[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3791-3814]
[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 Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for 
the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman of the full 
committee for yielding to me for purposes of this colloquy. I would 
like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Royce).
  I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, this goes to the issue of $50 million in 
economic support funds for Liberia. What I wanted to say, on this 
issue, is that the United States has been very generous with Liberia. 
We have committed nearly $1.5 billion, and that includes the funding 
for U.N. peacekeeping, and of course President Bush deployed U.S. 
Marines in Liberia to end the fighting there. My concern is that the 
former Liberian President, Charles Taylor, frankly, is first among 
warlords. He faces a 17-count indictment by the U.S. backed Special 
Court for his crimes against humanity, and yet he is living in cushy 
exile in Nigeria.
  This is a problem on several counts. Taylor must face justice for the 
killing and maiming that he engineered. Bringing him to the Special 
Court will end the cycle of impunity that destabilizes West Africa, and 
most pressing to today's business, Taylor remains a threat to the 
progress that the U.S. has done so much to achieve. It is probable that 
left in exile, Taylor will return to Liberia, as he has pledged to do, 
and knock over all that we have helped build up, throwing that region 
back into chaos.
  Congress passed a resolution calling for Taylor to be sent to the 
Special Court. Yesterday, Liberia's new President addressed this 
Congress. She had an inspiring message. But what many human rights and 
civil society groups were hoping to hear was a loud and clear call for 
Taylor to be turned over to the court now before it is too late. While 
Taylor is in Nigeria, Nigeria's president has said he would honor an 
extradition request made by Liberia's new president. We are waiting for 
that request.
  This bill would tack on an added $50 million in emergency spending 
for Liberia. I am worried about the message this sends about our 
seriousness of purpose regarding Charles Taylor. We continue our 
generosity, yet the Liberian president continues to defy the wishes of 
many Liberians by not acting to bring Charles Taylor to justice.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I considered offering an amendment to strike or 
condition this $50 million. What I seek instead is to hear from you on 
this issue.
  Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I particularly 
thank him for his longstanding effort on behalf of West African nations 
and the people of West Africa, and certainly Liberia. I share his 
concern about a long lasting peace for Liberia, as I know all in this 
body do, and we also share the concern that Charles Taylor represents a 
threat to everything that the United States is trying to accomplish 
through its aid efforts and its commitment of troops to bring about 
peace and stability in Liberia.
  I will tell the gentleman as this process unfolds, the committee has 
been and will continue to closely monitor developments with Charles 
Taylor.
  I think I have some good news I can bring to the gentleman. Just 
before

[[Page 3792]]

this series of votes, Mrs. Lowey, my ranking member, and I completed a 
meeting with President Sirleaf, who, of course, addressed this body 
yesterday. We asked this question specifically, will there be an 
extradition request? I asked it three times, and got the same answer 
three times, that it has been done. She used the word ``done'' three 
times. So the request for extradition has been done. We believe and she 
has said that he needs to be brought to justice in an appropriate 
court.
  So the request to the President of Liberia has been made. She went on 
to tell us that President Olusegun is now consulting with African 
leaders from the African Union and the Economic Community of West 
African Countries, ECOWAS, to make sure that the extradition will not 
in any way destabilize the very fragile peace that now exists there. 
Once that is done, we would expect to see this accomplished.
  The request for extradition has been done, and we will continue to 
remain engaged and watch this very, very closely, as this process of 
the supplemental unfolds.
  Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentleman from Arizona and the gentlewoman 
from New York, and certainly the chairman of the committee.


                 Amendment No. 26 Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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

       Amendment No. 26 offered by Ms. Kaptur:

                               H.R. 4939

       On page 84, after line 17, insert the following:

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

       Sec. 401. There is hereby created a select committee on the 
     model of the Truman Committee to investigate the awarding and 
     carrying out of contracts to conduct military operations and 
     relief and reconstruction activities related to the global 
     war on terrorism (including all activities in Afghanistan and 
     Iraq), and Hurricane Katrina recovery, relief, and 
     reconstruction efforts (hereinafter referred to as the 
     ``select committee'').
       Sec. 402. (a) The select committee is to be composed of 19 
     Members of the House, one of whom shall be designated as 
     chairman from the majority party and one of whom shall be 
     designated ranking member from the minority party. The 
     chairmen and ranking minority members of the following 
     committees will serve on the select committee:
       (1) Committee on Armed Services;
       (2) Committee on Government Reform;
       (3) Committee on Homeland Security; and
       (4) Committee on International Relations.
       The chairmen and ranking minority members of the following 
     subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations will serve 
     on the select committee:
       (1) Subcommittee on Defense;
       (2) Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, 
     and Related Programs.
       (3) Subcommittee on Homeland Security.
       In addition, the Speaker shall appoint 5 members of the 
     select committee, of which 2 members shall be appointed upon 
     the recommendation of the minority leader. Any vacancy 
     occurring in the membership of the select committee shall be 
     filled in the same manner in which the original appointment 
     was made.
       (b) The select committee shall conduct an ongoing study and 
     investigation of the awarding and carrying out of contracts 
     by the Government for military operations and relief and 
     reconstruction activities related to the global war on 
     terrorism (including all activities in Afghanistan and Iraq), 
     and Hurricane Katrina recovery, relief, and reconstruction 
     efforts and make such recommendations to the House as the 
     select committee deems appropriate regarding the following 
     matters:
       (1) Bidding, contracting, and auditing standards in the 
     issuance of Government contracts;
       (2) Oversight procedures;
       (3) Forms of payment and safeguards against money 
     laundering.
       (4) Accountability of contractors and Government officials 
     involved in procurement;
       (5) Penalties for violations of law and abuses in the 
     awarding and carrying out of Government contracts;
       (6) Subcontracting under large, comprehensive contracts;
       (7) Inclusion and utilization of small businesses, through 
     subcontracts or otherwise.
       (8) Such other matters as the select committee deems 
     appropriate.
       Sec. 403. (a) Quorum.--One-third of the members of the 
     select committee shall constitute a quorum for the 
     transaction of business except for the reporting of the 
     results of its study and investigation (with its 
     recommendations) or the authorization of subpoenas, which 
     shall require a majority of the committee to be actually 
     present, except that the select committee may designate a 
     lesser number, but not less than two, as a quorum for the 
     purpose of holding hearings to take testimony and receive 
     evidence.
       (b) Powers.--For the purpose of carrying out this title, 
     the select committee may sit and act during the present 
     Congress at any time and place within the United States or 
     elsewhere, whether the House is in session, has recessed, or 
     has adjourned and hold such hearings as it considers 
     necessary and to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the 
     attendance and testimony of such witnesses, the furnishing of 
     information by interrogatory, and the production of such 
     books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, 
     and other things and information of any kind as it deems 
     necessary, including relevant c1assified materials.
       (c) Issuance of Subpoenas.--A subpoena may be authorized 
     and issued by the select committee in the conduct of any 
     investigation or series of investigations or activities, only 
     when authorized by a majority of the members voting, a 
     majority being present. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed 
     by the chairman or by any member designated by the select 
     committee, and may be served by any person designated by the 
     chairman or such member. Subpoenas shall be issued under the 
     seal of the House and attested by the Clerk. The select 
     committee may request investigations, reports, and other 
     assistance from any agency of the executive, legislative, and 
     judicial branches of the Government.
       (d) Meetings.--The chairman, or in his absence a member 
     designated by the chairman, shall preside at all meetings and 
     hearings of the select committee. All meetings and hearings 
     of the select committee shall be conducted in open session, 
     unless a majority of members of the select committee voting, 
     there being in attendance the requisite number required for 
     the purpose of hearings to take testimony, vote to close a 
     meeting or hearing.
       (e) Applicabilities of Rules of the House.--The Rules of 
     the House of Representatives applicable to standing 
     committees shall govern the select committee where not 
     inconsistent with this title.
       (f) Written Committee Rules.--The select committee shall 
     adopt additional written rules, which shall be public, to 
     govern its procedures, which shall not be inconsistent with 
     this title or the Rules of the House of Representatives.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
March 15, 2006, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California, the chairman, 
reserves a point of order.
  The gentlewoman from Ohio may proceed.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, offered with its very able 
champion, Congressman John Tierney of Massachusetts, will create a 
select House committee modeled on the Truman Commission created during 
World War II to exercise due diligence and proper congressional 
oversight on the over half a trillion dollars of expenditures by the 
government of the United States to conduct the global war on terrorism, 
as well as those contracts let for rebuilding of the gulf region after 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
  The original Truman Commission recouped over $15 billion to our 
taxpayers. That is big money in our time. But it was huge money back 
then, returned to our taxpayers from those interests that were 
conducting their business above and beyond the letter of the law.
  We are asking for a thorough investigation of any waste, fraud and 
abuse in government contracts associated with the Iraq war and the 
global war on terrorism, as well as Katrina-Rita recovery and 
reconstruction.
  Our amendment is responsible. It is a good government amendment. It 
provides real means for oversight that is thorough, not anecdotal.
  Currently, no committee in this House has full investigative 
authority to probe growing public concerns about where our tax dollars 
are being spent in this contracting. The charges are legion of cost-
plus contracts, contractor fraud, as contracts below $500,000 are 
purposely kept at that level to circumvent review. Criminal operatives 
like Rob Stein have been charged and

[[Page 3793]]

arrested for manipulating Iraqi Coalition Provisional Authority 
accounts in bribery and kickback schemes, waste and abuse.
  This administration is moving billions of dollars with no audit 
trails, even back to the Appropriations Committee, which should receive 
those audits. In Iraq, no-bid contracts of enormous proportions are 
let, like to Halliburton. In Iraq, rebuilding contracts, amounting to 
millions are missing. A few wrongdoers have been arrested, but they are 
just the tip of the iceberg. Companies like Custer Battles, given 
contracts to secure Baghdad Airport, is a company that never did 
security work. Indeed it submitted invoices for electricity that were 
only valued at $74,000, but they got $400,000. Broken trucks bought in 
local markets cost $228,000, yet Custer Battles billed for $800,000. In 
our Gulf region, no-bid contracts need Congressional oversight.

                              {time}  1530

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


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
against the amendment because it proposes to

[[Page 3794]]

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


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Nadler

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

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

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

       (a) Requirements.--Section 70116 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Requirements Relating to Entry of Ocean Shipping 
     Containers.--
       ``(1) In general.--An ocean shipping container may enter 
     the United States, either directly or via a foreign port, 
     only if--
       ``(A) the container is scanned with equipment that meets 
     the standards established pursuant to paragraph (2)(A) and a 
     copy of the scan is provided to the Secretary, and
       ``(B) the container is secured with a seal that meets the 
     standards established pursuant to paragraph (2)(B),

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

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

[[Page 3795]]

  Congress needs to make 100 percent scanning the policy of the United 
States. This amendment would do that. I realize, Mr. Chairman, this 
amendment may not be allowed under the rules of the House.
  I fully expect the Republicans to raise a point of order against it. 
I would note, however, that the underlying bill includes a provision 
blocking the proposed takeover of U.S. terminals by Dubai Ports World. 
I support that provision.
  But if we can include language on the Dubai deal in this bill, then 
certainly the Republican majority should allow us to include language 
that secures shipping containers and prevents atomic bombs from going 
off in port cities.
  At the very least, they could easily waive the rule and allow a vote 
on this amendment. If they care more about these rules that they waive 
every day than they do about protecting the American public from 
nuclear bombs and shipping containers, I truly fear for our safety.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment to 
attach the Sail Only if Scanned Act, the SOS Act, to this bill. The 
only way we will adequately protect our citizens is if the Republicans 
in Congress join with us to force the Bush administration to take 
seriously the issue of container security and make sure that every 
single container is scanned and sealed with a tamper-proof seal before 
being placed on a ship bound for the United States.


                             Point of Order

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

                              {time}  1545

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Waxman

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

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

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
March 15, 2006, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognize the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Three years ago, Congress and the American people were told that the 
Iraq War would be quick and inexpensive. Senior administration 
officials told us that rebuilding Iraq would cost less than $2 billion. 
And we were told that Iraq would be able to finance its own 
reconstruction with its oil revenues.
  Well, 3 years later, we know that these assurances were completely 
unfounded. The war has cost hundreds of billions of dollars. We 
squandered over $20 billion on reconstruction projects that have left 
basic services below prewar levels. And these massive costs have 
contributed to record budget deficits at home.
  There are multiple causes for the enormous burden placed on the 
taxpayer. President Bush and his advisors grossly underestimate the 
insurgency. They failed to engage our allies in the rebuilding effort, 
and they vastly overestimated the amount of oil Iraq could sell to 
funds its reconstruction.
  The amendment I am offering with Mr. Dingell addresses part of the 
problem, rampant waste, fraud and abuse in Federal contracting under 
the Bush administration. The largest contractor operating in Iraq is 
Halliburton. Government auditors have repeatedly caught Halliburton 
red-handed. They have found over a billion dollars in unreasonable and 
unsupported charges.
  Let me repeat this. Federal auditors have found Halliburton's 
unreasonable and unsupported bills exceed $1 billion. Yet over and over 
again, this administration has ignored its own auditors. The Pentagon's 
auditors have found over $260 million in unreasonable and unsupported 
costs when they examine Halliburton's no-bid contract to restore Iraq's 
oil field.
  Independent industry experts call Halliburton's charges ``highway 
robbery.'' But as this chart shows, the Bush administration ignored 
these findings and paid Halliburton for 97 percent of its overcharges 
and then gave Halliburton millions in additional bonuses. These same 
Pentagon auditors rejected $200 million in dining hall expenses because 
Halliburton charged for meals it never served to the troops. But the 
Bush administration ignored the auditors and paid 75 percent of the 
challenged costs and tripled Halli-
burton's profit on the contract.
  The auditors got so frustrated with Halliburton that they warned 
Pentagon officials not to enter into any more contracts with the 
company. But 3 days later, the Bush administration gave Halliburton a 
new $1.2 billion contract in Iraq. And these are not the only problems.
  More than 50 cases of contract fraud in Iraq are currently under 
investigation. And administration officials cannot account for over $8 
billion in Iraqi oil proceeds. This kind of incompetent and egregious 
mismanagement is hard to believe. No matter how many times they bilk 
the taxpayer, politically favored companies keep getting more and more 
Federal contracts.
  The administration has a duty to safeguard taxpayer dollars, but it 
is shirking that responsibility. We need to pass this amendment to end 
this costly cycle.
  This is an amendment that is very simple. It will prohibit the 
administration from using the funds in this bill to award new contracts 
to any company that has overcharged the government by $100 million or 
more in Iraq.
  This is just common sense. No company that squanders over $100 
million of taxpayers money should be rewarded with new contracts. If 
the administration will not protect the taxpayer against waste, fraud 
and abuse, the Congress must act. For the sake of the taxpayers and the 
troops, I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 3796]]


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

                              {time}  1600

  So how does this Congress justify ignoring blatant stealing? Do we 
not all want to get at that? I mean, too many of our soldiers have been 
asked to do without proper body armor and equipment, and they come home 
to reduced benefits, and this Congress has found it easy enough to say 
no to our soldiers; and yet every single time we have been able to say 
yes to Halliburton.
  Is it not time that all of us agree that it is wrong to have this 
kind of waste, fraud and abuse and to pass this simple amendment?
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me just say to my colleagues here who have stated that we should 
hold up our contracts and not give new contracts until past contracts 
are found to be reasonable versus unreasonable, Members have stood on 
this floor and have called every weapons system since the first Persian 
tank unreasonable in cost. The B-2 has been called unreasonable. Every 
ship in the navy has been called unreasonable in the cost. Every 
fighter aircraft has been called unreasonable in the cost.
  The idea that you are not going to have any action on these contracts 
unless you have a congressional hearing

[[Page 3797]]

is not true. There is no committee here that has the ability to enforce 
or not enforce a contract. You have dozens, in fact hundreds, of 
government lawyers who have every opportunity, indeed have the charge, 
of going through complex contracts, and where they find that the 
contract was violated by the contractor, and there are lots of 
contractors around who are bankrupt to attest to this, that that 
contract is then acted upon, damages are extracted; and all these are 
things that we have put in our system of laws.
  Now, the idea that you are going to take a major part of the support 
of an ongoing shooting war and you are going to paralyze it and say, 
well, it is only for present contracts, the next one that comes up next 
month, that is going to be different, but you are going to allow 
present contracts to continue. That could mean that you have got a 
hiatus in capability, a hiatus in the expertise of these people who 
have gone out, wearing the uniform of American contractors, put 
themselves in harm's way and, over the last several years in this war, 
developed a real expertise.
  So I know the gentleman's amendment may play well politically in some 
quarters, but I think it is bad for the men and women who wear the 
uniform of the United States because the contractors we are talking 
about are the people supporting them right now in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California, the chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee, says that reasonableness is something that 
could be subjective. Some people think that certain weapons systems may 
not be reasonable. Well, reasonableness is not some vague standard we 
picked out of the air. It comes directly from section 31.201-3(a) of 
the Defense Contract Audit Agency's ``Contract Audit Manual.'' That 
provision reads: ``A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, 
it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in 
the conduct of competitive business.''
  Every government auditor knows this standard. It is a standard that 
the Pentagon's own auditors apply to Halliburton. It is the standard 
that was flouted by the Bush administration, and it is the standard 
that my amendment would reaffirm.
  Now, this last argument, Halliburton's got an expertise and, 
therefore, they should get future contracts because we may not be able 
to find someone else with the expertise, and, therefore, we should 
ignore overcharges, unreasonable charges in excess of $100 million 
dollar in the past, that is an incredible argument. No matter how many 
times we may be the victims, or our taxpayers may be the victims, of 
waste, fraud and abuse, we should continue to pay? That is absurd.
  Now, I just submit that we are following the very clear standard in 
the law, and our amendment does not plow any new ground, and I would 
urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) has 4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman) has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  One thing my distinguished friend from California (Mr. Waxman) has 
not shown us is how American laws, existing laws in contract, that 
govern the acquisition of systems and the acquisition of services, how 
those laws are not applicable to this American corporation, and so, 
therefore, we have to say, stop, we are not going to do anymore 
business with this corporation.
  In fact, all the laws that go toward the enforcement of contracts and 
the contract itself, of course, are enforceable. Fines can be 
extracted. Other remedies can be extracted; and if there is, in fact, 
fraud, and I have heard the term ``fraud'' used in this debate, if 
there is fraud, that is a crime in contracting. If you commit crime in 
contracting, you can go to jail. There is no Member of this Chamber 
who, if a contract is broken between the United States Government and 
any of our contractors over there, there is no one in this Chamber who 
is going to say that we should not extract our full remedy under the 
laws we create and if people are involved in criminal action that they 
should not be prosecuted.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, $40 for a case of soda, $100 for a bag of laundry, 
torching an $80,000 truck instead of replacing flat tires, charging 40 
times more to transport fuel than reasonable, these are some of the 
things that Halliburton has been called to task for, not by Democrats, 
but by the auditors, the professional auditors at the Department of 
Defense; and they should have been penalized for doing that.
  Now, what was, was; but let's don't in the future give them contracts 
to abuse us again.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the very distinguished 
ranking member on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I am nervous about the amendment. I am 
nervous because I am not sure, when we have got people out there making 
contracts for the troops out in the field, there is no question all of 
us want to take care of the fraud and abuse, all of us. Nobody's done 
more of a job than you have, the gentleman from California; but I get 
nervous when we are doing something prospectively. We are not sure of 
the impact.
  I think we would have to change this in conference anyway because we 
just do not know enough about the impact. You assure us. They are 
worried about it. So I am very worried about this amendment. I think we 
would be better off letting the system take care of it. I think when 
you have fraud and abuse, it has got to be taken care of.
  The Congress has the oversight responsibility, but I am not sure 
legislating for the future is going to solve the problem. That is the 
thing that worries me.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the system has failed because the Bush 
administration paid 97 percent of the charges that the Pentagon 
auditors found to be unreasonable. So our amendment is structured to 
apply in the future.
  We will have a chance to continue to look at this. I feel comfortable 
that this is not going to jeopardize anything that is going on in Iraq 
today and certainly not the existing contracts such as the ongoing 
logistical contract which Halliburton still has; but for the future, if 
any company has overcharged by $100 million, we should not be rushing 
out there and giving them a new contract.
  Existing contracts are existing contracts. They should not be 
rewarded for that overcharging.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just worry when we do 
something like this prospectively, we might affect what is going on in 
the field. None of us want to stop a contract for services to the 
troops in the field right now, and I think you agree with that.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I respect 
that. I agree with you. That is why we were very careful in the way we 
drafted this amendment.
  Mr. MURTHA. I know you believe that, but I would err on the side of 
trying to prevent it. So at this point I would be against the 
amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  I would like to say that this is not about a particular company. This 
is about a policy change, a policy change that we have not had any 
opportunity to review, with no hearings. We only learned about this 
amendment late last

[[Page 3798]]

night, and it is a policy that should not be changed here on the floor 
without the benefit of some backup hearings and actual review.
  Like I said, it sounds like a good idea; but we have just got to be 
sure. We do not want to interrupt the logistical flow of what our 
troops need to carry out their mission. There is a major mission under 
way in Iraq as we speak, Operation Swarmer, and it is the biggest air 
operation since the war started. We cannot afford to upset an ongoing 
operation like that.
  We have got to support our troops, and if a policy change like this 
has a negative effect, that is just not good. It is not good for our 
troops. So I would hope we would oppose this amendment.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to 
deny further awards of contracts to contractors that have been found by 
the Defense auditors to have billed the government for more than $100 
million in unreasonable costs.
  From the moment Representative Waxman and I learned about secret no-
bid contracts given to large companies like Halliburton in 2003, for 
activities in Iraq, we have tried to get the facts on the matter. And 
it has not been easy to get those facts.
  In the course of our investigation, with the help of the Government 
Accountability Office, we have learned of some pretty terrible things. 
First, we found that Halliburton was importing oil into Iraq at 
extremely high prices. We were particularly concerned about the 
company's decision to import gasoline from Kuwait at a price far above 
market levels.
  Eventually, Defense auditors agreed and found that there were $263 
million in unsupported and questioned costs in these contracts. Yet 
last month, the Corps of Engineers ignored their auditors and 
reimbursed Halliburton for $254 million--all but $9 million of the 
questioned costs.
  This follows a pattern with Halliburton. The Defense auditors had 
previously questioned $200 million in costs for meal services provided 
by the company, which again was overruled by the Army, which gave the 
company $145 million.
  This amendment to deny new contracts to companies that have a history 
of billing the government for questionable costs is hardly novel. In 
January, 2004, the Defense Contract Audit Agency itself recommended 
that the Corps not enter into new contracts with Halliburton, but 3 
three days later the Army awarded Halliburton a new $1.2 billion 
contract.
  The amendment before us will ensure that taxpayer money will go to 
support the troops and help rebuild infrastructure and not fatten the 
pockets of contractors that have a history of questionable billing 
practices. I emphasize this amendment will not take any funds away from 
troop support, but will help support the troops.
  It is an embarrassment that there have been virtually no 
Congressional hearings on the matter. Instead, we must act 
legislatively.
  The best course of action to ensure that our money is going where it 
is needed in support of the troops is to put an end to future contracts 
with companies that are serial overchargers. Vote for this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Velazquez:

  At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
following:

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

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

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The chairman of the Small Business Committee opposes this amendment, 
the chairman of the authorizing committee. This amendment keeps the 
application period for SBA disaster loans open indefinitely. This could 
expose the disaster loan program to waste, fraud, and abuse that would 
virtually be impossible for the SBA to accurately verify losses as more 
time

[[Page 3799]]

elapses from when the hurricanes struck the gulf coast.
  This amendment is also unnecessary because the administration has 
already had the ability to extend the application deadline, and has 
done so three times. So if they have the ability to do it, and they 
have done it, and they have done it three times, and your authorizing 
chairman would oppose it, why would you want to do it? In fact, the 
deadline was just extended for another 30 days, to April 10, for 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
  So, if there was a need, the administration would do it again. If the 
gentlewoman wants to change the parameters of the disaster loans, she 
should work within her position and with the ranking member and come up 
with something that everyone could agree on.
  In the interest of time, I would just say that I oppose the 
amendment. It can lead to a lot of problems.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Let me just say that SBA, before we start talking about deadlines, we 
need to get SBA to process the 60,000 applications that are in backlog. 
They need to do a better job in educating people so that we can get 
more than 19 percent of the applications back.
  They need to fix the system where they have been declining 60 percent 
of all the loans that have been submitted to SBA. They need to do the 
job before they pull out, and that is an excuse for them not to do the 
job.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. The administration has extended this several times.
  Secondly, the gentlewoman seems to constantly be criticizing SBA at 
every turn. We are going to ask the National Academy for Public 
Administration, somebody, to find truth out here and then begin. If you 
constantly browbeat and it is not accurate, you should be careful when 
you say things, because words mean things.
  The chairman was before our committee yesterday. And so what we are 
going to do is, we are going to ask the National Academy of Public 
Administration to take a look at all these charges that go back and 
forth, because if we are constantly attacking Federal employees in 
program after program after program, I mean words matter. We just can't 
use this institution to attack people.
  This place has turned into a partisan pit and it is time to bring 
some objectivity. So what we are going to do, we are going to take all 
of your charges, all of your comments, all of your complaints, all of 
your criticisms, all your condemnations and ask the National Academy of 
Public Administration to look at it to find out some truth.
  This is a bad amendment. You are on the authorizing committee. You 
could do it. If we are going to do everything here, why do we even need 
an authorizing committee?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The gentlewoman has 90 
seconds.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Well, let me just say this. Isn't it true that there 
are 60,000 applications in backlog? Isn't it true that 19 percent, only 
19 percent have been processed? Isn't it true that there is 65 percent 
declined on loans approval?
  This is not about partisanship, this is about victims who are 
suffering, who are losing their businesses, who are losing their jobs. 
This is what this amendment is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Yes.
  Mr. WOLF. Then I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, in a hearing yesterday on the disaster 
loan program, we heard two different stories on this equation in the 
gulf. We heard from the SBA administrator who said that everything is 
great. He told the committee that they are processing record numbers of 
loans and that there are virtually no problems. At the same time, we 
have a small business owner, Patricia Smith, who came in from New 
Orleans and told her story.
  She told the committee how she could not find a Federal official to 
help her apply for a loan and how she spent hours working through 
paperwork. She told us that it took months to hear back on the status 
of her loan and that she was wrongly denied. The woman also shared that 
there are thousands out there with the same story.
  The view from Washington, and what is actually going on in the gulf 
coast region is very different. By extending the deadline for disaster 
loans, we will give victims the ability to assess their situation and 
make an informed decision about getting an SBA loan.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WOLF. Several years ago, you said if we abolished the loan 
guarantees, the world would come to an end. We abolished them, and now 
the number of loans are up. They are at a record number.
  So what we are going to do, and I think the body should know, we want 
the SBA to work well, we want them to make the loans, but if we are 
constantly hammering and criticizing and condemning and governing by 
press release we don't get very far. So what we are going to do is we 
are going to ask the National Academy of Public Administration, a 
nonpartisan group, to come in and look at the gentlewoman's charges and 
all these things and come back and give us an honest report so we will 
know. But if we are just harassing Federal employees and criticizing 
them at every step of the way, we really don't accomplish very much.
  And I would say that you did say, and I will submit for the record 
what you said about abolishing the loan guarantees, but by doing that, 
we saved the taxpayer about $170 million. The loans are up. That was 
basically a subsidy for the bankers. The banking lobby wanted that and 
we took it away and now we saved the taxpayers money.
  This is a bad amendment. Vote it down.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Velazquez:

  At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
following:

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
March 15, 2006, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, while the House will begin debating the 
budget resolution in the coming weeks, this amendment offers the first 
vote on one of the initiatives introduced in the

[[Page 3800]]

President's 2007 budget. This amendments provides Members the 
opportunity to send a clear message that victims of disasters should 
not be subject to additional and unnecessary burdens by the Federal 
Government.
  Buried in the President's budget submission was a proposal to raise 
the interest rates on SBA's disaster loans. This initiative will 
eliminate the current caps on interest rates and allow for the SBA to 
charge higher rates on disaster loans. This could mean that interest 
rates go up by as much as 50 percent.
  The end result will force those who had their homes or businesses 
destroyed to pay for our budget problems here in Washington. I offer 
this amendment today to ensure that we stop this wrongheaded proposal 
in its tracks. It puts Congress on record making it clear that an 
attempt to create additional hardships on disaster victims will not be 
tolerated.
  Given all the missteps by FEMA and SBA in the gulf, Congress should 
not be adding to the problems of those hit by a natural disaster. 
Findings by the General Accounting Office, various inspector generals 
and congressional panels have revealed the numerous ways the Federal 
Government has failed our citizens in the gulf. By supporting this 
amendment, Congress will be saying that we stand together in these 
difficult times.
  I am a firm believer in balancing our spending priorities, but this 
proposal is beyond the pale. I find it hard to believe, particularly 
given all the wasteful spending in Washington, that the only place to 
find funding is on the backs of disaster victims. Whatever happened to 
compassionate conservatism?
  The effect of the administration's proposal will mean increased costs 
by thousands of dollars for disaster victims. It is alarming that 
despite all the problems with the management of the disaster loan 
program the only change the President offered in his budget was to 
increase the cost on disaster victims.
  We agree that changes need to be made to the disaster loan program, 
but this is not one of them. By voting for this amendment, Congress 
expresses its commitment to rejecting this bad idea. I urge a ``yes'' 
vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This 
amendment has absolutely, positively, categorically nothing to do with 
an emergency supplemental bill that we are considering today. It is an 
attempt to stop a legislative proposal related to the fiscal year 2007 
budget, which, as an authorizer, you will get to have that opportunity. 
And it will come out on the floor one way or the other, and the 
Congress will have the opportunity to vote on it.
  The proposal will have to be considered by the committee. SBA cannot 
unilaterally make the changes. So the Congress should know that the 
authorizers in the Congress set the rate. It is not the administration. 
So we are going to have that opportunity when Mr. Manzullo and the 
members, minority and majority, make it.
  Lastly, it is not necessary and it will have no effect, because it is 
just simply an attempt to prejudge a proposal by the administration for 
next fiscal year, and that is not something that you would do in a 
supplemental. If you would do that in a supplemental bill, we should 
just abolish every other bill and put everything in a supplemental 
bill, because then everything is a supplemental.
  So it is a bad amendment, and I urge you to vote ``no.''
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I would simply note, given what the gentleman just said, that is 
exactly what we have done with Iraq. Every dollar of the Iraq war has 
been financed through a supplemental appropriation. That is the way the 
administration has been able to hide from the taxpayers the full long-
term cost of this war. That is the way they have been able to avoid 
systematic oversight. They put it in a supplemental, and then it is a 
must-pass, hurry-up, piece-at-a-time operation. Eventually you get the 
whole pie, but you get it in pieces, and the public doesn't know what 
the total picture is.
  So I would simply say that I was kind of amused by that comment 
because the administration is way ahead of all of us. They decided a 
long time ago that they are going to supplemental the Congress to 
death, and they put every possible dollar they can into supplementals. 
They have yet to spend $1 in a regular defense appropriation bill for 
Iraq.
  So I just find it interesting that one person is expected to live up 
to a standard that the administration itself won't live up to.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Let me just say that this is a cornerstone of the President's budget 
for SBA, and I think it is important that Congress go on record on this 
issue, particularly for us Democrats. And what we are saying today is, 
it is a bad idea, and we need to make it clear from the beginning, from 
the start, that we want to balance the budget but not at the expense of 
disaster victims.
  And that is exactly what we are doing with this amendment today. We 
must prevent any of these funds from being used for higher interest 
loans in disaster loans for victims. We have to make sure that if money 
is carried over, that it will not be used for higher interest loans 
that will impact disaster victims.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would ensure that the disaster loan 
program remains an affordable source of capital for those affected by 
future disasters. When the program works, it has served to create the 
public-private partnership that balances the needs of fiscal constraint 
and compassion for our fellow Americans.
  The administration's proposal to raise interest rates on disaster 
loans will simply leave the victims to fend for themselves.

                              {time}  1630

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

[[Page 3801]]

  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
will be postponed.


                      Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee

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

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

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

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
March 15, 2006, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment is very simple. This amendment would prevent FEMA from 
evicting from hotels and motels the thousands of families who were 
affected by the hurricanes on the gulf coast last summer.
  Mr. Chairman, 6 months ago, the entire world watched the wealthiest, 
most powerful country on Earth turn its back on those who couldn't 
afford to evacuate their homes in advance and during the hurricanes. 
People were left to fend for themselves on rooftops, trying to save 
their lives and the lives of their families.
  We cannot sweep under the rug the faces and the images of those who 
were disproportionately abandoned by their government. Unfortunately, 
today, 6 months after the storm, the majority of these people are still 
fending for themselves. The people of New Orleans and the gulf coast 
have experienced more tragedy and more suffering in the last 6 months 
than anyone should have to face in a lifetime. It is bad enough that 
they suffered through one of the worst natural disasters in the history 
of United States, it is bad enough that they lost their homes and their 
jobs and their livelihoods, it is bad enough that they are suffering 
mental breakdowns, high suicide rates and high rates of post-dramatic 
stress. And it is bad enough the insurance companies are trying to 
dodge their obligations to pay out claims to property owners.
  But now to add insult to injury, yesterday their own government, our 
government, ended payments for hotel and motel rooms for thousands of 
displaced Katrina evacuees. Where will all of these people go? We 
already have a huge homeless population in this country. Why are we 
creating a new generation of Katrina homeless?
  This lacks morality and is about as low as you can go. What benefit 
does the Federal Government have in kicking people when they are down?
  Today, the newspapers are filled with accounts of people who were 
kicked out of their rooms and have no place to go. There are reports of 
families piling their possessions out of hotels and motels and into 
trucks, but with nowhere to go. This is just disgraceful. What kind of 
a message do we send with these evictions? What do we say to the rest 
of the world? What does it say about our values and our priorities and 
really what we believe in terms of putting people first?
  I believe we have to send a different message, and we can do that 
today. We have to reject the actions of FEMA and this administration 
and prevent people from getting kicked out of their hotel and motel 
rooms.
  By passing my amendment, we would block FEMA from using any money in 
this bill to evict people living in hotels and motels as a result of 
Hurricane Katrina. We should not allow FEMA to dump people on the 
streets. That is just plain wrong. That is all it is, it is wrong. That 
should not be done. This is unjust.
  Let us help at least stabilize their lives and give them a safe place 
to sleep without worrying about being on the streets. Mr. Chairman, I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment which would prohibit FEMA from 
terminating its hotel and motel emergency sheltering program. This 
language is overly restrictive. At its peak, FEMA had more than 85,000 
hotel rooms rented per night. The current subsidized hotel-room 
population is 3,780 households with the vast majority being in 
Louisiana.
  FEMA is now in the process of transitioning these remaining hotel/
motel residents into more appropriate housing. We do not want families 
living in motels. We all want to see those families in a better 
environment, longer term housing solutions such as apartments and the 
like.
  This transition will occur over the coming weeks. To date, over 2,500 
have already been matched up against not-yet-ready temporary housing, 
trailers, apartments and the like. The remainders include hard-to-place 
individuals, the disabled and people like that; and FEMA will continue 
to provide hotel/motel assistance to those people until a suitable 
temporary housing solution is identified and prepared.
  Members should be assured that people are not being thrown out in the 
streets. FEMA is working with families to place them in appropriate 
housing solutions. This amendment would keep in place a program in the 
long term that is not good for the recipients or anyone else. So I urge 
Members to vote against the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters), who is a real leader and was down there 
helping people save their lives during this tragedy.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to come down here and 
support the gentlewoman's amendment because yesterday 4,007 codes 
expired. We do not know where those people are. We do not know if they 
have housing. As a matter of fact, there are news reports this morning 
that are telling us there are people who have nowhere to go.
  I thank the gentlewoman for attempting to send some direction to 
FEMA. It is shameful and outrageous what has happened with the poor 
victims of Hurricane Katrina. From the time they started with the 
shelters until now, they have not come up with a reasonable program by 
which to provide housing.
  I thank the gentlewoman for everything she has done, and I simply 
hope we can get support for this amendment so that the $88 billion that 
we have appropriated to deal with this catastrophe can be used. I know 
FEMA has used 25 percent of this money on administrative costs. That is 
outrageous. We want that money to be used to provide shelter to the 
people who need it.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This issue speaks to who we are as a country. We know there are 
people living on the streets, and we know there are people who have 
been really just played around with in terms of you have to evict, you 
do not. You have 5 more days; you have 10 more days. You have to call 
this number and get a voucher. Maybe we will extend it another week; 
maybe it will be 2 weeks. The deadline is tomorrow.
  What in the world are these people supposed to do, Mr. Chairman? I 
think until we fix this where everybody has decent transitional 
housing, we should just say ``no'' to evictions. That is what this is 
about. ``No'' to evictions to people who have already been traumatized 
and hurt.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not true that the time is up. Eligible Hurricane 
Katrina

[[Page 3802]]

victims with no other housing means may be eligible for 3 months' worth 
of housing assistance. And the deadline application for individual 
assistance has been extended until April 11. So I would urge defeat of 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                      Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee

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

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

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

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time and also for her leadership on this issue. She and I both have 
bills to make U.S. policy that there be no permanent military bases in 
Iraq; and that is what we are, an amendment to that effect is here 
today. It reads that none of the funds made available under this act 
may be used by the government of the United States to enter into a 
basing rights agreement between the United States and Iraq.
  It is true that the administration is unclear on this. Secretary 
Rumsfeld has said we have no plans or no discussions under way to have 
permanent bases in that country. But I just got off the phone with a 
reporter from Maine who said his son served there and those aren't 
temporary bases that we have there.
  General Casey has said that we should gradually reduce the visibility 
of coalition forces across Iraq because that would take away one of the 
elements that fuels the insurgency.
  What we have learned in a very painful way is that the opinions of 
other people matter. The opinions of the Iraqis matter. They believe we 
came there to take their oil, and they believe that we are going to 
stay there permanently. We have to make an official U.S. policy that we 
will not stay in Iraq on a permanent basis, that we are going to 
withdraw our troops, that we will not have military bases there; and 
that will help diminish somewhat the insurgency that is raging there 
today.
  Just last week General Abizaid testified that the United States may 
still wish to maintain a long-term presence in the region. It is that 
kind of confusion, those kinds of mixed signals that we need to clear 
up with this amendment today.
  The Zogby poll recently indicated that 70 percent of American troops 
believe we should be out of Iraq within the year. Our troops deserve to 
be told that we are not going to stay. The Iraqis need to be assured 
that we are not going to say, and this amendment is the path to that 
result.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to cosponsor the Lee 
amendment to prohibit any funds from the supplemental from being used 
to enter into a basing rights agreement between the United States and 
Iraq. It is clear that the Iraqis, Shiites and Sunnis alike, in 
overwhelming numbers, do not want us to stay there. And the Secretary 
of Defense has said that there are no plans or discussions under way to 
have permanent bases in that country. So this would codify that. This 
would make sure that that is true.
  And yet it has been suggested by top military leaders, including 
General John Abizaid, as recently as this week, that the United States 
may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq. If true, this 
is a scheme fraught with danger. As anyone knows that watches 
television or reads the paper, the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq has 
been a powerful recruiting tool for the Iraqi insurgency. And General 
George Casey has agreed with that, saying that by getting our troops 
out of there that we would take away one of the elements that fuels the 
insurgency. Please support this amendment. It is good for our troops 
and good for our country and theirs.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the House, this is 
a great opportunity in the amendment brought forward by the gentlewoman

[[Page 3803]]

from California (Ms. Lee). The reason this is a good opportunity, it 
gets to the heart of what is tearing us apart and preventing us from 
being as effective as we could in the Middle East. The best way to do 
that is to clearly express, by statute, the fact that we are not there 
to build military permanent bases. And the reason is that when we do 
that we will alleviate a lot of the problem and suspicions that 
currently exist.
  Join us in this bipartisan effort to make sure that American 
intentions in the Middle East are for the first time explicitly stated 
by law.
  Ms. LEE. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, in December 2004, I requested the 
Congressional Research Service to compile a report on military 
construction in both Iraq and Afghanistan. On April 11, 2005, I 
received the final report. Here is what it said: the Congressional 
Research Service found projects that suggest a longer term U.S. 
presence in Iraq. These included $214 million for the Balad Air Base 
and $49 million for the Taji military complex.
  This is the first congressional report that identified specific 
locations in Iraq where the U.S. is possibly constructing a permanent 
military presence in Iraq. At the appropriate time, I will enter this 
in the Record.
  Now I want to know, did anyone here vote to establish permanent bases 
in Iraq when they voted to invade that country? Did anyone here vote to 
send U.S. troops permanently to Iraq? Weren't we going to war on the 
belief Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Weren't we going to war on 
the belief that Iraq was an imminent threat of a mushroom cloud the 
administration warned about? All that proved to be false. If the 
President had told you he wanted to spend over $300 billion and 2,300 
American lives, plus tens of thousands of maimed servicemembers to 
build new military bases, permanent deployment of U.S. troops in the 
Mesopotamian Valley, would anyone here have supported that? I don't 
think so.
  That is why this administration had to fabricate a pretense for the 
invasion, and that is why you have to support the Lee amendment today. 
Do not allow this ill-conceived war to lead to a permanent deployment 
of troops in Iraq. Bring them home. Close down those bases.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, this month marks the third anniversary of 
the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Our troops, who have performed heroically, 
want to finish their mission and return home.
  Success in Iraq depends on true power-sharing, and that will not 
happen so long as Iraqis suspect that the United States will maintain 
permanent military bases. That is why I strongly support the Lee 
amendment, which will send a clear signal to the Iraqi people that the 
United States does not seek a permanent presence.
  Mr. Chairman, I have spoken to the President, the Vice President, the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about this. Statements by 
Secretary Rumsfeld alone are not sufficient. Only when the President 
makes clear that we intend to leave Iraq, not to referee a civil war, 
will Iraqis realize that power-sharing is their best and last hope.
  I thank my good friend, Congresswoman Lee, for introducing this 
important amendment, and I thank her for her courageous stands all the 
time in the House.
  Ms. LEE. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this is an important 
statement that we are making. And again I am sure that we will 
experience ridicule because I will stand here and say that I believe 
that the troops have done their job, their patriotic job, the job of 
defending America. They have won the victory, and it is time for them 
to come home.
  We must redeploy our troops. And for all of those who say that many 
of us do not have a plan, we do. And that plan incorporates the 
gentlewoman's amendment, and I thank her for her leadership, and that 
is that we want to redeploy and we want to vest in Iraq and the Iraqi 
people and soldiers the defense of their nation. Therefore, we want to 
insure that there will be no basing rights between the United States 
and Iraq, no permanency, no establishing of our obligation to defend 
and defend and defend.
  We just had a debate about avoiding the eviction of thousands of 
Americans from places where they are living because they have no place 
to live because of the hurricane disaster. It is time now to redeploy. 
We do have a plan for Iraq to control their government and to be able 
to defend themselves and to bring our troops home and to disestablish 
any relationship of a base in Iraq.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Lee amendment prohibiting the use of funds to establish permanent 
American bases on Iraqi soil. We must make clear to the Iraqi people 
and to the American people that our operations in Iraq are not open-
ended and that we have no designs on Iraqi oil and territory.
  Earlier this week, in a hearing of the Military Quality of Life and 
Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, I asked General John 
Abizaid, the top American general in the Middle East, if he could make 
an unequivocal commitment that the U.S. does not intend to establish 
permanent bases in Iraq. His answer was that he could not.
  Two days after our Ambassador to Iraq said that the U.S. has, ``no 
goal of establishing permanent bases in Iraq,'' General Abizaid said 
that the policy on long-term presence in Iraq had not been formulated. 
Three years into this war, if administration officials cannot make up 
their minds and articulate a coherent policy, it is time that Congress 
did it for them. Support the Lee amendment.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. President, we need a sign. The American people 
believed you when you told us that you had to have a preemptive strike 
because there were weapons of mass destruction. There were no weapons 
of mass destruction.
  You told us we would be welcome, our soldiers would be welcome with 
open arms. They are not welcome with open arms. The Sunnis, the Shiites 
and the Kurds all want to end this occupation. They want us out of 
there.
  Mr. President, you told us that the oil that you would pump from the 
oil wells in Iraq would pay for the rebuilding of Iraq. They are 
pumping less oil now than they were before the war.
  You claimed that you were training soldiers to take over the security 
of the country. But we are finding bodies every day. In the last 2 
days, there were 85 bodies found. In the last couple of weeks, there 
have been over 2,000 bodies found. The civil war has begun. The IEDs 
are exploding every day.
  And Mr. President, you said that you would redeploy. We need you to 
give us a sign. All of those people who support him, you need to give 
us a sign. You can do that with this amendment by simply supporting the 
Lee amendment that will not allow for permanent bases. You have let us 
down on everything else. You can do this one. Support the Lee 
amendment. No permanent bases in Iraq.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Northern California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Every single Member of Congress should be able to 
support this amendment, unless, of course, the goal is to have 
permanent presence in Iraq. We can demonstrate to the Iraqi people that 
we won't occupy their country indefinitely by voting ``yes'' today.
  In fact, the Iraqi insurgency is largely incited by the very fact 
that after 3 full years of war, we show no intention of leaving. Our 
military presence must end. We must bring our troops home. We must give 
Iraq back to the Iraqi people. And in so doing, no permanent bases and 
no control over their oil.

[[Page 3804]]

  Mr. Chairman, ending the war and helping the Iraqi people get back on 
their feet is absolutely possible, and it must start now. We can start 
this process by making a strong statement that the United States of 
America has no plan to maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq.
  I urge all of my colleagues vote for the Lee-Allen amendment.

                              {time}  1700

  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the 
gentlewoman from California for this amendment, which prevents funding 
for permanent bases in Iraq, and also because it draws our attention to 
other consequences.
  One is the tragic occupation, which has been going on in Iraq now for 
almost 3 years, and the consequences of that tragic occupation, which 
has been endorsed and supported by this Congress over and over again. 
It also draws our attention to the rationale for the invasion of Iraq 
and the subsequent occupation, a rationale which was presented to this 
Congress and to the American people in the most fraudulent and 
deceitful way.
  It draws attention to the fact that it is a criminal violation of 
Federal law to present false and misleading information to the Congress 
in order to get them to take action. Most importantly, it draws our 
attention to the fact that the Congress has done nothing about it. We 
are now facing the third anniversary of the invasion and subsequent 
occupation of Iraq, and we must face the fact that this Congress has 
failed in its obligations and responsibilities to oversee the executive 
branch.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Poe). The gentlewoman from California has 1 
minute remaining.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentlewoman a 
question on my time.
  Do you know how many additional speakers you may have?
  Ms. LEE. I believe Mr. Hinchey needs another minute and Mr. Moran 
needs 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Frankly I will be glad to yield to the two 
of them some of my time and I presume that you might want to use the 
last minute to close and we can close this up.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from the 
committee.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from the 
Appropriations Committee and my good friend from California. I want my 
colleagues to consider some facts.
  One is with this amendment that we will have now spent as much as we 
did in the entire Vietnam War. Does anybody think that that $400 
billion was well spent in retrospect? Consider the fact that 82 percent 
of the Sunnis and 69 percent of the Shi'a want us to withdraw 
immediately. In fact, the majority say that our presence is hurting 
rather than helping Iraq's future. Consider what happened when the 
British concluded their occupation.
  The first people the Iraqis went after were those who cooperated with 
the British, considering them collaborators. Then they went after the 
foreigners that were trying to exploit the situation. We have a 
responsibility to get those foreign terrorists, al-Zarqawi and all of 
the al-Qaeda.
  But the Iraqi people were never a threat to the United States. They 
are not now. Let us work with the Iraqis, get rid of the foreign 
terrorists, but not establish any permanent bases in Iraq.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I will just close by thanking you, Mr. Lewis, for giving us time and 
for allowing for those who have a real perspective, the passion, the 
understanding to speak on this issue tonight. It is so important that 
the country understand that whether we agreed or disagreed with the 
war, that many of us believe there should be no permanent presence in 
Iraq.
  We support our troops. We want them out of harm's way. We know that 
any notion of a permanent occupation or permanent bases continues to 
put our young men and women in harm's way. It is about time now that 
these signals be clear to the rest of the world. As I said, we get 
mixed signals from the administration.
  I think it is now the time for this House to say that whatever we 
believed, when this war started, we do not want to be a permanent 
occupying force, and we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq.
  Thank you for being so generous, Mr. Lewis.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, in the time I have spent in 
and around Iraq I have seen a fabulous facility at Camp Doha that is 
meeting most of our challenges in the region. I see it developing 
significantly in the future. I don't see a need for a permanent 
facility in Iraq. I doubt there will even be a suggestion of that. On 
the other hand, I think the discussion was very healthy.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by my distinguished colleague from California.
  When the president took our country to war, he promised that victory 
would be swift and that our troops would not stay in Iraq one day 
longer than necessary.
  Three years and 300 billion dollars later, with over 2,300 American 
soldiers dead and more than ten thousand wounded, victory is nowhere in 
sight.
  The president and vice president, the secretary of defense and high 
ranking generals have continued to assure the American people that our 
presence in Iraq is temporary.
  Yet, at the same time, the Department of Defense is paying 
Halliburton subsidiary Kellog Brown and Root billions of dollars to 
build 14 ``enduring'' bases in Iraq.
  The Iraqis see what is happening on the ground, and they haven't 
fallen for the Administration's misrepresentation.
  According to recent opinion polls, a large majority of Iraqis believe 
that the U.S. military has no intention to leave Iraq, and that it 
would stay even is asked by the Iraqi government to leave.
  The presence of American troops is fueling the insurgency in Iraq, as 
acknowledged by General Casey and numerous other experts, and is 
helping terrorist recruiters build their numbers across the globe.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to continue sending these mixed 
signals.
  If we want to build the Iraqis' confidence about our intentions in 
their country, if we want to stop adding fuel to the fire of insurgency 
and terrorism, we must clarify our intent.
  Because the Administration is unable to send a clear message about 
America's intentions in Iraq, Congress must take this responsibility.
  We must make our policy of no permanent bases explicit by force of 
law.
  Mr. Chairman, the concern raised in the gentlelady from California's 
amendment is the same concern that has determined my vote on the 
underlying bill. The Administration and the majority in this body 
continue to evade the question of how long we will remain in Iraq, and 
how much we plan to spend on this war.
  It is with deep regret that I vote against passage of this 
supplemental.
  Since Hurricane Katrina wrought havoc on our Gulf coast, I have 
decried the federal government's stingy approach to aid and 
reconstruction.
  I have joined with my colleagues for years in urging the 
Administration to provide more funding for veterans' benefits.
  I fully support increased LIHEAP funding, as well as aid to Liberia 
and Sudan.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I will not be held hostage by the majority's 
cynical two-step trick to ensure continued funding for their failed 
policy in Iraq.
  The majority continues to separate Iraq funding from the overall 
defense budget so that they can hide the true cost of the war and then 
force the Congress to pass these so-called ``emergency'' supplemental 
appropriations.
  And the majority has bundled this war appropriation with funding for 
numerous important programs that we all favor, in order to force the 
legislation through and do an end run around real debate.
  I am a Korean War veteran. I support our troops as much as anyone in 
this body, but I do so by advocating redeployment out of Iraq as soon 
as it can be safely done. I would vote any time for additional funds to 
pay for such safe redeployment. For this reason I have signed on to the 
proposal of my colleague Mr. McGovern, H.R. 4232, the End of the War in 
Iraq Act.
  Mr. Chairman, this vote is not about ``supporting the troops.'' This 
bill is just one more attempt to tie the Congress' hands by forcing

[[Page 3805]]

us to give up our only means of control over the war, the power of the 
purse. I will not be blackmailed into approving funding for an open-
ended continuation of our participation in hostilities in Iraq. If the 
Congress acquiesces on this vote, it is in effect agreeing to fund this 
disastrous policy for as long as this Administration sees fit. From all 
indications, no end is in sight.
  Mr. Chairman, the price for continuing this war is too high, not only 
in budgetary terms, but in American lives, Iraqi civilian casualties 
blamed on America and in the steady increase in the terrorist ranks 
that this war is provoking around the globe.
  The American taxpayers should not have to send one more penny on the 
Administration's Iraq misadventure. Let's give our troops the supplies 
they need to get out of Iraq safely. Let's bring our troops home.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I seek time to enter into a colloquy 
with the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. Chairman, the rules prevent us from offering an amendment to the 
underlying bill to address health problems arising in the aftermath of 
Katrina. Thus I thank the gentleman for yielding the time to enter into 
a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee, who has worked very hard on Katrina 
issues, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) who has likewise 
been a stalwart supporter of those of us who are working so hard to 
bring our region back.
  Mr. Chairman, rebuilding the Medical Center of Louisiana at New 
Orleans as a comprehensive public health hospital is a number 1 
priority for public health and health care infrastructure of New 
Orleans since Katrina. Compared to most cities, New Orleans has a large 
percentage of poor and unhealthy residents.
  Mr. Chairman, this perspective is not shared by FEMA. To date, FEMA 
has authorized $23 million out of $258 million requested. I thank the 
gentleman very much for permitting me to enter into this colloquy.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just say I am very happy to work with 
the gentleman to try to deal with the problem.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, further, I look forward to 
working with both the gentlemen and am anxious to do everything we can 
to make this thing work as we deliver aid and support to the people in 
and around New Orleans.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments?


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Waxman

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 60]

                               AYES--193

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

                               NOES--225

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

[[Page 3806]]


     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

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

                              {time}  1732

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


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 61]

                               AYES--201

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

                               NOES--213

     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)
     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)
     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
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

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

                              {time}  1736

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


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez

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


                             Recorded Vote

  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 200, 
noes 219, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 62]

                               AYES--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird

[[Page 3807]]


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

                               NOES--219

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

                             NOT VOTING--13

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

                              {time}  1740

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


                          personal explanation

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


                      Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  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 189, 
noes 230, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 63]

                               AYES--189

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

                               NOES--230

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot

[[Page 3808]]


     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

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

                              {time}  1745

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 63 
on the Lee amendment to H.R. 4939, to prohibit the use of funds from 
being available to implement, administer, or enforce the termination of 
the hotel and motel emergency sheltering program established by FEMA 
for families displaced by Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes of the 
2005 season, I was on a leave of absence due to illness. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Jack Murtha from Pennsylvania, a 
decorated Marine from the Vietnam War and the most respected person in 
the House of Representatives on military affairs, has the Iraq 
situation just about right. A free and stable Iraq cannot be achieved 
militarily. We should not be suffering casualties nearly three years 
after that fateful day on the carrier off San Diego when President Bush 
declared ``Mission Accomplished,'' and yet 93 percent of our casualties 
have occurred since that day.
  The Iraqis must make hard political decisions. They must decide if 
they want a unified country with shared power and responsibility 
proportionate to population and protected rights for all. As long as we 
run the military operations and bear the brunt of casualties, the 
political decisions are avoided. We must make it clear that we will not 
be caught in their civil war if the Iraqis do not want a unified 
country enough to avoid a civil war politically.
  We must make a concerted effort to persuade the EU, NATO and the rest 
of our allies to help train Iraqi security forces and establish a 
judicial system so Iraqis can regain their lives. President Bush's 
repeated claim that nearly 200,000 Iraqi police and army personnel have 
been trained to secure Iraq has been disputed for months, even by our 
own military leaders. However, those Iraqis, whatever their numbers, 
must stand up for a unified Iraq if that is what they want and believe 
in. Finally, we need to withdraw from Iraq expeditiously within 2006.
  I am voting against this supplemental budget because it simply 
enables the president to continue his totally flawed and incompetently 
managed misadventure without forcing the Iraqis to reach political 
accommodations that can end the insurgency and create a stable, unified 
country. This war supplemental will be followed by another equally 
large one as soon as our November elections have passed. You can bet on 
it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the 
supplemental budget despite reservations about parts of this 
legislation. While I think this bill could be substantially improved, I 
also believe that, on balance, it does more good than harm. This bill 
provides funds for a number of important purposes, including the 
equipment necessary to support and protect our troops in Iraq and 
Afghanistan; emergency relief for the victims of hurricane Katrina; and 
funds to support international efforts to stop the mass killings of 
innocent people in Sudan. I will address each of these in turn.
  Let me start with Iraq. While I opposed the President's decision to 
go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I am supporting this bill because I 
believe we must provide our troops with the necessary equipment while 
they are there. I also believe, however, that the President has failed 
to provide the American people with a viable plan for success in Iraq. 
This bill fails to include benchmarks to hold the Administration 
accountable. The bill also fails to include adequate safeguards to 
ensure that the funds are spent responsibly.
  Millions of dollars have already been lost or wasted in Iraq due to 
poor oversight. Every effort must be made to prevent another 
Halliburton from growing fat at the expense of the American taxpayer. I 
recently supported an amendment in the Government Reform Committee that 
would have held the federal government responsible for overspending and 
general mismanagement of federal funds. Despite the common sense nature 
of this amendment, it failed on a party line vote. This Congress has 
totally failed in its oversight responsibilities with respect to these 
funds.
  Let me now turn to Afghanistan. I supported the decision to take 
military action against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I 
believe we have not yet completed our mission there. Osama bin Laden 
remains at large, al Qaeda continues to operate and the Taliban have 
stepped up their attacks. In the face of these realities, the funds 
provided for U.S. and international efforts in Afghanistan are 
inadequate.
  During a recent hearing before the House Appropriations Committee, 
Ronald Neumann, our Ambassador in Afghanistan testified that not enough 
was being been appropriated for our efforts there. I agree. This bill 
fails to meet the commitments we have made to Afghanistan. It defers 
the promised cancellation of Afghanistan's $11 million debt owed to the 
United States; it cuts $16 million from USAID for mission security in 
Afghanistan and reduces by $2.2 billion Department of Defense funds for 
Afghan security force training. The bill also cuts funds for counter-
narcotics activities in Afghanistan from $193 million to $157 million.
  As U.S. commanders prepare to devolve more responsibility for 
security to other coalition partners and to the Afghans, they must 
account for the fact that it could take years and billions of dollars 
to achieve the level of self-sustainability necessary to provide for 
Afghanistan's infrastructure and national security needs.
  A critical test will occur this summer as the U.S. military 
officially hands over control of the dangerous southern region to NATO 
forces. Counter-insurgency has never been NATO's job and there are 
questions about whether it is ready and willing to take on this new 
role. The volatile southern region has the highest incidents of 
terrorism, drug trafficking and organized crime in the country. Of the 
more than 100 American soldiers killed in insurgency attacks in the 
last year--most of the deaths occurred in the southern region.
  We must recognize that it is in our national security interest to 
work with the Afghan people. We must work to accelerate efforts to 
build and strengthen national institutions, the economy and Afghan 
security. By reducing the funding for Afghan operations at this 
critical time we are sending the wrong message to our troops, to our 
allies and to the people of Afghanistan.
  Next, to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina, the bill contains $19 
billion to aid recovery and reconstruction efforts. Most of the funds 
will go to the Federal Emergency Management Agency but $4 billion will 
go towards community development and for loans to homeowners, renters 
and businesses. Months after the hurricane, thousands of people are 
still looking for permanent homes. This funding will help citizens 
displaced by Hurricane Katrina rebuild their lives.
  This bill also contains emergency funding to help those suffering in 
Sudan. The United States and the international community have failed to 
take adequate steps to stop the genocide. This bill at least attempts 
to alleviate the

[[Page 3809]]

suffering. It includes $66 million for humanitarian support, $11 
million to assist refugees in Darfur and Chad to return to their homes, 
$150 million for food, $123 million to support African Union troops 
and, with the adoption of the Capuano amendment, $88 million to prepare 
for the transition to UN peacekeepers.
  Mr. Chairman, despite the reservations I have raised, I believe the 
bill deserves our support.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, 
and Hurricane Recovery, H.R. 4939. This supplemental bill, totaling 
$91.8 billion, is the largest that the House of Representatives has 
ever considered.
  As I have said repeatedly on the House floor, I strongly oppose using 
so-called ``emergency supplementals'' to fund non-emergency, clearly 
foreseeable expenditures. This bill provides $72 billion for continued 
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact that our troops 
are on the ground in these dangerous places is not a surprise. They 
have been in Iraq for almost three years. Their needs are well known to 
everyone, except, it seems, the President and his budget staff. Every 
year, the President fails to budget for the cost of military 
operations, and every year he pretends that the war is an unforeseen 
``emergency''.
  Funding our soldiers this way is dangerous because it leaves them 
ill-equipped and subject to last minute actions like this by Congress. 
If, by contrast, we funded military operations through the normal 
budget process, funding decisions would be made in the open and with 
the appropriate scrutiny they deserve. It would also allow for long 
term planning and more thoughtful budgeting. We have all read about the 
contracting waste and fraud that has occurred in Iraq. A number of no-
bid and open ended contracts have wasted millions of taxpayer's 
dollars. This waste has made a few crooked businessmen wealthy and done 
nothing to protect our troops or help build a more stable democracy in 
Iraq.
  Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I refuse to continue to fund a 
failed policy. I opposed this war because I did not think the President 
had made a convincing case for the existence of weapons of mass 
destruction in Iraq and I opposed his illegal doctrine of preemption. 
Since then I have only been heartbroken by the utter incompetence of 
which it has been planned. Our soldiers are doing outstanding work, and 
I salute their sacrifice. But the policy-makers in Washington have let 
them down and put them in an impossible situation. As I said in a 
letter to Secretary Rice last September, it is time to begin bringing 
our soldiers home. Spending good money after bad on a failed policy 
puts our soldiers, and our national security in even greater risk.
  There are portions of this bill that should have been in the 
President's budget last year. For example, I fully support up-armoring 
HUMVEE's and tanks in Iraq. I also support investing $59 million to 
fund foreign language proficiency pay. I also support the $1.4 billion 
in the bill to fund family separation allowances, hardship duty, and 
combat pay.
  Yet, all of these funds could have, and should have, been included in 
the regular budget process. But they were not.
  Let me talk for a moment about the other good portions of this bill 
which were attached by the Majority in a cynical attempt to buy votes 
for the overall bill.
  There is true emergency funding in this bill. But it is money for 
Sudan and the Gulf Coast, not Iraq.
  This bill also contains money to help in the recovery of another 
emergency, one that struck our own shore. Just over six months ago, the 
Gulf Coast was struck by Hurricane Katrina. I have visited the Gulf 
Coast and found that the destruction was terrible, with hundreds of 
thousands uprooted only to return and discover their homes were 
obliterated. The debris is still being cleaned. The people of the Gulf 
Coast region are looking to rebuild and continue their lives, and this 
bill provides $19 billion in needed funds to assist in financing the 
rebuilding effort. This money helps us to keep faith with those who 
were failed by their government in the days and weeks following 
Hurricane Katrina. I am voting for an amendment that would increase by 
$2 billion community development funds available to assist local 
communities rebuild.
  The genocide that continues to this day in Darfur, in the Sudan, is 
unconscionable. The President has said this, the Secretary of State has 
said this. Further, I have said a number of times that America needs to 
do everything it can to end the Darfur genocide. This bill contains 
$514 million for Sudan, with a large portion going to the Darfur region 
to fund the African Union peace keeping mission. I strongly support 
this funding. There is a true emergency in Sudan and I am glad that 
this money will be provided to end the genocide and provide 
humanitarian assistance to devastated people in the region. I am voting 
for the Capuano Amendment to add an additional $50 million to help fund 
extra peacekeepers in Darfur.
  I am sorry that these true emergency funds were attached to the 
foreseeable spending for the ongoing operations in Iraq. I have voted 
for rebuilding the Gulf Coast and ending the genocide in Darfur in the 
past, and I will continue to do so. But I will not fund a failed policy 
in Iraq that is jeopardizing our soldiers needlessly, stoking the 
insurgency, draining our national resources, and doing nothing to 
protect Americans from terrorism at home.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my strong objection 
to the House Republican Leadership combining two separate emergency 
supplementals into a single bill. The response to Hurricane Katrina and 
the Iraqi war deserve separate debates and significant oversight and 
deliberation.
  The human suffering that our neighbors along the Gulf Coast 
experienced and continue to experience seven months later cannot be 
underestimated. It will take a sustained federal and state, public and 
private commitment to help those affected get back on their feet. While 
I support a long-term reconstruction of the Gulf region, I cannot in 
good conscience vote for this bill.
  I strongly believe we need better oversight of supplemental funding 
bills, particularly those that fund ``the long war.'' There were 
excellent amendments offered on the floor today that I supported that 
should have passed if Congress had been exercising its Constitutional 
oversight role. For instance, I supported an Iraqi contracting 
amendment and one to prevent permanent bases in Iraq. We cannot become 
occupiers.
  On this third anniversary of the war, our soldiers, our national 
guard, their families and all Americans deserve better than platitudes 
from the Administration. I have repeatedly called for greater 
Congressional oversight and an exit strategy, while recognizing that 
our troops have done an excellent job, despite often lacking sufficient 
body armor or equipment. I welcome the President's statements that 
troops will be drawn down by the end of the year, but I believe that 
our soldiers are being placed in an untenable situation, and need to be 
brought home as soon as possible.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 
4939. I would like to thank the Appropriations Committee leadership for 
their efforts to provide our men and women in uniform with the 
equipment that they need as they continue their efforts in Iraq, 
Afghanistan and throughout the world. My colleagues on the House Armed 
Services Committee and I have fought for enhanced force protection 
equipment, much of which is included in this bill. H.R. 4939 includes 
$410 million for up-armored Humvees and $2 billion to develop and 
procure jammers for improvised explosive devices. Given the number of 
U.S. casualties resulting from IEDs, jammer technology is one of the 
most important investments this Congress can make to protect our 
troops.
  I am also pleased that this legislation provides more than $19 
billion in much-needed assistance to the victims of Hurricanes Katrina, 
Rita and Wilma. Months after those storms battered our Gulf Coast, many 
Americans are still displaced, and basic services are not available in 
places like New Orleans. Given the federal government's insufficient 
efforts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, it is our responsibility to 
provide the affected residents and businesses with the resources and 
assistance they need to rebuild.
  This measure will also greatly assist those facing exorbitant heating 
bills this winter. After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita damaged domestic 
energy sources, all Americans experienced higher energy costs, but the 
burden was particularly heavy for low-income residents in cold 
climates. H.R. 4939 will allow states to access $1 billion in Low 
Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP) funding more quickly, which will 
be welcome news to states such as Rhode Island that are struggling to 
help families in need.
  I greatly appreciate the Committee's inclusion of assistance to the 
victims of genocidal violence in Darfur and to train and equip the 
African Union peacekeeping troops. To date, at least one hundred 
thousand people have been killed, with millions more displaced. It is 
impossible to view the images from Sudan without being outraged at the 
cruelty and injustice of the situation. Our nation must do more to 
prevent further violence. Last year, I advocated for funding for 
African Union peacekeepers in the Defense Appropriations bill, and 
though that was not successful, H.R. 4939 funds peacekeeping missions 
in Sudan and encourages greater involvement by the United Nations.

[[Page 3810]]

  Finally, in welcome news to the American people, the legislation 
blocks Dubai Ports World from assuming control over six U.S. ports as 
part of their acquisition of P&O Steam Navigation Company. As a member 
of the Homeland Security Committee, I strongly opposed the sale because 
of the lack of a comprehensive investigation into the national security 
implications. We need to ensure that foreign investment decisions are 
based on real national security considerations and not just financial 
gain. I have been working to enhance port security in our nation, and 
the Dubai ports deal reminds Americans that until appropriate measures 
are taken, our ports will continue to be vulnerable. I am pleased that 
H.R. 4939 contains this commonsense provision, but we must do more to 
secure our infrastructure and improve Congressional oversight of 
foreign investment decisions.
  Again, I thank my colleagues for their efforts on this important 
bill, and I urge all Members to support its passage.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to tell a tale of two 
Republican disasters, the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina. It is a story 
with no best of times, only the worst of times. This tale is why I 
oppose the Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 4939).
  The main characters in my story are an incompetent President and a 
corrupt Congress. The setting is an America desperate for honest 
leadership. But the plot involves lies and cover-ups. The problem is 
misplaced priorities. But the solution is not this supplemental, which 
provides another $67.6 billion for a failed war but only $19 billion to 
help the victims of Katrina.
  The first disaster, the Iraq War, was predicated on lies. Iraq had no 
weapons of mass destruction, had never attempted to buy uranium from 
Niger, and was not about to welcome American soldiers with open arms.
  An incompetent President failed to prepare America for the postwar 
period. As a result, looting of stores and museums began shortly after 
the United States military gained control of Baghdad. Months later, 
sectarian violence has pushed Iraq to civil war, with Shiite militia 
and security forces clashing with Sunni citizens and insurgents.
  Yet our troops remain in Iraq and in harms way. Two American soldiers 
and 40 Iraqi soldiers and civilians are killed every day. As long as we 
stay in Iraq, the insurgency will continue, even as the so-called Iraqi 
democracy experiment goes nowhere. Three months after parliamentary 
elections, the Iraqi parliament has yet to form a government.
  Finally, large Republican donors including Halliburton have looted 
the American treasury. Using their connections to secure no-bid 
contracts for services in Iraq, these firms overcharge American 
taxpayers and underserve our troops. All the while, Republicans' blind 
allegiance to the President causes them to write blank checks, throwing 
good money after bad at a war that is making America less secure.
  The second disaster was the Republican response to Hurricane Katrina. 
Several days before Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast, the President was 
briefed on the severity of the storm and the likelihood levees would be 
breached. But after failing to cut short his extended vacation to help 
with the response, the President told ABC News and the American public 
he was not advised the levees were likely to collapse.
  After years of underfunding levee construction and maintenance, 
Republicans attempted to shift the blame for the disaster and the 
inadequate response onto state and local officials. But it was 
President Bush who nominated unqualified campaign hacks to head FEMA 
and congressional Republicans who rubber-stamped the appointment of 
Michael Brown.
  As a result of insufficient preparation and incompetent 
administration, tens of thousands of hurricane victims went without 
adequate food, water, and shelter in the storm's aftermath. Six months 
after Katrina, relief workers are still finding bodies of victims.
  In an attempt to atone for their sins, the Republicans have finally 
brought forth additional legislation to help Katrina victims. But in a 
pathetic and transparent attempt to prevent full debate on the 
disastrous Iraq War, President Bush's Republican cronies in Congress 
combined two supplementals into one.
  Although I support additional funding for hurricane victims, I cannot 
vote for a supplemental that appropriates 74 percent of its funds, or 
$67.6 billion, to a misguided Iraq war on which we have already wasted 
$350 billion--and the lives of 2,310 American soldiers and at least 
37,000 Iraqi citizens.
  It is time to tell a new tale, about bringing home our troops and 
rebuilding homes for Katrina victims. Let's get this Iraq monkey off 
our back and supplement housing rather than Halliburton.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, and help me to tell a 
new tale about American successes rather than Republicans disasters.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in protest at this 
Administration's egregious treatment of tens of thousands of families 
of survivors who were displaced by and continue to suffer in the 
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Today, on the Ides of March, some ten 
thousand families are being evicted from temporary housing in hotels by 
FEMA.
  This would have happened months ago but for cries of protest and 
legal injunctions that forced FEMA to keep rolling back the eviction 
deadline: December 15th, January 7th, January 31st, February 15th, 
February 28th, and now March 15th--on each of these dates, families 
were evicted.
  So to the 10,000 families being evicted today, we must add some 
30,000 families already evicted, giving us a figure of some 40,000 
families who will have been evacuated from temporary housing in hotels.
  FEMA and DHS have not provided any comprehensive plan to transition 
these survivors out of temporary and into permanent shelters, and while 
tens of thousands are already living in tents and cars, thousands more 
are being thrown out to sleep on the streets, because the shelters are 
already full.
  Last week, during one of his rare visits to the Gulf Coast, the 
President bluntly accused Congress of moving too slow in providing 
funds for housing and reconstruction.
  Let me read to the House a passage from the Stafford Act. This is 
from Section 407:
  The President is authorized to provide assistance on a temporary 
basis in the form of mortgage or rental payments to or on behalf of 
individuals and families who, as a result of financial hardship caused 
by a major disaster, have received written notice of dispossession or 
eviction from a residence by reason of a foreclosure of any mortgage or 
lien, cancellation of any contract of sale, or termination of any lease 
entered into prior to such disaster. Such assistance shall be provided 
for the duration of the period or financial hardship but not to exceed 
18 months.
  So under the Stafford Act, survivors being evicted from temporary 
housing are entitled to 18 months of housing assistance, that means 
another full year, of rental assistance, but only if the President 
authorizes the necessary sums.
  Rather than stepping in and taking charge, the President is passing 
the blame back to the Congress for a ``Failure of Initiative,'' the 
title of a report coming from his own party, which delivered stinging 
criticism of the Administration's handling of the aftermath of Katrina.
   Mr. Chairman, the failure to take initiative did not arise from this 
side of the aisle. We now have 77 signatures on H.R. 4197, the 
Hurricane Katrina Recovery, Reclamation, Restoration, Reconstruction 
and Reunion Act, which sets out a comprehensive plan to provide 
housing, health care, education, environmental clean-up, and to meet 
nearly all of the still urgent needs of the Gulf Coast survivors. And 
we are calling out to our colleagues across the aisle to join our 
initiative and do what is just and right for our fellow Americans 
caught up in the largest population displacement our Nation has seen 
since the Great Depression and slavery.
  As we consider yet another supplemental request for tens of billions 
for a military occupation of Iraq, where violence is spinning out of 
control and toward all-out civil war under our watch, let us ask 
ourselves the hard questions:
  How can we deny housing, education and health care to American 
citizens displaced by Katrina and yet continue to build homes, schools 
and hospitals in Iraq?
  How can we refuse to provide satellite voting for hundreds of 
thousands of displaced New Orleaneans and yet spend hundreds of 
millions on satellite voting stations for Iraqis in America?
  Why are survivors in Mississippi and Texas entitled to trailers 
whilst those in Louisiana are not?
  Why are hurricane survivors in Florida and Texas entitled to maximum 
benefits under the Stafford Act whilst Katrina survivors from 
Mississippi and Louisiana are told they must fend for themselves?
  And finally, Mr. Chairman, was the decision to send the poorest and 
most traumatized survivors of the flooding of New Orleans into diaspora 
simply an ad hoc decision, or part of an overall strategic plan to keep 
as many poor and minority residents as possible from returning to New 
Orleans, in order to lay the groundwork for an urban real estate 
bonanza? Is this the reason our government is so intent upon refusing 
New Orleans survivors their basic rights under law?
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, from the beginning, the Bush 
Administration's policy on Iraq has been based on distortions and

[[Page 3811]]

misjudgments. Prior to the invasion, I fought to prevent this war. I 
parted with most members of Congress and cast a vote against the 
resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. The President 
misled the American people into believing there was a link between Iraq 
and the terrorist attacks of September 11, and he distorted and 
misrepresented intelligence data about weapons of mass destruction.
  I understand the frustration and heartbreak that have led many 
Americans to conclude that it is now time for us to remove ourselves 
from this misguided quagmire and bring our troops home. That is why I 
have called on the President to change course. America simply cannot 
continue indefinitely to pay the high costs in both lives and dollars 
to stay on the same failed course in Iraq.
  In December 2005, I voted for H.R. 1815, the FY 2006 Defense 
Authorization bill, which the President signed into law in January 
2006. Section 1227 of that bill, United States Policy on Iraq, states 
that it is the sense of Congress that ``calendar year 2006 should be a 
period of significant transition to full Iraq sovereignty, with Iraqi 
security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and 
sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased 
redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.''
  It is time for the President to implement this policy. We have no 
choice but to approve this spending bill. We cannot put our troops at 
greater risk. If the President does not heed the intent of Congress and 
the American people, Congress should take more direct action to bring 
our troops home promptly and safely. We should not have American troops 
in the middle of a civil war.
  I have repeatedly called for a change in America's policies so that 
we can bring our troops home as soon as possible. In December 2004, I 
visited our troops in Iraq. I thanked them for their service and 
listened to their stories. It was a moving experience for me. I honor 
the sacrifices they and their families are making each day.
  The men and women of our armed forces are demonstrating tremendous 
dedication to our Nation through their performance in Iraq. These brave 
soldiers have put their lives in harm's way for our country, and we are 
forever grateful for their service.
  This bill also contains crucial provisions, which I support, that 
would provide nearly $20 billion for Hurricane Katrina relief, 
including funds for housing, community planning and development, flood 
control, and small business loans. In addition, the House should take 
up H.R. 4197, a comprehensive Hurricane Katrina recovery bill 
introduced by the Congressional Black Caucus.
  I am encouraged that the bill provides more than $500 million to 
address the ongoing genocide in southern Sudan and Darfur. These funds 
are critical to meeting the immediate needs of victims of the Darfur 
crisis, such as shelter, health care, and access to water and 
sanitation. Sudanese government-backed Arab militias have slaughtered 
hundreds of thousands of villagers, and they have burned entire 
villages. Up to two million refugees have fled this genocide to 
neighboring countries, but the small, poorly-equipped, and underfunded 
African Union (AU) force cannot offer them adequate protection. This 
bill provides needed funding to help transition the AU peacekeeping 
operation to a United Nations mission. It is also encouraging that last 
week the House International Relations Committee reported out H.R. 
3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, which I urge the House 
to take up without delay.
  Lastly, I strongly support the inclusion of an amendment adopted by 
the Appropriations Committee to cancel the planned transfer of U.S. 
ports to Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the United Arab Emirates. 
Although the UAE recently agreed to abandon its efforts to take over 
American ports, this Congress still needs to enact bipartisan 
legislation that I introduced with Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee 
Chairman Clay Shaw, H.R. 4839, the Secure America's Port Operations 
Act, which would prohibit any foreign-government owned operations at 
U.S. seaports in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, this emergency supplemental is a necessary measure that 
will provide essential support for our troops in their arduous mission 
in Iraq, vital funding for the global war on terror, and desperately 
needed assistance for our own Gulf region and the many Americans who 
have been uprooted by Hurricane Katrina.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill, the 
largest emergency appropriations measure to ever be considered by the 
House of Representatives. I do so with great reluctance because there 
are several positive aspects to the bill, including resources for our 
dedicated troops. Despite these reservations, I oppose this bill 
because the Administration and the Majority in Congress have failed to 
provide adequate oversight and accountability for our operations in 
Iraq.
  Mr. Chairman, in four days we will mark the third anniversary of this 
tragic war, a war that I opposed from the beginning and which has 
already cost our country over $400 billion. Without a strategy for 
success or an end in sight, the Congressional Budget Office predicts 
the price tag for military costs alone will reach $600 billion by the 
end of this decade. The added costs of long-term healthcare for our 
veterans, reconstruction assistance, and economic aid will of course 
raise this figure exponentially, prompting some of our Nation's best 
economists to predict that the long-term costs of this war will rise as 
high as two trillion dollars. Meanwhile, the loss of our best and 
brightest young people can never be measured.
  Going into war without the approval and support of the international 
community and without a plan for the post-war occupation period has 
resulted in a Nation less secure now than at the end of major combat 
operations. Despite the heroic efforts of our military, and the 
hundreds of billions of dollars poured into Iraq, it is now on the 
brink of civil war. We've seen how disastrously this administration's 
strategy, or lack thereof, has played out in Iraq, and yet we continue 
to circumvent the normal budget process, putting hundreds of billions 
of dollars on the national credit card without any plan for success, 
any plan to begin the process of bringing our troops home, or any plan 
to turn Iraq over to the Iraqi people.
  Mr. Chairman, I voted in favor of our last emergency supplemental 
bill because, among other things, the bill instructed the Department of 
Defense to provide a detailed report to Congress of its military 
expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan to finally allow us to track how 
the Administration was spending the taxpayer's money. Despite this 
language, the General Accounting Office reported in November numerous 
problems in DOD's processes for recording and reporting costs for 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result, the GAO found that 
neither DOD nor Congress can reliably know how much the war is costing, 
nor the details on how appropriated funds are being spent. The facts 
are not being made available and Congress is operating and 
appropriating without them.
  Congress is not fulfilling its responsibility to act as the steward 
of the National Treasury. I, along with several colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, have cosponsored legislation that would restore 
oversight and accountability to our budget process. Several of my 
colleagues have called for hearings and investigations into how funds 
are being spent in Iraq. These efforts have been met with near-total 
resistance by the Majority leadership in the House, and by the 
administration. Time and again we who are elected to keep close watch 
over spending are being denied the necessary tools to do our jobs.
  The good in this bill is increased funding to address the crisis in 
Darfur, our fellow Americans affected by the tragedy of Hurricane 
Katrina and the language preventing the Dubai Ports deal from moving 
forward. I've supported these efforts in the past and were these 
provisions to be considered properly under normal budget procedures, I 
would support them.
  Whether or not Members support the war in Iraq, it's becoming clearer 
day by day that the President's policies are unsustainable. Without a 
change of direction and a clear plan for success, I cannot in good 
conscience continue to pass off trillions of dollars to our children 
and grandchildren to fund this debacle.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
4939. Today, Congress continues its owe-as-you-go policy of borrowing 
and spending, burdening future generations of Americans with an 
additional $92 billion in debt and at the same time embracing the Bush 
administration's disastrous war in Iraq. Giving this administration 
more borrowed money for billion dollar no-bid contracts without 
congressional oversight is irresponsible and a policy I can neither 
justify nor defend.
  In a cynical maneuver, the Republican majority has linked nearly $70 
billion more for maintaining U.S. troops in the middle of an Iraqi 
civil war with the resources needed to assist Katrina's victims and the 
funds necessary to keep alive the victims of genocide in Sudan's Darfur 
region. I strongly support providing our fellow citizens of the gulf 
coast with the resources to rebuild their lives and their communities 
and increasing our commitment to bringing peace to Sudan. However, I 
cannot support an administration policy of consistently misleading the 
American people about the unsustainable Federal budget deficits and the 
quagmire in Iraq.

[[Page 3812]]

  It is an irresponsible budget gimmick to fund the war in Iraq through 
emergency spending. We are beginning the fourth year of war in Iraq. 
Clearly the Bush administration was aware that there would be funding 
needs and had the opportunity to account for those needs in the 
proposed budget. Instead, the entire cost of this war--over $300 
billion--is deferred to be paid for by future generations. Congress 
must have an honest debate about our increasing budget deficit and the 
implications of this debt on our country and our future.
  Every American soldier and marine deserves our support, as well as a 
realistic and honest strategy for success from the Bush administration. 
They also deserve a White House and Congress with the courage to pay 
for this war today, not pass the cost on to the children and 
grandchildren of every American, including every veteran who has 
sacrificed so much in Iraq.
  For the violence and murder to stop and the civil conflict in Iraq to 
end, it will require Iraqis, not Americans, willing to find solutions 
to bring security, stability and peace to their country. U.S. troops 
should never be in the position of being referees in a bloody civil 
war. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has no intention of drawing 
down U.S. troops anytime soon. The passage of this bill today will 
ensure, regrettably, that our troops will remain in Iraq for the 
foreseeable future.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I would like to use this 
opportunity to address this House to explain my vote on H.R. 4939, the 
Emergency War and Hurricane Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal 
Year 2006, which this chamber considered on March 16, 2006.
  Despite my misgivings for the direction of our Iraq policy, I do not 
believe our troops, who are fighting so bravely, should be penalized 
for the mistakes in judgment of our civilian military leadership in the 
White House and the Pentagon. I also believe we need to continue our 
obligation to the people and states who fell victim to Hurricane 
Katrina. For these reasons, I supported the passage of H.R. 4929, the 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
  The funds in this bill will enable our soldiers and marines on the 
ground to uparmor their vehicles. There should be more outrage from the 
American public that they were deployed without adequate equipment from 
the beginning. But they are there, and it is vital that they have the 
equipment necessary to protect themselves against attack. Moreover, 
more money is provided in this bill to help our troops detect and 
destroy improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
  Although I disagree with the administration's conduct of the war, I 
do believe the one way we can bring our troops home sooner is to 
provide Iraqi security forces with the training and equipment they need 
to provide for the common defense of their own country and take the 
fight to the insurgency. Ultimately, the fate of their country will 
rise and fall on the Iraqis' ability to provide for their own security.
  To further help our troops, the money in this bill will take care of 
the health care needs of their families and cover the projected 
shortfall in the defense health care account. It also honors the 
obligation Congress made last year to increase the military death 
gratuity to $100,000 from $12,000 and subsidized life insurance 
benefits that were increased to $400,000 for the families of fallen 
loved ones.
  The bill also helps needy families offset the high cost of heating 
fuel by providing an additional $750 million for the Low Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Finally, the bill honors what I 
feel is our country's obligation to help the Gulf Coast region by 
appropriating $19.1 billion in disaster relief, community development 
and levee reconstruction monies.
  These programs deserve our support. We cannot turn our backs to 
protecting the safety and welfare of troops in harms way or ignore 
those who have gone homeless as a result of Hurricane Katrina. These 
people need our help and that is why I voted to support this emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the FY06 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill because it is long overdue 
that we end the failed policy in Iraq.
  I voted against giving the President the authority to go to war 
against Iraq in October 2002, and I have opposed supplemental funding 
that would extend the conflict ever since. I ask my colleagues to 
recall the comments of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who said in 
January 2003 that the war would cost ``something under $50 billion.'' 
Unfortunately, since that time we have appropriated more than $250 
billion in supplemental funding alone. And a new study by Columbia 
University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in 
economics in 2001, and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes concludes that the 
total costs of the Iraq war could top the $2 trillion mark.
  Secretary Rumsfeld also told us in February 2003 that ``it is 
unknowable how long that [Iraq] conflict will last. It could last six 
days, six weeks. I doubt six months.'' On May 1st, 2003, President Bush 
stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared Mission 
Accomplished. And on May 30th, 2005, Vice President Cheney declared 
that ``I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the 
insurgency.'' However, this week we are celebrating the 3 year 
anniversary of the war, 2176 brave men and women in uniform have died 
in Iraq since the President declared Mission Accomplished, and it has 
become clear that the Iraqi civil war that many of us feared would 
occur has begun.
  Although there is an attempt by the Bush administration to convince 
the American people that our military is helping to quell the sectarian 
violence, recent events have proven the administration wrong. Our 
occupation of Iraq has isolated us from a large segment of the 
international community, and has prevented us from capturing or killing 
Osama Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda leaders. The war has also distracted 
us from two of the most critical issues in the region--the development 
of nuclear weapons in Iran and the Israeli/Palestinian peace process. 
In addition, the war has diverted attention and resources from critical 
homeland security needs. A continued United States presence in Iraq 
will do nothing but exacerbate these problems.
  It is for our brave troops, and for the security of the international 
community that I cannot vote to continue the war in Iraq. Like 
everyone, I want to avoid a radical and unstable Iraq in the future. 
However, I believe that the ongoing presence of the U.S. military in 
Iraq is putting those brave troops at risk and creating a situation 
where the majority of Iraqis support U.S. withdrawal.
  I know that the Republican supplemental appropriations request will 
pass the House of Representatives. Our troops will not be stranded in 
the field. None of us would allow that to occur. And I know that this 
supplemental will also contain money for important issues such as 
Katrina relief, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), 
and assistance to Darfur and Liberia, which I strongly support funding. 
However, Iraq war funding makes up approximately 80 percent of this 
supplemental. The Republican majority has employed a cynical tactic to 
attach worthy causes onto an Iraq war funding bill in an attempt to 
force members of Congress who oppose the war into voting for it. Also, 
crafting an ``emergency'' supplemental for a war that is three years 
old is simply another example of the majority's poor leadership in this 
Congress.
  I would like to encourage all my colleagues to join me in 
cosponsoring two bills, which if passed together, add up to a sensible 
policy that would provide our troops with the resources they need to 
complete a safe and honorable redeployment from their current combat 
areas.
  The first is H.J. Res. 73, known as the Murtha Resolution, which 
calls for the immediate redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq, the 
creation of a quick-reaction and over-the-horizon presence of U.S. 
Marines in the region, and the pursuit of stability in Iraq through 
diplomacy. This resolution would allow the U.S. footprint to be 
minimized on the ground in Iraq, while still providing a military 
presence that can assist Iraqis in securing their nation. I support 
this resolution precisely because I want to help our troops who are in 
harm's way.
  The second bill, H.R. 4232, the End the War in Iraq Act introduced by 
Representative James McGovern, would prohibit funds from being 
appropriated to deploy, or continue to deploy, U.S. Armed Forces to 
Iraq. Exceptions to this rule would be made if the funds are being used 
to provide for the safe and orderly redeployment of U.S. Armed Forces 
from Iraq, to ensure the security of Iraq and its transition to 
democratic rule by carrying out consultations with the Government of 
Iraq, other foreign governments and international organizations, or by 
providing financial assistance or equipment to Iraqi security forces 
and international forces in Iraq. In addition H.R. 4232 would permit 
the use of funds to carry out social and economic reconstruction 
activities. Simply because we must reposition our armed forces, does 
not mean we can abandon our obligation to the Iraqi people to help them 
create a positive future for themselves and future generations.
  I am pleased that my colleagues accepted the Lee/Schakowsky/Allen/
Hinchey Amendment which would prohibit permanent military bases from 
being constructed in Iraq. I will work to make sure this amendment is 
accepted by the Senate. However, I cannot vote

[[Page 3813]]

today to continue this misguided war in Iraq. My no vote is an 
expression for my desire to support our troops and to begin to restore 
the credibility of America in the eyes of the international community.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Poe). The Clerk will read the final lines of 
the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

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

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


               Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Hinchey

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

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

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 64]

                               AYES--188

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

                               NOES--233

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly

[[Page 3814]]


     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

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


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1809

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

                             [Roll No. 65]

                               YEAS--348

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

                                NAYS--71

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

                             NOT VOTING--13

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


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1816

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

                          ____________________