[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 162 (Wednesday, November 28, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H8431-H8441]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3338, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 296 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 296
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3338) making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
The amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted
in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. Points of
order against provisions in the bill, as amended, for failure
to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as
follows: ``to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund and'' on page 183, lines 24 and 25; ``to be derived from
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and'' on page 184, lines 7
and 8; ``to be derived from the Highway Trust
[[Page H8432]]
Fund and'' on page 184, lines 18 and 19. Where points of
order are waived against part of a paragraph, points of order
against a provision in another part of such paragraph may be
made only against such provision and not against the entire
paragraph. During consideration of the bill for amendment,
the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. During consideration of the
bill, points of order against amendments for failure to
comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI are waived. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted an open
rule for H.R. 3338, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for
2002.
Mr. Speaker, the rule waives all points of order against
consideration of the bill. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate,
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations.
The rule provides that the bill shall be considered for amendment by
paragraph. The rule provides that the amendment printed in the
Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution shall be
considered as adopted.
The rule waives points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI prohibiting
unauthorized or legislative provisions in a general appropriations bill
or prohibiting reappropriations in a general appropriations bill,
except as specified in the rule.
The rule waives points of order during consideration of the bill
against amendments for failure to comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI
prohibiting non-emergency-designated amendments to be offered to an
appropriations bill containing an emergency designation.
The rule authorizes the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to
accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their
amendments in the Congressional Record.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and open rule for a very important bill.
We need to pass this rule and the underlying defense bill so that the
citizens of New York and our Armed Forces get the support they need and
they get it now.
Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, a vote against this rule is a
vote to table this legislation. A vote against this rule is a vote to
delay money for New York, and it is a vote to delay funds for homeland
defense, and it is a vote to delay support for our men and women in
Afghanistan.
I would like to make three important points.
First, this is an open rule. It cannot get any better than that. The
rule allows any Member to offer any amendment to the bill, as long as
their amendment complies with the normal rules of the House. Every
Member who will come down here to complain is doing so because they are
unable or unwilling to offer an amendment that complies with the rules.
They are mad because the committee did not make a special exemption for
them.
Second, we are really talking about two separate bills here, the
regular defense appropriations bill, and the $20 billion supplemental.
This defense bill provides vital support to our military and to New
York. The supplemental allows New York to get $11 billion in recovery
funds. It provides an extra $1.5 billion above and beyond what we have
already spent this year for our government's defenses against chemical
and biological attack, and the regular Department of Defense
appropriations bill provides an additional $11.7 billion in extra funds
to prosecute Operation Enduring Freedom, including $1.7 billion to
develop a rapid response capability after a terrorist attack.
As we speak, our best and brightest young men and women are risking
their lives over in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, we have let the budget for
our Armed Forces expire. The fiscal year ended on September 30 and we
still have not passed a defense bill. What kind of message does that
send to the men and women in uniform? It is shameful.
Now is not the time to further delay, to nitpick this bill for
political reasons or political gain. Let us pass it and provide our
military with $317 billion in much needed support, including a much
needed 4.6 percent pay raise.
Thirdly and last, Mr. Speaker, the funds in this bill, both for New
York and our antiterrorism defenses, are above and beyond the $40
billion we provided immediately after the September 11 attacks.
Only a few days after September 11, Congress came together and
provided billions for our recovery and defense efforts. Indeed, we
provided so much money that President Bush has not had enough time to
spend it all yet.
As Mayor Giuliani recently said, ``So far, the money we have asked
for, we have gotten just as quickly as we asked for it. The reality is
that we have gotten more help than we have asked for. The cooperation
on the part of the Bush administration and the Federal Government has
been absolutely 100 percent. Right now, we do not need $10 billion, and
we would put it in T-bills if we got it. As we need the money, we get
it.''
I point this out because some Members will come to the floor in a few
minutes and will have conveniently forgotten about the $40 billion we
allocated a few weeks ago. They will pretend New York has been left in
the lurch.
This rule and this bill will pass, Mr. Speaker, because it is an open
rule and because it is a responsible, generous bill. But unfortunately,
we will see that some lawmakers have abandoned the spirit of
constructive bipartisanship that prevailed so beautifully in the wake
of September 11.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, halfway around the world, the men and women of the U.S.
military are demonstrating unmatched courage and professionalism in the
fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Their successes on the
battlefield are a tribute to them and their families and to America's
longstanding commitment to a strong national defense.
Meanwhile, here at home, domestic security has become our top
priority, and Democrats and Republicans alike are united in our efforts
to prevent and defend against further terrorist attacks. This bill
provides a good foundation for supporting these efforts.
In my 23 years of service in this Congress, I have always been a
strong supporter of America's national and domestic security. I
strongly support the funding in this bill to provide for our Armed
Forces. I have consistently supported funding for our troops, for
without them, we cannot fight. I have consistently supported
modernizing and upgrading our equipment, for without it, our military
cannot carry out its mission. I support the programs and funds in this
year's appropriations for the Department of Defense.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not go far enough, because
the Republican leadership in this House has refused to make the
investment needed to support the war abroad fully and to protect
America at home fully.
Last night in the Committee on Rules, the Republican leadership
reported a rule that will not allow the House to even debate three
important and relevant amendments. The first one is critical to
ensuring that our troops now fighting in Afghanistan have the equipment
they need to carry out their mission and to ensure the safety of their
loved ones and, indeed, all Americans at home.
In the case of the second amendment, the Republican leadership
refused to allow the House of Representatives to even debate an
amendment which would have fulfilled the bargain made
[[Page H8433]]
with the city of New York to help rebuild that wounded city after the
terrorist attacks of September 11.
Finally, the Republican leadership refused to allow the House to
consider an amendment which would have provided critically needed funds
to shore up our homeland defenses; to make sure our mail, as well as
the men and women who carry it, is safe; to protect patrols on our
borders; and to make sure the that ships, trains, and airplanes
entering our country do not carry more danger than cargo or passengers.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, for the first time since I came to
Congress, I will oppose a rule on a Department of Defense appropriation
bill. It is unconscionable that the Republican leadership in this House
should cut off the ability of Members of this body to debate and vote
on amendments which are clearly critical to the safety and well-being
of every American, whether at home or fighting abroad.
Just last month, Republican leaders insisted on spending $25 billion
on retroactive tax breaks for some of the largest corporations in this
country, but now they cannot find half that amount for homeland
security or national defense.
{time} 1145
So they are shortchanging some of America's most pressing needs in
the war on terrorism.
Take national defense. This bill does not fund 70 percent of the
critical needs identified by the Department of Defense and the
intelligence agencies in the wake of September 11. While America's
Marines are on the ground in Afghanistan, Republican budget officials
have tried to slash $817 million from the Defense Department's request
for small arms ammunition for the Marine Corps and the Army. While U.S.
Special Forces work to hunt down Osama bin Laden, these same Republican
budgeters have tried to cut $1 billion from the Defense Department's
request for Special Forces. That is why I offered an amendment to the
rule last night to allow the House to debate an amendment providing an
additional $6.5 billion for the military's most critical needs, like
intelligence, special forces and defense against chemical and
biological warfare.
This amendment, which is identical to the amendment offered in the
Committee on Appropriations markup by the Subcommittee on Defense
ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), was
rejected on a straight party-line vote. The Republicans on the
Committee on Rules, each and every one of them, voted against allowing
the House to even consider an amendment which would provide crucial
critically needed money to carry out the operations in the war against
terrorism.
Or, Mr. Speaker, consider the assistance pledged and promised to New
York City after the attacks of September 11. Immediately after that
tragedy, the people of New York as well as the other States affected by
the tragedy were promised half of the $40 billion down payment passed
by this Congress. But the Republican leadership has chosen to
shortchange the City of New York and only provide a portion of the
amount of the money needed to help that great city continue its
recovery process.
A bipartisan amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Sweeney) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) that would have
delivered on the promise made to New York was rejected by the
Republican leadership in favor of an amendment which will not only
shortchange New York but every other State in the country by literally
lifting money out of their pockets.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let us consider homeland security. Just this
week, Tom Ridge, the Director of the Office of Homeland Security spoke
to the House, spoke to the New York Times about the billions of dollars
America needs to strengthen our homeland defense systems. We need to be
stronger, Mr. Ridge said. We need to be larger. We need to be better.
We all know he is right.
We need massive investments in priorities like small pox vaccinations
and emergency personnel. Food and water supply safety must be improved
and law enforcement agencies, from the FBI to the border patrol to
State and local police, need more resources to respond to added
responsibilities of America's new war on terrorism at home.
At the same time that Tom Ridge has been warning that our homeland
defenses are not up to snuff right now, other administration officials
have repeatedly warned the public that future terrorist attacks are
possible if not reasonable to expect. Yet, the Republican leadership in
this House insists that Americans can afford to wait 6 months before
making the homeland security investments that everyone knows we need
right now.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking
member on the Committee on Appropriations, has offered an amendment
that provides $6.5 billion for these and other critical homeland
security needs not addressed by this bill. But the Republican
leadership has refused to allow us to even debate the amendment, much
less vote on it.
So, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has given me little choice
on this rule. In fact, their actions make my decision very easy. If
Members believe that these priorities, bioterrorism, nuclear non-
proliferation, ammunition for the Marines on the ground in Afghanistan,
are not immediate needs in the war on terrorism, then they should vote
for this rule. But they should also be ready to explain to their
constituents why our troops in America's homeland security can afford
to wait 6 months or more for what they need right now.
Or if Members believe it is our duty to act now to provide resources
to defend America at home as well as abroad, then I believe those
Members should vote to defeat this rule and force the Republican
leadership to allow the House to vote on our amendments, to increase
homeland security and national defense.
I urge every Member of this body to vote to defeat this rule so the
House might have an opportunity to live up to its responsibilities as
an institution and as representatives of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I am a little surprised
to hear my Democratic colleagues sounding like this is a closed rule.
This is an open rule and any Member can come down and make any
amendment to the bill as long as it complies with the normal rules of
the House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Reynolds), who has worked very, very hard on
securing the funds for New York in this bill.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me time, and I certainly want to
pay great respect to her and her leadership on the Committee on Armed
Services and on the defense budgets. For years she has led a fight, not
only in the Committee on Rules, but throughout the entire Congress to
increase important funding.
There will be a lot of rhetoric on this rule today. I am used to that
and I am used to being in the minority in New York. I know the loyal
opposition never has enough. I know many of us who are defense hawks,
there is never enough money for defense. There is never enough money
for homeland security. We changed the whole direction of how America
thinks.
For those of us who have toured and worked closely with the great
State of Israel, we have seen time and again what they have looked at
for homeland defense that we took for granted here. Yes, we will
continue to have to invest in a rational sense those types of important
money.
I think my colleague as she spoke today, the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) talked about the fact that is pure and simple. A
vote against this rule is to vote against and to table money for the
war on terrorism, homeland security, and New York recovery. And the
part I want to address in the time I have allocated is on New York
recovery.
There are 435 Members of the House of Representatives. There are 100
Senators. There is a President. There are 536 different solutions of
how we ought to do something. Now, some of my colleagues believe the
law in their view says that $20 billion should be in this
[[Page H8434]]
budget right now because it said so. And they want the $20 billion.
They want to put it under their mattress so they can look at it and
know that it is there.
There are others of us who have looked at what do we have, what do we
need. And as the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) said,
the Mayor has indicated he has the money he needs to do the job as he
continues on New York recovery.
When I looked Mr. Daniels in the face as the Director of OMB, he
says, Do you know that 600 million has been drawn down on FEMA on the 7
billion set-aside?
So there is enough there over the next couple of months.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) was able as an expert in the
VA-HUD and the other agencies as a cardinal in this House on the
Committee on Appropriations to drive even more money in great
flexibility of $2.5 billion in community-involvement block grants;
things that my colleagues in this House who represent the borough of
Manhattan can immediately put into application in order to make sure
that small businesses and utilities are back up and running as part of
the partnership under the Mayor's direction as the city and chief-
elected officer of the City of New York.
As we look at the reality of money, most of us realize that $20
billion will not be enough for New York. Some have cited the New York
City partnership and the $83 billion implication that this has on the
attack of 9-11. We certainly know that all of us as New Yorkers need to
plow through and make sure that money comes through in a steady flow to
make sure that New York City and New York State is on a well, strong
move back to a recovery.
How we get it done becomes what has been the debate today, not that
it will get done; and so from my colleagues who want the $20 billion
under the mattress, I accept their view. For those of us who will look
at it as a credit card, a credit card where we can draw down the $20
billion, I do not want to take the whole $20 billion out and put it
under my mattress. I want to know that the President of the United
States, when he gave this House and he gave New York his word and the
Speaker of the House said he would support that, that it will get done
because right now New York recovery is getting done. That money is
flowing faster than we can use it, and it is up to us as oversight and
up to us as a delegation from New York to make sure that money just
keeps moving in as fast as we can spend it.
The Mayor of the City of New York says that is the case. I support
him on his view. I support this rule because we need to get moving on a
defense budget that fights the war on terrorism, increases our homeland
security, and brings back cash for New York recovery.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost)
for the time.
Mr. Speaker, the only delay that this vote has anything to do with is
Tom DeLay. That is the only delay. We offered on this side of the aisle
last week to take this bill up Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday
if they would do one simple thing, remove the gag on this House so that
we can fully debate the most important domestic security issue that we
have faced in at least 2 decades.
We have been attacked in what is in essence a second Pearl Harbor.
The war abroad appears to be going quite well so far. The problem is we
are going after the snake and we are trying to kill it, and they are
going to try to retaliate; and they are going to try to retaliate at
home as well as abroad, and we have huge, huge security risks, some of
which are classified and cannot even be mentioned on this floor. But
there are many of them that we can talk about today.
All we are asking is to give the President the authority to spend
additional money, $7 billion or so. If he does not want to spend the
money, he does not have to; but we are asking that we simply be allowed
to make it available so that we can do the following things.
So that we can help the FBI to develop a new computer system so that
it is not in the stone age when it comes to investigating terrorism. We
can make their new computer system available by next spring rather than
the year 2004 without the amendment.
We want to add 800 more Customs agents at the Canadian border. How
many people have we heard saying on both sides of the aisle, ``Seal the
borders.'' We do not have a sealed border right now. We have a sieve as
far as Canada is concerned. We need to correct that.
At our ports, only 2 percent of cargo is inspected. Only 40 ships out
of 300 that come into our ports every day are fully inspected. We want
to correct that problem by adding more and more inspectors in those
ports.
Food supply: Tommy Thompson, Secretary of Health and Social Services,
says the thing that worries him most is the fact that we only inspect 1
percent of the foreign food that we import into this country. We want
to raise that inspected percentage to 10 percent. Do you really think
that is going too far?
Public health: Again Secretary Thompson has said that our public
health ability to respond to bioterrorist attack is in ``tatters.'' We
are trying to do something about that by adding a billion dollars to
increase our capability to defend against all of those agents of
terror. That is what we are trying to do.
Most importantly, we are trying to do something about the fact that
on 13 separate occasions we have had weapons-grade nuclear material
fall into the wrong hands in Russia itself, and we are trying to
provide money in this bill to see to it that that never happens again.
Mr. bin Laden wants to get his hands on that material. God knows what
will happen if he does.
The essence of the question we face is very simple. Are we going to
do something about these threats now because the customs people, the
FBI people, they tell us they can use these additional tools now? The
question is are we going to give them the tools to use them now or are
we going to put a ``Wait-Till-Next-Year'' sign on efforts to defend
this country against terrorism? That is what we are trying to do.
Member after Member on the majority side of the aisle has come up to
me and said, ``Dave, I know you are right, but I cannot vote with you
because our leadership is breaking our arms.'' I am asking you to
please, instead of consulting your whip, consult your conscience. Vote
for what you know this country needs. Not a single dime of this money
can be spent unless the President in the ends agrees that it ought to
be spent and signs an emergency designation saying it is an emergency.
Therefore, you cannot have a runaway budget. Vote your conscience. Vote
this rule down so we can do something real to defend the security of
this country.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues again, this is an
open rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
LaHood).
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me this time.
As probably the most junior member of the Committee on
Appropriations, I can tell my colleagues that I sat through the debate
on this provision that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is
talking about; and I want all Members to know that we did have a
healthy debate about it, and certainly the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) makes his argument very, very well and makes his case very,
very well; but the amendment that he offered, to add this additional
money, was voted down by the committee.
{time} 1200
And I think it was voted down because there are some of us on the
committee that take great stock in what the President of the United
States has told us. The President has told us that he has the resources
that he needs to fight this war. He has the resources that he needs to
carry out the homeland security that is necessary to secure our borders
and to secure our country. And the President has told us that when
there are more resources that are needed, he will come forth and ask us
for those resources. And I have no doubt that next year, sooner rather
than later next year, we will be looking at a supplemental bill to add
the resources that the President feels that he needs.
[[Page H8435]]
Now, the President is the Commander in Chief. He is the one that is
waging the war. And I think all of us are delighted that he has the
strong support of the vast majority of the Members of this body, the
other body, and certainly of the American people. He has that support
because he is doing a good job at the job that he has been elected to
do, and that is in part to wage this war. And he has a good team of
people helping him, a good team in his Cabinet, and a good team of
people surrounding him at the White House. They are doing a good job.
And, in part, they are doing a good job because they have made good
decisions, put good people in the field, and they have the resources
that they need.
Now, the President has also put into place the former Governor of
Pennsylvania to really secure our borders, to really look at homeland
security. And at this point what they are saying is the bill we passed
earlier on, which was for $40 billion, $20 billion for New York and $20
billion for the President to wage this war, and the bill we passed for
$15 billion to help the airlines get out of the economic doldrums they
are in, those bills contain an enormous amount of money.
The idea there is not enough money simply did not fly in the
committee. The arguments that were made by the gentleman from Wisconsin
did not have standing to the point that they were able to pass the
committee. Even though he made good arguments, the committee decided
otherwise. And I think they decided otherwise because they put great
stock in the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief.
Certainly when the minority party had their person in the White House
as the Commander in Chief, they went along with many of the provisions
and legislation and ideas that he had about areas that we went into,
like Bosnia, like other areas of the world where we had to go in and
rout out terrorists. During those debates we did support the Commander
in Chief. And I think that is the point we want to make here today: The
President of the United States is doing a good job, he is the Commander
in Chief, and nobody knows more.
I am on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; I have been
on that committee for 2\1/2\ years, and we know an awful lot about
terrorists and we know an awful lot about what people want to do in the
United States. Nobody knows more about it than the Commander in Chief,
than the President of the United States, and we have to give him his
due on this.
I think when the President needs the money, when his administration
needs the funds, when they need the resources, they are going to come
to the Congress. Are we going to step up? Of course we are, just like
we stepped up with the $40 billion, $20 billion for New York and $20
billion for the Defense Department. We stepped up when it came to the
airline industry.
Look, Congress will respond, but we need to be responsible about
these things. And I think the House should realize that this is a good
rule. This is a rule that sets the right tone for the kind of defense
spending. Now, the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member
have done a good job on this bill. They have done a good job, they have
worked hard and tried to incorporate the kind of resources that are
necessary.
Let me just say this. This subcommittee has done a good job, they
really have, and everyone in the House knows this. I guarantee that if
this rule passes, this bill is going to pass overwhelmingly because it
is a good bill for the defense of our country, it is a good bill for
the people that are waging the war, it is a good bill that Congress
will be very proud of in passing. We do need to pass it to send a
signal that the Congress is really behind having a strong defense.
So I urge Members to vote for the rule. This is a good bill, it has
been worked on very hard, very long by the chairman and ranking member,
and it really sends a message to the Commander in Chief, to his team of
people and those people that are waging the war, not only in this
country but also offshore, that we are providing the resources at this
time that are necessary to do what we have to do.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
ranking member of the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to this
ridiculous so-called open rule. The refusal of the Committee on Rules
to allow consideration of the Obey amendment, the New York delegation
amendment, and either of two amendments that I offered is an affront to
democracy and an insult to the people of this great Nation.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle can offer no logical
excuse for denying this body the right to debate provisions for the
strengthening of our national security, the rebuilding of Ground Zero
in lower Manhattan, and disaster relief to American businesses and
workers. In fact, their only excuse for denying the American people
increased funding for border patrol, airport and airline security
upgrades, cargo inspectors at our ports, mail screening and processing
machinery, food and water safety, and a host of other security measures
has been that these pressing problems can wait until the spring. That
is what I was told last night after the Committee on Rules said no to
saving American businesses.
I offered an amendment that would have provided the Small Business
Administration with the necessary financial resources to administer all
emergency disaster relief loans that have been applied for since
September 11. I need my colleagues to realize that if Congress does not
help American businesses today, then these businesses will not be
around next spring to be helped.
So I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle: Do any of you
have a problem with saying yes to more than $4 billion in new spending
on national missile defense, while at the same time saying no to
displaced workers, American businesses, and homeland security? I
certainly do.
While the American people wait for spring, only seven-tenths, or 1
percent, of our imported food is inspected; only 2 percent of the cargo
containers that enter American ports are viewed by Customs inspectors;
our airlines remain vulnerable to hijackers; and the people in
businesses of America wait vainly for Federal assistance. Perhaps the
other side is blind to the more than 500,000 layoffs and thousands of
business closures.
I emphatically urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS. Having been around here when my party was in the
minority, I tend to scrutinize rules very carefully, because when we
were in the minority, the minority had no automatic privilege under the
rules to provide motions to recommit with or without instructions. That
is now in the rules; something that was never available when we were in
the minority.
So I assumed this was some kind of a closed rule, which normally gets
the blood pressure up because you have to swallow hard and take what
has been given to you. And then I found out this was an open rule. So,
then, the reason why people are voting against an open rule is because
certain amendments were not made in order. And when we examine what the
amendments requested to be made in order were, there were people on the
Committee on Rules and others which wanted to move defense money from
one area to the other, notwithstanding the fact that people charged
with that responsibility have spent months negotiating the package.
Then I discovered that someone said that New Jersey, for example, our
colleague from New Jersey, put out a ``Dear Colleague'' saying protect
unemployment, job training, and health benefits for New Jerseyans, vote
``no'' on the rule; which is kind of an interesting argument. So I
examined what he said New Jersey was not going to get. For example, it
said New Jersey is not going to get $52 million.
I would remind my friends on this side of the aisle that we just
recently passed an economic stimulus bill. And had my colleagues voted
for it, they would have been voting for $368 million for New Jersey for
unemployment and
[[Page H8436]]
health care. Had my colleagues voted for that bill, they would have
provided New York with $766 million for unemployment and health care.
And, for example, Pennsylvania would have been $531 million, and so on,
because there was more than $12 billion in that pot which is being
distributed.
So if my colleagues are worried about voting no on a rule because New
Jersey is not getting $52 million, why in the world did my colleagues
vote ``no'' on a bill which would have provided $368 million to New
Jersey? I fail to understand the desire to stick New Jersey in the eye
on the one hand but then scream vote ``no'' on the rule to protect some
kind of money that maybe was supposed to have been there.
By the way, we are not through helping New York. The victims' bill
that we passed on the Thursday, that has been over in the Senate all
these weeks, is now back. We are attaching to that bill the New York
delegation's desires on tax adjustments to enhance New York. For
example, in the bill that most of my colleagues did not vote for, an
opportunity was created for leaseholders to build out, in a new
structure for a restaurant or a dry cleaners, a 15-year period, reduced
from a third of a century. What we have said in the recovery zone of
Manhattan is that that 15 years is reduced to 5.
Those kinds of real incentives to rebuild in the recovery zone will
be part of the victims' bill, which, after all, was a response to what
happened on September 11. So to argue that Members should vote ``no''
on this rule to deny New Jersey something is really a pretty bizarre
argument.
Vote ``yes'' on this rule. And by the way, vote ``yes'' on the
stimulus package when it comes back from conference.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. This is a bad rule, specifically in the area of homeland
security, because it forces us to provide homeland security on the
cheap.
What they do in this rule is block the Obey amendment. That means
they block an additional $150 million for local firefighters. It is not
just about what the President says, it is what local governments needs.
They need firefighter money, they need money for local police. They are
paying for overtime, lengthened hours, special security details,
protecting facilities, and they need additional resources.
We also need more money for our port security and we need money to
protect our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That is blocked in this rule.
We can have a better rule. We can have real homeland security. Oppose
the rule. It is a bad rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time, and I rise today in support of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, and commend the chairman and the ranking member for
crafting a very fair rule.
Mr. Speaker, at this very moment, American troops are on the
battlefields risking their lives to defend our freedom and our very way
of life. And while they are fighting to defend everything that we hold
dear, we gather in this hallowed Chamber and quarrel over the details
of a very small portion of this bill, the $20 billion supplemental,
which, in contrast to the core of this legislation, is quite small.
So I rise today to support the core of the legislation, Mr. Speaker,
$317 billion at the core of the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act today, which is well crafted and which will provide the resources
for personnel, operations, maintenance, research into the types of
weapons systems that are making our troops safe at this very hour, and,
most importantly, funding the counterterrorism efforts.
American troops are engaged in a long war. This bill will ensure
their safety and preparedness now and for years to come. I urge my
colleagues to set aside regional and parochial arguments and interests
for a day. Help us strengthen the American military. Pass this bill and
support this rule.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. The
Republican majority is blocking consideration of a series of amendments
that would provide for increased domestic security at our ports, at our
nuclear plants, for our public health system, for increased capacity
with the FBI, the lead agency to hunt down terrorists.
We could be taking steps to reduce the likelihood, better prepare for
the possibility of a bioterrorist attack, and we could have made good
on our word to help New York recover from the worst attack on American
soil in this Nation's history. It is not just enough to go and take
photographs at Ground Zero, promise people money that you are going to
help individuals and businesses, and then pull the rug out from under
them.
The amendments would help to secure the safety of our food supply,
increasing inspections of imported food from today's level of less than
1 percent to 10 percent of all the food imports that enter into our
country.
We could have helped the Centers for Disease Control to provide
scientists with the kinds of help they need to protect Americans from
infectious diseases, and that they do not have to work in laboratories
with rotting floors and roofs.
We could do something to protect our domestic defense and security
today. Let us oppose this rule.
{time} 1215
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sessions).
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today we are engaged in a debate, as we
are every year. Several years ago we were engaged in this same debate
when Republicans stood up and talked about securing our borders, taking
care of this country, making sure that Americans were safe. We are
doing that again today.
Today our colleagues across the aisle are trying to outbid us on how
much money can we spend now that the September 11 tragedy has occurred.
In 1999 we had this same debate, and each of my colleagues that has
spoken here today on the other side from Wisconsin, Florida, and Texas
wanted to make sure that as we stood up to try to defend this country,
as we were defending the FBI, the Border Patrol and our National
Instant Check System which would catch these people, it is each one of
these, my colleagues, who voted to take money out of those funds.
Mr. Speaker, yes, it is true. They wanted to eliminate cutting $20
million from the FBI for the National Instant Check System; cutting $44
million from the Border Patrol; cut $32 million from the Federal prison
system; cut $24 million from the judicial branch of government that
pays our judges.
This is what happened just 2 years ago. They were standing up gutting
every single bit of the funding that we could do for what is now known
as homeland security. Now today we cannot add enough money in.
After being in Washington 5 years, I will say I have learned that
virtually every single vote is about more spending and more money, or
less spending and less money. Today what this is about is wise and
prudent spending of the taxpayers' resources, working with the
administration, that has made sure what they are asking for they can
adequately spend and take care of the needs of this country.
This should not be a bidding war. This should not be a war where we
fight each other. It should be about providing the money that this
President, this administration has asked for, to make sure that DOD has
what they need. This is a fair rule. It is a rule that provides money
for resources and allocations for people where they know it will be
effectively spent.
Adding tens of millions of dollars, trying to get into a bidding war
at this time after each one of these colleagues of mine has just tried
to take money away in the previous years, I think is something that we
should take a look at and wonder why.
What this administration is trying to do, what this bill is trying to
do is the right thing. I support the rule. I am going to make sure that
they get this money, and I hope that each of my colleagues will do the
same.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler) in whose district the attack on the World Trade
Center occurred.
[[Page H8437]]
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on September 18 the President signed a
supplemental appropriations bill that provides, quote, ``that not less
than one-half of $40 billion should be for disaster recovery activities
and assistance related to the terrorist acts in New York, Virginia and
Pennsylvania.''
The bill before us today welshes on this solemn pledge and amends the
law to cut almost in half the $20 billion previously appropriated. To
add insult to injury, the pending rule will not allow the bipartisan
amendment to restore the $10 billion cuts to redeem the $20 billion
pledge by the Congress and the President even to be debated on the
floor of the House.
Congressional leaders and the President have repeatedly stressed
their intentions to provide more than the promised $20 billion aid to
New York, just not now. The funds will come eventually. Be patient.
Trust us, they say. But the funds are desperately needed now, not in 6
months or a year.
We need funds now for grants to enable small businesses to survive.
Lower Manhattan could lose 10,000 of its 14,000 small businesses in the
next 6 months. The victims of the attack need unemployment benefits and
medical insurance now, not next year. Small business owners are making
decisions now whether to try to keep going or to shut the business.
Large businesses must decide whether to return to downtown eventually
or to seek permanent quarters elsewhere now. And residents are debating
whether or not to return to Lower Manhattan.
They need to know whether there is a commitment on which they can
depend to rebuild Lower Manhattan. How can we expect them to trust a
commitment from people who are today breaking their solemn pledge of
only 2 months ago? Who in this Chamber would bet his or her family's
future on such a commitment from such people?
Mr. Speaker, the honor of this House is at stake today. We must vote
down this rule so the Members may vote on whether to break our word and
welsh on our solemn pledge to the immediate victims of the attack on
the Nation, or whether to redeem the honor of the House. Let the House
not dishonor itself without the Members at least being permitted to
vote on it.
In his inaugural address, the President said under his administration
we would not cross to the other side of the road when we passed the
injured traveler on the road to Jericho. Today under this rule, not
only have we paused to cross to the other side, but, indeed, we are
telling many of those injured travelers, drop dead.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
It is absolutely outrageous that the Committee on Rules, at the
direction of the House leadership and the administration, is preventing
this body from voting on an amendment that provides already-promised
assistance to New York City.
No one denies that New York bore the brunt of the assault of our
Nation on September 11. And although the terrible loss of lives was
contained to that single day, for millions of New Yorkers the struggle
continues. Families and friends continue to search for the remains of
loved ones, small businesses teeter on the brink of bankruptcy.
Unemployed workers wait in line for aid, all while the wreckage of the
World Trade Center still burns. New Yorkers are hurting; yet the
administration and this leadership are about to renege on their promise
to help the residents of my city.
If this rule passes, New Yorkers will continue to go without help. I
am tired hearing that the Mayor of the City of New York said that $9.6
billion is enough; but Members forget to mention the other side, that
he also instructed all city agencies to cut 50 percent of their budget
for New York City because of the financial constraints. This is morally
wrong, and I urge my colleagues to vote down this rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Walsh), who has done all this hard work on this bill.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, indeed, I have not done all of the hard work
on this bill. There has been a lot of work done by many, including the
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lewis), who has been so patient with us as we attached the supplemental
to this bill. I rise in strong support of the rule and the bill, and I
urge my colleagues to support the rule and the bill.
There has been a good deal of debate about this, but not much about
the substance of the DOD appropriation. It is a good bill and it needs
to be supported. The supplemental has drawn most of the attention. As
all of us know, the President issued a veto threat that if we added
more to the bill than the $40 billion, he would veto it. That changed
all of the rules when that occurred. The President did say that New
York should get half of this money, and I believe we will receive $20
billion plus. Most agree that $20 billion is a floor, not a ceiling.
When we negotiated with the White House, there were very few options
we had. We had to operate within the existing structure of the bill.
What we did was allocated $1.5 billion national emergency grants to the
Community Development Block Grant Program. Community development block
grant funds are the most flexible funds the Federal Government has.
They are the most important funds that we have, the best tools that we
have to rebuild the City of New York. CDBG can be used for
infrastructure, public utilities, help hospitals, it can be used to
help incent businesses to stay there, help residents to stay there,
improve the quality of life in that neighborhood. It is the best money
we can put in at this point. That is why we settled for that amount.
Is it all we wanted? No, it is not. My belief is that the President
will keep his commitment and the rest of those funds will flow. I
remind my colleagues that 75 percent of the bill here for New York City
is FEMA. Many of us go back 10, 15, even 20 years here. Not once has
the Federal Government ever withdrawn its commitment to fully fund the
FEMA program.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a good bill. This is a good rule. New York
will benefit from it. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Serrano).
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, the issue is one promise on top of another promise. The
promise that New York will get half of the dollars has been broken
already. That is a fact. We are not here to create a problem, but that
is a fact. Now we are being told wait until next spring.
Next spring we are being told that we will move dollars from other
parts of the budget to accommodate New York. That means that next
March, April or May we are going to take money out of the agriculture
budget, out of the Department of Defense, the State Department, the
Department of Justice, the INS to move over to New York? If that is the
situation New York finds itself in next spring, I can assure my
colleagues, in that scenario we lose that fight. We cannot win a fight
where we have to bid with other parts of the Nation for help.
America was hit. New York was the scene of that hit. The President
came forward, the Congress, the Speaker, the leadership, and said we
will take care of New York. It is sad that we are here opposing this
rule because it will not allow an amendment that simply says to enforce
the law that is already on the books.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that both the current Mayor of
New York and the new Mayor of New York have stated that they have
plenty of money right now and they do not need extra above and beyond
what we are currently providing them in these bills.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lewis), who has worked tirelessly to bring this bill to the floor
today.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak on the rule, but as I listened
to the discussion, I thought it was important to point out that the
base bill, the
[[Page H8438]]
Defense Appropriations bill, that will be considered today involves
some $317 billion for national security. It is designed in a fashion to
meet our highest priority needs ranging from money for basic research
projects that affect national security, all of the way to paying for
increased pay and the health care needs of our men and women who serve
in the various Armed Forces.
The bill, above and beyond that, contains the supplemental; and in
total, $40 billion supplemental, as the money has been distributed, I
am pleased to say very much effectively supplements the work we have
been about. There is slightly in excess of $20 billion from the
original $40 billion package that flows to a variety of important
defense needs, and because of that I am pleased with this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to recognize that we do not solve
problems, defense problems or otherwise, by simply throwing money at
those difficulties, but rather, measuring very carefully the challenges
themselves and then attempting to figure out what ways we can best
apply dollars to solve those difficulties.
{time} 1230
This rule is a good rule. It allows us the kind of flexibility we
need for the near term. Indeed, as we go into the next year, if we find
challenges both in terms of national security or meeting the needs of
New York and New Jersey, we will respond to those needs by way of
additional supplementals.
Because of that reality, I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the good gentlewoman for placing into the
record the fact that the Mayor of the city of New York and the Governor
said we do not need the money right now. Maybe the gentlewoman can
explain to us why it is, then, that the city of New York is cutting by
15 percent across the board, programs throughout New York City. It is
an austerity budget. I do not have an answer for that, but maybe the
gentlewoman does.
The fact is we do not want to vote against this rule. We do not want
to vote against the bill. But a promise that was made has been broken.
We are not getting the full $20 billion funding to New York City that
was promised early on. We know there are a lot of great things in this
bill for our Nation. We know that our Nation is at war. We want to
support and we will be supportive of our men and women overseas in the
armed service. But the simple fact of the matter is that a promise was
made to the city of New York and the State of New York and that promise
is being broken right now.
While our men and women are fighting in Central Asia to protect our
quality of life and the sanctity of our country, they do so with the
heavy memories of the martyrs of September 11. It is with a heavy heart
that I ask my colleagues to oppose this rule, not to disrespect our
Armed Forces, as has been said or at least been alluded to here today,
but to respect the memory of those who lost their lives on September
11. We need to do the right thing by New York, New York State and New
York City, who took the brunt of this hit on America. Why do we have to
continue to bleed 15 percent across the board?
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, the World Trade Center is
still burning, and this administration is wavering in its support for
New York.
New York has enormous unmet needs and unpaid bills. Whoever says we
do not need the money, just look at some of the invoices that are long
overdue that I have brought to the floor today. Like money for
hospitals that canceled elective surgery so they could aid the victims.
Like costs to utilities to rewire lower Manhattan. Like reimbursements
to transport children to temporary schools.
Right after the attacks, the administration said that they would do
``whatever it takes'' to help New York. But now, with full support of
the administration, the House leadership is doing ``whatever it takes''
to deny New York the money and the aid that it was promised. Out of the
$40 billion that was allocated, only $11 billion is allocated for New
York, when $20 billion was promised.
Vote against this rule on the New York amendment alone that was
denied, so we can come back with the New York amendment included.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
Last night, a bipartisan group of New Yorkers asked the Committee on
Rules to make in order our amendment to allocate $10.4 billion in
contingency emergency spending for New York's recovery.
Mr. Speaker, in the hours after the World Trade Center attack,
President Bush made a commitment that New York would receive $10
billion plus $10 billion, $20 billion, to recover and rebuild. And
Congress made that commitment law, $20 billion. But the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Sweeney) and I and our entire delegation have spent the
last 2 months trying to ensure that law is complied with, and we are
still fighting today.
Mr. Speaker, an agreement is an agreement is an agreement. The law
says that New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania are entitled to ``not
less than half'' of the $40 billion supplemental; 422 Members of this
body supported that supplemental. No Member voted against it. Eleven
weeks later, we are still having the debate. We are still fighting. It
does not make any sense.
Eleven weeks after the worst disaster in the history of our country,
the crisis in New York has not ended. Thousands are facing the holidays
without a spouse, a child, or a parent. Thousands are out of work.
Small businesses remain shuttered. Thousands of residents are still
unable to return to their homes. Work at Ground Zero goes on 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week. Fires are still burning underground. Memorial
services at the site continue. Families are coming to terms with the
knowledge that there will never be anything of their loved ones
recovered. New York will never be the same.
We put together an amendment that would commit the billions needed to
continue the enormous recovery and rebuilding effort. We designed it as
contingency emergency spending which would allow the President to
determine when the funds are needed and declare an emergency, at which
point the money would become available. We believe that this is the
most appropriate way to respect the need to manage Federal spending
while assuring the Americans who took the blow for our country on
September 11 that Congress is committed to their recovery.
We ask for consideration of this amendment. Let us have a full debate
on the issue. A promise is a promise. When the President of the United
States makes a promise, we appreciate it and expect that promise will
be met.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me. I have listened to the New Yorkers who have argued to defeat the
rule so they can have consideration of an amendment to help New York. I
think we ought to defeat the rule as well so that we can help the post
office.
It is terrific that the House is now going to get its mail. We are
spending the money to make the mail safe and to protect all of our
staff who open the mail. But what about everybody else in the country?
Will their mail be safe? If we defeat this rule, we can pass an
amendment that will provide funding to make the mail safe for everyone.
But the Republicans say we do not have the money. It is funny, but
the Republicans have found $1.4 billion to give to IBM, $1 billion to
give to Ford, $600 million to the Texas utility companies, and over
$500 million for Chevron and Texaco in the outrageous giveaway bill
that passed 2 weeks ago. But somehow we cannot find $500 million for
the Postal Service to make the mail safe for everyone.
[[Page H8439]]
None of this makes sense, but if we defeat the rule and pass the Obey
amendment, we can begin to restore sanity to our priorities.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the three amendments
were germane to this argument. It really galls me to see some from the
other side, to be perfectly frank, question the patriotism of my party
which I proudly represent. We all want the same thing. We want to
defend the Nation. We want to be strong abroad. We want to be strong at
home.
This Nation flew, was part of 38,000 air sorties against Kosovo when
we helped regain the freedom of those people. We were ready. We are
ready now. I do not believe it is nitpicking if the gentleman from
Pennsylvania wants to ensure the defense of this Nation. I do not think
it is nitpicking that the firefighters, the first defenders of this
Nation, need help and need resources. I do not think it is nitpicking.
You go out and talk to the emergency responders throughout this Nation,
Mr. Speaker, and you will have the same response. They need the
resources. I believe that these amendments were germane. It is a
terrible shame that they are not going to be debated on this floor.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I feel that this so-called open rule is
anything but. It is a sham. If it were truly open, it would allow us to
debate an issue that is important for New Yorkers and Virginians and
Pennsylvanians. We have a law that requires not less than $20 billion
to be provided for those States as a result of the attack on September
11. This bill, in effect, negates that law. It takes that money away
from the people who need it. This is especially true of the people in
New York City which has been so devastated as a result of the attack on
the 11th of September.
Already, unemployment is up, businesses have been lost, health
insurance has been lost. People are being denied the help and
assistance that they need. There is a substantial amount of human
suffering and a direct negative impact on the economy of the city. This
money is drastically needed to cover those expenses. This rule makes it
impossible for us to debate that amendment. Therefore, the rule ought
to be defeated.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Owens).
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, the attempt to help New York recover speedily
moves beyond boundaries, State boundaries or city boundaries. When the
terrorists struck on September 11, they struck at the heart of the
Nation, the nerve center of the Nation, the communications nerve
center, the financial nerve center, the morale nerve center. The domino
effect throughout the Nation is obvious. So we are not talking about
New York. We are talking about speedy recovery for the whole Nation.
In all due respect to the Mayor and the Governor of the State, I
think the institutional history of this body is far wiser. In the past
decade we have handled several emergencies. The California earthquake
was the example we ought to follow. This body quickly committed $6
billion and later an additional $2 billion. California's whole economy
was in the tank at the time, but the effort to repair and recover from
the earthquake made the whole economy recover. That kind of rapid
commitment and rapid implementation expenditure is what we need here
now. Speed is very important. Every dollar's value is increased. If we
speed the commitment of it and expenditure of it to recover in New
York, we recover in the entire Nation.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Kaptur).
(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule
which fails to make the Obey homeland security amendment in order. Just
listen to the words of Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy
Thompson who said, ``Am I satisfied with the food inspection we are
doing? No, I am more fearful about this than anything else.''
The Obey amendment would provide the agency 10 percent of the
resources that it needs to meet the food inspection requirements of
this country. Right now we inspect less than 1 percent of what comes
over our border. Our Nation's food safety needs are real and
compelling, and the risks from imported food products are real and
compelling. We must do the right thing to protect our food supply and
to help ensure food safety for all of our people. This rule denies us
the opportunity to vote on the Obey substitute. I urge a ``no'' vote on
the rule.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I guess George Orwell has taken up residence on the
other side of the aisle, the famous author who defined words by
changing their meaning. Black was white, day was night, open is closed,
closed is open.
They keep saying they have an open rule. Their open rule prohibits
the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking member of the committee, from
offering an amendment to increase the amount for homeland security.
Their open rule prohibits the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha)
from offering an amendment to increase the amount of spending for
defense. Their open rule prohibits a bipartisan group of New Yorkers
from offering an amendment to honor the President's original commitment
of amount of money for New York.
Open is closed, closed is open. The world stands on its head. This
rule is a sham. They know it. We know it. The American people know it.
Everyone supports the money for national defense. All we are asking for
is the opportunity to provide additional resources right now for
homeland security, additional resources right now for New York. I urge
a ``no'' vote on the rule.
{time} 1245
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues again that this is not a
so-called open rule, it really is an open rule. I know some people are
upset because they did not get the special exceptions that they wanted,
but, quite frankly, it is an open rule, and we can debate this on the
floor. It is very critical that this money come forward for our
homeland defense, for our men and women in Afghanistan, and also for
the City of New York.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, all of you know that I represent
Detroit, Michigan. The Detroit Port of Entry at the Ambassador Bridge,
Windsor Tunnel and Blue Water Bridge handles 40 percent of the trade
between U.S. and Canada. More than $1 billion in trade crosses the
U.S.-Canada border every day. The auto industry makes up one third of
that trade. The auto industry operates under ``Just in Time'' inventory
systems, and the quick, efficient processing and clearance of auto
parts is essential to the industry's survival.
Detroit border crossings accommodate over 61 percent of all cross-
border truck traffic along the U.S.-Canada border. It is the largest
border truck crossing area in the nation. Long limes and 15-hour
traffic backups are not unusual. In the days following the September
11th assault, the border--for all practical purposes--was shut down.
The U.S.-Canada border embodies 40 percent of the total U.S. ports of
entry, has only 14 percent of U.S. Customs primary inspectors who
perform 33 percent of the U.S. Customs national workload. The number of
Customs inspectors along the U.S.-Canada border is less than 900. That
number has been relatively constant since the Reagan Administration,
although the cross border commercial transactions have increased 600
percent. We need to address the imbalance.
Since September 11, our border enforcement personnel have been on
Level One security alert. Customs and INS inspection personnel along
the northern border have historically suffered from inadequate funding.
These problems have dramatically intensified in the aftermath of the
attack.
[[Page H8440]]
The Treasury, Postal Service and the Commerce, Justice, State
Appropriations bill provides increases for Customs and INS inspection
personnel. Customs received a $28 million increase to provide for an
additional 285 inspectors along the northern border. INS was increased
$25 million to provide 348 additional positions to address
understaffing problems at northern border ports of entry. The
Ambassador Bridge and Detroit-Windsor Tunnel currently operate with
only 23 INS inspectors. According to a study provided to the Senate,
these ports of entry need 151 inspectors. By the way, that study was
released in December 2000. It is outdated given the tragic events that
occurred in September.
These increases in Customs and INS inspectors were based on
assessments conducted well before the terrorist attack. These increases
in Customs and INS personnel are based on a peace time assessment, not
one based on the heightened state of security under which our
government is operating.
We have been trying to get official estimates of the Customs and INS
inspection personnel needs but without success. But we do know one
thing: Detroit ports of entry will be unable to receive the resources
necessary to process goods, people and traffic in an efficient manner
that ensures the continued vitality of U.S.-Canada commercial relations
in a state of higher security.
The State of Michigan is supporting the work of Customs inspectors
and INS inspectors assigned to the ports of entry. The State of
Michigan has assigned anywhere from 30 to 45 National Guard personnel a
day to assist Customs in conducting commercial inspections at the
Detroit ports of entry. Twenty-four National Guard personnel assist INS
agents in processing travelers coming across these border points. I
should point out that we have National Guard personnel assisting
Customs and INS staff at Port Huron and the Soo Locks. Certainly the
need for more Customs and INS personnel is real, immediate and over and
above the number appropriated for in the regular fiscal year 2002
appropriations process. We have a chance to correct this shortfall, but
we are being denied that opportunity.
This denies the opportunity for Mr. Obey to offer an amendment that
addresses these security needs of a nation that is vulnerable to
domestic and foreign-source terrorist threats. The Rules Committee will
allow one individual to raise a point of order against amendments we
plan to offer to plus-up spending for defense and homeland security
needs. For instance, the Obey amendment proposes to add $140 million
for 790 additional Customs inspectors along the northern border. This
is a minimum proposal that certainly recognizes the long-ignored border
resources needs of Detroit. To those among us who have signed or
written letters of support for more help along our borders, you should
support efforts to have the Obey proposal receive the full and fair
consideration of the House. If you have a water port, the security of
that port is important to sustaining the economic viability of your
community. If that is the case, you should support a rule that protects
these amendments from parliamentary tactics. The Obey proposal would
increase the Coast Guard by 640 positions for port security operations,
provide money to conduct port security assessments and enhancements and
840 additional Customs agents for cargo inspection.
Recently, I received a petition from a number of INS inspectors
working at one of the Detroit land border ports. The petition they sent
to my attention contained a number of grievances they wished to call to
my attention. Their complaints centered on the fact that their
resources were already stretched thin before September 11, but they
have worsened since then. Here are some of the problems they called to
my attention: In the last three years INS manpower has been halved
while the amount of vehicles that require processing has tripled;
inspectors are expected to work a six-day week, plus additional
overtime; the average inspector works 56 to 64 hours per week. They go
on with other complaints concerning other working conditions, but these
employees need some relief from the pace of work they are experiencing.
When I go home to my constituents, I would like to be able to tell
them that Congress did something to improve the security at the ports
of entry that serve the Greater Detroit Area. The only way that can
happen is if we vote down this rule, so we can have an opportunity to
vote for the resources necessary to improve the homeland security of
this country.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed today that we as a Congress
are not debating any amendments relating to rebuilding New York. After
the September 11th attacks, the NY delegation met with the President to
discuss the city's needs for rebuilding. He promised then and there
that our needs would be taken care of. Yet he's not living up to his
promise. And we're letting him get away with it.
At yesterday's press briefing, a reporter asked Ari Fleischer why the
Administration was opposing any add-ons to the anti-terrorism bill.
Fleischer's response was: Well, the Congress has entered into an
agreement with the President, many weeks after September 11th, when
people already understood the need to beef up on the domestic front,
the need to provide more resources. And an agreement is an agreement is
an agreement.
Doesn't that statement apply to the agreement the President made
regarding New York? Isn't an agreement an agreement an agreement?
We must provide the funds New York needs to rebuild. We must remember
this was not an attack on New York it was an attack on America. And we
as Americans must help the City recover their costs directly related to
the World Trade Center attacks.
This rule does not allow an amendment to guarantee that New York
receives at least the 20 billion that the President promised us, that
the Congress voted for, and that the President signed into law.
Therefore, I will vote against the rule and ask my colleagues to do the
same.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
opposition to this rule and urge my colleagues to join me in defeating
it. I object to this rule because the implications of its unfairness go
beyond the petty political games of life in Washington. This rule
actually threatens the national security of the United States. At a
time when our country faces such serious challenges to our security and
way of life, it is unconscionable that this body would attempt to pass
a rule that squelches debate and prevents the Congress from
appropriating money that is so desperately needed to ensure our safety.
But the debate today is about more than simply a rule for considering
the defense appropriations bill; it is about addressing urgent needs
that have been neglected for far too long. America is facing the most
serious threat of the last sixty years, a threat so great the world has
united in response to the tragedies of September 11. The President of
the United States has called upon all Americans to live as if we are in
a state of war, and he has asked for--and received--unprecedented
authorities to combat terrorism. In this atmosphere, the country
expects the Congress to do its duty and contribute its share to the
effort.
Across the country, from Maine to California, Americans are losing
their jobs, hotels remain half-empty, airliners fly with empty seats,
shop-owners wait in vain for additional customers, and children of
laid-off workers face the prospect of a bleak Christmas. Just this
week, the National Bureau of Economic Research officially announced
that the longest peace time economic expansion in American history had
ended and that we are now in recession. But we did not need an official
announcement to know we face real problems
These are serious problems we face. Terrorism. Recession.
Unemployment. It is our job as the Congress to do what we can to help
our constituents through these times. Our constituents need us to act
in their interests. Our constituents need us to secure our nation. Our
constituents need us to rebuild the damage done by terrorists. Our
constituents need us to stimulate the economy. This rule fails all of
these tests.
Why does this rule not allow for the urgent funding needed to prepare
our defenses against the threat posed by biological weapons? Why does
this rule not allow for the urgent funding needed to pursue justice in
Afghanistan? Why does this rule not allow for the funds to hire
additional air marshals and airport safety equipment? Why does this
rule not allow for the funds needed to secure our postal system?
What will we say to our constituents who ask us if the Congress has
done everything possible to protect them from the threats we know
about? What will we say to our constituents who ask us if the Congress
has done everything possible to protect them from the threats we don't
know about? What will we say at town hall meetings in the upcoming
weeks when asked if America is safer today than it was on September 10?
These are serious times in which we live, and we must act
deliberately and swiftly to protect our constituents and the nation. We
must do our duty under the Constitution--a duty to which we swore in
this very chamber eleven months ago--by responding as best we can to
the threats we face, both at home and abroad. The Constitution tells us
that we must ``provide for the common defense, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity.'' I believe in these words, yet I do not believe that today
this body is acting faithfully to fulfill them.
Defeat this rule. Vote for a substitute that will allow for a full
debate and the inclusion of funding to guard our nation against
biological weapons, to hire new border patrol agents and law
enforcement officers, and to purchase new airport security equipment.
Do not allow the Congress to be distracted from the issues before us
from doing what we all know is right.
[[Page H8441]]
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216,
nays 211, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 454]
YEAS--216
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--211
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Istook
NOT VOTING--5
Carson (IN)
DeFazio
Ford
Quinn
Wexler
{time} 1340
Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Ms. McCOLLUM, Mr. JOHN, Ms.
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, and Mr. CLYBURN changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. ISTOOK changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``present.''
Ms. GRANGER, and Messrs. LEWIS of California, ADERHOLT, DOOLITTLE,
TIAHRT, SHERWOOD, and HOBSON changed their vote from ``present'' to
``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________