[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 158 (Thursday, November 15, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H8219-H8227]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2002

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on Appropriations be discharged from further consideration of 
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 74) making further continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and for other purposes, and 
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  Mr. OBEY. Reserving the right to object, Madam Speaker, I do not 
intend to object since I support this continuing resolution; but I rise 
in order to do a couple of things: first of all, to try to ascertain 
exactly what the schedule is expected to be around here for the 
remainder of the week; and, second, to try to focus the attention of 
the House on the linkage that exists between our need to pass this 
continuing resolution and our inability to finish bills such as the 
Department of defense appropriations bill, which the committee has 
tried mightily to produce as a bipartisan product.
  I am wondering if the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), under my 
reservation, I am wondering if he can tell me if he has any idea what 
the schedule is going to be for the remainder of the week.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I wonder first if the gentleman 
would have any objection if I just make a brief explanation of what the 
CR does.
  Mr. OBEY. I am happy to yield to the gentleman under my reservation 
for that purpose, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, this is a simple CR. It extends the current continuing 
resolution until December 7. The terms and conditions of all the 
previous CRs remain in effect. All ongoing activities will be continued 
at current rates under the same terms and conditions as fiscal year 
2001, with the exception of the agencies covered by the FY 2002 
appropriations bills that have already been enacted into law.
  Additionally, the provision for mandatory payments has been extended 
for payments due on December 1, 2001.
  As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has suggested, this is not 
a controversial resolution, and I urge that we move it quickly.
  Then to the gentleman's question as to the schedule, I wish I could 
give him a very definitive answer; but as he knows, we have completed 
work on all of the House bills, and yesterday the Committee on 
Appropriations was able to finalize the markup of the Defense 
appropriations bill.
  If I could just state for the record, the reason the Defense 
appropriations bill is late is two-fold:
  One is we waited until early July to get the President's budget 
amendment for the pre-September 11 Defense requirements; and then the 
Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations was actually 
here in the Capitol on September 11 when the tragic attacks on the 
World Trade Center took place, and at the Pentagon.
  As the gentleman knows, the Capitol was evacuated immediately, so 
that had to be postponed.

[[Page H8220]]

  Since then, additional activities have taken place; the $40 billion 
emergency supplemental was broken up into three separate tranches; and 
yesterday we finalized the Defense bill plus the last tranche of that 
emergency supplemental.
  Now the issue, I believe, for the schedule is this: that if the 
requirement of a 3-day layover before filing the bill, if that were to 
be waived, then we could actually bring the Defense appropriations bill 
to this floor tomorrow.
  If it is not waived, then the 3 days would have to ensue. Then we 
would file the bill, get a rule, and it would appear to me that that 
would either be early next week or following Thanksgiving.
  I think the 3-day rule is affected by what type of rule would be 
presented by the Committee on Rules. I believe that is an issue that 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is very much interested in.
  That is about as much as I can say about the schedule. It is sort of 
iffy.
  As far as the nonappropriations legislative schedule, of course the 
majority leader will speak to that probably sometime today.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, continuing under my reservation, I thank the 
gentleman for his comments. I would like to just make an observation.
  I know that a number of Members of the House are being told that we 
may be in session Saturday because I and several others on this side of 
the aisle are refusing to grant permission for the Defense 
appropriations bill to be moved.
  In fact, I made an offer yesterday to the majority in which I 
indicated that we would be willing to not offer any amendments in the 
full committee when the Defense appropriations bill was before us, and 
that we would be willing to give unanimous consent for that bill to be 
considered today on the floor, or tomorrow, provided only that we be 
given the opportunity to offer the three amendments which were in fact 
offered in the committee yesterday: one by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Walsh), another by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), 
and a third by myself.
  Those amendments relate to guaranteeing that New York, Pennsylvania, 
and Virginia would in fact get the amount that they were originally 
promised in the original budget supplemental.
  The Murtha amendment referred to crucial upgrades that we felt were 
needed in the defense budget in light of the events of September 11, 
and the contents of my amendment would have been focused on the need to 
strengthen homeland security in a wide variety of areas.
  We said that if those amendments would be made in order on the floor, 
that we would be willing to go directly to the floor. That suggestion 
was not responded to by the majority leadership.
  I am willing to make an offer again right now, today. I would be 
willing to give my support to a unanimous consent request to bring that 
Defense bill up either today or tomorrow, provided only that those same 
three amendments be allowed to be debated and voted on on the House 
floor.

                              {time}  1600

  Those amendments were considered in committee yesterday. One was 
defeated on a vote of 31 to 34. Another was defeated on a vote of 31 to 
33, and the third was dealt with on a voice vote. That is offer number 
one.
  If that is not acceptable, I would be willing to waive the 3-day 
requirement to file views and to allow the bill to be called up 
immediately, provided that if the rule was defeated, the majority 
intends to offer that we would then be allowed to debate the bill under 
a rule which would allow those three amendments to proceed. So the 
majority leader, if he wished, or the majority leadership, if it 
wished, could get a vote on the kind of rule that they want. And if 
that rule goes down, the House would then be given the opportunity to 
vote on these three amendments.
  I think we are trying to be infinitely flexible on this bill. But we 
do insist on the right to deal with three issues that are central to 
the defense bill which is the defense of the homeland, added funding 
for defense for overseas activities, and meeting our commitments to New 
York that were made in the aftermath of September 11.
  We pledged at the time that the money to New York would be allocated 
in one of the subsequent appropriations bills. Since this is the only 
one remaining, this is it.
  So I want to repeat that and to suggest that I think the House would 
appreciate the opportunity to vote on whether or not we should upgrade 
State and local health departments to help meet any public health 
problems that could be associated with terrorism. I think we would 
agree that we ought to increase our capacity at bio-safety 
laboratories. Right now, those laboratories are operating at full 
capacity. They have no real ability to expand in time of crisis.
  We would like to put $150 million more in here to help firefighters. 
We would like to put $240 million more in the budget to provide for 
additional cockpit security. We would like to put an additional $200 
million into the bill to provide assistance to local airports whom we 
have mandated to increase law enforcement without being given the 
concurrent Federal resources to do that.
  We would like to add $440 million to State and local health 
departments to better prepare the country for health emergencies. We 
would like to provide $107 million more to the FBI so that they can 
protect their records and make them less subject to problems in the 
event of attacks on the FBI itself.
  We would like to provide $500 million to the post office so that they 
can begin the process of figuring out how to sterilize the mail. And we 
would like to provide additional funding for the Coast Guard and 
Customs, among other items, all crucial to the security of the country. 
And all we are asking is that the Committee on Rules allow those three 
amendments to be debated.
  I would ask the gentleman under my reservation if he would have any 
objection to the Committee on Rules allowing those three amendments to 
be considered by the House.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to say first that I 
appreciate the support that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
given us through the process; and yesterday when the Committee on 
Appropriations took up the basic Defense bill, the Defense 
Appropriations bill, and added to it the amendment that, the chairman's 
amendments that allocated the $20 billion of that $40 billion 
supplemental. He was very supportive in his comments of both the 
underlying bill and the amendments. His position was, as he indicated, 
that there was much more that needed to be done.
  I would say to the gentleman that I have analyzed those amendments 
closely and I have really found no objection to the amendments. The 
objection that I had to raise in the committee was only one of timing, 
whether we would do it today, now or whether we would wait for the 
President to request a supplemental.
  But anyway then, directly to the question of the gentleman, I have no 
objection to the Committee on Rules providing a rule that would make 
any amendment in order to an appropriations bill that, in fact, is an 
appropriations issue. I do object to a rule or adding nonappropriations 
language to a bill.
  In the case of the gentleman's specific question, I would tell him 
that I spoke to the chairman of the Committee on Rules earlier today 
and advised him that I would have no objection personally to a rule 
that would allow the consideration of those amendments. I believe that 
Members have a right to be involved in the debate on very serious 
issues; and, in fact, after the experience that we had yesterday, after 
about 7 hours, I almost wish that all of our Members could enjoy some 
of that fun that we had yesterday.
  So the answer is I have already advised the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules that I would not object.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I 
understand that there are some other Members who have concerns.
  Under my reservation, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member

[[Page H8221]]

of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to support the continuing resolution and to 
speak about the supplemental appropriations bill.
  Yesterday in the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offered an amendment to increase funding for a 
number of critical security needs. Unfortunately, that amendment was 
defeated. The September 11 tragedies happened because terrorists were 
able to take over the cockpit of four airplanes.
  The Obey amendment would have provided an additional $250 million to 
prevent this from ever happening again. The President even requested 
this funding, but the majority bill, due to other priorities, included 
only $50 million of the President's $300 million request.
  Today, the airlines have made some interim improvements so that 
cockpit doors cannot be as easily broken into, such as the 
strengthening of bolts. The President's proposed $300 million for 
permanent modifications to secure the cockpit doors to prevent an 
intruder from entering the cockpit, the funding request by the 
President and included in the Obey amendment, would help airlines 
ensure that all aircraft cockpit doors are secured as quickly as 
possible.
  In addition, the Obey amendment would provide additional funding to 
our Nation's airports to meet additional security needs. They are doing 
increased patrols of ticket counters, baggage claim areas and screening 
checkpoints that have been mandated as have increased inspections, 
controlled access points in areas outside the terminal buildings.
  Airports have also been required to reissue all airport 
identification and verify such identification at all access gates. To 
meet these requirements, the airports have incurred significant 
additional costs, primarily for law enforcement officers and overtime 
pay.
  The American Association of Airport Executives estimates the cost of 
these new requirements to be about $500 million this year. These 
increased costs come at a time when airports are losing money due to 
increased air travel and fewer sales in airport shops and eateries. The 
airports estimate total revenue lost to be $2 billion in 2002, or 20 
percent of estimated revenue.
  The Obey amendment included $200 million to assist airports in 
meeting the cost of increased security requirements mandated by the 
FAA. As the Defense bill now goes to the House Committee on Rules and 
then comes to the House floor, I urge the House to allow consideration 
of the Obey amendment.
  Just to be clear, would the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) yield 
for a question?
  Mr. OBEY. Surely.
  Mr. SABO. Madam Speaker, all the funds that I speak of and all the 
funds that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) speaks of in his 
amendment, as I understand, are declared to be emergency funds, so they 
could only be spent, even after they are appropriated, if the President 
agrees, says there is an emergency and then releases the funds.
  Mr. OBEY. That is exactly correct. What we are saying is that we 
believe that the President needs the added flexibility to have these 
funds available because of the crisis that we are in; and if he deems 
any of the items to be nonessential, he simply does not have to 
designate them as an emergency and that money would not be spent.
  Mr. SABO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) for his answer, and I might indicate also that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment includes some additional funding for 
the important duty of the Coast Guard and for port security in this 
country, which is very crucial.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I 
thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) very much. I think the 
gentleman's comments indicate why in the process of approving this 
continuing resolution we are concerned that the time that will be used 
by the Congress between now and the expiration of the new continuing 
resolution would be put to the best possible use.
  Madam Speaker, continuing under my reservation, I yield to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government, as 
well as the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), my ranking member, for yielding and rise, obviously, in support 
of this continuing resolution.
  This needs to be passed, but the issues that are being raised by Mr. 
Obey and others who have spoken with reference to what we need to do in 
the short term, what we need to do before we leave and go home after 
the first session of the 107th Congress, I know the Coast Guard was 
just discussed, great concerns.
  I represent obviously the State of Maryland. The State of Maryland is 
a coastal State, clearly concerns are raised. We have tankers going in 
and out. We do not know who gets off those tankers, gets in little 
rubber boats, brings items to this coast and to Maryland, to Delaware, 
in the Chesapeake Bay which may obviously pose dangers to many of the 
Federal facilities that are located therein.
  We cannot wait. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) made that 
point yesterday very eloquently. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
is in a difficult position, the chairman of our committee.
  We had three amendments in committee yesterday. The chairman of our 
committee wanted to back all three of the amendments and said so, that 
he was inclined to vote for the Obey amendment, inclined to vote for 
the Walsh amendment and inclined to vote for the Murtha amendment, but 
he did not because there is a constraint being imposed.
  Very frankly, that constraint will perhaps lead us to additional 
continuing resolutions because we may not finish our business in a 
timely fashion if we continue to delay that which I think we know we 
need to do. The issues raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), Coast Guard being but one, the homeland security issues, that is 
critical, need to be addressed and they need to be addressed in the 
short term.
  I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his leadership on 
these issues. I thank him for raising these issues on an item that is 
not controversial, but gives us an opportunity to say that we need to 
move on these and we need to move in the short term on these, and I am 
certainly hopeful, and I say to my chairman for whom I have, as he 
knows, unreserved respect and great, great affection.
  I think he is one of the finest Members of this body, and I would 
urge him to prevail upon those who will be making decisions to allow 
these amendments to be considered on the floor when we consider the 
Defense bill and its supplemental title, because I believe that 
considering these now is in the best interest of our country, the best 
interest of our security, the best interest of the safety of our 
people, the best interest of our confronting those who would terrorize 
this land and people around the world.
  I, therefore, believe that as we did in responding immediately to the 
Terrorist Act, we need to respond with as much efficiency and speed as 
we possibly can to these identified.
  I know the chairman and the ranking member agree on the objectives. 
That is the irony. It is not that we disagree with the objectives. We 
are just disagreeing on timing, and now is better than later. It is 
safer, more appropriate policy, and I thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his leadership.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I 
thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his comments.
  Under my reservation, Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Military Construction.
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) for yielding, and I too rise in support of the continuing 
resolution which is indeed necessary, and I hope that this continuing 
resolution, which

[[Page H8222]]

is dated for December 7, will in fact provide us with enough time to 
finish the work that needs to be done on the appropriations 
legislation; and I have every reason to believe that that will be the 
case.
  I also want to speak to the question of what the rules for debate 
ought to be on the Defense and the supplementary codicils on the 
Defense Appropriations bill and to urge the Committee on Rules to make 
in order the three amendments that have been spoken of earlier that had 
been offered in the Committee on Appropriations yesterday and each one, 
debated at length and then disposed of.

                              {time}  1615

  I want to speak specifically to the portion that has to do with the 
military construction budget, the area where I am the ranking member. 
One of the issues that is involved in the homeland security amendment 
which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offered yesterday, has to 
do with our major, most important Department of Defense facility that 
deals with bioterrorism. That is right here close to the Capitol at Ft. 
Detrick, Maryland.
  All of the samples for anthrax testing in the recent anthrax scares, 
went to Ft. Detrick. And the number of samples they would not have seen 
in a whole year were handled there within a 6-week period at a place 
which is aged and inadequate as a testing laboratory and very poorly 
equipped. But that is the place where we test the samples, where we 
develop the vaccines to try to meet those kinds of public health 
incidents.
  If we had another agent, whether it be smallpox, or agent X, Y, or Z 
that was brought out and we were hit with that at the same time as we 
were trying to deal with the anthrax situation, that they struggled 
with so effectively during the past few weeks, that laboratory would be 
absolutely overwhelmed, far beyond its capacity to do the testing in 
defense of our public health. And part of the amendment which the 
gentleman from Wisconsin had offered yesterday having to do with 
homeland security began to correct that. It would put nearly $.5 
billion into properly equipping and manning the office over there at 
Ft. Detrick so that they could do the necessary work.
  The other thing that was in that, which is related to military 
construction, is actually $400 million, or thereabout, close to it, and 
is actually much closer to the sort of thing that terrorists are 
directly involved with. We have seen the impact that dedicated 
terrorists can have on an open society such as ours. Well, we have also 
seen what happened in 1982, in Lebanon, when a dedicated terrorist was 
able to take a truck filled with explosives up to the very doors 
essentially of the dormitory where 200-plus of our Marines were being 
billeted and those Marines lost their lives. We are living under 
certainly very different circumstances from the circumstances before 
September 11; and we are an open society, we have acted like an open 
society, and many of our bases are very open kinds of bases.
  Anyone can walk right into the Naval Academy or West Point. Anyone 
can drive a truck, a delivery truck in there. We have never had to 
bother taking the kinds of inspection precautions that we probably now 
almost certainly need to take much more seriously. That kind of site is 
very much at risk for a similar sort of a situation that happened to 
our Marines in Lebanon. We have circumstances where there are major 
highways that go directly through the middle of major bases.
  I can name them in large number, but just a couple are in North 
Carolina, at Camp Lejeune, a major Marine base there, and at Fort 
Bragg, a major Army base in North Carolina. Those bases have major 
highways running right through. There are thousands of civilians, 
thousands of vehicles passing through those bases each day. There are 
places where they can turn off. We do not yet have in those places the 
fences, the gates, the barriers, the inspection places to deal with 
that. We are in danger at places like that, and dozens of others in 
this country.
  The amendment the gentleman from Wisconsin had offered would provide 
us with the money to do, in the worst cases, in the most egregious 
cases, not by any means all, we cannot probably in a matter of several 
years deal with all of the force protection problems in those kinds of 
places, but it would give us a major start in dealing with the kinds of 
places where we need fencing, we need gating, barriers, and inspection 
stations at our military facilities in order to be able to be certain 
that we can avoid the sort of terroristic effects we have seen in other 
places.
  All of this really should be pretty familiar to us, because all of 
these things have been done close to the Capitol, around our own 
buildings here on Capitol Hill, and our men and women in the armed 
services deserve at least the same kind of protections that we have 
been trying to provide for ourselves. In fact, right here, within a 
matter of blocks of the Capitol, there is one of those billeting 
locations used by Marines here in the capital city and close to us, 
which lies within feet, literally feet, of Interstate 295 and major 
highway intersections. And we need to do things to correct that kind of 
risk, to reduce that kind of risk for our military personnel.
  So I would hope that the Committee on Rules would make these three 
amendments in order, in order that they can be debated, in order that 
they can be fully considered by the full House and not just by the 
Committee on Appropriations. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
do support the continuing resolution.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, continuing under my reservation of 
objection, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding. The gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Florida 
are known for their fairness. I am here to appeal to both of them, 
through the Speaker.
  We need to keep our government funded and running while we finish our 
legislative business. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the 
continuing resolution. One of the Federal agencies that I am 
particularly focused on, and I would ask the two gentlemen to as well, 
is the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This agency administers the 
Firefighters Assistance Grant Program under the Fire Services 
Administration.
  We all worked hard, in a bipartisan way, 285 co-sponsors, and finally 
brought it to reality, passed in both Houses. This month we passed the 
VA-HUD appropriations bill. It will provide funding for $150 million 
for fiscal year 2002. But it is far from the amount that I think the 
members of our fire services deserve and need.
  As part of the supplemental chapter of the Department of Defense 
appropriations bill, we are trying to secure $150 million additional 
dollars for this necessary program. If September taught us anything, it 
is the importance of the firefighters and first responders to the 
public safety equation.
  We had to scrape and beg to get $100 million last year in the 
emergency spending bill. The leadership told us they did not believe us 
when we said the fire services needed this money desperately. So what 
happened? Thirty thousand applications came in to FEMA, over 19,000 
fire departments throughout America, volunteer and career. And when we 
added up all those applications, it came to $3 billion. We had $100 
million.
  I believe we are sincere about responding to September 11, and yet we 
know that over 65 percent of our career departments are undermanned, 
that is, of the first 200 cities in America, 160 of them cannot pass 
muster right now, today. I am a bit chagrined that we are still 
scraping and begging, but this is needed.
  And trust me, my colleagues, you will be hearing from all of these 
fire departments in your districts around the country. We are asking 
them to do a different job than 20 years ago, to be the first 
responders and, many times, the last to leave all of these emergencies. 
The odds are that all of us have a few fire departments at home that 
will not get a grant this year because there was not enough money to go 
around.
  There are few heroes in our lives, but these people who put their 
necks on the line day in and day out to keep us safe certainly are, and 
that is what we are doing here today. I know our contribution to this 
worthy cause will continue to rise as each of my colleagues

[[Page H8223]]

hears from their own constituents about the need for more fire 
personnel, safety equipment, and vehicles.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding. This is an 
important matter to Americans and our fire departments and our EMT 
squads throughout the United States. They have been there as first 
responders, and we cannot ignore them. So I appeal to both gentlemen to 
hear the fairness of my request from the depths of their commitment in 
their own hearts.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time under my reservation, I 
thank the gentleman very much for his comments, and I totally agree 
with them.
  Madam Speaker, continuing under my reservation of objection, I yield 
to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding to me and for his leadership, and 
I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the 
committee, as well for his honesty and forthrightness, for those of us 
who did not have 7 hours yesterday, were not in the Committee on 
Appropriations, to make mention of his support of these amendments.
  I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for these amendments, and I 
would like to highlight and hope that the Committee on Rules will not 
only make them in order but I am hoping that they will prevail on the 
floor of the House.
  I think the distinction that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) 
made is very important for us to reemphasize. This simply provides the 
appropriations that then can be designated by the White House as to 
whether an emergency exists and that these monies are then available to 
be utilized. I have no doubt that the President, once the facts are 
presented fairly and without obstruction, will understand what is going 
on in local communities.
  The firefighter matter that my distinguished colleague from New 
Jersey just mentioned, I have had firsthand experience with. First of 
all, Houston went through Tropical Storm Allison. It does not compare 
to September 11 in the enormous loss of life, but we had our emergency 
responders on the front line there along with FEMA. Following back to 
back with Tropical Storm Allison in Houston came September 11, and the 
anthrax scare subsequent to that. My firefighters answered about 75 
calls in a 3-day period, the HAZMAT team.
  So the $150 million to local communities, spread across the 
communities, is crucial to be able to respond to what the firefighters, 
the first responders, and the emergency teams are going through at this 
time. And so I hope that we will be able to not only pass this through 
the Committee on Rules but deliberate on the floor and ultimately pass 
it.
  Just this morning, I believe we reached some sort of compromise on 
the airline security bill. I am hoping that the compromise, when it 
ultimately reaches the floor, will be satisfactory as it relates to 
federalizing all of the security for the airlines. I understand it is 
gradual; that it will have a pilot program of five that will be able to 
experiment with a private company, but, more importantly, it will have 
a 3-year window of federalizing all of the security at our airports.

                              {time}  1630

  In the meantime, I believe it is crucial that we reimburse our local 
municipalities and our airports for the work that they have had to do, 
and the resources that they have used in light of September 11 and in 
light of the burden we put on them to say, we want to get our citizens 
back flying, get Americans back on planes. And from my traveling 
through airports, I can assure Members that local municipalities are 
bearing the brunt of extra security in the airport. We have to 
reimburse them. The director of the airport system in Houston indicated 
the necessity of getting these dollars to them.
  In addition, the strengthening of the cockpit doors, even though we 
have heard that our airlines are gradually strengthening the cockpit 
doors, I do not think that we can assuredly say that every single 
cockpit door that departs from our soil is truly reinforced.
  On the state of local hospitals, public hospitals, in the Homeland 
Security Task Force, we are well informed that the brunt of any kind of 
bioterrorism or chemical warfare in local areas obviously will fall to 
our public hospital systems. It is crucial that we reinforce them. Most 
of them are teetering because of the Medicaid and Medicare formulas, 
and so the $440 million is crucial.
  Madam Speaker, I have heard that the overtime is killing doctors and 
nurses. We need to make sure that the public hospital system is strong.
  Lastly, the wisdom on the Postal Service is very important. Again, 
viewing those centers, one of the major mail centers in my community, 
watching the mail come through, this was before the stoppages because 
of anthrax, the ability to have equipment to sanitize that mail, both 
for the in-house postal workers and the letter carriers is crucial. It 
is important that our mail continue and that the American people know 
that we are taking charge and helping to assist them in the security of 
this Nation.
  Madam Speaker, as I rise to support the continuing resolution, I hope 
these amendments will be made in order, and that we do this before we 
leave for any permanent holiday through the holiday season. I thank the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for listening to the needs of the 
Nation, and I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his 
leadership.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, continuing under my reservation, I yield to 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) who is very concerned about 
the security gaps at our ports.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for 
the time and attention they have given to some of our greatest needs.
  I regret that we were not able to get these things passed in our 
subcommittee. Everybody is concerned about these important issues, and 
both the chairman and the subcommittee chairman have worked hard, and 
the ranking member as well.
  I am from Florida, and I have a sincere appreciation for the safety 
features that we must have at our seaports. Port security is an issue 
which the Obey amendment addresses to show exactly why it is so 
important. I think if Congress understands this, we can better 
interpret this to the administration. Each of us has constituents back 
home that we must face. The President is in a larger milieu. Americans 
want to know, are we safe and are our ports safe. We must carry that 
message. If we take a strong enough leadership position on this, I 
think the President will acquiescence, because he, too, understands the 
power of a constituency that is determined to get some kind of 
consideration for their needs.
  Port security is an issue that neither party can take a stand 
against. Number one, we have 361 deep-water ports in this Nation. We 
have 14 deep-water ports in Florida. My own port in Miami is the 
largest cruise port in the world; 3.4 million people go through our 
port annually. Ports in the United States handle about 7.8 million tons 
of cargo each year.
  At the same time, the State of Florida is heavily port dependent. 
Florida has the longest coastline of any state in the lower 48 States. 
International trade through Florida seaports reached 150 million tons 
in 2000, valued at $73.8 billion.
  Our State laws in Florida require that our ports have vulnerability 
assessments. They have been reviewed by the Florida Department of Law 
Enforcement. We already have security plans in place to ensure the 
safety of our citizens at Florida seaports. Not only is this important 
in Florida, it is important throughout the Nation. Most of the ports in 
this country do not have those security assessments made. We need to do 
these assessments, and we need to do them now and we need to address 
our vulnerabilities. Many of our seaports are located in extremely 
close proximity to United States military bases, population centers, 
and even the NASA operations at Cape Canaveral.
  As the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) knows, the port of 
Tampa alone handles over 10 million tons of hazardous cargo each year, 
including petroleum products. I cannot stress too strongly the 
importance of port security. There is a clear funding shortfall at this 
time for these ready-

[[Page H8224]]

to-go projects. They do not have to wait. We must impose upon our 
administration to bring these points to light.
  I am 100 percent behind the continuing resolution, but I would be 
less than a good Representative if I did not come before Congress and 
ask for many of the things that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
has asked be considered in his amendment.
  On the basis of Florida studies, Florida's deep-water ports require 
$80 million more. The chairman of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal 
Service and General Government has done the best the gentleman can do. 
We have a huge security risk. Congress needs to understand that, and 
the administration also. It is clear that port safety and security 
nationwide is very costly.
  The President recommends no funds whatsoever for port security. It is 
difficult for me to see the rationale for that. The Obey amendment 
includes $200 million for port security assessments and enhancements. 
The Obey amendment is a prudent amendment. It looks at the security of 
our Nation. I say to Members that port security is a tremendously 
important security problem.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the CR, and I also 
urge the leaders to get these things done, to take the message to the 
President that we must take a stand on this. It is important.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, continuing under my reservation, I yield to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) who wanted to make one 
additional point.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I had spoken generally about the amendments 
that we considered yesterday. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee 
on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government, I wanted to speak 
particularly about one item, and then mention three others quickly.
  First, New York, Pennsylvania and the Pentagon, Virginia and the 
Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, sustained a direct attack; but 
there is another institution in our country which has sustained a 
direct impact, and that is the Postal Service of our Nation. We have 
lost two postal workers to anthrax. They died as a result of anthrax 
inhalation. I attended a memorial service for those two gentlemen, Mr. 
Curseen and Mr. Morris, 2 days ago.
  In the Obey amendment, there is an item of $500 million to allow the 
postal department to respond: one, to make sure that we do not lose any 
more lives of those who serve us in the postal department; and 
secondly, to make sure that we have the resources necessary to make 
sure that the mail that goes through the Postal Service, before it is 
delivered to individuals, is in fact free of biological or chemical 
agents which would cause them harm.
  This is a critical component of the Obey amendment that, hopefully, 
will be made in order and we can offer. We cannot wait. From my 
standpoint, this is not enough money for the Postal Service. This is 
not, and I would stress, all of the money that they will need. The 
Postmaster General said they will need between $3 and $5 billion to 
respond to the events of September 11 and the anthrax scourge that has 
confronted the Postal Service and others. I would urge us to focus on 
this Postal Service money.
  Quickly, I would remark on the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell), who has been a leader on behalf of the fire service. The 
Obey amendment provides an additional $150 million for the firefighters 
and emergency response personnel.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) mentioned the shortages 
around this country in the fire service in our major cities. I will 
tell my friends in this House, the fire service of the District of 
Columbia does not now have the capacity to respond to a major 
catastrophe in this city. We all hope and pray that does not occur, but 
we are not ready for it if it does.
  Two other items in the Treasury-Postal bill, we know that the 
northern border has been a relatively porous border. Canada is no 
threat to us, but terrorists have utilized Canada as an entry point 
into the United States. The Customs Department has told us that they 
need substantial additional funds. Unfortunately, they were not 
included in the President's budget, as submitted to us.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) did in fact add some money, 
but not enough to accomplish the objective. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) adds to the sum that the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) added, so we can accomplish a more secure northern border 
across which we know when the millennium occurred on January 1, 2000, 
shortly before that, one of the terrorists came across trying to cause 
an explosion to occur in the Los Angeles airport. Coming south, they 
were caught. That border is such that we were lucky; and we need to 
beef it up substantially, and the Obey amendment does that.
  Lastly, we have talked about security at the Capitol. It is important 
and I support it. This is the center of democracy, but we need 
additional funds to secure our Federal facilities in which Federal 
workers labor daily on behalf of the American people. It is not that 
the terrorists seek to get to those individuals. They do not care who 
they are. What they want to get to is the Federal Government, and if we 
do not secure those buildings, we place our people at risk. The Obey 
amendment speaks to that objective, and I would hope that we can 
consider it as soon as possible.

  Madam Speaker, again I thank the ranking member for his leadership, 
for his efforts on behalf of these objectives. I know the chairman of 
our committee supports these objectives. He articulated that yesterday. 
He is dealing with constraints, and we understand that.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, continuing under my reservation, I yield to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the second ranking Democratic 
member on the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) on his efforts of moving the government forward during this 
time of national crisis. He has worked on a bipartisan basis, and for 
that, I have the greatest respect.
  Madam Speaker, God forbid, had the terrorists of September 11 chosen 
as their weapon a nuclear bomb with just enough uranium to fill a soda 
can, placed it in a car in New York City, 2 million people, men, women 
and children, would have been killed that day.

                              {time}  1645

  To put that in perspective, one nuclear bomb parked in one car in a 
major American city would kill 400 times the number of people that the 
terrible terrorist attacks of September 11 killed.
  I know we would all agree in this Chamber, Democrats and Republicans 
alike, that there is no greater responsibility of the Federal 
Government than to protect the lives of American citizens and families. 
In so many ways since September 11, this body has acted responsibly. 
Chairman Young especially has led the fight to address vital national 
needs when it comes to homeland protection.
  But, Madam Speaker, I come today to point out one area where I think 
this Congress has failed the American family. It is the area of 
protecting American citizens from the real and devastating threat of 
nuclear terrorism. I think most Americans would be shocked to find out 
that even despite all we have learned since September 11 that this 
Congress this year will actually reduce funding for the programs 
designed to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Let me 
repeat that because I think many Americans will not believe it. Despite 
the occurrences of the tragedy of September 11, this year this Congress 
has voted to actually reduce funding for programs intended and designed 
to protect the American homeland and families from terrorists making 
nuclear bombs as weapons against our country. I find that incredible.
  Intentions have been good. No one has intended to make America more 
vulnerable to nuclear terrorists. But in government good intentions do 
not protect anyone. It is our priorities and our funding decisions that 
really count.
  I find it somewhat amazing that last night in the defense 
appropriations bill we were able to find $256 million to protect this 
Capitol and me, Members of Congress and congressional employees from 
possible terrorist attack; yet we could not find one dime in that $20 
billion budget to fund defense of 281 million Americans against the 
real threat of nuclear terrorism.

[[Page H8225]]

  I am not here to criticize anyone who helped put together necessary 
funding to protect this Capitol, its Members of Congress, 535 of them, 
and staff. This is the center and the symbol of our democracy, and it 
is right that we should protect it. But I would suggest if we can find 
$256 million in this bill coming up this week to protect a couple of 
thousand people here in our Nation's Capitol, then we surely should be 
able to find $100 million to protect 281 million Americans from nuclear 
terrorism.
  It is fair for anyone to ask just how serious or how real is the 
possibility of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear materials, 
making a bomb, putting it in a car and exploding it here in the United 
States. Let me give you the answer that the U.S. Department of Energy 
would give us to that question. They say, and these are their words, we 
are in urgent need, urgent need, to immediately upgrade the protection 
of nuclear materials, 600 metric tons of which exist in Russia that are 
not presently adequately protected. That is enough nuclear material to 
potentially build 41,000 nuclear bombs, any one of which could kill 2 
million to 3 million American citizens.
  How real is the threat possibility of nuclear terrorism against our 
families? In Russia, it has been documented since 1992, we have had 14 
instances of bomb-grade nuclear material being stolen from Russian 
facilities; and in eight of those cases, the stolen nuclear bomb-grade 
material was not found until it had actually left the country of 
Russia. I find that frightening. Even more recently, today's press 
reports are suggesting that materials have been found from the 
facilities left behind by fleeing al Qaeda and Taliban leaders that 
actually had materials that instructed those terrorists on the means by 
which to take nuclear material and build a nuclear bomb. I find that 
frightening.
  But let us not just take the Department of Energy's word for it. Let 
us not take today's press reports for it to answer the question of how 
serious is the nuclear threat against American families. Let us look at 
what President Bush said yesterday in the Washington Post from actually 
a press conference of 2 days ago with Mr. Putin, and I quote our own 
President, Mr. Bush:
  ``Our highest priority is to keep terrorists from acquiring weapons 
of mass destruction.'' Our highest priority, the President said. ``We 
agree that it is urgent that we improve the physical protection and 
accounting of nuclear materials and prevent illicit nuclear 
trafficking.''
  What did President Putin say on November 7, just over a week ago? 
Referring to nuclear proliferation, he called it one of the most 
foremost threats of contemporary times. How important did President 
Bush think it was that we act immediately in regard to protecting 
Americans against the threat of nuclear proliferation? On November 6, 
just a few days ago, he said, ``We will not wait until the authors of 
mass murder can gain the weapons of mass destruction. We act now 
because we must lift this dark threat from our age and save generations 
to come.''

  I support President Bush's effort to say we must act now. It is our 
responsibility to act now to protect Americans from the threat, the 
real threat, of nuclear terrorism. But this Congress has taken no 
action. In fact, if anything, we have rolled back the clock and reduced 
funding for those important programs.
  Madam Speaker, I think it is absolutely essential for the protection 
of our homeland that the Congress, the Committee on Rules in the days 
ahead allow the gentleman from Wisconsin's amendment to be voted on on 
the House floor, because it would put into action what President Bush 
has said in his words, that we must act now.
  Finally, some said last night in the Appropriations Committee hearing 
that we just wait till next year. Sometimes waiting is the responsible 
thing to do. I would argue that when it comes to protecting Americans 
from the threat of nuclear holocaust, waiting is a dangerous mistake. I 
am not willing to ask other families to pay the price of playing that 
waiting game. Let us follow the lead of President Bush in this time of 
national crisis. Let us act now by voting for the Obey amendment and 
adequately funding the programs to keep terrorists' hands off nuclear 
materials.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I think they are 
most important and ought to be heard by everyone.
  Madam Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the 
ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, for yielding to me 
for an opportunity to make some comments about the present situation. I 
also want to express my appreciation and high regard for the chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), for the way in which he has led the committee this year and the 
fairness with which he has conducted its operations. But there are 
several important issues that are before the Congress now that many of 
us are fearful are not going to be dealt with appropriately, much less 
thoroughly. Therefore, I want to say, also, how much I support the 
amendment that was put forth by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
to provide for the kind of domestic security which we now know we so 
desperately need as a result of the attacks that occurred on September 
11 in New York, in Virginia, and the plane crash that occurred in 
Pennsylvania.
  Speakers before me have stipulated, I think, in precise and clear 
detail why this amendment that the gentleman from Wisconsin has put 
forward is so important to secure the safety of Americans all over our 
country. And so the rule that comes forward should make in order that 
amendment. The Members of the House ought to have an opportunity to 
express themselves on the issue of the funding of domestic security. 
And that opportunity will not be afforded to them unless the rule makes 
in order the gentleman from Wisconsin's amendment.
  The same can be said about the amendment that is being offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). That amendment would add 
additional needs, or make them clearer in the appropriations bill with 
regard to our national defense; and that amendment ought to be made in 
order as well. Both of these amendments are based upon contingent 
emergency. In other words, the money would not be spent unless the 
President thought that it was necessary to do so.
  We are offering these amendments because we know that the House is 
going to be in recess for some period of time, and it may be necessary 
for the President to respond, both in terms of national defense abroad 
and in terms of domestic security here at home. And so the Murtha and 
Obey amendments are very important and ought to be made in order and 
ought to be debated on the floor of the House, and we need to have the 
rule that governs this issue when it is brought to the floor make these 
amendments in order.
  Also, very importantly, is an amendment that was offered on a 
bipartisan basis by the five members of the Committee on Appropriations 
who represent various congressional districts in the State and City of 
New York. As is true with the other two amendments, I think it is true 
of this one as well, that the chairman of our committee along with the 
ranking member support the ideas behind these amendments and the 
provisions within them. It is unfortunate that the chairman of our 
committee is working under very difficult and dire circumstances. 
Otherwise, we know that it would be routine for these amendments to be 
brought forward. But routine or no, these amendments should find their 
way to the floor. The amendment that we introduced as representatives 
of the State of New York also should have an opportunity to be heard on 
the floor and for the Members of this House of Representatives to 
express their will with regard to the disaster that struck New York 
City when the Twin Towers were attacked on September 11.

  I do not know of another time, at least in the modern history of our 
country, when the Committee on Appropriations has not responded to the 
request of Members for aid at a time of disaster. In almost every 
instance when we speak of disaster, we speak of natural disaster. We 
speak of the results of flood or hurricane or earthquake or fire or 
some other natural disaster. The Committee on Appropriations always 
responds. This House of

[[Page H8226]]

Representatives always responds when disaster strikes anywhere in the 
country. The disaster that struck New York is the worst disaster in the 
history of the Nation. No, it is not natural, it is man-made. It was 
inflicted upon us by enemies from outside of the country. Nevertheless, 
we need to respond to the financial needs that are associated with the 
occurrence of that strike, that disaster.
  We thought that this had been done. Under the leadership of the 
chairman of our committee, our ranking member, the Speaker of this 
House and others, an agreement was made shortly following the attack of 
September 11 which would provide $40 billion; $20 billion of that $40 
billion would go for national defense and home security, and the other 
$20 billion, it was made clear, would be made available to the City and 
State of New York as a result of the consequences of this incredible 
disaster that fell upon New York City.
  We thought that that deal was signed and secure. It was made, again, 
by the leadership in this House, the leadership of the Committee on 
Appropriations on a bipartisan basis with the President of the United 
States. And the President said, You shall have that money, State of New 
York, because we know you need it. But now we are told that it is not 
necessary to provide that money at this time. Only half of it has been 
made available to the City and State of New York because of that 
terrible strike.

                              {time}  1700

  We plead with you to provide us with the remainder, with the 
remaining $10 billion, and we plead with you specifically for the 
individual people who were afflicted as a result of that disaster. Five 
thousand people almost were killed as a result of that strike. They 
left behind husbands, wives, children. Many people are without health 
insurance; many others have lost their jobs.
  We need to take care of the widows and orphans that have resulted as 
a consequence of that strike, and we need to make available to the 
people who have been placed out of work, tens of thousands of people 
have lost their jobs as a result of that strike, we need to make 
available to them health insurance through COBRA, Medicaid for those 
who were not eligible for COBRA, unemployment insurance and Workers' 
Compensation for those people who have been injured as a result of this 
strike.
  So these things, all of them, are necessary. These amendments are 
appropriate. They ought to be considered in the context of the bill. I 
hope and trust that when the Committee on Rules considers this issue, 
they will in fact make these amendments in order.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I 
thank the gentleman very much for his comments.
  Madam Speaker, before I withdraw my reservation, I would like to 
bring to the attention of the House two additional matters with respect 
to this matter.
  I note and I am now reading from a story in the New York Times today 
which reads as follows:
  ``Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network held detailed plans for nuclear 
devices and other terrorist bombs in one of its Kabul headquarters. The 
Times discovered the partly burned documents in a hastily abandoned 
safe house in the Karte Parwan quarter of the city, written in Arabic, 
German, Urdu and English. The notes give detailed designs for missiles, 
bombs and nuclear weapons. There are descriptions of how the detonation 
of TNT compressed plutonium into a critical mass, sparking a chain 
reaction and ultimately a thermonuclear reaction.
  ``Both President Bush and the British Prime Minister are convinced 
that bin Laden has access to nuclear material, and Mr. Bush said 
earlier this morning that al Qaeda was seeking chemical, biological and 
nuclear weapons.
  ``The discovery of the detailed bomb-making instructions, along with 
studies into chemical and nuclear devices, confirms the West's worse 
fears and raises the specter of plans for an attack that would far 
exceed the September 11 atrocities in scale and gravity. Nuclear 
experts say the design suggested bin Laden may be working on an fission 
device similar to Fat Man, the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. However, they 
emphasize it was extremely difficult to build a viable warhead.''
  The story goes on.
  That is just one explanation of why the amendment that we seek to 
bring to the floor after this continuing resolution is approved, why 
that amendment contains $1 billion aimed at keeping weapons of mass 
destruction away from terrorists, including the items discussed most 
eloquently by the gentleman from Texas.
  I would simply say, Madam Speaker, there has been considerable 
misunderstanding about what the genesis of this amendment is.
  Let me simply say, Madam Speaker, that immediately after the need 
became apparent, the gentleman from Florida and I both instructed our 
staffs to review all of the agency requests for additional funds that 
might legitimately be considered by this body in order to strengthen 
homeland security; and we produced for discussion purposes a document 
which listed items Tier One, Tier Two, Tier Three, in the order of what 
people considered to be their importance. Some of them are funded, some 
of them are not, under the base bill.
  We feel that if there had not been intervention at a higher level in 
this institution, I feel strongly that we would have had a bipartisan 
amendment presented to the committee yesterday and to this House, 
whenever the bill is considered, which would have had us stand as one, 
just as we did a few weeks earlier when we passed with no dissenting 
votes the first down payment of $40 billion that the Speaker played a 
very constructive role in helping to negotiate.
  Let me simply say that I understand why our friend on the majority 
side of the aisle and the committee yesterday could not vote with us on 
the amendments that we were proposing. I also understand that, in their 
hearts, many of them would have liked to.
  I have an observation to make about that which has been, in my view, 
willfully misunderstood by one person in OMB who attended a meeting in 
the White House last week and willfully misdescribed to the press 
since.
  When I was at the White House, I simply made this observation about 
Congress as an institution. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the 
operation of the White House or any other branch of government. What I 
simply observed was this: When each of us is elected, we come to this 
body as politicians. All we prove when we win our first election is 
that we know how to win an election. We then come to this body and seek 
to become legislators as well as politicians, and that process is 
furthered by each of us being given a committee assignment. After we 
are given that committee assignment, we learn the business over which 
that committee has jurisdiction. Some Members of this House learn it 
awfully well on both sides of the aisle.

  The point I was trying to make is that for any legislative body to be 
a self-respecting legislative institution, there has to be a fair 
balance between the political requirements that sometimes drive the 
party leadership of both parties and the substantive legislative 
requirements that should drive the committees of this institution.
  In my view, when the leadership of the other party seeks to intervene 
and shut off the judgment of the committee that has responsibility for 
the subject matter at hand, there is nothing wrong with that happening 
occasionally. That is the job of the leadership in both parties. But 
when it happens routinely, especially on matters this sensitive, then 
what happens is that this body becomes more and more strictly a 
political rather than a legislative institution. That is not good for 
us, that is not good for the country, and that is the point I am trying 
to make.
  It seems to me that if the committee had been left to its own 
devices, we would have had a significantly uncontroversial proposal to 
make to the House, which would have increased funding for military 
expenditures associated with the war. It would have added these 
additional items which I believe are not at all controversial and are 
badly needed to plug some of the security holes, and we would have also 
assured that the original commitment made to New York, Pennsylvania and 
Virginia would have been maintained. That is the purpose of what we 
were trying to do yesterday.
  I urge the White House and I urge every Member of this House to, 
please,

[[Page H8227]]

before they make up their mind about how they are going to vote on 
whatever rule is attached to the Defense Appropriations bill, I urge 
every Member to simply review line-by-line what it is that is being 
proposed. If they do, I think that you will find that the vast majority 
of members of both parties would recognize the substantive value of 
what it is we are trying to do. It just seems to me that that is our 
job.
  I also want to point out again, lest anyone think we are trying to 
``bust the budget,'' each and every add-on to the homeland security 
package, each and every item in that bill contains as part of that item 
the following language: ``Provided further that such amounts shall be 
available only to the extent that an official budget request that 
includes designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
emergency requirement, as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
Deficit Control Act of 1985, is transmitted by the President to the 
Congress.''
  What that language means, Madam Speaker, is that if this money were 
to be provided, not a dime could be spent unless the President later 
agreed that each and every one of those items represented an emergency 
that needed to be funded. If, in the judgment of the President after 
reviewing our arguments, he decided that spending could wait for 
another day, that is the way it would be. He would maintain total 
control over the expenditures.
  But we believe it is crucial to provide this, because we have talked 
to the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Agency, to many other 
agencies of government, and we are convinced that this is necessary for 
the good of the country.
  We have stimulus packages floating around here being promoted by both 
parties. I will not comment on what I think of them. But the fact is 
that if we want to stimulate the economy, the number one requirement is 
to restore public confidence in our ability to travel and people's 
ability to go into public places without fear, and that is what we 
attempt to do. That could do more to restore economic confidence than 
virtually anything else this body will do.
  So I urge each and every Member to review this. And I repeat, we are 
perfectly willing at any time to grant unanimous consent for that 
Defense bill to come up today or tomorrow, provided only that we have 
an opportunity to vote on these three amendments. Surely that is not 
too much to ask.
  Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 74

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public 
     Law 107-44 is further amended by striking the date specified 
     in section 107(c) and inserting in lieu thereof ``December 7, 
     2001''; and by striking the date specified in section 123 and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``December 1, 2001''.

  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider 
was laid on the table.

                          ____________________