[Pages H1074-H1097]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 725 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 4939.

{time} 1210

In the Committee of the Whole

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hall

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

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

CHAPTER 9

GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS TITLE

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

[[Page H1075]]

give priority to States currently serving a significant
number of children in families adversely affected by
Hurricane Katrina.

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

{time} 1215

Point of Order

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

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Paul

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

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

CHAPTER 9

GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS TITLE

Sec. 2901. (a) For recovery of the State of Texas from the
consequences of Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes of the
2005 season, $546,100,000, to remain available until
expended, to be allocated and administered by the Secretary
of the Treasury and used only for the State of Texas, as
follows:
(1) $200,000,000, for housing assistance under programs of
the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and
Agriculture for residents of the State of Texas and for
residents of other States affected by the hurricanes who are
temporarily residing in Texas and for community development
block grant assistance under title I of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974.
(2) $100,000,000, for costs of uncompensated health care
for victims of the hurricanes and evacuees, for long-term
care costs of evacuees remaining in Texas, and for mental
health care costs of persons affected by the hurricanes.
(3) $100,000,000, for reimbursement of costs associated
with providing educational services to students who are in
Texas as a result of Hurricane Katrina and for repairs to
public and higher education facilities damaged by Hurricane
Rita.
(4) $46,000,000, for costs of repairs to bridges, roadways,
ports, and channels damaged by Hurricane Rita.
(5) $59,000,000, for the Corps of Engineers for maintenance
costs relating to erosion, waterway dredging, and other
related services.
(6) $50,000,000 for costs of debris removal that are not
reimbursable by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, for
assistance to agricultural areas affected by Hurricane Rita
(including timber- and rice-producing areas), and for costs
of other unreimbursed repairs to rural and agricultural
infrastructure resulting from Hurricane Rita.
(b) The amounts otherwise provided in title I for the
following accounts are hereby reduced by the following
amounts:

[[Page H1076]]

(1) ``DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE--
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', amounts under
paragraph (3) for payments to reimburse certain countries for
logistical, military, and other support provided or to be
provided, to United States military operations, by
$900,000,000.
(2) ``BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE--Department of State--
democracy fund'', by $10,000,000.
(3) ``MILITARY ASSISTANCE--Funds Appropriated to the
President--peacekeeping operations'', by $100,000,000.
(4) ``RELATED AGENCY--Broadcasting Board of Governors--
international broadcasting operations'', by $7,600,000.
(5) ``RELATED AGENCY--Broadcasting Board of Governors--
broadcasting capital improvements'', by $28,500,000.
(c) The Secretary of the Treasury shall consider the
$500,000,000 by which the aggregate amount of reductions
under subsection (b) exceed the aggregate amount made
available under subsection (a) as credit against the Federal
deficit for fiscal year 2006.
(d) The amount provided under subsection (a) is designated
as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of H.
Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on
the budget for fiscal year 2006.

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

Point of Order

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sabo

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Sabo:
Page 56, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $700,000,000)''.
Page 57, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $125,000,000)''.
Page 58, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $300,000,000)''.
Page 58, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday
March 15, 2006, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we hear a lot about the importance of identifying risk
as we make security investments. And who could disagree? However, the
President and Congress tend to stumble in putting a coherent risk-based
philosophy into our budgets and policies.
I ask the Members to consider this amendment in the context of
President

[[Page H1077]]

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

{time} 1230

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment, well-intentioned as it is,
is absolute overkill. In total, this amendment would add $1.225 billion
for a variety of programs in the Department of Homeland Security, which
is nearly 5 percent of the annual appropriations. I may agree with him
on some of the needs, but most of what he is asking for should be dealt
with in regular order, not in an emergency supplemental bill.
I recognize the importance of many of the appropriations contained in
the amendment, but we have already substantially increased funding, Mr.
Chairman, for Customs and Border Protection, Coast Guard, and FEMA over
the last 3 years.
This supplemental is about the Global War on Terror and Gulf Coast
recovery, not about the regular budgets of these Departments, of these
agencies, which we are dealing with right now as we appropriate for
2007.
Now, in Customs and Border Protection, in this bill already we
increase funding by $17.7 million. We have aggressively supported
radiation detection and cargo inspection technology, appropriating some
$700 million over the last three years. An additional $400 million in
this amendment, well-intended, is completely arbitrary and unneeded.
There is no rationale for this number. The new Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office is developing new technologies, even as I speak, and a
framework for their deployment.
The gentleman also increases Customs and Border protection,
international port security programs, the Container Security
Initiative, and the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism by $300
million. Since 2004, these programs have received, at the hands of the
Congress, over $430 million. This has fully funded the Container
Security Initiative which will expand in 58 foreign ports by the end of
fiscal 2007. Through those 58 ports come 90 percent of the containers
that come to this country and C-TPAT has expanded to 5,636 certified
trade partners that send us container vessels every day.
Mr. Chairman, we simply cannot grow these programs any faster. Money
is not the problem. An expansion of this program is more about
obtaining diplomatic clearances than money. These countries simply will
not take more of our personnel until we negotiate diplomatically with
them.
As for the Coast Guard operating expenses, in this bill the Chairman
of the full committee, Mr. Lewis, has already included an additional
$14.3 million. The gentleman's amendment would add another $125
million. Mr. Chairman, over the last 5 years, we have doubled funding
for the Coast Guard's operating expenses, doubled, from $2.8 billion in
fiscal 2001 to $5.5 billion in the current year, and while we have
increased their responsibilities, they have funding in their base and
in this supplemental for operating expenses sufficient to carry out
their duties for the remainder of the year, including overhauling
equipment, additional fuel, port security, inspections and the like. So
the Coast Guard is taken care of. In fact, they have roughly half of
their operating expenses for this fiscal year laying there waiting to
be spent. So they do not need the extra funds.
Now then, on FEMA, we include in this bill already increases to FEMA
of $70 million in the supplemental emergency bill. The gentleman would
increase their funding for administrative and regional operations by
$300 million, but it is unclear how that $300 million

[[Page H1078]]

figure is derived. The President requested $70 million for emergency
communications, primarily for Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama,
although some of the funds are also targeted to Texas and Florida.
The Sabo amendment adds $300 million for ``three other locations.''
We do not know where those locations are or why it is an emergency that
they be equipped, and there is a huge difference in the cost estimates.
Seventy million will take care of the three principal States of
Katrina, but he is asking $300 million for these three other locations.
Wherever they are, I do not know, and what they need the money for we
still do not know.
The $70 million that Chairman Lewis included in the bill that is
before us fully prepares the Gulf Coast for the upcoming hurricane
season, putting in place the necessary communications infrastructure
for warning and communicating with the public during these natural
disasters. It may be appropriate to position the technology in other
locations, but there is no reason to consider an expansion of this
effort as part of this emergency appropriations bill. These are
decisions that can and will be considered as part of the regular
appropriations cycle, which we are having hearings on right now.
The gentleman seeks to add $100 million for preparedness activities
at FEMA. We also increase in preparedness this bill by $10 million. The
gentleman states we are not spending enough on simulation exercises;
but in fiscal 2006, the National Exercise Program is funded at $52
million. That supports local, State, and national exercises.
The gentleman also seeks to restart a program called Project Impact,
funded in the previous administration to simulate predisaster
mitigation efforts. That program has not been funded for 5 years.
Nothing is known about it, we do not know that it works, and yet we are
asked to plop down another big chunk of money. Who will administer it?
what will it do? and so on--we do not know.
So, Mr. Chairman, it is not a matter of more money. It is a matter of
spending the money that we already have stashed away in these programs
wisely, based on a sound strategy and a rationale to improve our
homeland security. While the gentleman's amendment is well-intended, it
is overkill.
This supplemental is focused on immediate needs, not budgetary items
for next year. Many of the areas being addressed in this amendment are
funded in this supplemental, not just to the arbitrary levels being
proposed by the gentleman's amendment. Throwing huge sums of money at
these programs is not a responsible way to conduct our Nation's
business.
I urge a defeat of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the Dubai Ports World
debacle, like Hurricane Katrina, laid bare preexisting problems which
some of us, especially on the Democratic side of the aisle, have been
struggling for years to bring to public notice.
The ports episode starkly reveals the pitfalls of the Bush
administration's peremptory decision-making style, without serious
deliberation or consultation. And it lays bare the dangers of 4 years
of administration laxity on port security. The Sabo amendment offers us
the chance to begin to remedy that neglect.
First, it would expand overseas container inspections to all overseas
ports that ship to the U.S. The Container Security Initiative,
responsible for reviewing manifests and opening and inspecting high-
risk containers, is currently operating in only 43 of the 140 overseas
ports that ship directly to this country. This amendment would expand
the program to all overseas ports shipping to the U.S.
Secondly, the amendment would increase port security inspections and
surveillance by the Coast Guard and would eliminate the Coast Guard's
current $70 million energy shortfall.
Thirdly, the amendment would place radiation portal monitors at all
ports of entry. Fewer than half of the ports of entry are equipped with
those monitors now, and Homeland Security does not plan to have them
all equipped until 2011. This amendment would allow each entry point to
have a radiation portal monitor.
Fourth, it would increase our nationwide communications backup
capability. The supplemental does contain backup capability for the
gulf coast, but this capability should be provided in other critical
locations; our amendment would add three such locations.
Finally, the amendment would strengthen our disaster preparedness
mitigation response and recovery. It would increase the number of
simulation exercises undertaken by vulnerable communities, and it would
restore funding for FEMA's Project Impact.
This is a well-crafted, well-conceived amendment. I urge colleagues
to support it.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Chocola). Both sides have 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday, we cast a symbolic vote that got all kinds
of political attention from the press having to do with the Dubai
controversy. That vote had absolutely no effect on anything because the
Dubai deal had already been killed. So the only thing we accomplished
was letting Members of Congress get a nice vote that they could take
home, stick in their pocket and show their constituents and say, ``Oh,
what a good boy am I.''
Now we have got a chance to do something real about port security and
about border security. Is there anybody in this House who thinks that
our ports are really sufficiently secure so that we do not need to have
more resources? Is there anybody in this House who is comfortable with
the level of security on the Canadian border?
Over the past 3 years, we on this side of the aisle have tried nine
times to get the majority to increase Homeland Security funding above
the amount that you have had in your bills, and we have been turned
down nine times.
This Congress is telling us, as this small chart shows, this Congress
is telling the country we can afford to spend $64 billion this year to
provide tax cuts to people who make $1 million or more a year. They are
telling the country we can afford to spend more money on tax cuts for
millionaires than we spend on the entire Homeland Security budget.
Now, does anybody really think that this country is in greater need
of providing $64 billion in tax cuts to people who make a million bucks
a year? Do we really think that we need to do that more than we need to
shore up port security, border security and the like? With all due
respect, I do not think that is very good judgment with respect to our
priorities.
The Hart-Rudman report in 2002 concluded, that ``America's own ill-
prepared response could hurt its people to a much greater extent than
any single attack by terrorists,'' and Katrina revealed the truth of
that statement. We witnessed the debacle in Katrina because
communication systems went down, and the worst problem about Katrina is
that no one could talk to anybody because all of the communication
systems were put out of order.
Now, this supplemental only contains sufficient funds to provide an
emergency communications backup capability in the gulf coast. That
capability consists of trucks loaded with equipment that can be quickly
moved into devastated areas to bring up cell phones and VHF, UHF and
SHF radio networks to help first responders in their search-and-rescue
efforts.
This capability ought to be provided nationwide. That is just one of
the many examples that anybody who knows anything about homeland
security understands. It is a serious challenge to the security of this
country.
So I would submit that we can argue about the details, and if the
majority does not like some of these items, you can easily fix them in
conference because you have got the votes and we do not, but anybody
who thinks it is more important to provide $64 billion in tax cuts to
people who make a million bucks a year than it is to increase our
homeland security capability, in my mind, has a faulty set of
judgments, and I think they better think again.

{time} 1245

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Very briefly, Mr. Rogers is the chairman of the Homeland Security

[[Page H1079]]

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

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer

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

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

CHAPTER 9

GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS TITLE

elimination of funding

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

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday,
March 15, 2006, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) and a Member
opposed each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, a couple of weeks ago, or several weeks ago, I think in
February, the President of the United States sent over two supplemental
bills, one for Katrina and one for our defense. Two bills. Because even
the President recognized that these are two different issues, a $68
billion defense bill; a $20 billion Katrina bill.
Unfortunately, when this bill came to this body for consideration, it
was combined, not giving Members the opportunity to determine what they
think is the best policy, both from a defense standpoint and a domestic
standpoint.
I am concerned about the fact that these emergency supplemental bills
have really become appropriation bills, and the word ``emergency,'' I
think, has somewhat slipped from that process. We should be able to
come to this floor, and my bill allows Members to be able to give a
vote for Katrina or a vote for our defense in an appropriate way that
they feel is good for the American taxpayer.
One of the concerns I have, Mr. Chairman, is that in this 109th
Congress, if we pass this bill today, with no offsets, by the way, and
a previous speaker talked about there was no offsets for that
amendment, in fact, there are no offsets in this bill, in the 109th
Congress we will have spent as much money on emergency supplemental
spending as we have spent in the previous five Congresses.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to you that I don't think that is good for
the American people. What I think we ought to do, though, is have
policy that does address the merits of what our efforts are in Iraq and
Afghanistan and the merits of how we are spending the American
taxpayers' money on Katrina relief. In fact, we have already approved
in this body $100 billion worth of emergency spending in other relief
for Katrina victims.
What is at issue here is the question of whether or not a lot of the
issues that are in this supplemental should actually have been in this
supplemental. But more importantly, it should not be allowed for piling
on and adding things to these supplemental bills, which, in fact,
become a free-for-all.

[[Page H1080]]

These are two different issues. How we spend the money defending the
American people in our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan as we execute
the war on terrorism and how we deal with the catastrophic events that
have happened in Katrina are two separate issues. And I would encourage
my colleagues to give the American people the benefit of their wisdom
and judgment and have a vote on each one of these issues.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's
amendment. I understand the point he is making regarding the concept of
splitting bills, however, the direct result of this amendment, if it
were to pass, and I hope it doesn't, would be to strip all the money
out that we need to restore military facilities and veterans facilities
in that region.
In fact, this bill, title II, includes $184 million to replace
military facilities at bases in the gulf coast damaged by the
hurricanes, such as a fire crash rescue station at Keesler Air Force
Base. It also includes funds to replace the Veterans Hospital in New
Orleans. Eliminating this title puts these facilities and our military
personnel at greater risk.
For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman reserve his time?
Mr. WALSH. I yield back.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I
have remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 12 minutes
remaining.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer, I appreciate the
privilege to address this issue.
And, Mr. Chairman, Katrina funding doesn't belong in this DOD
emergency supplemental appropriations bill. We have had now 6 months to
debate and discuss and deliberate on Katrina funding, and yet there is
still not a plan. This Congress hasn't exerted its will on a plan in
New Orleans, in particular, and yet here we have another wave of
appropriations that has come in without an accounting of where the
money has been spent.
If we continue to do this, Mr. Chairman, we will continue to see more
money go down there without a solution in place. And I would submit,
and I have been down there three times, that if our Federal agencies
function at 100 percent of optimum possible production, and with their
hearts and their heads all in the right place, we still don't have a
solution for Katrina. There is not a plan.
There are appropriations that are in this. There is $100 million to
restore the surrounding wetlands, yet we don't know how we are going to
protect New Orleans for a category 3.1 storm or anything greater than
that. We appropriated money before Christmas for the Corps of Engineers
to produce a study to protect New Orleans for a cat 5 hurricane, but
they have 24 months to produce the results of that study, and yet we
don't know what kind of protection is going to be there for the capital
that would go down in that region, some of it below sea level.
If FEMA, SBA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers all do their job
at 100 percent, there is still not a solution. We need to have a plan,
an ordered plan, that provides for levee construction for protection
of, in particular, New Orleans, at some level; whether it is a 3, a
3.5, a 4, or something above. The people that are reconstructing their
homes need to know where they can put their dollars.
But this does not do it, Mr. Chairman. This is something that injects
Katrina funding into DOD supplemental appropriations emergency
spending. It is not emergency spending. It needs to be dealt with under
the normal process of our appropriations process.
So I would conclude and ask for a ``yes'' vote on the Neugebauer
amendment, and thank him for bringing it to the floor.

{time} 1300

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the time
held in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). Without objection, the gentleman from
New York controls 14 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Homeland Security.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I know the motivation of the
offerer of the amendment, and I sympathize with his general premise.
However, I am obligated to speak against the amendment because the
amendment would eliminate the money for FEMA. Under this proposal, FEMA
would run out of money in May. The $9.55 billion in the bill for the
operations in the Gulf Coast would be eliminated. Housing assistance
would stop; debris removal would stop. There would be no emergency
communications in place for the upcoming hurricane season, which is
only two months away. And $13.5 million for the Inspector General would
be cut, almost ensuring fraud, waste and abuse of the $35 billion in
supplemental funds we have appropriated so far for the Gulf Coast.
So I would urge a ``no'' vote. Although I understand the gentleman's
motivation to try to separate out the disaster funding from the
military funding, that would ruin the disaster assistance for the Gulf
Coast. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Neugebauer for, after a
very short period of time in Congress, stepping forward in this case
and in other cases with substantive legislation that reflects the
conservative values that he came to Washington to represent, and does
so with no small amount of courage and common sense.
As we look at this behemoth emergency supplemental, Mr. Chairman, I
still want to express appreciation to the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee and the chairmen of the appropriate
subcommittees. I do believe, as is evidenced by the courtliness
demonstrated on the floor today, that we are not subject in this case,
or any other case, to bad people but to a bad process. As this Congress
undertakes to change the way we spend the people's money, this behemoth
legislation is again an argument for budget process reform.
To the Neugebauer amendment, I must begin by saying Hurricane Katrina
breaks my heart. I have grieved for the families who have lost loved
ones and lost their precious resources and communities in the wake of
this storm. I have supported Katrina funding in the past. And in
working with colleagues to offset its cost, I will support Katrina
funding in the future, but I cannot support adding Katrina relief to an
emergency military bill.
The American people know that Hurricane Katrina funding and military
spending are apples and oranges. As the author of this amendment
suggests as well, the President of the United States knows this, having
sent a bill to fund Katrina to the Hill separate from a bill to fund
the war on terror. Rather than this legislation being focused on a
disciplined measure to fund our military priorities, it has in a sense
become a fruit basket, as supplemental bills often do. Spending that,
while it may be worthwhile, belongs in the regular order of the
legislative process in this Congress.
We need to get back to saying that emergency spending should just
fund emergencies; and military emergency spending should fund military
emergencies. Let us separate support for the war on terror and our
support for the families and communities affected by Katrina. Let us
support the Neugebauer amendment, and let this Congress work its will
independently to the war on terror and our desire to be there for the
families and communities affected by Hurricane Katrina.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

[[Page H1081]]

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I fully support the Neugebauer amendment to strike the Katrina
funding out of this emergency supplemental. It is not in any way,
shape, or form that I am opposed to Katrina funding. Indeed, we have
already appropriated on an emergency expedited manner $62 billion for
Katrina relief. I have been to the gulf coast twice. I have seen the
devastation. I have actually worked in one of the clinics in Baton
Rouge and treated some of these patients. My heart goes out to the
victims of this devastating hurricane along the gulf coast.
But as my colleagues have just said, it makes no sense to join these
two bills together. The previous $62 billion that we have appropriated
is going to Katrina without much oversight. The citizens, the
constituents of the 11th Congressional District of Georgia, are sick
and tired of hearing the stories of waste, fraud and abuse. They want
some oversight, and this is the only way we can get it.
With all due respect to the appropriations chairman and the
subcommittee chairman, this idea that if we do not do it today, right
now, combined with the defense emergency appropriations, Armageddon is
going to occur. It is not. We come back here the very first day we
return and we deal with this bill and we have some opportunity to have
some input. This is what our constituents want.
I support the Neugebauer amendment. Let us strike this funding and
come back and do it right.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and
I thank him for his courage in offering this amendment because I know
how easy it is to misrepresent what his intentions are.
I agree with the previous speakers, and I am disappointed that these
two bills have not been separated out. I am here to agree and admit, as
one who has actually been to the gulf coast, that perhaps more Federal
funding may be needed. I have seen the human misery. I have family that
was there. My in-laws were there. They were among the lucky ones; they
lived through it. Their home, although significantly damaged, was not
totally demolished. My heart goes out to these people.
But the answer to the human tragedy is not an unlimited check drawn
upon the checkbook of the Federal taxpayer.
Many speakers act like nothing has been done already to help the gulf
coast, but $100 billion in tax incentives and in other direct relief
has gone to the gulf coast. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a lot of
money.
And let us also not ignore the fact that although there was a great
tragedy that occurred on the gulf coast, there are many other tragedies
that occur in this Nation every day, but CNN is not there to capture
them on a day-to-day basis.
Mr. Chairman, 38,000 Americans die each year in a car crash, and we
are asking their families to be taxed to send more money to the gulf
coast; 1.4 million Americans are going to be diagnosed with cancer this
year, and yet we want to tax them to send more money to the gulf coast.
There are almost a half a million homes that burn each year, and we
want to tax those families to send more money to the gulf coast.
Perhaps more money is justified, but until we see the plan, until we
see more accountability where we do not have trailers rotting in the
Arkansas mud and Gucci purses being bought on debit cards, until we
figure out the precise Federal role versus the State role versus the
local role versus the role of able-bodied individuals under the age of
65, until we come up with reforms, and most importantly, until we come
up with offsets, it is time that we prioritize our spending. And maybe
we shouldn't be funding the citrus canker program and Radio-Free Europe
if money is needed at the gulf coast. I support this amendment and hope
it passes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, maybe I did not hear right, but I thought I heard some
rather interesting things. Two speakers ago I heard the words ``we need
more oversight.'' Really? This from a Congress and a majority party
that has provided mighty little oversight of the abuses at Abu Ghraib,
mighty little oversight on the question of contractor ripoffs in Iraq?
If you want some oversight, I will be interested to see how you vote
on the amendment to provide a Truman-like committee to get into the
details of contractor abuse in Iraq.
I have also heard from the gentleman from Texas express his concern
about cancer patients who are being asked to pay taxes to support
additional aid to the gulf. I will be interested to see whether the
gentleman votes for a budget which for the third year in a row will cut
the number of research grants at the National Institutes of Health.
The gentleman mentioned the number of people who die in fires. I will
be interested to see whether they vote for the recommendation to
eliminate fire grants. I could go on and on, but I won't in the
interest of time.
So I was heartened to hear those comments by both gentlemen. I just
hope that when the bills come that provide the services for the
activities that they mentioned, that they will have the same attitude
that they are exhibiting here today.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
There has been a lot of discussion about what this bill does and what
it does not do. What it does do is not take away Katrina funding; but
what it says is let us break this bill into two pieces the way that the
President of the United States sent this bill over to us, giving an
opportunity for Members to express their opinions about our current
defense policy, giving Members of Congress the ability to talk about
and express their opinions about how they feel about Katrina policy and
how it is going today.
One of the things that this amendment does, Members would be able to
come back for debate on Katrina and have a separate vote at that
particular time.
What we need to understand is this is no small sum of money. This is
$92 billion as of the last count; and with the amendments, it is
probably going to be more. We also know that $92 billion is in excess
of 10 percent of our discretionary spending for 2006.
So it makes good sense for the American soldiers, the young men and
women that are defending our Nation, that are executing the war on
terrorism to have a separate vote. It makes good sense for the people
in the devastated areas because of the hurricanes that we have had, for
us to have deliberative talks and discussions about what is good policy
for Katrina.
But let's don't leave the third set of people out that this body is
charged to represent, and that is the American people. We need to make
sure when we are making policy in this building and in this Chamber
that it is good for the people in America. The American people are
looking to us; and quite honestly, the people back in the 19th
Congressional District of Texas are concerned about our spending. They
question how much is an emergency and what is an emergency.
Quite honestly, Mr. Chairman, I think that combining these bills
today is not good policy, and I urge my colleagues to come down and
give a positive vote, vote for this amendment, vote for our soldiers,
vote for the people in Katrina, but also vote for the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of the Appropriations
Committee.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
I believe my colleagues know that the Appropriations Committee gives
the highest priority to improving and extending oversight to money that
is expended.

{time} 1315

Indeed, I have personally spent a lot of time working with the
Inspector General. We have added money in this bill to the Inspector
General specifically to make sure oversight is increased and is very
adequate. I am concerned, for example, about the money

[[Page H1082]]

that may be available even to east Texas as a result of this work. I
intend to make sure that we do what is right in connection with our
response to this issue. I would urge a ``no'' vote and appreciate my
colleagues supporting that ``no'' vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald

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

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

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of House of Wednesday,
March 15, 2006, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise today to ask my colleagues to support the amendment that I
have offered to H.R. 4939, which is the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror and Hurricane
Recovery.
Mr. Chairman, I have a bill that is going through the normal process
that will ask for $50 million through EAC. But this is an emergency
bill and it is an emergency with those who are down in those gulf coast
States who are looking for some relief in their elections that are
upcoming.
My amendment is a simple one. It merely gives an additional $50
million to FEMA so that they can repair and replace the election
infrastructure in the States affected by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina.
On August 29, 2005, the Nation and the world watched in horror as the
Gulf States were hit by one of the worst hurricanes in this Nation's
history. Hurricane Katrina destroyed life in the Gulf States as we know
it. And to our dismay, a few weeks later, Hurricane Rita cut a path of
devastation along the Texas-Louisiana coast.
The residents of the Gulf States have witnessed entire towns and
cities destroyed in the face of Hurricane Katrina and Rita. In some
locations these hurricanes wiped out the entire infrastructure
necessary for citizens to educate their children, shop for necessities,
and to exercise their right to vote. This is what this emergency bill
is all about, allowing the election infrastructure to be placed there
to give people the right to vote, because it may be years, Mr.
Chairman, before the Gulf States start to resemble the vibrant region
of the country which they were known to have before these storms.
And it takes time, Mr. Chairman, to build schools and shopping
centers; but when it comes to voting, time is of the essence. The most
affected State, Louisiana, will be holding elections in just weeks,
along with Mississippi and Alabama, which have scheduled primaries in
June.
Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from the Secretaries of State of those
States urging us to pass this emergency $50 million and to ask FEMA to
provide this. FEMA has denied them before to get this election
infrastructure put in place. This bill will do just that.
My bill will add an additional $50 million to FEMA under the Stafford
Act. It is my intent that FEMA directs these funds to the States
affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to rebuild the necessary
infrastructure to conduct Federal elections. As the ranking member on
the Committee on House Administration, I have that oversight, and I am
urging this amendment to be passed.
Voter registration lists need to be reestablished, sometimes even
recreated from scratch; and destroyed polling stations must be
reconstructed and made fully accessible to those with disabilities.
With this additional money, FEMA will not have to take money away from
rebuilding schools and bridges and hospitals and other important
reconstruction projects in order to get the election process back up
and running in the gulf coast States in time for Federal elections in
the coming weeks. And this is not a blank check, Mr. Chairman. The
States would have to submit proposals with detailed plans before
receiving funds.
Mr. Chairman, I am urging that we do this in light of the fact that
FEMA has not, and denied these Secretaries of State the due process of
getting these election infrastructures put in place. Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita nearly destroyed those Gulf States. Months later, the rippling
effect is still being felt by the Nation.
This Nation must provide disaster relief funds to supplement State
and local efforts with their efforts to restore and replace supplies,
material and equipment so that election officials can conduct credible
elections.
We talk about democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need our
democracy right here for those who wish to vote and want to vote in the
upcoming elections to do that. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.

National Association

of Secretaries of State,

Washington, DC, February 6, 2006.
Hon. Susan M. Collins, Chair
Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Peter King, Chair
Hon. Bennie G. Thompson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Trent Lott, Chair
Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
Ranking Member, Committee on Rules and Administration, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Vernon Ehlers, Chair

=========================== NOTE ===========================

March 16, 2006--On Page H 1082 under NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
SECRETARIES OF STATE, the following appeared: Hon. VERMON EHLERS,
Chair...

The online version should be corrected to read: Hon. VERNON
EHLERS, Chair...

========================= END NOTE =========================

Hon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,
Ranking Member, Committee on House Administration, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Lieberman, Chairman
King, Ranking Member Thompson, Chairman Lott, Ranking Member
Dodd, Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald:
On August 29, 2005 Americans in the Gulf Coast suffered the
most devastating natural disaster in our nation's history.
Since that time, officials at all levels of government have
been devoted to helping our citizens rebuild and move
forward. As Alabamans, Louisianians and Mississippians, we
are grateful for the hope, service and resources that have
poured into our region and we are heartened by the
hospitality of Americans in the great cities across the
country who have welcomed our fellow citizens in this time of
unprecedented need. We write your committees to request
necessary assistance in securing the rights of our region's
voters. Because a transparent and accountable democratic
infrastructure is the backbone of any rebuilding effort, we
are asking for your assistance in securing $10 million to
ensure meaningful elections.
As we move in our common struggle to. keep the Gulf Coast
vibrant in the wake of disaster, we must provide our citizens
with the opportunity to participate in the critical and
difficult decision making that each of our states face in the
coming months and years.
We are honored to serve as Secretaries of State and Chief
Election Officials and humbled by our solemn duty to
safeguard our citizens' most fundamental right as Americans--
the right to vote. The mandates of our office require that we
provide all eligible voters, both those that have returned to
their homes already and those that are temporarily residing
elsewhere, with an opportunity to participate in this
rebuilding effort by exercising their voice through the
ballot box.
Each election presents our states with many challenges, but
never before has there been such great potential for
disenfranchisement than in the elections we are facing in the
coming year. In Louisiana alone over 400,000 of our
registered voters are dispersed in 49 states across the
country. Over 53,000 of those citizens have been welcomed
into Alabama and Mississippi. Over 250 polling places in our
coastal parishes have been destroyed. To date, Louisiana has
expended over $2.5 million in restoration of voting machines
and associated equipment alone.
In Mississippi, Katrina's damage was devastating. Though
fewer citizens were permanently displaced than in Louisiana,
our infrastructure in many communities was completely
destroyed or severely damaged, due to storm surge along the
coast and hurricane force winds that reached as far as 125
miles inland.
The result of this devastation is that limited county
budgets are depleted to deal with

[[Page H1083]]

debris removal and infrastructure rebuilding, and much of our
counties' tax base is destroyed. Much of these diverted
county funds would have been used to bring voting precincts
up to ADA standards and to purchase new voting machines to
meet HAVA requirements this year. Based on surveys from our
43 affected counties, Mississippi's estimated reimbursement
need is $4.2 million dollars for ADA voting precinct
compliance and voting machine purchase.
Alabama's Gulf Coast area, and 22 counties which were
declared disaster areas following Hurricane Katrina, have a
variety of needs to conduct their first election on June 6,
2006. In addition to necessary repairs to make some polling
places functional, many counties in this disaster area have
used dollars normally allocated for election costs to remove
debris, repair infrastructure, etc., and these funds would
have been used to upgrade polling place facilities, comply
with ADA, provide training, purchase supplies, train polling
officials, etc. Alabama's estimated cost for the above needs
is 2.3 million.
As Chief Election Officials, we are committed to overcoming
these challenges, but to guarantee that each of our citizens
has an equal opportunity to participate in the election, we
need additional resources that will allow us to be creative
in educating our voters, providing opportunities for them to
cast meaningful ballots from across the country and rebuild
our democratic infrastructure.
Unfortunately, our requests to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (``FEMA'') have been answered by a denial
that FEMA has authorization under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to aid us in
administering elections. The Stafford Act, however, clearly
provides the statutory authority to FEMA to help with
necessary election expenses incurred in the wake of a
national disaster. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5170a. In fact, when
Americans have suffered the results of disasters in the past,
FEMA has provided aid and financial support for extraordinary
expenses to election officials. For example, in 1992, in the
wake of Hurricane Andrew, FEMA provided substantial aid to
Miami-Dade County to overcome the obstacles of losing more
than 100 polling places. FEMA also provided reimbursement for
all of that county's election expenses incurred as a result
of Andrew.
We seek assistance from the Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee and the House Homeland
Security Committee to help secure necessary funding and
assistance from FEMA.
Each of our offices is currently engaged in determining the
financial impact of the hurricanes on our respective election
system. It is our feeling that we will need $10 million this
year in order to adequately address our voters' additional
needs as a result of the storms. In order to most effectively
administer election related funding, we encourage a formal
liaison between FEMA and the United States Election
Assistance Commission (EAC). This relationship will allow
essential funds to be directed to the states by the federal
agency responsible for issues related to election
administration. Consequently, we call on the Senate Rules
Committee and the Committee on House Administration to work
with the EAC to determine the structure of this necessary
relationship. It is our hope that, as a result of this
relationship, we will have a procedure for obtaining needed
financial resources through a responsive partner.
Time, of course, is of the essence. Voters in Orleans
Parish Louisiana will cast ballots on April 22 to elect
leaders whose vision will determine the future of New Orleans
and its historic neighbors. Starting in the spring and
running through the summer, all of our states have primary
elections for local and federal offices. Of course, this
coming fall, each of our states must administer major federal
elections. It is essential to a successful rebuilding process
that our citizens have confidence in the outcomes of these
elections. Our commitment to this goal is undermined only by
our lack of resources.
Sincerely,
Al Ater,
Secretary of State, State of Louisiana.
Eric Clark,
Secretary of State, State of Mississippi.
Nancy Worley,
Secretary of State, State of Alabama.

NASS Resolution on FEMA Financial Assistance After a Disaster

Whereas, In September 2005 the gulf south region of America
suffered devastating losses as a result of Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita, and
Whereas, other geographic areas have in the past and will
suffer in the future from devastating disasters whether by
act of god or man, that will debilitate the election process,
and
Whereas, the Secretaries of State and other local election
officials in the affected areas will bear substantial
additional costs to restore polling places, voting equipment,
and other necessary items which will enable them to resume
conducting elections, and
Whereas, we, the members of the National Association of
Secretaries of State (NASS) and the chief state election
officials in 39 states, agree that accurate, accessible, and
accountable elections are the centerpieces of our democracy,
and
Whereas, the state and local governments in the affected
areas have and will suffer tremendous losses of revenue and
have to shoulder additional expenses in the clean up and
rehabilitation of their respected areas, and
Whereas, the Federal Emergency Management Agency reports
that they have no statutory authority to pay for any of these
extraordinary expenses, and
Whereas, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has
provided assistance and financial aid for extraordinary
expenses to state and local election officials for conducting
elections during past disasters.
Therefore be it Resolved, That NASS hereby urges and
requests the President and Congress of the United States of
America to direct the Federal Emergency Management Agency to
deem these extraordinary expenditures as eligible for payment
under the Stafford Act and to work with other federal
agencies to expediently take appropriate steps to assist
those Secretaries of State and local election officials in
the affected areas.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is just not necessary. FEMA has money
and the authorization to go ahead and buy election equipment already,
and they are already doing it. This amendment would actually earmark
Disaster Relief Funds, which we have never done before. We don't
earmark. This is not an account out of which you earmark monies for
things you like. These are Disaster Relief Funds that are administered
by the government where it is needed.
Now, the Stafford Act authorizes the use of Federal money to repair
or replace damaged public infrastructure. That is what it is for,
including election equipment. FEMA has already spent over $1.7 million
on election equipment in Louisiana and Mississippi. Specifically,
Louisiana has received $1,200,100 from FEMA to replace polling booths,
computers, voting machines, office supplies, and storage facilities.
Mississippi has received $724,000 from FEMA for voting machines,
equipment, and election commission furniture. So FEMA is already doing
it. I don't know why we need to earmark monies, which I oppose in
general; but it is unnecessary here because it is already being done.
There is plenty of money in FEMA's account to replace the election
equipment. They are already doing it. So I don't see the need for us to
pass this sort of an amendment and set a precedent, Mr. Chairman, for
earmarking out of the Disaster Relief Fund for somebody's whim on the
floor. We have passed the Stafford Act. That is what governs how FEMA
monies are being spent. This would be a violation, in my judgment, of
the principle of the Stafford Act.
FEMA is in the process of helping remove debris from the Gulf Coast.
Roads are still closed in the area. As has been described innumerable
times, it is an absolute mess down there. And while election equipment
is important, it is just simply, in my judgment, premature to purchase
this equipment, first of all, when there are no structures in place to
house the equipment and no roads open to deliver it. When the time is
right, FEMA has both the authority and the money to assist with the
upcoming election and the equipment requirements. There is simply no
need for this amendment and no need to earmark out of disaster funds.
Including the funds in this bill, we will have given $44.5 billion to
the Disaster Relief Fund in supplemental appropriations during 2005 and
2006. That is a huge sum. But it reflects the commitment of this body
to helping rebuild the devastated Gulf Coast region.
Now is the time for sound management of this money. Arbitrarily
carving out specific amounts from the disaster fund would open a
floodgate seemingly without end for many, many needs.
We recognize and support the need to repair election facilities. It
is critical that we allow those affected by Hurricane Katrina to
participate in the most important civic duty, and that is voting. With
this bill, the disaster relief monies involved in the bill are in place
to do just that and are being spent for that purpose already. So I
would urge a rejection of this amendment.

[[Page H1084]]

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair regrettably informs the gentlewoman
from California that her time has expired.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, as much as I hate to disagree
with the gentleman from Kentucky, this is not an earmark, nor has FEMA
submitted the requisite amount of money that is required for the
election infrastructure. They have approved $1 million, but they have
given no money; and, in fact, the Secretaries of State have indicated
that FEMA has refused and denied them any money at all. So what I am
simply asking is that given that this is an emergency to take care of
the hurricanes, that we provide the funding for that infrastructure to
be placed.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Jindal

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

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

{time} 1330

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Jindal

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

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

[[Page H1085]]

of life attributed to the lack of medical attention.
In addition, VA staff members volunteered thousands of hours of their
time to assist veterans and other citizens in the affected communities
to ensure that the aftermath of this storm and the response could go as
smoothly as possible.
Right now, the current situation is that thousands of veterans are
being forced to drive a long distance or do without the health care
they need. The President initially requested over $600 million to
rebuild the medical center in addition to the previous $75 million that
was included in the December supplemental for planning and land
acquisition.
This is an important facility for the VA. I also want to commend the
VA for working together with LSU, which operates the city's Charity
Hospital. They have announced an intent to try to work together to
construct a shared facility, so the new hospital would have the
economies of scale, for example, sharing potentially laundries and
other facilities with the State hospital that will also need to be
rehabilitated, maybe even rebuilt before it reopens. It is crucial to
restore this funding; it is crucial that we get this hospital open as
quickly as possible.
I do intend to yield to one of my colleagues. It is my understanding
in working with the committee, that they will work with me to ensure
that the VA does have the funds they need to reopen this facility in
its entirety. I think there was some discussion about the adequacy of
the funds, and there was some analysis of how much funds would actually
be needed to reopen this facility.
I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern for the
construction of the new veterans hospital in New Orleans. I would like
to state, also, that I congratulate him and thank him for the
leadership that he has provided to the great city and the great people
of New Orleans. He has been a consistent and strong supporter.
We will continue to work on this issue, and I will work with the
gentleman and all other interested parties to ensure that all necessary
funding is available to complete the hospital on schedule.
Mr. JINDAL. I want to thank my colleague and thank the committee.
With this agreement, I am willing to withdraw this amendment.
My understanding was there was some confusion in the initial
estimates about the actual cost of constructing a parking garage that
might have caused an inflated estimate.
I do thank my colleagues for being willing to work with me to make
sure this facility is reconstructed as quickly as possible so the
veterans can get the health care they deserve. I thank my colleagues. I
thank the Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Jindal

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

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

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday,
March 15, 2006, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I again intend to offer and then withdraw
this amendment pursuant to a colloquy with my colleagues.
The purpose of this amendment, but before I do that, I want to
explain the rationale and importance of this amendment. I have offered
an amendment to provide funding requested in the amount of $142 million
to allow the reconstruction of the National Guard facilities in New
Orleans, Louisiana. Replacement of these facilities are absolutely
critical for the function of the Louisiana Army National Guard.
Hurricane Katrina severely damaged these facilities, so that they
must be replaced. These units are now currently in temporary interim
facilities and have less than half the required training area and
storage facilities. These makeshift facilities are overcrowded and
disjointed in terms of the capacities they offer. Proper facilities
need to be constructed immediately to prevent further deterioration of
the equipment.
On August 29, 2005, the Jackson Barracks, in particular, suffered
massive flooding from Hurricane Katrina. Several weeks later, after the
floodwaters had subsided from the hurricane, the readiness centers were
again flooded from Hurricane Rita. Together these two hurricanes caused
extreme catastrophic damage to the readiness centers that housed the
Joint Force Headquarters and the 1/141 Field Artillery Battalion.
Portions of each facility were completely destroyed, suffering from
building collapses, collapses as a result of the storm's wind, rains
and floodwaters.
The damage inflicted upon the readiness center and all other
facilities on the Jackson Barracks has rendered them completely
useless. The 512 soldiers of the Field Artillery Battalion and the 216
soldiers of the Joint Forces Headquarters are now operating out of
small corner spaces in numerous buildings spread across the State of
Louisiana until interim facilities can be provided for these units
affected by these hurricanes.
These interim facilities should be ready for use in a few short
months. However, they will be nothing close to what is authorized or
required to provide for mission ready combat units of the United States
Army. The Field Artillery Battalion will have less than a quarter of
its authorized square feet required for unit training assemblies and a
readiness center for a unit of its size. This is the space needed to
provide the facilities needed for the unit to meet its wartime training
requirements.
The unit will share this space with another unit as well. Not only
will it have a quarter of the space, it will be sharing the space with
another unit. This heavily cramped facility, though, we are grateful
for this in the aftermath of the storm, will hardly satisfy the long-
term mission capability for the two units.
Over time, readiness levels to meet training requirements, retention
and recruiting will all suffer greatly. Moreover space required to
store unit equipment is insufficient. These same issues have also
plagued the Joint Force Headquarters.
The post-hurricane plan for the Joint Force Headquarters has resulted
in splitting the headquarters into several locations. This strategy is
important for recovery of the State. However, facilities for the
operation of the headquarters are not available to consolidate the
organization at each location. These long-term operations will not be
acceptable as this will result in critical management issues for the
Joint Headquarters mission providing command and control to the
Louisiana National Guard. This will result in poor oversight provided
by the headquarters which could significantly affect the readiness for
the National Guard.
My amendment seeks to restore the administration's request to rebuild
these facilities in New Orleans. Replacement of these facilities should
be provided to sustain the readiness posture of the Louisiana Army
National Guard. Hurricane Katrina has severely damaged the facilities
and these facilities must be replaced, and certainly, we need to send a
signal to the Guard that we want to help them increase their readiness
even before next hurricane season.
Many of my colleagues have done me the honor and privilege of coming
to my state on CODELs to see the damage. Many of you have landed at
Jackson Barracks and been accompanied by Louisiana Army National Guard
members on your tours. Many of you have seen the heroic footage of what
they did in the aftermath of the storm to rescue people out of the
water. Many of you are very aware of their extreme sacrifice serving us
overseas in Iraq.
Mr. Chairman, I want to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues. My
understanding is the committee will work

[[Page H1086]]

with me once information is provided from the Louisiana Army National
Guard to make sure that these facilities are indeed rebuilt and
repaired.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JINDAL. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
appreciate his great concern for the National Guard facilities in the
City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana. We will continue to
work on this issue as we move towards conference, and I am convinced we
can resolve all the questions as we complete the work in the
conference.
Mr. JINDAL. I want to thank the gentleman and my colleagues. Based on
their commitment to work with me to make sure we do provide the funding
to rebuild the facilities, my understanding is there are some questions
that need to be answered and some additional information that needs to
be obtained, but once that information is obtained, that we are
confident we can do that before conference.
Based on that, I will seek unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment. Before I do that, I want to thank my colleagues on the
committee for working with me on each of my three amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gingrey

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

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

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday,
March 15, 2006, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and a Member
opposed will each control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in an attempt to rein in what
some might see as the most modest of items. Certainly the $3 million my
amendment would strike is a minute fraction of the $19.1 billion we are
going to spend in this emergency supplemental package on Katrina
relief. Specifically, my amendment strikes the $3 million for the
National Historic Preservation Fund.
It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the money would be used for
section 106 reviews. These reviews are required to assets effects of
certain undertakings on historic properties by activities of the
Federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA.
Some may ask, why strike this particular program from the bill? The
answer is not because I don't like the program or even that the money
won't be needed at some point down the line. Rather, I am offering this
amendment today to make the point that if we are passing an emergency
supplemental, then we should only be including emergency money.
If we need to initiate a project on or near an historic property
during a time of emergency, shouldn't the government bureaucracy just
get out of the way and waive section 106 reviews, thus saving critical
time and money for the vital life needs of those who are and have been
affected by Hurricane Katrina?
Mr. Chairman, I will support the overall legislation because I
understand the emergency needs of our troops. It was only days ago that
I was in Iraq visiting troops and hearing of their needs to ensure
continued success in this war on terror. And although I do not believe
the two should be coupled together in this particular package, as I
previously said, I have personally been to Louisiana twice and I know
we are in an emergency situation throughout the gulf coast. They do
need further relief.
My point here today is that we must focus our resources on the true
needs of the region, not on a government review program that should be
waived anyway. When we have successfully moved beyond this immediate
situation, then we can reinstate section 106 requirements for the
affected gulf coast States.
I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from North Carolina opposed to
the amendment?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment
for three reasons. First of all, some $9.5 billion of the $35 billion
that has been appropriated will go to food, housing and other critical
needs. So we have met those criteria as much as possible.
Secondly, as the gentleman said, this is required by section 106 of
the National Historical Preservation Act. We don't want to get into
amending and trying to put that in the middle of this supplemental. I
would suggest if the gentleman wants to take that up at a later time,
we could do that.
Thirdly, it is needed because an $18 billion tourist industry is
involved here, and getting the assessment of these national historical
preserved sites is going to be the first step in trying to get back
that $18 billion.
Those are three reasons I would oppose this amendment. I urge a
``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. If there are no other amendments to title II,
the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS AND TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS

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

(including rescission of funds)

Sec. 3004. (a) Rescission.--Of the unobligated balances
available for ``Immigration and Customs Enforcement--
Automation Modernization'', $43,620,000 are rescinded.
(b) Appropriation.--For an additional amount for ``United
States Secret Service--Salaries and Expenses'' for critical
investigative and protective operations, $43,620,000:
Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in this section
or under the heading United States Secret Service ``Salaries
and Expenses'' in any other Act may be used to support the
position of the Chief Financial Officer until the Committees
on Appropriations receive: (1) a comprehensive workload re-
balancing report that includes funding and position
requirements for current investigative and protective
operations; (2) a comprehensive analysis of the methodology
used to estimate current workloads and develop annual
operating budgets; and (3) a budget formulation model for
National Special Security Events: Provided further, That none
of the funds appropriated in this section may be obligated
until the Committees on Appropriations receive a revised
Program, Project and Activity schedule based on current
investigative and protective workload requirements, including
a comprehensive analysis of the methodology used to estimate
those requirements.
Sec. 3005. (a) The matter under the heading ``Tenant-Based
Rental Assistance'' in chapter 9 of title I of division B of
Public Law 109-148 is amended--
(1) in the first proviso, by striking ``or the Stewart B.
McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (Public Law 100-77)'' and
inserting ``the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act,
section 221(d)(3), 221(d)(5), or 236 of the National Housing
Act, or section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act
of 1965''; and
(2) in the second proviso, by inserting ``, except that
paragraph (7)(A) of such section shall not apply'' after
``1937''.
(b) The provisions of this section are designated as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res.
95 (109th

[[Page H1087]]

Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2006.
Sec. 3006. Notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 5336, any funds
remaining available under Federal Transit Administration
grant numbers NY-03-345-00, NY-03-0325-00, NY-03-0405, NY-90-
X398-00, NY-90-X373-00, NY-90-X418-00, NY-90-X465-00 together
with an amount not to exceed $19,200,000 in urbanized area
formula funds that were allocated by the New York
Metropolitan Transportation Council to the New York City
Department of Transportation as a designated recipient under
49 U.S.C. 5307 may be made available to the New York
Metropolitan Transportation Authority for eligible capital
projects authorized under 49 U.S.C. 5307 and 5309.
Sec. 3007. The referenced statement of the managers under
the heading ``Community Development Fund'' in title II of
division I of Public Law 108-447 is deemed to be amended--
(1) with respect to item number 536, by striking ``an
economic development planning study'' and inserting ``the
Main Street Revitalization Project''; and
(2) with respect to item number 444, by striking ``City of
St. Petersburg, Florida for facilities construction and
renovation for the Mid-Pinellas Science Center'' and
inserting ``St. Petersburg College, City of Seminole, Florida
for the development of a Science and Nature Park at St.
Petersburg College''.
Sec. 3008. (a) The second paragraph under the heading
``Community Development Fund'' in title III of division A of
Public Law 109-115 is amended by striking ``statement of
managers accompanying this Act'' and inserting ``statement of
managers correction for H.R. 3058 relating to the Economic
Development Initiative submitted to the House of
Representatives by the Chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House on November 18, 2005, and printed
in the House section of the Congressional Record on such
date''.
(b) Section 5023 of title V of division B of Public Law
109-148 is amended by striking ``in title III of Public Law
109-115 (as in effect pursuant to H. Con. Res. 308, 109th
Congress)'' and inserting ``in title III of division A of
Public Law 109-115''.
(c) Each amendment made by this section shall apply as if
included in the amended public law on the date of its
enactment.
Sec. 3009. The statement of managers correction referenced
in the second paragraph under the heading ``Community
Development Fund'' in title III of division A of Public Law
109-115 is deemed to be amended--
(1) with respect to item number 714, by striking
``construction of a senior center;'' and inserting
``renovation and buildout of a multipurpose center;'';
(2) with respect to item number 850, by striking ``City of
Lancaster, Pennsylvania'' and inserting ``in Pennsylvania'';
and
(3) with respect to item number 925, by striking
``Greenwood Partnership Alliance, South Carolina for the
renovation of Old Federal Courthouse;'' and inserting ``City
of Greenwood, South Carolina for the Emerald Triangle
Project;''.
Sec. 3010. Section 9001 of the Deficit Reduction Act of
2005 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``for a 1-time only
obligation and expenditure'';
(2) in subsection (a)(2)--
(A) by striking ``for fiscal year 2007''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, to remain available until September 30,
2007''; and
(3) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Emergency Designation.--The amount provided under
subsection (a)(2) is designated as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year
2006.''.

{time} 1345

Amendment Offered by Mr. Conaway

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

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

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday,
March 15, 2006, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have is pretty simple. It
would strike section 3010 in its entirety. 3010 deals with the
acceleration of the payments on LIHEAP from fiscal year 2007 into
fiscal year 2006 by some $750 million.
The basis of this being in there has not been laid. This is not an
emergency, certainly. We have had one of the mildest winters that we
have had in a long, long time. I have also got it on relatively good
authority, scientific authority, that we will have a winter in 2007,
that this money was originally set up to supplement LIHEAP funding in
that year.
This funding came about as a result of some very difficult work that
was done on the Deficit Reduction Act, and offsets were put in place to
allow for this spending in 2007. All of the hard work that went into
it, all of the groundwork that was laid to convince us that this was
needed for 2007 would be inaccurate, I guess, if we were, in fact, to
pass this amendment, because that Deficit Reduction Act was passed in
early February.
So it has been a little more than a month since the work was done
that this House collectively said this $750 million should be spent in
2007 for the LIHEAP program.
I know that there will be those who say, well, LIHEAP has been
authorized at much, much higher levels than we have it and than it has
ever been appropriated at; but we have not seen any evidence that the
appropriation levels that we have had in the past were inadequate, that
there has been evidence shown that there has been needless suffering
going on as a result of this funding being less than what was
authorized.
I would also remind my colleagues that we have a very disjointed
national policy in that we restrict drilling in areas where we know
there is crude oil and natural gas, the basis for most of the energy
costs that we are talking about helping low-income with, we restrict
that drilling.
And it does not take a great economist to understand that if the
supply of a commodity is greater than the demand that the price will go
down. So it seems wrong-headed on one hand to have a subsidy program
for our energy costs and then at the same time restrict the drilling
for that commodity to continue to drive that price up, which then means
you need more subsidies to support the higher and higher prices.
So my amendment is pretty straight forward. It strikes this section
in its entirety. And I would encourage my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, what is behind this amendment is very simple.
The gentleman would like to hold the low-income heating assistance
funding in this bill hostage to drilling in ANWR. He cannot do that
under the rules of the House; and so from his standpoint, the next best
thing is to eliminate low-income heating assistance in general.
I was one of the three original authors of the low-income heating
assistance program, along with Silvio Conte, Republican from
Massachusetts, and Ed Muskie in the Senate. And I think I know
something about this program and why this amendment is destructive.
Let me explain what happened last year. The House-passed version of
the budget reconciliation bill included $1 billion for LIHEAP to be
available in fiscal 2006. But just before the reconciliation conference
was completed, the defense appropriations conference report was filed,
and that contained an additional $2 billion for LIHEAP as part of the
sweetener for ANWR oil leasing provisions.
Not wanting to duplicate the ANWR funds, the reconciliation conferees
shifted their addition to fiscal 2007. Subsequent to that, however, the
entire ANWR package, including the $2 billion appropriated for LIHEAP,
was dropped out of the defense appropriations conference report.
The end result was no additional funds for LIHEAP in 2006, despite
escalating heating oil and natural gas prices. The committee amendment
simply tries to move the money back to where it was originally supposed
to go, which was in this fiscal year. The problem, however, is that the
language, even in the committee amendment, does not guarantee that that
money will be spent this year; it only allows it to be.
Let me point out the gentleman says he does not think this is an
emergency. The gentleman makes $160,000 a year. So does everybody in
this Chamber. It is not an emergency to us. We do not have to worry
about heating our houses. But there are an awful lot of people who do.
Only 16 percent of the people who are eligible by income for low-income
heating assistance last year got some help.
And the fact is that the average price for home heating oil has more
than

[[Page H1088]]

doubled since 2001 and 2002, yet LIHEAP has increased only 20 percent
since that time. Average prices for natural gas are up 31 percent.
Average prices for home heating oil are up 25 percent, for propane up
18 percent, just from one winter to another.
Over 3 years' time they are much, much steeper. So I would suggest
that the family that was able to get through the winter without help
when home heating oil was selling for $1.16 a gallon, as it was 4 years
ago, is going to have a little more trouble coping when heating oil
reaches $2.40 a gallon, the average price now.
So I would suggest that to eliminate this funding is unadvisable. I
am myself unhappy with the provision in the committee bill, because
unlike the original Obey amendment which was offered in committee, this
does not even require the funding be provided this year; but at least
it allows that funding to be spent in this year or next.
And I think that that is better than nothing. I think the gentleman's
amendment, while I respect him and respect certainly his right to offer
it, I think that the amendment itself is misguided and ought to be
defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly have a great deal of respect
for my colleague on the other side of the aisle, but I think it is a
bit misplaced to compare the salaries which you and I make, which I
think is $165,000 a year, to every malady known to man. Because if we
are going to do that, there is not enough money in the Federal Treasury
to make that happen.
So I would disagree that that is a very good analogy. We will also
consider in this Chamber in a little while a suspension bill that will
add a billion dollars in funding to LIHEAP. In fair disclosure, I
intend to oppose that as well. But if for no other reason, in order to
simplify the world and make it easier on the conferees, my amendment
would strike this section out of the bill so that when we go to
conference with it, the $1 billion that will be in the suspension bill,
I suspect it will get approved, and this $750 million, there would be
no confusion that this $750 million is not tacked on top of the $1
billion.
I think the analysis has not been made. The price has gone up less
than 50 percent and this funding would increase support by well over
100 percent, from a billion to a billion. So I want to respectfully
disagree with my colleague and ask my colleagues to support this
amendment to strike this section from the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, let me simply suggest that the fact is that there are
many people in this country who have to choose between heating their
homes and eating. I think we ought to make their life just a little bit
easier.
I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
gentleman yielding me time.
If the Snowe language in the bill, the other suspension bill passes
this afternoon, then by all means strike this in a committee of
conference. But pending that, those of us from cold-weather States and
warm-weather States need this fuel assistance. I salute Mr. Obey for
working to make sure it is included, at least to the extent that it is.
In the conference report, if the Snowe language passes today, then the
amendment that is proposed could be stripped out in conference, and
certainly I would support that.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, in the interests of redundancy, I would urge
that we defeat the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we have moved past the point in the bill where the
Flake amendment was to be offered, which would have attempted to strike
an earmark that was contained in last year's bill for which a
correction is found in this year's bill.
I am pleased that amendment was not offered. But I would like to take
just a moment to urge every Member of this House to think before they
leap on the issue of giving the President the authority for what is, in
effect, an item veto.
I find it mindboggling that there are some people in this Chamber who
believe that the main institutional problem that we have in this
Congress is that the President has insufficient power vis-a-vis the
Congress of the United States.
We have a President who has taken us to war on the basis of
manipulated and selected intelligence. We have an administration under
whom persons have been tortured, and we are told that more than 100
persons in captivity have died. We have an administration that
eavesdrops on American citizens without a court order.
And then we say that the problem is that the President has too little
power? I would suggest quite the contrary. If any of you are interested
in the line item veto, I would urge you to for a moment forget who is
in the White House now and think what might have happened under Lyndon
Johnson.
This was a President of my own party, a President who lied to this
Congress about the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Gaylord Nelson, from my
home State, was one of the first three people in the Senate to vote
against the first appropriation for Vietnam.
Can you imagine what Lyndon Johnson would have done to Gaylord Nelson
if he had had any version of the item veto at his disposal? He would
have put his arm around Gaylord. He would have said, ``Gaylord, you
support that war or you are not going to get your wild rivers
designation. You support that war or you are not going to get this
earmark for the forest service. You support that war or you are not
going to get anything that you want in the budget.''

{time} 1400

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

[[Page H1089]]

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota

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

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

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

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Berry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) In General.--Subpart 2 of part D of the Social Security
Act is amended by inserting

[[Page H1090]]

after section 1860D-11 (42 U.S.C. 1395w-111) the following
new section:

``Medicare operated prescription drug plan option

``Sec. 1860D-11A. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this part, for each year (beginning with
2007), in addition to any plans offered under section 1860D-
11, the Secretary shall offer one or more medicare operated
prescription drug plans (as defined in subsection (c)) with a
service area that consists of the entire United States and
shall enter into negotiations with pharmaceutical
manufacturers to reduce the purchase cost of covered part D
drugs for eligible part D individuals in accordance with
subsection (b).
``(b) Negotiations.--Notwithstanding section 1860D-11(i),
for purposes of offering a medicare operated prescription
drug plan under this section, the Secretary shall negotiate
with pharmaceutical manufacturers with respect to the
purchase price of covered part D drugs and shall encourage
the use of more affordable therapeutic equivalents to the
extent such practices do not override medical necessity as
determined by the prescribing physician. To the extent
practicable and consistent with the previous sentence, the
Secretary shall implement strategies similar to those used by
other Federal purchasers of prescription drugs, and other
strategies, to reduce the purchase cost of covered part D
drugs.
``(c) Medicare Operated Prescription Drug Plan Defined.--
For purposes of this part, the term `medicare operated
prescription drug plan' means a prescription drug plan that
offers qualified prescription drug coverage and access to
negotiated prices described in section 1860D-2(a)(1)(A). Such
a plan may offer supplemental prescription drug coverage in
the same manner as other qualified prescription drug coverage
offered by other prescription drug plans.
``(d) Monthly Beneficiary Premium.--
``(1) Qualified prescription drug coverage.--The monthly
beneficiary premium for qualified prescription drug coverage
and access to negotiated prices described in section 1860D-
2(a)(1)(A) to be charged under a medicare operated
prescription drug plan shall be uniform nationally. Such
premium for months in a year shall be based on the average
monthly per capita actuarial cost of offering the medicare
operated prescription drug plan for the year involved,
including administrative expenses.
``(2) Supplemental prescription drug coverage.--Insofar as
a medicare operated prescription drug plan offers
supplemental prescription drug coverage, the Secretary may
adjust the amount of the premium charged under paragraph
(1).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1860D-3(a) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-103(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(4) Availability of the medicare operated prescription
drug plan.--
``(A) In general.--A medicare operated prescription drug
plan (as defined in section 1860D-11A(c)) shall be offered
nationally in accordance with section 1860D-11A.
``(B) Relationship to other plans.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), a medicare
operated prescription drug plan shall be offered in addition
to any qualifying plan or fallback prescription drug plan
offered in a PDP region and shall not be considered to be
such a plan purposes of meeting the requirements of this
subsection.
``(ii) Designation as a fallback plan.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this part, the Secretary may designate the
medicare operated prescription drug plan as the fallback
prescription drug plan for any fallback service area (as
defined in section 1860D-11(g)(3)) determined to be
appropriate by the Secretary.''.
(2) Section 1860D-13(c)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
113(c)(3)) is amended--
(A) in the heading, by inserting ``and medicare operated
prescription drug plans'' after ``Fallback plans''; and
(B) by inserting ``or a medicare operated prescription drug
plan'' after ``a fallback prescription drug plan''.
(3) Section 1860D-16(b)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C.1395w-
116(b)(1)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
``(E) payments for expenses incurred with respect to the
operation of medicare operated prescription drug plans under
section 1860D-11A.''.
(4) Section 1860D-41(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
151(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(19) Medicare operated prescription drug plan.--The term
`medicare operated prescription drug plan' has the meaning
given such term in section 1860D-11A(c).''.

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

[[Page H1091]]

from even negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry on price.
How did that happen? Because the majority leadership of this House
held the vote open for 3 hours in order to change the verdict. The way
things are supposed to work in the House, as everybody knows, is that
when we vote, these machines open, our name lights up on the board, we
take our voting card, we put it in, and 15 minutes later the people
with the most votes are supposed to be the winners. That is not the way
this bill was passed.
The way this bill was passed was that this bill was defeated at the
end of 15 minutes. It was defeated at the end of a half an hour. It was
defeated at the end of an hour. It was defeated after 2 hours. It was
defeated after 2\1/2\ hours. But finally after 3 hours of holding the
vote open the bill passed. How? Because the Republican leadership of
this House broke Members' arms to vote for a bill they did not want to
vote for because it contained these defects.

{time} 1415

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

CMS SHORTFALLS

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

CORPORATE SHORTFALLS

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

[[Page H1092]]

PHARMACY SHORTFALLS

CMS has released scenarios detailing actions pharmacies should take
to make sure Medicaid and low-income assistance individuals receive
their drugs at the proper copay amount. Though the directives are
informative and needed, they have not been adequately disseminated.
Even when they are aware of them, some pharmacies are not following
these directives. As a result, many of these people are going without
their drugs.
When we consider the complex, costly nature of the program, in
addition to the flawed implementation of the program, the minimum we
can give our seniors is an extension of the deadline to enroll without
penalty. If CMS can't smooth over the problems in implementation in
time, we cannot ask seniors to observe the original deadline of May 15.
They should be allowed to make sure they don't have to gamble with
their lives when switching to a new plan. They need to know that the
program, as flawed as it is, can be implemented in a way that does not
deprive them of their medicines. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting the Berry Amendment.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, a woman told President Bush that
she was having a hard time understanding his prescription drug program
and needed more time so that she could make an informed choice for her
mother.
Bush told her too bad. Specifically, he said, ``Rolling back good
deadlines is not going to help your mom make a good decision.''
He's wrong. The implementation of this drug program has been a
disaster. That's not a partisan statement, it's a factual one. Delaying
the May 15th deadline until the end of 2006 should be a no-brainer.
Senior citizens and people with disabilities shouldn't be forced to
pay financial penalties for the rest of their lives because the law was
poorly implemented. Nor should we allow the confusion of the last few
months to turn beneficiaries off from ever entering the program.
Yet, if the deadline goes into effect, that's exactly what will
happen. According to the Congressional Budget Office 10 million seniors
will pay higher premiums for their prescription drugs for the rest of
their lives if this deadline is not delayed. And more than 1 million
seniors will choose not to enroll this year.
Mr. Bush has long claimed to be a compassionate conservative. There
is nothing compassionate about telling America's seniors too bad and
forcing them to pay higher premiums for the rest of their lives.
My Republican colleagues keep complaining that Democrats are
demagoguing the drug bill. We are not. We are here today trying to help
them make it work better. I urge them to join us in that effort.
America's seniors need and deserve a Medicare drug benefit that is
user-friendly, affordable, and stable. Vote for the Berry Amendment to
do just that.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

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

Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

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

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

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

[[Page H1093]]

the appropriate parties debate this issue thoroughly.
Lastly, let me say a word about the rationale for making this
amendment in order, because I understand that my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle are preparing to challenge it on the basis of
it being in violation of rule XXI and rule XVI, and that is certainly
their right.
But before they do, let me ask, where was the concern for the rules
when a Member of the other body unilaterally rewrote liability law in
this country? Given the complete abdication of procedural norms which
made this provision's enactment possible, which we have seen time and
time again in this institution, I would ask the majority, spare us the
lectures about the need to respect House rules in this instance.
Mr. Chairman, the House should have a full debate on this measure and
an up-or-down vote. Let us give this institution the opportunity to
reclaim the dignity, and constitutional authority, that the majority
renounced in allowing one Member to usurp the power of this body, to
bolster himself on this critical issue. That is what this amendment is
about.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we are here because last year on the defense
appropriations bill, in the middle of the night, we were trying to
finish action on that bill, and we had agreed that we would add the
administration's request for $7 billion to fund a research program to
develop vaccines to deal with avian flu. When the majority produced
their bill, it only had $3.5 billion. We asked why the other money that
was requested by the administration was not included. I was told by
Senator Stevens, the chairman of the conference, that that was because
the majority party had decided that they would not deal with the issue
of drug company indemnification, and until they did, they were not
going to put the long-term money in the bill.
So they told us in writing, as well as orally, that they were not
going to add any language indemnifying the drug companies. The
conference ended about eight o'clock.
Close to midnight, the majority leader of the United States Senate
walked over to the Speaker's office and insisted that 40 pages of
language never read or never checked out by anybody, that 40 pages of
language never voted on by anybody be inserted in that conference
report without a vote of the conferees, and that was jammed down our
throats the next day.
That language purported to protect drug companies in case they made
some faulty flu vaccine; but, in fact, the language went far beyond
that. It applied to all vaccines, it applied to all drugs and all
medical devices that the Secretary chose to apply it to. It provided no
possibility for judicial review at all. So in other words, it said if
you get sick, if you lose your health because of a faulty vaccine or a
faulty device, you cannot sue the drug company; you have to collect
from the government.
But guess what? They put no money in the fund that was supposed to be
used to compensate victims. So it was a catch-22.
We are here today because, in my view, that action inserting that
language, without a vote of the conferees, was one of the most
egregious corruptions of the legislative process that I have seen in
the 37 years that I have been here. And we are trying to use the rules
of the House today to reverse what happened because of an egregious
abuse of those rules by the leadership of this House and by the
leadership of the Senate.
Of all people, of all people in the Congress, the leadership of both
Houses have an obligation to protect the integrity of the institution
and the integrity of the rules. When they themselves lead the charge to
obliterate any opportunity to use the rules in defense of normal
processes in this House, then, in my view, they have ultimately
corrupted the process of legislation.
So this amendment ordinarily would not be here, but the damage was
done on this bill last year, and so we are trying to use the same
vehicle to undo the damage. We recognize there needs to be some
indemnification language, but it needs to be reviewed by somebody other
than drug company lobbyists; and until that happens, I am going to
continue to be mad as hell about this and do everything I possibly can
to reverse the outcome.
We are trying to preach democracy in Iraq. It would be nice if the
leadership of this Congress showed some here at home in this
institution.

{time} 1430

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

Point of Order

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

Recorded Vote

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, and the
order of the House of today, this 15-minute vote on the appeal of the
ruling of the Chair will be followed by the following amendments on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order: The
amendment by Mr. Sabo of Minnesota, 5-minute vote; the amendment by Mr.
Neugebauer of Texas, a 2-minute vote; the amendment by Ms. Millender-
McDonald of California, a 2-minute vote; the amendment by Mr. Conaway
of Texas, a 2-minute vote.
The Chair wishes to underscore the 2-minute vote was agreed to by
this

[[Page H1094]]

Chamber. We will hold those votes strictly to 2 minutes. Members are
advised to watch the board that they have properly recorded their votes
during those 2-minute votes.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223,
noes 193, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 55]

AYES--223

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

NOES--193

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

NOT VOTING--16

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

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

{time} 1457

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

Honoring Profiles in Courage Recipient

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

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sabo

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

Recorded Vote

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

[Roll No. 56]

AYES--208

[[Page H1095]]

McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Renzi
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Serrano
Shadegg
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--210

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

NOT VOTING--14

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

{time} 1508

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

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer

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

Recorded Vote

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

[Roll No. 57]

AYES--89

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

NOES--332

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

[[Page H1096]]

Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Vela;zquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--11

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

{time} 1512

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

Amendment Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald

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

Recorded Vote

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

[Roll No. 58]

AYES--194

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

NOES--227

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

NOT VOTING--11

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

{time} 1516

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Conaway

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 59]

AYES--76

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

NOES--342

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Butterfield
Calvert

[[Page H1097]]

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

NOT VOTING--14

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

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

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

____________________