[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3651-3663]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4939, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL 
APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR, AND HURRICANE 
                             RECOVERY, 2006

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 725 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.

[[Page 3652]]

  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 725

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4939) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, 
     and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     When the reading for amendment reaches title II, such title 
     shall be considered as read. During consideration of the bill 
     for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and 
     reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that 
     the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Cole) is recognized for 1 hour.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks and to insert tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, on March 14 the Rules Committee met and granted an open 
rule on House Resolution 725, with 1 hour of debate equally divided 
between the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  The bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule 
and waives all points of order against the bill. Additionally, when the 
reading for the amendment reaches title II, such title shall be 
considered as read. This rule accords priority of recognition to 
Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional 
Record and provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to be able to manage this rule. The 
rule provides for an emergency supplemental funding package to sustain 
our troops in the ongoing war on terror and to assist in providing 
emergency relief for those affected in the Gulf States by last year's 
tremendous hurricanes.
  However, Mr. Speaker, the fact that this bill is being brought to the 
floor under an open rule should not be overlooked. This means that 
anyone in the majority or the minority may bring to the floor any 
amendment that is germane to this legislation.
  As one of the most important bills that will be brought to the House 
floor this year, we should all be able to agree that an open rule is 
the right thing to do and will allow the House to work its will.
  The supplemental appropriations package is the sixth supplemental 
since September 11 that focuses on meeting the challenges imposed on us 
by the global war on terrorism. Specifically, this supplemental 
provides for replenishing of those accounts that the military has 
exhausted during sustained operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other 
areas of the world. Additionally, it provides important funding to 
assist in our efforts to address the disastrous results of the 
hurricanes in the gulf coast communities. Finally, these are important 
measures dedicated to improving the benefits due our soldiers and their 
families who have often been asked to make the ultimate sacrifice.
  Among the important provisions in this bill is a $2 billion effort at 
the suppression of technology for so-called IEDs, improvised explosive 
devices, in Iraq and other areas. IEDs, rather than direct engagement 
with enemy combatants, have caused over half the casualties our forces 
have sustained in Iraq. Additionally, the supplemental fully funds the 
enhanced $400,000 Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance benefits and the 
$100,000 death gratuity benefit for combat-related fatalities.
  Mr. Speaker, the Appropriations Committee also addressed several 
other issues inside the supplemental that are essential to successfully 
continue to prosecute our global war on terror.
  Important obligations are met in the underlying legislation. In 
particular, this legislation earmarked $850 million over the 
President's request to ensure that the National Guard receives upgraded 
Bradleys and Abrams when deploying. Additionally, the bill earmarked 
another $480 million for new advances in safer up-armoring for Humvees.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4939 takes a number of important steps forward in 
addressing the needs of our military. Today we are likely to debate 
several amendments that would have a large impact on the effect of the 
underlying legislation. I would strongly urge Members to closely 
examine such amendments and reject any not pertaining to the subject 
matter at hand. The bill we have before us today is an excellent and 
timely piece of legislation that deserves strong bipartisan support. 
The underlying legislation is ultimately really about supporting our 
troops in the field and moving forward in assisting our own citizens 
drastically affected by the hurricanes.
  With respect to Katrina, the underlying legislation provides $9.9 
billion to the Department of Homeland Security, primarily intended for 
FEMA, and major additional funding for flood control and coastal 
emergencies. Additionally, the Department of Defense would receive $1.8 
billion and the Army Corps of Engineers would receive $1.5 billion, 
mostly for procurement and construction for flood control and coastal 
emergencies.

                              {time}  1030

  $1.3 billion would be set aside for loans to home owners and small 
businesses to be administered through the Small Business 
Administration.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the third supplemental appropriations request 
sent to Congress that addresses the fallout from the hurricanes. I am 
sure we will deal with this issue in the future as needs are defined. 
It is truly a testament to this Nation that we are able to break 
through the political logjam and deal with these issues of an emergency 
nature when this situation demands.
  Mr. Speaker, judging from the debate in the Rules Committee 
yesterday, I suspect Members from both sides of the aisle may mention 
or attempt to interject into our discussions motions or amendments that 
are not germane to the underlying legislation. A number of measures are 
things that I personally support. However, the Rules Committee decided, 
appropriately in my opinion, that these matters should be dealt with 
separately and under regular order.
  My good friends on both sides of the aisle have often expressed their 
desire to have major legislation dealt with under an open rule. That is 
precisely what we have today. It is my hope that all Members will 
appreciate that fact and will see the wisdom of pursuing other issues 
through regular order. Therefore, I urge support for the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are truly at a crossroads in the history of the 
Nation. Abroad we are engaged in a war that with each passing day 
becomes more dangerous, just as our path to victory becomes more 
obscured.

[[Page 3653]]

  At home we are still dealing with the consequence of the colossal 
failure of the government to meet its most basic responsibility, to 
protect our citizens in a time of dire crisis.
  It has been 7 months since Katrina devastated the gulf coast, and 
thousands upon thousands of our fellow Americans are still depending on 
handouts to survive. They are without their homes, without their jobs, 
and without a sense of security.
  And here in Washington, the principles of integrity, accountability 
and oversight, the cornerstone values of our democratic government, 
have been cast aside in favor of political expediency by our elected 
leadership.
  The American people are losing faith in this government. They believe 
we are headed in the wrong direction, and they want change, and it is 
not hard to see why. How we ultimately address the challenges before us 
as a government and as a people will define the future of this Nation 
for better or worse.
  In times like these, when we are so focused on what separates us from 
each other, it is critical that we remember what binds us together, a 
commitment to the same core values and principles. I think we can all 
agree that supporting our young men and women in uniform is a priority 
for each and every Member of this House, whether we are Democrats or 
Republicans, and whether we agreed with the Bush administration's 
reason for going to war in Iraq or opposed them.
  And just as we continue the age-old debate on the proper role of 
government in our society, we should all agree that the kind of 
collapse that we witnessed when the government failed to respond to 
Hurricane Katrina must never, ever happen again.
  We must renew our commitment to take responsibility for the safety 
and welfare of the American people in a time of crisis. And we must 
agree that government has a role in protecting not only the rights, but 
also the dignity and the humanity of every single American.
  We cannot accept, nor should we be willing to tolerate, squalor, 
abject poverty, and needless suffering in the heart of the United 
States. The defense of those who defend us abroad and the protection of 
the defenseless here at home, these are guiding principles that we all 
share.
  Mr. Speaker, how should we go about turning these principles into 
action in the days and months ahead? We may disagree on how to overcome 
the challenges that lay before us, just as our Founding Fathers hoped 
and expected that we would. But all of us here are patriots, and all of 
us come to the table with our Nation's best interest in mind. And so we 
must remember to always welcome debate and to keep the floor open to 
all ideas and proposals, and to subject their merits equally to the 
rigors of the democratic process.
  To pit the pursuits of an agenda against the perpetuation of our 
democratic traditions, that would be a true crime and a true shame. As 
we stand up for the principles of democracy here, we must also pledge 
to restore the second great tenet of our system of government, the 
integrity and accountability of our Congress. We can no longer allow 
our leaders to be blinded by the politics of the moment and forget 
their commitments to ethics and to oversight.
  The short-term gains may be tempting for those who hold strings of 
power, but the long-term consequences are devastating to the people of 
the Nation as we have already seen. Ethics, integrity and 
accountability should not be partisan issues. They should be issues of 
survival because the survival of the system depends on them.
  It is on this point that I would ask my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to join me today in taking a stand for our future. During the 
Second World War, Senator Harry Truman displayed a level of integrity 
and a strength of character that has been very rare in today's 
Washington. He dared to investigate his own party. He held his fellow 
Democrats in Congress accountable for excessive and wasteful war 
contracts. He provided a mechanism for accountability and oversight 
during an unprecedented war effort. It was called the Truman 
Commission.
  The commission's purpose was to maximize every dollar we had to spend 
to ferret out corruption and mismanagement and to infuse a sense of 
accountability into the American war machine. Its success saved many 
American lives by ensuring that our tax dollars were spent on what was 
most important, that was winning the war. And yet, we in this Congress 
have not had the courage to insist on the same level of accountability 
that President Truman saw fit to employ over 60 years ago.
  Despite the fact that at least $9 billion of money spent on the Iraqi 
reconstruction is unaccounted for, and despite the fact that we hear 
reports of payroll checks covering employees who do not exist and of 
firms being compensated for providing security for flights that never 
took off, and despite the fact that the Pentagon contracts for body 
armor have gone to companies that never produced it, all the while, 80 
percent of the American Marines lost in Iraq to upper body wounds could 
have been saved if those soldiers had been provided with the right 
armor.
  Nor have we demonstrated the real commitment to fully investigate the 
Nation's response to the second great challenge of our time, Hurricane 
Katrina, and done so again, despite poor planning, misused resources, 
and homes and relief that still have to reach those who need it.
  The question I have for my colleagues today is where is our bravery? 
Where is our commitment to those we protect and to those who protect 
us? It is a question that I hope my colleagues who plan to vote for the 
rule answer definitively here today. When we squander precious 
resources, when we waste time we do not have, when we fail to hold 
ourselves accountable, we sacrifice American lives. And when we refuse 
to insist upon integrity, oversight, and accountability in our own 
government, we undermine our very democracy at a time when we are 
trying to spread it abroad. But today we have an opportunity to begin 
anew and follow the proud tradition of one of America's greatest 
leaders.
  We have before us a Democratic proposal to create an oversight 
commission, one that will ensure that billions of dollars being spent 
on the war in Iraq, and today's expenditure brings that to $400 
billion, and that the rebuilding of New Orleans and the gulf coast are 
not lost in the black hole of corruption, cronyism, and no big 
contracts.
  We have an opportunity to restore checks and balances to the system 
of government and provide the accountability and oversight, which is 
our responsibility as Congresspersons to provide.
  Just like in Harry Truman's day, that responsibility transcends the 
politics of both Republicans and Democrats. Rather, it speaks to our 
willingness to preserve the fundamental values of our democratic system 
and the fundamental values of our Nation.
  I strongly urge my colleagues, as we prepare to spend $91.7 billion 
in taxpayer money, to vote against the rule and in favor of the 
previous question. It is a vote that will allow consideration of an 
amendment to create a new Truman Commission and to restore a measure of 
integrity, accountability, and oversight to this government, values 
which are so greatly missed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to note again for the record, while we are 
going to have discussions of many things here today, this is an open 
rule, any Member of the majority or the minority is free to bring an 
amendment to matters that are germane to the bill. This is as 
democratic on the floor of this institution as it ever gets. And while 
many will be, on both sides, disappointed that they didn't get to 
attach nongermane items to this particular bill, I think we are well 
served in this House by moving through regular order, which is an 
argument that we all make from time to time very vigorously on both 
sides of the aisle, but particularly the minority side.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Pence).

[[Page 3654]]


  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I especially thank the gentleman from 
Oklahoma for yielding time, inasmuch as I rise today with a heavy heart 
having to oppose the rule before the House.
  It is a rare occasion indeed where I or any Member would stand to 
oppose a rule produced by our Rules Committee. I simply believe I 
cannot support a rule that asks Members to choose between supporting 
our troops and fiscal responsibility, and this is such a rule.
  Mr. Speaker, we have an $8 trillion national debt, a debt that has 
grown by $3 trillion and debt ceiling which may be increased, even in 
the coming weeks, to nearly $9 trillion. Our record deficit in nominal 
terms set a 1-month record just a few short weeks ago. We have to put 
our fiscal house in order. And that means even as we go about the 
business of funding the war, and funding the ongoing critical 
reconstruction efforts in the gulf coast, we must do so in a manner 
that reflects a fundamental commitment to fiscal restraint.
  House conservatives lobbied consistently over the last several weeks 
to allow for this bill to come in the form of two pieces, a vote for 
our troops and a vote for Katrina. And the legislation we will have 
before us, though there will be a stripping amendment, will very likely 
result in a unified bill not giving Members that choice.
  But the reason I rise mostly in opposition of the rule is because 
there is no amendment that is being allowed under a waiver of the rules 
that will permit us to offset even the cost of a part of this bill 
through budget cuts. And I simply believe that in this day and age of 
record deficit and debts, it is absolutely vital that Members of 
Congress be able to register their commitment to fiscal discipline 
while we fund the Nation's priorities.
  It is for that reason that I was hoping that the Rules Committee 
would see their way clear, as they have with other aspects of this 
bill, to waive the rules that prevent legislating in an appropriations 
bill. In fact, my understanding is that the LIHEAP funding in this 
bill, in and of itself, is the result of a waiver. We have waived the 
rules many times to increase spending in the Congress. It would be a 
welcome change if we waived the rules to cut spending and continue the 
process of putting our fiscal house in order.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling) who joins me in opposition to this rule.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I also thank 
the gentleman from Oklahoma for graciously yielding this time and his 
good work on the Rules Committee.
  I want to associate myself with the gentleman from Indiana's 
comments. These are extraordinary times calling for extraordinary 
remedies. We must have a remedy for being able to vote for fiscal 
responsibility.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill, or the bill which will be debated 
under this rule, will spend $92 billion of the taxpayers' money. The 
largest portion of it will be to fund the continuing war in Iraq. It is 
here because of the most spectacular military blunder committed by any 
President of the United States in this country's history. We went to 
war on the basis of bad information, and we are now mired in that war 
because of the spectacular incompetence and stubbornness of the 
Secretary of Defense.
  We are also going to be asked to fund additional payments to meet the 
aftermath of the Katrina hurricane, which is another spectacular 
example of the incompetent management of government by this 
administration.

                              {time}  1045

  I am going to vote against the previous question on the rule because, 
while some 48 amendments have been noticed to the committee for 
consideration over the next 2 days, this House has still apparently not 
found a way to enable us to consider two other amendments.
  The first is the one mentioned by the gentlewoman from New York. We 
feel it is an obligation of this Congress to begin to conduct decent 
oversight on both the expenditures in Iraq and the expenditures in 
Katrina. This Congress has a miserable record on oversight. My 
colleague in the Senate, Mr. Feingold, introduced a resolution 
censuring the President for various actions that he has taken outside 
of the law. I believe that the Congress itself deserves censure for not 
meeting its oversight responsibilities.
  One way to meet those oversight responsibilities is to repeat what 
this Congress did during World War II when it created the Truman 
Commission. At that time, you had a Democratic Congress that was not 
afraid to investigate the activities of a Democratic administration, 
and Harry Truman investigated waste and war profiteering. They held 432 
public hearings, 300 executive sessions, went on hundreds of fact-
finding missions, issued 51 reports and saved some $15 billion of the 
taxpayers' money.
  We have stories that are rampant today about the abuse of taxpayer 
money in Iraq and Katrina, and yet this Congress is doing very little 
by way of aggressive oversight. I am going to vote against the previous 
question because I want to see an amendment creating a new Truman 
committee made in order.
  The second thing I want to see is I want to see Congress, since the 
committee has already voted to block the Dubai port deal, I want to see 
the Congress go beyond that and to establish a rational process to 
guarantee that in the future our government will know every time a 
similar transaction is being contemplated. Right now, the only way our 
government knows is if the two parties who have an economic interest in 
the deal voluntarily tell the United States Government.
  Mr. Sabo tried to get that amendment adopted in committee. It failed.
  In my view, if you are going the pass the Lewis amendment, which all 
but two members of the Appropriations Committee supported, it ought to 
also contain the Sabo amendment so that we do, in fact, establish a 
rational process so that we are not just looking like a flock of 
chickens every time something happens that panics the Congress. In that 
way, we would at least have a systematic way for the administration to 
review each and every one of these potential sales or transactions, and 
we would have a way for Congress to do the same.
  So, unless those two amendments can be considered by this House, I 
see no reason why I should support the previous question or the rule, 
for that matter.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me first reply to my good friends, the gentleman from Indiana and 
the gentleman from Texas, who spoke earlier about their concern about 
the rule.
  I remind them both, and as I will remind repeatedly everyone on this 
rule, we have an open rule today. If my friends on the other side of 
the aisle have something they object to, for instance they could strike 
title II of this particular bill, and, frankly, it would go right back 
to committee, so there is no need to bring down the rule. The 
mechanisms are in place, the processes are in place for the House to 
work its will.
  I would also remind my friends on both sides of the aisle that this 
bill ultimately, not the rule, but the bill itself, is ultimately about 
providing for the needs of American forces in the field in combat 
today, now. We can debate whether the war was wise, whether it is 
conducted well, at our leisure. They need what they need immediately, 
and we should respond to their needs, regardless of what our opinions 
are where the war is concerned or regardless of what our opinions are 
in terms of procurement or spending.
  And I say the same thing with respect to our fellow citizens along 
the gulf coast. They need help now. This House has responded generously 
twice already in supplementals. This is the third one. We will be back 
here again without a doubt dealing with that item. I do not think for 
procedural questions, particularly when we have

[[Page 3655]]

an open rule, we should risk slowing down things that our troops in the 
field need or that our fellow citizens in need along the gulf coast 
require.
  My good friend from Wisconsin, and he is my good friend, made the 
point which I do not want to leave uncontested that this, quote, 
President had engaged in the worst military blunder in American 
history. That is a remarkable statement, considering the Vietnam era 
where we had Democratic Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson 
commit us to a war.
  The fact is this war has the lowest casualty rate in American 
history, and the stakes are enormously high. Were we to lose in this 
particular endeavor, there is no question that our enemies around the 
world would gather strength. It would be seen as a victory for 
terrorists; it would be seen as a lack of will on the part of the 
United States.
  I think the stakes here are worth it. I have been to Iraq on five 
occasions, and one can always be critical of specific things. I do not 
think you can be critical of our forces in the field. Their performance 
is brilliant.
  And, honestly, let me say a word here on behalf of the Iraqi people. 
We did ask them to rise up in 1991, and we did not do a thing. 
Thousands of them were slaughtered. Now we have come again. We have 
helped them liberate themselves from one of the worst tyrants certainly 
in the history of their country and certainly in regional history, and 
they have asked our help to stay and work through a difficult process.
  They have demonstrated their bravery again and again and again in 
three different elections where they came out to vote under very 
difficult circumstances. They demonstrate their bravery in the field in 
their commitment and their willingness to take on an increasing range 
of responsibility. Even when I am occasionally frustrated with 
politicians in Iraq, as I sometimes am frustrated with ourselves in 
this body, I stop and remember they are exceptionally brave people.
  My colleagues and I may worry about losing an election. Most of us do 
not worry about losing our life by engaging in a political process to 
make our country free. I think when people make that kind of sacrifice 
in the pursuit of democracy and freedom, they deserve the support of 
this body among all bodies in this world and certainly this country.
  Let me add, frankly, one other point on Katrina. I know many of my 
colleagues have had the opportunity and taken the opportunity to go 
down and visit the gulf coast. Personally, I certainly have done that; 
and I would just tell all my friends that have concerns about the 
expenditure of funds in that particular area, and sometimes I do as 
well, go look at the damage. It is massive. It is massive.
  Again, we had a very critical and I think very good report issued by 
a special committee of this body, chaired by my good friend, 
distinguished chairman of the Government Reform Committee, Tom Davis, 
that was unstintingly critical. I remind my friends on the other side 
of the aisle, unfortunately, they did not participate in that. They 
chose to think it would be a sham, and clearly it was not. There are 
mechanisms and means for us to look at and learn the lessons of Katrina 
and apply them and let the chips fall where they may in the process. 
Rejecting the rule will bring down the underlying bill and, in my 
opinion, is not one of them.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, New Orleans is not the only place where 
tens of thousands of Americans stand in peril from flooding and 
drowning because of defective levees. The good people across three 
congressional districts along the Rio Grande River at the southernmost 
tip of Texas are just as much at risk with hurricane season only weeks 
away. That is why I will be offering today an amendment to prevent the 
next Katrina-like disaster.
  We Texans in the Valley must rely on the Federal Government, which 
has the exclusive, sole responsibility for ensuring the integrity of 
our levees and protecting our lives and livelihood from flooding. 
Exactly 1,018 days ago, this Administration received an alarming report 
from a part of its own State Department that those Federal levees are 
up to ``9 feet deficient in height,'' geologically flawed, structurally 
unsound, and would ``overtop along 38 river miles.''
  So urgent is the problem that last year the Appropriations Committee 
asked the Administration to request additional levee money, and I 
believe the State Department wants to do this, but the President's 
request is strangely silent on this matter.
  Recognizing the risk of loss of lives, the disruption of families, 
the substantial economic harm that would be caused, 39 local 
governments, chambers of commerce and economic development corporations 
have called on this administration to act. So have Congressmen Ortiz, 
Reyes, Hinojosa and myself, working together, to seek the $7.8 million 
requested here which represents the difference between the little bit 
that was appropriated last year and what the IBWC says it needs to 
prevent a flooding disaster.
  A few million in flood prevention today could save billions of 
dollars in flood relief. The Federal Government should not shirk its 
responsibility, its sole responsibility, to protect the lives and 
livelihood of the good Americans who live and work in the Texas Rio 
Grande Valley.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, once again we are asked to provide tens of 
billions of dollars for the war in Iraq under the pretense that this 
war, now entering its fourth year, is a so-called unexpected emergency. 
The Iraq war is indeed an emergency, Mr. Speaker, but it is hardly 
unexpected.
  I support the funds provided in this bill for the continuing 
hurricane relief and recovery for the people in the gulf coast. I 
support the funding for emergency humanitarian needs, famine relief and 
peacekeepers in Darfur, Sudan.
  I would like to be clear, Mr. Speaker, I support our diplomatic, 
humanitarian, economic and military activities in Afghanistan, but I 
simply cannot support a single dime more for the war in Iraq.
  Every day, the American people wake up to headlines describing how 
much worse the situation grows in Iraq: Iraqi Police Tied to Abuses and 
Deaths; Chaos in Iraq; U.S. General Says U.S. Troops Add to 
Instability; 72 Percent of U.S. Troops Want Withdrawal Within a Year.
  Mr. Speaker, Iraq is in the midst of a spiraling civil war. On 
February 26, Pentagon officials said that the number of Iraqi army 
battalions capable of fighting the insurgency on their own has slipped 
since September from one battalion to none. The newly formed government 
is paralyzed by sectarian divisions.
  The U.S. has turned its back on rebuilding Iraq. Ironically, the Bush 
administration has no problem cutting and running on reconstruction for 
Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, did you know that the only new construction aid in this 
supplemental is for more prisons in Iraq? Not schools or hospitals or 
roads, just prisons.
  As both the GAO and the Inspector General have determined, there 
never was any systematic plan for stabilization and reconstruction in 
Iraq. Now we are paying the price.
  Over 2,300 American military men and women have paid the ultimate 
price, their lives, trying to do their best to implement this awful 
policy, but it cannot be done, Mr. Speaker. And we cannot allow 
ourselves to be on the floor of this House next year looking at another 
so-called emergency supplemental for Iraq and talking about 5,000 or 
10,000 American troops who have lost their lives.
  It is time to bring our uniformed men and women home. It is time to 
begin a safe, orderly drawdown of our troops, one that we can control. 
If the Iraqis are not willing to solve their own problems through less 
bloody means, then

[[Page 3656]]

why on Earth should American troops die for them?
  Like so many of my House colleagues, once we were in Iraq, I felt we 
had a moral obligation to help the Iraqis rebuild their nation and form 
a representative government, but, Mr. Speaker, we are not helping 
anymore. Our presence is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
  Mr. Speaker, it is easy for Members of this House to stand up and 
say, stay the course because, quite frankly, none of us are risking our 
lives. None of us are in harm's way. None of us are stuck over there 
because of the stunning failure and ineptitude of politicians in 
Washington.

                              {time}  1100

  If you want to protect our troops, let's bring them home.
  So it is with regret, genuine regret, that I must vote against 
passage of the supplemental. The House has become addicted to voting 
for more money for a policy that has gone terribly, terribly wrong. It 
is time to stop.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The Chair would remind Members 
to attempt, for the benefit of all, to abide time limits in debate.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I came here this morning, 
obviously, to debate the rule. But as is so often the case in rules 
debate, we move on to the bill itself and some of the larger purposes. 
And I am always content and happy to have that debate. I think it is an 
important discussion for the American people to hear.
  My good friend from Massachusetts, from the other side of the aisle, 
mentioned that essentially things are worse in Iraq. Worse than what? 
And worse than when? Worse than having Saddam Hussein in power? I think 
not. I would much rather have him where he is, in a courtroom, in jail, 
and no longer launching regional wars that claimed over a million 
lives.
  Worse than 423 mass grave sites that have been uncovered since the 
arrival of coalition forces in Iraq? I think not. Worse than 400,000 
Iraqis killed in the decade before the liberation of Iraq? Again, I 
think not.
  I think that we sometimes, on this floor, act as if we are doing a 
favor to the people of Iraq by leaving. I think that is dangerously 
misguided logic. I do not think it is a favor. I do not think that it 
is a favor to the people in Iraq. That is not what their duly elected 
representatives have asked us to do.
  They, by the way, are running enormous risks for their own freedom. 
They rose up to try to get their own freedom in 1991. We didn't do, in 
my opinion, what we should have done then. I have been there five 
times. I see more and more Iraqis doing more and more things for 
themselves, and I see no one that asks the United States to leave 
precipitously.
  I also would disagree with my good friend on the issue of whether or 
not our interests are involved in this. I think they very much are 
involved in Iraq. I think that victory is an extraordinarily important 
thing for this country to secure. I think staying the course, or 
remaining and staying with our friends that are fighting now, in part 
because we are there, is a very important message to send to the 
region.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his 
courtesy.
  I would simply say to the gentleman that the situation in Iraq right 
now is out of control. There is a civil war. A majority of the Iraqis 
want us gone. A majority of our troops believe that we should come 
home.
  And I know the gentleman has been there. I have been there, too. Let 
me tell you something. It is one thing for a United States Congressman 
to go over and visit in Iraq and be protected 24 hours while they are 
over there; it is another thing for a American soldier to be put in the 
middle of a civil war where so many have lost their lives for a policy 
that has been based on fiction.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Reclaiming my time, I would disagree with the 
gentleman on a number of points, but on one in particular.
  It is not easy for anybody in this body to make the decision to send 
American troops into harm's way. My father was a career military 
person. My uncle spent 3\1/2\ years in a Japanese prison camp. My 
brother is a disabled Vietnam-era veteran, although not disabled in 
Vietnam. I have 15,000 soldiers at Fort Sill that I am privileged to 
represent. I have got another 8,000 or 9,000 airmen at Tinker Air Force 
Base that I am privileged to represent. My cousin is a lieutenant 
colonel in the United States Air Force, who spent 6 months in 
Afghanistan and 6 months in Iraq under very dangerous and difficult 
circumstances.
  These are not decisions that anybody makes lightly for or against. 
Those people who are opposed to the war, as my good friend noted in the 
Rules Committee yesterday, initially, when it was ``popular,'' did not 
make an easy decision. It is not popular today. Those of us who are 
still supportive of that effort are not making an easy decision. We are 
making what we think is the right decision. I respect my friend's 
motives in that regard. I think he has always been consistent. His 
judgment has been consistent, even though we have consistently 
disagreed. I would ask for the same sentiment in reverse; that those of 
us who hold a different point of view are equally honorable in our 
motivation, equally intense about what we are doing, and equally 
convinced the course we are advocating is the correct one.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentlewoman, and I just share with my friend 
from Oklahoma, too bad we couldn't have had the debate you are now 
having at the beginning of the Iraq situation instead of going in on 
false information and on false pretenses. I think it would have been a 
much more enlightened debate, and I am sure you could have held your 
own at that point in time as you are doing here.
  The shame of it is, of course, that the country was not told we were 
going into Iraq for anything to do with Saddam Hussein, other than 
weapons of mass destruction that were never found, connections with al 
Qaeda that were never found, and on that basis. That is why many in 
this country feel they have been misrepresented in this situation and 
that it has been badly prosecuted since then with tremendous 
incompetency.
  The tremendous incompetency continues in a number of different ways, 
one of which is the contracting that has been going on and the loss of 
money, the mismanagement of money, the inability to track where money 
has gone for the American taxpayer in there, which is why Congressman 
Jim Leach of Iowa and I have filed over the last several years a bill 
to set up the Truman Commission, based on the commission that happened 
during World War II when Senator Truman had a commission investigate 
the contracting, and in a Democrat administration, and they did two 
things: one was it made sure that the materials got to the troops that 
they needed at that time. And it saved lives. It was for their 
protection, to make sure the money wasn't wasted and that it went for 
the things the troops needed. And the other, of course, was to make 
sure the taxpayers' money was being spent as it should.
  There are two things that Congress does: one is legislate and the 
other is oversight, to make sure the taxpayers' money is being spent 
properly and that the policy is being carried out in the way that it 
should. This Congress has been incredibly lacking in the oversight 
area. We have not done our job, particularly with regard to what is 
going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is why I am going to vote 
against the motion here for the rule. Because we ought to have waivers 
for the motions that Mr. Leach and I brought to make sure that we 
investigate, have a separate commission set up to investigate.

[[Page 3657]]

  Yes, this is an open rule, but it very pointedly leaves out that type 
of oversight, both in the Afghan and Iraq situation, and in the Katrina 
situation, where we are seeing the same kind of incompetence and waste 
and questionable action that might lead to fraud. In both instances, 
people will be hurt there if supplies are not gotten to them 
immediately, and the taxpayer will be hurt if the money isn't spent 
efficiently. So we ought to do that.
  And with respect to the gentleman's argument that we are in such a 
rush and this is an emergency, the brief period of time it would take 
to make those corrections and put those waivers in are not going to 
bring us beyond the period of time for which money already exists that 
is protecting our troops and dealing with the people in the gulf area.
  So I think it is important that we do our job. It is about time this 
Congress stood up. Not one dollar more. Because every dollar that is 
wasted is a dollar that isn't being spent on body armor and roadside 
jammers for bombs, and up-armor for Humvees. Every dollar wasted is not 
getting housing and other services to people in Louisiana and 
Mississippi and that region.
  It is time we put the waivers in place and we went forward with these 
investigatory commissions so that as things are transpiring, we can 
know that we are doing our job of oversight and the troops in one area, 
and the victims of the storms in the other area are getting the 
materials and the things that they need, and that the American 
taxpayers' money is being protected.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I want to address several of the 
points of my good friend from Massachusetts.
  First, in terms of going into war without the information and without 
the debate. I was not in Congress when that decision was made, and, 
frankly, I looked back and have read the debates very carefully, 
watched the debates at that time, and know that, frankly, everybody 
that was voting voted on the best information they had available at 
that time.
  Frankly, I remind my good friend that we were operating with a CIA 
that was run by a President Clinton appointee, that he was pretty 
adamant in terms of there were WMDs there. That was the shared opinion 
of every other intelligence agency in the world. And, again, I don't 
question the motives of the decision that was made.
  I would also add this. For me, the more compelling figure is not what 
we found before we thought we were going, but what we found after. I go 
back to those mass grave sites and I go back to those tens of thousands 
of people that were killed. And, frankly, I go back to a level of 
American responsibility for allowing that to persist, in my opinion, 
after 1991.
  I relate to my friend a story that I heard on my very first visit to 
Iraq, when I was talking to a young American sergeant. It was becoming 
evident at that point that the stockpiles we thought were going to be 
there weren't there. There was dual-use technology, and perhaps the 
potential to recreate something. No question Saddam Hussein was working 
his way out of restrictions, but what we thought was there, wasn't 
there.
  And I asked this young sergeant who had risked his life in the drive 
to Baghdad what he thought, given that information. And he first gave 
me sort of a nice stock political answer and said basically what I 
said: Well, we don't know. We are still looking. And I said, but we 
haven't found any. And he looked at me, and I will never, ever forget 
what he said when I said, so, was it worth it? And he answered my 
question with a question.
  He said, sir, have you ever been to a mass grave site? And I said, 
no, I haven't. He said, I have. He said, you haven't seen anything 
until you see bodies coming out of the ground and hundreds of family 
members trying to identify them and wailing. And I have seen that, and 
I wonder why the whole world wasn't here 10 years ago. That is a good 
question for us to ask ourselves inuring the course of this debate.
  I also want to address my friend's point about a commission in two 
ways. First, by making the point that there is a good deal of oversight 
that goes on in this process. I used to serve on the House Armed 
Services Committee. I still do. I have a waiver on that committee now. 
But that committee, I can assure you, is very thorough in its 
oversight. I think appropriations has an oversight function.
  But, finally, and more importantly, I think on this particular piece 
of legislation, both sides of the House often ask for an open rule, and 
anything germane to this piece of legislation, this supplemental 
appropriation, can be brought here. I think that is a very good thing. 
Now we are being told we not only want things that are germane to one 
of the largest spending bills and one of the most important pieces of 
legislation that we will deal with this year, we want things that are 
not germane. We want waivers granted.
  And, by the way, we are being told that by both sides of the aisle. 
This is not an exclusive demand. I think it is a misdirected demand. I 
would like to see us move back toward more open rules, more regular 
order, and I think this rule is a step in that direction.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I yield 20 seconds to my friend.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you.
  Well, first of all, I was here when we voted on the Iraq thing, and 
believe me, there was plenty of information for people that wanted to 
look at it to know which way things were going. And certainly our White 
House should have known which way things were going, and they made 
representations that turned out not to be accurate. So people can be 
responsible for their acts.
  Secondly, the mass graves you are talking about are mass graves of 
the late 1980s, early 1990s, when members of our present administration 
were over there being friendly with the Iraqis and with Saddam Hussein.
  It is never not germane for this body to do its oversight duty. It is 
always germane.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Reclaiming my time. I disagree with my friend's 
characterization of when the mass graves were. There are certainly 35 
years' worth of mass graves in Iraq, but a lot of them are from 1991 
on, and particularly from the uprising of the Shi'a against Saddam 
Hussein, when an American Army was sitting on their border and we urged 
them to rise up and did nothing to help them.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to yield 30 seconds to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. I want to clarify that in 1991, the first Mr. Bush was 
President, when you were encouraging the uprising to go into that, and 
that is a period of time when there were many mass graves in that 
situation.
  And, secondly, I just want to drive home the point that there is 
never a time when oversight for this group is not germane to the 
function that we do. We legislate, we have oversight, and there has 
been no effective oversight of either the Katrina situation or what is 
going on with contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, not from any 
committee in this body, and the record is clear on that and it speaks 
for itself.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Let me just make a quick point on Katrina.
  Actually, there was good oversight there. Chairman Davis had a very 
good committee. Unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the 
aisle chose largely not to participate in an oversight function.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say 
that President Bush's first Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. O'Neill, 
wrote a book after he left and commented that the first Cabinet meeting 
he went to, in January, they were discussing going into Iraq, to his 
great surprise. So that was planned long before September 11.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Sabo).
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  I am disappointed that the Rules Committee has not allowed me to 
offer my amendment to strengthen the CFIUS foreign investment review 
process during consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill.
  Americans deserve a rigorous review of foreign investments that 
affect our

[[Page 3658]]

national security posture. Never again should we find that the 
President and the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Treasury and 
Defense are unaware of a critical transaction until after it has been 
approved.
  As you know, the Appropriations Committee voted overwhelmingly last 
week to kill the Dubai World Port terminal acquisition, which, it is my 
understanding, requires a rule waiver to be made germane. It declined, 
however, to address the larger underlying process problem.

                              {time}  1115

  My amendment would strengthen the CFIUS process in the following 
ways: all transactions that could result in foreign control of any 
person engaged in interstate commerce would be required to undergo a 
full review to determine whether it affects U.S. national security.
  Today, foreign firms voluntarily, and let me say that again, 
voluntarily notify us of these transactions. I believe notification 
must be mandatory to ensure that our government knows about all such 
transactions.
  My amendment would also retain the Secretary of the Treasury as the 
chairperson of the committee. The President would be required to 
approve or disapprove of all transactions. Today, if the President 
takes no action, the transaction is automatically approved.
  The review period would automatically extend to the full 75 days. 
Current practice allows most transactions to be reviewed within 30 
days, with an additional 45 days only if flags are raised.
  Congress must be notified of Presidential decisions. Furthermore, 
Congress could overturn approvals within 30 days by a joint resolution. 
Today, Congress is notified of a CFIUS transaction only when the 
President disapproves one.
  Within 90 days of enactment, the administration would also be 
required to report to Congress on foreign ownership of all U.S. 
critical infrastructure. Today, no one really knows how much of our 
critical infrastructure is in the hands of foreign companies and 
foreign governments.
  Failing to fix the inherent flaws in the CFIUS process leaves our 
Nation vulnerable in the future. We should not take that chance. We 
should act now to strengthen the foreign investment review process.
  I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so this 
amendment can be made in order and the House can vote on this important 
issue.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his 
point. I thought he had a very interesting amendment yesterday in the 
Rules Committee. I think it is a topic and amendment that deserves a 
great deal of study because I think the reform of that process is very 
much in order.
  I would prefer that we move through an authorizing committee to do 
that, as opposed to simply discussing it in the Rules Committee, where 
we have no background, no staff, and then immediately inject it onto 
the floor.
  My disagreement with my friend is largely over process here, and not 
necessarily over substance. I hope we do look at that process and do 
take his very thoughtful amendment into consideration through regular 
order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I would simply say, ordinarily, I would agree that the 
authorizing committee should deal with this issue. But given the fact 
that the Appropriations Committee at the leadership level took the 
action to wipe out the Dubai deal, to me it was appropriate that we 
make that provision have even more sense by having it attached by the 
same committee that did the other deed.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would draw a 
distinction here. I think there is a big difference between stopping a 
decision that you disagree with, which I think can be done without a 
great deal of moving through process, and changing a process itself. I 
think that is actually a more difficult, time-consuming, complex 
operation. I think it needs an authorizing committee to look at it.
  I think it is very appropriate for the Appropriations Committee to 
say, stop, we have serious concerns, we do not want to go through with 
this; and hopefully at that point we would proceed by regular order and 
consider the gentleman's thoughtful amendments that may come along.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  I am going to be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so I can modify the rule and allow the House to consider two 
very critical amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the first amendment by Mr. Sabo will 
create a new review and approval process to ensure that the secret, 
backroom deals, like the irresponsible Dubai Ports World, cannot happen 
again. The Sabo amendment strengthens the process by which our 
government reviews future foreign takeovers. It will require that all 
foreign transactions that could result in foreign control of any entity 
engaged in interstate commerce must undergo a thorough review that 
mandates the direct involvement of the President and the Congress.
  The second amendment, by Ms. Kaptur, will create a select 
congressional committee based on the Truman Committee from the Second 
World War to investigate and study the awarding and carrying out of 
government contracts, to conduct military and reconstruction activities 
in Iraq, and for the rebuilding efforts in the gulf coast in the wake 
of Hurricane Katrina.
  There is ample evidence of the necessity of this modern-day Truman 
Committee. Every day, more examples of fraud emerge. Billions and 
billions of dollars have been misused both in this country and 
overseas, and ensuring vigilant oversight of taxpayer dollars should 
not be a partisan issue. We owe it to the American taxpayers. We owe it 
to our brave soldiers in harm's way, and we owe it to the citizens in 
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama who struggle every day to put their 
lives back together after the ravages of Hurricane Katrina.
  I want to emphasize that this vote, the vote on whether to order the 
previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A 
vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the 
narrow, inflexible agenda of the majority.
  A ``no'' vote will allow those of us concerned about the safety and 
security of America to create a more responsible process for 
contracting out of our interstate commerce activities to any foreign 
entities. It would allow us to investigate the spending irregularities 
that have occurred with respect to the war in Iraq and the 
reconstruction efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In short, 
it is a vote to consider the priorities of the American people, the 
priorities blocked by the majority.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question will not prevent the consideration of the supplemental bill. 
The bill will still be considered in its entirety. However, a ``yes'' 
vote will prevent us from voting on these two important initiatives. I 
urge all Members to join with me in supporting our soldiers and vote 
``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  In closing, I would like to say I believe we have had an excellent 
debate today. What is clear to me is the importance and the timeliness 
of this legislation. With that said, I would encourage Members to 
listen carefully to

[[Page 3659]]

the following debate and to vote in support of the underlying 
legislation.
  Additionally, I would encourage Members to be cautious when 
considering the amendments. This bill has been carefully crafted and 
worked in a way to ensure that our servicemen receive the best 
equipment when they go to war.
  Equally important, the bill contains important measures to help our 
fellow citizens in the gulf coast as they continue to deal with the 
consequences of the worst natural disaster in American history.
  Finally, I would ask Members to remember this is not a vote about the 
wisdom of the war in Iraq. The President and the Congress made that 
decision years ago. This vote is about giving those we have asked to 
execute our policy in Iraq the tools they need to do their job. The men 
and women serving our cause in Iraq ask for nothing more. In good 
conscience, we should give them nothing less.
  Similarly, this is not a debate about the nature of the governmental 
response to Hurricane Katrina. This matter has been dealt with in a 
detailed report issued by a select committee chaired by the chairman of 
the Government Reform Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom 
Davis).
  Finally, this is also not a vote in essence about fiscal discipline. 
The process that the rule allows would allowed those concerned about 
spending to strip portions of the bill that concern them and send them 
back. It would also, of course, allow them at the end to vote against 
the bill itself if they thought it was too expensive. The rule allows, 
as I wish to remind my colleagues, for an open rule, that is, any 
Member of this body, majority or minority, can bring an issue germane 
to the bill to the floor, have it heard and have it decided. This is a 
movement toward regular order, and I think it is one we should respect 
and appreciate by upholding the rule.
  To close, I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, we will soon consider a bill that will 
provide more than $90 billion for the continued wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan and the continued response to Hurricane Katrina. As we 
debate this bill, we must also put in place measures to ensure that 
these funds are spent wisely.
  As a result of the work of the special Inspector General in Iraq and 
the General Accountability Office, we know that billions of dollars has 
been wasted, and fraud and abuse is rife in the Katrina rebuilding and 
the war in Iraq.
  One would presume that after being advised that taxpayer money had 
been misused, Congress would make certain that similar misuse would not 
occur in the future. Sadly, that presumption would be wrong. Perhaps no 
failures have been so regular and so great in the Republican Congress 
as the failure to do effective oversight.
  Today, we have a chance to reverse this record of lax oversight by 
allowing the consideration of the Kaptur-Sabo amendment. The amendment 
would add some strength to an oversight process badly in need of it by: 
establishing a select committee modeled on the World War II Truman 
Committee and ensuring that Congress would have a vote on the adequacy 
of the national security review done on any proposed acquisition by a 
foreign entity of a business involved in interstate commerce in the 
United States.
  The Truman Committee taught two important lessons--especially in war 
time--contractor performance needs to be closely scrutinized, and that 
scrutiny can be provided without partisanship.
  Reports that $9 billion in money intended for use in Iraq cannot be 
accounted for should be reason enough to create a Truman-like 
committee, as envisioned by Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Tierney, and Mr. Leach. 
Evidence that money that was supposed to relieve suffering in the areas 
devastated by Katrina has been misused offers a strong endorsement.
  Our recent experience with the Dubai Ports World acquisition should 
have convinced us that Congress has a role in determining whether and 
when foreign entities can safely operate elements of our critical 
infrastructure. These determinations are simply too important to be 
left solely to the judgment of the executive branch. Mr. Sabo proposes 
a workable, common-sense process. We should consider it today.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people expect Congress to do more than 
write blank checks. They expect us to be aggressive in making sure that 
money is spent responsibly. Unfortunately, this Republican Congress has 
failed to meet this expectation. With this amendment we could begin the 
oversight of taxpayer dollars that should have begun long ago. I urge 
my colleagues to defeat the previous question and let us adopt the 
Kaptur-Sabo amendment.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
previous question so that the House can consider a critical amendment 
that would strengthen the CFIUS review process.
  As we know all too well from the recent controversy over the Dubai 
ports deal, the current process for reviewing foreign takeover of 
national infrastructure is deeply flawed. Federal law currently allows 
the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) up to 
30 days to examine a potential sale and determine whether to begin a 
more thorough 45-day security investigation. This process is meant to 
examine the national security implications of handing over critical 
infrastructure to foreign companies. However, as we now know, far too 
often the committee forgoes a deeper review of these deals. CIFIUS has 
investigated an estimated 1500 foreign investment transactions since it 
was established, of which 25 have gone into the 45 day review and only 
one has been blocked.
  Defeating the previous question would allow the House to consider an 
amendment offered by Mr. Sabo that is blocked by the underlying rule. 
The Sabo amendment would strengthen the current CFIUS process by 
requiring all foreign transactions that could result in foreign control 
of any asset or infrastructure that affects national security to 
undergo a full review. It mandates a more critical look at these deals 
by ensuring a 75 day security review of CFIUS transactions and requires 
the President to either approve or disapprove all deals. The amendment 
also requires that Congress be notified of Presidential approvals and 
allows for Congress to overturn decisions within 30 days with a joint 
resolution. In total, these changes would bring some common sense 
reform to a process that is central to the security of our vital 
infrastructure and the American people.
  The Dubai Port World deal showed that the actions of the Committee on 
Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) need to be taken out of 
the shadows and brought into the light. Congress should not be rubber-
stamping the Administration's backroom deals, it should be reviewing 
them thoroughly. While H.R. 4939 will put an end to the already dead 
Dubai Ports World deal, focusing on this one transaction ignores the 
larger flaws in the CFIUS review process and the wide gaps in our port 
security. This important amendment deserves nothing less than an up-or-
down vote.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

   Previous Question for H. Res. 725--Rule on H.R. 4939, March 2006 
         Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq/Katrina

       At the end of the resolution add the following:
       Sec. 2. Before consideration of any other amendment it 
     shall be in order to consider the amendments printed in 
     section 3, which may be offered only in the order specified, 
     may be offered only by the Member designated or a designee, 
     shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to 
     amendment except pro forma amendments for the purpose of 
     debate, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of 
     the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. 
     All points of order against such amendments are waived.
       Sec. 3. The amendments referred to in section 2 are as 
     follows:
       (a) Amendment offered by Representative Sabo:

                  Amendment to H.R. 4939, as Reported

                    Offered by Mr. Sabo of Minnesota

       Page 83, after line 16, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 3011A. (a) Section 721 of the Defense Production Act 
     of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 721. INVESTIGATION OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS FOR 
                   NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) Investigations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Upon receiving written notification, as 
     prescribed by regulations under this section, of any merger, 
     acquisition, or takeover proposed or pending on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this section by or with any foreign 
     person which could result in foreign control of any person 
     engaged in interstate commerce in the United States, the 
     President, acting through the President's designee and the 
     Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States shall 
     conduct an investigation to determine the effects, if any, of 
     the proposed or pending merger, acquisition, or takeover on 
     the national security of the United States.
       ``(2) Timing.--Any investigation required under paragraph 
     (1) shall be completed before the end of the 75-day period 
     beginning

[[Page 3660]]

     on the date of the receipt by the President or the 
     President's designee of written notification of the proposed 
     or pending merger, acquisition, or takeover.
       ``(b) Confidentiality of Information.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any information or documentary material 
     filed with the President or the President's designee pursuant 
     to this section shall be exempt from disclosure under section 
     552 of title 5, United States Code, and no such information 
     or documentary material may be made public, except as may be 
     relevant to any administrative or judicial action or 
     proceeding.
       ``(2) Availability to the congress.--No provision of 
     paragraph (1) shall be construed as preventing the disclosure 
     of any information or documentary material to either House of 
     Congress or to any duly authorized committee or subcommittee 
     of the Congress.
       ``(c) Committee on Foreign Investment in the United 
     States.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Committee on Foreign Investment 
     in the United States established pursuant to Executive Order 
     No. 11858 (hereafter in this section referred to as the 
     `Committee') shall be a multi-agency committee to carry out 
     this section and such other assignments as the President may 
     designate.
       ``(2) Membership.--The Committee shall be comprised of the 
     following members:
       ``(A) The Secretary of the Treasury.
       ``(B) The Secretary of State.
       ``(C) The Secretary of Defense.
       ``(D) The Secretary of Homeland Security.
       ``(E) The Attorney General.
       ``(F) The Secretary of Commerce.
       ``(G) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
       ``(H) The United States Trade Representative.
       ``(I) The Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors.
       ``(J) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
     Policy.
       ``(3) Chairperson.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall be 
     the Chairperson of the Committee.
       ``(4) Other members.--The Chairperson of the Committee 
     shall involve the heads of such other Federal agencies, the 
     Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and 
     the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy in any 
     investigation under subsection (a) as the Chairperson 
     determines to be appropriate on the basis of the facts and 
     circumstances of the transaction under investigation.
       ``(5) Role of the director of national intelligence.--The 
     Director of National Intelligence shall provide appropriate 
     intelligence analysis and intelligence briefings to the 
     Committee.
       ``(d) Action by the President.--
       ``(1) In general.--No proposed or pending acquisition, 
     merger, or takeover, of a person engaged in interstate 
     commerce in the United States by or with foreign persons may 
     occur unless the President, on the basis of an investigation 
     and report by the Committee, finds that such acquisition, 
     merger or takeover, will not threaten to impair the national 
     security of the United States, as defined by regulations 
     prescribed pursuant to this section, and approves the 
     transaction.
       ``(2) Enforcement.--The President shall direct the Attorney 
     General to seek appropriate relief, including divestment 
     relief, in the district courts of the United States in order 
     to implement and enforce--
       ``(A) any finding, action, or determination under this 
     section of disapproval of an acquisition, merger, or 
     takeover; or
       ``(B) any conditions imposed on any approval of any 
     acquisition, merger, or takeover.
       ``(3) Finality of determinations.--All actions and 
     determinations under this section shall be final and not 
     subject to judicial review.
       ``(e) Findings by the President.--
       ``(1) In general.--A finding under this section of 
     impairment or threatened impairment to national security 
     shall be based on credible evidence that leads the President 
     to believe that--
       ``(A) the foreign interest exercising control might take 
     action that threatens to impair the national security; and
       ``(B) other provisions of law do not provide adequate and 
     appropriate authority for the President to protect the 
     national security.
       ``(2) Factors to be considered.--Any investigation under 
     this section shall take into account the following factors:
       ``(A) Domestic production needed for projected national 
     defense requirements.
       ``(B) The capability and capacity of domestic industries to 
     meet national defense requirements, including the 
     availability of human resources, products, technology, 
     materials, and other supplies and services.
       ``(C) The control of domestic industries and commercial 
     activity by foreign citizens as it affect the capability and 
     capacity of the United States to meet the requirements of 
     national security.
       ``(D) The potential effects of the proposed or pending 
     transaction on sales of military goods, equipment, or 
     technology to any country--
       ``(i) identified by the Secretary of State--

       ``(I) under section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act 
     of 1979, as a country that supports terrorism;
       ``(II) under section 6(l) of the Export Administration Act 
     of 1979, as a country of concern regarding missile 
     proliferation; or
       ``(III) under section 6(m) of the Export Administration Act 
     of 1979, as a country of concern regarding the proliferation 
     of chemical and biological weapons; or

       ``(ii) listed under section 309(c) of the Nuclear Non-
     Proliferation Act of 1978 on the `Nuclear Non-Proliferation-
     Special Country List' (15 C.F.R. Part 778, Supplement No. 4) 
     or any successor list.
       ``(E) The potential effects on the proposed or pending 
     transaction on United States international technological 
     leadership in areas affecting United States national 
     security.
       ``(f) Report to the Congress.--Upon making any 
     determination to approve or disapprove any merger, 
     acquisition, or takeover by or with any foreign person which 
     could result in foreign control of any person engaged in 
     interstate commerce in the United States, the President shall 
     immediately transmit to the Secretary of the Senate and the 
     Clerk of the House of Representatives a written report of the 
     President's determination under this section to approve or 
     disapprove such merger, acquisition, or takeover, including a 
     detailed explanation of the finding made and factors 
     considered.
       ``(g) Congressional Action.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the determination of the President 
     contained in the report transmitted to the Congress under 
     subsection (f) is that the President will approve any merger, 
     acquisition, or takeover under subsection (d) and not later 
     than 30 days after the date on which Congress receives the 
     report, a joint resolution described in paragraph (2) is 
     enacted into law, then the President shall take such action 
     under subsection (d) as is necessary to prohibit the merger, 
     acquisition, or takeover, including, if such acquisition has 
     been completed, directing the Attorney General to seek 
     divestment or other appropriate relief in the district courts 
     of the United States.
       ``(2) Joint resolution described.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), the term `joint resolution' means a joint 
     resolution of the Congress, the sole matter after the 
     resolving clause of which is as follows: `That the Congress 
     disapproves the determination of approval of the President 
     contained in the report submitted to Congress pursuant to 
     section 721(f) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 on 
     _____.', with the blank space being filled with the 
     appropriate date.
       ``(3) Computation of review period.--In computing the 30-
     day period referred to in paragraph (1), there shall be 
     excluded any day described in section 154(b) of the Trade Act 
     of 1974.
       ``(h) Regulations.--The President shall direct the issuance 
     of regulations to carry out this section. Such regulations 
     shall, to the extent possible, minimize paperwork burdens and 
     shall to the extent possible coordinate reporting 
     requirements under this section with reporting requirements 
     under any other provision of Federal law.
       ``(i) Effect on Other Law.--No provision of this section 
     shall be construed as altering or affecting any existing 
     authority, power, process, regulation, investigation, 
     enforcement measure, or review provided by any other 
     provision of law.
       ``(j) Technology Risk Assessments.--In any case in which an 
     assessment of the risk of diversion of defense critical 
     technology is performed by the Committee or any other 
     designee of the President, a copy of such assessment shall be 
     provided to any other designee of the President responsible 
     for reviewing or investigating a merger, acquisition, or 
     takeover under this section.
       ``(k) Biennial Report on Critical Technologies.--
       ``(1) In general.--In order to assist the Congress in its 
     oversight responsibilities with respect to this section, the 
     President and such agencies as the President shall designate 
     shall complete and furnish to the Congress, not later than 
     May 1, 2007, and upon the expiration of every 2 years 
     thereafter, a report, both in classified and unclassified 
     form, which--
       ``(A) evaluates whether there is credible evidence of a 
     coordinated strategy by 1 or more countries or companies to 
     acquire United States companies involved in research, 
     development, or production of critical technologies for which 
     the United States is a leading producer; and
       ``(B) evaluates whether there are industrial espionage 
     activities directed or directly assisted by foreign 
     governments against private United States companies aimed at 
     obtaining commercial secrets related to critical technology.
       ``(2) Definition.--For the purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `critical technologies' means technologies identified 
     under title VI of the National Science and Technology Policy, 
     Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 or other critical 
     technology, critical components, or critical technology items 
     essential to national defense or security identified pursuant 
     to this section.
       ``(l) Biennial Report on Critical Infrastructure.--In order 
     to assist the Congress in its oversight responsibilities, the 
     President and such agencies as the President shall designate 
     shall complete and furnish to the Congress, not later than 90 
     days after the

[[Page 3661]]

     date of enactment of this subsection and upon the expiration 
     of every 2 years thereafter, a report, both in classified and 
     unclassified form, which--
       ``(1) lists all critical infrastructure, as defined under 
     subtitle B of title II of Public Law 107-296, that is owned, 
     controlled or dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation, 
     or a foreign government;
       ``(2) evaluates whether there is credible evidence of a 
     coordinated strategy by 1 or more countries or companies to 
     acquire United States critical infrastructure; and
       ``(3) evaluates whether there are industrial espionage 
     activities directed or directly assisted by foreign 
     governments against private United States companies 
     controlling critical infrastructure.''.
       (b) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to 
     the review and investigation of any acquisition, merger, or 
     takeover which is or becomes subject to section 721 of the 
     Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170) (as in 
     effect immediately before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act or on or after such date) that has not become final 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Amendment offered by Representative Kaptur:

 An Amendment Offered Ms. Kaptur to the FY 2006 Emergency Supplemental 
                          Appropriations Bill

       On page 80, after line 19, insert the following:

  TITLE IV--ESTABLISHMENT OF A ``TRUMAN'' INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE TO 
 PROTECT AGAINST WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE RELATED TO CONTRACTS FOR THE 
  GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM AND HURRICANES KATRINA AND RITA REBUILDING 
                                EFFORTS

       Sec. 1. There is hereby created a select committee on the 
     model of the Truman Committee to investigate the awarding and 
     carrying out of contracts to conduct military operations and 
     relief and reconstruction activities related to the global 
     war on terrorism (including all activities in Afghanistan and 
     Iraq), and Hurricane Katrina recovery, relief, and 
     reconstruction efforts (hereinafter referred to as the 
     ``select committee'').
       Sec. 2. (a) The select committee is to be composed of 19 
     Members of the House, one of whom shall be designated as 
     chairman from the majority party and one of whom shall be 
     designated ranking member from the minority party. The 
     Chairmen and Ranking Members of the following committees will 
     serve on the select committee:
       (1) Committee on Armed Services;
       (2) Committee on Government Reform;
       (3) Committee on Homeland Security; and
       (4) Committee on International Relations.
       The Chairmen and Ranking Members of the following 
     subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations will serve 
     on the select committee:
       (1) Subcommittee on Defense;
       (2) Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, 
     and Related Programs; and
       (3) Subcommittee on Homeland Security.
       In addition, the Speaker shall appoint 5 members of the 
     select committee, of which 2 members shall be appointed upon 
     the recommendation of the minority leader. Any vacancy 
     occurring in the membership of the select committee shall be 
     filled in the same manner in which the original appointment 
     was made.
       (b) The select committee shall conduct an ongoing study and 
     investigation of the awarding and carrying out of contracts 
     by the Government for military operations and relief and 
     reconstruction activities related to the global war on 
     terrorism (including all activities in Afghanistan and Iraq), 
     and Hurricane Katrina recovery, relief, and reconstruction 
     efforts and make such recommendations to the House as the 
     select committee deems appropriate regarding the following 
     matters--
       (1) bidding, contracting, and auditing standards in the 
     issuance of Government contracts;
       (2) oversight procedures;
       (3) forms of payment and safeguards against money 
     laundering;
       (4) accountability of contractors and Government officials 
     involved in procurement;
       (5) penalties for violations of law and abuses in the 
     awarding and carrying out of Government contracts;
       (6) subcontracting under large, comprehensive contracts;
       (7) inclusion and utilization of small businesses, through 
     subcontracts or otherwise; and
       (8) such other matters as the select committee deems 
     appropriate.
       Sec. 3. (a) Quorum.--One-third of the members of the select 
     committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of 
     business except for the reporting of the results of its study 
     and investigation (with its recommendations) or the 
     authorization of subpoenas, which shall require a majority of 
     the committee to be actually present, except that the select 
     committee may designated a lesser number, but not less than 
     two, as a quorum for the purpose of holding hearings to take 
     testimony and receive evidence.
       (b) Powers.--For the purpose of carrying out this 
     resolution, the select committee may sit and act during the 
     present Congress at any time and place within the United 
     States or elsewhere, whether the House is in session, has 
     recessed, or has adjourned and hold such hearings as it 
     considers necessary and to require, by subpoena or otherwise, 
     the attendance and testimony of such witnesses, the 
     furnishing of information by interrogatory, and the 
     production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, 
     papers, documents, and other things and information of any 
     kind as it deems necessary, including relevant c1assified 
     materials.
       (c) Issuance of Subpoenas.--A subpoena may be authorized 
     and issued by the select committee in the conduct of any 
     investigation or series of investigations or activities, only 
     when authorized by a majority of the members voting, a 
     majority being present. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed 
     by the chairman or by any member designated by the select 
     committee, and may be served by any person designated by the 
     chairman or such member. Subpoenas shall be issued under the 
     seal of the House and attested by the Clerk. The select 
     committee may request investigations, reports, and other 
     assistance from any agency of the executive, legislative, and 
     judicial branches of the Government.
       (d) Meetings.--The chairman, or in his absence a member 
     designated by the chairman, shall preside at all meetings and 
     hearings of the select committee. All meetings and hearings 
     of the select committee shall be conducted in open session, 
     unless a majority of members of the select committee voting, 
     there being in attendance the requisite number required for 
     the purpose of hearings to take testimony, vote to close a 
     meeting or hearing.
       (e) Applicabilities of Rules of the House.--The Rules of 
     the House of Representatives applicable to standing 
     committees shall govern the select committee where not 
     inconsistent with this resolution.
       (f) Written Committee Rules.--The select committee shall 
     adopt additional written rules, which shall be public, to 
     govern its procedures, which shall not be inconsistent wit 
     this resolution or the Rules of the House of Representatives.
       Sec. 4. (a) Appointment of Staff.--The select committee 
     staff shall be appointed, and may be removed, by the chairman 
     and shall work under the general supervision and direction of 
     the chairman.
       (b) Powers of Ranking Minority Member.--All staff provided 
     to the minority party members of the select committee shall 
     be appointed, and may be removed, by the ranking minority 
     member of the committee, and shall work under the general 
     supervision and direction of such member.
       (c) Compensation.--The chairman shall fix the compensation 
     of all staff of the select committee after consultation with 
     the ranking minority member regarding any minority party 
     staff, within the budget approved for such purposes for the 
     select committee.
       (d) Reimbursement of Expenses.--The select committee may 
     reimburse the members of its staff for travel, subsistence, 
     and other necessary expenses incurred by them in the 
     performance of their functions for the select committee.
       (e) Payment of Expenses.--There shall be paid out of the 
     applicable accounts of the House such sums as may be 
     necessary for the expenses of the select committee. Such 
     payments shall be made on vouchers signed by the chairman of 
     that select committee and approved in the manner directed by 
     the Committee on House Administration. Amounts made available 
     under this subsection shall be expended in accordance with 
     regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
     Administration.
       Sec. 5. The select committee shall from time to time report 
     to the House the results of its study and investigation, with 
     its recommendations. Any report made by the select committee 
     when the House is not in session shall be filed with the 
     Clerk of the House. Any report made by the select committee 
     shall be referred to the committee or committees that have 
     jurisdiction over the subject matter of the report.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the

[[Page 3662]]

     opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was 
     entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-
     Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, 
     the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked 
     the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled 
     to the first recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer a amendment to the rule, or yield for the 
     purpose of amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-minute votes, if 
ordered, on adopting the resolution and on suspending the rules and 
adopting House Concurrent Resolution 190.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 192, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 40]

                               YEAS--224

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

                               NAYS--192

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

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Andrews
     Baird
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Duncan
     Evans
     Ford
     Harris
     Istook
     McCollum (MN)
     Norwood
     Peterson (MN)
     Ruppersberger
     Scott (GA)
     Sweeney
     Weldon (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor) (during the vote). Two minutes 
remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1152

  Mr. ROTHMAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218, 
noes 200, not voting 14, as follows:

[[Page 3663]]



                             [Roll No. 41]

                               AYES--218

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Sullivan
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Akin
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Chabot
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Poe
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Andrews
     Baird
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Duncan
     Evans
     Ford
     Harris
     Istook
     McCollum (MN)
     Norwood
     Peterson (MN)
     Ruppersberger
     Sweeney

                              {time}  1203

  Messrs. PASCRELL, BOREN, JEFFERSON, SCOTT of Virginia and Ms. CORRINE 
BROWN of Florida changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. MARCHANT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________