the middle of a civil war.
I have repeatedly called for a change in America's policies so that
we can bring our troops home as soon as possible. In December 2004, I
visited our troops in Iraq. I thanked them for their service and
listened to their stories. It was a moving experience for me. I honor
the sacrifices they and their families are making each day.
The men and women of our armed forces are demonstrating tremendous
dedication to our Nation through their performance in Iraq. These brave
soldiers have put their lives in harm's way for our country, and we are
forever grateful for their service.
This bill also contains crucial provisions, which I support, that
would provide nearly $20 billion for Hurricane Katrina relief,
including funds for housing, community planning and development, flood
control, and small business loans. In addition, the House should take
up H.R. 4197, a comprehensive Hurricane Katrina recovery bill
introduced by the Congressional Black Caucus.
I am encouraged that the bill provides more than $500 million to
address the ongoing genocide in southern Sudan and Darfur. These funds
are critical to meeting the immediate needs of victims of the Darfur
crisis, such as shelter, health care, and access to water and
sanitation. Sudanese government-backed Arab militias have slaughtered
hundreds of thousands of villagers, and they have burned entire
villages. Up to two million refugees have fled this genocide to
neighboring countries, but the small, poorly-equipped, and underfunded
African Union (AU) force cannot offer them adequate protection. This
bill provides needed funding to help transition the AU peacekeeping
operation to a United Nations mission. It is also encouraging that last
week the House International Relations Committee reported out H.R.
3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, which I urge the House
to take up without delay.
Lastly, I strongly support the inclusion of an amendment adopted by
the Appropriations Committee to cancel the planned transfer of U.S.
ports to Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the United Arab Emirates.
Although the UAE recently agreed to abandon its efforts to take over
American ports, this Congress still needs to enact bipartisan
legislation that I introduced with Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee
Chairman Clay Shaw, H.R. 4839, the Secure America's Port Operations
Act, which would prohibit any foreign-government owned operations at
U.S. seaports in the future.
Mr. Chairman, this emergency supplemental is a necessary measure that
will provide essential support for our troops in their arduous mission
in Iraq, vital funding for the global war on terror, and desperately
needed assistance for our own Gulf region and the many Americans who
have been uprooted by Hurricane Katrina.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Poe). The Clerk will read the final lines of
the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:

This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and
Hurricane Recovery, 2006''.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments,
with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the
bill, as amended, do pass.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Drake) having assumed the chair, Mr. Poe, Acting Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4939)
making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, had directed him to report
the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as
amended, do pass.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 725, the
previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. HINCHEY. Yes, Madam Speaker, I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Hinchey of New York moves to recommit the bill, H.R.
4939, to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to
report the same forthwith to the House with the following
amendment:
``On page 82, line 4, strike ``2007'' and insert ``2006''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, the motion to recommit is very simple and
direct. It says that the appropriations that were directed toward the
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program for the year 2006 must be
spent in

[[Page H1117]]

that year, not moved over to the year 2007.
We are doing this for obvious reasons. The high cost of energy is
making it extremely difficult for low-income people, particularly
elderly, low-income people, to meet their home energy assistance
payments, and also to meet their other needs.
It is also affecting large numbers of other people in our communities
across the Northeast, the upper Midwest, and elsewhere across the
country.
That, and the drop in temperatures recently, is causing some serious
problems for many people. We want to make sure that the money that was
appropriated for the LIHEAP program is used this year, appropriately so
that people do not suffer as a result of its not being used.
I think the case has been made.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I will take 30 seconds.
The House has expressed its will in many ways regarding LIHEAP. We
are going to do what is right regarding that funding for 2006 and 2007.
To send it back to committee would kill this bill.
The Members have done a fabulous job in a very bipartisan way
producing a fine product. I ask for an ``aye'' vote on final passage
and against the gentleman's motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188,
noes 233, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 64]

AYES--188

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

NOES--233

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 (PA)
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
Cooper
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Doyle
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
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
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
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
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
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 (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--11

Boren
Cramer
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Duncan
Evans
Hastings (FL)
McMorris
Radanovich
Shimkus
Sweeney

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Drake) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining.

{time} 1809

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This 5-minute vote on passage will be followed by two more 5-minute
votes on two postponed questions that were debated yesterday.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 348,
nays 71, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 65]

YEAS--348

Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards

[[Page H1118]]

Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--71

Abercrombie
Baldwin
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Capps
Clay
Coble
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cubin
Deal (GA)
Eshoo
Farr
Flake
Frank (MA)
Gohmert
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hensarling
Hinchey
Holt
Inslee
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, Sam
King (IA)
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Maloney
Markey
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Paul
Payne
Pence
Petri
Rangel
Rothman
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Solis
Stark
Tancredo
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Vela;zquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Westmoreland
Woolsey
Wu

NOT VOTING--13

Boren
Cramer
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Duncan
Emerson
Evans
Hastings (FL)
McMorris
Pickering
Radanovich
Shimkus
Sweeney

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining.

{time} 1816

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. PICKERING. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 65, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 65
on final passage of H.R. 4939, I was on a leave of absence due to
illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

____________________