[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3767-3791]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 725 and rule

[[Page 3768]]

XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4939.

                              {time}  1210


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4939) making emergency supplemental appropriations for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Chocola (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier 
today, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Taylor) had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 
76, line 20.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Hall

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hall:
       At the end of title II, insert the following:

                               CHAPTER 9

                     GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS TITLE

       Sec. 2901. In order to provide child care subsidies to the 
     children of parents who are working or enrolled in workforce 
     activities, in a manner that does not put the child care 
     needs of temporary residents ahead of families already on 
     waiting lists for services funded by the Child Care and 
     Development Fund, in any redistribution of unobligated 
     Federal matching funds as authorized by section 418 of the 
     Social Security Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall give priority to States currently serving a 
     significant number of children in families adversely affected 
     by Hurricane Katrina.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, March 15, 2006, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment to title II would direct the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to give priority to States 
affected by Hurricane Katrina when redistributing unobligated Federal 
matching funds.
  Texas is serving 6,000 children of Katrina evacuees with child care, 
despite a waiting list of 34,000 Texas children for child care 
services.
  Failure to pass this amendment will put Texas in the position where 
its only option for continuing to serve the children of Katrina 
evacuees is with funds meant for Texas children. The Katrina kids would 
either be cut off or be allowed to cut the line in front of Texas kids 
who have been waiting up to 2 years to receive child care.
  This Congress authorized $200 million in additional child care 
development funds for fiscal year 2006. Because these funds were made 
available in the middle of the fiscal year, not all States will be able 
to identify the necessary matching funds.
  What I am asking is that any balances in the CCDF Federal matching 
funds be made available to the States whose child care caseloads have 
increased because of these hurricanes.
  Members, this issue is but one example of the problematic Federal 
response to the hurricanes that struck the gulf coast last fall. 
Shortly after Hurricane Katrina struck, Texas was given a $75 million 
national emergency grant to provide employment and training services to 
victims of that storm who had taken up residence in our State.
  When Hurricane Rita hit Texas 1 month later, rather than receiving an 
additional NEG grant to take care of our own people, we were told to 
not only use that same $75 million to serve the victims of both storms, 
but to provide our own citizens a more limited range of services than 
the Katrina evacuees.
  This Congress eventually stepped in to allow parity of services, 
which we appreciate. Texas has enrolled more than 35,000 hurricane 
victims in NEG training programs and employment, but that money is 
projected to run out in July, and all of Texas's supplemental requests 
have been denied because the Department of Labor has run out of NEG 
funds.
  The problem Texas faces goes beyond child care. Many of the Katrina 
evacuees who remain in Texas are potentially eligible for TANF and/or 
food stamps, both of which have education and training components 
associated.
  This has put a tremendous strain on our resources for both programs. 
Congress previously allowed Texas to tap TANF funds to provide short-
term non-recurring benefits to Katrina evacuees, but Texas and other 
States also need to be allowed to use Federal TANF contingency funds to 
provide outgoing employment and training services so that we can 
continue to move these recipients into meaningful employment.
  Mr. Chairman, we also need for unspent funds in these areas to be 
reallocated to where the demand for these services is greatest. Unless 
Texas receives additional resources, Texas cannot continue the 
specialized workforce and support services to hurricane victims unless 
it diverts funds that were intended and balanced to serve its own 
citizens.
  When Hurricane Katrina struck, Texans immediately stepped forward and 
mounted an unprecedented effort, involving both the public and private 
sector. Texas taxpayers have been left actually holding the bag to the 
tune of nearly $2 billion. What kind of message does that send to other 
States who may find themselves adjacent to the natural disaster, or to 
the States who, God forbid, may be the victims of that disaster.
  I find it hard to believe that the level of compassion extended to 
these victims will be the same when they know that the Federal 
Government's commitments are not good when they know that most of what 
they provide for the refugees will take away from their local resources 
and the services they are supposed to provide for their own people.
  Mr. Chairman, I move adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this 
amendment because it would help thousands of children in the State of 
Texas.
  This amendment directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 
give priority to states affected by Hurricane Katrina when 
redistributing unobligated federal matching funds from the Child Care 
Development Fund.
  Texas is now serving 6,000 children of Katrina evacuees with 
childcare services. There are currently 34,000 Texas children on a wait 
list for child. care' services.
  Texas will soon be in a position where our only option will be to 
serve the children of evacuees at the expense of children in Texas.
  Congress authorized $200 million in additional Child Care Development 
Funds for FY 06. However, these funds were made available in the middle 
of the fiscal year making it difficult for some states to determine the 
necessary matching funds for this program.
  This amendment asks that any balances in Child Care Development Funds 
be made available to states where child care caseloads have increased 
due to the hurricanes.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

                              {time}  1215


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states, in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general 
appropriations bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law.'' 
And this amendment gives it affirmative direction, in effect.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Chocola). Does any Member wish to be heard 
on the point of order? If not, the Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting 
direction. The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

[[Page 3769]]

  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


                  Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Paul

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

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Paul:
       Page 76, after line 20, insert the following:

                               CHAPTER 9

                     GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS TITLE

       Sec. 2901. (a) For recovery of the State of Texas from the 
     consequences of Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes of the 
     2005 season, $546,100,000, to remain available until 
     expended, to be allocated and administered by the Secretary 
     of the Treasury and used only for the State of Texas, as 
     follows:
       (1) $200,000,000, for housing assistance under programs of 
     the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and 
     Agriculture for residents of the State of Texas and for 
     residents of other States affected by the hurricanes who are 
     temporarily residing in Texas and for community development 
     block grant assistance under title I of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1974.
       (2) $100,000,000, for costs of uncompensated health care 
     for victims of the hurricanes and evacuees, for long-term 
     care costs of evacuees remaining in Texas, and for mental 
     health care costs of persons affected by the hurricanes.
       (3) $100,000,000, for reimbursement of costs associated 
     with providing educational services to students who are in 
     Texas as a result of Hurricane Katrina and for repairs to 
     public and higher education facilities damaged by Hurricane 
     Rita.
       (4) $46,000,000, for costs of repairs to bridges, roadways, 
     ports, and channels damaged by Hurricane Rita.
       (5) $59,000,000, for the Corps of Engineers for maintenance 
     costs relating to erosion, waterway dredging, and other 
     related services.
       (6) $50,000,000 for costs of debris removal that are not 
     reimbursable by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, for 
     assistance to agricultural areas affected by Hurricane Rita 
     (including timber- and rice-producing areas), and for costs 
     of other unreimbursed repairs to rural and agricultural 
     infrastructure resulting from Hurricane Rita.
       (b) The amounts otherwise provided in title I for the 
     following accounts are hereby reduced by the following 
     amounts:
       (1) ``DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE--
     Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', amounts under 
     paragraph (3) for payments to reimburse certain countries for 
     logistical, military, and other support provided or to be 
     provided, to United States military operations, by 
     $900,000,000.
       (2) ``BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE--Department of State--
     democracy fund'', by $10,000,000.
       (3) ``MILITARY ASSISTANCE--Funds Appropriated to the 
     President--peacekeeping operations'', by $100,000,000.
       (4) ``RELATED AGENCY--Broadcasting Board of Governors--
     international broadcasting operations'', by $7,600,000.
       (5) ``RELATED AGENCY--Broadcasting Board of Governors--
     broadcasting capital improvements'', by $28,500,000.
       (c) The Secretary of the Treasury shall consider the 
     $500,000,000 by which the aggregate amount of reductions 
     under subsection (b) exceed the aggregate amount made 
     available under subsection (a) as credit against the Federal 
     deficit for fiscal year 2006.
       (d) The amount provided under subsection (a) is designated 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. 
     Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on 
     the budget for fiscal year 2006.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday March 15, 2006, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is offered in an attempt to save some 
money. If my amendment were to pass, we would cut $500 million from 
this appropriation. Everybody knows that this is a huge appropriations 
bill and that it is a supplemental. It does not fall under the category 
of the budget rules. It is $92 billion. It involves the finances of our 
military approach to our foreign policy around the world, which is two-
thirds of this funding. The other third, 19 or $20 billion is for 
domestic use. It is a huge sum of money. And we are doing this at a 
time when we are running a deficit, our national debt at least is going 
up over $600 billion a year, and we are concerned this week about 
raising the national debt limit to over $9 trillion.
  It is unfortunate that's the way the system works around here. It is 
very difficult to cut anything. My amendment is an attempt to seriously 
consider the problems that we have in reining in the spending and 
living within our means.
  The major point I make here is by cutting $1 billion from the 
military portion of the bill it makes the point that we spend way too 
much on military operations. We spend more on military operations 
around the world than all the other countries of the world put 
together. And we do not have a lot to show for it. When you think about 
what has happened in Afghanistan, the problems there, what is happening 
in Iraq and the potential problems that are coming in Iran; yet the 
money is continuing to be spent in this reckless manner.
  So I propose we cut a billion dollars out of that which would be 
easily done, because it should be cut a lot more. I would then take 
$500 million of this and I would put it into some areas of the country 
that have been neglected from some of the hurricane damage that has 
existed in the south, in particular, in Texas.
  So to me, this is an approach to emphasize the importance of foreign 
policy, that this notion that we are in the business of nation-
building, and that we are the policemen of the world, and that we 
should reconsider that and save money. At the same time, we could 
reduce our deficit while actually increasing funding for some of the 
serious problems that we have in this country. So to me, it sounds 
rather logical to do this. To cut things from, say, building roads in 
Liberia. Yes, Liberia needs money, but what about the people that have 
been hit by the hurricanes? They need some money, too. And the way we 
do it always involves deficit financing.
  My approach emphasizes the need to cut in the places less important 
than any other places, spend the money here at home, and end up 
actually cutting back on the deficit financing. Otherwise we are going 
to continue with this process. I see no serious attempt whatsoever, 
when we bring up supplemental appropriations bills like this, to rein 
in the spending and even to pretend that we are cutting. This whole 
idea of putting domestic spending together with military spending is 
not a ploy to maybe reduce spending. It is the ploy to make sure that 
people are trapped into voting for both and nobody can vote against the 
domestic spending, and nobody can vote against the military spending. 
And yet, of course, spending is excessive in both areas.
  But my amendment, the way it works, emphasizes mostly cutting the 
militarism and the type of foreign policy that we finance around the 
world that has so many ramifications and unintended consequences and so 
much blow-back, that it literally hurts our national defense and ends 
up costing us so much more money.
  Long term, to come up with a solution, it will not occur with 
tinkering with the budget. It will not happen today, nor tomorrow. The 
only way that we can make any sense out of our spending in this country 
and on this floor will be to reassess our policies. We must ask: Do we 
want to continue to be the policemen of the world? Do we really believe 
we can nation-build around the world and that we can spread democracy 
by force? The result is then, if we do not like the results of the 
democratic elections then we say, well, it did not work. We cannot 
support that democratically elected leader.
  So it is a change in policy, at least a reconsideration of what we 
think we should be doing around the world. At the same time, we have to 
reconsider the domestic spending.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

[[Page 3770]]

  The rule states in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general 
appropriations bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law.''
  The amendment includes an emergency designation and as such 
constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  I ask for the Chair's ruling.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes an emergency 
designation. The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Sabo

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sabo:
       Page 56, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $700,000,000)''.
       Page 57, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $125,000,000)''.
       Page 58, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $300,000,000)''.
       Page 58, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday 
March 15, 2006, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we hear a lot about the importance of identifying risk 
as we make security investments. And who could disagree? However, the 
President and Congress tend to stumble in putting a coherent risk-based 
philosophy into our budgets and policies.
  I ask the Members to consider this amendment in the context of 
President Bush's national security budget priorities for the coming 
year. The President requests $10.4 billion for missile defense next 
year, an increase of $1.7 billion.
  By comparison, the discretionary budget request for the whole 
Department of Homeland Security is only $400 million above this year, 
almost four times as large an increase simply for missile defense 
versus the whole Department of Homeland Security. I have a hard time 
seeing how the risk of an intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile 
attack is greater than the risk of a nuclear weapon in a cargo 
container coming into our country by ship. Therefore, this emergency 
bill is the time to address our most critical port security gaps.
  I understand the Senate Budget Committee chairman also believes that 
critical security gaps should be addressed in this bill. Protecting our 
seaports is a lot like protecting our airports. We need multiple 
security layers. With international traffic, the first security check 
should be overseas.
  The container security in this initiative, by which containers judged 
to be high risk are opened and inspected and all container manifests 
are reviewed, is operating today in only 43 of the 140 foreign ports 
that ship directly to the U.S.
  Since 2002, former Customs Commissioner Robert Bonner has been 
talking about the value of CSI and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has 
endorsed it. However, the Bush administration and the Republican 
Congress have been slow to fund and implement the program. This 
amendment would expand CSI to all overseas ports that ship directly to 
the U.S. and allow U.S. custom agents to review 100 percent of all 
container manifests.
  Some may argue that we should settle for CSI in 50 foreign ports by 
the end of 2007. What about the other 90 foreign ports that ship 
directly to us? You can be sure those who want to do us harm will know 
which foreign ports are covered by CSI and which foreign ports are not.
  The next critical step is to improve port security inside the U.S. 
The Coast Guard estimates that $7 billion is needed to bring U.S. port 
facilities into compliance with our maritime security law and 
regulations.
  Let me tell you where we are today. Since 9/11, Congress has provided 
$910 million to harden our seaports. President Bush has never requested 
funding directly and specifically for this purpose.
  Mr. Chairman, with this amendment, we could install radiation portal 
monitors at every U.S. land and seaport of entry. Today, less than half 
of these radiation detectors have been installed. Without this 
amendment, the Bush administration would have Americans wait until 2011 
to complete this crucial security measure.
  Customs and Border Protection also need to do a better job in 
targeting cargo containers that should be opened, and in auditing 
trusted shippers. The General Accounting Office identified both of 
these issues, and this amendment would help us get these tasks done.
  The third critical port security step is to ensure that the people 
charged to protect our ports are well trained, equipped, and prepared 
to respond to disaster.
  The Coast Guard enforces port and vessel compliance with maritime 
security regulations. Last fall, the Coast Guard reported that its 
maritime security exercise revealed the need for a stronger chain of 
command, better guidance, and more training. The Coast Guard has also 
told us it has not completed its review of vessel security and has not 
reviewed all foreign ports that ship directly to us. This agency, which 
performed so well in response to Hurricane Katrina, can handle the 
tough jobs. Congress and the President should give the Coast Guard the 
right resources to do them.
  Mr. Chairman, as the saying goes, practice makes perfect. We may need 
more simulation exercises for emergency responders at every level of 
government in order to identify the flaws in our preparedness plans.
  Mr. Chairman, everyone knows that we have a dangerous gap in our 
emergency communications capability across the Nation. The bill 
provides a back-up communication package for the gulf coast, which 
includes trucks loaded with equipment that can be quickly moved into a 
disaster area and to bring up cell phones and public safety radio 
networks to help first responders in search and rescue efforts. We need 
this emergency communication equipment in other regions of the country 
as well. And this amendment would provide it.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people expect us to do more than talk 
about inadequate port security and disaster preparedness. They demand 
that we back up our talk with action.
  I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment, well-intentioned as it is, 
is absolute overkill. In total, this amendment would add $1.225 billion 
for a variety of programs in the Department of Homeland Security, which 
is nearly 5 percent of the annual appropriations. I may agree with him 
on some of the needs, but most of what he is asking for should be dealt 
with in regular order, not in an emergency supplemental bill.
  I recognize the importance of many of the appropriations contained in 
the amendment, but we have already substantially increased funding, Mr. 
Chairman, for Customs and Border Protection, Coast Guard, and FEMA over 
the last 3 years.
  This supplemental is about the Global War on Terror and Gulf Coast 
recovery, not about the regular budgets of these Departments, of these 
agencies, which we are dealing with right now as we appropriate for 
2007.
  Now, in Customs and Border Protection, in this bill already we 
increase

[[Page 3771]]

funding by $17.7 million. We have aggressively supported radiation 
detection and cargo inspection technology, appropriating some $700 
million over the last three years. An additional $400 million in this 
amendment, well-intended, is completely arbitrary and unneeded. There 
is no rationale for this number. The new Domestic Nuclear Detection 
Office is developing new technologies, even as I speak, and a framework 
for their deployment.
  The gentleman also increases Customs and Border protection, 
international port security programs, the Container Security 
Initiative, and the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism by $300 
million. Since 2004, these programs have received, at the hands of the 
Congress, over $430 million. This has fully funded the Container 
Security Initiative which will expand in 58 foreign ports by the end of 
fiscal 2007. Through those 58 ports come 90 percent of the containers 
that come to this country and C-TPAT has expanded to 5,636 certified 
trade partners that send us container vessels every day.
  Mr. Chairman, we simply cannot grow these programs any faster. Money 
is not the problem. An expansion of this program is more about 
obtaining diplomatic clearances than money. These countries simply will 
not take more of our personnel until we negotiate diplomatically with 
them.
  As for the Coast Guard operating expenses, in this bill the Chairman 
of the full committee, Mr. Lewis, has already included an additional 
$14.3 million. The gentleman's amendment would add another $125 
million. Mr. Chairman, over the last 5 years, we have doubled funding 
for the Coast Guard's operating expenses, doubled, from $2.8 billion in 
fiscal 2001 to $5.5 billion in the current year, and while we have 
increased their responsibilities, they have funding in their base and 
in this supplemental for operating expenses sufficient to carry out 
their duties for the remainder of the year, including overhauling 
equipment, additional fuel, port security, inspections and the like. So 
the Coast Guard is taken care of. In fact, they have roughly half of 
their operating expenses for this fiscal year laying there waiting to 
be spent. So they do not need the extra funds.
  Now then, on FEMA, we include in this bill already increases to FEMA 
of $70 million in the supplemental emergency bill. The gentleman would 
increase their funding for administrative and regional operations by 
$300 million, but it is unclear how that $300 million figure is 
derived. The President requested $70 million for emergency 
communications, primarily for Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, 
although some of the funds are also targeted to Texas and Florida.
  The Sabo amendment adds $300 million for ``three other locations.'' 
We do not know where those locations are or why it is an emergency that 
they be equipped, and there is a huge difference in the cost estimates. 
Seventy million will take care of the three principal States of 
Katrina, but he is asking $300 million for these three other locations. 
Wherever they are, I do not know, and what they need the money for we 
still do not know.
  The $70 million that Chairman Lewis included in the bill that is 
before us fully prepares the Gulf Coast for the upcoming hurricane 
season, putting in place the necessary communications infrastructure 
for warning and communicating with the public during these natural 
disasters. It may be appropriate to position the technology in other 
locations, but there is no reason to consider an expansion of this 
effort as part of this emergency appropriations bill. These are 
decisions that can and will be considered as part of the regular 
appropriations cycle, which we are having hearings on right now.
  The gentleman seeks to add $100 million for preparedness activities 
at FEMA. We also increase in preparedness this bill by $10 million. The 
gentleman states we are not spending enough on simulation exercises; 
but in fiscal 2006, the National Exercise Program is funded at $52 
million. That supports local, State, and national exercises.
  The gentleman also seeks to restart a program called Project Impact, 
funded in the previous administration to simulate predisaster 
mitigation efforts. That program has not been funded for 5 years. 
Nothing is known about it, we do not know that it works, and yet we are 
asked to plop down another big chunk of money. Who will administer it? 
what will it do? and so on--we do not know.
  So, Mr. Chairman, it is not a matter of more money. It is a matter of 
spending the money that we already have stashed away in these programs 
wisely, based on a sound strategy and a rationale to improve our 
homeland security. While the gentleman's amendment is well-intended, it 
is overkill.
  This supplemental is focused on immediate needs, not budgetary items 
for next year. Many of the areas being addressed in this amendment are 
funded in this supplemental, not just to the arbitrary levels being 
proposed by the gentleman's amendment. Throwing huge sums of money at 
these programs is not a responsible way to conduct our Nation's 
business.
  I urge a defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the Dubai Ports World 
debacle, like Hurricane Katrina, laid bare preexisting problems which 
some of us, especially on the Democratic side of the aisle, have been 
struggling for years to bring to public notice.
  The ports episode starkly reveals the pitfalls of the Bush 
administration's peremptory decision-making style, without serious 
deliberation or consultation. And it lays bare the dangers of 4 years 
of administration laxity on port security. The Sabo amendment offers us 
the chance to begin to remedy that neglect.
  First, it would expand overseas container inspections to all overseas 
ports that ship to the U.S. The Container Security Initiative, 
responsible for reviewing manifests and opening and inspecting high-
risk containers, is currently operating in only 43 of the 140 overseas 
ports that ship directly to this country. This amendment would expand 
the program to all overseas ports shipping to the U.S.
  Secondly, the amendment would increase port security inspections and 
surveillance by the Coast Guard and would eliminate the Coast Guard's 
current $70 million energy shortfall.
  Thirdly, the amendment would place radiation portal monitors at all 
ports of entry. Fewer than half of the ports of entry are equipped with 
those monitors now, and Homeland Security does not plan to have them 
all equipped until 2011. This amendment would allow each entry point to 
have a radiation portal monitor.
  Fourth, it would increase our nationwide communications backup 
capability. The supplemental does contain backup capability for the 
gulf coast, but this capability should be provided in other critical 
locations; our amendment would add three such locations.
  Finally, the amendment would strengthen our disaster preparedness 
mitigation response and recovery. It would increase the number of 
simulation exercises undertaken by vulnerable communities, and it would 
restore funding for FEMA's Project Impact.
  This is a well-crafted, well-conceived amendment. I urge colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Chocola). Both sides have 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, yesterday, we cast a symbolic vote that got all kinds 
of political attention from the press having to do with the Dubai 
controversy. That vote had absolutely no effect on anything because the 
Dubai deal had already been killed. So the only thing we accomplished 
was letting Members of Congress get a nice vote that they could take 
home, stick in their pocket and show their constituents and say, ``Oh, 
what a good boy am I.''
  Now we have got a chance to do something real about port security and

[[Page 3772]]

about border security. Is there anybody in this House who thinks that 
our ports are really sufficiently secure so that we do not need to have 
more resources? Is there anybody in this House who is comfortable with 
the level of security on the Canadian border?
  Over the past 3 years, we on this side of the aisle have tried nine 
times to get the majority to increase Homeland Security funding above 
the amount that you have had in your bills, and we have been turned 
down nine times.
  This Congress is telling us, as this small chart shows, this Congress 
is telling the country we can afford to spend $64 billion this year to 
provide tax cuts to people who make $1 million or more a year. They are 
telling the country we can afford to spend more money on tax cuts for 
millionaires than we spend on the entire Homeland Security budget.
  Now, does anybody really think that this country is in greater need 
of providing $64 billion in tax cuts to people who make a million bucks 
a year? Do we really think that we need to do that more than we need to 
shore up port security, border security and the like? With all due 
respect, I do not think that is very good judgment with respect to our 
priorities.
  The Hart-Rudman report in 2002 concluded, that ``America's own ill-
prepared response could hurt its people to a much greater extent than 
any single attack by terrorists,'' and Katrina revealed the truth of 
that statement. We witnessed the debacle in Katrina because 
communication systems went down, and the worst problem about Katrina is 
that no one could talk to anybody because all of the communication 
systems were put out of order.
  Now, this supplemental only contains sufficient funds to provide an 
emergency communications backup capability in the gulf coast. That 
capability consists of trucks loaded with equipment that can be quickly 
moved into devastated areas to bring up cell phones and VHF, UHF and 
SHF radio networks to help first responders in their search-and-rescue 
efforts.
  This capability ought to be provided nationwide. That is just one of 
the many examples that anybody who knows anything about homeland 
security understands. It is a serious challenge to the security of this 
country.
  So I would submit that we can argue about the details, and if the 
majority does not like some of these items, you can easily fix them in 
conference because you have got the votes and we do not, but anybody 
who thinks it is more important to provide $64 billion in tax cuts to 
people who make a million bucks a year than it is to increase our 
homeland security capability, in my mind, has a faulty set of 
judgments, and I think they better think again.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Very briefly, Mr. Rogers is the chairman of the Homeland Security 
Subcommittee, and is doing a very fine job attempting to reorganize the 
direction of the country in regards to homeland security. In the 
processing of reorganizing, we brought 22 agencies together. When you 
bring bureaucracies together you have difficulty starting a direction 
that is right the first time. Mr. Rogers has recognized that.
  There is a lot of money that has already been appropriated that is in 
the pipeline that can be applied to many of these priority challenges. 
Mr. Rogers has done a very fine job of prioritizing and pushing this 
agency. There is enough money in the pipeline to give the priorities 
the appropriate funding.
  So I would argue very strongly for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. May I inquire of the time remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Chocola). Both sides have 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I understand the majority has the right to 
close.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, let me just make a few comments. First, let 
me be clear. I have great appreciation for the work of the chairman of 
our committee, Mr. Rogers, and what he has done in this subcommittee. 
The work of his subcommittee has significantly improved the 
recommendations of the President over the last several years as relates 
to homeland security. The bills that have passed Congress have been 
significantly better than what we got from the administration.
  But I also agree with him that this bill today is about the war on 
terrorism. And one of the most important parts in dealing with the war 
on terrorism is dealing with port security and the security of 
containers coming into this country. I disagree with those who say that 
who owns and how terminals are operated is irrelevant to security. Who 
operates them and how they operate them is very relevant, as we have 
dealt with in this bill in committee.
  However, how we provide the other security dwarfs the importance of 
who and how terminals are operated. How we deal with containers coming 
into this country, both at our ports and our other ports of entry in 
this country is tremendously important. We have made some progress, but 
anyone who suggests that we are there in terms of port security in this 
country today I think is badly misinformed. We have a long ways to go, 
and it has been over 4 years since 9/11.
  We are not simply throwing money at a problem here. These are 
important questions, important problems that need more resources; and, 
frankly, in some cases, they need more vigorous action by the 
administration to make sure that foreign countries cooperate with us. 
This is an amendment that significantly improves port security and I 
ask for a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this 
amendment. First, this amendment throws money at a problem where money 
is not the problem. There are literally billions of dollars that we 
have appropriated in the pipeline for the various grant programs in the 
Department of Homeland Security, including grant monies for port 
security. In fact, the Department, in the next couple of weeks will be 
releasing port security applications for various ports around the 
country to apply for funding. Money is in the pipeline waiting to be 
spent.
  As I have said before, the Department will be in 58 foreign ports the 
end of the fiscal year 2007. Ninety percent, nine out of 10 of the 
containers coming into the country come through those 58 ports around 
the world. We are there x-raying the containers, manually searching 
containers, classifying and targeting containers, finding those that 
are susceptible to suspicion and then searching them.
  It is not perfect, obviously. But money is not the problem. We simply 
cannot send more agents into those countries than they will take, 
unless we can diplomatically make arrangements. But that is a job of 
the State Department, not DHS.
  Second, this is an emergency supplemental bill. We can deal with most 
of the problems that the gentleman outlines in his amendment in the 
regular process. And in the regular process, I will probably support a 
number of the proposals that he is bringing forth in this emergency 
bill. But this is not the time or the place.
  So I would urge a ``no'' vote. These dollars are emergency spending. 
They are not offset. And the gentleman is asking us to add another 
$1.225 billion of nonoffset spending. I would hope the body would 
recognize that, reject this amendment, and let us deal with these 
issues in the regular process of the 2007 bill.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time has expired. The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I 
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

[[Page 3773]]




               Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer

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

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Neugebauer:
       At the end of title II, insert the following:

                               CHAPTER 9

                     GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS TITLE


                         elimination of funding

       Sec. 2901. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this title is hereby reduced to $0.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
March 15, 2006, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) and a Member 
opposed each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, a couple of weeks ago, or several weeks ago, I think in 
February, the President of the United States sent over two supplemental 
bills, one for Katrina and one for our defense. Two bills. Because even 
the President recognized that these are two different issues, a $68 
billion defense bill; a $20 billion Katrina bill.
  Unfortunately, when this bill came to this body for consideration, it 
was combined, not giving Members the opportunity to determine what they 
think is the best policy, both from a defense standpoint and a domestic 
standpoint.
  I am concerned about the fact that these emergency supplemental bills 
have really become appropriation bills, and the word ``emergency,'' I 
think, has somewhat slipped from that process. We should be able to 
come to this floor, and my bill allows Members to be able to give a 
vote for Katrina or a vote for our defense in an appropriate way that 
they feel is good for the American taxpayer.
  One of the concerns I have, Mr. Chairman, is that in this 109th 
Congress, if we pass this bill today, with no offsets, by the way, and 
a previous speaker talked about there was no offsets for that 
amendment, in fact, there are no offsets in this bill, in the 109th 
Congress we will have spent as much money on emergency supplemental 
spending as we have spent in the previous five Congresses.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to you that I don't think that is good for 
the American people. What I think we ought to do, though, is have 
policy that does address the merits of what our efforts are in Iraq and 
Afghanistan and the merits of how we are spending the American 
taxpayers' money on Katrina relief. In fact, we have already approved 
in this body $100 billion worth of emergency spending in other relief 
for Katrina victims.
  What is at issue here is the question of whether or not a lot of the 
issues that are in this supplemental should actually have been in this 
supplemental. But more importantly, it should not be allowed for piling 
on and adding things to these supplemental bills, which, in fact, 
become a free-for-all.
  These are two different issues. How we spend the money defending the 
American people in our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan as we execute 
the war on terrorism and how we deal with the catastrophic events that 
have happened in Katrina are two separate issues. And I would encourage 
my colleagues to give the American people the benefit of their wisdom 
and judgment and have a vote on each one of these issues.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment. I understand the point he is making regarding the concept of 
splitting bills, however, the direct result of this amendment, if it 
were to pass, and I hope it doesn't, would be to strip all the money 
out that we need to restore military facilities and veterans facilities 
in that region.
  In fact, this bill, title II, includes $184 million to replace 
military facilities at bases in the gulf coast damaged by the 
hurricanes, such as a fire crash rescue station at Keesler Air Force 
Base. It also includes funds to replace the Veterans Hospital in New 
Orleans. Eliminating this title puts these facilities and our military 
personnel at greater risk.
  For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman reserve his time?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield back.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I 
have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 12 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer, I appreciate the 
privilege to address this issue.
  And, Mr. Chairman, Katrina funding doesn't belong in this DOD 
emergency supplemental appropriations bill. We have had now 6 months to 
debate and discuss and deliberate on Katrina funding, and yet there is 
still not a plan. This Congress hasn't exerted its will on a plan in 
New Orleans, in particular, and yet here we have another wave of 
appropriations that has come in without an accounting of where the 
money has been spent.
  If we continue to do this, Mr. Chairman, we will continue to see more 
money go down there without a solution in place. And I would submit, 
and I have been down there three times, that if our Federal agencies 
function at 100 percent of optimum possible production, and with their 
hearts and their heads all in the right place, we still don't have a 
solution for Katrina. There is not a plan.
  There are appropriations that are in this. There is $100 million to 
restore the surrounding wetlands, yet we don't know how we are going to 
protect New Orleans for a category 3.1 storm or anything greater than 
that. We appropriated money before Christmas for the Corps of Engineers 
to produce a study to protect New Orleans for a cat 5 hurricane, but 
they have 24 months to produce the results of that study, and yet we 
don't know what kind of protection is going to be there for the capital 
that would go down in that region, some of it below sea level.
  If FEMA, SBA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers all do their job 
at 100 percent, there is still not a solution. We need to have a plan, 
an ordered plan, that provides for levee construction for protection 
of, in particular, New Orleans, at some level; whether it is a 3, a 
3.5, a 4, or something above. The people that are reconstructing their 
homes need to know where they can put their dollars.
  But this does not do it, Mr. Chairman. This is something that injects 
Katrina funding into DOD supplemental appropriations emergency 
spending. It is not emergency spending. It needs to be dealt with under 
the normal process of our appropriations process.
  So I would conclude and ask for a ``yes'' vote on the Neugebauer 
amendment, and thank him for bringing it to the floor.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the time 
held in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). Without objection, the gentleman from 
New York controls 14 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Homeland Security.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I know the motivation of the 
offerer of the amendment, and I sympathize with his general premise. 
However, I am obligated to speak against the amendment because the 
amendment would eliminate the money for FEMA. Under this proposal, FEMA 
would run out of money in May. The

[[Page 3774]]

$9.55 billion in the bill for the operations in the Gulf Coast would be 
eliminated. Housing assistance would stop; debris removal would stop. 
There would be no emergency communications in place for the upcoming 
hurricane season, which is only two months away. And $13.5 million for 
the Inspector General would be cut, almost ensuring fraud, waste and 
abuse of the $35 billion in supplemental funds we have appropriated so 
far for the Gulf Coast.
  So I would urge a ``no'' vote. Although I understand the gentleman's 
motivation to try to separate out the disaster funding from the 
military funding, that would ruin the disaster assistance for the Gulf 
Coast. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Neugebauer for, after a 
very short period of time in Congress, stepping forward in this case 
and in other cases with substantive legislation that reflects the 
conservative values that he came to Washington to represent, and does 
so with no small amount of courage and common sense.
  As we look at this behemoth emergency supplemental, Mr. Chairman, I 
still want to express appreciation to the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee and the chairmen of the appropriate 
subcommittees. I do believe, as is evidenced by the courtliness 
demonstrated on the floor today, that we are not subject in this case, 
or any other case, to bad people but to a bad process. As this Congress 
undertakes to change the way we spend the people's money, this behemoth 
legislation is again an argument for budget process reform.
  To the Neugebauer amendment, I must begin by saying Hurricane Katrina 
breaks my heart. I have grieved for the families who have lost loved 
ones and lost their precious resources and communities in the wake of 
this storm. I have supported Katrina funding in the past. And in 
working with colleagues to offset its cost, I will support Katrina 
funding in the future, but I cannot support adding Katrina relief to an 
emergency military bill.
  The American people know that Hurricane Katrina funding and military 
spending are apples and oranges. As the author of this amendment 
suggests as well, the President of the United States knows this, having 
sent a bill to fund Katrina to the Hill separate from a bill to fund 
the war on terror. Rather than this legislation being focused on a 
disciplined measure to fund our military priorities, it has in a sense 
become a fruit basket, as supplemental bills often do. Spending that, 
while it may be worthwhile, belongs in the regular order of the 
legislative process in this Congress.
  We need to get back to saying that emergency spending should just 
fund emergencies; and military emergency spending should fund military 
emergencies. Let us separate support for the war on terror and our 
support for the families and communities affected by Katrina. Let us 
support the Neuge-
bauer amendment, and let this Congress work its will independently to 
the war on terror and our desire to be there for the families and 
communities affected by Hurricane Katrina.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I fully support the Neugebauer amendment to strike the Katrina 
funding out of this emergency supplemental. It is not in any way, 
shape, or form that I am opposed to Katrina funding. Indeed, we have 
already appropriated on an emergency expedited manner $62 billion for 
Katrina relief. I have been to the gulf coast twice. I have seen the 
devastation. I have actually worked in one of the clinics in Baton 
Rouge and treated some of these patients. My heart goes out to the 
victims of this devastating hurricane along the gulf coast.
  But as my colleagues have just said, it makes no sense to join these 
two bills together. The previous $62 billion that we have appropriated 
is going to Katrina without much oversight. The citizens, the 
constituents of the 11th Congressional District of Georgia, are sick 
and tired of hearing the stories of waste, fraud and abuse. They want 
some oversight, and this is the only way we can get it.
  With all due respect to the appropriations chairman and the 
subcommittee chairman, this idea that if we do not do it today, right 
now, combined with the defense emergency appropriations, Armageddon is 
going to occur. It is not. We come back here the very first day we 
return and we deal with this bill and we have some opportunity to have 
some input. This is what our constituents want.
  I support the Neugebauer amendment. Let us strike this funding and 
come back and do it right.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
I thank him for his courage in offering this amendment because I know 
how easy it is to misrepresent what his intentions are.
  I agree with the previous speakers, and I am disappointed that these 
two bills have not been separated out. I am here to agree and admit, as 
one who has actually been to the gulf coast, that perhaps more Federal 
funding may be needed. I have seen the human misery. I have family that 
was there. My in-laws were there. They were among the lucky ones; they 
lived through it. Their home, although significantly damaged, was not 
totally demolished. My heart goes out to these people.
  But the answer to the human tragedy is not an unlimited check drawn 
upon the checkbook of the Federal taxpayer.
  Many speakers act like nothing has been done already to help the gulf 
coast, but $100 billion in tax incentives and in other direct relief 
has gone to the gulf coast. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a lot of 
money.
  And let us also not ignore the fact that although there was a great 
tragedy that occurred on the gulf coast, there are many other tragedies 
that occur in this Nation every day, but CNN is not there to capture 
them on a day-to-day basis.
  Mr. Chairman, 38,000 Americans die each year in a car crash, and we 
are asking their families to be taxed to send more money to the gulf 
coast; 1.4 million Americans are going to be diagnosed with cancer this 
year, and yet we want to tax them to send more money to the gulf coast.
  There are almost a half a million homes that burn each year, and we 
want to tax those families to send more money to the gulf coast. 
Perhaps more money is justified, but until we see the plan, until we 
see more accountability where we do not have trailers rotting in the 
Arkansas mud and Gucci purses being bought on debit cards, until we 
figure out the precise Federal role versus the State role versus the 
local role versus the role of able-bodied individuals under the age of 
65, until we come up with reforms, and most importantly, until we come 
up with offsets, it is time that we prioritize our spending. And maybe 
we shouldn't be funding the citrus canker program and Radio-Free Europe 
if money is needed at the gulf coast. I support this amendment and hope 
it passes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, maybe I did not hear right, but I thought I heard some 
rather interesting things. Two speakers ago I heard the words ``we need 
more oversight.'' Really? This from a Congress and a majority party 
that has provided mighty little oversight of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, 
mighty little oversight on the question of contractor ripoffs in Iraq?
  If you want some oversight, I will be interested to see how you vote 
on the amendment to provide a Truman-like committee to get into the 
details of contractor abuse in Iraq.
  I have also heard from the gentleman from Texas express his concern 
about cancer patients who are being asked to

[[Page 3775]]

pay taxes to support additional aid to the gulf. I will be interested 
to see whether the gentleman votes for a budget which for the third 
year in a row will cut the number of research grants at the National 
Institutes of Health.
  The gentleman mentioned the number of people who die in fires. I will 
be interested to see whether they vote for the recommendation to 
eliminate fire grants. I could go on and on, but I won't in the 
interest of time.
  So I was heartened to hear those comments by both gentlemen. I just 
hope that when the bills come that provide the services for the 
activities that they mentioned, that they will have the same attitude 
that they are exhibiting here today.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  There has been a lot of discussion about what this bill does and what 
it does not do. What it does do is not take away Katrina funding; but 
what it says is let us break this bill into two pieces the way that the 
President of the United States sent this bill over to us, giving an 
opportunity for Members to express their opinions about our current 
defense policy, giving Members of Congress the ability to talk about 
and express their opinions about how they feel about Katrina policy and 
how it is going today.
  One of the things that this amendment does, Members would be able to 
come back for debate on Katrina and have a separate vote at that 
particular time.
  What we need to understand is this is no small sum of money. This is 
$92 billion as of the last count; and with the amendments, it is 
probably going to be more. We also know that $92 billion is in excess 
of 10 percent of our discretionary spending for 2006.
  So it makes good sense for the American soldiers, the young men and 
women that are defending our Nation, that are executing the war on 
terrorism to have a separate vote. It makes good sense for the people 
in the devastated areas because of the hurricanes that we have had, for 
us to have deliberative talks and discussions about what is good policy 
for Katrina.
  But let's don't leave the third set of people out that this body is 
charged to represent, and that is the American people. We need to make 
sure when we are making policy in this building and in this Chamber 
that it is good for the people in America. The American people are 
looking to us; and quite honestly, the people back in the 19th 
Congressional District of Texas are concerned about our spending. They 
question how much is an emergency and what is an emergency.
  Quite honestly, Mr. Chairman, I think that combining these bills 
today is not good policy, and I urge my colleagues to come down and 
give a positive vote, vote for this amendment, vote for our soldiers, 
vote for the people in Katrina, but also vote for the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I believe my colleagues know that the Appropriations Committee gives 
the highest priority to improving and extending oversight to money that 
is expended.

                              {time}  1315

  Indeed, I have personally spent a lot of time working with the 
Inspector General. We have added money in this bill to the Inspector 
General specifically to make sure oversight is increased and is very 
adequate. I am concerned, for example, about the money that may be 
available even to east Texas as a result of this work. I intend to make 
sure that we do what is right in connection with our response to this 
issue. I would urge a ``no'' vote and appreciate my colleagues 
supporting that ``no'' vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


              Amendment Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald:
       Page 59, line 1, insert ``(increased by $50,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar figure.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of House of Wednesday, 
March 15, 2006, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise today to ask my colleagues to support the amendment that I 
have offered to H.R. 4939, which is the Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror and Hurricane 
Recovery.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a bill that is going through the normal process 
that will ask for $50 million through EAC. But this is an emergency 
bill and it is an emergency with those who are down in those gulf coast 
States who are looking for some relief in their elections that are 
upcoming.
  My amendment is a simple one. It merely gives an additional $50 
million to FEMA so that they can repair and replace the election 
infrastructure in the States affected by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina.
  On August 29, 2005, the Nation and the world watched in horror as the 
Gulf States were hit by one of the worst hurricanes in this Nation's 
history. Hurricane Katrina destroyed life in the Gulf States as we know 
it. And to our dismay, a few weeks later, Hurricane Rita cut a path of 
devastation along the Texas-Louisiana coast.
  The residents of the Gulf States have witnessed entire towns and 
cities destroyed in the face of Hurricane Katrina and Rita. In some 
locations these hurricanes wiped out the entire infrastructure 
necessary for citizens to educate their children, shop for necessities, 
and to exercise their right to vote. This is what this emergency bill 
is all about, allowing the election infrastructure to be placed there 
to give people the right to vote, because it may be years, Mr. 
Chairman, before the Gulf States start to resemble the vibrant region 
of the country which they were known to have before these storms.
  And it takes time, Mr. Chairman, to build schools and shopping 
centers; but when it comes to voting, time is of the essence. The most 
affected State, Louisiana, will be holding elections in just weeks, 
along with Mississippi and Alabama, which have scheduled primaries in 
June.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from the Secretaries of State of those 
States urging us to pass this emergency $50 million and to ask FEMA to 
provide this. FEMA has denied them before to get this election 
infrastructure put in place. This bill will do just that.
  My bill will add an additional $50 million to FEMA under the Stafford 
Act. It is my intent that FEMA directs these funds to the States 
affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to rebuild the necessary 
infrastructure to conduct Federal elections. As the ranking member on 
the Committee on House Administration, I have that oversight, and I am 
urging this amendment to be passed.
  Voter registration lists need to be reestablished, sometimes even 
recreated from scratch; and destroyed polling stations must be 
reconstructed and made fully accessible to those with disabilities. 
With this additional money,

[[Page 3776]]

FEMA will not have to take money away from rebuilding schools and 
bridges and hospitals and other important reconstruction projects in 
order to get the election process back up and running in the gulf coast 
States in time for Federal elections in the coming weeks. And this is 
not a blank check, Mr. Chairman. The States would have to submit 
proposals with detailed plans before receiving funds.
  Mr. Chairman, I am urging that we do this in light of the fact that 
FEMA has not, and denied these Secretaries of State the due process of 
getting these election infrastructures put in place. Hurricanes Katrina 
and Rita nearly destroyed those Gulf States. Months later, the rippling 
effect is still being felt by the Nation.
  This Nation must provide disaster relief funds to supplement State 
and local efforts with their efforts to restore and replace supplies, 
material and equipment so that election officials can conduct credible 
elections.
  We talk about democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need our 
democracy right here for those who wish to vote and want to vote in the 
upcoming elections to do that. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.

                                              National Association


                                      of Secretaries of State,

                                 Washington, DC, February 6, 2006.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins, Chair
     Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security and 
         Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Peter King, Chair
     Hon. Bennie G. Thompson,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Trent Lott, Chair
     Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Rules and Administration, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Vernon Ehlers, Chair
     Hon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,
     Ranking Member, Committee on House Administration, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Lieberman, Chairman 
     King, Ranking Member Thompson, Chairman Lott, Ranking Member 
     Dodd, Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald: 
     On August 29, 2005 Americans in the Gulf Coast suffered the 
     most devastating natural disaster in our nation's history. 
     Since that time, officials at all levels of government have 
     been devoted to helping our citizens rebuild and move 
     forward. As Alabamans, Louisianians and Mississippians, we 
     are grateful for the hope, service and resources that have 
     poured into our region and we are heartened by the 
     hospitality of Americans in the great cities across the 
     country who have welcomed our fellow citizens in this time of 
     unprecedented need. We write your committees to request 
     necessary assistance in securing the rights of our region's 
     voters. Because a transparent and accountable democratic 
     infrastructure is the backbone of any rebuilding effort, we 
     are asking for your assistance in securing $10 million to 
     ensure meaningful elections.
       As we move in our common struggle to. keep the Gulf Coast 
     vibrant in the wake of disaster, we must provide our citizens 
     with the opportunity to participate in the critical and 
     difficult decision making that each of our states face in the 
     coming months and years.
       We are honored to serve as Secretaries of State and Chief 
     Election Officials and humbled by our solemn duty to 
     safeguard our citizens' most fundamental right as Americans--
     the right to vote. The mandates of our office require that we 
     provide all eligible voters, both those that have returned to 
     their homes already and those that are temporarily residing 
     elsewhere, with an opportunity to participate in this 
     rebuilding effort by exercising their voice through the 
     ballot box.
       Each election presents our states with many challenges, but 
     never before has there been such great potential for 
     disenfranchisement than in the elections we are facing in the 
     coming year. In Louisiana alone over 400,000 of our 
     registered voters are dispersed in 49 states across the 
     country. Over 53,000 of those citizens have been welcomed 
     into Alabama and Mississippi. Over 250 polling places in our 
     coastal parishes have been destroyed. To date, Louisiana has 
     expended over $2.5 million in restoration of voting machines 
     and associated equipment alone.
       In Mississippi, Katrina's damage was devastating. Though 
     fewer citizens were permanently displaced than in Louisiana, 
     our infrastructure in many communities was completely 
     destroyed or severely damaged, due to storm surge along the 
     coast and hurricane force winds that reached as far as 125 
     miles inland.
       The result of this devastation is that limited county 
     budgets are depleted to deal with debris removal and 
     infrastructure rebuilding, and much of our counties' tax base 
     is destroyed. Much of these diverted county funds would have 
     been used to bring voting precincts up to ADA standards and 
     to purchase new voting machines to meet HAVA requirements 
     this year. Based on surveys from our 43 affected counties, 
     Mississippi's estimated reimbursement need is $4.2 million 
     dollars for ADA voting precinct compliance and voting machine 
     purchase.
       Alabama's Gulf Coast area, and 22 counties which were 
     declared disaster areas following Hurricane Katrina, have a 
     variety of needs to conduct their first election on June 6, 
     2006. In addition to necessary repairs to make some polling 
     places functional, many counties in this disaster area have 
     used dollars normally allocated for election costs to remove 
     debris, repair infrastructure, etc., and these funds would 
     have been used to upgrade polling place facilities, comply 
     with ADA, provide training, purchase supplies, train polling 
     officials, etc. Alabama's estimated cost for the above needs 
     is 2.3 million.
       As Chief Election Officials, we are committed to overcoming 
     these challenges, but to guarantee that each of our citizens 
     has an equal opportunity to participate in the election, we 
     need additional resources that will allow us to be creative 
     in educating our voters, providing opportunities for them to 
     cast meaningful ballots from across the country and rebuild 
     our democratic infrastructure.
       Unfortunately, our requests to the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency (``FEMA'') have been answered by a denial 
     that FEMA has authorization under the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to aid us in 
     administering elections. The Stafford Act, however, clearly 
     provides the statutory authority to FEMA to help with 
     necessary election expenses incurred in the wake of a 
     national disaster. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5170a. In fact, when 
     Americans have suffered the results of disasters in the past, 
     FEMA has provided aid and financial support for extraordinary 
     expenses to election officials. For example, in 1992, in the 
     wake of Hurricane Andrew, FEMA provided substantial aid to 
     Miami-Dade County to overcome the obstacles of losing more 
     than 100 polling places. FEMA also provided reimbursement for 
     all of that county's election expenses incurred as a result 
     of Andrew.
       We seek assistance from the Senate Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs Committee and the House Homeland 
     Security Committee to help secure necessary funding and 
     assistance from FEMA.
       Each of our offices is currently engaged in determining the 
     financial impact of the hurricanes on our respective election 
     system. It is our feeling that we will need $10 million this 
     year in order to adequately address our voters' additional 
     needs as a result of the storms. In order to most effectively 
     administer election related funding, we encourage a formal 
     liaison between FEMA and the United States Election 
     Assistance Commission (EAC). This relationship will allow 
     essential funds to be directed to the states by the federal 
     agency responsible for issues related to election 
     administration. Consequently, we call on the Senate Rules 
     Committee and the Committee on House Administration to work 
     with the EAC to determine the structure of this necessary 
     relationship. It is our hope that, as a result of this 
     relationship, we will have a procedure for obtaining needed 
     financial resources through a responsive partner.
       Time, of course, is of the essence. Voters in Orleans 
     Parish Louisiana will cast ballots on April 22 to elect 
     leaders whose vision will determine the future of New Orleans 
     and its historic neighbors. Starting in the spring and 
     running through the summer, all of our states have primary 
     elections for local and federal offices. Of course, this 
     coming fall, each of our states must administer major federal 
     elections. It is essential to a successful rebuilding process 
     that our citizens have confidence in the outcomes of these 
     elections. Our commitment to this goal is undermined only by 
     our lack of resources.
           Sincerely,
     Al Ater,
       Secretary of State, State of Louisiana.
     Eric Clark,
       Secretary of State, State of Mississippi.
     Nancy Worley,
       Secretary of State, State of Alabama.

     NASS Resolution on FEMA Financial Assistance After a Disaster

       Whereas, In September 2005 the gulf south region of America 
     suffered devastating losses as a result of Hurricanes Katrina 
     and Rita, and
       Whereas, other geographic areas have in the past and will 
     suffer in the future from devastating disasters whether by 
     act of god or man, that will debilitate the election process, 
     and
       Whereas, the Secretaries of State and other local election 
     officials in the affected areas will bear substantial 
     additional costs to restore polling places, voting equipment, 
     and other necessary items which will enable them to resume 
     conducting elections, and
       Whereas, we, the members of the National Association of 
     Secretaries of State (NASS) and the chief state election 
     officials in 39 states, agree that accurate, accessible, and 
     accountable elections are the centerpieces of our democracy, 
     and

[[Page 3777]]

       Whereas, the state and local governments in the affected 
     areas have and will suffer tremendous losses of revenue and 
     have to shoulder additional expenses in the clean up and 
     rehabilitation of their respected areas, and
       Whereas, the Federal Emergency Management Agency reports 
     that they have no statutory authority to pay for any of these 
     extraordinary expenses, and
       Whereas, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has 
     provided assistance and financial aid for extraordinary 
     expenses to state and local election officials for conducting 
     elections during past disasters.
       Therefore be it Resolved, That NASS hereby urges and 
     requests the President and Congress of the United States of 
     America to direct the Federal Emergency Management Agency to 
     deem these extraordinary expenditures as eligible for payment 
     under the Stafford Act and to work with other federal 
     agencies to expediently take appropriate steps to assist 
     those Secretaries of State and local election officials in 
     the affected areas.

                             Adopted the 5th day of February, 2006
                                                 In Washington, DC

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is just not necessary. FEMA has money 
and the authorization to go ahead and buy election equipment already, 
and they are already doing it. This amendment would actually earmark 
Disaster Relief Funds, which we have never done before. We don't 
earmark. This is not an account out of which you earmark monies for 
things you like. These are Disaster Relief Funds that are administered 
by the government where it is needed.
  Now, the Stafford Act authorizes the use of Federal money to repair 
or replace damaged public infrastructure. That is what it is for, 
including election equipment. FEMA has already spent over $1.7 million 
on election equipment in Louisiana and Mississippi. Specifically, 
Louisiana has received $1,200,100 from FEMA to replace polling booths, 
computers, voting machines, office supplies, and storage facilities. 
Mississippi has received $724,000 from FEMA for voting machines, 
equipment, and election commission furniture. So FEMA is already doing 
it. I don't know why we need to earmark monies, which I oppose in 
general; but it is unnecessary here because it is already being done.
  There is plenty of money in FEMA's account to replace the election 
equipment. They are already doing it. So I don't see the need for us to 
pass this sort of an amendment and set a precedent, Mr. Chairman, for 
earmarking out of the Disaster Relief Fund for somebody's whim on the 
floor. We have passed the Stafford Act. That is what governs how FEMA 
monies are being spent. This would be a violation, in my judgment, of 
the principle of the Stafford Act.
  FEMA is in the process of helping remove debris from the Gulf Coast. 
Roads are still closed in the area. As has been described innumerable 
times, it is an absolute mess down there. And while election equipment 
is important, it is just simply, in my judgment, premature to purchase 
this equipment, first of all, when there are no structures in place to 
house the equipment and no roads open to deliver it. When the time is 
right, FEMA has both the authority and the money to assist with the 
upcoming election and the equipment requirements. There is simply no 
need for this amendment and no need to earmark out of disaster funds.
  Including the funds in this bill, we will have given $44.5 billion to 
the Disaster Relief Fund in supplemental appropriations during 2005 and 
2006. That is a huge sum. But it reflects the commitment of this body 
to helping rebuild the devastated Gulf Coast region.
  Now is the time for sound management of this money. Arbitrarily 
carving out specific amounts from the disaster fund would open a 
floodgate seemingly without end for many, many needs.
  We recognize and support the need to repair election facilities. It 
is critical that we allow those affected by Hurricane Katrina to 
participate in the most important civic duty, and that is voting. With 
this bill, the disaster relief monies involved in the bill are in place 
to do just that and are being spent for that purpose already. So I 
would urge a rejection of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair regrettably informs the gentlewoman 
from California that her time has expired.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, as much as I hate to disagree 
with the gentleman from Kentucky, this is not an earmark, nor has FEMA 
submitted the requisite amount of money that is required for the 
election infrastructure. They have approved $1 million, but they have 
given no money; and, in fact, the Secretaries of State have indicated 
that FEMA has refused and denied them any money at all. So what I am 
simply asking is that given that this is an emergency to take care of 
the hurricanes, that we provide the funding for that infrastructure to 
be placed.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Jindal

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Jindal:
       Page 59, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 49, line 16, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
March 15, 2006, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, in the days and weeks after first Hurricane 
Katrina and Hurricane Rita, it became very clear that the lack of 
communications was one of the biggest obstacles to a rapid recovery and 
a rapid rescue effort in the face of these awful disasters.
  The purpose of the amendment that I offer today is to use $2 million 
for the Department of Defense's Technical Support Working Group to 
deploy in hurricane-affected States existing technology that provides 
wireless, interoperable, mobile, encrypted broadband communications for 
first responders, National Guard, Federal response personnel in the 
case of future disasters or in the case of the temporary absence of 
communications.
  FEMA has already been tasked with identifying and providing existing 
commercially available capabilities in time to provide responders with 
this capability before the next hurricane season begins. The capability 
exists and needs to be rapidly deployed.
  The purpose for my amendment is to use $2 million for the working 
group to deploy in these areas existing technology.
  Federal, State, and local law enforcement and first responder 
agencies were limited in their ability to respond to Hurricane Katrina 
because they couldn't communicate. The House Select Committee on 
Katrina identified this as a key failure at all levels. The Select 
Committee's recommendation states in part that the Department of 
Homeland Security should establish and maintain a deployable 
communications capability to quickly gain and retain situational 
awareness when responding to catastrophic incidents.

[[Page 3778]]

  My amendment takes a step in the right direction and, importantly, 
does so before the next hurricane season, which starts June 1. We must 
provide responders with the capability to talk across agencies, within 
their agency when customary communications systems like phones are 
disrupted or destroyed.
  This is not, obviously, a cure-all approach to solve our Nation's 
interoperable problems; but it is one solution that provides a stopgap 
system that allows responders to talk to each other using their 
existing hardware from mobile or fixed locations when existing systems 
aren't available.
  FEMA has already been tasked with this responsibility before the next 
hurricane season. The capability exists and needs to be rapidly 
deployed.
  This amendment does not require additional Federal dollars. It simply 
provides $2 million and directs the Department of Defense and its 
technical support working group to work with FEMA using funds Congress 
has already planned to provide FEMA to identify and deploy the 
capability.
  From a personal perspective, I can state, being on the ground in the 
days and weeks after Katrina and Rita, this was one of the biggest gaps 
in our Federal, State and local response, the inability to have 
interoperable communications.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JINDAL. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that he has put a 
lot of time and effort into this amendment. The committee has reviewed 
the amendment thoroughly, and we will accept the amendment.
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). Does anybody seek time in opposition 
to the amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Jindal

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Jindal:
       Page 59, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 68, line 16, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
March 15, 2006, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer and withdraw this 
amendment.
  The purpose of my amendment is to restore the administration's 
request to rebuild New Orleans' VA Medical Center. I do intend to 
withdraw this amendment pursuant to a colloquy with my colleagues. I 
want to, first of all, state the rationale for my amendment in the 
first place.
  The VA Medical Center suffered significant damage after the 
hurricane. It is a 354-bed acute care facility. It provides health care 
to more than 220,000 veterans who live in a 23-parish region served by 
this medical center. It is absolutely critical to get this hospital 
rebuilt as quickly as possible to continue serving these thousands of 
veterans, our men and women who have served us so proudly in uniform.
  Ironically, it was not the hurricane that did the majority of damage 
to the VA center. Instead, the facility actually initially weathered 
the hurricane with minimal damage. However, the breach of the levees 
days later flooded the entire area around the medical center. Let me 
correct myself, I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.
  It was the breach of the levees, not days later, it was the breach of 
the levees caused by the failure of design and construction. It was the 
breach of the levees that flooded the entire area around the medical 
center, the facility's first floor basement and sub-basement. Those 
floors housed the facility's major electrical, mechanical and dietetics 
equipment. Of the 1,819 VA employees in New Orleans, 40 percent lost 
their homes.
  Despite this destruction, despite the obstacles, the VA was one of 
the few bright lights to shine through the devastation that hit the 
region. Advanced planning, a well-known electronic medical system 
helped to ensure that VA could coordinate and move thousands of staff 
and patients to facilities across the United States without a single 
loss of life attributed to the lack of medical attention.
  In addition, VA staff members volunteered thousands of hours of their 
time to assist veterans and other citizens in the affected communities 
to ensure that the aftermath of this storm and the response could go as 
smoothly as possible.
  Right now, the current situation is that thousands of veterans are 
being forced to drive a long distance or do without the health care 
they need. The President initially requested over $600 million to 
rebuild the medical center in addition to the previous $75 million that 
was included in the December supplemental for planning and land 
acquisition.
  This is an important facility for the VA. I also want to commend the 
VA for working together with LSU, which operates the city's Charity 
Hospital. They have announced an intent to try to work together to 
construct a shared facility, so the new hospital would have the 
economies of scale, for example, sharing potentially laundries and 
other facilities with the State hospital that will also need to be 
rehabilitated, maybe even rebuilt before it reopens. It is crucial to 
restore this funding; it is crucial that we get this hospital open as 
quickly as possible.
  I do intend to yield to one of my colleagues. It is my understanding 
in working with the committee, that they will work with me to ensure 
that the VA does have the funds they need to reopen this facility in 
its entirety. I think there was some discussion about the adequacy of 
the funds, and there was some analysis of how much funds would actually 
be needed to reopen this facility.
  I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern for the 
construction of the new veterans hospital in New Orleans. I would like 
to state, also, that I congratulate him and thank him for the 
leadership that he has provided to the great city and the great people 
of New Orleans. He has been a consistent and strong supporter.
  We will continue to work on this issue, and I will work with the 
gentleman and all other interested parties to ensure that all necessary 
funding is available to complete the hospital on schedule.
  Mr. JINDAL. I want to thank my colleague and thank the committee. 
With this agreement, I am willing to withdraw this amendment.
  My understanding was there was some confusion in the initial 
estimates about the actual cost of constructing a parking garage that 
might have caused an inflated estimate.
  I do thank my colleagues for being willing to work with me to make 
sure this facility is reconstructed as quickly as possible so the 
veterans can get the health care they deserve. I thank my colleagues. I 
thank the Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Jindal

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Jindal:
       Under the heading ``Disaster Relief'' in chapter 4 of title 
     II, insert after the dollar amount on page 59, line 1, the 
     following: ``(reduced by $142,271,000)''.
       Under the heading ``Military Construction, Army National 
     Guard'' in chapter 6 of title II, insert after the dollar 
     amount on page 66, line 12, the following: ``(increased by 
     $142,271,000)''.


[[Page 3779]]


  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
March 15, 2006, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I again intend to offer and then withdraw 
this amendment pursuant to a colloquy with my colleagues.
  The purpose of this amendment, but before I do that, I want to 
explain the rationale and importance of this amendment. I have offered 
an amendment to provide funding requested in the amount of $142 million 
to allow the reconstruction of the National Guard facilities in New 
Orleans, Louisiana. Replacement of these facilities are absolutely 
critical for the function of the Louisiana Army National Guard.
  Hurricane Katrina severely damaged these facilities, so that they 
must be replaced. These units are now currently in temporary interim 
facilities and have less than half the required training area and 
storage facilities. These makeshift facilities are overcrowded and 
disjointed in terms of the capacities they offer. Proper facilities 
need to be constructed immediately to prevent further deterioration of 
the equipment.
  On August 29, 2005, the Jackson Barracks, in particular, suffered 
massive flooding from Hurricane Katrina. Several weeks later, after the 
floodwaters had subsided from the hurricane, the readiness centers were 
again flooded from Hurricane Rita. Together these two hurricanes caused 
extreme catastrophic damage to the readiness centers that housed the 
Joint Force Headquarters and the 1/141 Field Artillery Battalion. 
Portions of each facility were completely destroyed, suffering from 
building collapses, collapses as a result of the storm's wind, rains 
and floodwaters.
  The damage inflicted upon the readiness center and all other 
facilities on the Jackson Barracks has rendered them completely 
useless. The 512 soldiers of the Field Artillery Battalion and the 216 
soldiers of the Joint Forces Headquarters are now operating out of 
small corner spaces in numerous buildings spread across the State of 
Louisiana until interim facilities can be provided for these units 
affected by these hurricanes.
  These interim facilities should be ready for use in a few short 
months. However, they will be nothing close to what is authorized or 
required to provide for mission ready combat units of the United States 
Army. The Field Artillery Battalion will have less than a quarter of 
its authorized square feet required for unit training assemblies and a 
readiness center for a unit of its size. This is the space needed to 
provide the facilities needed for the unit to meet its wartime training 
requirements.
  The unit will share this space with another unit as well. Not only 
will it have a quarter of the space, it will be sharing the space with 
another unit. This heavily cramped facility, though, we are grateful 
for this in the aftermath of the storm, will hardly satisfy the long-
term mission capability for the two units.
  Over time, readiness levels to meet training requirements, retention 
and recruiting will all suffer greatly. Moreover space required to 
store unit equipment is insufficient. These same issues have also 
plagued the Joint Force Headquarters.
  The post-hurricane plan for the Joint Force Headquarters has resulted 
in splitting the headquarters into several locations. This strategy is 
important for recovery of the State. However, facilities for the 
operation of the headquarters are not available to consolidate the 
organization at each location. These long-term operations will not be 
acceptable as this will result in critical management issues for the 
Joint Headquarters mission providing command and control to the 
Louisiana National Guard. This will result in poor oversight provided 
by the headquarters which could significantly affect the readiness for 
the National Guard.
  My amendment seeks to restore the administration's request to rebuild 
these facilities in New Orleans. Replacement of these facilities should 
be provided to sustain the readiness posture of the Louisiana Army 
National Guard. Hurricane Katrina has severely damaged the facilities 
and these facilities must be replaced, and certainly, we need to send a 
signal to the Guard that we want to help them increase their readiness 
even before next hurricane season.
  Many of my colleagues have done me the honor and privilege of coming 
to my state on CODELs to see the damage. Many of you have landed at 
Jackson Barracks and been accompanied by Louisiana Army National Guard 
members on your tours. Many of you have seen the heroic footage of what 
they did in the aftermath of the storm to rescue people out of the 
water. Many of you are very aware of their extreme sacrifice serving us 
overseas in Iraq.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues. My 
understanding is the committee will work with me once information is 
provided from the Louisiana Army National Guard to make sure that these 
facilities are indeed rebuilt and repaired.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JINDAL. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
appreciate his great concern for the National Guard facilities in the 
City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana. We will continue to 
work on this issue as we move towards conference, and I am convinced we 
can resolve all the questions as we complete the work in the 
conference.
  Mr. JINDAL. I want to thank the gentleman and my colleagues. Based on 
their commitment to work with me to make sure we do provide the funding 
to rebuild the facilities, my understanding is there are some questions 
that need to be answered and some additional information that needs to 
be obtained, but once that information is obtained, that we are 
confident we can do that before conference.
  Based on that, I will seek unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment. Before I do that, I want to thank my colleagues on the 
committee for working with me on each of my three amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Gingrey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gingrey:
       Page 62, beginning on line 1, strike lines 1 through 11 
     (relating to National Park Service Historic Preservation 
     Fund).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
March 15, 2006, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and a Member 
opposed will each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in an attempt to rein in what 
some might see as the most modest of items. Certainly the $3 million my 
amendment would strike is a minute fraction of the $19.1 billion we are 
going to spend in this emergency supplemental package on Katrina 
relief. Specifically, my amendment strikes the $3 million for the 
National Historic Preservation Fund.
  It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the money would be used for 
section 106 reviews. These reviews are required to assets effects of 
certain undertakings on historic properties by activities of the 
Federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA.
  Some may ask, why strike this particular program from the bill? The 
answer is not because I don't like the program or even that the money 
won't be needed at some point down the line. Rather, I am offering this 
amendment today to make the point that if we are passing an emergency 
supplemental, then we should only be including emergency money.
  If we need to initiate a project on or near an historic property 
during a time

[[Page 3780]]

of emergency, shouldn't the government bureaucracy just get out of the 
way and waive section 106 reviews, thus saving critical time and money 
for the vital life needs of those who are and have been affected by 
Hurricane Katrina?
  Mr. Chairman, I will support the overall legislation because I 
understand the emergency needs of our troops. It was only days ago that 
I was in Iraq visiting troops and hearing of their needs to ensure 
continued success in this war on terror. And although I do not believe 
the two should be coupled together in this particular package, as I 
previously said, I have personally been to Louisiana twice and I know 
we are in an emergency situation throughout the gulf coast. They do 
need further relief.
  My point here today is that we must focus our resources on the true 
needs of the region, not on a government review program that should be 
waived anyway. When we have successfully moved beyond this immediate 
situation, then we can reinstate section 106 requirements for the 
affected gulf coast States.
  I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from North Carolina opposed to 
the amendment?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment 
for three reasons. First of all, some $9.5 billion of the $35 billion 
that has been appropriated will go to food, housing and other critical 
needs. So we have met those criteria as much as possible.
  Secondly, as the gentleman said, this is required by section 106 of 
the National Historical Preservation Act. We don't want to get into 
amending and trying to put that in the middle of this supplemental. I 
would suggest if the gentleman wants to take that up at a later time, 
we could do that.
  Thirdly, it is needed because an $18 billion tourist industry is 
involved here, and getting the assessment of these national historical 
preserved sites is going to be the first step in trying to get back 
that $18 billion.
  Those are three reasons I would oppose this amendment. I urge a 
``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. If there are no other amendments to title II, 
the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

        TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS AND TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS

       Sec. 3001. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 3002. Notwithstanding subsection (b) of section 102 of 
     title I of division B of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2748), 
     the Secretary of Agriculture may provide financial and 
     technical assistance in carrying out such section in an 
     amount up to 100 percent Federal share, as provided in 
     regulations implementing the emergency watershed protection 
     program: Provided, That the amount provided under this 
     heading is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
       Sec. 3003. Funds appropriated pursuant to this Act, or made 
     available by the transfer of funds in or pursuant to this 
     Act, for intelligence activities are deemed to be 
     specifically authorized by the Congress for purposes of 
     section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
     414).


                    (including rescission of funds)

       Sec. 3004. (a) Rescission.--Of the unobligated balances 
     available for ``Immigration and Customs Enforcement--
     Automation Modernization'', $43,620,000 are rescinded.
       (b) Appropriation.--For an additional amount for ``United 
     States Secret Service--Salaries and Expenses'' for critical 
     investigative and protective operations, $43,620,000: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in this section 
     or under the heading United States Secret Service ``Salaries 
     and Expenses'' in any other Act may be used to support the 
     position of the Chief Financial Officer until the Committees 
     on Appropriations receive: (1) a comprehensive workload re-
     balancing report that includes funding and position 
     requirements for current investigative and protective 
     operations; (2) a comprehensive analysis of the methodology 
     used to estimate current workloads and develop annual 
     operating budgets; and (3) a budget formulation model for 
     National Special Security Events: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds appropriated in this section may be obligated 
     until the Committees on Appropriations receive a revised 
     Program, Project and Activity schedule based on current 
     investigative and protective workload requirements, including 
     a comprehensive analysis of the methodology used to estimate 
     those requirements.
       Sec. 3005. (a) The matter under the heading ``Tenant-Based 
     Rental Assistance'' in chapter 9 of title I of division B of 
     Public Law 109-148 is amended--
       (1) in the first proviso, by striking ``or the Stewart B. 
     McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (Public Law 100-77)'' and 
     inserting ``the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, 
     section 221(d)(3), 221(d)(5), or 236 of the National Housing 
     Act, or section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act 
     of 1965''; and
       (2) in the second proviso, by inserting ``, except that 
     paragraph (7)(A) of such section shall not apply'' after 
     ``1937''.
       (b) The provisions of this section are designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 
     95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget 
     for fiscal year 2006.
       Sec. 3006. Notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 5336, any funds 
     remaining available under Federal Transit Administration 
     grant numbers NY-03-345-00, NY-03-0325-00, NY-03-0405, NY-90-
     X398-00, NY-90-X373-00, NY-90-X418-00, NY-90-X465-00 together 
     with an amount not to exceed $19,200,000 in urbanized area 
     formula funds that were allocated by the New York 
     Metropolitan Transportation Council to the New York City 
     Department of Transportation as a designated recipient under 
     49 U.S.C. 5307 may be made available to the New York 
     Metropolitan Transportation Authority for eligible capital 
     projects authorized under 49 U.S.C. 5307 and 5309.
       Sec. 3007. The referenced statement of the managers under 
     the heading ``Community Development Fund'' in title II of 
     division I of Public Law 108-447 is deemed to be amended--
       (1) with respect to item number 536, by striking ``an 
     economic development planning study'' and inserting ``the 
     Main Street Revitalization Project''; and
       (2) with respect to item number 444, by striking ``City of 
     St. Petersburg, Florida for facilities construction and 
     renovation for the Mid-Pinellas Science Center'' and 
     inserting ``St. Petersburg College, City of Seminole, Florida 
     for the development of a Science and Nature Park at St. 
     Petersburg College''.
       Sec. 3008. (a) The second paragraph under the heading 
     ``Community Development Fund'' in title III of division A of 
     Public Law 109-115 is amended by striking ``statement of 
     managers accompanying this Act'' and inserting ``statement of 
     managers correction for H.R. 3058 relating to the Economic 
     Development Initiative submitted to the House of 
     Representatives by the Chairman of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House on November 18, 2005, and printed 
     in the House section of the Congressional Record on such 
     date''.
       (b) Section 5023 of title V of division B of Public Law 
     109-148 is amended by striking ``in title III of Public Law 
     109-115 (as in effect pursuant to H. Con. Res. 308, 109th 
     Congress)'' and inserting ``in title III of division A of 
     Public Law 109-115''.
       (c) Each amendment made by this section shall apply as if 
     included in the amended public law on the date of its 
     enactment.
       Sec. 3009. The statement of managers correction referenced 
     in the second paragraph under the heading ``Community 
     Development Fund'' in title III of division A of Public Law 
     109-115 is deemed to be amended--
       (1) with respect to item number 714, by striking 
     ``construction of a senior center;'' and inserting 
     ``renovation and buildout of a multipurpose center;'';
       (2) with respect to item number 850, by striking ``City of 
     Lancaster, Pennsylvania'' and inserting ``in Pennsylvania''; 
     and
       (3) with respect to item number 925, by striking 
     ``Greenwood Partnership Alliance, South Carolina for the 
     renovation of Old Federal Courthouse;'' and inserting ``City 
     of Greenwood, South Carolina for the Emerald Triangle 
     Project;''.
       Sec. 3010. Section 9001 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 
     2005 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``for a 1-time only 
     obligation and expenditure'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(2)--
       (A) by striking ``for fiscal year 2007''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, to remain available until September 30, 
     2007''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Emergency Designation.--The amount provided under 
     subsection (a)(2) is designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     2006.''.

[[Page 3781]]



                              {time}  1345


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Conaway

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Conaway:
       Page 81, beginning on line 21, strike section 3010 
     (relating to LIHEAP).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
March 15, 2006, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have is pretty simple. It 
would strike section 3010 in its entirety. 3010 deals with the 
acceleration of the payments on LIHEAP from fiscal year 2007 into 
fiscal year 2006 by some $750 million.
  The basis of this being in there has not been laid. This is not an 
emergency, certainly. We have had one of the mildest winters that we 
have had in a long, long time. I have also got it on relatively good 
authority, scientific authority, that we will have a winter in 2007, 
that this money was originally set up to supplement LIHEAP funding in 
that year.
  This funding came about as a result of some very difficult work that 
was done on the Deficit Reduction Act, and offsets were put in place to 
allow for this spending in 2007. All of the hard work that went into 
it, all of the groundwork that was laid to convince us that this was 
needed for 2007 would be inaccurate, I guess, if we were, in fact, to 
pass this amendment, because that Deficit Reduction Act was passed in 
early February.
  So it has been a little more than a month since the work was done 
that this House collectively said this $750 million should be spent in 
2007 for the LIHEAP program.
  I know that there will be those who say, well, LIHEAP has been 
authorized at much, much higher levels than we have it and than it has 
ever been appropriated at; but we have not seen any evidence that the 
appropriation levels that we have had in the past were inadequate, that 
there has been evidence shown that there has been needless suffering 
going on as a result of this funding being less than what was 
authorized.
  I would also remind my colleagues that we have a very disjointed 
national policy in that we restrict drilling in areas where we know 
there is crude oil and natural gas, the basis for most of the energy 
costs that we are talking about helping low-income with, we restrict 
that drilling.
  And it does not take a great economist to understand that if the 
supply of a commodity is greater than the demand that the price will go 
down. So it seems wrong-headed on one hand to have a subsidy program 
for our energy costs and then at the same time restrict the drilling 
for that commodity to continue to drive that price up, which then means 
you need more subsidies to support the higher and higher prices.
  So my amendment is pretty straight forward. It strikes this section 
in its entirety. And I would encourage my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, what is behind this amendment is very simple. 
The gentleman would like to hold the low-income heating assistance 
funding in this bill hostage to drilling in ANWR. He cannot do that 
under the rules of the House; and so from his standpoint, the next best 
thing is to eliminate low-income heating assistance in general.
  I was one of the three original authors of the low-income heating 
assistance program, along with Silvio Conte, Republican from 
Massachusetts, and Ed Muskie in the Senate. And I think I know 
something about this program and why this amendment is destructive.
  Let me explain what happened last year. The House-passed version of 
the budget reconciliation bill included $1 billion for LIHEAP to be 
available in fiscal 2006. But just before the reconciliation conference 
was completed, the defense appropriations conference report was filed, 
and that contained an additional $2 billion for LIHEAP as part of the 
sweetener for ANWR oil leasing provisions.
  Not wanting to duplicate the ANWR funds, the reconciliation conferees 
shifted their addition to fiscal 2007. Subsequent to that, however, the 
entire ANWR package, including the $2 billion appropriated for LIHEAP, 
was dropped out of the defense appropriations conference report.
  The end result was no additional funds for LIHEAP in 2006, despite 
escalating heating oil and natural gas prices. The committee amendment 
simply tries to move the money back to where it was originally supposed 
to go, which was in this fiscal year. The problem, however, is that the 
language, even in the committee amendment, does not guarantee that that 
money will be spent this year; it only allows it to be.
  Let me point out the gentleman says he does not think this is an 
emergency. The gentleman makes $160,000 a year. So does everybody in 
this Chamber. It is not an emergency to us. We do not have to worry 
about heating our houses. But there are an awful lot of people who do. 
Only 16 percent of the people who are eligible by income for low-income 
heating assistance last year got some help.
  And the fact is that the average price for home heating oil has more 
than doubled since 2001 and 2002, yet LIHEAP has increased only 20 
percent since that time. Average prices for natural gas are up 31 
percent. Average prices for home heating oil are up 25 percent, for 
propane up 18 percent, just from one winter to another.
  Over 3 years' time they are much, much steeper. So I would suggest 
that the family that was able to get through the winter without help 
when home heating oil was selling for $1.16 a gallon, as it was 4 years 
ago, is going to have a little more trouble coping when heating oil 
reaches $2.40 a gallon, the average price now.
  So I would suggest that to eliminate this funding is unadvisable. I 
am myself unhappy with the provision in the committee bill, because 
unlike the original Obey amendment which was offered in committee, this 
does not even require the funding be provided this year; but at least 
it allows that funding to be spent in this year or next.
  And I think that that is better than nothing. I think the gentleman's 
amendment, while I respect him and respect certainly his right to offer 
it, I think that the amendment itself is misguided and ought to be 
defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly have a great deal of respect 
for my colleague on the other side of the aisle, but I think it is a 
bit misplaced to compare the salaries which you and I make, which I 
think is $165,000 a year, to every malady known to man. Because if we 
are going to do that, there is not enough money in the Federal Treasury 
to make that happen.
  So I would disagree that that is a very good analogy. We will also 
consider in this Chamber in a little while a suspension bill that will 
add a billion dollars in funding to LIHEAP. In fair disclosure, I 
intend to oppose that as well. But if for no other reason, in order to 
simplify the world and make it easier on the conferees, my amendment 
would strike this section out of the bill so that when we go to 
conference with it, the $1 billion that will be in the suspension bill, 
I suspect it will get approved, and this $750 million, there would be 
no confusion that this $750 million is not tacked on top of the $1 
billion.
  I think the analysis has not been made. The price has gone up less 
than 50 percent and this funding would increase support by well over 
100 percent, from a billion to a billion. So I want to respectfully 
disagree with my colleague and ask my colleagues to support this 
amendment to strike this section from the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

[[Page 3782]]

  Mr. Chairman, let me simply suggest that the fact is that there are 
many people in this country who have to choose between heating their 
homes and eating. I think we ought to make their life just a little bit 
easier.
  I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
gentleman yielding me time.
  If the Snowe language in the bill, the other suspension bill passes 
this afternoon, then by all means strike this in a committee of 
conference. But pending that, those of us from cold-weather States and 
warm-weather States need this fuel assistance. I salute Mr. Obey for 
working to make sure it is included, at least to the extent that it is. 
In the conference report, if the Snowe language passes today, then the 
amendment that is proposed could be stripped out in conference, and 
certainly I would support that.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, in the interests of redundancy, I would urge 
that we defeat the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we have moved past the point in the bill where the 
Flake amendment was to be offered, which would have attempted to strike 
an earmark that was contained in last year's bill for which a 
correction is found in this year's bill.
  I am pleased that amendment was not offered. But I would like to take 
just a moment to urge every Member of this House to think before they 
leap on the issue of giving the President the authority for what is, in 
effect, an item veto.
  I find it mindboggling that there are some people in this Chamber who 
believe that the main institutional problem that we have in this 
Congress is that the President has insufficient power vis-a-vis the 
Congress of the United States.
  We have a President who has taken us to war on the basis of 
manipulated and selected intelligence. We have an administration under 
whom persons have been tortured, and we are told that more than 100 
persons in captivity have died. We have an administration that 
eavesdrops on American citizens without a court order.
  And then we say that the problem is that the President has too little 
power? I would suggest quite the contrary. If any of you are interested 
in the line item veto, I would urge you to for a moment forget who is 
in the White House now and think what might have happened under Lyndon 
Johnson.
  This was a President of my own party, a President who lied to this 
Congress about the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Gaylord Nelson, from my 
home State, was one of the first three people in the Senate to vote 
against the first appropriation for Vietnam.
  Can you imagine what Lyndon Johnson would have done to Gaylord Nelson 
if he had had any version of the item veto at his disposal? He would 
have put his arm around Gaylord. He would have said, ``Gaylord, you 
support that war or you are not going to get your wild rivers 
designation. You support that war or you are not going to get this 
earmark for the forest service. You support that war or you are not 
going to get anything that you want in the budget.''

                              {time}  1400

  And I can imagine, I can imagine the power that Johnson would have 
had using that kind of device. I would also suggest I believe that 
many, many reforms that are adopted in politics wind up being 
counterintuitive. And I would suggest, for instance, that an item veto 
could, in fact, significantly raise the cost of doing business in 
government affairs because Presidents will dangle projects in front of 
Members if they are ``good,'' ``good'' being defined by the White 
House. And that could, in fact, enhance the White House's ability to 
pass questionable legislation by dangling goodies in front of Members 
and threatening to cut them if they did not.
  So I think my record is clear on earmarks. This Congress provided 
many fewer earmarks when I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
than it has in any year since that time. But having said that, I think 
it is important, in whatever choices we make about earmarks, to not 
inadvertently in that process enhance the power of the executive branch 
of government so that they are even more strong than they are today, 
vis-a-vis the Congress of the United States.
  In the last analysis, there is only one check on untrammeled 
executive power, and that check is the Congress of the United States. 
And I would urge Members of this House, regardless of party, not to 
weaken that check. That check is not just important to the Congress. It 
is important to the American people.
  Not in the 36 years that I have served here, has any President ever 
seen any Congress change that President's spending request by more than 
3 percent. And it is that 3 percent difference that makes a difference 
between having a President and having a king.
  With all due respect, I think we ought to make certain we continue to 
have a democracy, not an unofficial monarchy, and I believe that an 
item veto would contribute to destroying that very delicate balance of 
power between the two branches, and give even more power to the 
executive branch which in so many ways is demonstrating runaway 
executive power right now.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Foley). The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 3011. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     or any other Act may be used to take any action under section 
     721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 
     2170) or any other provision of law to approve or otherwise 
     allow the acquisition of any leases, contracts, rights, or 
     other obligations of P&O Ports by Dubai Ports World or any 
     other legal entity affiliated with or controlled by Dubai 
     Ports World.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any prior 
     action or decision by or on behalf of the President under 
     section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 
     App. 2170), the acquisition of any leases, contracts, rights, 
     or other obligations of P&O Ports by Dubai Ports World or any 
     other legal entity affiliated with or controlled by Dubai 
     Ports World is hereby prohibited and shall have no effect.
       (c) The limitation in subsection (a) and the prohibition in 
     subsection (b) apply with respect to the acquisition of any 
     leases, contracts, rights, or other obligations on or after 
     January 1, 2006.
       (d) In this section:
       (1) The term ``P&O Ports'' means P&O Ports, North America, 
     a United States subsidiary of the Peninsular and Oriental 
     Steam Navigation Company, a company that is a national of the 
     United Kingdom.
       (2) The term ``Dubai Ports World'' means Dubai Ports World, 
     a company that is partly owned and controlled by the 
     Government of the United Arab Emirates.
       Sec. 3012. (a) None of the funds appropriated in Public Law 
     109-102 or any prior Act making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing and related programs may be 
     obligated or expended for assistance to the Palestinian 
     Authority or a successor entity until the Secretary of State 
     certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that such 
     entity has demonstrated its commitment to the principles of 
     nonviolence, the recognition of Israel, and the acceptance of 
     previous agreements and obligations, including the Roadmap.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated under the heading 
     ``Economic Support Fund'' in Public Law 109-102 or any prior 
     Act making appropriations for foreign operations, export 
     financing and related programs may be obligated or expended 
     for assistance to the West Bank and Gaza until the Secretary 
     of State reviews the current assistance program, consults 
     with the Committees on Appropriations, and submits a revised 
     plan for such assistance: Provided, That such plan shall be 
     submitted not later than April 30, 2006, and shall contain 
     specific and appropriate steps to ensure that United States 
     assistance is not provided to or through any individual, 
     private or government entity, or educational

[[Page 3783]]

     institution that the Secretary knows or has reason to believe 
     advocates, plans, sponsors, engages in, or has engaged in, 
     terrorist activity.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota:
  At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following 
new section:

       Sec. __. None of the funds provided in this Act may be used 
     to allow entry onto the grounds of any Department of Defense 
     installation or cemetery or Department of Veterans Affairs 
     cemetery for the purpose of a demonstration in connection 
     with a funeral or memorial service or ceremony for a deceased 
     member of the Armed Forces.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
March 15, 2006, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by telling the Members why am I on the 
floor today.
  Less than a month ago, the body of Corporal Andrew Kemple, who was 
killed while fighting for our freedom in Iraq, was laid to rest during 
a ceremony at the Zion Lutheran Church in Anoka, Minnesota, in my 
congressional district.
  However, instead of the funeral Corporal Kemple deserved, one where 
his family and friends were able to share fond memories of their time 
with him and where his faithful service to this country could be 
honored, there was, instead, a vile and hateful display. Funeral 
protesters, and I use that term loosely, chanted vile slogans like 
``God hates America'' and ``God loves IEDs'' during Corporal Kemple's 
funeral ceremony for more than an hour.
  As my colleagues know too well, the improvised explosive device, or 
IED, has been a favored tool of the terrorists in Iraq and has been 
responsible for much death and injury for our troops.
  Mr. Chairman, words like ``reprehensible'' and ``disgusting'' do not 
adequately describe these slogans or this stunt on this solemn and 
sacred occasion. Unfortunately, this shameful incident in my district 
is not an isolated one. This scene has been repeated again and again at 
the funerals of fallen servicemen and women across the country. We must 
and can stop it.
  That is why I rise today to offer an amendment that will ensure that 
none of the funds in this supplemental can be used to approve 
demonstrations at Department of Defense or Department of Veteran 
Affairs cemeteries during a funeral or memorial service for a member of 
the United States Armed Forces.
  My amendment would ensure that our men and women who have given what 
Lincoln called ``the last full measure of devotion'' receive the honors 
they are due.
  My colleagues may have heard of efforts in the States to preserve the 
sanctity of military funerals. As many as 17 have been reported to be 
working to preserve the solemnity of this occasion. This fact does not 
relieve Congress of its duty to take action on Federal lands.
  This amendment would be a meaningful first step to preserve a measure 
of decency for grieving families of fallen soldiers right now while 
Congress considers legislation introduced by my friend Mike Rogers to 
address the problem long term. Our men and women in uniform are doing 
their duty in the war on terror and we must do ours.
  Mr. Chairman, though I believe my colleagues are being denied an 
important opportunity on account of this procedural matter, I ask to 
withdraw my amendment and I urge all Members to support the forthcoming 
legislation that my good friend, Mike Rogers, is about to introduce 
that provides a lasting solution to this outrage.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Berry

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

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

     SEC. ___. EXTENDED PERIOD OF MEDICARE OPEN ENROLLMENT DURING 
                   ALL OF 2006 WITHOUT LATE ENROLLMENT PENALTY.

       Section 1851(e)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395w-21(e)(3)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (iii), by striking ``May 15, 2006'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2006''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new sentence:
     ``An individual making an election during the period 
     beginning on November 15, 2006, and ending on December 15, 
     2006, shall specify whether the election is to be effective 
     with respect to 2006 or with respect to 2007 (or both).''.

     SEC. ___. ONE-TIME CHANGE OF PLAN ENROLLMENT FOR MEDICARE 
                   PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT DURING ALL OF 2006.

       (a) Application to MA-PD Plans.--Section 1851(e) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-21(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(B)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``for first 6 months'';
       (B) in clause (i)--
       (i) by striking ``the first 6 months of 2006'' and 
     inserting ``2006''; and
       (ii) by striking ``the first 6 months during 2006'' and 
     inserting ``2006'';
       (C) in clause (ii), by inserting ``(other than during 
     2006)'' after ``paragraph (3)''; and
       (D) in clause (iii), by striking ``2006'' and inserting 
     ``2007''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``2006'' and inserting 
     ``2007'' each place it appears.
       (b) Conforming Amendment to Part D.--Section 1860D-
     1(b)(1)(B)(iii) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
     101(b)(1)(B)(iii)) is amended by striking ``subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C) of paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (2)(C)''.

     SEC. ___. ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICARE OPERATED PRESCRIPTION 
                   DRUG PLAN OPTION.

       (a) In General.--Subpart 2 of part D of the Social Security 
     Act is amended by inserting after section 1860D-11 (42 U.S.C. 
     1395w-111) the following new section:


           ``Medicare operated prescription drug plan option

       ``Sec. 1860D-11A. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this part, for each year (beginning with 
     2007), in addition to any plans offered under section 1860D-
     11, the Secretary shall offer one or more medicare operated 
     prescription drug plans (as defined in subsection (c)) with a 
     service area that consists of the entire United States and 
     shall enter into negotiations with pharmaceutical 
     manufacturers to reduce the purchase cost of covered part D 
     drugs for eligible part D individuals in accordance with 
     subsection (b).
       ``(b) Negotiations.--Notwithstanding section 1860D-11(i), 
     for purposes of offering a medicare operated prescription 
     drug plan under this section, the Secretary shall negotiate 
     with pharmaceutical manufacturers with respect to the 
     purchase price of covered part D drugs and shall encourage 
     the use of more affordable therapeutic equivalents to the 
     extent such practices do not override medical necessity as 
     determined by the prescribing physician. To the extent 
     practicable and consistent with the previous sentence, the 
     Secretary shall implement strategies similar to those used by 
     other Federal purchasers of prescription drugs, and other 
     strategies, to reduce the purchase cost of covered part D 
     drugs.
       ``(c) Medicare Operated Prescription Drug Plan Defined.--
     For purposes of this part, the term `medicare operated 
     prescription drug plan' means a prescription drug plan that 
     offers qualified prescription drug coverage and access to 
     negotiated prices described in section 1860D-2(a)(1)(A). Such 
     a plan may offer supplemental prescription drug coverage in 
     the same manner as other qualified prescription drug coverage 
     offered by other prescription drug plans.
       ``(d) Monthly Beneficiary Premium.--
       ``(1) Qualified prescription drug coverage.--The monthly 
     beneficiary premium for qualified prescription drug coverage 
     and access to negotiated prices described in section 1860D-
     2(a)(1)(A) to be charged under a medicare operated 
     prescription drug plan shall be uniform nationally. Such 
     premium for months in a year shall be based on the average 
     monthly per capita actuarial cost of offering the medicare 
     operated prescription drug plan for the year involved, 
     including administrative expenses.
       ``(2) Supplemental prescription drug coverage.--Insofar as 
     a medicare operated prescription drug plan offers 
     supplemental

[[Page 3784]]

     prescription drug coverage, the Secretary may adjust the 
     amount of the premium charged under paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 1860D-3(a) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395w-103(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Availability of the medicare operated prescription 
     drug plan.--
       ``(A) In general.--A medicare operated prescription drug 
     plan (as defined in section 1860D-11A(c)) shall be offered 
     nationally in accordance with section 1860D-11A.
       ``(B) Relationship to other plans.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), a medicare 
     operated prescription drug plan shall be offered in addition 
     to any qualifying plan or fallback prescription drug plan 
     offered in a PDP region and shall not be considered to be 
     such a plan purposes of meeting the requirements of this 
     subsection.
       ``(ii) Designation as a fallback plan.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this part, the Secretary may designate the 
     medicare operated prescription drug plan as the fallback 
     prescription drug plan for any fallback service area (as 
     defined in section 1860D-11(g)(3)) determined to be 
     appropriate by the Secretary.''.
       (2) Section 1860D-13(c)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
     113(c)(3)) is amended--
       (A) in the heading, by inserting ``and medicare operated 
     prescription drug plans'' after ``Fallback plans''; and
       (B) by inserting ``or a medicare operated prescription drug 
     plan'' after ``a fallback prescription drug plan''.
       (3) Section 1860D-16(b)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C.1395w-
     116(b)(1)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       ``(E) payments for expenses incurred with respect to the 
     operation of medicare operated prescription drug plans under 
     section 1860D-11A.''.
       (4) Section 1860D-41(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
     151(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(19) Medicare operated prescription drug plan.--The term 
     `medicare operated prescription drug plan' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 1860D-11A(c).''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
March 15, 2006, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a crisis in this country and it needs to be 
dealt with on this bill. This amendment would provide for a real 
Medicare prescription drug benefit and save the Nation's taxpayers a 
minimum of $40 billion a year in the process. It would provide for 
continuous open enrollment for all of 2006 and lay any late enrollment 
penalties until 2007.
  Currently, if a beneficiary misses the May 15, 2006 deadline, they 
will not have the ability to enroll again until November 15 of 2006. 
This means they will automatically be subjected to a 7 percent minimum 
penalty for the rest of their lives. This amendment would allow 
beneficiaries the option of changing plans once in 2006 if they have 
made a poor choice, and there is no possible way that they could have 
known it was a poor choice when they made it.
  It would create a drug plan administered and run by Medicare. It 
would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate 
for drug prices on behalf of the American people of our seniors that 
are enrolled in the plan, and they are the greatest generation. They 
built the greatest Nation in the history of the world and they deserve 
better than what they are getting.
  This would not do away with any of the existing plans. It would just 
provide a much better option. It would provide lower prices and it 
would provide these prices that at no cost to the government.
  Our rural pharmacies are going broke because of this crazy Medicare 
part D bill that we have forced on our seniors and on our pharmacists. 
It is unfair. It is absolutely overpowering to know that our own 
government did this to good people. This amendment will fix that. And 
our seniors are still not getting the medicine that they need and 
deserve to stay alive, stay healthy and have a decent lifestyle.
  Once again by independent sources it has been verified that this 
amendment, if only half the eligible people signed up, it would save 
the taxpayers $40 billion. If all of them were part of this plan, it 
would save $100 billion a year, and they would still get their medicine 
cheaper than what they are paying for it right now. It only makes sense 
that we do this for the greatest generation and for those wonderful 
seniors that thought they were going to get treated a whole lot better 
by their own government.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I must say that my good 
friend, perhaps, has a prescription for success here, but I must say I 
must make my point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman rise to make his point of 
order?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes.
  Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman withhold temporarily?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I certainly will.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California reserves his point 
of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Arkansas says, we have hundreds 
of thousands of seniors who are faced with absolute confusion on this 
prescription drug bill. What we are trying to do is help them sort 
through some of the ridiculous choices they are being forced to make.
  What we are trying to do is to say that we will move the sign up 
deadline back to the end of the year to give them more time to sort out 
which plan best fits their needs. In my State, for instance, there are 
over 40 plans being offered to seniors.
  Secondly, we are saying give those seniors one opportunity to change 
a plan after May. Right now, if they do not make a change before May, 
they are stuck. Give them an opportunity to change once after May if 
they discover they have made the wrong choices in plans.
  Why are we offering this on the appropriations bill? It is very 
simple, because the rules were abused egregiously in order to enable 
the passage of this bill in the first place. The bill contained an 
outrageous gap in coverage now called the ``doughnut hole.'' It also 
contained a provision which forbade, which forbade the government from 
even negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry on price.
  How did that happen? Because the majority leadership of this House 
held the vote open for 3 hours in order to change the verdict. The way 
things are supposed to work in the House, as everybody knows, is that 
when we vote, these machines open, our name lights up on the board, we 
take our voting card, we put it in, and 15 minutes later the people 
with the most votes are supposed to be the winners. That is not the way 
this bill was passed.
  The way this bill was passed was that this bill was defeated at the 
end of 15 minutes. It was defeated at the end of a half an hour. It was 
defeated at the end of an hour. It was defeated after 2 hours. It was 
defeated after 2\1/2\ hours. But finally after 3 hours of holding the 
vote open the bill passed. How? Because the Republican leadership of 
this House broke Members' arms to vote for a bill they did not want to 
vote for because it contained these defects.

                              {time}  1415

  That is why we are trying to use the rules that were abused in that 
action in order to correct the abuse and give our seniors in the 
process a little more time to make a crucial decision in their lives.
  I would urge support for the amendment, and I would urge the 
gentleman not to raise a point of order against the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, could I ask how much time I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Foley). The gentleman from Wisconsin has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky).

[[Page 3785]]


  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, 3 months into the implementation of the 
Medicare drug benefit, one thing is perfectly clear, and that is the 
``D'' in part D stands for disaster. Beneficiaries are being bombarded 
by marketers and have been victimized by fraud. Forty percent of 
beneficiaries have yet to choose a plan because they remain perplexed 
and frustrated. $1.2 trillion seniors and people with disabilities 
deserve better than this.
  The Berry amendment would provide beneficiaries an additional 6 
months to choose a plan. This is the least that we can do for our 
senior citizens.
  I cannot imagine that any Member has not gone home and found hundreds 
and thousands of seniors who cannot figure this out. Only a small 
fraction are computer literate, and they are trying to figure it out.
  Let us give these seniors a little more time to try and figure this 
out. In the meantime, maybe we can fix this plan so that it can be 
serving them rather than the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance 
industry.
  This is a very, very sensible amendment. I know that there are people 
on both sides of the aisle who are feeling the pressure just to give a 
bit more time to our seniors. I hope you will all support this 
amendment.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, do I have any time left?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois said it 
just like it is. Our senior citizens deserve better. We can provide 
better drug coverage, better health care for our seniors in this 
country and save money at the same time.
  It defies logic that we would not take this opportunity to see that 
the wonderful generation that built this great Nation, they went 
through the Great Depression, they fought World War II, and then in 
their senior years to be treated like this only because we had a 
Congress willing to serve the pharmaceutical industry and allow them to 
rob our seniors and the rest of the American people, for that matter, 
and the insurance industry.
  This is an opportunity to right a great wrong. It is an opportunity 
to correct and fix the sorriest, most disgusting piece of legislation 
ever passed by the United States Congress; and I would ask that this at 
least be allowed to come to a vote.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, Medicare, like Social Security, is a 
solemn intergenerational promise. People pay into Medicare for a 
lifetime of work, and they expect quality health care when they retire 
or become disabled. With the passage of the Medicare Modernization Act 
in 2003, Medicare's ability to continue to provide quality health 
insurance both now and in the future has been threatened. Congress 
increased costs for beneficiaries, in all parts of Medicare, as it 
increased payouts to HMOs and drug plans.
  In passing Part D, Congress chose to side with the pharmaceutical and 
insurance industries rather than seniors and the disabled. Those on 
Medicare are at the mercy of the private sector for their drugs. There 
are 19 companies offering over 40 different prescription drug plans in 
Ohio, not including those offered through Medicare Advantage HMO's. 
Each of these plans can choose which drugs to cover and which to 
exclude from their formulary. They can change their formularies at any 
point in time. Corporate interests are deciding which drugs you can 
take instead of physicians.
  I wanted one prescription drug card, offered directly through 
Medicare, for seniors to use to cover all their drugs at pharmacies of 
their choosing. Congress could have passed a bill with both a real and 
simple benefit for Medicare beneficiaries, and for less money. Drug 
prices could have been negotiated and administrative costs could have 
been reduced through a plan directly under Medicare. In fact, the 
Center for Economic and Policy Research recently released a study 
showing that if Medicare negotiated drug prices, we would save so much 
money that we would be able to cover every single beneficiary with no 
co-payments, no deductibles, and no premiums . . . and still have $40 
billion dollars left. Now, we have a program where the coverage is too 
little, the cost is too high, and complexity is preventing seniors from 
getting the drugs they need.


                             CMS SHORTFALLS

  The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) made inherently 
flawed legislation even worse with its failure to ensure uninterrupted 
drug coverage, its lack of adequate rules regarding drug plan 
formularies, and its distribution of both incorrect and inadequate 
information. Since January 1, 2006, individuals either on Medicaid or 
Low-Income Assistance should have paid no more than $5 per 30-day 
retail or 90-day mail order prescription. For hundreds of thousands of 
people, some of whom contacted my office, this was not the case.
  Computer systems from CMS, the state, Social Security, and private 
plans did not adequately merge with the computer system pharmacies use 
to verify enrollment and co-payment information. What does this mean? 
Accurate co-payment amounts were not charged, and in some cases, are 
still not being charged. Charges have far exceeded $5 in many cases, 
sometimes by hundreds of dollars. Despite Medicare's anticipation of 
these scenarios, the problem was not addressed until After it hit 
beneficiaries.
  Regarding plan formularies, CMS rules allow plans to refuse to cover 
many drugs in the antidepressant, antipsychotic, anticonvulsant, 
anticancer, immuno-
suppressant and HIV/AIDS formulary categories--another instance of this 
administration playing doctor. This time, though, it is not just the 
health concern of one person, but it is an issue of social concern if 
some of these individuals are not able to access their prescribed 
medications.
  To make matters worse, CMS has yet to correct in writing a major 
error in the ``2006 Medicare and You'' handbooks which states that all 
plan premiums would be fully covered if on ``Extra Help''. In reality, 
government subsidies will only cover premium amounts up to $30.69 for 
2006. Many seniors will be surprised when their plan charges them the 
difference. In a response letter to me, the CMS Administrator, Dr. Mark 
McClellan, talks about CMS's multi-pronged approach to minimize the 
impact of this unfortunate error. Unfortunately, his approach consists 
primarily of a correction to Medicare's Web site rather than directly 
to seniors.


                          CORPORATE SHORTFALLS

  Without needed information, people on Medicare cannot make a 
decision. Many who have other drug coverage have not received notice 
from their provider whether or not their plan is creditable, or at 
least as good as Medicare's. If they make the wrong decision, they 
would have lesser coverage.
  Want information from the plans? Good luck! These companies have not 
dedicated nearly sufficient staff to handle questions and information, 
as you probably are aware. Most plans simply hang up on incoming calls, 
sometimes after waiting for hours on the phone. This is even the case 
for pharmacists who are spending time calling to check enrollment 
information with these companies.
  Each company is required to follow CMS transition policies to cover 
any drug for 30-days, regardless if it is on their formulary or not. 
Most companies are not volunteering this information, and some are not 
abiding by it.


                          PHARMACY SHORTFALLS

  CMS has released scenarios detailing actions pharmacies should take 
to make sure Medicaid and low-income assistance individuals receive 
their drugs at the proper copay amount. Though the directives are 
informative and needed, they have not been adequately disseminated. 
Even when they are aware of them, some pharmacies are not following 
these directives. As a result, many of these people are going without 
their drugs.
  When we consider the complex, costly nature of the program, in 
addition to the flawed implementation of the program, the minimum we 
can give our seniors is an extension of the deadline to enroll without 
penalty. If CMS can't smooth over the problems in implementation in 
time, we cannot ask seniors to observe the original deadline of May 15. 
They should be allowed to make sure they don't have to gamble with 
their lives when switching to a new plan. They need to know that the 
program, as flawed as it is, can be implemented in a way that does not 
deprive them of their medicines. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting the Berry Amendment.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, a woman told President Bush that 
she was having a hard time understanding his prescription drug program 
and needed more time so that she could make an informed choice for her 
mother.
  Bush told her too bad. Specifically, he said, ``Rolling back good 
deadlines is not going to help your mom make a good decision.''
  He's wrong. The implementation of this drug program has been a 
disaster. That's not a partisan statement, it's a factual one. Delaying 
the May 15th deadline until the end of 2006 should be a no-brainer.

[[Page 3786]]

  Senior citizens and people with disabilities shouldn't be forced to 
pay financial penalties for the rest of their lives because the law was 
poorly implemented. Nor should we allow the confusion of the last few 
months to turn beneficiaries off from ever entering the program.
  Yet, if the deadline goes into effect, that's exactly what will 
happen. According to the Congressional Budget Office 10 million seniors 
will pay higher premiums for their prescription drugs for the rest of 
their lives if this deadline is not delayed. And more than 1 million 
seniors will choose not to enroll this year.
  Mr. Bush has long claimed to be a compassionate conservative. There 
is nothing compassionate about telling America's seniors too bad and 
forcing them to pay higher premiums for the rest of their lives.
  My Republican colleagues keep complaining that Democrats are 
demagoguing the drug bill. We are not. We are here today trying to help 
them make it work better. I urge them to join us in that effort.
  America's seniors need and deserve a Medicare drug benefit that is 
user-friendly, affordable, and stable. Vote for the Berry Amendment to 
do just that.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California insist on his 
point of order?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: any amendment in a general 
appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. 
This amendment directly amends existing law.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anybody wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, it is ironic that the same rules that were 
abused in order to pass this legislation in the first place are now 
being hidden behind the majority in order to prevent us from correcting 
the flaws in that legislation. We could correct those flaws if the 
majority refrained from offering their point of order. Unfortunately, 
it appears that they are going to insist, and so they will have again 
selectively used the rules of this House to accomplish an end which 
would not have been reachable had the rules been adhered to in the 
first instance.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members who wish to argue 
the point of order?
  The Chair finds that this amendment directly amends existing law. The 
amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 
of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not 
in order.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro:
       Page 84, after line 17, insert the following section:
       Sec. 3013. Effective September 30, 2006, sections 319F-3 
     and 319F-4 of the Public Health Service Act (relating to 
     liability protections for pandemic and epidemic products and 
     security countermeasures), as added by division C of Public 
     Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2818), are repealed.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
March 15, 2006, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment is very simple. It repeals the comprehensive liability 
protection for vaccine manufacturers by the end of the fiscal year, 
September 30. I believe some sort of liability protection or 
indemnification is necessary and appropriate to encourage the 
development and the manufacture of some measures that are going to deal 
with a pandemic flu. I would support reasonable language.
  Whatever our respective views are about the wisdom of liability 
protection, the manner in which this particular provision was included 
in the defense appropriation bill last year is indefensible.
  Last December, legislation granting liability protection to the 
vaccine manufacturers was unilaterally inserted into the defense 
appropriations bill after the conference had closed, after an 
understanding verbally and in writing that no legislative liability 
language would be inserted into the bill. It was done in the dead of 
night, absent any careful consideration, no public hearings or debate 
among the Members of this body, nothing. It was the work of one person 
and one body. It should never have been allowed.
  Further, there are now no means for victims who are seriously injured 
to seek compensation, unlike other Federal vaccine programs: swine flu, 
smallpox, children's vaccines. Usually when government grants liability 
exemptions to companies, it provides some form of relief for the 
consumers who are injured.
  As we further discovered about this bill, the liability protection 
was granted not only to vaccines being developed to prepare us for an 
avian flu outbreak but also for a far broader range of potential 
vaccines and medical equipment, just about anything else the HHS 
Secretary deems appropriate.
  This sweeping, unchecked power granted to a Cabinet Secretary is 
unprecedented, to my knowledge, also sweeping power granted to the 
pharmaceutical industry. The Congress ought to consider carefully 
before ceding its authority to this or any administration.
  Under this law, manufacturers and their suppliers, distributors and 
their employees would be shielded from a lawsuit, even if they turned 
out to be negligent or reckless. None of us would agree that a 
negligent distributor, someone who ruined a vaccine by mishandling it, 
for example, should be held harmless. Do we want to say a drug maker 
who knows a product is defective but chooses to sell it anyway is above 
the law?
  We face a frightening prospect that millions of Americans could 
contract this deadly flu. Our first priority ought to be inoculating 
the American public from a deadly strain of flu and not inoculating 
pharmaceutical companies from the threat of legal liability.
  This provision has serious implications. All my amendment seeks to 
achieve is to grant the full Congress and the committees of 
jurisdiction the opportunity to fully consider the policy implications 
of this issue. It accomplishes that by sunsetting comprehensive 
liability protection to the drug manufacturers beyond this fiscal year. 
It gives us plenty of time to have the appropriate parties debate this 
issue thoroughly.
  Lastly, let me say a word about the rationale for making this 
amendment in order, because I understand that my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are preparing to challenge it on the basis of 
it being in violation of rule XXI and rule XVI, and that is certainly 
their right.
  But before they do, let me ask, where was the concern for the rules 
when a Member of the other body unilaterally rewrote liability law in 
this country? Given the complete abdication of procedural norms which 
made this provision's enactment possible, which we have seen time and 
time again in this institution, I would ask the majority, spare us the 
lectures about the need to respect House rules in this instance.
  Mr. Chairman, the House should have a full debate on this measure and 
an up-or-down vote. Let us give this institution the opportunity to 
reclaim the dignity, and constitutional authority, that the majority 
renounced in allowing one Member to usurp the power of this body, to 
bolster himself on this critical issue. That is what this amendment is 
about.

[[Page 3787]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we are here because last year on the defense 
appropriations bill, in the middle of the night, we were trying to 
finish action on that bill, and we had agreed that we would add the 
administration's request for $7 billion to fund a research program to 
develop vaccines to deal with avian flu. When the majority produced 
their bill, it only had $3.5 billion. We asked why the other money that 
was requested by the administration was not included. I was told by 
Senator Stevens, the chairman of the conference, that that was because 
the majority party had decided that they would not deal with the issue 
of drug company indemnification, and until they did, they were not 
going to put the long-term money in the bill.
  So they told us in writing, as well as orally, that they were not 
going to add any language indemnifying the drug companies. The 
conference ended about eight o'clock.
  Close to midnight, the majority leader of the United States Senate 
walked over to the Speaker's office and insisted that 40 pages of 
language never read or never checked out by anybody, that 40 pages of 
language never voted on by anybody be inserted in that conference 
report without a vote of the conferees, and that was jammed down our 
throats the next day.
  That language purported to protect drug companies in case they made 
some faulty flu vaccine; but, in fact, the language went far beyond 
that. It applied to all vaccines, it applied to all drugs and all 
medical devices that the Secretary chose to apply it to. It provided no 
possibility for judicial review at all. So in other words, it said if 
you get sick, if you lose your health because of a faulty vaccine or a 
faulty device, you cannot sue the drug company; you have to collect 
from the government.
  But guess what? They put no money in the fund that was supposed to be 
used to compensate victims. So it was a catch-22.
  We are here today because, in my view, that action inserting that 
language, without a vote of the conferees, was one of the most 
egregious corruptions of the legislative process that I have seen in 
the 37 years that I have been here. And we are trying to use the rules 
of the House today to reverse what happened because of an egregious 
abuse of those rules by the leadership of this House and by the 
leadership of the Senate.
  Of all people, of all people in the Congress, the leadership of both 
Houses have an obligation to protect the integrity of the institution 
and the integrity of the rules. When they themselves lead the charge to 
obliterate any opportunity to use the rules in defense of normal 
processes in this House, then, in my view, they have ultimately 
corrupted the process of legislation.
  So this amendment ordinarily would not be here, but the damage was 
done on this bill last year, and so we are trying to use the same 
vehicle to undo the damage. We recognize there needs to be some 
indemnification language, but it needs to be reviewed by somebody other 
than drug company lobbyists; and until that happens, I am going to 
continue to be mad as hell about this and do everything I possibly can 
to reverse the outcome.
  We are trying to preach democracy in Iraq. It would be nice if the 
leadership of this Congress showed some here at home in this 
institution.

                              {time}  1430

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Foley). The gentlewoman has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I would just conclude by saying that this is about 
inocula-
ting the American public against a deadly flu. We are not in the 
business and we are not charged with inoculating the pharmaceutical 
companies from the threat of legal liability. That is not why we were 
sent to the United States Congress. We are here to protect the public 
interest and the public trust.
  Let us do our job. Let the appropriate committees of jurisdiction 
deal with this issue; have the companies, have the consumers bring 
people together. That is simply what this legislation and my amendment 
is all about.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I must say that I think 
you know me well; that my colleagues do as well. I feel very strongly 
about the rules of the House and I feel very strongly about the way we 
operate with each other. I must say I have regretted from time to time 
all the lessons learned when the former majority ran the House. But 
because of that experience, I must propound my point of order.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment 
because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation 
on an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriations bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law.'' 
This proposal directly changes existing law.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be recognized on the 
gentleman's point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that what the gentleman is 
suggesting by insisting on his point of order is that the rules of this 
House may be bent by the majority in order to provide special interest 
language in a piece of legislation, but they cannot be used by the 
minority to defend the public interest in that same case. I would find 
that a strange interpretation of the rules indeed.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order? Hearing none, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds this amendment repeals existing law. The amendment 
therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. 
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, because this is the only way that we can 
protest this egregious corruption of the rules of the House, I 
respectfully appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair 
stand as the judgment of the Committee of the Whole?
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, and the 
order of the House of today, this 15-minute vote on the appeal of the 
ruling of the Chair will be followed by the following amendments on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order: The 
amendment by Mr. Sabo of Minnesota, 5-minute vote; the amendment by Mr. 
Neugebauer of Texas, a 2-minute vote; the amendment by Ms. Millender-
McDonald of California, a 2-minute vote; the amendment by Mr. Conaway 
of Texas, a 2-minute vote.
  The Chair wishes to underscore the 2-minute vote was agreed to by 
this Chamber. We will hold those votes strictly to 2 minutes. Members 
are advised to watch the board that they have properly recorded their 
votes during those 2-minute votes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223, 
noes 193, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 55]

                               AYES--223

     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

[[Page 3788]]


     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     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
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     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)
     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 (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--193

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     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
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Herseth
     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
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sánchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velázquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Boren
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Duncan
     Evans
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Jindal
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Oxley
     Putnam
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Strickland
     Sweeney


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Foley) (during the vote). Members are 
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1457

  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Ms. McKINNEY, Messrs. ROTHMAN, 
EDWARDS, TAYLOR of Mississippi and Melancon changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. REGULA, BOOZMAN, BUYER and TOM DAVIS of Virginia changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Committee.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 55, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Eshoo was allowed to speak out of order.)


                 Honoring Profiles in Courage Recipient

  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, this year marks the 50th anniversary of the 
publication of John F. Kennedy's book ``Profiles in Courage.''
  Last Thursday, one of our colleagues was chosen as the recipient for 
this year, the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy's book ``Profiles 
in Courage,'' as the Profile of Courage in the year 2006.
  Our distinguished colleague, Congressman John Murtha, is the 
recipient in 2006. We want to pay tribute to Congressman John Murtha as 
the recipient of the John F. Kennedy Profiles in Courage Award 
recipient.
  Congratulations, Jack.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, reduced-time voting will 
continue.
  There was no objection.
  The Chair reminds Members this 5-minute vote will be followed by 
three 2-minute votes.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Sabo

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 208, 
noes 210, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 56]

                               AYES--208

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     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
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hayworth
     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
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Ross

[[Page 3789]]


     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     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
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--210

     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)
     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
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Boren
     Buyer
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Duncan
     Evans
     Hastings (FL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Knollenberg
     Miller (FL)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Strickland
     Sweeney

                              {time}  1508

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote. Recorded votes on 
the remaining questions in this series will be conducted as 2-minute 
votes. Members are asked to remain in the Chamber. Members also should 
be aware that they can greatly expedite the process by recording their 
votes electronically at the voting stations rather than by ballot card 
in the well.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 89, 
noes 332, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 57]

                                AYES--89

     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hostettler
     Inglis (SC)
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     McKinney
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Sodrel
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Tiahrt
     Westmoreland
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--332

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sánchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velázquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)

[[Page 3790]]


     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Boren
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Duncan
     Evans
     Hastings (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Strickland
     Sweeney

                              {time}  1512

  Mr. ROTHMAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 57 on H.R. 
4939, my vote was mistakenly recorded as ``nay'' when I should have 
said ``aye.''


              Amendment Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194, 
noes 227, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 58]

                               AYES--194

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     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
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     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
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sánchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velázquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--227

     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
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     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
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     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 (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Boren
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Duncan
     Evans
     Hastings (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Strickland
     Sweeney

                              {time}  1516


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Foley). Twenty seconds remain in this vote.
  Mr. MARKEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Conaway

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 76, 
noes 342, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 59]

                                AYES--76

     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Johnson, Sam
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kolbe
     Linder
     Lucas
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Tancredo
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

[[Page 3791]]



                               NOES--342

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sánchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velázquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Boren
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Duncan
     Evans
     Hastings (FL)
     Istook
     Knollenberg
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Strickland
     Sweeney


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Fifteen seconds remain in this 
vote.
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, on March 16, 2006, I was unavoidably 
absent and missed rollcall votes 55-59. For the record, had I been 
present, I would have voted: No. 55--``yea''; No. 56--``nay''; No. 57--
``nay''; No. 58--``nay''; 59--``nay.''
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California) assumed 
the Chair.

                          ____________________