[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.

                          ____________________