[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4840-4855]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR 
                  ON TERROR, AND TSUNAMI RELIEF, 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 151 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 1268.

                              {time}  1028


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 1268) making emergency supplemental

[[Page 4841]]

appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Thornberry in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, March 
15, 2005, the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Weiner) had been disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 
72, line 17.
  It is now in order to consider the fifth amendment listed in the 
order of the House of March 15, 2005.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

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

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

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 7001. None of the funds provided in this Act for 
     national intelligence programs shall be available for 
     obligation until the President submits to the Congress a 
     proposal or procedure to fully inform the congressional 
     intelligence and defense committees of all clandestine 
     military activities for which it is intended that the role of 
     the United States Government will not be apparent or 
     acknowledged publicly and that will be conducted in countries 
     identified by the United States Government as sponsors of 
     terrorism.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, could I ask the Clerk to read the amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized for 5 minutes.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I made clear yesterday that based on conversations with Andy Card, 
the President's staff director, I have agreed to withdraw this 
amendment pending the administration's getting together with the 
leadership of the Committee on Appropriations and working out a process 
by which activities of the Department of Defense that are classified 
will in fact be communicated to the Congress. I am not just talking 
about after the fact; I am talking about a communication prior to the 
activities.
  I simply want to read one sentence from an article that appeared in 
the New Yorker about this matter. It reads as follows: ``The 
intelligence system is now designed to put competing agencies in 
competition. What is missing will be the dynamic tension that ensures 
everyone's priorities in the CIA, the DOD, the FBI and even the 
Department of Homeland Security. The most insidious implication of the 
new system is that the Secretary of Defense no longer has to tell 
people what he is doing so they can ask, `Why are you doing this? What 
are your priorities?' Now he can keep all of the mattress mice out of 
it.''
  Well, if the Congress considers itself to be mattress mice, then they 
will not be concerned about the reports that we hear about the 
Department of Defense's activities. If the Congress takes seriously its 
obligation to exercise the power of the purse, which is one of only two 
real powers that we have outside of actual legislating, and if the 
Congress feels we have an obligation to this institution that 
transcends our obligation to the committees on which we serve, then the 
Congress will see to it that the executive branch understands that we 
are not trying to dictate what they do; we are simply trying to see to 
it that what they do is consistent with American values and will not 
get the country in trouble in the first place.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to say upfront to the 
House that it is not my intention to speak on the time I have reserved 
in opposition to this proposition, so I am asking for a chance for an 
exchange here with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). The 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I have spent a good deal of 
time behind closed doors in appropriate security to discuss matters 
like this, but especially to express our concern that the Department of 
Defense communicate regularly with the Congress relative to activities 
that might involve areas that are, indeed, secure.
  I have never told the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) this 
before, but I will never forget as a mere member of the Subcommittee on 
Defense and a member of the Intelligence Committee discussing a program 
that was in the black that I knew about because I happened to be in the 
back room, but a program that the Department of Defense was not very 
excited about. We ended up advancing some money to have that program go 
forward. I have no idea if we would have been unsuccessful with that 
effort if they had known how serious we were.
  It is important that we communicate with each other. Communication is 
a two-way street not a one-way street. So for those listening across 
the river, it is very important to know that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is serious about this, and the leadership of the 
House is serious about it as well.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to make clear that I assume good faith 
on the part of the White House, and I hope we can work things out. But 
if we do not, I will be pursuing every possible avenue to see that an 
amendment such as this is adopted because this Congress has an 
obligation to know what is happening in some of these covert and 
clandestine operations.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  It is now in order to consider the sixth amendment listed in the 
order of the House of March 15, 2005.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Filner:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. (a) Requirement for Veterans Hiring Preference 
     for Federal Contractors Performing Contracts for 
     Reconstruction in Iraq.--None of the funds made available in 
     this Act may be used to enter into a contract with a private 
     sector contractor to perform reconstruction in Iraq unless, 
     as a condition of the contract, or any subcontract at any 
     tier under the contract, the Federal Government requires the 
     contractor and any subcontractor under the contract, when 
     hiring employees who will perform work under the contract (or 
     subcontract), to extend to preference eligible veterans a 
     hiring preference equivalent to the preference extended to 
     preference eligible veterans for civilian employee positions 
     in the Federal Government.
       (b) Preference Eligible Veteran Defined.--In this section, 
     the term ``preference eligible veteran'' has the meaning 
     given the term ``preference eligible'' in section 2108 of 
     title 5.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order on the amendment is reserved.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the amendment be read.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of March 15, 2005, 
the gentleman from California (Mr.

[[Page 4842]]

Filner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I call this the ``Let U.S. Veterans Rebuild Iraq and 
Afghanistan'' amendment. Once again, I rise in support of the veterans 
of our Nation. We have a major, major, major operation in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. The bill on the floor today appropriates a sum of $81 
billion, and we will be spending over $200 billion. It seems to me that 
we ought to guarantee jobs to veterans with companies that are awarded 
government contracts from this fund. Our active duty are fighting, but 
those who volunteer to go and help in other ways should have the 
preference that their veterans' service offers.
  We have all rallied to support our troops, but often after they come 
home, our veterans are not treated with the respect they deserve. I 
outlined yesterday the lack of respect that they will have and continue 
to have because of lack of adequate funding in the health care system. 
PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder, for example, will not have the 
funding that is needed to treat what is expected to arise out of the 
current war. As I said yesterday, research funds are being cut, nurses' 
positions are being cut.
  I tried yesterday to put an amendment on the floor that would 
supplement this supplemental with an additional $3 billion that the 
veterans groups think and have testified and have outlined is 
necessary. That $3 billion was not added in yesterday's supplemental. 
So today I ask that we ensure that there are jobs for our Nation's 
veterans, whether they are new or old. Let us give them the preference 
that they have in law at home with the preference for the contracts 
that are being awarded with such abandon in the Middle East today.
  We know, if we do not serve our veterans with jobs or health care, 
what occurs. We know that up to half of the homeless on the streets 
today are veterans, mainly from Vietnam, because we did not give them 
the honor, the respect, the health care, the jobs, the housing that 
they needed. And so they are on the street after having fought for this 
country. One way to make sure that this does not happen to anyone else 
is to include veterans in the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan. Many 
of them fought for freedom for those nations. Let us get them involved 
in the effort to build the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that the rules are not invoked here once again 
to stop a commonsense approach to helping our veterans in this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment is most intriguing. The 
gentleman is interested in having opportunity for veterans to gain 
employment. I presume they are veterans, whether veterans of World War 
II or circumstances in Iraq or otherwise. I presume that is the case. I 
certainly would be supportive of ensuring every veteran has an 
opportunity to find work, wherever the veteran might have served. I 
would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman.
  Yesterday we had a discussion on the floor of the House relative to 
the gentleman's wanting to ensure there were additional funding flows 
for veterans. There was some resistance to that suggestion because some 
of us thought there was money in the pipeline that adequately serviced 
the hospitals; and in regular order we would make sure whatever was 
necessary would be available, at future hearings and markups of bills 
that affect funding. So I want to ask a question: There is a veterans 
hospital in San Diego County, is there not?
  Mr. FILNER. Of course.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to remember, what 
is the name of that hospital. I am trying to remember.
  Mr. FILNER. La Jolla.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. San Diego Veterans Medical Center in La 
Jolla. And does it happen to be in the gentleman's district?
  Mr. FILNER. No, it is not.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that 
hospital needs a lot of work. I assume the gentleman suggests that 
veterans ought to be first in line if we do some refurbishing?
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, in last year's appropriation bill, that 
hospital was awarded close to $100 million for seismic refitting, 
retrofitting for earthquake safety.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. And was the gentleman involved in that?
  Mr. FILNER. Yes, sir.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, did 
we successfully get money for that seismic retrofitting?
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, yes, in last year's appropriation bill, La 
Jolla Medical Center was one of a variety of hospitals, I think about 
two dozen.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I wish the gentleman would 
have discussed that with me at the time.
  We had a similar problem at Loma Linda Veterans Medical Center, the 
sister hospital of the Jerry Pettis Veterans Hospital, and we found a 
way to do seismic retrofitting by way of using a laser. No portion of 
the hospital needs to be closed down while the work is being done. 
Thereby, patients can actually be in the hospital while the work is 
being done. We did not have that discussion.
  Mr. Chairman, has the gentleman visited that hospital in the last 
years?
  Mr. FILNER. Many times.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. In the last year?
  Mr. FILNER. Yes, sir.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I attempt to visit my hospital 
regularly as well. And, indeed, visit the veterans who are now back at 
Walter Reed or Bethesda. Indeed, we all should be concerned about that 
priority.
  But, frankly, I am a bit incensed by the gentleman's suggestion 
yesterday that would indicate that we do not give priority on a 
bipartisan basis to veterans. I would ask the gentleman to join me in a 
special mission. Would the gentleman consider the mission?
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, whatever the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Lewis) suggests, I would consider.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the mission is the veterans 
service organizations are a great voice for veterans here in 
Washington. Like the gentleman, they are constantly pounding their 
chest saying, I am calling for money, more opportunity for veterans. I 
insist that they help us go back to where the hospitals are and see 
that veterans are treated like real human beings in those hospitals. I 
cannot get the VSOs to do it. Maybe I can get the gentleman to do it 
because the gentleman is obviously more concerned than the VSOs are 
about those veterans benefits and the way they are being treated.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask, would the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) 
join me in that effort, or does the gentleman believe the money is 
being spent very well at veterans hospitals?
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
look, everybody wants efficiencies in this system; but I will say, for 
a paralyzed veteran with a spinal cord injury, there is no better place 
than the VA to get care.

                             {time}   1045

  To keep that quality of care for those veterans requires investment 
in our system. We are all looking for efficiencies but I will tell you 
there is no independent person, including the VA.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman asked me a question.
  Including the VA that says that we have enough money.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Who says we do not have enough money?
  Mr. FILNER. The VA says we do not have enough money.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  The Chair has been trying to facilitate this colloquy, but the Chair 
will

[[Page 4843]]

 now insist that Members follow regular order in yielding and 
reclaiming time Members will not speak at the same time.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) controls the time and is 
recognized for the remainder of his time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. 
Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 15 seconds.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Let me say that we made a major effort to 
see that veterans in our hospital did not have to walk around with 
folders under their arm. We insisted on computerization within that 
hospital. The gentleman could help me a lot helping the VSOs to really 
work with veterans where they are being treated or not treated so well.


                             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 appropriations bill which violates clause 
2 rule XXI.
  The rule states that an amendment to a general appropriation bill 
shall not be in order if it changes existing law or imposes additional 
duties.
  I ask for the Chair's ruling.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. FILNER. Once again we are using the rules to block a commonsense 
amendment. It seems to me that the chairman has deeper issues than a 
blocking of the thing on a procedural ground and feels that the VA is 
not doing its job. That is obviously a deep issue that we ought to 
discuss, but that should not lead him to block this amendment.
  In addition, the only way I could judge the sincerity of the majority 
party in these issues is to see what they had done to the chairman of 
the committee I have sat on for the last 12 years; that is, the VA 
Committee. The chairman was removed from that job, purged from that job 
because he stood up for veterans.
  I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman will join me on a mission as 
I join him on a mission for accountability and efficiency to convince 
the leadership of his party to put back on that committee members of 
the committee who actually fight for veterans.
  Once again, I think the veterans of this Nation ought to understand 
that the rules of this House can be waived for anything that the 
majority party wants, but when it comes to the veterans of this Nation, 
they refuse to waive the rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  The Chair finds that the amendment, although in the form of a 
limitation, proposes a legislative contingency imposing new duties on 
the Executive.
  As such, the amendment violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of 
order is sustained.
  It is now in order to consider the seventh amendment listed in the 
order of the House of March 15, 2005.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The 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:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 7001. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to fund any contract in contravention of section 
     15(g)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(g)(2)).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of March 15, 2005, 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Federal contracts for overseas work have increased 
substantially over the last several years. This rapid increase in 
government buying is largely the result of the war in Iraq and 
combating terrorism. Since the spring of 2003, Congress has 
appropriated close to $200 billion for operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. The supplemental appropriations bill we are considering 
today provides an additional $81 billion.
  Much of this funding will be spent on contracts for overseas work, 
and most of these contracts will be awarded to large corporations. 
Unfortunately, while 23 percent of contracting dollars spent 
domestically must include small businesses, there is no requirement 
that small companies have access to the bulk of overseas contracts. My 
amendment would change that by requiring that small businesses have 
access to international contracts just as they do for domestic work.
  Federal agencies currently do not include overseas contracts when 
calculating their small businesses goals. Therefore, there are no means 
of holding agencies accountable for providing U.S. small companies with 
access to international work. As a result, only 1 percent of government 
overseas contracts are awarded to small companies, and barely 500 of 
the more than 23 million U.S. small businesses are performing work 
abroad. By requiring that contracts funded by this bill are calculated 
in the Federal Government's small business goals, we start to instill 
credibility in the system while ensuring that small firms receive their 
fair share.
  These goals were enacted to ensure small business participation in 
the Federal marketplace. However, the Federal Government has failed to 
meet its small business goal in each of the last 5 years. In one year 
alone, this failure cost U.S. small businesses over $15 billion in lost 
contracting opportunities.
  We have a lot to make up for with our Nation's small business owners. 
We can start by ensuring that they have access to overseas contracts.
  Mr. Chairman, there are 23 million small businesses in the United 
States. They represent 99 percent of all employers, create three out of 
four new jobs, and employ more than half of all private sector workers. 
Historically, when the government has needed to build up for military 
operations, it has turned to small businesses to fulfill its 
procurement needs because of their flexibility and quick response time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the gentlewoman from New York 
yielding. Como esta.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Gracias.
  I am sorry. I thought this was English-only here.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I wanted to say to the gentlewoman, first, I 
very much appreciate the thrust of her amendment. While we are prepared 
to accept her amendment, let me add to that there could be some 
resistance, perhaps, on the part of the State Department. If there is 
resistance, it is because they have never seen fit to apply the 
existing law to overseas contracts. I think that is a small mistake on 
their part, frankly, if they have not. I think the gentlewoman is not 
just raising an important point but a point that needed to be made.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the gentleman's 
support of this amendment. I would say that it does not surprise me 
that the Department of State would raise a concern because they are the 
worst offenders when it comes to fulfilling the statutory goals set by 
Congress regarding contracting practices on behalf of small businesses 
in our Nation. I would love to see that the gentleman work with me on 
behalf of small businesses and make sure that in this $81 billion there 
is small business participation. They can do the work and they can do 
it more effectively than many of the large corporations that are 
mismanaging and misappropriating much of the money that has been spent 
so far.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Let me say to the gentlewoman that her 
amendment is overdue. I am happy to accept it and I am happy to be her 
partner on behalf of small business in America.

[[Page 4844]]


  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Markey:
       Page 72, after line 17, insert the following:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 7001. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of the following laws enacted or 
     regulations promulgated to implement the United Nations 
     Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or 
     Degrading Treatment or Punishment (done at New York on 
     December 10, 1984):
       (1) Section 2340A of title 18, United States Code.
       (2) Section 2242 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and 
     Restructuring Act of 1998 (division G of Public Law 105-277; 
     112 Stat. 2681-822; 8 U.S.C. 1231 note) and any regulations 
     prescribed thereto, including regulations under part 208 of 
     title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, and part 95 of title 
     22, Code of Federal Regulations.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded. A recorded vote was 
ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 420, 
noes 2, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 75]

                               AYES--420

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--2

     Hayes
     Souder
       

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--3

     Price (GA)
     Rohrabacher
     Westmoreland

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Baird
     Baker
     Boucher
     Cubin
     Larsen (WA)
     McKinney
     Portman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sweeney

                              {time}  1122

  Messrs. KLINE, PUTNAM, CARDOZA, TANCREDO, BLUNT, SMITH of Texas, 
GOODLATTE, McHENRY, THOMAS, AKIN, FLAKE and EHLERS and Mrs. EMERSON 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Messrs. PRICE of Georgia, WESTMORELAND and ROHRABACHER changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``present.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, due to a previously scheduled commitment 
away from Capitol Hill, I was unavoidably detained and regretfully 
missed rollcall vote No. 75, the Markey Amendment. Had I been present, 
I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, time and time again, the Bush 
administration has not been straightforward with Congress, the American 
people, or our soldiers about the costs of this war and what it will 
take to ensure stability and security in Iraq so our troops can return 
home.
  Instead of disclosing the actual findings of field reports on 
contracting audits, troop needs, or the projected cost of the 
reconstruction effort, the administration has withheld, distorted, and 
even deliberately hidden information.
  Just this week, despite the administration's refusal to turn Pentagon 
audits over to Congress, I obtained a report by Defense Department 
auditors concluding that Halliburton overcharged the U.S. Government 
more than $100 million for a single task order under its no-bid $7 
billion contract to restore Iraq's oil infrastructure. I would like to 
know why unredacted versions of this audit report and the audit reports 
on nine additional task orders are still being withheld from Congress.
  I have also learned that administration officials violated a U.N. 
Security Council Resolution by intentionally concealing these 
overcharges from international auditors. The administration only 
provided heavily redacted audits to the international auditors charged 
with

[[Page 4845]]

overseeing the Iraqi oil revenue used to pay Halliburton's inflated 
costs.
  Worst of all, correspondence between the Army Corps of Engineers and 
Halliburton officials indicates it was Halliburton that blacked-out 
references to egregious overcharges and other key audit findings 
regarding the unreasonableness of Halliburton's prices.
  I am deeply disappointed that the House voted down an amendment 
calling for the investigation of reconstruction efforts in Iraq and 
Afghanistan including contracting procedures, possible money 
laundering, and profiteering.
  It is disturbing that the Republican leadership has been unwilling to 
assert its oversight responsibility and demand fiscal accountability.
  The administration has not complied with Congressional mandates to 
provide a comprehensive breakdown of the $200 billion already spent in 
Iraq and Afghanistan and a detailed assessment of the projected costs 
of military and reconstruction activities in Iraq over the next 5 
years.
  The White House has failed to justify a permanent extension of tax 
cuts for the wealthy while paying for the war with mounting deficits 
and massive budget cuts to social programs.
  And when it comes to our troops, it has been Congress, not the 
administration, prioritizing force protection needs and the procurement 
of safety essentials like armored Humvees, body armor, night vision 
equipment, and jamming devices to neutralize the improvised explosive 
devices that are among the biggest threats to U.S. patrols.
  I am willing to support this supplemental precisely because it 
allocates a majority of funds for troop and equipment needs and 
training of Iraqi security forces. This is a vast improvement over the 
blank check requested by the administration to pursue its less 
accountable reconstruction efforts.
  No matter how each of us feels about the administration's actions 
that led to war and its conduct since then--and I have been one of its 
strongest critics--we have an obligation to ensure that our troops have 
the support and equipment they need as long as they are in the field. 
In addition, the funding in this legislation for training and equipment 
for Iraqi and Afghan security forces is essential for these nations to 
take control of their own security so U.S. troops can come home.
  Some who oppose this legislation believe that its defeat would hasten 
the return of our troops. Although it is critically important for the 
U.S. to develop an exit strategy, I am deeply concerned that a 
premature withdrawal of U.S. troops just after Iraq's democratic 
elections and as its leaders attempt the difficult task of forming a 
coalition government would only embolden the Al-Qaeda cells fueling the 
insurgency in Iraq.
  I also strongly support other provisions of the legislation to pay 
for food aid and peacekeeping in the Sudan, as well as the more than 
$650 million allocated for relief and reconstruction to the countries 
devastated by the tsunami.
  I fully support the $200 million included in this bill for economic 
revitalization and infrastructure development in the West Bank and 
Gaza. The end of the Arafat era presents a concrete opportunity for the 
Palestinian people to chart a future away from terrorism, corruption, 
and incitement and toward democracy, transparency, and the rule of law.
  This aid package is a strategic and timely investment in the 
leadership of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The accountability 
requirements in this bill will set an example for the international 
community for formulating assistance packages that protect against 
cronyism, embezzlement, and mismanagement, which in the past siphoned 
millions of dollars to Arafat loyalists and terrorist organizations.
  And so, I will vote for this legislation to support our troops and to 
support these other worthwhile U.S. humanitarian endeavors, but we have 
an obligation to hold the Bush administration accountable for its 
policies in Iraq.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this 
supplemental appropriations bill today.
  I have been a critic of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. But 
I think even those who have supported it should be deeply concerned 
about the escalating cost of our efforts there. If approved, the 
President's emergency supplemental appropriations request will bring 
the total cost of our operations in Iraq so far to over $200 billion. 
This amount gives me pause, but Congress must not fail to supply our 
troops.
  When I visited Iraq last year, I met with our troops and it is clear 
to me that more resources, including body armor and military equipment, 
are needed to safeguard their lives. The bill we are considering today 
provides these resources. It includes important provisions to raise the 
military death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000 and to increase 
funding for add-on vehicle armor kits, night-vision equipment, and 
electronic roadside-bomb jammers. It includes funding for contract 
linguists for the Army and additional body armor for the Army and 
Marines. And thanks to the passage of the Markey-Blumenauer amendment, 
which I supported, the bill reaffirms the U.S. commitment to the U.N. 
Convention Against Torture.
  It also provides funding for tsunami disaster relief, $1.3 billion to 
train and equip Afghan security forces and the Afghan army, $92 million 
for Darfur and $150 million for food aid to Sudan and Liberia, and $580 
million for peacekeeping programs, most of which are for Sudan. 
Importantly, the bill appropriates the President's request of $200 
million for economic development in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
  But large as it is, the bill still falls short in some respects. More 
funding is needed for veterans' health care and mental health care and 
helping members of the National Guard transition back to civilian life.
  And most problematically, the House-passed rule incorporated into the 
bill the REAL ID Act, legislation that I opposed when the House passed 
it in February. I opposed it again by voting against the rule. I 
believe the REAL ID Act does not strengthen national security, but it 
does create undue difficulties for asylum seekers and excessively 
expands the powers of the Secretary of Homeland Security.
  The bill also lacks answers to some tough questions. How many more 
supplemental requests like this one does the administration plan to 
present to Congress? What is our post-election strategy in Iraq? Can we 
account for the billions of dollars already spent in Iraq, and are the 
remaining billions of dollars in reconstruction funds being well spent? 
Why can't we get a solid answer about the numbers of trained and 
equipped Iraqi troops?
  That lack of information is why I voted for an amendment proposed by 
Representatives Tierney and Leach to create a Select Congressional 
Committee--based on the Truman Committee that existed during World War 
II--to investigate and study the awarding and carrying out of 
Government contracts to conduct military and reconstruction activities 
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Adoption of that amendment would have improved the bill. The failure 
of this amendment makes it even more important that we continue to ask 
questions, not only to provide accountability to American taxpayers, 
but also to keep faith with the real needs of our troops in the field. 
Estimates of future U.S. costs in Iraq are mind-boggling--ranging from 
$400 billion to $600 billion over the next decade. That's why it's so 
important for us to do the job right this time, The more effectively we 
use these billions to train and equip Iraqi troops, the more quickly 
Iraqis will be able to fend for themselves, which means a ticket home 
for our troops.
  So the bill could be improved--and I have supported amendments that 
would do that. But the bottom line is that we need to provide the 
funding necessary to keep our troops supplied and protected. With our 
troops stretched thin, forced to perform longer tours of duty and short 
of equipment and supplies, funding for our men and women in uniform 
must not be held hostage to disagreements about the wisdom or folly of 
Bush administration policies.
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Emergency Supplemental Wartime Appropriations Act. It is unconscionable 
that the administration comes to Congress for another emergency 
supplemental when it has failed to account for previous emergency 
funding, and has failed to include the cost of the war in the FY '06 
budget. How can this administration offer a budget that does not 
include funding for America's military operations overseas when we have 
more than 150,000 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan for an indefinite 
period of time? Why does the administration continue to resort to 
supplemental funding to pay for this war instead of including the cost 
in the budget where it will sufficiently reflect the impact of 
Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom on our deficit?
  Mr. Chairman, I did not support the Iraq supplemental request last 
year because I had serious concerns about no bid contracts in the bill. 
Unfortunately I was right to be concerned; just today it has been 
reported that Pentagon auditors have found excess billing for postwar 
fuel imports to Iraq by the Halliburton Company totaling more than $108 
million. To add insult to injury Congress has not received any of the 
nine auditing reports from the Pentagon, but instead must resort to 
receiving this information through unofficial channels. Despite 
repeated requests, the administration has kept nine audits confidential 
from both Republican and Democratic Members of Congress. Accountability 
is a bipartisan issue.
  This $81 billion emergency supplemental funding request for the 
Department of Defense's Iraq and Afghanistan operations

[[Page 4846]]

comes on the heels of $25 billion of emergency spending already 
appropriated for this year. Enacting this request would mean that this 
Congress will have provided this administration with almost $300 
billion for military and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan and 
Iraq. It is clear that this body is willing to live up to its end of 
the bargain and provide funding for our troops, but the administration 
is determined to continue to avoid serious questions and concerns about 
its spending.
  Let me state outright that I opposed going to war in Iraq, but that 
is not my reason for opposing this supplemental request. I oppose 
simply because we cannot allow continued deception by the 
administration on every aspect of our engagement with Iraq. We were 
deceived with exaggeration of Hussein's weapons capabilities, and now 
we are being deceived about the duration of the engagement and its 
exact cost--on the American purse and the loss of our men and women in 
uniform. We have exacerbated the situation in the Middle East and put 
our country in a more vulnerable position because of this war, and now 
we are asked to surrender the responsibilities of this body to hold the 
administration accountable for its actions.


                             accountability

  Mr. Chairman as a Member of Congress I must provide answers to my 
constituents about the money that Congress spends. Accountability is 
not a partisan issue, we must all demand answers. Our Constitution was 
carefully crafted so as to allow a balance of power in our Government. 
Congress is obligated to use appropriations and the oversight that 
accompanies it as a means of holding the executive branch accountable 
for its spending of American funds. Any attempt to usurp that balance 
of power is a betrayal of the moral fiber of our Government and must be 
taken as an attack on the integrity of this body.
  The Department of Defense by law must submit reports to Congress with 
a detailed explanation of the spending and future costs of the Iraq 
war. These reports were due October of last year and at the beginning 
of this year. Despite this legal obligation clearly delineated in last 
year's Defense Appropriations Act, we have to date received no report 
accounting for the spending and detailing cost estimates of previous 
supplemental funding. Our Government should not fail to meet its legal 
responsibility without consequence. How can we justify more emergency 
appropriations without adequate assurance that what has already been 
appropriated has been shrewdly spent?
  Sadly, we have no report directly from DoD but the Inspector General 
reported that almost $9 billion in reconstruction funding has been 
mishandled and poorly accounted for. In fact, the Inspector General 
suggests that thousands of ``ghost employees'' were on an unidentified 
ministry payroll.
  In addition, DoD has stated in the past that 220,000 Iraq security 
forces had been trained and equipped, that number was then scaled down 
to 136,000. Moreover, the Pentagon has recently put into question if 
these troops are truly prepared for service.


                               conclusion

  Mr. Chairman, opposition to this bill is not a vote against 
supporting our troops. This body has proven over and over again through 
appropriations that it supports our troops. Congress has appropriated 
$20 billion for Iraq reconstruction despite the administration's claims 
that Iraq reconstruction would cost between $1 and $2 billion and could 
be financed by Iraqi oil revenues. With enactment of this bill Congress 
will have appropriated $300 billion for the efforts in Iraq without 
proper accounting of the spending of these funds. The administration 
claimed that we would be received as great liberators and that just a 
few short months after the invasion we could start withdrawing troops, 
but instead we have no exit strategy and over 1,500 troops have died 
and thousands seriously injured. I could go on and on about the 
disastrous miscalculations and misleading estimates. This bill is 
critically lacking in accountability. No more blank checks for this 
administration.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I cannot support the President's request to 
spend billions more for this protracted war in Iraq. It's time to bring 
our troops home.
  Next week we will commemorate the second anniversary of the war and 
U.S. occupation. Over 1,500 American lives have been lost along with 
countless numbers of Iraqi civilians. Over 11,000 Americans have been 
wounded. The world is still not a safer place. What have we gained?
  I disagree with those who claim a vote for this bill is a vote to 
support our troops. I stand behind these brave Americans and believe 
they ought to have every resource to protect them.
  How is it supporting our troops to keep them in harms way without a 
plan to win this war?
  How is it supporting our troops when we continue to allow the Bush 
administration to spend hundreds of millions of dollars at will on no 
bid Government contracts with no oversight?
  How is it supporting our troops when we don't provide for mental 
health services for those troops traumatized in combat?
  For all of these reasons, I'm voting ``no'' on the President's $81.3 
billion supplemental request. It is time for a plan to bring our troops 
home, not give the President another blank check.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, in a few days we will mark the second 
anniversary of the invasion of Iraq and the start of a war that, in my 
judgment, did not need to be fought. At the time, the war was 
rationalized on intelligence estimates of Iraqi weapons of mass 
destruction capabilities that were wrong, and on suggestions that Iraq 
was somehow connected with the September 11 al-Qaeda attacks on our 
country that were never true.
  The President now says that the war is really about the spread of 
democracy in the Middle East. This effort at after-the-fact 
justification was only made necessary because the primary rationale was 
so sadly lacking in fact.
  The one constant in 2 years of combat has been the courage, 
dedication, and skill of the men and women of our Armed Forces. For 
more than 1,500 of our troops, service in Iraq required the ultimate 
sacrifice. That is a loss for which our country mourns each day.
  Thousands more have been wounded--their lives, and the lives of their 
families changed forever by this war. Similar losses have been 
experienced by families in Spain, in Italy, and, of course, in Iraq.
  The bill before us provides another $75 billion for military 
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. This enormous sum was not requested 
through the normal budget process, not subjected to any hearings, and 
not counted against our massive budget deficits. In fact, this will be 
the third largest appropriations measure this year.
  And this $75 billion will be on top of the more than $200 billion 
previously appropriated, mostly by the supplemental appropriations 
process, for these military operations.
  How much of this cost would have been unnecessary had the 
administration taken the time and the care to plan adequately for a war 
of choice? We will never know. But we do know--because these 
supplementals are evidence of it--that our troops were sent into combat 
without the equipment they would need for a protracted insurgency 
operation.
  Our responsibility now is two-fold. First, to ensure that our troops 
have what they need to do their jobs effectively and as safely as 
possible. And second, to develop a strategy for success that will 
contain clear benchmarks by which the American people can measure 
progress toward the time when our forces will be brought home.
  That strategy for success must include an aggressive plan for 
transferring responsibility for their country's security to the Iraqis, 
an improved plan for Iraq's reconstruction, and an intensification of 
diplomatic efforts in the region.
  Other countries--the Netherlands and Italy among them--are making 
plans for the return of their forces. The United States does not need 
to adopt their timelines, but we do need clear criteria for judging 
certain fundamentals, including the capability and willingness of Iraqi 
security forces to deal with the insurgency and protect the country.
  Somewhere between an open-ended U.S. commitment to Iraq and a 
timetable for withdrawal must be a strategy for ending our military 
involvement. That fact was the heart of the amendment by the gentleman 
from Virginia, Mr. Moran, which this House adopted yesterday.
  The President owes it to the American people and this Congress to 
develop such a plan, clearly describe it, and provide an assessment of 
how much it will cost and how long it will take.
  I understand and share the frustration that will lead some to vote 
against this bill. We are being asked, again, to clean up a mess that 
many of us argued strongly against creating.
  Putting aside our frustration with this administration so that we can 
provide our troops what they need does not, however, mean that we will 
forget the mistakes, miscalculations, and misrepresentations that 
brought us to the point where these billions are necessary.
  The time is long past due for an accounting for those failures. We in 
Congress understand our responsibility to provide for the common 
defense. The administration must understand its responsibility to use 
the money this Congress provides effectively, and with a transparency 
that can withstand scrutiny.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
opposition to H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental Wartime 
Appropriations Act for FY 2005. My opposition to

[[Page 4847]]

this bill does not mean that I do not support our troops. I 
wholeheartedly support our troops and believe that we should fully fund 
our troops so that they have the necessary equipment to ensure their 
safety. Also incorporated into this bill is funding for Tsunami relief 
efforts for affected Southeast Asian countries. Having gone to Sri 
Lanka and personally seen the devastation, I know how important our 
relief efforts are for these countries.
  Sadly, I'm opposing H.R. 1268 because it includes the REAL ID Act of 
2005. The REAL ID Act of 2005 would deny drivers' licenses to 
immigrants, and slam the doors on refugees seeking asylum from 
persecution. The REAL, bad, ID Act has nothing to do with supporting 
our troops, let alone national security.
  It is such a shame that Republicans had to incorporate the REAL ID 
Act in the Iraq Supplemental and Tsunami Relief when it has nothing to 
do with these two pressing issues. This is an unprecedented move on the 
part of the Republican leadership and this concerns me.
  The REAL ID Act, H.R. 418 will not make us safer. What H.R. 418 will 
do is undermine several key security features that were dealt with 
responsibly in the Intelligence Reform legislation which was based on 
the 9-11 Commission Recommendations.
  If the Republicans and this administration really want to strengthen 
national security, they should start by providing full funding for the 
Department of Homeland Security, particularly the security improvements 
authorized in the Intelligence Reform bill. Yet the President's 2006 
budget did not include funding for 10,000 new border guards, 40,000 new 
detention beds to hold people awaiting deportation, and 4,000 new 
immigration inspectors as the bill dictates. The administration merely 
funds 210 new border patrol agents.
  As the proud daughter of immigrants, I am pleased to be serving my 
country as a Member of Congress. It is a great honor to be giving back 
to America, a country that has given my family so much. Like millions 
of immigrants, my parents came here in search of the American Dream and 
to give their children the opportunity to secure a promising future.
  Again, I am outraged and saddened that Republicans are using the 
pretext of national security to attack immigrants who pose no real 
threat to our safety. America is a country built by immigrants, and we 
should remain a country that is open and welcoming to those seeking 
freedom. The U.S. has always been a beacon of hope and we must continue 
to guard the light of liberty for those who are oppressed or displaced.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, 
and Tsunami Relief, 2005.
  I have had the opportunity to visit Iraq twice over the last 2 years 
and visit with our military women and men and survey the operations of 
the U.S. reconstruction mission in Iraq. Never have I been more proud 
to be an American than when I visited our troops and observed them in 
the line of duty. My trips reconfirmed that we must give our troops the 
tools and resources they need to carry out their mission safely and 
effectively so they can return home soon. For this reason I am 
supporting the administration's supplemental request for $81 billion.
  Specifically, I would like to highlight the good work of the 128th 
Infantry Division out of western Wisconsin, and the 1158th 
Transportation Company out of Tomah, Black River Falls, and Beliot. The 
128th is on their first tour of duty in Iraq and is performing well, 
despite several equipment shortages and setbacks the unit has dealt 
with. The 1158th is on their second tour of duty, and is also 
performing above and beyond their mission. I am extraordinarily proud 
of their service to our country.
  I am especially proud of young men like Andrew Carter. Today I had 
the opportunity to visit Andrew, a member of the 128th, at Walter Reed 
Hospital. He was recently injured in Iraq riding in a Humvee that was 
hit by an RPG. There is a good chance he would have been killed if it 
hadn't been for vehicle armor that was added to the Humvee. This 
supplemental appropriates more funding to continue to armor humvees, so 
that we can continue to save lives. One of the first things Andrew said 
to me was that he wants to heal quickly so he can get back to Iraq and 
serve with his unit. His resolve is a good reminder of the dedication 
of our men and women in uniform and why we need to renew our commitment 
to soldiers like Andrew.
  While I do not endorse all of the supplemental's provisions, in the 
absence of a funding alternative, I support the need to provide for our 
troops. But we do need to start budgeting and paying for their 
obligations, such as the need for a new embassy in Iraq, instead of 
passing so-called ``emergency'' supplementals and leaving a legacy of 
debt for our children to inherit.
  As our military effort continues, I and other members of Congress 
will work to ensure that our service men and women have all the 
resources necessary to fulfill their mission. Again, my thoughts and 
prayers are with those serving our country, as well as their families. 
America is firmly behind our troops and we're all hoping to see them 
home safe, secure, and soon.
  May God continue to bless these United States of America.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1268, the 
Emergency Supplemental and Wartime Appropriations Act of 2005. This 
supplemental provides necessary funding for a variety of military 
operations and for equipment that will keep our troops safe while they 
fight the War on Terror. We are asking the brave men and women of our 
Armed Forces to put their lives on the line in defense of our freedom. 
In return, we should not hesitate to give them the best protective gear 
that we can provide.
  However, I have serious concerns about providing additional non-
defense and nonemergency items, such as money for facility construction 
and international peacekeeping efforts that are included in this 
supplemental. I believe that while these items may be vital to our 
Nation's interests, they are not true emergencies.
  I commend the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the 
distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Lewis, for his efforts to 
limit the amount of non-defense and nonemergency funding in this bill. 
But, far too often the Federal Government deems additional spending an 
``emergency'' because it was not included in the original budget 
request. Any non-defense and non-emergency funding should be considered 
in the regular budget process.
  As Members of Congress, we owe it to the American taxpayer to ensure 
any new request for emergency spending is thoroughly reviewed and 
considered in a fair manner on the House floor, especially when 
essential funding for our Nation's Armed Forces is at stake.
  Despite my displeasure in allowing some of these additional items to 
be included in the supplemental, I support this legislation because 
Congress has a moral obligation to provide our troops with the safest 
equipment and most up to date training available.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
Wartime Supplemental bill but not without some hesitation after 
questioning why some funding is included in what should be a bill 
solely to support our troops and their ongoing efforts in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  I applaud my colleagues who are working to include at least some 
FY2006 funding for Iraq and Afghanistan in the FY2006 Budget. The 
Congressional Budget Office predicts that the cost of the wars in 
Afghanistan and Iraq could reach $458 billion over the FY 2005 to 2014 
period, on top of the more than $200 billion already expended. An 
emergency is something unforeseen, but these war costs can be estimated 
far in advance.
  In his FY2006 budget request, President Bush did not include funds 
for construction of the U.S. Mission in Iraq. Instead, a week after 
submitting his FY2006 budget to Congress, the President sent Congress 
an FY2005 emergency supplemental funding request which included more 
than $1.3 billion for the embassy in Iraq. This hardly seems to be 
emergency funding since we have known we will need to operate and 
maintain an embassy in this country, yet there has been funding for the 
U.S. embassy in Iraq included in the previous two wartime supplemental 
bills, and again in this bill.
  There is also $36 million dollars included for the construction of a 
new detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in this supplemental. We 
have been detaining suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay since 
shortly after September 11, 2001; this is clearly a need seen far in 
advance and should be included in the Defense appropriations bill, not 
in this bill.
  Additionally, this bill should not be used as a means to move 
controversial legislation, but the rule for this bill includes a 
provision to attach the text of H.R. 418. This bill was brought to the 
Floor of the House in February without a hearing in the Judiciary 
Committee, circumventing the legislative process.
  H.R. 418 includes language that allows the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to waive any law necessary to construct barriers and roads 
along our borders. With over one thousand miles of border in Texas 
alone, I did not feel it was appropriate to allow the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to waive environmental regulations, undermine the 
competitive bidding process and threaten the ability of workers to be 
paid a prevailing wage on these projects.

[[Page 4848]]

  The most important part of this issue is catching people who are here 
without proper documents. In December of 2004, I voted to authorize 
10,000 new border patrol agents over the next 5 years, however the 
President's budget would fund only 210 of the 2,000 authorized border 
patrol agents, 143 of the 800 authorized interior investigators and 
only 1,920 of the 8,000 detention beds promised by the Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. H.R. 418 will not solve 
our immigration problem if we do not put agents on the border and 
increase the capacity of detention centers.
  I do strongly support a number of provisions in this bill, however, 
which will better protect the men and women serving in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, better provide for the families of those who gave their 
lives serving in these countries, and better equip our troops.
  It is time that we increase the military death gratuity benefit to 
$100,000 and the subsidized life insurance benefit to $400,000 for the 
families of soldiers who died or were killed on active duty while 
serving in Iraq and Afghanistan after October 2001.
  We must take additional steps however, to improve benefits for the 
families of our troops not addressed in this bill. When families of our 
service members do not have access to healthcare because they cannot 
find a provider that has a contract with Tricare, there is a major 
problem We need to address the excess paperwork and low reimbursement 
rates in the Tricare system to ensure family members do not have to 
worry about their health care while their loved ones are serving our 
country.
  In addition, after continually hearing stories from the men and women 
serving in Iraq about the lack of protective armor, this supplemental 
addresses these problems by providing $75 million for body armor 
protection and $611 million for add-on vehicle armor kits which was $48 
million more than requested. We also provide necessary oversight on the 
vehicle armor kits and several other procurement requests, while 
offsetting increases in funding for our troops with decreases in 
unnecessary foreign aid. In addition, we rightly increased the request 
for the family of medium-tactical vehicle, or FMTVs, to $735 million 
after recognizing wartime operations are causing much greater wear and 
stress on these vehicles than peacetime operations.
  I support this bill because it provides necessary benefits and 
equipment to our troops, but I do not believe it should be used as a 
vehicle for projects that could and should be funded through the annual 
budget. During this time of soaring deficits, we must practice fiscal 
discipline; however this bill fails to do that by adding projects 
unrelated to the immediate wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This bill 
should be solely about providing our troops with necessary resources 
for their mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. Anything not directly 
related to that does not belong in this bill.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my 
strong opposition to incorporating the unnecessary provisions of the 
REAL ID Act, H.R. 418, in the Emergency Supplemental Wartime 
Appropriations bill.
  I intend to vote for the emergency spending package today. It 
provides the equipment and armor our service members need on the ground 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. H.R. 1268 also significantly improves our 
support of military families by increasing the death gratuity to 
$100,000 and improving the life insurance coverage we provide to those 
risking so much in the battlefield. Our service members need this bill. 
However, I was extremely disappointed to learn House Leadership was 
adding the text of H.R. 418 to the legislation. I voted against the 
REAL ID Act on the House floor for several reasons.
  I am firmly committed to the security of the United States and the 
safety of all Americans. H.R. 418 does little or nothing to improve our 
protection. At the same time, the bill has a harmful impact on legal 
precedent and allows the federal government to undermine states' rights 
and state procedures. I also worry the REAL ID Act diverts attention 
from the crucial mission of securing the homeland by creating new 
demands on our agencies without providing the resources.
  Finally, Congress passed many of the recommendations made by the 9/11 
Commission. H.R. 418 is not only unnecessary and potentially harmful 
but also counters the hard work of the Commission and the Congress.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1268. I would 
like to thank the committee leadership for their efforts to provide our 
men and women in uniform with the equipment that they need to succeed. 
As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have worked with 
my colleagues to provide much-needed force protection equipment to our 
troops. H.R. 1268 includes $75 million for body armor, $51 million for 
up-armored Humvees, and $611 million for add-on armor kits for 
vehicles. Having visited our wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army 
Medical Center, I know that we can prevent further injuries by funding 
this important equipment, and I appreciate the committee's efforts in 
this area.
  Furthermore, the bill raises the military death gratuity from $12,000 
to $100,000 and increases subsidized life insurance benefits from 
$250,000 to $400,000 for families of service members who died or were 
killed on active duty, retroactive to October 7, 2001. As a cosponsor 
of legislation to increase the military death gratuity, I believe we 
must appropriately honor those that have made the ultimate sacrifice, 
and these benefit increases are one small gesture that Congress can 
make to demonstrate our respect. This legislation also demonstrates our 
nation's commitment to aiding those in dire need throughout the world. 
H.R. 1268 includes $656 million for disaster relief to the victims of 
the tsunami as well as essential peacekeeping and humanitarian 
assistance to Darfur.
  However, I was deeply disappointed that the House leadership used a 
procedural move to attach the language of the REAL ID Act, which I 
opposed when the House considered it in February. The REAL ID Act would 
significantly alter our nation's asylum and immigration laws in the 
name of homeland security, though its provisions went far beyond the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The Senate has already 
registered some opposition to the REAL ID provisions, and I fear that 
their inclusion in the House's supplemental bill will slow down the 
process and prevent us from sending assistance to those who need it 
most.
  Our primary responsibility should be to assist our men and women in 
uniform and to fulfill our promises to the nations that were devastated 
in the December tsunami. I urge my colleagues to move swiftly to pass 
this measure and to drop any extraneous provisions that would hinder 
this important funding.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, my opposition to the war in 
Iraq and criticism of the Administration's rationale for engaging our 
troops in this conflict have been well documented. As U.S. casualties 
mount, it is my hope that the Administration will craft a plan to 
facilitate the timely withdrawal of our forces. For this reason, I am a 
cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 35 which calls on the President to do so.
  But in the meantime, despite these reservations, the cold, hard truth 
of the matter is that our soldiers are in Iraq not because they choose, 
but because they have been ordered there. And they are under fire every 
day. We must make every possible effort to ensure that our troops 
return home safely to their families.
  The legislation before us today provides $51 million for ``up-
armored'' Humvees which protect soldiers from anti-tank mines and 
armor-piercing munitions. It appropriates $611 million for add-on 
vehicle armor kits which provide critical protection to drivers and 
crews against attacks from Iraqi insurgents. Also included is $50 
million for the radio jammers that are installed in our vehicles to 
prevent attempts by insurgents to explode remote controlled bombs and 
mines as our troops drive by.
  This measure also provides critical increases in financial support to 
the families of our fallen soldiers. H.R. 1268 increases the military 
death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000. This benefit provides an 
immediate cash payment to assist survivors of deceased members of the 
armed services. It also increases government subsidized life insurance 
benefits from $250,000 to $400,000.
  The legislation also provides crucial assistance for emergency 
situations overseas. It would give $656 million in direct assistance 
for tsunami disaster relief for countries devastated by the December 
26, 2004 earthquake and tsunami. In addition, $92 million in emergency 
funds are provided to respond to the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur 
region of Sudan where egregious ethnic cleansing has been occurring. 
Tens of thousands of men, women, and children have been killed during 
the violence and thousands more die every month in camps housing the 
nearly 2 million people who have fled their homes. $150 million in 
emergency food aid, mostly for Sudan and war-ravaged Liberia, was 
included in committee.
  With a recent glimmer of hope and improved chances for a resolution 
in the Middle East, the bill provides $200 million for the West Bank 
and Gaza to help the forces for peace seize this opportunity. This 
includes $50 million for road and water infrastructure improvements, 
$50 million to improve the flow of people and goods into Israel, $24 
million for trade promotion and capacity building, $20 million for 
schools and community centers, $16 million for democracy and rule of 
law programs, $15 million for agriculture production and marketing, and 
$13 million for health care.

[[Page 4849]]

  Mr. Chairman, while I continue to have grave concerns about the 
President's war in Iraq, on balance this bill provides funds that will 
help protect our men and women under fire, gives additional help to the 
families of those who will never return home, helps consolidate the 
tentative gains in Israel and the Palestinian areas, and aids the 
peoples of other nations who face dire crises abroad. For these 
reasons, I will cast my vote in favor of the measure.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly voted against this 
supplemental, not because there aren't many important items included in 
it, but because a ``no'' vote is one of the few things in my power to 
signal my deep opposition to the administration's policy in Iraq. At 
its core, this bill gives too much money to the wrong people to do the 
wrong thing. As I made clear from the beginning of this war the 
administration continues to have no plan for success in Iraq. They have 
no blueprint for winning the peace and have not even adequately 
protected our troops in harm's way.
  I fully support the assistance to the tsunami-affected region, and 
hope it will be used wisely for recovery, reconstruction, and 
mitigation of future disasters. While we cannot prevent natural events 
such as floods, mudslides, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, or 
tsunamis, we can reduce or mitigate their devastating impacts by 
helping communities to rebuild in safer locations, construct sturdier 
dwellings, and enhance natural ecosystems that mitigate the impact of 
these natural disasters.
  I am pleased to see that there is funding to provide additional armor 
for our troops and vehicles in Iraq. I hope that they will use the 
funding provided by Congress to give our troops the protection that 
they need.
  An amendment that I offered with Mr. Markey to prohibit funds for 
torture and for sending detainees to countries that practice torture 
passed. The use of torture and rendition is morally reprehensible, puts 
Americans at risk, is a poor way to obtain reliable information in our 
fight against terrorism, and sets back the cause of democracy. This is 
the very least that we can do as Congress continues to abdicate its 
responsibility to investigate this horrific aspect of administration 
policy.
  Regardless of the merits, everyone should be troubled by the use of 
supplemental legislation to pay for regular military action in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Funding these operations outside of the regular budgeting 
process limits our ability for effective oversight and distorts the 
true budget picture.
  The Rules Committee burdened this legislation with all the flaws of 
H.R. 418, the ``Real ID Act,'' which, among other things, placed the 
entire 7,514 mile border completely outside all legal protections. This 
is perhaps the most damaging single precedent since I've been in 
Congress.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1268, the 
War Supplemental Appropriations bill for FY 2005, which will provide 
funding for military operations and reconstruction activities in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, as well as important funds for tsunami relief and 
recovery.
  The bill before us includes important changes made by the 
Appropriations Committee to the President's original budget request. 
These changes are essential to providing our servicemen and women the 
equipment and support they need to help keep them safe as they fulfill 
their important mission. Committed to the fact that the well-being of 
our troops is our highest priority, the Appropriations Committee 
increased funding by 69 percent more than requested for add-on vehicle 
armor kits; $401 million more, or twice the amount requested, for new 
trucks; and $50 million in unrequested funds for radio jammers to 
disrupt attempts by Iraqi insurgents to explode remote controlled bombs 
and mines.
  The bill also includes important provisions to increase the military 
death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000 and to provide subsidized life 
insurance benefits from $250,000 to $400,000 for families of soldiers 
who die or are killed on active duty, and we make these important 
provisions retroactive to the beginning of military operations on 
October 7, 2001. No amount can compensate for the death of a loved one, 
but an increase in these benefits that can help a family cope with the 
financial impact of a combat death is long overdue.
  When the Appropriations Committee met, I strongly supported the 
Jackson amendment to add $150 million in food aid for Sudan, and I am 
pleased we have acted again today to add $100 million in additional 
disaster assistance. The United States has an obligation and 
opportunity to assist this troubled country, and I believe this 
additional funding sets an important example for the United Nations and 
other countries that still need to respond to the crisis in Sudan.
  I have been very concerned about the lack of accountability by the 
Defense Department and the Administration as we provide them with 
enormous, although necessary, sums of money. While there has been some 
improvement, I am troubled that the Department of Defense has not 
submitted the required biannual report on the military operations of 
the armed forces and on the reconstruction activities administered by 
DOD in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know that Chairman Jerry Lewis, Defense 
Appropriations Chairman Bill Young and ranking members David Obey and 
John Murtha, as well as my colleagues on the full committee, have 
expressed similar concerns about DOD's lack of responsiveness.
  I'm also troubled that the Administration continues to request 
emergency supplemental funds for military operations. We have been 
engaged in Afghanistan for over three years, and nearly three years 
have gone by since we invaded Iraq. Therefore, it is no surprise that 
funds are needed to support our service men and women overseas. The 
Administration should be building these costs into their regular budget 
submissions.
  I am also disappointed that the Republican leadership failed to make 
in order an important amendment by Representatives Hooley and DeLauro 
to expand veterans' health care and mental health care. Our returning 
troops deserve whatever help they need to successfully transition to 
civilian life.
  Finally, I am particularly angry that the Republican leadership is 
using this bill as a vehicle to move an unrelated piece of legislation, 
the Sensenbrenner ``Real ID'' immigration bill. The important bill 
before us provides critical resources for our service men and women 
overseas and badly needed disaster relief. It should not be used by the 
Republican leadership to fulfill their political promises. I hope the 
Senate will oppose this legislative gambit and confine the bill to 
address the serious needs it is intended to address.
  However, in spite of my concerns, I believe it is our responsibility 
to provide our servicemen and women the resources necessary for them to 
fulfill their mission and come home safely. Protecting our troops, who 
are sacrificing so much on our behalf, and providing for their 
families, will always be my first priority, and that is why I am 
supporting this bill today.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this $82 billion 
``emergency'' supplemental bill. I also am opposed to the manner in 
which the REAL ID Act, H.R. 418, was attached to the Rule, thereby 
stealthily making the establishment of a national ID part of an 
``emergency'' bill to which it is completely unrelated. Once again we 
see controversial bills being hidden inside another bill so that they 
are automatically passed where they otherwise might face opposition. I 
do not believe this is a wise practice.
  This ``emergency'' supplemental is the second largest supplemental 
appropriations bill in United States history, second only to the one 
last year. The funds will be considered ``emergency'' funds so Congress 
can ignore spending caps that would require the billions in new 
spending to be offset by reducing spending elsewhere.
  We are told that this is emergency spending, and that we therefore 
must not question this enormous expenditure. Does an emergency require 
sending billions of American taxpayers' dollars overseas as foreign aid 
an emergency? This bill is filled with foreign aid spending. If we pass 
this ill-conceived legislation, we will spend $656 million for tsunami 
relief; $94 million for Darfur, Sudan; $150 million for food aid, most 
to Liberia and Sudan; $580 million for ``peacekeeping'' overseas; $582 
million to build a new American embassy in Iraq; $76 million to build a 
new airport in Kuwait (one of the wealthiest countries on earth); $257 
million for counter drug efforts in Afghanistan; $372 million for 
health, reconstruction, and alternative development programs to help 
farmers stop raising poppy; $200 million in economic aid for the 
Palestinians; $150 million for Pakistan (run by an unelected dictator); 
$200 million for Jordan; $34 million for Ukraine.
  Does anyone really believe that all this foreign aid is ``emergency'' 
spending? Or is it just an opportunity for some off-budget spending? 
Just the above foreign aid equals almost $3.5 billion. Does anyone 
believe that sending this much money abroad as international welfare is 
a good thing for our economy?
  Is there a baseball emergency? There must be, because this 
``emergency'' supplemental contains a provision to allow Washington, 
D.C. to use taxpayer money to build a baseball stadium.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is almost unimaginably expensive. It is our 
out-of-control spending that really is the greatest threat to the 
United States and our way of life. I urge my colleagues to reject this 
legislation.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support for the 
$81.1 billion emergency

[[Page 4850]]

supplemental funding bill we are considering today. The only reason I 
am voting for the bill before us today is because it provides much 
needed equipment for our forces in theater, increases death gratuity to 
$100,000 for families of soldiers who have died or were killed on 
active duty. My support for this measure is tepid at best.
  What troubles me the most about this bill are two key concerns: One, 
there are no mechanisms for tracking if the money is properly spent. 
There is simply no mechanism for improving accountability of how 
taxpayers' dollars are spent. The Defense Department wants to take the 
money and provide little detail to Congress on how these dollars are 
being used or abused. The American people have a right to know how 
these dollars are spent. And, two, by increasing investments in our war 
and defense efforts, we further constrain budgetary resources for 
investments in education, highways, community development, first 
responders, health care, public health and more. What is at stake here 
is the very welfare of our states and communities, who find themselves 
financially strapped because of the economic policies of this 
administration. Our domestic economy cannot continue to pursue this 
trend.
  Despite my many misgivings over this spending bill, I will vote for 
its passage. We in Congress must call on the Defense Department to 
provide better accountability for the spending decisions it makes.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, today I voted in support of the Fiscal Year 
2005 Iraq and Tsunami Relief Supplemental.
  This decision was difficult for me. I strongly opposed the REAL ID 
Act of 2005. The REAL ID Act has no place on a bill to fund support for 
our military families and tsunami victims. In fact, I voted against 
H.R. 418 when it was considered by the U.S. House of Representatives on 
February 10, 2005. This type of political game was vicious attempt to 
portray those who believe REAL ID is a bad policy as unpatriotic, and I 
refuse to make servicemembers and their families' losers of that game.
  I voted for this spending bill because it includes equipment and 
services that our troops and their families need desperately. It 
includes additional funds for health care services, mental health for 
veterans, active duty servicemembers and their families, and financial 
assistance to help members of the National Guard transition back into 
civilian life. This legislation also provides an increase in the amount 
of life insurance for troops, an increase in the death benefit for 
families of fallen military members, and provides additional funding so 
our troops have the armored humvees and personal protection they need 
while serving in Iraq.
  With the knowledge we have today about the lack of protective 
equipment and inability of our system to serve military families, I do 
not believe that withholding funds from our military families and 
tsunami victims is the right way to solve the predicament the Bush 
Administration has created. I remain very concerned about the Bush 
Administration's lack of a clear exit strategy in Iraq and I will 
continue to fight for real immigration reform and for a clear plan so 
our troops can come home and democracy can thrive in an Iraq run by 
Iraqis.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, the $81 billion that the President is 
requesting for the war in Iraq is his third request for emergency 
spending--and still there is no exit strategy and no plan for success 
in Iraq. This is a war that was sold to the American people and Members 
of Congress under false pretenses, and the American people cannot 
continue to fund indefinitely this administration's gross incompetence, 
particularly without any real oversight tied to it. The administration 
is rapidly bankrupting this country for this war, while starving our 
most important priorities here at home, such as homeland security, 
social security and education. The administration has raised the debt 
ceiling three times to a record $7.6 trillion, grown the largest budget 
deficit in our history, $412 billion last year, and expanded a record 
trade deficit of $619 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, I support and honor the troops. My father is a veteran 
of World War II and my brother is a veteran of the Vietnam war. The 
National Guard's 42nd Infantry Division is made up of brave New 
Yorkers--I am deeply concerned for their safety. Which is why I was 
shocked and appalled when some photos straight from the 42nd I.D. in 
Tikrit were given to me recently.
  Despite the billions already allocated for Iraq, these photos show 
humvees with metal sheets slapped on to their sides like makeshift 
armor; with empty oxygen canisters being used to anchor the soldiers' 
weapons; with junkyard quality doors. You can view these pictures for 
yourself on my website.
  I want to know, why hasn't every cent we have appropriated gone to 
properly equip the troops until they are all safe and secure? Mr. 
Speaker, the lack of equipment for our troops is the most awful example 
of misspending of the money we have already allocated, but it is not 
the only one.
  And then there are billions of dollars that we either can't find or 
that were spent unwisely. The Coalition Provisional Authority 
completely lost $9 billion in Iraq. And now we have reports that the 
administration actually assisted Haliburton in concealing at least more 
than $100 million in overcharges out of its $7 billion in no-bid 
contracts.
  We must have stronger oversight. The administration should be able to 
tell the American taxpayer what is going on with its money in Iraq. 
There should be open and honest accounting. But even though previous 
spending bills set out specific requirements for reporting how the 
money is being spent and for an estimate of future costs, we have yet 
to receive either. How do mismanagement, poor decisions and no-bid 
contracts help our troops?
  Certainly, there are parts of this supplemental spending bill that I 
strongly support. The $650 million for tsunami relief and 
reconstruction is very important, and my amendment that was accepted 
will designate $3 million specifically for the UNFPA's efforts to aid 
maternal health in the tsunami-stricken areas. I also support the 
provisions to aid the peace in the Sudan, as well as development 
assistance for the West Bank and Gaza.
  Still, it is extremely troubling that we cannot get an honest 
accounting of the billions we are spending on this war. I'm deeply 
disappointed that the Republican House voted down an earlier amendment 
that would have ensured proper accounting of the money we spend. This 
administration needs to implement oversight and accountability, but it 
fails to do so. Before I can vote for another enormous expenditure of 
the American taxpayers' money for this war, I must be convinced that 
this administration will keeps tabs on the money and make sure it 
benefits our troops. Doing so is good for the war effort, and it's good 
for the troops.
  We cannot continue to hemorrhage the hard-earned money of American 
taxpayers when the troops need it, and we need it here at home. There 
is no end in sight to the loss of lives on all sides, and this 
administration still has no answers.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, yesterday I voted against passage of H.R. 
1268, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and 
Afghanistan and Tsunami Assistance bill.
  In March 2003, before the war began, I wrote to the President with 22 
of our colleagues to ask him to specifically define our objectives and 
to provide an exit strategy. We asked the President a number of 
questions including: ``Under what circumstances will our military 
occupation of (and financial commitment to) Iraq end? And how will we 
know when these circumstances are present.'' We and the American people 
never received an answer to these crucial questions. Even today, the 
Administration is unwilling or unable to answer. This is simply 
unacceptable.
  Time and again, the President has requested money to fund the war in 
Iraq while refusing to answer our questions about this war and provide 
a comprehensive strategy for bringing our troops home. In our 
democracy, the Congress controls the purse strings. Before allocating 
additional funds, we must insist that the administration articulate the 
conditions necessary to bring our troops home, and push them to do that 
as soon as possible. The administration's refusal to address that is 
quite astounding to me and should be of great concern to all Americans 
who believe in principles of accountability and checks and balances.
  In addition to my concerns about a lack of overall strategy and 
benchmarks for success in Iraq, I am very disappointed with the 
administration's handling of Iraq spending, in both process and 
substance. Emergency supplemental spending should be reserved for true 
emergencies, those instances in which the need for expenditures is 
unforeseen or unforeseeable. The vast majority of funds in this 
supplemental fail to meet that criterion. Both last year and this year, 
the Administration excluded Iraq costs from their budget requests, 
although most of the costs could be estimated. Shortfalls or additional 
needs then could have been funded through a supplemental. That is the 
proper way to manage taxpayer funds.
  I want to make it clear that I believe that our men and women in the 
armed forces serving in Iraq are doing their jobs with great honor. 
They have my unequivocal support and respect. My vote against this 
spending bill should not be characterized as a rejection of them or the 
resources they need to carry out their duties, If this bill had been 
defeated yesterday, funds would have continued to flow to Iraq tomorrow 
and over the next few months. Voting down this bill would have allowed 
ample time for the President to respond to our concerns and resubmit 
his funding request.

[[Page 4851]]

  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, despite many reservations, I am supporting 
the bill before us today because I believe it is essential that this 
body unequivocally supports our troops in the field and their families 
here at home. By providing $2 billion more than the President's request 
for equipment and munitions, this bill will help to ensure that 
soldiers in the field finally have the body armor, night vision 
equipment, and vehicle armor they should have had since military 
operations began in Iraq. Additionally, by significantly increasing the 
Military Death Gratuity and the Subsidized Life Insurance benefit, this 
bill will help to guarantee that the families of deceased soldiers will 
have adequate financial resources in their time of need.
  While it is critical that this bill provides soldiers and their 
families with the protection and benefits they so rightfully deserve, I 
remain deeply concerned that it continues to leave the Administration 
and the Department of Defense unaccountable for the expenditures in 
Iraq. I am distressed by the alleged reports of waste, corruption and 
mismanagement of previous funds earmarked for the military operations 
and reconstruction in Iraq. Further, I am troubled to learn that, 
according to several studies, only a portion of every dollar spent on 
rebuilding Iraq has gone to improving the lives of Iraqis. 
Unfortunately, the efforts made by me and other members of Congress to 
insert accountability and transparency into the funding process, 
including the most recent bipartisan effort to establish a commission 
to investigate the costs of the reconstruction in Iraq, have been 
repeatedly rejected by the Majority in Congress.
  I am similarly disappointed that this administration insists on 
funding the war in Iraq using the emergency appropriations process--a 
process that should be reserved for true emergencies, like tsunami 
relief. While the Bush administration claims that it excludes these 
costs from the annual budget process because it cannot anticipate 
future war costs, the true reason for this exclusion is to make the 
already massive deficit look slightly, albeit artificially, lower. This 
administration is therefore abusing the emergency appropriations 
process in order to help obscure and hide the extent of its fiscal 
recklessness from the American people. This is the same sort of fuzzy 
accounting that was employed by the likes of Enron and WorldCom, and 
yet, while those corporations were ultimately held accountable, this 
Administration continues not to be.
  While I have significant ideological problems with this bill, I 
cannot in good faith turn my back on the courageous men and women who 
have so valiantly served to preserve the peace in Iraq. They deserve to 
enter the battlefield with adequate armor and equipment and are 
similarly entitled to an increase in benefits for them and for their 
families. However, I vote in favor of this bill with the sincere hope 
that this is the last time the administration abuses the emergency 
appropriations process and comes to this body with such a request.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I voted against H.R. 1268 ``The Emergency 
Supplemental Bill for Fiscal Year 2005.'' While it contained some good 
measures, humanitarian assistance for Darfur, funds for tsunami relief 
and aid to support the newly elected leadership of the Palestinian 
Authority, like many pieces of legislation these days, it also 
contained an egregious and completely non-germane addition, the REAL ID 
Bill. I already voted against this bill. It fails to make us safer and 
it does nothing to reform our immigration laws in useful ways. Instead 
of focusing on meaningful reform, this bill makes it much more 
difficult for an immigrant fleeing persecution to find asylum in our 
country, and essentially mandates a national identity card.
  This vote was primarily about our ongoing military operations in 
Afghanistan and Iraq. I supported the use of force in Afghanistan. The 
Taliban regime sheltered and supported al Qaeda terrorists who attacked 
our country and made plain its determination to continue. I wish we had 
committed sufficient troops and resources to complete our mission in 
Afghanistan, kill or capture Osama bin Laden, and commit to the 
country's reconstruction. I voted against the use of force in Iraq. I 
wish I had been wrong, but all that I feared has come to pass. Weapons 
of mass destruction have not been found. Terrible slaughter continues 
and civil war may yet break out. But the ongoing violence in Iraq does 
not constitute a budgetary emergency and should not have been 
unforeseen. We were at war when the FY05 budget was proposed. Why then 
the pretense of a Supplemental Budget?
  I honor the sacrifice of our soldiers and their families and the 
courage of the millions of Iraqis who risked their lives to vote in a 
free election. I hope that their elected leaders will deserve their 
trust and that they will negotiate an inclusive government and draft a 
constitution that respects human rights. I hope they can demonstrate a 
prudence and foresight that our own government has not shown. I voted 
for the FY05 Department of Defense appropriations bill and I hope that 
I will be able to vote for the FY06 Defense appropriations as well. My 
vote was a vote of no confidence in the President and in his conduct of 
foreign affairs.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to passage of this bill.
  There are large amounts of funding in this bill that I support for 
pressing commitments and to meet urgent national and international 
needs. For example, I absolutely support getting our troops in Iraq, 
Afghanistan and elsewhere all that they need and deserve in order to 
protect themselves and carry out their very difficult and dangerous 
missions. I was among the first to speak out and support legislation in 
2003, when it became apparent that Secretary Rumsfeld and his advisors 
had seriously underestimated the types of body armor, up-armored 
Humvees and other equipment that would be needed by our forces in Iraq. 
I have voted for the additional funding in prior measures to correct 
for these miscalculations, as a matter of the utmost urgency, and I 
will continue to do so.
  Similarly, I support the additional funding in this bill for 
enhancing nuclear nonproliferation efforts to help prevent weapons of 
mass destruction from getting into the wrong hands. I also support the 
additional funds for tsunami relief. There is also another down payment 
in this bill toward improving homeland security efforts in the Coast 
Guard, FBI, and other front-line agencies, but we need to be doing much 
more in this regard.
  However, on balance I must oppose this legislation.
  I've talked to many executive branch officials, civilian and 
military, and the simple reality is that they cannot plan in a coherent 
fashion when they are forced to deal with the uncertainty over how much 
money they will get and when they will get it. This bill denies them 
the ability to plan and the result is that our servicemen and women in 
the filed are put in greater jeopardy. This is not a bill to support 
our troops.
  By way of illustration, I serve on the House Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence. A substantial portion of the annual 
intelligence budget is now funded through supplemental and/or so-called 
``emergency'' appropriations. Both civilian and military intelligence 
officials have told me and my colleagues on the committee that this 
process wreaks havoc with their ability to plan and execute their 
assigned responsibilities. There is simply no excuse for this state of 
affairs.
  We have soldiers in the field, and we know that we'll be continuing 
military operations against al Qaeda and its surrogates for the 
foreseeable future. We know that as long as we're in Iraq at our 
current force level, we'll be spending about $7 billion a month for the 
effort. That's not unforeseen. We should not be funding these 
operations through emergency supplemental appropriations. It certainly 
appears that the only reason the Bush Administration continues to try 
to fund current operations through supplementals is to avoid any kind 
of substantive review of its budgetary and procurement policies. The 
entire Haliburton episode is a prime example of how dysfunctional this 
process has become, and it's also why we must force the administration 
to provide us with honest budgets and honest estimates on what current 
and future operations are likely to cost. In fact, the leadership here 
turned down a bipartisan amendment that would simply have formed a 
commission to look at the awarding and carrying out of Government 
contracts to conduct military and reconstruction activities in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  It has become painfully apparent that the path toward a free, 
democratic and fully reconstructed Iraq will be long and treacherous. 
If and when this bill is enacted, the cost for the war in Iraq and the 
ongoing military occupation of that country will exceed $220 billion. 
In fact, the true costs of this effort are underestimated and masked, 
as evidenced by the fact that they are not accounted for in the new 
Fiscal Year 2006 budget that President Bush submitted to Congress last 
month. Some projections suggest that the cost will top $300 billion 
before the end of this year. And as far as taking care of the wounds of 
war--physical and psychological--of our latest generation of veterans, 
neither this supplemental nor the administration's FY06 VA budget 
request come remotely close to meeting the expected need, undoubtedly 
one of the many reasons that most of the military services are falling 
short of their recruiting targets this year.
  Rather than continue the status quo on an open-ended, costly basis 
and to vote ever-increasing amounts in ``emergency spending,'' Congress 
must demand much greater transparency in the management and spending 
for ongoing U.S. military operations in Iraq. Even

[[Page 4852]]

more important, we need a thorough policy review that will help bring 
internal stability and security throughout Iraq and create the 
conditions under which the long-suffering people of Iraq can regain 
full control of their own affairs and make rapid progress in rebuilding 
their war-torn nation in a new era of peace, security, and democratic 
self-government. This supplemental request does not achieve that, and I 
urge my colleagues to work with me to craft one that does.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, while I will support the bill before the 
House today, I will do so with deep and serious reservations.
  In October of 2002, I cast an important vote to deny the President 
authorization to send American troops into Iraq to strike unilaterally. 
I thought then, and I know now, that his actions were not the best 
course for our nation.
  One year later in October of 2003, I made yet another testing 
decision to oppose legislation, which on the one hand allocated $87 
billion to support American operations in Iraq but on the other hand 
lacked accountability for these taxpayer dollars and placed the 
mounting cost of rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan squarely on the 
shoulders of our children and grandchildren.
  The apprehensions I had then about sending America's sons and 
daughters into harm's way in Iraq and about signing a blank check for 
this military adventure, have now materialized. Congress is now 
attempting to address the glaring consequences of an ill-advised, 
preemptive and unilateral military action through this third emergency 
supplemental appropriation of $81.4 billion. To date--and I say ``to 
date'' because there is no end in sight--President Bush has directed 
over $275 billion of taxpayers' monies away from schools, healthcare, 
Social Security, and the like to pay for his decision to go to war in 
Iraq.
  Today we know that President Bush's premise for commencing a war 
against Iraq--the alleged weapons of mass destruction possessed by 
Saddam Hussein--was not true.
  The Bush administration's confident prediction of a quick and easy 
victory followed by a quick return home for our troops has become a 
nightmare. And now the administration refuses to commit to a time-table 
for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.
  The Bush administration's estimate that reconstruction in Iraq would 
cost between $1 and $2 billion and could be financed by Iraqi oil 
revenues has now turned into a reconstruction quagmire. We hear more 
about military contractor Halliburton's billing excesses and contract 
abuses than about any rebuilt school or hospital.
  In terms of accountability, the Inspector General has reported that 
almost $9 billion in funds designated for reconstruction efforts have 
been mishandled and remain unaccounted for. The FY 2005 Defense 
Appropriations Act passed in July of 2004 instructed the Department of 
Defense to submit two accountability reports to Congress, one by 
October 31, 2004, and the other by January 1, 2005. In these reports, 
the Pentagon must provide a comprehensive review of all military 
operations, including reconstruction and military readiness, and 
provide detailed cost estimates for these operations. Congress has yet 
to receive either report or any concrete information about the future 
costs of this war.
  I still do not believe that our troops should have been in Iraq under 
these conditions, facing these obstacles virtually alone, fighting 
battles for which the Pentagon did not properly plan or prepare. But 
with over 150,000 of America's brave men and women still in Iraq, it 
would be difficult to cast a vote against providing the much-needed 
funds that this supplemental provides to them. Far too many of our 
soldiers have died and remain in harm's way because of their superiors' 
miscalculations. As long as our troops remain in harm's way, it is our 
duty to provide them all of the equipment, tools, vehicles, weapons, 
and benefits that they need and deserve to protect themselves and give 
democracy a chance in Iraq.
  Democrats have fought hard to include accountability measures in this 
legislation, to extract from it extraneous and unnecessary projects, 
and to focus America's precious taxpayer dollars on resources for our 
nation's veterans and troops. This bill, unlike previous Bush 
administration requests, allocates the dollars for armor and equipment 
that our troops on the ground need if they must patrol the streets and 
roads of Iraq. Democrats also fought hard to cure deficiencies in the 
bill which put at risk increased death benefits and life insurance for 
the families of our fallen soldiers.
  Unfortunately, despite $9 billion of unaccounted funds, an amendment 
by Mr. Tierney of Massachusetts that would have provided $5 million to 
establish a select committee to investigate reconstruction efforts in 
Iraq and Afghanistan was defeated by my Republican colleagues. The Bush 
administration, it seems, will continue to spend money without adequate 
oversight and accountability.
  Additionally, the bill includes funding for extraneous non-emergency 
projects that would more properly be addressed through the regular 
appropriations process. While some of these projects were removed on 
the House floor through the amendment process, funding for unrelated 
military construction and $4.6 billion for an Army ``transformation'' 
plan remain.
  Most blatant of all the extraneous provisions are those of H.R. 418, 
the REAL ID Act, which the Republican procedural rule has allowed to be 
attached to this supplemental following its passage. The immigration 
policies of our nation deserve a proper and thorough debate, and 
legislation that provides emergency funding for our troops, for 
humanitarian aid, and for foreign assistance is not the appropriate 
vehicle to enact the sweeping, controversial immigration policy 
embodied in HR 418.
  I will support H.R. 1268 because of the critical funds and resources 
that it provides to our troops and their families. However, as this 
bill moves forward I will work with my colleagues to ensure that my 
concerns are addressed in the final version of the bill that comes back 
for final approval after joint House and Senate consideration. I do not 
foreclose the possibility of voting against the final version of this 
legislation should it come back in a form departing further from its 
core purpose of focusing on our men and women in uniform. These are the 
tough decisions, and they must be made in the best interest of the 
American people.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, all Americans stand united 
in support of our troops. However, President Bush has no strategy for 
success in Iraq. Therefore, I rise in opposition to the Emergency 
Wartime Supplemental Appropriation (H.R. 1268) and my vote today is a 
vote of no confidence in this administration's ad hoc Iraq policy.
  Tragically, more than 1,500 American troops have been killed in Iraq 
and there is no end in sight to this war. The President's ``coalition 
of the willing'' is dissolving as Italy and the Netherlands become the 
most recent countries deciding to withdraw their troops from Iraq. The 
U.S. continues to bear the enormous burden of this conflict militarily 
and financially. With this $75 billion, as well as the $25 billion 
approved earlier this year, we have now spent $250 billion in Iraq.
  Most outrageous is the fact that not $1 of the more than $200 billion 
spent on this war has been paid for. Congress has now borrowed over 
$250 billion from foreign countries like Saudi Arabia, China, and 
Japan. Every dollar plus interest will be paid for by the men and women 
who are fighting as well as their children.
  There are some real emergencies funded in this bill. I support U.S. 
assistance for tsunami relief and recovery as well as for peacekeeping 
operations, emergency funds and food aid to the Darfur region of Sudan. 
The generous assistance of the American people in these two serious 
crises is saving lives and having a tremendous impact.
  This administration's failures of leadership in Iraq demands 
extensive Congressional oversight and accountability, not another blank 
check. The current policy is unsustainable. If Americans are to 
continue to bear the burden of securing and rebuilding Iraq, rather 
than approving a blank check, we deserve a plan for success and an exit 
strategy for America's troops.
  The CHAIRMAN. There are no further amendments in order. The Clerk 
will report the last three 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 
     Tsunami Relief, 2005''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Putnam) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, 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. 1268) 
making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 151, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, 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.

[[Page 4853]]

  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 Ms. Hooley

  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. HOOLEY. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Putnam). The Clerk will report the 
motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Hooley moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 1268, to the 
     Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:


   the military health care and job retraining transitional benefits 
                               amendment

       On page 6, line 7, after the dollar figure, insert 
     ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       On page 35, line 10, after the dollar figure, insert 
     ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her 
motion.
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a motion to recommit 
that would provide $100 million in health and $50 million in job 
training transitional assistance to help active duty forces make the 
transition to the veterans benefits system.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and I have been working on 
this issue together and trying to add $1.3 billion for VA health care 
and reintegration services. While our amendment was ruled not in order, 
we now have a chance to ensure that this supplemental includes at least 
some funding for vital health and employment services.
  America is currently asking more of its all-volunteer military force 
than it ever has before. Yet even as America prepares to continue its 
large and prolonged military campaign in Iraq, it has done very little 
to provide for the veterans of this war. Our obligation to support our 
troops does not end when they leave Iraq.
  But how are we supposed to provide adequate health care to these new 
veterans when we did not even meet the needs of our current veterans? 
The fiscal year 2005 Omnibus was $1.3 billion short in the amount that 
then Secretary Principi, as well as the House Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, stated was needed to just maintain the current level of 
veterans health care.
  We also need to make sure that our returning soldiers have the 
readjustment assistance they need, particularly for members of the 
Guard and Reserve. You have to understand, these members do not go back 
to a base, they go back to their home State and then are scattered 
throughout that State. Members of the National Guard returning home 
face immense challenges in transitioning out of active duty deployment 
and back to civilian life. While the State Guard offices are working to 
provide these returning soldiers with important information regarding 
their health care, employment assistance and other transitional 
services, they simply do not have the money they need to complete the 
education and counseling necessary for a smooth transition back to 
civilian life. I think our returning soldiers deserve better.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit 
and keep our promise to our Nation's veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply congratulate the gentlewoman 
from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) for her motion. I would hope that every Member 
supports it. I think that the contents of it are important. In fact, we 
need to go further. We have increased in this bill insurance benefits 
for service men and women who die up to $400,000, but service men and 
women who come back from combat who are brain damaged, who have lost 
their sight, who have lost their arms, who have lost their legs, they 
come back to really very little assistance from Uncle Sam.
  In addition to what the gentlewoman is talking about, we also need to 
be looking at the huge hole that still exists in the earning power of 
those individuals, and we need to do a whole lot more than we are doing 
today.
  I think the Hooley amendment is a great start, and I would urge every 
Member of the House to vote for it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition to the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes in opposition.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion to recommit largely because I believe on both sides of the aisle 
the body recognizes that the reason for this supplemental is to provide 
as quickly as possible money flows in support of our troops.
  This is a supplemental dealing with our challenges in the Middle East 
especially. It is a supplemental dealing with the crises that have 
resulted from the tsunami. But, in the meantime, the gentlewoman is 
suggesting that we should recommit this bill to add $150 million. The 
best thing that we can do for our troops is to move this bill very 
quickly and send it on its way for a conference with the Senate. There 
is absolutely no question that to have a recommittal motion be 
successful that would add $150 million to an $82 billion package, the 
vast percentage of which is in support of our troops, at best is a 
technical exercise.

                             {time}   1130

  To recommit for the sake of recommitting is not a reflection of how 
seriously we are taking the challenge we have of supporting our troops. 
So I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit, and I urge Members 
on both sides of the aisle to recognize that we must move forward with 
this supplemental.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Putnam). 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

  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. 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 200, 
noes 229, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 76]

                               AYES--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     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
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar

[[Page 4854]]


     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--229

     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
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     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
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (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--5

     Baird
     Cubin
     Roybal-Allard
     Smith (NJ)
     Sweeney


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1153

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Putnam). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 388, 
nays 43, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 77]

                               YEAS--388

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     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
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     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
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--43

     Abercrombie
     Baldwin
     Blumenauer
     Capuano
     Clay
     Coble
     Davis (IL)
     Duncan
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Maloney
     Markey
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Miller, George
     Owens
     Pallone
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Weiner
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Baird
     Cubin
     Sweeney

[[Page 4855]]



                              {time}  1201

  Mrs. JONES of Ohio changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 
151, the text of H.R. 418, as passed by the House, will be appended to 
the engrossment of H.R. 1268.
  (For text of H.R. 418, see prior proceedings of the House of February 
10, 2005, at Page 2011.)

                          ____________________