[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 22, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2891-H2902]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4775, 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL 
APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FURTHER RECOVERY FROM AND RESPONSE TO TERRORIST 
                      ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 428 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 428

       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. 4775) making supplemental appropriations for 
     further recovery from and response to terrorist attacks on 
     the United States for the fiscal year

[[Page H2892]]

     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 amendments 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. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived except as 
     follows: page 4, lines 18 through 23; page 57, line 6, 
     through page 58, line 22; page 92, lines 3 through 5. During 
     consideration of the bill for further 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 further 
     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.
       Sec. 2. (a) Pending the adoption of a concurrent resolution 
     on the budget for fiscal year 2003, the provisions of House 
     Concurrent Resolution 353, as adopted by the House, shall 
     have force and effect in the House as though Congress has 
     adopted such concurrent resolution.
       (b) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     submit for printing in the Congressional Record--
       (1) the allocations contemplated by section 302(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which shall be considered 
     to be such allocations under a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget;
       (2) ``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations,'' 
     which shall be considered to be the programs, projects, 
     activities, or accounts referred to section 301(b) of House 
     Concurrent Resolution 353; and
       (3) an estimated unified surplus, which shall be considered 
     to be the estimated unified surplus set forth in the report 
     of the Committee on the Budget accompanying House Concurrent 
     Resolution 353 referred to in section 211 of such concurrent 
     resolution.
       (c) The allocation referred to in section 231(d) of House 
     Concurrent Resolution 353 shall be considered to be the 
     corresponding allocation among those submitted by the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget under subsection 
     (b)(1).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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 the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is an open rule that provides 
for consideration of H.R. 4775, the Supplemental Appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 2002. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, 
and it waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. 
Additionally, amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report shall 
be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the 
Whole.
  This rule also contains a very important deeming provision as we move 
into the appropriations season, and it is important that we address 
this. Upon passage of this resolution, the rule provides that House 
Concurrent Resolution 353, as adopted by the House, shall have force 
and effect as though adopted by Congress. Finally, the rule provides 
for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are considering the emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. This wartime supplemental 
comes 8 months after the September 11 attacks against our Nation. While 
Americans have begun the process of healing and recovery, we must be 
mindful of the threats that continue to face our Nation. The alerts and 
intelligence reports that we receive are constant reminders that the 
war against terrorism is far from over.
  After last September, America responded by fortifying our homeland 
and launching an aggressive global war on terrorism. Mr. Speaker, this 
wartime supplemental is absolutely critical to our continued ability to 
fight and win this war.
  There are a number of important provisions in this bill, but none 
more important than the funds that will go towards helping America win 
this war on terrorism, both abroad and at home. The bill provides 
$15.77 billion for the Department of Defense. This money will go 
towards ongoing military operation costs, personnel costs, and costs 
associated with forced mobilization. Fighting the war is expensive, and 
this effort is no exception. However, I believe that the American 
people are united in their support for making sure that our military 
has the necessary resources to carry out its mission of insuring our 
national security. In short, we need to help our President to make sure 
that our military and the men and women who are dealing not only in law 
enforcement, but also our military, have the necessary elements to win.
  Mr. Speaker, with the frequent announcement of possible terrorist 
attacks, many Americans are dealing with a sense of fear about our 
future. I want to emphasize that this bill addresses this uncertainty 
about the future and will hopefully help to instill confidence in 
people.
  Priorities and funding have been given to allow our intelligence 
operations to track, analyze, and prosecute global terrorist threats 
against the United States and our allies. With the $1.5 billion 
included in the supplemental, intelligence funding has increased to 
record levels since September 11. This bill also provides funds to 
improve the Federal Bureau of Investigation's technology systems. These 
additional funds will enhance the FBI's overall counterterrorism and 
intelligence processing capabilities, allowing for better electronic 
sharing of information between Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement agencies.
  In addition to protecting our national security, this wartime 
supplemental also provides funds to help secure our homeland.
  One area of particular attention since September 11 has been 
Immigration and Naturalization, the INS Service, and its operations. In 
March 2002, the INS mailed a letter to a Florida flight school 
informing them that Mohammed Atta and another hijacker had been 
approved for student visas. Needless to say, many still-shaken 
Americans were very concerned when this news came out.
  The supplemental builds on what Congress has already done to address 
this issue, and provides additional money to the INS to help them 
better account for individuals who have committed immigration 
violations and who have not followed orders to leave this country.
  Since last September, a number of changes have been implemented to 
improve safety at our airports. For those of us who fly frequently, 
these changes can take some getting used to. I must confess that I too 
have been pulled out of the line and searched from head to toe on more 
than one occasion.
  However, these safety changes are necessary to restore confidence in 
our airlines. Americans should be further assured because this bill 
provides additional funds for checking baggage, explosive inspection 
systems, as well as baggage screening and security enhancement at 
United States commercial ports. Other initiatives targeted at improving 
our homeland security include funds for secure transportation of 
nuclear weapons and materials, as well as money for the increased 
security at nuclear weapons facilities.
  After the September 11 attacks, this Congress acted with expediency 
to pass a $40 billion emergency supplemental for recovery and to fight 
the war on terror. Today, we build upon our past efforts and continue 
to remember those who lost their lives in New York, Pennsylvania, and 
here in Washington, D.C. As our President has committed, and I quote 
our President, ``We will direct every resource at our command, every 
means of diplomacy, every instrument of law enforcement, every 
financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war to the 
destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.''
  This shared commitment means that we will continue to provide and 
fund whatever is necessary to winning the war on terrorism.
  Yet this bill also advocates for fiscal discipline and restraint in 
other areas. On March 20 of this year, the House passed its budget 
resolution, H. Con.

[[Page H2893]]

Res. 353. However, the absence of a budget resolution conference report 
makes it necessary for us to consider language that would deem the 
House-passed budget resolution to be a conference report. In effect, 
this language would bind the House to the spending and revenue levels 
established in the budget resolution, and the corresponding 302(a) 
allocations, and any related rulemaking provisions.
  This language is necessary both to establish parameters on 
discretionary spending and to implement such mandatory initiatives 
accommodated in the budget resolution such as a prescription drug 
benefit under Medicare, concurrent receipt of military retirement and 
veterans disability benefits, and a new tax benefit for charitable 
giving.
  I want to take a minute to remind my colleagues that this House-
passed budget was a carefully crafted bill that balanced our priorities 
of winning the war and securing our economic and personal security. 
From providing the largest increase in 20 years to the national defense 
to growing our economy and paying down the debt, this wartime budget 
makes America safer, the economy stronger, and secures the future for 
every single American.
  I am pleased that the measure that is before us today recognizes the 
critical needs associated with our continued war effort, while 
maintaining our commitment to fiscal discipline. I urge my colleagues 
to support this open rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, last week, congressional Republicans were caught using a 
September 11 Presidential photo as a fund-raising prop for their 
political campaigns. It was a particularly shameless sparing of 
political war profiteering, one that did an immense disservice to the 
President, as well as to the country. Unfortunately, Republican leaders 
have not learned their lesson, and they are trying to do it again today 
by confusing the public with this rule.
  So let me speak very plainly about the question posed by the vote on 
the rule today. If we want to increase America's national debt and 
write a blank check to keep raiding the Social Security trust fund, 
then vote ``yes'' on this rule. If, on the other hand, we believe we 
should be honest with the American people and sit down together to work 
out a bipartisan plan to stop raiding Social Security, then vote ``no'' 
on this rule. That will force the Republican leaders to stop playing 
politics with the war, and then we can overwhelmingly pass a bipartisan 
emergency spending bill crafted by the Committee on Appropriations.
  Under this rule, the Republican leadership attempts to sneak through 
a provision paving the way for raising the debt ceiling, without a 
straight up-or-down vote on the issue. They are attempting to shield 
their weak-kneed Members from having to vote on putting us deep in 
debt. They want to put billions of dollars on the national credit card, 
without each putting the credit card through the credit card reader. 
They do not want a telltale receipt for their spending spree.
  Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker. The Committee on Appropriations has 
written a good bill that reflects our bipartisan support for national 
defense and homeland security. It is true that many Democrats believe 
we should do a lot more for homeland security, but the bill does 
provide substantial resources for priorities like safeguarding nuclear 
facilities in airports. Additionally, it provides more than the 
President requested for the Department of Defense, most of it for 
Operation Enduring Freedom, and the Committee on Appropriations has 
provided $200 million for antiterrorism aid to Israel in its time of 
need.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking 
member of the Committee on Appropriations, and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the committee, deserve credit for 
their good work. Unfortunately, the Republican leaders do not hold in 
high regard such work, so they have overruled the Committee on 
Appropriations chairman and have crafted a rule that shatters the 
spirit of bipartisanship and the underlying bill. It is a rule that 
uses the war on terrorism as cover to take care of as many Republican 
political problems as they can think of.
  For example, last year some Republican Members were criticized at 
home for siding with the Republican leadership on the fast track trade 
authority bill, despite the fact that it was harmful to people in their 
districts. So today, the Republican leadership is using this rule to 
provide them a textile provision that they can claim is their reward.
  Here is another example, Mr. Speaker. A couple of Republican Members 
would benefit from a provision in the rule that would increase Medicare 
reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals in their particular 
districts. That might be a good thing, but it would cost doctors and 
hospitals in every other district in the country. In other words, it 
helps only a very small fraction of the country and does it at the 
expense of everyone else. So it requires careful consideration in the 
light of day, not a procedural trick on a wartime appropriations bill.
  As I explained at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, the most important 
issues hidden in this bill are Social Security and the national debt. 
The economic plan Republicans passed last year created massive, long-
term deficits that threatened Social Security; and now, not even 18 
months after President Bush inherited historic budget surpluses, this 
administration says the Federal Government has to borrow hundreds of 
billions of dollars more and put our children deeper into debt.
  Democrats have repeatedly tried to sit down with the Republicans to 
work out a bipartisan solution to this threat to Social Security. 
Instead, just last night, in the Committee on Rules, four of the most 
fiscally conservative Members of the House, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Davis), and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt), offered yet another approach to restore fiscal responsibility, 
but were denied by the Republican leadership.
  That is because the Republican leadership is deathly afraid that 
Americans will notice how much of the Social Security trust fund they 
are squandering under the programs. After all, the key to the secret 
Republican plan to privatize Social Security is to keep it sacred until 
after the elections. So instead of allowing a vote on the Bush 
administration's request to go deeper into debt, Republican leaders 
have hidden in this rule legislative language that will allow them to 
do it in the secrecy of a conference committee without a straight up-
or-down vote on the floor of the House.

                              {time}  1645

  This is just plain dishonest, Mr. Speaker. But it makes the vote on 
the rule very simple, because it means that Republican leaders have 
made the vote on this rule a vote to increase America's national debts 
and keep raiding Social Security.
  So if Members believe that the American people deserve an open debate 
and a straight up-or-down vote on the future of Social Security, vote 
against the rule. Then we can give the underlying supplemental 
appropriations bill the overwhelming bipartisan vote it deserves.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest parts about the rule that we are 
doing here today, is it is an open rule. We can stand up on the floor 
of the House and talk about whatever we want to talk about. We are not 
trying to sneak anything through. We are doing it right out in the 
open.
  The light of day will be the best disinfectant, and that is why this 
debate is so powerful, because the truth can be told. We are going to 
tell the truth about this supplemental, because it is all about helping 
the United States and our military and men and women who are in law 
enforcement get the money that they need to keep this country going, 
and to make sure that we win this war. That is what this is all about.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mobile, Alabama 
(Mr. Callahan).
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.

[[Page H2894]]

  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is a great 
American, especially since he knew in advance that I was rising in 
opposition for the first time in my 18 years in Congress against a 
Republican rule before this House.
  I do it out of principle and I do it in all good faith, not to be 
critical of the Committee on Rules, not to be critical of their goals, 
but to express some concerns that I have that I think are very 
important, and that is aid to Israel.
  For Israel in this bill, suddenly, in the middle of the night, in the 
Committee on Appropriations, without any encouragement from Prime 
Minister Sharon, without any encouragement from Chairman Arafat, within 
the Beltway some decided that we ought to give Israel $200 million in 
economic support, and give Mr. Arafat's area $50 million in economic 
support.
  But to bring some history to the House, to ask Members to reflect 
back to 1997 when Prime Minister Netanyahu came before this very body, 
stood right in front of the Speaker and told this body that it was time 
for Israel to wean themselves of American economic support because 
their economy was better than ours. When Mr. Netanyahu said that, I 
immediately arranged a trip. I sat down with Mr. Netanyahu. I sat down 
with him, just the 2 of us. We worked out a process to wean Israel of 
all economic support, because they said it was no longer needed.
  Along with that, at the same time we were giving Mr. Mubarak in Egypt 
a proportional sum of money. Two-thirds of whatever Israel got, Egypt 
got; not necessarily good foreign policy, but that was the policy that 
has been in effect since Camp David.
  So I went to Cairo and I talked to President Mubarak, and he, too, 
agreed that Egypt would be reduced, just as Israel was, provided that 
Israel did not come in the back door and try to bump up their economic 
support without considering Egypt.
  So I went before the Committee on Rules and asked for an opportunity 
to present this amendment to this body, on this bill, to give the 
proportional amount of money to Egypt, but I was for some reason 
denied.
  But at the same time, some of the other areas Members of Congress 
wanted to be considered, such as the wage indexing problem in 
Pennsylvania with respect to Medicare reimbursement. It is also a 
problem in another 30 States. Yet, somehow or another, in this bill a 
self-executing rule says that Pennsylvania's problems will be resolved, 
but no other State will be resolved, so we will be left out in the cold 
on the indexing of Medicare payments to hospitals in the State of 
Alabama. Why they would give them that and not give me this simple 
opportunity to present an amendment for an up-or-down vote is beyond 
comprehension.
  I also am upset about the deeming resolution, an unnecessary 
provision that is placed in this bill for the first time that I can 
ever recollect since the Republicans have been in charge, an 
unnecessary provision that is going to cause havoc and chaos as we go 
through the appropriation process in the next several months.
  So with that, Mr. Speaker, for the first time, I think I am going to 
have to vote against this rule. I am not lobbying people to vote 
against it, but I am just expressing my own consternation, my own 
fears, my own principles.
  I am going to offer amendments as we go through the bill to strike 
all of the aid to Israel that was included here without any request 
from Israel, without any request from the administration, without any 
requests from anybody. But someone within this beltway decided since we 
were going to have a supplemental bill, they were going to get some 
pork in it for Israel.
  It is wrong to do that in this bill at this time. We will have a 
foreign operations bill on this floor in the next couple of weeks. That 
would be the appropriate time to address any economic support increase 
for Israel, not in an emergency supplemental bill. It was not included 
in the President's request, and it was not even requested by the 
government of Israel. It is the wrong thing to be doing.
  Many Members know in their hearts that I am right, but they feel 
politically they cannot vote for it. I know in my heart that I am not 
going to win my amendments, but I am going to give people an 
opportunity to at least vote to see whether or not we ought to be 
doling out foreign aid in this emergency supplemental bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, we all come here individually as politicians, and as we 
are assigned committees, as we develop expertise on substance, we 
become legislators, rather than mere politicians.
  On the Committee on Appropriations, I think it is safe to say that we 
can take people with the most extreme ideological differences, and if 
we send them out in the field to examine a problem, when they come back 
to this Chamber, 8 times out of 10 they will probably have the same 
ideas about how to deal with the problem. That is what happens in a 
legislative body when we have the normal course of give-and-take and 
the normal willingness to compromise.
  That is not just true of the Committee on Appropriations; it is 
supposed to happen on every other committee in the Congress. That is 
what is supposed to turn us into what we have been called when we have 
been called ``the greatest legislative, deliberative body in the 
world.''
  But we have fallen a far, far pace from that on this bill. At least 6 
times on major legislation, on patients' protection, the energy bill, 
the Airline Security Act, the Patriot Act, the pension reform, and 
welfare-to-work, each time, rather than running these bills through the 
committee process and accepting the committee result, we have seen the 
majority party leadership instead dictate a different result and 
dictate that a different package be brought to the floor. We are seeing 
the same thing here.
  We had a bipartisan bill which was the product of 6 weeks of hard 
work between the 2 parties on the Committee on Appropriations. Then 
when the committee went into full committee, a number of amendments 
were adopted. Some of them I did not like, but with the exception of 
the DeLay amendment, which gave the President the authority to engage 
in a military attack on The Netherlands, I basically had no real 
problem with what the committee did.
  But then it went to the Committee on Rules, and the instructions came 
down from on high that a number of extraneous items should be added to 
the bill. The first was that the House would deem that the budget 
resolution brought out by the Committee on the Budget months ago would 
be deemed now in effect.
  That produces for discretionary funding in the next fiscal year a 
level $10 billion below the level being spent this fiscal year.
  In the end, any knowledgeable Member of this House on either side of 
the aisle, and most especially knowledgeable Members on the Committee 
on Appropriations, understands that that is not deliverable.
  I do not believe that we will find a majority of votes on either side 
of the aisle for the education bill, for instance, that would be 
produced as a result of those limitations because I do not believe 
either party is going to cut President Bush's education budget. But 
that is what it requires.
  But the biggest outrage of all is this: We have in this rule a 
proposition which will allow seemingly innocuous language to be added, 
which is really the door-opener in order to raise the national debt, 
the limit on the national indebtedness, the limit on the Nation's 
credit card, by $750 billion.
  The plan is to have the Senate insert increased debt, and then have 
it come back here wrapped in a package so that no Member ever has to 
actually vote on that freestanding item. Yet they will force an 
increase in the Nation's credit card debt.

                              {time}  1700

  And this proposition is being brought to us by a lot of the same 
people for the last year that have been parading all over this floor, 
talking about how they were going to support a constitutional 
amendment. This is a copy of H.J. Res. 86. There are 110 Republican 
sponsors on this resolution to require that not a dime of additional 
debt could be added without having a three-

[[Page H2895]]

fifths vote of this House. Yet today this would facilitate raising the 
debt without individual Members having to stand up and take the heat 
for that vote. And if you take a look at the people who are listed on 
it, I would ask all of them how they can justify putting their names on 
this resolution and telling their constituents that they are against 
raising the debt without a full firm vote on it and then engaging in 
this sleight of hand.
  This resolution is sponsored by people like the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay); the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode); the gentlewoman 
from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup); the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), 
my own State; and a variety of others. I would ask each and every one 
of them, how can you justify going to your constituents and saying you 
are going pass this constitutional amendment and then you flip-flop and 
come back here and do this?
  I do not think this process does a credit to the House, and I do not 
think it is a real process. I think it delays delivering money to the 
Pentagon that we need to get to the Pentagon in order to reimburse them 
for the costs of the war.
  This day, if we proceed to pass this rule, will not go down as one of 
the glory days in the history of the House.

             Bill Summary and Status for the 107th Congress

                        COSPONSORS, ALPHABETICAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bachus, Spencer                      Akin, W. Todd
Barr, Bob                            Baker, Richard H.
Barton, Joe                          Bartlett, Roscoe G.
Bilirakis, Michael                   Bass, Charles F.
Blunt, Roy
Bono, Mary                           Boehner, John A.
Brady, Kevin                         Boozman, John
Bryant, Ed                           Brown, Henry E., Jr.
Calvert, Ken                         Burton, Dan
Cantor, Eric                         Cannon, Chris
Chabot, Steve                        Castle, Michael N.
Combest, Larry                       Chambliss, Saxby
Crane, Philip M.
Culberson, John Abney                Crenshaw, Ander
Davis, Jo Ann                        Deal, Nathan
Dunn, Jennifer                       DeMint, Jim
English, Phil                        Duncan, John J., Jr.
Forbes, J. Randy
Gekas, George W.                     Fletcher, Ernest L.
Goodlatte, Bob                       Ganske, Greg
Graves, Sam                          Graham, Lindsey O.
                                     Gutknecht, Gil
Hart, Melissa A.                     Hansen, James V.
Hayworth, J.D.                       Hastings, Doc
Herger, Wally                        Hefley, Joel
Hoekstra, Peter                      Hilleary, Van
Isakson, Johnny                      Horn, Stephen
Jenkins, William L.                  Issa, Darrell E.
Johnson, Sam
Keller, Ric                          Jones, Walter B., Jr.
Kerns, Brian D.                      Kennedy Mark R.
Kirk, Mark Steven                    LaTourette, Steve C.
Lewis, Ron                           Linder, John
Lucas, Frank D.                      Manzullo, Donald A.
McCrey, Jim                          McKeon, Howard P. (Buck)
Myrick, Sue                          Miller, Jeff
Nussle, Jim                          Norwood, Charlie
Ose, Doug                            Osborne, Tom
Pence, Mike                          Otter, C. L. (Butch)
Pitts, Joseph R.                     Platts, Todd Russell
Pombo, Richard W.                    Pryce, Deborah
Radanovich, George P.                Rohrabacher, Dana
Rehberg, Dennis R.                   Ryan, Paul
Royce, Edward R.                     Schaffer, Bob
Ryun, Jim                            Sessions, Pete
Schrock, Edward L.                   Shuster, Bill
Shimkus, John                        Simpson, Michael K.
Simmons, Rob
Stearns, Cliff                       Terry, Lee
Sullivan, John R.                    Tiberi, Patrick J.
Tancredo, Thomas G.                  Walden, Greg
Thune, John R.                       Weller, Jerry
Toomey, Patrick J.                   Wilson, Joe
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from San Dimas, California, (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time, and 
I congratulate him on his management of this rule.
  This is obviously a great challenge. It is important to note that 
this rule is for consideration of a wartime supplemental appropriations 
bill. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) described this before our 
Republican conference yesterday very appropriately as a wartime 
supplemental appropriations bill.
  What has happened in the last 24 hours? We have seen an increased 
threat of terrorism. We have seen instability in a wide range of areas 
in the world; and this administration is, I believe, doing the best job 
possible to deal with this. The President months ago asked for a 
supplemental appropriations bill that would provide Israel with the 
resources necessary.
  Now, a number of people who have been speaking against this have 
talked about some other issues. Let us remember, 99 percent, Mr. 
Speaker, of this legislation deals with supplemental appropriations for 
our war efforts. Now, we have heard talk about what some have said is 
an unprecedented use of the deeming process. Well, my Democratic 
colleagues had something known as the Gephardt amendment which 
regularly deemed an automatic increase in the debt ceiling. We, in the 
past several years, have had three occasions, had a deeming of the 
budget, of parts of the budget before. So I think it is very important 
to note that this is a very challenging time.
  We are dealing with a situation which will begin here and then move 
to a joint House/Senate conference. My friend, the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), raised the issue of Egypt. We know that this 
administration is determined to do everything that it possibly can to 
bring about peace and stability in the Middle East. It is a challenge. 
Administrations in the past have tried and failed. But we know under 
the stellar leadership of President Bush, Vice President Chaney, the 
National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice and Colin Powell and Donald 
Rumsfeld, that we have a wonderful team working on this. That is why I 
believe it is important for us to provide the support the 
administration wants. And, yes, he is right that the administration did 
not make the additional request for aid to Israel, but there is no 
indication that the President would not be supportive of what is taking 
place here, because we clearly stand by our ally, the State of Israel, 
the one democratically elected government in the region.
  What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that I believe we need to realize 
that our number one priority is to win the war on terrorism. And to do 
that, as the President and others have said, we have to have the 
resources necessary to win that war. And that is why every Member of 
this House should vote in favor of this rule and in favor of the 
supplemental appropriations bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I listened to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). If we 
really wanted to help the war effort, strip all this extraneous 
nonsense out of the bill, strip all of these baubles that they are 
trying to use to buy votes on the other side on Medicare and trade and 
all this other stuff and just do a supplemental that provides the money 
to fight the war. That is all you need to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier) said is that we are at war and the Committee on Rules has now 
usurped all the responsibilities of the standing committee. It really 
makes no difference what the Committee on Appropriations wants to do, 
what the Committee on International Relations wants to do, the 
Committee on the Budget, the Committee on Ways and Means. The President 
of the United States and the chairman of the Committee on Rules, they 
will decide what is the best for this great country and for the 
Congress.
  Imagine that in this appropriation we have issues that we hold sacred 
in the Committee on Ways and Means. That is the budget ceiling where we 
debate among each other as to what it is going to be. But instead of 
just coming out and saying that the Committee on Rules has decided that 
we have got to raise the debt ceiling, instead of doing that, what do 
you put in here?
  Again, you wave the flag and say that the Committee on Rules has 
dictated that the Government of the United States will take all steps 
necessary to guarantee the full faith and credit of the government.
  Is this gobbledygook? Is this patriotism or is this stealing the 
jurisdiction of another committee? What you mean to say is we will find 
some sneaky way to get the debt ceiling increase by passing a nothing 
rule over here and allowing the Senate to take our jurisdiction and to 
bring it back, wrap it up in the flag and dare someone during wartime 
to vote against it.
  What is the next thing he is going to do? Oh, the Committee on Rules 
now knows how to handle Medicare. Not the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, not the Committee on Ways and Means, not the House. What you 
have decided is there are certain hospitals in

[[Page H2896]]

Republican districts that are in trouble, and you are going to give 
them assistance at the expense of other hospitals. Is it in here? Yes.
  Lastly, you are going to violate trade agreements in the rule. Shame 
on you.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time 
and for his strong leadership on this rule which will bring before the 
Congress today a critical piece of legislation, a supplemental 
appropriations bill for a Nation that is at war.
  The President of the United States comes to this Congress and asks 
for supplemental assistance, and this Congress provides it today: $15.7 
billion in national defense, $5.8 billion in homeland security. And, 
Mr. Speaker, we commit ourselves in this rule and in this measure to 
live within our means as a Congress. In the months ahead as we consider 
appropriations, we commit ourselves to the budget resolution that has 
been passed by the so-named deeming elements of this rule.
  These are the priorities of the Nation, Mr. Speaker: a national 
defense and prosecuting the war, homeland defense as we hear 
recriminations and discussions of what was done and what not done prior 
to September 11. The American people want us to respond in this 
Congress to these needs, and they want us to live within our means and 
to practice the fiscal discipline for which this majority is so rightly 
celebrated.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, there has been talk about the $200 million for 
Israel. I, being one of the Members who have called upon the leadership 
and urged the leadership despite the lack of the call for the 
administration to add to these funds, I see them as perfectly 
appropriate to a defense supplemental bill: 493 Israelis have been 
killed since September of 2000; 3,955 wounded. Israel has spent $255 
million in their front in this war on terrorism in the third and fourth 
week of Operation Defensive Shield alone.
  America must stand by Israel in her darkest hour. Let us do no less 
than those we remember on this Memorial Day. Let us do our duty.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge Members to vote ``no'' 
against this rule.
  Over 1 year ago, Republicans passed an economic plan. They said at 
the time that their plan would generate economic growth, protect the 
surplus that we built up in the 1990s, and safeguard Social Security. 
Republicans enacted a giant tax bill for the wealthy, while promising 
that there would be enough room in the budget for Social Security, 
education, Medicare prescription drugs, and the defense of the United 
States of America.
  Today, Republicans are making it clear that they are refusing to 
confront the consequences of their economic plan.
  This rule is an outrage. It places full faith and credit language in 
the bill to avoid a desperate request by the President's Secretary of 
the Treasury to bail the administration out of the economic folly of 
their own making. It hides the fact that Republicans took a record 
surplus, turned it into a huge and mounting deficit, and put Social 
Security in jeopardy. It makes a mockery of the Republican rhetoric to 
safeguard the trust fund. It makes a mockery of the Republican votes to 
create a lockbox. It ignores and it weakens our intergenerational 
contract and commitment in the 21st century.
  Instead, Republicans refuse to work with Democrats. They deny debate 
on a plan the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) and the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) sought to offer. That plan provides a way 
out of spending the Social Security surplus. It puts Social Security 
first, not last. It is sensible. It is responsible. It is the right 
thing to do for the American people.
  Republicans did not give it one second of time on this floor today. 
They are silencing the voices of the American people on the future of 
Social Security. Now is not the time to give the Federal Government 
carte blanche to run up the debt. Our economic future is at stake. 
People's retirement security is on the line. We ought to be talking 
today about a 1-month extension of the debt limit. We ought to be 
coming back here in the next month to talk about how to fix this 
problem. We ought to have a budget summit between the President and the 
bipartisan Congress to find out how we can write a budget that is in 
tune with the changed circumstances that we have faced since September 
11. We need to bring both parties and the President to the table, and 
we need the parties to work together. We need communication. We need 
collaboration to put our fiscal house back in order, to save Social 
Security first and today.
  The American people deserve a comprehensive, fair debate on Social 
Security. So I hope Members will vote ``no'' on this rule, and I hope 
Members in both parties would decide to vote ``no'' on this rule.
  I can tell you that every family who lost somebody on September 11 
has been around the dining room table trying to figure out a new budget 
because of their changed circumstances. Well, America had a tragedy on 
September 11, and, as a family, we ought to be sitting around the table 
in respect and honesty to work out a new budget for this country. We 
cannot do that through gag rules that silence the voices of the 
American people on this side of the aisle. Vote ``no'' against this 
rule.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Evidently we have failed to communicate this openly to all Members. 
This is an open rule. This is an open rule for any Member of Congress, 
including the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), to offer any sort 
of amendment that he would like to. This is no gag rule. This is no 
sham. This is no trick. By presenting an open rule, it means that both 
sides are presented an equal opportunity to present their case.
  There has been a lot said today about Social Security. The fact of 
the matter is that there is a part of this rule that says, ``The United 
States Government shall take all steps necessary to guarantee the full 
faith and credit of the government.'' That is what we are trying to do.
  We are trying to make sure that this supplemental bill has an 
opportunity to be debated under an open rule today to where we have an 
opportunity to pass this bill and to where we can engage the other 
body, the Senate, which is controlled by the other party, the other 
body who controls that, to where we can work together as Republicans, 
as Democrats, with the President of the United States.
  The fact of the matter is the song is always the same. The bottom 
line is that for years a clear majority of Democrats have been opposed 
to funding the military, and that is exactly the same way it is today. 
This is about funding our military. This is about a wartime budget. 
This is about trying to make sure that we win the war.
  I know where the opposition comes from. We hear it over and over and 
over again.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham).


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Does the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions) yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression 
that the Chair has to yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) has been recognized for 2 minutes.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order on 
that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi will state 
his point of order.

[[Page H2897]]

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, that I believe a 
parliamentary inquiry has precedence over that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would respond to the gentleman 
that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) had yielded 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). The gentleman from 
California had the floor. The gentleman from Mississippi was not 
yielded to for the purpose of a parliamentary inquiry. The floor 
belonged to the gentleman from California who has been recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I had not planned on speaking but the 
minority leader came to the floor, and he talked about Social Security 
trust fund safeguards, tax breaks for the rich, Social Security, 
Medicare, prescription drugs.
  Let me remind my colleagues that not a single Democrat economic 
package went forward when President Clinton was President. None of my 
colleagues' policies went forward. We passed them to create a surplus 
by welfare reform, by tax relief, by stimulus packages, whatsoever. 
Matter of fact, in 1993, the Democrats, when they had the entire 
majority of the House, the Senate and the White House, increased the 
tax on the middle class. They took every dime out of the Social 
Security trust fund. They increased Social Security taxes. They cut 
military COLAs and veterans' COLAs. So do not tell me about saving 
Social Security.
  I have been waiting for this debate. I have in my office the 
leadership of the Democrat party, since every one of them have been 
here, the number of times that they have voted to cut the Social 
Security trust fund, which I am going to submit. So do not talk to us 
about cutting the Social Security trust fund. It is just rhetoric.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry, 
would the open rule the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) makes 
reference to allow me to offer an amendment that would remove the 
language that allows this bill to raise the debt limit?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is unable to deliver an 
anticipatory ruling on what may later occur in Committee of the Whole 
if the gentleman were to attempt or any Member would attempt to offer 
certain amendments.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, it would be my understanding 
that an open rule would allow me to offer any amendment that I wish to 
keep the Republican majority from raising the debt limit and plunging 
us more than $6 trillion in debt.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is unable to construe the 
resolution which the House is debating at this time. That is a proper 
subject for debate among Members.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state it.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, when the Chair is construing 
whether or not a Member can offer an amendment, is that in itself 
limiting the rules of the House and, therefore, not an open rule?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is a difference in the Chair 
interpreting or construing a resolution which the House has already 
adopted and the Chair giving an interpretation of a resolution which is 
currently under consideration and the subject of debate in the House.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state it.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, if I may understand, the 
passage of this rule would indeed prohibit me or any other Member of 
this House from offering an amendment that would keep us from raising 
the debt limit. Does that not in itself constitute a restrictive rule?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would respond that the Chair has 
already answered the gentleman's question. The Chair is not in a 
position to construe or characterize resolutions which are currently 
pending before the body.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, who would be in a position to 
construe that?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair has previously stated, that is 
a proper subject of debate when debating the resolution.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Under the rule pending, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and 
the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) would not have the opportunity to 
offer their amendment that has previously been described on the debt 
ceiling. That is fact. This is not an open rule. They would be 
prevented from offering their amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because it takes 
another giant step, a big step in the Republican march toward fiscal 
recklessness that has characterized their performance in the 107th 
Congress. The majority has done everything possible to hide, hide from 
the American people the fact that this rule allows the second largest 
increase in the Nation's debt limit ever.
  The Republican tax cut has already driven the Nation back into 
deficit spending. As a result, every penny of this back-door increase 
in the debt limit will come from the Social Security and Medicare trust 
funds.
  We all agree, Mr. Speaker, that additional resources are needed to 
meet our Nation's defense and homeland security needs. We all support 
that, Democrat and Republican alike.
  As the senior Democrat on the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, I understand full well the investments that are necessary 
for a strong response to the ongoing terrorist threat must be met. 
However, I must say shame on the Republican majority for hiding their 
raising of the debt limit and their raid on Social Security and 
Medicare behind our legitimate need to protect our forces and to 
protect our country.
  It is possible to fight terrorism and put forth a fiscally 
responsible budget, but the Republican leadership has failed to do so. 
Again and again we have heard excuses from the majority that they 
attempt to explain the dramatic shift from surpluses to deficits and 
the raid on Social Security and Medicare trust funds that has resulted. 
A wartime budget, a recession, forecast errors, the list goes on. The 
question remains, where is the plan to get us out of this mess? Why 
should we sign a blank check to pay for the Republican tax cut by 
raiding Social Security and Medicare?
  Last year, the majority said they had an economic plan that would pay 
down the maximum amount of debt possible and promise to protect the 
entire Social Security surplus. Today, they are requesting the second 
largest increase in the debt limit in our Nation's history to continue 
their raid on Social Security and Medicare. We have to have an up-or-
down vote on their stealth plan to mortgage our children's future.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The song is always the same. The bottom line is that for years a 
clear majority of Democrats have been opposed to funding the military, 
and today is no different.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 
12\1/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has 
7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have heard any 
number of reasons why this is a bad rule. Let me give my colleagues 
another one.

[[Page H2898]]

  If this rule passes, one of our premier airlines is liable to go out 
of business because this rule specifically protects language that 
terminates the airline loan guarantee program. After the events of 
September 11, we passed legislation knowing that the airlines were 
hurting, knowing that some of them could go into insolvency.
  One airline in particular, U.S. Air, is headquartered at Washington's 
National Airport. Washington National Airport was closed down for an 
entire month, and for 8 months it has only had partial service. So 
understandably U.S. Airways has not had the revenue to stay afloat. 
That is what this loan guarantee program was for, but this rule 
protects $1.3 billion in savings by terminating the program because it 
knows that that is the amount of money that U.S. Airways needs to stay 
afloat.
  So we are forcing an airline into bankruptcy, 40,000 jobs, 204 cities 
served. Now, this is not what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
wanted. This is not what the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
wanted. They have been trying to work it out along with the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Davis). They have been trying to do the right thing, 
but this rule does the wrong thing. It is outrageous to try to save 
money through this kind of a budget gimmick and cause the loss of 
40,000 jobs, and think of what it is going to do to the economy of 204 
cities that are served by U.S. Air. Unbelievable.
  This rule needs to get defeated. It is one of the worst rules to come 
before the House of Representatives.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, if I could, engage with 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and let him know that the time 
appears to be unbalanced at this point, and I would like to see if he 
would like to get us to more of an even stance.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to yield additional time at 
this point.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt).
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule for many 
reasons, and not because I am opposed to defense funding. If this were 
a clean increase for the war in Afghanistan, it would be passed 
unanimously.
  First of all, this rule deems what the House could not do directly. 
It deems the budget resolution and sets the discretionary spending 
ceiling at $759 billion. That is $9 billion less than the other body. 
Mark my word, that $9 billion discrepancy will cause us problems before 
this fiscal year is out.
  The second reason to get the votes necessary for passage, the rule 
claims $1.2 billion in savings to offset the amendments that the 
committee added in the supplemental over and above the President's 
request. The largest amount of these comes from obligational delays. 
They are not saying they are obligational delays.
  The rule would prevent the Air Transportation Stabilization Board 
from guaranteeing any more airline loans for the rest of this fiscal 
year, but beginning the next fiscal year, they could make those loans. 
Someone may say that is harmless. Not for U.S. Air. It is a matter of 
life and death for U.S. Air because they told us they need funding by 
August 1. So it saves no money, but it does not do U.S. Air any good at 
all.
  Most of all, I am really upset with this rule because it gets too 
clever by half, much too coy when it comes to something that is gravely 
serious, and that is the debt owed by the United States of America. We 
are creeping up on our statutory debt limits, and rather than face up 
to this issue squarely, this rule makes passing reference to the 
statutory debt ceiling just enough to have this matter originate in the 
House and leaves the heavy lifting to the other body.

                              {time}  1730

  What it seeks to avoid most of all is a direct vote on this very 
important issue, and our constituents need to know where we stand.
  Now, we would have offered, if the committee had made it in order, an 
amendment that would have offered a suitable procedure for undertaking 
something this serious. It simply would have provided that if we take 
up the debt ceiling, we can increase it by $250 billion, but if we 
increase it by any more we must have in place a budget resolution that 
will put the budget in balance in 5 fiscal years.
  That amendment was not made in order, which is another reason to vote 
against the rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, why can we not just for once be honest 
with the American people?
  Every single Member of this body is in favor of supporting our troops 
in Afghanistan. And any rhetoric notwithstanding is not being honest. 
Everyone that makes statements like my friend from Texas made a moment 
ago knows better than that. The war on terrorism is too serious to play 
political games with.
  To call this rule an open rule is laughable. The answer to the 
question of my colleague from Mississippi, Mr. Speaker, is no, he will 
be held out of order when he offers an amendment to pay for this war 
and not charge it to our grandchildren.
  I cannot imagine how anybody that purports to be a conservative would 
support this resolution and this rule if they look at the scoring that 
is being applied, and then saying to their colleagues it is being paid 
for, when my colleagues know better.
  Back in 1994, I joined with 321 of my colleagues, including 166 
Republicans that are still here, that said we ought to put a stop to 
emergency spending bills having nonemergency issues being added to 
them. It passed 322 to 99. There were only four Republicans that 
opposed it in 1994. Then in 1995, when the Republicans took over the 
majority, they thought it was a darned good rule and they put it in 
saying when we have emergency spending, we ought to confine the issues 
and the spending to emergencies. Yet this rule waives any amendment 
that strikes any of those spending bills that are not emergency, 
because suddenly my Republican colleagues have seen the light and they 
believe that spending for any purpose is okay; but yet they are going 
to call themselves conservatives.
  A vote for this rule is a vote for using parliamentary tricks to 
sneak an increase in the debt limit into law without addressing the 
fiscal problems highlighted by the need to increase the debt limit. 
That is my opposition to this rule. That is my opposition to this bill.
  My colleagues should be open and honest and come out and say they are 
in favor of increasing the debt of this country $750 billion. But they 
choose to hide it. That is wrong and it is not honest.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, if the Democrats had proposed this rule, I 
would be up here speaking against it. This rule is, I think I will put 
it this way, if I were doing business with someone who devised or ran 
their business like this rule, I would quit doing business with them 
immediately; and I think the American people ought to as well.
  What my Republican colleagues have done with this rule is they have 
made passing reference to the statutory assurance that the United 
States take all necessary means to protect our credit, which is the 
debt ceiling, and then they have provided that the amendments printed 
in the Committee on Rules shall be considered as adopted. That is not 
an open rule and they know it.
  No one can call that an open rule. We cannot get at striking section 
1403 because it will be held out of order. So when my colleagues say it 
is an open rule, it is not and my colleagues know it. It is crystal 
clear that it is wrong. It is dead wrong.
  We are engaged in a generational mugging of the next generation here 
because we will not face up to what we are trying to do to pay for 
this. It is wrong.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Savannah, Georgia (Mr. Kingston), who is a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.

[[Page H2899]]

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I just want to say that I support this rule, and I will 
support the supplemental bill as well. I am supporting the rule and the 
bill because of three things, three important things that it does.
  Number one, it continues the war internationally against terrorism; 
number two, it protects our homeland; and, number three, it helps 
complete the job of rebuilding New York City.
  Just to go through some of these things. This wartime supplemental 
provides $15.7 billion to aid the troops in the ongoing war. I have 
visited Afghanistan and Central Asia and the countries of Tajikistan, 
Pakistan, and Uzbekistan. They need our support. It is not time to turn 
our back on them.
  This bill secures our homeland as well with $850 million for checking 
baggage for explosive devices, $630 million for baggage screening and 
$75 million for security enhancements at commercial ports.
  Just to give one statistic, Savannah, Georgia, which I represent, 
last year brought in one million containers. Of those containers, only 
1 percent were checked. This bill helps address that problem.
  This bill also, in the name of homeland security, provides local law 
enforcement the tools that they need to track down terrorism. How often 
do my colleagues get these calls, which I know I have been getting 
since 9-11, from the local police officers and the sheriff departments: 
they have seen something suspicious, but they do not know who to call 
or what to do. This helps them hook in with the national tracking 
system.
  It also helps our communities in terms of disaster preparation. One 
of the issues we have to deal with is the EMS folks, training them and 
getting them up to speed on what is needed. I think that it is very 
important that we continue to work with our local law enforcement 
training people.
  Then, finally, our $5.5 billion to help build New York City, that 
great city which we in America all love and like to talk about.
  This bill is about making sure we never forget what happened to our 
Nation on 9-11, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, we all want to take care of 
the troops. What a lot of us do not want to do is to lie to the 
American people and mislead them and tell them we are not borrowing 
money to do it.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) misspoke, and I am going to 
leave it at that, when he said they are paying down the national debt. 
In the past 1 year, the national debt has risen by $323,329,559,211.21. 
Now that is straight off the Treasury report. Do not tell the people 
that we are balancing the budget. My colleagues are suggesting that we 
vote to increase the debt limit by $750 billion. That is a thousand 
times a thousand times a thousand times 750.
  If we have to pay for this war, and we should, then let us cut 
spending someplace else, like the American people do.
  I would tell the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) that on the day 
my daughter was born our Nation was less than $1 trillion in debt. The 
gentleman is proposing that we go over $6 trillion in debt, and she is 
not yet 24 years old. Where does it stop? Where is the shame?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What the majority party, my Republican Party, is trying to do is to 
make sure that our President, that our law enforcement, that our 
military has the money that is necessary to fight this war. It is not a 
war we wanted to get into; it was a war that was thrust on America on 
September 11. It was a war that America was thrust in and now our 
President and our Vice President are leading our Nation.
  We all saw the destruction and the damage that happened. We stood up 
with pride and in awe of the men and women of the New York City Fire 
Department and Police Department as they battled these terrorists and 
then looked after the people of New York. We, as Members of this body, 
responded within days. We are now trying to respond again.
  We believe it is honest and forthright that we follow procedures that 
people out in Dallas, Texas, and all across this country understand, 
not just in my congressional district but all the Members, when we say 
that we are trying to do the things that the President has asked for 
and that are in the best interest of this country to fund our military 
and law enforcement and the men and women who protect not only our 
borders but our parameters well out, including Afghanistan and our 
allies.
  What we have said is very plain and simple. We are following a 
constitutional process where we have to go and negotiate with another 
body called the United States Senate. We are trying to make sure that 
while this negotiation is going on that we can say that the United 
States Government shall take all steps necessary to guarantee the full 
faith and credit of the government. I think to do anything different 
would be irresponsible.
  I cannot say what the debt is going to do between now and the time we 
reach an agreement with the United States Senate and the President 
signs this bill. But what I can say is that we are responsible enough 
to say that the United States Government will stand up for what it 
should.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, in the previous comments, the majority 
manager of the bill has referred to this as an open rule. Therefore, 
under this open rule, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) be made in 
order in the ensuing debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The Chair would respond 
that the gentleman's request is out of order. The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions) has yielded to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for 
the purposes of debate only, not for the purposes of amending the rule, 
even under unanimous consent.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Moore).
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, we have heard over and over and over that 
this is a rule about the war. What the majority party has done is 
wrapped this rule in the flag and wrapped this rule in the war and is 
trying to hide the fact from the American people that they are trying 
to increase the credit card debt of this Nation by $750 billion, three-
quarters of a trillion dollars.
  We all are Americans, we all stand together against terrorism, and we 
will all provide whatever resources and money are necessary to win this 
war on terrorism. But at the very least we should be, we should be, and 
we must be honest with the American people and tell them what it is we 
are doing. What the Republicans are attempting to do is to sneak 
through a $750 billion increase in the debt limit here without a stand-
alone vote.
  That is absolutely wrong, because what my colleagues are going to do 
is to pass that debt on to our children and grandchildren. Shame. 
Shame.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bentsen).
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that 1 year ago we were having 
a debate in this House about how much of the debt we could pay down. 
Today, the House is being asked to pass in this rule, having nothing to 
do with the underlying bill, a measure that will allow for the public 
debt of the Nation to increase by three-quarters of a trillion dollars 
without debating it in the light of day.
  We have soldiers abroad who are fighting to defend the Constitution, 
yet we have the majority party which does not even want to allow the 
public to see the debate of whether or not we want to raise the 
national debt to pay for the war.
  All of us support the war effort. There is not a Member on either 
side, that I am aware of, who is not in favor of the war effort.

                              {time}  1745

  But what is a shame is the fact that the Republicans want to slide a 
fast

[[Page H2900]]

one past the American people so they can have it both ways and say we 
can cut taxes and we are not going to increase the debt when in fact 
that is what they are doing. They are raising the national debt with 
this vote.
  We should defeat this rule and start over and bring a clean 
supplemental up that every Member will vote for.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman will state 
it.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, having listened to the comments of the 
gentleman from Tennessee, my parliamentary inquiry is this: Would it 
take an amendment to change an open rule in order to make it open?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary 
inquiry which is appropriate for the Chair to answer.
  Does the gentleman have a further parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. EDWARDS. It is my understanding that this has been described by 
the majority as an open rule. Yet a few minutes ago, the Speaker said 
in response to the comments of the gentleman from Tennessee that it 
would require a change in the rule in order to make it an open rule.
  My parliamentary inquiry is if this is an open rule, why would it 
require a change in the rule to make it an open rule?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would simply respond to the 
gentleman, the House has a mechanism to amend a pending rule if the 
House sees fit. The Chair responded in such a fashion earlier on 
several occasions.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has 
3 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the money that we are spending in this bill is for the 
national defense, and it is for men and women who protect us. Tonight 
when Americans go to sleep after hearing this great and vigorous 
debate, they can go to sleep knowing that this House is talking about 
the things that are important to make sure that our sons and brothers 
and fathers and aunts and uncles, the freedoms that we enjoy as a 
result of this House talking about the debate that will get our 
military and law enforcement the money that is necessary to make sure 
that we win this war.
  That is what this debate is simply about. I am proud of what we are 
doing here.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, in 2000, Congress passed the CBI bill. In the 
most sensitive area of apparel and textiles, the bill endeavored to 
build on the strengths and complementarities of Caribbean countries. 
CBI nations were provided enhanced access to the U.S. market with some 
important requirements as to use of American fabric, and within these 
requirements the ability to dye and finish this material in their 
nation. Included was enhanced implementation of core labor standards.
  In order to obtain a few votes to pass their fast-track bill, the 
administration cut a deal that turns its back on CBI. The attempt in 
this bill to carry out that deal is antithetical to the 
administration's rhetoric about the importance of expanded trade and 
about the needs of evolving economies. It is another troubling result 
of the decision of the administration and House Republicans to pass 
fast track on a partisan basis, refusing to address concerns of 
Democrats who have worked hard to craft constructive trade legislation 
these last years. The administration has missed an historic opportunity 
to build a viable, strong, bipartisan foundation for trade policy and 
the consequence is the attempt to ratify in this bill an act of 
expediency. It has zero to do with the war against terrorism.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Texas has now three times 
made a very impassioned speech regarding that this is for the troops, 
and I want to again say, every single person over here supports our 
troops. In addition to that, I will say I support our President 110 
percent. In fact, I believe in our opposition to this rule that I am 
supporting the President more than you are.
  Here is why. The President asked for $27.1 billion. This bill is 
$29.4 billion. You made reference to the Senate, in having a package to 
go to the Senate. The Senate is proposing to spend $31 billion. That 
means we are going to compromise somewhere between 29.4 and 31. That is 
not what the President asked for.
  This is more than just supporting our troops. We all support the 
troops. This is about fiscal responsibility and the debt limit.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, the House is in the business of taking votes to decide 
things. This week we took a vote on whether to congratulate the people 
of East Timor, as we should have. We took a vote on naming a Federal 
building, as we should have.
  The majority has a plan to borrow $750 billion and pass along the 
bill to our children. But they do not want to put that up for a vote. 
The choice that is before the House on this rule is very simple. Should 
we or should we not take a recorded vote on borrowing $750 billion? Our 
only chance to cast a vote on that, if the majority has its way, is on 
this rule vote.
  Defeat the rule, bring this question, like the question of 
congratulating the people of East Timor, before the American people so 
they can see where we as their elected representatives stand. Defeat 
this rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Illinois, the Speaker of the House, for 2 minutes.
  (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of debate on this bill 
today. This bill has been on the docket for about 6 weeks trying to 
bring it together. In this bill is $14 billion-plus for our men and 
women who fight the war in Afghanistan and around the world. In this 
bill is $5 billion for New York so that they can recoup and rebuild 
their city for the losses they got on September 11. In this bill is $7 
billion for defense against terrorism in this country, air marshals, 
police, things to make this country safer so that we can travel, so 
that we can live our lives.
  There is a lot of debate and a lot of demagoguery that goes on in a 
place like this. But there are times when you need to move forward, 
pass legislation, get it done and do the right thing. I have heard a 
lot of, again, conversation from the other side of the aisle. Do we 
need eventually to raise the debt ceiling in this country? You know we 
have to do that. There is not one person in the room who will deny that 
that has to be done. Do we do it in this bill? No. Do we give ourselves 
a possibility that we can do it at a later date? Yes. Do we have to 
make sure that there is some discipline in the budget as opposed to the 
other side of the Rotunda where there is no discipline? Yes. We need to 
do that. We need to do it for our own good. We also need to do it on 
mandatory and discretionary spending if we want to do the things in 
health care and prescription drugs that is right for this country.
  You can vote no against this. If you vote no, you ought to know that 
you are voting against our military, you are voting against the people 
in New York. You need to know that you are

[[Page H2901]]

also voting against the ability for us to solve the problems that we 
have in this country. If you want to vote against trying to solve the 
problems in health care and prescription drugs, vote no for this bill.
  If you want to move forward and have the Congress do the things that 
the American people expect us to do, then you want to vote yes for this 
rule and vote yes for the bill.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, 
because it robs the Department of Defense of $13.2 billion that was 
requested by the President. I must say that I am surprised and frankly 
feel let down by my colleagues and good friends on the other side of 
the aisle, many of whom have in the past stood shoulder to shoulder 
with me in calling for more defense spending.
  This rule includes a so-called ``deeming'' provision which says that 
the House shall consider the Budget Resolution to have passed a 
conference committee just as it passed the House. Doing so weakens 
national security because the budget resolution made two incredible 
raids on the Defense budget, reducing the money available to be 
appropriated for Defense by $13.2 billion.
  First, the Budget Resolution reduced the Budget Authority available 
for defense by $10 billion by eliminating the contingency fund 
requested by the Department of Defense. I share some of the Budget 
Committee's concerns that this request was vague, but Congress is more 
than capable of working with the Department to determine how that 
funding can best be used, and no serious defense observer believes that 
the Department of Defense will not need this $10 billion, and even 
more, for its operations in FY03. This rule today puts that funding off 
limits.
  Second, the Budget Resolution reduced the Budget Authority available 
for Defense by $3.2 billion which had been set aside by the Department 
of Defense for civilian health care accrual. The Budget Committee 
doesn't support doing this accrual accounting change, but taking the 
money away from the Department of Defense is the wrong answer. We have 
seen a consistent pattern in recent years of underestimating the costs 
in the Defense Health Program and many Operations and Maintenance 
accounts. The $3.2 billion included for civilian accrual costs should 
be maintained as a hedge against cost escalations in these accounts.
  In addition to being $13.2 billion below the President's Request for 
defense, this resolution puts us as much as $6.9 billion under the 
Defense Authorization bill the House approved just a few weeks ago. 
That bill maintained the $3.2 billion originally requested for civilian 
accrual and it allocated $3.7 billion of the contingency fund to high 
priority operational items.
  We should reject this rule Mr. Speaker, and allow the Appropriations 
Committee to bring to the floor a Defense Appropriations bill that is 
at least equal to the President's request, a request which is already 
$40 billion below what is required in procurement alone. That's not 
just according to me, that is the testimony given by the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, before the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee this year.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, is including $10 million in 
this bill to assist in State efforts to prevent and control 
transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, including bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy, chronic wasting disease, and scrapie, in farmed and 
free-ranging animals, does that constitute a vital defense need?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a proper 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The gentleman from Texas moved the previous question on the 
resolution.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 209, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 194]

                               YEAS--216

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     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
     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
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     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
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     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
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--209

     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)
     Callahan
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     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
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)

[[Page H2902]]


     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wicker
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--3

     Bonilla
     Nethercutt
     Wamp

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Burton
     Deutsch
     Emerson
     Lipinski
     Mascara
     Traficant
     Wexler

                              {time}  1823

  Ms. CARSON of Indiana, and Messrs. SANDERS, LARSEN of Washington, 
BAIRD and GUTIERREZ changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. STEARNS changed his vote from ``nay'' 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.

                          ____________________