[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 102 (Thursday, June 19, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H5611-H5621]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO HOUSE AMENDMENTS TO 
  SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2642, SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1284 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1284

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     2642) making appropriations for military construction, the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other 
     purposes, with the Senate amendments to the House amendments 
     to the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the 
     House, without intervention of any point of order except 
     those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a single motion 
     offered by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or 
     his designee that the House (1) concur in the Senate 
     amendment to the House amendment numbered 1 and (2) concur in 
     the Senate amendment to the House amendment numbered 2 with 
     the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. The Senate amendments and the 
     motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except that the 
     Chair shall divide the question between the dispositions of 
     the two Senate amendments.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of the motion to concur 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the motion to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.
       Sec. 3. The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations may 
     insert in the daily issue of the Congressional Record dated 
     June 19, 2008, such material as he may deem explanatory of 
     the motion.
       Sec. 4. It shall be in order, any rule of the House to the 
     contrary notwithstanding, to consider concurrent resolutions 
     providing for the adjournment of the House and Senate during 
     the month of July.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume and also ask unanimous 
consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise 
and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1284.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1284 provides for consideration 
of the Senate amendments to the House amendments to the Senate 
amendment to the bill H.R. 2642, Supplemental Appropriations Act of 
2008. The rule makes in order a motion by the chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations that the House, one, concur in the Senate amendment 
to the House amendment numbered 1, and two, concur in the Senate 
amendment to the House amendment numbered 2, with the amendment printed 
in the Rules Committee report.
  The motion is debatable for 1 hour and controlled by the Committee on 
Appropriations, and the Chair shall divide the question between the 
dispositions of the two Senate amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, the issue to be debated today could not be of greater 
consequence to the future of our Nation or the citizens of this body 
and all of this country. For that reason, the Rules Committee has 
reported out a rule that gives each Member the opportunity to vote his/
her conscience on the most pressing issue of our day: funding for 
combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as critical domestic 
spending to bring relief to the American people and provide our 
veterans with access to higher education.
  This legislation meets the spending requirements made by President 
Bush

[[Page H5612]]

with the exception of the $2.65 billion in disaster relief for the 
aftermath of the tornadoes and floods that hit the Midwest which was 
added at the President's request.
  In addition, the bill includes the $5.8 billion that President Bush 
asked for to strengthen the levees in New Orleans and does not include 
a single earmark except those explicitly requested by his 
administration.
  Mr. Speaker, in order to bring the legislation forward today, the 
Democrat majority had to make very difficult decisions. However, making 
difficult choices is appropriate when deciding issues of great 
importance such as the war in Iraq, a war that has placed unprecedented 
strain on this Nation.

                              {time}  1715

  At no time in our history has America fought a war of this magnitude, 
or one that is this difficult, with an entirely voluntary military 
force composed of only 1 percent of the general population. And no one 
in this country has been asked to sacrifice as our troops and their 
families have.
  Our soldiers are well aware of what the current situation means for 
them, two, three, four, sometimes five deployments of duty, while their 
political leaders casually use words like ``political progress'' to 
justify their redeployment.
  However, these extraordinary individuals know full well that they 
return again and again to a conflict that has taken the lives of over 
4,000, almost 5,000 now, of their fellow soldiers and 28 from my 
district alone.
  They know that tens of thousands of American men and women are 
returning home wounded and physically disabled, many suffering from 
post-traumatic stress disorder and a host of other mental health 
issues.
  They know full well that they are redeployed to a civil war that has 
left millions of Iraqi men, women and children dead and millions more 
in refugee camps or fleeing to other countries that will accept them.
  Our soldiers already know quite a lot, and by that I mean, they've 
come to learn that terms like ``political progress'' are little more 
than political posturing and empty rhetoric, and that is not how a 
Nation shows respect for its military.
  Unfortunately, such disrespect is what our brave men and women in 
uniform are accustomed to. Our troops were repeatedly promised that 
they would have the equipment they needed to do their jobs. Yet we all 
saw the reports of desperate searches through junk heaps to refit ill-
equipped armored vehicles. We all heard the stories of struggling 
families frantically emptying their savings accounts to purchase 
adequate body armor for their children going off to war.
  Our troops were repeatedly promised that they would be taken care of 
when they came home from combat. Yet once again this administration's 
promises turned out to be nothing more than rhetoric. Remember the 
disgraceful images of Walter Reed Hospital, and that is not how a 
grateful Nation shows respect for its troops.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with this in mind that we proceed today with this 
legislation. While some pieces of this bill required difficult 
decisions before it could be brought to the floor, others were easy to 
make.
  The bill provides immediate resources to our troops currently in the 
field, and nothing is more important than their safety and security. 
And in addition, the bill keeps our promises to our veterans.
  Part of the cost of waging war is ensuring that those who fight 
receive the resources that they need to resume their lives when they 
return home. Given all the sacrifices that our troops have made for 
this Nation, it is simply unconscionable to nickel and dime them when 
it comes time for us to keep up our end of the bargain.
  The underlying legislation includes a dramatic expansion of the 
education benefits provided to our veterans. Not only do our troops 
deserve this benefit, the same one provided to veterans of World War 
II, but for every dollar we spend on education today, we will see a 
return that will bolster our economy tomorrow. And frankly, our economy 
needs bolstering.
  Far too many hardworking Americans are feeling enormous pressure with 
skyrocketing gas and food prices, unaffordable health care costs, 
rising college tuition rates, home foreclosures that are far too 
commonplace, and a terrible job market.
  Last month's atrocious unemployment numbers highlight the urgent need 
for assistance to millions of struggling families calling out for 
relief. In fact, the number of Americans looking for work has grown by 
800,000 over the last year, and the number of American jobs has 
declined by 260,000 since the beginning of 2008.
  This bill takes immediate action to extend unemployment insurance for 
workers who have exhausted their benefits by up to 13 weeks in every 
State.
  Furthermore, the American people are feeling the pain as their hard-
earned tax dollars finance the rebuilding of a foreign Nation while 
their country's own economy and infrastructure are falling apart at the 
seams. To that end, this legislation removes the unfair burden placed 
on the American taxpayer by requiring the Iraqi government to pull its 
own weight and match U.S. reconstruction money dollar-for-dollar.
  In addition, it prohibits, once again--and we have to look out for 
those signing statements--but it prohibits once more the establishment 
of permanent bases in Iraq, blocking this administration from saddling 
the American people with a costly occupation long after their soldiers 
are home.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation deals with some of the most 
important issues of the day, our fellow citizens who have been sent to 
fight in a conflict far away from home, as well as critical domestic 
spending that will give relief to the millions of Americans struggling 
just to survive.
  The structure of the rule we consider today provides each Member the 
opportunity to cast his or her vote according to their values and their 
priorities. I am proud to support the rule, and I ask my colleagues to 
do the same.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. I want to begin for the second time today by expressing 
my great appreciation to my very good friend and colleague, the 
distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, it was interestingly enough on February 5 of 2007, 
February 5 of 2007, which is exactly 500 days ago--500 days ago 
President Bush made a request of this Congress to provide supplemental 
funding for our troops to ensure that they have all the tools necessary 
to prosecute these struggles going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan, 500 
days, a long period of time. But Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that 
I believe that we've finally gotten there.
  As I listened carefully to the statement of my good friend from 
Rochester, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, I have to 
say that I completely concurred with the first third of her statement 
in which she went through a very accurate description of exactly what 
this supplemental appropriations bill consists of. I could not disagree 
with her more on the second third of her presentation, and on the last 
part, I have sort of a mixed view.
  When it comes to the first third, I will say that, again, I 
completely concur. This measure is designed to ensure that we get to 
our men and women in uniform the tools that they need, the resources 
that they need to continue this struggle. It ensures that the request 
and the directive by Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff, raising very serious concern about the prospect of not being 
able to have the resources necessary is addressed.
  She also in her remarks talked about the need to deal with the 
economic challenges that we face, and I completely concur. When we saw 
the largest increase in the unemployment rate in 22 years, a half a 
percent increase in the unemployment rate, it's clear that we want to 
ensure that those Americans who are very much in need are going to be 
able to have their concerns addressed by providing with that 20-work 
week requirement, which we've gone back to and which we supported in 
the early part of this decade in 2001 and 2002, that that requirement 
will

[[Page H5613]]

continue to be in place. So I wholeheartedly support that effort for 
the 13-week extension.
  And she also talked about the need to ensure that we provide the 
resources for the veterans. For those men and women who have been 
engaged in this struggle and have come home, it is absolutely crucial 
that we do everything that we can to provide those very important 
resources for those brave and courageous men and women who have served 
in our Armed Forces.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, when it came as I said to the second third of Ms. 
Slaughter's presentation, I could not disagree more vigorously. She 
referred to the term ``political progress'' as being one of posturing. 
Well, I've got to say if we look at the independent assessments that 
have been provided by even some of the most harsh critics, some of the 
harshest critics of this war, there has been acknowledgment that this 
surge has worked.
  All one needs to do is this week look at lead articles in both the 
Washington Post, hardly an entity that has been sympathetic with this 
effort, and the Associated Press. Both of those entities have strongly 
come forward and pointed to the tremendous progress that has been made 
not only, not only militarily but the political progress which has been 
made as well.
  And so I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleagues who 
have worked in a bipartisan way. I see Mr. Obey here. He just testified 
before the Committee on Rules and talked about his concerns, and he 
talked about the need to make sure that we move forward.
  Our Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, has also worked very, very 
diligently on this, and I have to say it's interesting as we mark today 
the 500th day since the President made this request for supplemental 
funding for our troops, it's fascinating that this all came together 
within what is just about a maybe 28-, 29-, 30-hour period of time.
  So I think that it's important for us to get this done. It's 
important for us to address these concerns which include the much-
needed relief to those victims of the floods in the Midwest and the 
strengthening of the levees following Hurricane Katrina, and I believe 
that we have a wonderful indication of bipartisanship at its best here.
  I am very pleased to finally take up a Rule for a Supplemental 
Appropriations bill that is based on bipartisan compromise that gets 
our troops the funding they need. And most important, it is a bill that 
the President can actually sign. I just wish we could have done this 
months ago.
  Mr. Speaker, the request for supplemental funding for our troops came 
to us on February 5th of 2007--exactly 500 days ago. Since that time, 
we have heard hours of testimony from our military commanders, warning 
us in clear terms of the strains on our troops from the failure to fund 
them. For months, we have heard of impending layoffs of military 
contract employees. Of vital programs getting cut off or put on hold. 
The message was very clear: our armed forces in harm's way needed 
emergency funding in order to effectively continue their jobs.
  But what did they get from the Democratic Leadership? Endless 
political posturing. Funding bills that were purely political 
documents, with no hope of being enacted. I find it very troubling that 
this partisan process could drag on for so long.
  I find it very troubling that it took so long before there was an 
attempt at bipartisan negotiation to craft a good bill that provides 
for our troops and will be enacted into law.
  After months of posturing, once the Democratic Majority finally 
reached across the aisle so that real progress could be made--how long 
did it take to reach a workable compromise? Mere hours. Once the 
dialogue began, Republicans and Democrats quickly came to a solution--a 
bill that funds our troops, while also addressing other priorities in a 
responsible way.
  Today's underlying bill fully funds our armed forces. It will provide 
a new education benefit to veterans, without raising taxes. And it will 
extend unemployment insurance in these uncertain economic times, 
without eliminating key provisions to prevent fraud and abuse. This is 
a compromise that Republicans and Democrats can support, fulfilling our 
duty to the men and women who are in harm's way. This is a duty that we 
as a body must take far more seriously than the last few months have 
demonstrated.
  When we are bogged down by the Democratic Majority's political 
gamesmanship, there are real-world consequences to these actions--or 
lack of action.
  As we have heard from our military commanders over the past weeks and 
months exactly what these consequences are, one of the most troubling 
revelations came just last week. Adm. Mullen, chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, testified that our commanders had run out of funds to 
pay for development projects in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is perhaps 
the most perverse outcome of the Democratic Leadership's failure to 
fund our troops.
  Regardless of where you stand on the war, we all know and agree that 
the fight against extremism demands more than a purely military 
solution. Our armed forces are working to provide a security 
environment that allows for development to take place--and they are 
succeeding. But if we squander this opportunity, we will never succeed 
in the long term. We will fail to win hearts and minds, and we will 
fail to provide an alternative to terror and extremism.
  The people of Iraq and Afghanistan need to see that our fight is not 
against them. They need to see that we support democratic institutions 
and the good governance that ensures peace, liberty and opportunity. 
Without our development efforts, our military efforts can have no hope 
for sustainable success. By stonewalling the troops' funding, the 
Democratic Leadership not only shortchanges our troops, they are 
blocking our efforts to assist in the development of the foundation for 
lasting peace.
  This is an unconscionable policy. Especially at the very time that 
the seeds of reconciliation are starting to take root. For months we 
have known that the surge has succeeded in reducing violence. Even the 
war's harshest critics have begrudgingly conceded that violence has 
been significantly reduced. But they called it an empty victory, saying 
that the improved security situation has failed to bring about 
political progress.
  But today, that is changing. Monday's lead AP story was ``Iraqi 
violence down, confidence in government up.''
  Tuesday's Washington Post announced ``Calm in Iraq Spurs Debate; 
Decline in Violence, Focus on Politics May Signal Turning Point.'' 
These are stories not just of reduced violence. They tell of the 
political reconciliation and progress that is now being made possible 
by the increased security. Iraqis are gaining faith in the Maliki 
government. And minority Sunni parliamentarians are heartened that a 
Shiite government would go after Shiite terrorists with the same zeal 
they go after Sunni terrorists.
  Of course, this progress is fragile. Tuesday's terrible attack in 
Baghdad reminded us that while violence is diminishing overall, the 
danger of large-scale attacks remains very real. Furthermore, the 
political progress is still in its infancy. The Post story goes on to 
say ``analysts question whether the limited political accommodation 
among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds can be sustained if the U.S. withdraws 
its forces quickly.'' It points out that Iran would love to fill any 
void that we create, and that Iraqis fear today's calm is simply the 
calm before the storm. Clearly, our mission is not complete.
  But demonstrable progress is being made. After years of terrible 
violence, setbacks and enormous challenges, many of us have become 
desensitized to any signs of progress and improvement. But they are 
there. The tragic part is that any delay in providing critical funding 
puts this fragile progress in jeopardy. Today's underlying bill is 
urgently needed. While I am deeply sorry it has taken this long, I am 
truly pleased to finally have a bipartisan bill that will deliver our 
troops the vital resources they need.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. 
McGovern.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the chairwoman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule allows for the supplemental to be considered in 
two parts. Part 1 is funding for the war and Iraq, and part 2 includes 
expanded benefits for GI education, expanded unemployment compensation, 
disaster relief, food aid, and other measures.
  I want to begin also, Mr. Speaker, by thanking Chairman Obey for his 
incredible leadership in trying to forge a decent and fair compromise. 
He has more patience than I.
  Mr. Speaker, let me start with talking about amendment No. 2. I 
strongly support the measures contained in this amendment. It expands 
the GI benefits for the education of our veterans, including those 
serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and extends them more equitably for 
all of our service branches, including the Guard and Reserves.
  The amendment also extends unemployment benefits by up to 13 weeks in 
every State for workers who have exhausted their benefits.

[[Page H5614]]

  It places a moratorium on six Medicaid regulations, the costs of 
which are fully offset.
  It provides emergency funding to meet critical needs, especially in 
addressing the global food crisis and disaster and refugee assistance.
  It includes many other measures, Mr. Speaker, that are worth 
supporting, that are important, that are vital, and so I urge all my 
colleagues to support amendment No. 2.
  Let me now just say a few words about funding for the war in Iraq, 
Mr. Speaker.
  Under amendment No. 1, funding for the Iraq war is provided without 
conditions, a blank check, with no requirements about how or when we 
might begin removing our military forces from Iraq or prohibiting the 
Bush administration from moving forward with a Status of Forces 
Agreement that could tie the hands of the next administration to design 
a new policy and a new future with Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, how can anyone in this Chamber give this President 
another blank check for the war in Iraq? This is the same President who 
rushed us into war under false pretenses. There were no weapons of mass 
destruction and no ties to al Qaeda. Everything he and his 
administration have told us has been wrong. Where is the 
accountability?
  For me, this is one compromise too many. It represents one cave-in 
too many. It asks Congress to roll over and be blind to the 
consequences of the war for the next 9 months or so.
  Five years after the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration 
continues the occupation of Iraq with no end in sight. More than 4,500 
American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been 
killed, and over 30,000 Americans wounded.
  It is long past time for a change in course, and this bill does 
absolutely nothing to bring that about.
  This is George Bush's war, and he should end it while he is still 
President.
  I urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to oppose this 
amendment, amendment No. 1, and demand that this President and his 
administration begin the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops from 
Iraq.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm very happy to yield 3 
minutes to my thoughtful and diligent colleague from Irvine, California 
(Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Thank you for that kind introduction, my 
colleague from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. Speaker, we learned this week that 8 months into this fiscal year 
we now have a deficit of $317 billion. If you project that out for the 
rest of the fiscal year, we are looking at having a deficit of $476 
billion. That would be the largest deficit of any year in the history 
of the country, and today we are making it worse yet again.
  I understand that much of the spending, as you've just heard in this 
bill, are priorities for Members of this House, for citizens--frankly, 
many of them for this Member, but not every one of the well over $3 
trillion that we're spending now in the Federal Government can be a 
priority that we cannot do without. We are going to have to start, when 
we add more spending, take some spending out of something else, offset 
it with reduced spending.
  What we're talking about here are priorities. And if we look at 
what's happening ahead of us, the appropriations bill that we now see 
for the coming year increases spending by another 7.7 percent, while 
revenues are essentially flat. And that's $72 billion that would add to 
this deficit next year. And that doesn't include the entitlement 
programs, which increase at a dramatic rate every single year and which 
were actuarially bankrupt.
  Where are we headed, Mr. Speaker? Are we headed for a $600 billion, 
$700 billion deficit? Do we care? Are we going to do anything about it?
  Now, there are some on the other side of the aisle who would say, 
well, we'll raise taxes, and that's how we'll cover it. Well, I'm not 
even sure you can raise taxes enough. Taking aside the arguments of 
what that would do to a now struggling economy, what that would do to 
many people out there struggling either in their business, with the 
cost of energy, or personally with the cost of energy, but you, 
frankly, can't raise taxes enough to cover the massive deficits that 
we're having this year and that look to be getting even greater next 
year.
  So I would say, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, to both the Democrat and 
Republican leadership, we need to stop spending without offsetting it 
by reducing spending somewhere else. And I hope that we'll start that 
now.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Thank you for yielding.
  Thank you to the Rules Committee, and to you, Mr. Obey, who has been 
more than a stalwart central figure in this whole effort. And as I'm 
going to say, there are hundreds of thousands of people who will say to 
you, thank you, because today the voices of over one million people who 
have not been heard enough on this floor are finally being listened to 
with a much-needed extension of unemployment benefits.
  Some have written us the most persuasive letters about being 
unemployed, often for the first time, sending out hundreds of resumes, 
losing their health care, and having difficulty making ends meet. They 
have not marched on Washington. They have individually been in their 
communities looking for work. But if they did form a line, these 
million plus and those who've exhausted their benefits, by estimation, 
it would extend from this Capitol to Denver, Colorado.
  I asked the State of Michigan to provide me information on 
individuals who have exhausted their benefits just yesterday, and we 
have the figures now. They come from the broadest range of 
occupations--sales, health care, production, management, financial 
operations. I would suggest that each Member do the same, because once 
you look at the data, you will have no doubt that we are doing the 
right thing today.
  Today is a victory for more than one million of our citizens and an 
additional 2.5 million estimated to exhaust their benefits. This is a 
vital first step, and we will be ready to fight to sustain this program 
for people who continue to be unemployed through no fault of their own 
in a truly difficult job market.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes 
to my friend from Monticello, Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD of Florida. I thank my friend, the ranking member on Rules, 
for yielding.
  It is with very mixed emotions that I come to the floor today to 
oppose the rule that we are debating at the moment.
  As you heard the other speaker say, the underlying substantive 
legislation is legislation that really needs to be passed by this 
Congress and signed into law.
  You've got a very unpopular war, but as the debate about the policy 
goes on in Washington, the men and women in the field wearing the 
uniform need to be provided the funds and the resources they need to 
carry out that policy until such time as it is changed. And I think 
many of us feel very strongly about that, so we have to do the war 
funding piece.
  Secondly, you have a significant domestic policy piece, and part of 
it is the GI Webb Bill, the education benefits package. That needs to 
be updated, and it's an appropriate thing to do. We are doing it, 
though, probably in a, if not an unprecedented way, certainly a very 
unusual way in that we are creating a new mandatory spending program in 
an emergency supplemental bill. I know that's never been done since 
I've been here, but nevertheless, it is a piece that needs to be done. 
I wish it could be debated and funded separately.
  We have the unemployment insurance benefits package. Obviously, in 
today's economy, with a 5.5 percent unemployment rate, is something 
that I think everybody on this floor supports, and most of us have 
already voted on it and supported it earlier in the previous week.
  As has been stated before, you've got true emergencies in the Midwest 
with the floods, you've got the Katrina levee piece, which continues to 
be a problem. And all of these things are items that the government of 
the richest Nation

[[Page H5615]]

in the world ought to be doing, and we ought to be paying for it. But 
here is the reason I stand here to oppose this rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield my friend an additional 
30 seconds.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. And, Mr. Speaker, let me add an additional minute to 
that.
  Mr. BOYD of Florida. I thank Madam Chairman, my friend.
  I would say that the richest Nation on the face of the Earth, we 
ought to be willing to find a way to pay for these things which are so 
important for the continuation of this great democracy that we have, 
the strongest economy in the world. But what we've chosen to do is to 
borrow the money, not pay the bill, and send the bill to the 
generations of the future. And I think that's morally wrong. It's a 
mistake. It's economically a mistake because our children and 
grandchildren will live in an economy that's much different than the 
one that our fathers and grandfathers and grandparents built for us.
  So I feel very strongly about this. We're making a serious mistake by 
not paying for these things. I know we have another body on the other 
side of the Capitol here that doesn't understand this concept. We have 
a White House which doesn't understand the concept of pay-for, but this 
House has stood pretty strong on this issue until today.
  This bill is $257 billion, over a quarter of $1 trillion. As my 
friend from California (Mr. Campbell) said earlier, it adds to the 
already $319 billion existing deficit that we're running in this fiscal 
year.
  I feel strongly about this. I think it's a mistake. And I think it's 
one that our children and grandchildren will pay for.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas, a member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. 
Edwards.
  Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, a young President, a veteran of 
the Greatest Generation, once reminded the world that Americans would 
pay any price, bear any burden in order to assure the survival and the 
success of liberty. His, the generation of John F. Kennedy, understood 
that all Americans had a moral obligation to support those who have 
paid the greatest price and borne the heaviest burdens of war--our 
troops, our veterans, and their families. That's why the original GI 
Bill was passed in 1944. Today, 64 years later, with the strong 
leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey, Congress is renewing 
its moral commitment to those who have served our Nation in uniform.
  Amendment No. 2 in this bill includes a 21st century bill of rights, 
a GI Bill of Rights that will open the doors of our colleges and 
universities to our troops, our veterans, and their families. We also 
commit $396 million to improve VA polytrauma centers, which are 
providing critical care to the most severely wounded troops.
  With respect to health care needs of our troops and their families, 
we fund $863 million in amendment No. 2 to begin a desperately needed 
modernization of outdated military hospitals. No service man or woman, 
not one, Mr. Speaker, should ever have to face the degrading conditions 
our soldiers saw last year at Walter Reed Annex 18.
  Amendment No. 2 also respects the unsung heroes in our Nation's 
defense, our military spouses and children, by providing funding for 20 
new military child care centers with a focus on those bases bearing the 
burden of multiple tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. For our 
youngest heroes, the 18, 19, and 20-year-olds who have just signed up 
to serve our country, we provide $75 million, again, improving woefully 
inadequate training barracks. Those who choose to serve deserve decent 
housing.
  Supporting our troops, our veterans, and their families is what we 
Americans do, it is who we are. Since our Nation's founding, shared 
sacrifice during time of war has been a quintessential American value, 
a promise to keep. I thank Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey for seeing 
that we keep that promise. It is the right thing to do.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to vote ``yes'' on 
amendment No. 2.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 4 minutes 
to our very thoughtful and hardworking colleague from Columbus, 
Indiana, an area that has been victimized by the floods and will be 
assisted in this package that is coming forward, Mr. Pence.
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of most of 
this bill, and certainly appreciate the spirit with which it has come 
together.
  I certainly strongly support the military funding portion of the 
Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental appropriations bill. It will speed 
roughly $165 billion in emergency funds to our men and women serving in 
Iraq and Afghanistan, and it will do so without imposing artificial 
timelines and timetables for withdrawal.
  Far away from Washington D.C., our brave troops are focused on doing 
the job we've asked them to do, continuing our progress in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  Earlier this week, the headline of the Indianapolis Star, the leading 
newspaper in my home State, simply read, ``Iraq May Have Reached 
Turning Point.'' In a national Associated Press story the following 
words were written, ``Signs are emerging that Iraq has reached a 
turning point. Violence is down, armed extremists are in disarray, 
government confidence is rising, and sectarian communities are gearing 
up for a battle at the polls rather than slaughter in the streets.''
  Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve to know that these headlines 
would not be possible if most Democrats in Congress had had their way, 
if they had passed any of the measures over the last year and a half 
that are brought to this floor again and again which would have cut off 
funding to our troops and facilitated a retreat and defeat from Iraq. 
And these headlines would not be possible if Republicans in Congress 
had not stood with our soldiers in the field, stood with our Commander 
in Chief, supported the new strategy and the new tactics that have 
brought about what the Associated Press describes as ``a turning point 
in Iraq.''
  And so I strongly support the military supplemental funding in this 
bill. And I commend the leadership, most especially my colleagues who 
have stood with our soldiers and our Commander in Chief, for bringing 
this clean bill to the floor.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, I was heartened, as the gentleman from California 
just alluded, the ranking member, that after weeks of some of the most 
devastating weather in Indiana history, that this legislation will 
include $2.65 billion in disaster relief funding to ensure that 
critical resources are available to respond to the tornados and 
flooding across the Midwest.

                              {time}  1745

  I've spent a great deal of my time with Hoosiers that are hurting. 
And my heart goes out to families across the Midwest and to those 
government agencies that are responding with such effectiveness. But I 
must say that in this emergency military spending bill, when we fund 
these emergencies, be they at home or abroad, we still need to do so in 
a fiscally responsible manner.
  I've said before and will say again that we must ensure that a 
catastrophe of nature does not become a catastrophe of debt for our 
children and grandchildren. I support this funding for true 
emergencies. But I still believe, as others have said before, that it 
should be offset by reductions in other government spending.
  And let me say emphatically, military emergency funding bills ought 
to be about military funding and emergencies. Our war funding is 
emergency military spending. The GI Bill improvements in this bill are 
meritorious and military. Flooding in the Midwest is an emergency. But 
I say with respect, what does $178 million for the Bureau of Prisons 
have to do with military or emergencies? What is $210 million for the 
Census or $400 million for scientific research doing in an emergency 
military funding bill?
  I support this expansion of the GI Bill. I support funding FEMA 
during a

[[Page H5616]]

time of crisis. And I certainly support our troops.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Indiana has 
expired.
  Mr. DREIER. I'm happy to yield my friend 1 additional minute.
  Mr. PENCE. I believe, as we go forward with the spending bill, the 
American people deserve to know where credit is deserved, to those who 
have stood in this body for a clean war funding bill, stood by our 
troops, stood by the surge, and they also deserve to know that despite 
all the promises to the contrary about putting our fiscal house in 
order that here we are again with a massive amount of increased 
domestic spending, with nary a thought of how we're going to pay for 
it, passing the burden along to future generations of Americans.
  So I will not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I will 
support this bill, because on balance I believe it funds urgent 
national needs in various respects. But I rise, as others have before, 
to say that emergency funding bills for the military ought to be about 
military funding and emergencies. And supporting those aspects of this 
bill will bring me to the floor and to an ``aye'' vote today.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Braley).
  (Mr. BRALEY of Iowa asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule because of the 
flood relief provisions included in the supplemental funding bill. I'm 
pleased that this amendment includes $2.65 billion for flood relief in 
my State and others. And I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
rule because of this important funding.
  Iowa is currently experiencing record flooding which is having a 
widespread and unprecedented impact on people, property and agriculture 
in the State. Governor Culver has issued an emergency proclamation for 
83 of Iowa's 99 counties, all experiencing significant damage due to 
the combination of severe rainfall, tornadoes, high winds and flooding. 
Fifty-five Iowa counties have been declared Presidential disaster 
areas. Seventeen citizens have lost their lives, and many more have 
been injured. Over 38,000 Iowans have been displaced from their homes 
already, and thousands more have been disrupted because of the closure, 
through evacuation, of Iowa hospitals, nursing homes, businesses and 
schools. More than 18 shelters have been in operation in more than a 
dozen counties. And it is estimated that 20 percent of the State's 
cropland has been destroyed. And the flooding still continues.
  This flooding has impacted everyone in Iowa. And the scope of damages 
to Iowans' homes, lives and livelihoods is almost beyond description. 
Some are calling this disaster ``the Katrina of the Midwest.'' If you 
were to travel around Iowa, you would understand what they are talking 
about.
  This unprecedented destruction needs and deserves a swift and special 
response from Congress. That's why this $2.65 billion flood relief 
package is so important. Iowans and people across the Midwest impacted 
by this flooding need immediate help to restart their businesses, 
salvage their farms and rebuild their lives after this devastating 
flood.
  When things get tough in Iowa, Iowans come together to help one 
another. I would look to thank the Appropriations Committee and the 
House leadership for coming together and working with me and my 
colleagues from Iowa to provide this urgently needed flood relief 
funding. This disaster relief funding is a crucial first step on the 
road to Iowa's full recovery. And I urge all of my colleagues to 
support it by voting for this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from 
Brooksville, Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the emergency supplemental 
appropriations rule and bill that is currently before the House.
  I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Mitchell from Arizona, for 
his very hard work on the veteran and the veterans service 
organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Iraq and 
Afghanistan Veterans of America for their tireless effort in support of 
the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act. I am the lead 
Republican on that portion of the bill. And it will boost educational 
assistance to our veterans.
  The current veterans' education assistance program covers only a 
portion of the ever-rising costs associated with a college degree. The 
education benefits for our veterans have not kept pace with today's 
rising college costs. Congress must act to correct this. And that is 
exactly what this portion of the bill does.
  I also support the bill because it recognizes the tremendous 
contributions and sacrifices made by members of the National Guard and 
Reserves. The United States has relied heavily on the efforts of the 
National Guard in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since September 11, 2001, over 
250,000 National Guard personnel have served in Operation Enduring 
Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
  Currently, members of the National Guard may only receive educational 
benefits for the longest amount of time that they're activated. The 
Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act included in the 
supplemental recognizes these deserving men and women by allowing for 
the accumulation of educational benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
emergency supplemental bill containing the veterans' education benefit 
to provide for a brighter future for all those who have served our 
country honorably, and also because it does contain the funding 
necessary for our troops currently fighting the war to protect our 
freedom.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady from New York. I 
rise today to thank Chairman Obey and thank the leadership, Speaker 
Pelosi, for addressing the question that confronts us in the most 
strategic way possible. But it is important to note that many of us 
have opposed consistently a war that continues to go on unbridled and 
misdirected.
  We thank our soldiers. But it's important to note that now some $600 
billion has gone to Iraq. We've lost 4,100 soldiers. Instead of having 
a military surge, we should have a diplomatic surge. We now give $165 
million unrestricted to this White House. But I do rise in support of 
amendment 2 that provides for the GI Bill that acts as a good Samaritan 
to those who have been unemployed for 13 extra weeks of unemployment, 
that provides for elimination of six Medicaid provisions that will help 
restore partially the health care that Americans need. But I believe we 
should have had provisions in this particular appropriation that would 
indicate that the dollars should be used to redeploy our troops, thank 
them and grant them the success that they have had because they are 
successful.
  But we need to bring our troops home. And we need to indicate that 
the authority for military force has expired. The GI Bill is a ``thank 
you'' to our soldiers. Let's bring them home safely. And let's provide 
the investment that it needs. I am grateful that we had the disaster 
relief for all of those suffering in the Midwest, but that we've not 
forgotten the Katrina victims and survivors that now are still 
homeless. It is important, as we move forward, to begin to look at 
domestic funding.
  This is a first start. But we need to have legislation that 
acknowledges the honor of those who have fallen, declare a military 
success and allow Iraq to invest. And I am grateful for the two 
amendments that require Iraq to invest in its own domestic development. 
This is the time to redeploy our troops.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to Amendment #1, and 
in strong support of Amendment #2 of the bill H.R. 2642, Making 
appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2008, and for other purposes. While I am supportive of the portions 
that contain provisions beneficial to the American people designed to 
improve our economy and protect

[[Page H5617]]

our young men and women, I remain adamantly opposed to this legislation 
because it continues a disastrous policy of providing unrestricted 
funding to continue the Bush Administration's war in Iraq.


                     Amendment #1--Iraq War Funding

  Mr. Speaker, I oppose Amendment #1 because I stand with the American 
taxpayers, who have paid over $600 billion to finance the misadventure 
in Iraq. I stand with the 4100 fallen heroes who stand even taller in 
death because they gave the last full measure of devotion to their 
country. In May, I was proud to vote against amendment #1 to the 
previous version of the supplemental spending bill that would have 
provided funds for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, which included a 
timetable for the redeployment of U.S. troops. I was extremely pleased 
that the House did not pass this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this legislation as it provides a total of 
$165.4 billion for the Department of Defense for FY 2008 and FY 2009, 
funds that are handed over without any strings. This legislation does 
not withhold funding for the Iraq war, a war that so many of my 
colleagues in Congress oppose, and which only 32 percent of Americans 
now support. The bill we are considering today does not require that 
war funds can only be used for the responsible redeployment of American 
troop's home from Iraq. Instead, it hands the President nearly $163 
billion of virtually unrestricted funding, allowing him to continue a 
war that the American people do not support.
  Mr. Speaker, I voted against the 2002 Iraq War Resolution. I am proud 
of that vote. I have consistently voted against the Administration's 
practice of submitting a request for war funding through an emergency 
supplemental rather than the regular appropriations process which would 
subject the funding request to more rigorous scrutiny and require it to 
be balanced against other pressing national priorities. I cannot 
support legislation that provides the President with the resources to 
prolong his ill-advised war effort unrestrained. As a Member of both 
the Out of Iraq and the Progressive Caucuses, I am proud to vote for 
legislation that, like other measures passed by this Congress, begins 
the process of withdrawing U.S. men and women from Iraq.
  The congressional authorization providing for the use of military 
force in Iraq has expired. The 2002 Resolution authorized the President 
to:

       (1) Defend the national security of the United States 
     against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
       (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council 
     Resolutions regarding Iraq.

  Specifically, the resolution called for the disarming of any weapons 
of mass destruction in Iraq, removal of the rogue Iraqi regime, the 
capture of any al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq, as well as the promotion of 
democracy in Iraq. All of these objectives have been met.
  Mr. Speaker, our troops have achieved extraordinary military success 
in Iraq, toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein in only 21 days, 
assuring the world that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass 
destruction, assisting the Iraqis in holding free elections, and 
setting the nation on a path toward democracy. However, while our 
troops have achieved the objectives for which they were sent to Iraq, 
they are now caught in the midst of a sectarian conflict. 
Unfortunately, there is no military solution to Iraq's ongoing 
political and sectarian conflicts. This is a war without end. Though 
President Bush continues to rely on a strategy that seeks to stabilize 
and reconcile Iraq by force, only the Iraqi government can secure a 
lasting peace. Thus far, the Iraqi government has demonstrated an 
inability or an unwillingness to deliver on the political benchmarks 
that they themselves agreed were essential to achieving national 
reconciliation, which was the rationale and stated objective of the 
surge.


                  Amendment #2--Iraq policy provisions

  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that Amendment #2 contains two important 
Iraq policy provisions. This amendment requires that funds spent by the 
State Department and USAID for Iraqi reconstruction be matched, dollar-
for-dollar, by the Iraqi government. In addition, this legislation 
prohibits military construction funds from being used to establish 
permanent bases in Iraq.
  Like many of my colleagues, I am also concerned that the United 
States has paid and continues to pay a disproportionate amount for Iraq 
reconstruction, especially when the Iraqi government reportedly has a 
$25-30 billion budget surplus this year. I am pleased that this 
legislation calls on the Iraqi government to share equally in the cost 
of rebuilding the country. To date the United States has appropriated 
more than $45 billion for Iraq reconstruction. American-funded 
reconstruction programs have included the training and equipping of 
Iraqi security forces.
  Iraq is a resource-rich nation. Though still facing problems 
including a lack of technology, damage from previous mismanagement, the 
effects of looting, and water intrusion, Iraqi oil production is 
currently at around 2 million barrels per day. The price of oil has 
skyrocketed to over $100 a barrel and Iraqi oil exports are generating 
an estimated $56.4 billion this year alone, according to the GAO, yet 
it is U.S. taxpayers who continue to foot the bill for Iraqi 
reconstruction. The government of Iraq is stashing its money in global 
banks, including a reported $30 billion in the United States, instead 
of investing this money in the development of crucial Iraqi 
infrastructure.
  I am also extremely concerned about the direction of U.S. policy in 
Iraq, and the future of U.S. commitments. I am also very worried about 
the Administration's apparent desire to circumvent congressional 
approval and oversight in the process of negotiating a long-term 
agreement with the Iraqi government, as well as the still-open question 
of the establishment of permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, to which I am 
strongly opposed. Today's legislation, crucially, continues a 
prohibition on permanent American military bases in Iraq.


                            Expanded GI Bill

  Mr. Speaker, Amendment #2 of this legislation provides funding for 
much needed domestic programs and foreign aid. By extending 
unemployment benefits, expanding veterans' education benefits, and 
placing a moratorium on the Bush Administrations' six Medicaid 
regulations, this legislation gets us closer to where the Economic 
Stimulus package should have taken us. I am particularly pleased that 
this legislation expands the educations benefits that veterans receive 
under the GI, providing $50 billion over the next 10 years for 
veterans' college funding. This legislation restores the promise of a 
full, four-year college education, and will entitle veterans who 
enlisted after the Sept. 11 attacks and served three years or more to 
what amounts to four years of college education at a state university. 
By passing these provisions, we are making the veterans of the wars in 
Iraq and Afghanistan an integral part of an American economy recovery, 
much in the same way World War II veterans were incorporated under the 
original GI bill. I would like to see us go even farther to make an 
affordable college education a possibility for all those brave men and 
women who selflessly served our nation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today's 
legislation does allow service members to transfer educational benefits 
to their spouses and dependents.


                       Extension of unemployment

  In addition, Mr. Speaker, this legislation includes a 13-week 
extension of jobless benefits for long-term unemployed. The number of 
Americans looking for work has grown by 800,000 over the last year, and 
the number of American jobs has declined by 260,000 since the beginning 
of 2008. The extension of unemployment benefits will provide a crucial 
safety net to American workers who are feeling the strain of the 
sagging economy.


                   Emergency funding for the Midwest

  This legislation also includes $2.65 billion in much-needed aid for 
the storm-ravaged American Midwest. Violent storms, bringing tornados 
and flooding, have been blamed for at least 24 deaths since late May. 
With damage still not fully assessed, what has been called the worst 
flooding in the Midwest in 15 years has ruined an estimated 5 million 
acres of farmland. According to the Army Corps of Engineers, 23 levees 
along the Mississippi have failed this week alone, and 48 more, which 
protect over 285,000 acres of cropland, are either overflowing or at 
high flood risk. Today's legislation provides critical resources to 
respond to these disasters, which are affecting millions of Americans.


                                Medicaid

  In addition, this legislation also delays most of the destructive 
Medicaid cuts proposed by this President. The Bush Administration 
sought to cut services and payments to American families by 
adding seven different Medicaid regulations to the stimulus. This 
legislation places a much needed moratorium on six of these 
regulations, giving back to our seniors, families, and those with 
disabilities as well as cut payments to safety net providers.

  Because I believe that fixing our health care system is one of the 
most important issues we currently face, I recently introduced the 
``Medicare Efficiency and Development of Improvement of Care and 
Services Act of 2008'' (MEDICS Act), which provides a solution to the 
Medicare reimbursement problem as well as grows beneficiary access.
  My bill increases the number of primary care physicians. It 
specifically requires that within one year of enactment, the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services, in coordination with the Association of 
American Medical Colleges shall submit to Congress an effective plan to 
increase the number of primary care physicians particularly those 
practicing in counties, cities, or towns ``underserved'' or with a 
disproportionate number of Medicare-eligible and/or Medicare 
recipients. In addition, my legislation forces an examination of the 
disparities in our health system, particularly those based on race, 
ethnicity, and gender,

[[Page H5618]]

and begins the process of eliminating these discrepancies, and making 
health care an affordable reality for all Americans.


                    Food aid and disaster assistance

  I am also pleased that this legislation provides increased funding 
for international affairs. This includes $1.865 billion for food aid 
and disaster assistance, which is $745 million above the President's 
request. This sum includes $500 million above the President's request 
for PL480 Food Assistance and $245 million above his request for 
development assistance and disaster assistance programs meant to 
alleviate world hunger.
  This additional funding comes at a crucial time. As my colleagues are 
aware, we are facing an international food crisis. According to the 
International Monetary Fund, IMF, global food prices have increased an 
average of 43 percent. In fact since March 2007, wheat has increased by 
146 percent, soybean has increased by 71 percent, corn by 41 percent, 
and rice prices have increased by 29 percent, according to the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture.
  Sadly, approximately 1 billion people--or one-sixth of the world's 
population--subsist on less than $1 per day. Of this population, 162 
million survive on less than $0.50 per day. Overall, increased food 
prices particularly affect developing countries, and the poorest people 
within those countries, where populations spend a larger proportional 
share of income on basic food commodities. It is simply unacceptable in 
this day and age that so many children are going hungry. We have 
millions of dollars to bailout Bear Stearns, let's find that same money 
to help our families and our children.


                           Refugee assistance

  I am also extremely supportive of the provisions in this legislation 
that increase funding for refugee assistance. This legislation provides 
$696 million, a total $475 million above the President's request, to 
address the ongoing refugee crises in Iraq and elsewhere. This funding 
comes in the midst of a worldwide surge in the number of refugees, with 
Iraq and Darfur facing particularly severe crises. Having recently 
spent time on the ground with refugees living in camps in Darfur and 
Chad, I am pleased that the figures in this legislation represent the 
reality of the global refugee situation, and will make important 
strides toward meeting the needs of the growing number of people 
displaced by conflict, poverty, disaster, or other extreme 
circumstances, particularly those in Darfur and in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support amendment #2 to this legislation 
because it contains vital provisions that will directly benefit the 
American people. I must oppose amendment #1 because I refuse to support 
the continuation of a disastrous policy of providing unrestricted 
funding to continue the Bush administration's war in Iraq. It is pure 
fantasy to imagine that President Bush's military surge has created the 
necessary safety and security to meet economic, legislative, and 
security benchmarks. It is time for a new strategy, a new plan that 
will encourage Iraqis to take charge of their own destiny, seek 
constructive and sustained regional engagement, and substitute the ill-
advised military surge for a thoughtful diplomatic one. It is time to 
be realistic and pragmatic, to recognize that our troops achieved what 
they were initially sent in for and that continued U.S. military 
engagement is not bringing about the desired results.
  Mr. DREIER. At this time, I am very happy to yield to one of our top 
experts on Veterans Affairs, the distinguished ranking member of the 
Appropriations subcommittee that deals with this issue, my friend from 
Chattanooga (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman.
  I just want to say as I begin that the gentlelady from Texas said 
that this money goes to the White House. Thankfully, this money goes to 
the men and women in the uniform of our Armed Forces who volunteered to 
stand between a threat and our civilian population.
  And I want to commend everyone in the House for bringing us to this 
moment, because the traditions of this great country and this Congress 
are to meet at the water's edge at a time of war. And we have learned 
the lessons of history. And we know that it's important to fund the men 
and women who are in harm's way with the resources they need.
  The particular piece that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and 
I have worked together on are the issues of quality of life. And let me 
tell you that this supplemental appropriations bill meets those quality 
of life needs on military housing, the child development centers for 
the families that are so critical, the medical treatment at places like 
Walter Reed that we have read and heard so much about and polytrauma 
rehabilitation centers.
  We know that asymmetrical warfare has caused critical problems that 
must be addressed. People ask me and Mr. Edwards often, are we doing 
what's right for our men and women in uniform? This bill helps us to do 
that in a significant way and meet the needs of our veteran population. 
It meets the needs of barracks that we know and have heard about. And 
it fully funds what we need to on the Base Realignment and Closure 
Commission so they can meet their schedule which we were not meeting. 
This is so important.
  And then this issue of GI benefits for education. Of course the men 
and women in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve this benefit. For weeks we've 
all been writing about how this is so appropriate. And today we come 
together. So I applaud everyone, most of all those volunteers in our 
military, who have agreed to answer our country's call and stand in 
harm's way. My nephew, who just got back from Iraq, and my other nephew 
who is a marine on his way to Afghanistan, and all of the other brave 
Americans, we're answering their call today. They answered our call.
  We meet together to do what is right for our country thanks to the 
leadership in the majority and the minority for finally coming together 
and doing what is right. This is a good bill. Let's move it forward. 
And let's honor our commitment to our men and women in uniform.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. I regret that I'm going to have to oppose this bill. 
And let's look at the numbers: $161.8 billion for the war it keeps 
going, a war that we all know now was based on untruths. It keeps going 
a war that has cost the lives of over 4,000 of our brave men and women, 
tens of thousands of injuries to our troops and over 1 million innocent 
Iraqis killed as a result of the war. The costs of the war will run to 
$3 trillion. And here instead of keeping a commitment that we made back 
in 2006 to end the war, we're continuing it into the term of the next 
President, and $161.8 billion of this bill will go for the war.
  That's actually, of the total bill, 86 percent is going to go for the 
war, $24.7 billion in domestic spending. How much of this is going for 
unemployment? Well, $12.5 billion or about half of it over a period of 
2 years. How much is going to the veterans? Less than $1 billion over 2 
years. So we're using the veterans here and unemployed persons to put 
forth a war bill that is going to cost $161.8 billion.
  We have to establish what our priorities should be in this country. 
Yes. Getting people back to work should be a priority. Imagine if we 
put $100 billion into that. Yes. Giving veterans better benefits ought 
to be a priority. Imagine if we put $100 billion into that. But no. 
We're putting $161 billion into a war that we know is based on 
untruths.
  It's time that Congress take back its real authority here. And its 
real authority under article 1, section 8 is to declare war. This 
administration led us into a war based on lies. It is time for us to 
regain our ability to create an effective checks and balances, to 
reclaim our position as a coequal branch of government. You do not do 
that by continuing to fund this war. You do it by funding education, 
health care and job creation. That's what the people in Cleveland, 
Ohio, want. That is what people want all over this country. I'm voting 
against this.

                              {time}  1800


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the 
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any 
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings or other 
audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the House.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 3 minutes 
to a hardworking member of the Committee on Appropriations, my friend 
from Ames, Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
the time, and I rise today in strong support of both the rule and the 
bill itself, this emergency supplemental.
  I want to take this time to speak briefly about the devastating flood 
situation in our Midwestern States, and particularly in my home State 
of Iowa.

[[Page H5619]]

I also want to thank Chairman Obey very much and Mr. Lewis from 
California for their efforts in producing the $2.65 billion of disaster 
relief in this package that is part of the supplemental agreement. I 
think the six funding components of the package will be of significant 
help to the residents of Iowa and other Midwestern States as they 
continue to cope with this disaster. I hope that we can continue to 
work together through the process to provide this needed assistance.
  This past Monday, after several days of touring affected areas in and 
near my district in Iowa, I talked with the committee about the 
devastation in Iowa and what I thought we would need initially to help 
us get through this.
  It is difficult to fully grasp the magnitude of the devastation and 
loss unless you see it firsthand. City blocks, town squares, 
neighborhoods, businesses and homes are underwater. The damage and the 
extent of the flooding will exceed that of 1993. Illustrating the 
magnitude of these floods is the fact that Iowa Governor Chet Culver 
has issued an emergency proclamation for 83 of Iowa's 99 counties, all 
of which have experienced significant damage. Forty-two of the 83 
designated counties have thus far been declared presidential disaster 
areas, and the flooding has not yet stopped.
  This great flood of 2008 has displaced nearly 40,000 Iowans from 
their homes, and countless others have been displaced from hospitals 
and nursing homes. The damage in Iowa and to her people is staggering 
and will not be fully known for some time yet. In the agricultural 
sector, there are projections of losses in the range of $2 billion to 
$2.7 billion by themselves. When combined with the damage and losses of 
homes, businesses, hospitals, community facilities, roads, bridges and 
levees, the impact obviously will be staggering. Every sector of Iowa's 
economy has been touched, and the range of damage is endless.
  I look forward to continuing to work with the members of the 
Appropriations Committee and others in the House in a bipartisan 
effort. We must pledge to continue to produce needed resources in a 
timely manner to help facilitate a quick recovery for Iowa and other 
Midwestern States.
  I thank the committee and its leadership again, Chairman Obey and 
Ranking Member Lewis, for their help.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. LATHAM. The committee and its leadership and this institution 
have a long history of working together to find consensus solutions for 
the tragedies that befall Americans. The people of Iowa and the Midwest 
are watching us and waiting for a helping hand to recover from this 
horrific tragedy. I sincerely appreciate the great help that the House 
of Representatives is giving the State and throughout the Midwest, and 
look forward to working on an ongoing basis to make this happen.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank Chairman Obey, Speaker 
Pelosi and Chairwoman Slaughter for their countless hours and their 
leadership on this very difficult task.
  I am opposed to giving this President over $160 billion with no 
strings attached to continue the disastrous war and occupation in Iraq. 
This is the biggest blank check ever. Ever.
  The war and occupation in Iraq has put our country and economy in a 
hole, and when you are in a hole, you have got to stop digging in 
deeper and climb your way out. You don't dig yourself deeper in. Today 
that means funding the safe and responsible redeployment of our 
American troops and contractors out of Iraq.
  The Lee amendment that I offered would have accomplished that. There 
is no way, no way, I will vote to continue funding any combat 
operations in Iraq. This funding needs to end. What the Lee amendment 
proposed was not to cut off funding for our troops, but to provide for 
their safe and responsible redeployment out of Iraq.
  Although the supplemental retains one restriction that I have long 
championed, the prohibition against the establishment of permanent 
military bases in Iraq, it does not include the other indispensable 
condition, prohibiting the President from unilaterally binding the 
United States to an agreement with the government of Iraq that includes 
security assistance for mutual defenses without coming to Congress.
  While I supported the amendment providing modest funding for urgent 
domestic priorities and for our GI educational benefits, I hope to see 
more of our economic needs addressed in a more fully and more 
comprehensive economic stimulus funding package.
  The sad fact is that over the last 5 years, this administration has 
spent nearly half a trillion dollars on the Iraq war and occupation, 
and we have now a destabilized Iraq. We have tarnished our national 
image, and we have diverted national attention and resources from the 
real urgent challenges facing the American people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 additional seconds to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. LEE. Let me just remind you that nearly 5,000 American troops and 
countless Iraqi civilians have died, more than 30,000 Americans are 
wounded, and more than 4 million Iraqis are displaced.
  As the proud daughter of a career military officer, my dad died last 
September, and, let me tell you, he wanted us out of Iraq, I salute and 
I honor our troops. I believe the best way to support and honor our 
troops is by bringing them home, and we should provide funds to bring 
them home, to provide for their economic security, their health and 
their mental health needs when they come home.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this juncture I would like to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk to you for a second 
about Specialist Sean Walsh. Sean served for two tours of duty in Iraq 
in the 933rd Military Police Company in the 16th Airborne Brigade of 
the United States Army. He protected main supply routes. He and his 
unit were inundated with sniper fire and IEDs.
  Today, Sean Walsh is a plumber in the City of Chicago. He wants to go 
to college. Sean cannot afford to go to college. His dream is to become 
an engineer.
  This GI Bill, this GI Bill is for Sean Walsh and his unit, so Sean 
Walsh can do for Sean Walsh what Sean Walsh did for Iraq. He gave them 
a chance. He gave them a chance to build a better country. That is what 
we said when we sent Sean there. And now it is time America invests in 
Sean Walsh. We have spent $50 billion of U.S. taxpayer money rebuilding 
roads and bridges and streets and schools in Iraq, and this is about 
$50 billion to rebuild Sean Walsh and his unit.
  The American people are the most generous people in the world, but 
they will not continue to be generous if you foreclose their future. I 
think this is what we owe Sean Walsh, because we asked him to do 
something, not once, but twice.
  Sean wants to be an engineer, and I am for Sean being an engineer. I 
want to make sure Sean can get to college, and this is going to invest 
in his future. He earned it the old-fashioned way; he gave something 
for his country. And when America was asked to help rebuild Iraq, we 
did it. It is time we do that for Sean.
  In addition, one of the things I am most proud about in this 
legislation is that from now on, in all the rebuilding of Iraq, the 
Iraqis must put in 50 percent of the dollars.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. EMANUEL. In addition, this legislation requires that for all 
future rebuilding of Iraq, the Iraqis must put in 50 percent of the 
dollars. For too long we have asked the American people to foot the 
bill for Iraq's future. Finally we have turned the page and require the 
Iraqis to stand up for Iraq. This is the first step in that process.
  So for Sean Walsh and for the future of this country, at the height 
of the GI Bill we were once spending 2 percent of our GDP on our GI 
Bill, this is the first real investment in America for our kids.

[[Page H5620]]

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, and I do so to 
simply congratulate my friend on his very thoughtful statement. The 
fact that we have been able to come together in a bipartisan way to 
ensure that the Sean Walshes and the other men and women in uniform who 
have sacrificed for this country are going to have what they are due 
is, I believe, a great testament to what we are doing in this House.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and my 
colleague, the chairperson of the Rules Committee, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today with a very heavy heart. Today 
this Congress will vote to spend $165 billion more on war. War is 
bloody. War is messy. It tends not just to hide the truth, but to 
sacrifice the truth. It destroys the hopes, the dreams and the 
aspirations of a people.
  When the citizens of this Nation are begging for aid, struggling to 
make ends meet, it doesn't make sense to spend our precious resources 
on an unnecessary war. Sometime, somehow, some way, somebody must say 
enough is enough.
  The rest of you may do what you may, but, as for me and my house, I 
will not vote for another dollar, another dime, another nickel, another 
penny, for this war. I will vote ``no'' on funding for war.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, it was February 5, 2007, February 5, 2007, exactly 500 
days ago, that President Bush made a request for supplemental funding 
for our men and women in uniform to ensure that they have the resources 
necessary to successfully prosecute this war. That is what we are here 
doing this evening now.
  We are here because we have actually seen, based on reports that have 
come from some of the harshest critics of this war, that we are making 
progress. All one needs to do is look at the Washington Post the day 
before yesterday, the Associated Press story that has been referred to 
by a number of my colleagues. Time and time again we hear of the 
success that is being made in our effort to ensure that we are able to 
continue to enjoy our freedoms and that we have a world that has a 
greater degree of stability. Only the United States of America, only 
the United States of America, is in a position to do this.

                              {time}  1815

  Sacrifice has been made. Time and time again our colleagues have 
talked about the number of lives that have been lost.
  As I listened to my friend from Chicago (Mr. Emanuel), he was 
referring to one of his constituents, I was immediately reminded of one 
of my constituents whom I refer to on a pretty regular basis here.
  It was in the battle of Fallujah in November of 2004 that J.P. 
Blecksmith tragically was killed. His father, who was a former Marine 
from San Marino, California, has, on repeated occasions, to me said if 
we don't complete our mission, my son, J.P., will have died in vain.
  War is an ugly thing, but it's not the ugliest of things. The decayed 
and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing 
worth a war is worse. Those were the words of a very, very famous 
writer who wrote them following the Civil War. We are in the midst of a 
painful struggle.
  But on this issue, I am very happy that we have been able to come 
together in a bipartisan way to deal with this. I congratulate my 
colleagues, Messrs. Obey and Lewis, for working together on this, and 
Mr. Boehner, who has provided great leadership in this effort.
  We need to ensure that our men and women in uniform not only have 
everything that they need to successfully prosecute this war, but we 
also need to make sure that they have the tools necessary as they come 
back into our society. We have for years seen great warriors come back 
to the United States of America and work to make their country an even 
better place, and I believe that the provisions that we provide in here 
with these GI benefits will go a long way towards doing that.
  The American people are hurting. We saw, as has been repeatedly said, 
the largest increase in 22 years in the unemployment rate, going up a 
half a percent. That's why, again, we have come in a bipartisan way to 
ensure that those who are truly in need, those who through no fault of 
their own, have lost their jobs, are able to see an extension in their 
unemployment benefits.
  Again, I think that what we are going to be doing here in the next 
few minutes is we are going to be casting a bipartisan vote which will 
be done in the spirit of what the American people want us to do, and 
that is to get things done, deal with very, very important issues and 
problems that we face.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition not to the rule but to 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, today will go down in history as a failed opportunity. 
For $165 billion we could begin funding a safe and responsible 
redeployment of our troops and military contractors from Iraq. Instead, 
we are giving the President a blank check . . . actually, more than he 
asked for.
  Our Nation--whether through blood or treasure--cannot afford to 
continue this endless occupation of Iraq.
  This bill will appropriate $165.4 billion for the Department of 
Defense. That could be a down payment on real change for Iraq--for 
reconciliation, reconstruction, and refugee resettlement.
  We have spent half a trillion dollars . . . and we have lost 4,101 
troops and over 30,000 have been injured or maimed. Four million Iraqis 
have been displaced and unknown thousands have been killed.
  The cost is unsustainable and we must put an immediate stop to this 
madness.
  We must not cave to the demands of the White House. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against funding for the occupation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one brief remark and 
that is in answer to what my dear friend and colleague Mr. Dreier said 
about only the United States of America could afford this war. I'm not 
sure what kind of bookkeeping allows him to say that. Obviously the 
fact we are in such extraordinary debt, as one speaker on your side 
already pointed out today, this is an unprecedented debt. In the 
history of the Republic we have never been so far in debt and to say 
that we can afford to continue to do this, not just in money, not just 
in treasure, but what we are losing in lives and young people whose 
lives will never be the same because of the life-threatening wounds 
that they are bringing home.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  I will say that I never said anything about ``affording.'' I said 
that only the United States of America can do this job of ensuring this 
struggle for freedom around the world.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. If I may reclaim my time, I think doing this job 
probably says we can give enough soldiers to die or to be maimed and 
that we have the money to pay for it. At least that would be my 
interpretation of what you had said.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and for this bill and I 
hope a ``no'' vote when we get to final passage on amendment 1.
  Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Speaker, Enough is enough.
  I will always support our troops; but not President Bush's losing 
policies.
  We've done our job in Iraq. Our brave soldiers took out Saddam, and 
Iraq has held several free elections.
  They now have a budget surplus, while we suffer with a budget busting 
deficit. It is time to move our troops away from Iraq, and back after 
our real enemies--Osama bin Laden and his followers.
  With three trillion dollars down the drain, President Bush's never 
ending occupation of Iraq will soon be known as the greatest theft in 
human history, driving the United States of America into bankruptcy.
  We must put an end to the losing policy of wasteful government 
spending in Iraq, and invest our hard earned tax dollars right here at 
home, as we work together to build a better nation for all of us.

[[Page H5621]]

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BOYD of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 1284 will be followed by a 
5-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules on House Resolution 
1230.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 342, 
nays 83, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 429]

                               YEAS--342

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Childers
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--83

     Baca
     Bachmann
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Bean
     Boren
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Broun (GA)
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Campbell (CA)
     Carney
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Coble
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     Filner
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Harman
     Hensarling
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Holt
     Inglis (SC)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Linder
     Mahoney (FL)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Neugebauer
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuler
     Space
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (OH)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Cannon
     Gilchrest
     Hulshof
     McCrery
     Rush
     Saxton
     Skelton
     Stark
     Tiahrt


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes 
remaining to vote.

                              {time}  1844

  Messrs. GARY G. MILLER of California, MORAN of Kansas, LINDER, 
GINGREY, McINTYRE, PENCE, Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas, Messrs. WILSON of Ohio, 
LAMBORN, and Ms. CLARKE changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BACHUS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________